Archive for the ‘CODEX Consequences’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

GM Files: Monsanto Bullies Dairy Farmers, States to Deceive Consumers

Thursday, March 6th, 2008

The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.

For more information on our global programs, including the International Decade of Nutrition, and our US based ones, please visit us at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org and join the free email list for the Health Freedom eAlerts to keep you in the loop, informed and active defending your right to make your own decisions about your health and wellbeing!
Our activities are supported 100% by your tax deductible donations. Please give generously (https://www.staging.healthfreedomusa.com/index.php?page_id=189) to the Natural Solutions Foundation. Thank you for your support.
Feel free to disseminate this information as widely as possible with full attribution.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

When reading the following article, bear in mind that under Codex, all cows are to be treated with Monsanto’s recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone and there are no upper limits. Since peasant farmers who cannot read or write have neither the money nor the skills necessary to manage chronically ill cows who require antibiotics, etc., to control their constant infections (including mastitis which creates continual production of pus in milk), they will be driven out of the milk business which means, in all too many cases, off their farms.
The creation of every increasing cadres of the abjectly urban poor is fueled by just this process.

The Natural Solutions Foundation International Decade of Nutrition is helping to stop this cycle.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Monsanto doesn’t want consumers to know the truth about the milk they’re drinking. The corporation’s monopoly is at stake.
‘Frankenfoods’ Giant Monsanto Plays Bully Over Consumer Labeling

By Scott Thill, AlterNet. Posted March 6, 2008.

“There are some corporations that clearly are operating at a level that are disastrous for the general public … And in fact I suppose one could argue that in many respects a corporation of that sort is the prototypical psychopath, at the corporate level instead of the individual level.”

–Dr. Robert Hare, The Corporation

Since 1901, Monsanto has brought us Agent Orange, PCBs, Terminator seeds and recombined milk, among other infamous products. But it’s currently obsessed with the milk, or, more importantly, the milk labels, particularly those that read “rBST-free” or “rBGH-free.” It’s not the “BST” or “BGH” that bothers them so much; after all, bovine somatrophin, also known as bovine growth hormone, isn’t exactly what the company is known for. Which is to say, it’s naturally occurring. No, the problem is the “r” denoting “recombined.” There’s nothing natural about it. In fact, the science is increasingly pointing to the possibility that recombined milk is — surprise! — not as good for you as the real thing.

“Consumption of dairy products from cows treated with rbGH raise a number of health issues,” explained Michael Hansen, a senior scientist for Consumers Union. “That includes increased antibiotic resistance, due to use of antibiotics to treat mastitis and other health problems, as well as increased levels of IGF-1, which has been linked to a range of cancers.”

For its part, Monsanto is leaning on the crutch of terminology to derail the mounting threat to its bottom line: The consumer-driven revolution against recombined food. And so the St. Louis-based agri-chem giant has launched a war of words in the form of a full-court press to suppress the “rBGH-free” label at the state level. And it’s sticking to its guns by obfuscating and indulging in cheap semantics.

“RBST is a supplement that helps the cow produce more milk,” Monsanto spokesperson Lori Hoag explained to me via email. “It is injected into the cow, not into the milk. There is no way to test because the milk is absolutely the same. Neither the public nor a scientist can tell the difference in the milk because there is not a difference. Consumers absolutely have a right to know if there is a difference in foods they are buying. In this case, there simply is not a difference.”

“Monsanto has an unfortunate habit of mixing some things together that confuse the issue,” counters Rick North, director of Campaign for Safe Food from Physicians for Social Responsibility’s Oregon chapter. “It’s true that all cows have natural bovine growth hormone. But only cows injected with recombinant, genetically engineered bovine growth hormone have rBGH. And this isn’t a ‘supplement.’ This is a drug that revs up cow metabolism so high that they’re typically burned out after two lactation cycles and slaughtered. Non-rBGH cows typically live four, seven, ten or more years.”

The threat of rBGH to cows and humans alike encouraged Canada, Australia and parts of the European Union to ban Monsanto’s recombined milk outright. As for the corporation’s native United States, it has predictably signed off on another unproven growth opportunity with possibly lethal environmental side effects. They’re in it for the money. And so the battle lines on the threat have been drawn, as North takes pains to point out, between “the FDA and those who follow them,” and those who don’t. “These proposed state bans or restrictions on rBGH-free type of labeling have nothing to do with protecting consumers,” he asserts. “They have everything to do with protecting Monsanto’s profits.”

But that battle over labels and profits hasn’t stopped Monsanto from creating its own press at home in the United States, where it infamously got two Fox News journos fired in 1997 for refusing to bend the truth about rBGH on the air. Yet, over the long term, the multinational’s attention to press relations hasn’t paid off so well. Medical authorities like Samuel Epstein and Robert Hare, quoted above, have targeted them from both the physical and psychological health perspective. Meanwhile, farmers and consumers across the world have demanded labels that differentiate the recombined milk from its naturally occurring counterparts on the store shelves. And they don’t think it’s too much to ask, given the facts.

Hoag is “accurate” when she argued “that there is no commercial test for this drug,” North concedes. “But that’s entirely different than saying there is no difference. Monsanto and its front groups have tried to equate the lack of a verifying lab test with the label being false or misleading. This is a non sequitur. There are all kinds of legitimate labels that aren’t verified by lab tests, such as state or country of origin labeling, fair trade labeling, bottled water that is labeled as originating from a spring, and so on.”

Monsanto, meanwhile, is bedeviling the details to distort the big picture. “Sure, the label can make a claim one way or the other,” Hoag admitted, “but there is no way to verify that the claim is true. This is precisely why the labels are misleading. They make consumers believe there is a difference, when in fact there is none.”

That sounds simple enough, but consumers don’t seem to need or want Monsanto’s mothering. In 2007, its efforts at an outright ban on rBGH-free labels in Pennsylvania were almost cleared for takeoff, until the state invited its citizens to publicly comment, which eventually doomed the move. That scenario has replayed itself across the United States in accelerated fashion with success.

“The issue looks pretty dead in Indiana and Ohio, and there are solid victories in Pennsylvania and New Jersey,” explains Recipe for America’s Jill Richardson, author of the forthcoming book Vegetables of Mass Destruction. “Utah and Kansas are probably going to revise their bills after their hearings, because of opposition.”

This opposition comes in spite of Monsanto’s funding of so-called grass-roots farming coalitions like the American Farmers for Advancement and Conservation of Technology — also known as, cleverly enough, AFACT. Monsanto’s public relations firm Osborn & Barr built a site for AFACT pro bono, knitting the two organizations together in a way that may not sit well in states currently pondering their own label bans. AFACT’s attacks have virally replicated across the nation, as farmers on Monsanto’s payroll have taken to harassing their state legislatures in concert with the multinational’s usual tactics at the federal level, such as forcing skeptical scientists off advisory panels, intimidating critics and so on.

But the assault has only met equally powerful resistance, as environmental awareness has driven the market into a recombinant-free zone. In the end, this might be Monsanto’s last gasp in the fight.

“Monsanto has seen the writing on the wall in terms of consumer rejection of artificial growth hormones,” claims National Family Farm Coalition policy analyst Irene Lin. “Consumers are becoming more aware and educated about what goes into their bodies and what their kids are drinking. And this is Monsanto’s last-ditch, desperate attempt to maintain its profit. And they are hiding behind dairy farmers to do it.”

But for every farmer who toes Monsanto’s line, there are as many if not more, and not just in the United States, who are amassing in opposition to the multinational’s attempt to change, and then patent, how America grows (and describes) its food. And behind them, in ever larger numbers, are consumers and stores themselves, who are demanding more, not less, information from those who produce the food.

“In the last year or so, some really big names have announced that they will only buy rBGH-free milk,” explains Food and Water Watch’s assistant director Patty Lovera, “including Chipotle, Starbucks, Tillamook and lots of supermarket house brands, like Kroger, Meiers and Publix. Even Kraft is going to do an rBGH-free line of cheese.”

In the end, Monsanto’s quibbling over labels has added up — ironically enough, given all the text it has generated — to censorship, pure and simple. And, as with past debacles like the aforementioned Agent Orange, PCBs and Terminator seed, they’ve established a pattern of stopping at nothing to increase not your health but their profits. At your expense.

“Absolutely nothing good could come from a ban on rBGH-free labeling,” concludes Hansen. “More information is a good thing, and all these state actions are anti-consumer, restrict free speech and interfere with the smooth functioning of free markets.”

Learn more about the ban on rBGH-free labeling and take action.
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/78660/

Posted in About Codex Alimentarius, Activism, Buy-Cott, CODEX Consequences, CODEX Industries, GMOs, Hall of Shame, International Decade of Nutrition, Medical Hazards, The Law & CODEX | No Comments »

Good News from Africa… Health Conscious Nations “Get It!!”

Monday, February 4th, 2008

Dr. Laibow and Gen. Stubblebine continue their trip through several African nations, bringing the natural solutions message to opinion leaders and decision makers. Her Internet connection is sporadic, but she sent me this message for her blog, while her connection lasted.

Here is her report:

We met with a direct underling to the Minister of Health in this poor African country who is responsible for all preventive health in that country. She is very excited about the fact that concerted action by Health Conscious Nations (HCNs) can turn Codex Alimentarius (the World Food Code) to the advantage of food consumers, especially in areas like Africa. Codex responsibility is shared by several Ministries.

This is really astonishing and heartening. Here in this developing country they really understand what is going on and believe that a meeting needs to be organized by them to develop a coordinated strategy for the HCNs before the meeting of CAC (the Codex governing body). Recalling that last week in Accra, Ghana, it was the African nations that pushed back against the US – successfully – I have reminded them that the game of GM labeling is FAR from over and they need to attend CCFL (food labeling committee) in full force with an effective strategy in place to win this battle.

Our contact has risked his whole career for this so he is really counting on us to come through for him. She is fantastic.

I do not want to announce publicly which country we are in to prevent the likelihood of extreme pressure by the US and others on this struggling nation but we do want to tell our Netroots it would appear that the Natural Solutions Foundation interventions and connections on the ground here in Africa over the last 3 years are bearing fruit in helping to change the mindset of Codex delegates and therefore the will of the countries in the developing world to take the power back to protect their people.

These countries banded together, for the first time in our knowledge of Codex since 1963, to stand together to counter the chess moves being set up by the US.

Let me repeat that: these countries banded together for the first time, to stand together to counter the Big Agra/Big Pharma agenda last week at the Working Group on Labeling of Foods Derived from Biotech and BioEngineering in Accra, Ghana.We were there for you and so we saw the African nations decide to work together – just as we have been urging them to do for the last 3 years!

Realizing that the seemingly innocuous language used by the US to create a heading that would ordinarily seem quite innocent (“foods are considered safe if they are on the market”), would mean that, in an international trade dispute, say before the WHO, the refusing (or labeling) country could be found to be creating “a barrier to trade” because they were keeping out foods that were already known to be “safe.”

But GM foods are NOT known to be safe and are on the market in ever increasing numbers. The FDA prevents their labeling in the US and wants to do the same all over the world.

Presuming their safety once on the market might be allowable IF the US actually either established their safety (which it does not) or reviewed the safety characteristics and studies by the companies that own the patent on the food (which it does not). Therefore, just because the food is on the market in the US or elsewhere merely indicates that the FDA is such a broken institution that it has absolutely no will or ability to protect the health of the consumer or the wholesomeness of the food (or drug) supply. It is truly time to divest the FDA!

Africa got it and led the revolt that took the “safety” words out of their proposed heading!

The US Delegate, Barbara Schneeman, PhD, head of the FDA Office of Dietary Supplements, was suave at first. I assume that she assumed that the force of the US position and economic strength would carry the day as it usually does in Codex. When that did not happen, she became more and more strident until, after a dozen repetitions, she wound up petulant, red faced and with what sounded to me and to other observers, like a shaking voice.

Barbara Schneeman is probably a great neighbor and would bring you a bowl of chicken soup (with MSG and aspartame in it) if you were sick. I can hope she loves kids and may even be a very nice grandmother. She is, none the less, through her work as the US Delegate at many Codex meetings, perpetrating huge disasters on the peoples of the world (US included) through her corporate service via her employment at the FDA and her deployment by it to attend numerous Codex meetings. I have yet to hear Barbara, and hence the US, come down on the right side of any issue. I am still waiting.

Nutrients? Treat them as if they were dangerous industrial chemicals and subject them to “risk analysis” to select clinically meaningless doses that cannot be increased above. Now that one is great for Big Pharma. It will help it get much bigger since it eliminates the single greatest economic competitor to the pharmaceutical profit structure: Natural health and supplementation.

Unnatural Hormones: Treat them as if they were benign or even, absurdly, good for us, the animals raised on them and the environment suffering the ill effects of drug-laced excrement in the downstream waterways of industrial factory farms, now spreading to every country in the world for poultry raising in order to deal with ‘Avian Flu’ (of which there were 26 cases among birds, not people) in India. You see, the game is close your eyes to reality, turn around three times and yell out “avian flu” and then kill all the birds that belong to the poor peasant or subsistence farmers. Then you can put all the remaining birds indoors under the roofs of factory poultry farms and grow high tech, low taste, high drug, low safety barely edible birds. (And, speaking of hormones, the FDA is in the process of banning the use of the same hormones created by every woman’s body leaving the field clear for a monopoly of synthetic ones so dangerous that a huge US study on them was halted prematurely because of the increased risk to the women taking the synthetic hormones!)

Codex wants to let the farmers of the world know that their cows need to be treated with Monsanto’s Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), that there is no upper limit to the amount they can use, but not tell them that their cows will become chronically ill and will need expensive and, in many places, unavailable antibiotics and other drugs, that they will not be able to use the milk they take from their animals unless they follow this and so they, like the chicken farmers before them, will be driven off the land and will be forced to gravitate to the slums of the world where abject poverty and hopelessness for themselves and their children await them in place of the independence and pride that they once had.

Overused Antibiotics ? see Hormones. Good for Big Pharma. Disaster for humanity.

Irradiation? All fruit and veggies imported into the US must be irradiated. Perhaps, and I say only “Perhaps” that does indeed kill agricultural pests.

How about all the nutrients it kills (disrupts) too, and the fact that it engenders huge populations of lipid peroxides (rancid and dangerous molecules, causing untold misery through the creation of both acute and chronic diseases and disorders) and those molecular terrorists, ‘free radicals.’ Known for decades as the source of cancer, diabetes, macular degeneration and a host of other serious diseases, this electrical terrorist steals from one neighbor to balance another nearby atom with the electron it just stole from the first. Sounds like the political process…

Irradiation increases free radical populations hugely. Free radicals are a causative agent, as I said above, in many of the world’s deadliest (and expensive) diseases.

But the FDA, although it knows this as well as it knew BEFORE IT APPROVED GARDASIL, the vaccine for girls to “prevent” cervical cancer is active (to the extent that a vaccine can act against any virus effectively) against 4 strains of HPPV which the FDA admits in its own documentation, have little or nothing to do with cervical cancer and that the vaccine actually increases cervical cancer in girls and women who receive it! Repeat: they knew the vaccine causes the cancer they claim it prevents. Dr. Mengele anyone?

Unlike even the FDA, which robs the public to pay the (Pharma/Big Food) piper (if you will allow me a mixed simile) Codex sets no upper limit on the amount of radiation a food can receive in packing, shipping, importation, processing, etc. If a little radiation is “good” a lot must be… better? Like multiple, untested vaccines?

With each go-round of irradiation, the problems in the food, the free radicals and lipid peroxidase, which have no flavor or color you can detect, get worse as the irradiation gets to a higher cumulative dose.

Health Claims? Nah, forget it. Even the provision of information which is accurate and science based cannot be given to the public. The Codex Food Labeling Committee Meeting determined in 2007, with the abundant help from the US, that any communication which gave the consumer information about what he could expect through the taking of foods (or food supplements) was to be banned as “advertising”.

Advertising is just fine when it is used for fluoridated toothpaste (Colgate commercial just seen on TV two hours ago on a French channel in this African Country: “Pour La Monde san dental caries!”, or, in English, “For the world without dental cavities” and for the unnatural Baby Formula and children’s food in Africa but apparently it’s not fine at all when it comes to health groups giving the truth to those who are interested.

No, as I told the health conscious civil servant in this developing country, the war is not over yet. And our side has just begun to fight!

Donations, including signing up for recurring donations:

Donate to Support Health Freedom USA

Thank you,
Ralph Fucetola JD
for Dr. Laibow

Posted in About Codex Alimentarius, Activism, CODEX Consequences, Miscellaneous, Promising Developments | No Comments »

The Revolt of the Health Conscious Nations: Codex GM Working Group – Days 2 & 3

Thursday, January 31st, 2008

To read Dr. Rima’s blog on Day One of the Ghana Codex Working Group on the Labeling of Foods Obtained from Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering, go to: https://www.staging.healthfreedomusa.com/index.php?p=512

Day Two, January 29, 2008 passed much the same way as Day One. There was a mixture of excruciating (to me) trivia intermingled with decisions that could have life and death impact on the lives of people all over the world.

As a US Citizen, I was not proud of the side that my government, through the person of the FDA’s Barbara Schneeman, consistently took. But I was proud and thrilled by the position that Norway, Japan, Russia, the EU and others consistently took in response when they defended and inserted mention of the rights of consumers to have the information they wanted against the constant pressure of the US and its allies to prevent consumer access to truthful information. (By the way, although I took verbatim notes of the 3 days, my computer will not go on line at this hotel so I do not have access to those notes right now. When I can get that computer back on line, I will post them in their entirety for you to read if you like. Some of you will find the nitty gritty of a Codex meeting fascinating, some will find it laughable. I find it both.)

See Day 1 for details of the new unilateral “background” document the US sought to use to control the event. The Working Group’s thrust was powerful to find a way to make this Background Paper an official Codex document and while other options for forward movement toward consensus would come to the floor, there was no other option presented which had so much traction or forward momentum. The other options kept flopping, as it were, off the table and gasping for air on the floor. Fish out of water.

On the afternoon of the second day, during the lunch break, the EU and other interested countries came up with some proposals to give the background paper a proper “chapeau” (French for “hat”) or heading. The US helped to craft a proposal for a chapeau which quickly became two chapeaux. The wording and concepts proposed by the US seemed benign enough: ‘Foods are safe when they come to market and labeling is not a substitute for safety.’ ‘This document was for the use of countries as they developed their own framework for the labeling of GM foods’ and other balsamic-sounding phrases. But if an official Codex document says that foods on the market (like GM “foods”) are safe by the time they get there, then a nation keeping GM foods out because of safety concerns might be creating a barrier to trade in the eyes of the WTO, mightn’t it?

If the document was for use by Codex member countries, might the use of anything not in that document constitute a barrier to trade since this document was the one that they were supposed to be guided by in such regulations? And so on. It all sounded wonderfully friendly but, looked at from the point of view of Codex/WTO trade sanction strategy which could be used to force an end to the mandatory labeling which the US opposes so strongly, it was a very dangerous document, indeed.

Yes, the day ended with the purveyors of half truths and distortions quite satisfied.

Day 3: January 30, 2008 Africa to the Rescue!

By the time the third day dawned, things were different. Norway continued to insist that the background document preamble (the “chapeau”) HAD to include the fact that preferences of consumers was a reason for regulatory requirements for labeling (the labels exist to inform consumers… duh). The US continued to reject any mention of the consumer’s needs and preferences and said that they were not relevant (Hmm, if not for the consumer, why have any label… the US position is quite batty).

Norway, in the spirit of conciliation, suggested changing “consumers” to “countries” in the statement that said that their preferences were different in different places. The US objected. But so did Nigeria, one of the authors of the Background Paper. “No”, said the Codex Contact Point of Nigeria, a fine lady who really cares about what she is doing at Codex. “No!” , Mrs. Eschiet repeated. “The issue here is not countries. The mandate of Codex is first to protect the health of consumers and it is consumers, not countries, who should be protected here. Let us change the word back to ‘consumers’ ” she said. There was nothing the US could do at that point except to state that they did not support this wording. But the US had an even bigger surprise in store. It was just about time to get out those “queasy stomach” prescriptions that Big Pharma likes to sell by the ton.

Member nations started presenting other Codex texts that the US sponsored “background” paper had left out… fancy that, people who didn’t want to inform the consumers not informing their Codex colleagues! And then the delegates began to suggest that they be included!

They began to introduce principles from CCGP, the Codex Committee on General Principles and from other Codex documents which supported the right of countries to make their own decisions, and of consumers to make theirs through adequate information.

The US delegation appeared to become quite unhappy. Sitting where I was I could see the vigorous head-shakes and the vigorous consultations between members of the Delegation including the people from the Department of Commerce, the biotech and grocery manufacturer’s people and others on the delegation whose identify I did not learn. This is not the usual demeanor of the US delegation, to say the least.

Things got more difficult for the no-right-to-know contingent as the session progressed. It was so encouraging to see people from around the world defending the consumer’s right to know.

The Natural Solutions Foundation has long maintained that concerted effort on the part of the developing nations and those who also do not see multinational corporate interests as their own can change the direction of Codex radically. We have also maintained that if this happened, Codex might become the greatest force for health and well being on the planet that the world has ever seen. If what we saw during this meeting, particularly at the end of it, is any indication of the beginning of a trend, we are right!

At the same time, we believe that, left unchanged as a playground for the greed (and worse) of the corporate interests which the US serves in all of its dealings within Codex, the impact of that organization can be disastrous to the lives and well-being of literally billions of people.

Well, what happened today, on the last day of the deliberations of this Working Group, was a confirmation that the first outcome is, in fact, a real possibility. We have been working with developing countries reminding them that, as a group, they are incredibly powerful. Acting in concert, they can control what happens at Codex and act in their own best interest, not be dragged along to act in the best interest of the developed world and the multinational corporations. That is part of the message we have been delivering at Codex meetings in our conferences with the delegates of the developing countries and on the ground, in their home countries. That is, in fact, one of the biggest reasons that we travel to these places and meet with their decision makers. The other, of course, is to promote their use of the Codex Two Step Process so that they can protect their health and avoid crippling World Trade Organization trade sanctions at the same time.

You see, many of the African states, who understand how dangerous GM foods are and fear their impact on their people and on their land, had met and had come up with absolutely brilliant modifications to the “chapeaux” (background document heading) that the US proposed. By taking out many of the future WTO mine fields (that the no-right-to-know gang had included in the initial draft of the document) while quoting from the Codex texts to get the wording precisely correct, they created a preamble to the document that protected their choices for labeling but cut the cheese from the carefully crafted mouse trap. They left out the provision about safety, leaving open the very real possibility that a food could have been brought to market which turns out not to be safe. Other countries supported them strongly. The US said that if this modification were to be adopted by the Working Group they would not be able to support the document and reiterated this several times.

When the group showed no signs of backing down, Dr. Schneeman had what would be classified, in my professional and personal opinion, as a “hissy fit”. She became (literally) red in the face and complained strongly to the chair persons that all the hard work of the past year was wasted in the face of this modification and that she was personally upset. And, indeed, she sounded personally upset. In fact, we overheard one member of the US delegation saying as he walked out for a break that the US was “getting slammed”. Dr. Schneeman certainly appeared to be aware that she, her paper, the US position and, by my estimate, its future WTO strategy, were, indeed, getting slammed.

That is not the same thing as the American people getting slammed; in fact, if the Right to Know countries succeed, Americans will be closer to having “truthful and not misleading” food labels regarding such matters as GM status, irradiation and the like. Codes, it seems, can be a double edged sword.

As they provided support for the African position, other countries as well noted relevant Codex texts which the US/Canadian/Nigerian background document did not mention, allude to or acknowledge. Principles for safety and labeling, for Risk Assessment of GM foods and for other strategies to protect the consumer’s health were brought forward to give countries latitude to protect its people and not be assaulted legally via trade sanctions. Africa became stronger and stronger and the US lost, it seemed to me, more and more ground.

At the end, the document’s chapeaux and the document itself were left for further consideration at CCFL this coming April in Ottawa. So the battle continues.

With your continuing financial help (urgently needed, by the way – make your generous tax deductible recurring donation at the link below) we can, indeed, continue to support the emergence of these alliances which can give strength to the push back against the multinational agendas. It happened here. It can happen everywhere in Codex. We need your continued support to be able to attend the Codex food labeling committee in Ottawa, where the battle will continue.

Donate here: https://www.staging.healthfreedomusa.com/index.php?page_id=189

We had the opportunity to speak at significant intensity and length to African delegates and tell them about our International Decade of Nutrition to help them feed themselves and to help them use the Codex Two Step process to make sure that their laws and food supply support health, not profit for the corporations which will exploit them… to death. We passed out our materials, the Codex Book and “Nutricide: the DVD” – the indispensable story of what Codex is, and how it came to be. The updated version contains the special video made specifically to explain the Codex Two Step to Codex delegates. You can find them on our web site, www.healthfreedomusa.org

And some wonderful news, thanks to your support!

The Natural Solutions Foundation was told that it can expect two more official letters of invitation from two more African governments to bring not only the International Decade of Nutrition, our technology and our assistance in producing clean and abundant food to these countries, but to bring our Codex information and strategy as well. We were invited by the host country, Ghana, to the Codex Committee for Africa, CCAfrica, in 2009, a year from now.

As you may recall, we will be in Ghana for a few days and then traveling to another West African country, followed by a middle eastern one and then an East African one for exactly these purposes. We are recording it all for the Codex documentary. You can easily understand that we do not want to advertise our travel plans right now since we do not want the considerable weight of the US’ 5000 lb ‘trade gorilla” to sit on these countries before they have developed their strategy for dealing with that consequence. But there is something that I will share with you. As of today, right here, right now, we do not have enough money to complete the trip. I cannot believe, however, that you will let us down. We need your generous support and we need it now.

Donate here: https://www.staging.healthfreedomusa.com/index.php?page_id=189

• We need it to build health freedom in the US and the rest of the world.
• We need it to reclaim food for you and your brothers and sisters around the world.
• We need it to change Codex into the most potent health force the world has ever seen.

You can be sure, by the way, that as that happens, the multinationals will try to kill it.

So think carefully about how much your health freedom is worth to you. $1 per week? $10 per week? $100 per month? How about a matching grant? All of your donations to the Natural Solutions Foundation are tax deductible since we are a tax exempt 501 ( c ) (3) organization.

Donate here: https://www.staging.healthfreedomusa.com/index.php?page_id=189

Oh, yes, one other thing: if you donate $100 or more to help fund our Codex/Health Freedom Video, we’ll give you a really nice “Thank you!” in the final version of this made for TV full length documentary! There is a special link on the donation page for that. Our wonderful videographers Mary Beth and Jim are getting some excellent footage and we’ll be able to show you what it is like to be where your heath and freedom are at stake.

Thanks.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD

Posted in Activism, CODEX Consequences, GMOs, International Decade of Nutrition, Medical Hazards | No Comments »

GM Files: New Zealand Scientists Urge Prime Minister to Show Sanity in GM Policy

Tuesday, January 15th, 2008

In a remarkable letter written on April 6, 2006 to the Helen Clark, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Scientists of the Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics [PSRG] took the bold step of warning the PM and every member of the New Zealand Parliament about the known and unknown dangers of biotech foods. They urged the PM and Parliament to move very cautiously on the approval of any genetically modified foods and cited a wealth or reasons why that caution was necessary.

They also urged that they not rely on US decision making since the US FDA and USDA cannot be relied upon to act responsibly in this issue and detail some of the reasons for that lack of trust questioning, among other things, the competency and accuracy of the US agencies involved with approval of GM foods. They charge, and document both FDA and USDA with very specific deficiencies, including the fact that they ignore their own scientists and approve GM foods as safe when there is no evidence that they are, in fact, safe. US approval, however, is generally taken around the world as strong and often compelling evidence of a food’s safety by the countries around the world which still chose to believe the deadly fiction that the US has the world’s best food supply, safety and security. The EU Food Safety organization takes some heavy hits, too, as it is quoted as saying that it has no idea how to analyze and, whether GM or not.

The report is rather technical in spots so, although it is presented without editing, I have taken the liberty of emphasizing parts of it which I find particularly interesting and relevant. In other words, I have placed all bold face text in that format since it does not appear in bold in the original letter.

Please share this information widely since it directly and compellingly offers information that consumers need to know as they choose their diets for themselves and their families. Please remember that the US FDA prohibits the accurate labeling of genetically modified foods so that consumers will not make the “mistake” of rejecting GM food in the US. It strongly urges the rest of the world to adopt the same potentially deadly standard through Codex and, in fact, the Working Group on Biotech (GM) Foods (Accra, Ghana, January 28-30, 2007) will consider this proposition again (as the same group did in Norway last year). The Natural Solutions Foundation will be there reporting on every development for you.

Support our kind of on-going information for yourself and your circle of influence. Join the Natural Solutions Foundation’s Health Freedom e-Alerts (https://www.staging.healthfreedomusa.com/index.php?page_id=187). Your information is secure with us. I promise.

Oh, yes, there is something else you can do in this critically important process of reclaiming our food: disseminate widely (with proper attribution so people can find the Natural Solutions Foundation when they go looking for more information) and donate. Your tax exempt donations are the life blood of the Natural Solutions Foundation. Help us keep on helping you to maintain your health freedom!

And eat organic. You will note in the MP’s letter that the changes induced by the GM crops could be reversed over time even in adults. That should give you pause and hope. Organic, real organic, not phony Codex-standard organic, is the answer there.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Letter to PM on genetically engineered organisms
Thursday, 6 April 2006, 2:56 pm
Press Release: Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0604/S00056.htm

The Right Hon. Helen Clark
Cc to all MPs
Prime Minister
ERMA
Parliament Buildings
FSANZ
WELLINGTON
Media

A letter addressed to Prime Minister Helen Clark

Dear Helen Clark

PSRG calls your attention to 8 April 2006, designated the day to inform people and to demonstrate public concern about genetically engineered organisms (GEOs).

Of particular concern to us are decisions of FSANZ and other regulatory bodies; the decision not to adopt country of origin labeling; the inadequacy of current GEO label ling requirements; the use of genetic engineering technology to produce pharmaceutical and industrial materials; and potential applications to release GEOs into the New Zealand environment.

(For the purposes of this letter, genetic engineering and genetic modification are synonymous.)

1. The effects on human consumers ingesting genetically engineered organisms

We advise you of the following research that raises serious concerns about the risks of consuming GEOs.

1.1. Eating genetically engineered soybeans affected the liver and pancreas of study mice.

In 2005, Italian researchers1 found that genetically engineered (GE) soybeans affected the liver and pancreas in mice. Previously, the researchers had shown that absorption of GE soy by mice induced modifications in the nuclei of their liver cells. It was later shown that reverting the diet of the mice to conventional food caused the observed differences to disappear. It was also found that several of these changes could be “induced in adult organisms in a very short time.”

1.2. Genetically engineered pea research abandoned because of adverse results

Also in 2005, CSIRO2 scientists abandoned a research project after ten years. They found that the genetically engineered peas they had developed caused lung damage in mice.

1.3. The cauliflower mosaic virus acting as a catalyst to provoke gene expression (2006)

ADVERTISEMENT

Dr Terje Traavik, scientific director of the University of Tromso’s Institute of Genetic Ecology in Norway, has demonstrated 3 that an element of the genetic structures used to engineer a plant – the cauliflower mosaic virus (35S CaMV) promoter – can provoke gene expression in cultured human cells. [In other words, this genetic element could promote cancer] Developers of genetically engineered plants have previously claimed that the promoter normally only performs that way with plants.

1.4. Monsanto’s MON 863 genetically engineered corn

In April 2004, a toxicological study released to Le Monde4 reportedly showed that rats fed with MON 863 presented anomalies, including an increase in the white blood cell count, changes in blood sugar, and a reduction in the red blood cell count. The paper claimed that in considering a decision on its release, despite re-examining the file, regulators did not reportedly take another look at Monsanto’s statistical analysis.

An independent study was commissioned from Gilles-Eric Seralini, of the University of Caen, and Dominique Cellier, of the University of Rouen. Dominique Cellier, a biocomputer specialist, is reported to have said that: “Monsanto’s statistical analysis of the differences observed in the rats was very superficial. They isolate the variables instead of using so-called multi-variable analysis methods, which consist of looking at the observed anomalies in a coherent way. If one uses those methods, one observes coherence between the weight, urinary tract, and haematological anomalies in the animals fed GMOs.”

Commenting on evaluating procedures for GEOs, Jean-Michel Wal of the GEO group of the European Authority on Food Security, is cited as saying: “We don’t know how to study a food overall, whether it’s a GMO or not; there’s no norm.”

2. Regulation and safety testing of GEOs

We wish to raise serious concerns about New Zealand’s reliance on the approval process of US government agencies. The companies that develop and promote genetically engineered food crops generally carry out toxicological studies on the effects of consuming them. These studies are meant to then be double checked by food safety authorities, but the criticism is that the experiments are simply not reproduced [by the FDA], even though industry studies often show adverse biological impacts.

2.1. Inadequate and unsatisfactory regulation

The FDA declared genetically engineered foods are substantially equivalent to conventional foods. It ignored the warnings of its own scientists and put in place food rules that assume no unforeseen effects will occur and, therefore, no safety testing is required, for genetically engineered foods. This premise has been well proven to be wrong.

2.1.a. Early in 2000, German scientists discovered that antibiotic resistant marker (ARM) genes from engineered canola were transferring their resistance to the bacteria found in the guts of bees that had consumed pollen from the plants.

2.1.b. Earlier European Union studies had revealed that ARM genes found in genetically engineered foods could transfer into bacteria in the human gut as well as soil bacteria (http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/genemarker.cfm ).

2.2. British Medial Association

Concerns were raised as long ago as 1999 when the British Medical Association called for a global moratorium on genetically engineered crops. The BMA were concerned that ARM genes would cause antibiotic resistance to develop in bacteria by horizontal gene transfer. Such resistance would serve to erode the effectiveness of antibiotics for humankind. Crops are still produced using ARM genes.

2.3. Recommended new safety test method

In 2006, agricultural economist, Dr Charles Benbrook – a former adviser to the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations – warned of serious concerns over safety in respect of generically engineered foods.5 He claims that these food crops should be re-tested using Australian food safety technology developed by the Australian National University. The failed pea trials were tested using it.

2.4. Instigating safety assessments

As a direct result of the failed pea trails (1.2), Western Australia has instigated an independent, long-term animal feeding trial to collect and assess data on the safety of GE food crops. New Zealand should also take the initiative.

3. Current applications for genetically engineered crops

Recent applications to Food Safety ANZ for the approval of foods derived from genetically engineered alfalfa and corn raise concerns.

a.. Food derived from glyphosate-tolerant Lucerne (Application A575) J101 and J163 for human consumption.

b.. Food derived from Monsanto’s high-lysine corn LY038 (Application A549) genetically engineered to have higher than usual levels of the amino acid, lysine, intended for animal feed.

It is stated that these will be used for animal feed, although some may find its way into human food products. PSRG maintains that the risks that it is intrinsically unwise to allow GE animal feed into the human food chain.

3.1. Transgenes in cows’ milk

In June 2004, a study was released by the Research Centre for Milk and Foodstuffs in Weihenstephan, Bavaria that showed that parts of the gene construct from RoundupReady soybean and from Bt176 maize was found in milk from cows fed these genetically engineered plants. The report says the gene segments may have got into the milk via feed or dust from the feed in the air. No further studies have been made to clarify the exact means by which the DNA fragments got into the milk. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/.)

3.2. Transgenes in the gut bacteria of human volunteers

A study commissioned by the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) and carried out at the University of Newcastle, demonstrated that DNA from a genetically engineered food – in this case soybean in the form of a burger and a milkshake – found its way into the gut bacteria of human volunteers. (See the FSA Report on http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/.)

3.3. The long-term effects of ingesting material from transgenic sources on a daily basis have not been assessed.

4. Adverse effects of genetically engineered crops – MON 8106, 7, 8 Monsanto’s MON 810 corn produces an artificial, truncated version of a Cry toxin derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. This family of toxins has a pathogenic effect on Lepidopteron insects.

4.1. Genetically engineered plants are not equivalent to bio pesticides

A study spanning several years has monitored the quantity of Cry1Ab toxins in DK-440 BTY (MON 810) corn. Cry toxins are compounds that have gained acceptance in pest control (i.e., in bio pesticides such as DIPEL). However, genetically engineered plants are not equivalent to these bio-pesticides from the aspect of environmental analysis and ecotoxicology.

The principal difference with regard to toxin release is related to the extent and duration of exposure: while bio-pesticide applications release a small quantity of the toxin on a single or several occasions, the GE plant produces the toxin protein on a continuous basis, unnecessarily, during its entire vegetation cycle, as long as the gene section(s) added artificially to the plant and responsible for encoding the protein are active.6

4.2. Cry toxin produced in the entire plant during the whole growth period Székács et al6 have confirmed that the Cry toxin is produced in the plant during the whole period of growth. That is, in a dry plant, under moderate temperature, the toxin remains biologically active for several years. Post-harvest the maize stubble contains a significant quantity of Cry toxin. Cry toxin, over-wintering in the stubble, can be detected in plant residues after a period of one year.

4.3. Comparisons between bio pesticides and Bt plants

Székács et al compared the quantity of Cry-toxin proteins produced by the Bt-plant with the doses registered and permitted for their use in bio pesticides, and determined the toxin quantity in DIPEL. They found that MON 810 Bt-corn produces 1500-3000 times more Cry1Ab toxin than the Cry1Ab toxin dose corresponding to a single treatment with DIPEL.

They also found that only part of the toxin from the Bt-plant is decomposed during the growth period. Further, a significant part of the remaining quantity in the stubble enters the soil, where it may affect soil life (animals and micro-organisms).

4.4. Cry pollen and contamination

A study (Marva’s et al)7 carried out over several years looked at the possible effects of the pollen of DK-440 BTY corn grown in Nagykovácsi, Júlia-major, a valley where no maize was grown during the years concerned.

The distance of the intra-specific hybrid formation was examined on white, tassel-free maize and the results showed that pollen transfer could occur at 800 metres.

This poses risks for organically grown maize where zero tolerance is accepted for GE [Genetically Engineered – editor] -hybrids. Seeds developing from a traditional female blossom pollinated with cry gene- containing pollen (i.e., from MON 810), have a high probability (1/3) of acquiring the capability of producing the Cry1Ab toxin.

4.5. The effects on essential insect species

Around fields planted with Bt-corn hybrids, the Bt-pollen settled on weeds, presenting a danger to the hatching caterpillars of protected varieties of butterflies. This means that in the case of extensive Bt-corn cultivation, butterfly species could recede [that is, be damaged or extermated – editor].

A study by Béla Darvas and Éva Lauber8 found that insects developed resistance to the toxin content in Bt-corn leaves. The conclusion is that this will generate a growth in the number of insect populations on which Bacillus thuringiensis products – used almost exclusively in organic farming – will no longer have a suitable effect.

5. Food crops engineered to produce non-food [chemicals and pharmaceuticals -editor] products – the potential contamination of other engineered, conventional and organically grown crops.

In 2004, the US Department of Agriculture oversaw 67,000 acres of biotech field trials, some of which involved producing non-food products in a food crop. Corn is the most utilized food crop for engineered traits because it is easy to work with and produces a lot of grain. The concern is that food plants genetically engineered for non-food products could contaminate plants engineered as food crops and/or conventional crops, and enter the food supply as did StarLink’s Cry9C protein in 2000.

5.1. Report on the US Department of Agriculture as a regulator9

A recent report found that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has failed to properly oversee field trials of genetically engineered crops, including plants engineered to produce chemicals for medical and industrial uses. The report says that the USDA “lacks basic information” on field trial locations and what happens to the crops after harvest. For example, auditors located two harvested pharmaceutical crops in storage, about which the USDA knew nothing nor had it approved.

The two-year safety audit by the United States Office of Inspector General also found that: “Current (USDA) regulations, policies and procedures do not go far enough to ensure the safe introduction of agricultural biotechnology.”

6. Pharmaceutical drugs produced using genetic engineering technology

Some people react differently to proteins that are genetically engineered as against equivalent proteins that are produced naturally. Genetic engineering technology is not as precise or as predictable as chemical drugs because it relies on the intricate workings of complex living cells in the process of manufacture, and even the subtlest of changes in the process can have unpredictable results. Some drugs – e.g. human insulin – are created by engineering the required human gene into bacterial or animal cells.

PSRG [Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics – REL] urges you, Prime Minister, to put safety before industry profit and instigate changes to the NZ system of regulation that will protect New Zealanders.

Signed by the Trustees of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics

Paul G Butler, BSc, MB, ChB, Dip. Obst. (Auckland), FRNZCGP General Practitioner, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND

John R Clearwater, BSc, MSc, PhD

Principal Scientist, Clearwater Research and Consulting, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND

Bernard J Conlon, MB, BCh, BAO, DCH, DRCOG, DGM, MRCGP (UK), FRNZCGP General Practitioner, Trustee PSRG, MURUPARA

Elvira Dommisse, BSc(Hons), PhD

Former Research Scientist, Trustee PSRG, CHRISTCHURCH

Michael E Godfrey, MBBS, FACAM, FACNEM

Director, Bay of Plenty Environmental Health Clinic, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA

Neil Macgregor, BSc, MSc, PhD

Soil Microbiologist, Institute of Natural Resources, Massey University, Trustee PSRG, PALMERSTON NORTH
Peter R Wills, BSc, PhD
Associate Professor, University of Auckland, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND
Robert G Anderson, BSc, PhD
Lecturer retired, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA
Jean Anderson
Businesswoman retired, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA.
Signed on behalf of PSRG
Jean Anderson
Secretary
www.psrg.org.nz.
for the Trustees of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics

Posted in Activism, CODEX Consequences, GMOs, Hall of Shame | No Comments »

“Helping Farmers Cope” Helps Industrialize the Food Supply, Maybe Kill Us, Too

Saturday, January 12th, 2008

Posted on January 11, 2008

The West Australian, January 4, 2008

Here is a helpful and cheery little article sent to me by a friend and correspondent in Western Australia. He knows, as you do, that Genetically Modified (GM) crops are dangerous and that, once mixed with native crops, the foreign, dangerous and untested DNA it inserts into neighboring plants can never be removed from the food supply. Never. Take a look at what the new book “Seeds of Destruction” has to say on the topic. Then please come back here and take a look at this article.

He knows, as do you, that GM crops which “volunteer” (that’s commercial-eze for “invade” or “trespass”) into a farmer’s crop then force the farmer to pay “intellectual property” rights to the owner of the GM DNA (which is patented by the US Patent Office, but not safety tested by the FDA or USDA, or the EPA, for that matter!) He knows, like you, that crops and animals are modified with marker genes which confer resistance to antibiotics and that resistance transfers to the animals and people that eat the crop. He knows that the foreign DNA is not stable in the nucleus: it jumps around from place to place causing totally unexpected and unanticipated impacts. Even when it is stable, it is often indigestible so that instead of being broken down in the GI tract, it passes through cell walls intact causing auto immune problems and being literally woven into the DNA of cells, most especially rapidly dividing ones like your stomach lining, or a fetus’ brain, for example. That DNA is then woven into the genome of its consumer and no one we know has any idea what it does then or 40 years later. DNA, of course, generally causes proteins to be produced. If the proteins have never before been produced, no one knows what they will do now or in the future.

He knows that independent research, which the FDA does not review (but, to be fair, it does not review company safety data, either, before it approves a food for human use) shows that GM foods cause infertility, holes in the GI tract, fetal death and still birth in rats, smaller kidneys and depressed immune function in rat pups which survived (most did not) and a host of other serious problems. He also knows that scientists who dare speak out to even so much as question this technology and the wisdom of using it before it has been shown to be safe are exposed to a vast and well orchestrated disinformation campaign against them and their careers are, literally, not figuratively, over. Their tenure vanishes, so do their job prospects. In fact, I was sitting at the Tiburon CA Health Freedom Leaders meeting which produced the Tiburon Declaration against Forced Vaccination which you and your organization can sign here (https://www.staging.healthfreedomusa.com/index.php?p=460) when our hostess got a call from an academic who had published an article merely raising questions about GM foods. His academic appointment at a prestigious university was abruptly terminated and he found that he was blackballed. This professor of Organic and Environmental Agriculture whose specialty is rebuilding damaged ecosystems in the cleanest way possible was out of a job and apparently out of luck. You would think, of course, that such a skill base would be huge demand. Not if Monsanto and the others have anything to say. And they do, they do!

It is by now a truism that Big Pharma runs the FDA. You do know, as does our friend in Australia, that Big Agribiz and Big Biotechna are also massively big players on the food scene (and therefore in Codex Alimentarius – the World Food Code). Recall that Monsanto, a pharmaceutical, chemical and GM giant in its own right, but by no means the biggest in the field, has said that it would own the world’s food supply by 2010. Well, it looks like it is about to own Australia’s wheat.

How to stop this? One good way is to shift to a diet comprised TOTALLY of organic food. Protect yourself and the environment. Protect farmers and their ability to stay on their land. Now get active. Disseminate what you learn in these posts to everyone you know. And ask them to join the Health Freedom eAlerts and become informed, activated and disseminators!

And, of course, don’t forget to donate to the Natural Solutions Foundation. Our friend in Australia knows, and you know, too, that the other side has more money than God but that the Natural Solutions Foundation is raising awareness all over the world about these dangerous foods. For example, we will be at the Codex Working Group in Ghana on January 28-30, 2008 in which dozens of countries will try – again – to prevent the US from shipping, and selling, food with any sort of GM food in it they want with absolutely zero identification on the label. That is US policy in the US and, working for the Biotech industry (who actually have a seat on the US delegation at this meeting and others), if the US has anything to say about it, in the whole world.

Other countries are not so sure they like this. Australia is, however, a bone in the tale of the US dog at Codex and happily endorses anything the US wants at Codex. So here is Australia endorsing potentially deadly food.

Then International Decade of Nutrition, a program of the Natural Solutions Foundation, is designed to give farmers the power to stay on their land, grow their crops without chemicals and then feed themselves and their families with enough economic advantage so that they can stay on the land. We will be in several African countries following the Codex meeting to start projects for the International Decade of Nutrition. Not, I can assure you, with GM crops or animals.

Now for the article. Don’t forget to let others know what you already know: they need to know it!

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation

Drought-tolerant GM crop trials welcome in WA, says Chance

by Jodie Thomson

Development of genetically modified crops with drought-tolerant properties would be welcomed in WA in order to attract a share of Federal assistance to help farmers copewith climate change, Agricultural Minister Kim Chance said yesterday.

He also signalled that the WA Government’s drought assistance package, which included grants of up to $8000 to affected farmers, could be overhauled and the money poured into development of other plant varieties or farming methods to manage drought.
“We are talking with farmers here in terms of converting the State’s drought assistance to one which actually deals with the longer-term issues,” he said. “I think the cash component of last year’s package was some $7.3 million- you could do an enormous amount of work.”

It follows a revamp in drought-relief payments by the Rudd Government, which would include funding ways to help farmers deal with global warming through using GM crops,changing ploughing methods and specific water management strategies.Mr. Chance said the State Government was supporting drought research progrms such as trials of mustard biofuels crops in the north-eastern Wheatbelt and ploughing techniques.

But research into genetically modified crops, in particularwheat, would be a “nice addition” to those programs already under way and to a joint plant breeding project recently struck with Zhejiang University, the headquarters of the China National Barley Research Centre.

WA was in the last year of its moratorium on coommercial GM crops,due for review at the end of 2008. But Mr. Chance has previously signalled it is unlikely to be lifted until concerns about GM safety and labelling were allayed. GM issues willbe on the agenda when he expects to meet Agriculture Minister Tony Burke this month.

Nationals leader Warren Truss said yesterday farmers had serious concerns about the Federal Government’s drought relief reform.
“the new Rudd Government has confirmed the fears of regional and rural communities around Australia that it will embark on a new bout of slash and burn,” Mr. Truss said.

Posted in CODEX Consequences, CODEX Industries, International Decade of Nutrition, The Law & CODEX | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »