'Cui Bono' Over Ukraine: Monsanto Setting Up GMO Seed Corn Business in Ukraine

US President Obama sure works hard for biggest multinationals, as can be inferred from his recent sushi dinner with Japan's prime minister.

And Monsanto? His food safety 'czar', of all people, is a former Monsanto Vice President. Monsanto was also the winner of 27th Annual World Food Prize by the US State Department in 2013.

Several articles on GMO corn in Ukraine below, from the time the US was showing renewed interest in the domestic affairs in Ukraine, with Republican Senator John McCain greeting the head of one of the neo-Nazi groups and US Assistant Secretary of State Nuland handing out cookies to Kiev protesters in December 2013:

From Interfax Ukraine (11/5/2013; emphasis is mine):

Large Ukrainian agricultural associations have prepared draft amendments to the law on the state biosecurity system in creating, testing, transportation and use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) regarding the legalization of genetically modified seeds.

President of the Ukrainian Grain Association (UGA) Volodymyr Klymenko said at a press conference at Interfax-Ukraine that the relevant appeal to the president, the head of the Verkhovna Rada and the heads of parliamentary factions was signed by six agricultural associations.

"We could mull over this issue for a long time, but we, jointly with the associations, have signed two letters to change the law on biosecurity, in which we propose the legalization of the use of GM seeds, which had been tested in the United Stated for a long time, for our producers," he said.

According to the UGA president, currently the GM seeds of corn and soybeans are used in the country in spite of the legislative ban. Talking about the use of foreign experience in this field, Klymenko said that "we will never take someone's seeds and will never be able to study them, because this requires decades. Ukraine's way forward in this issue is either to agree or not to."

According to the expert, the United States produces about 75% of corn and 95% soybeans from GM seeds. The European Union banned the cultivation of GM crops, but GM products are imported and used, in particular, in animal breeding, added Klymenko.

From Bloomberg News (1/6/2014; emphasis is mine):

China Rejecting U.S. Corn as First Shipment From Ukraine Arrives

China continued to reject corn cargoes from the U.S. that contained an unapproved genetically modified variety while accepting a first bulk-carrier shipment of the grain from Ukraine.

Genetically modified corn and corn-derived products totaling 601,000 metric tons were rejected in 2013, the official Xinhua News Agency reported today, citing the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine. A Panamax-sized shipment of non-genetically modified corn from Ukraine entered the country on Dec. 6, according to a statement dated Dec. 25 on the website of state-owned China National Complete Engineering Corp.

The quarantine agency’s newest figure cited by Xinhua was 56,000 tons more than it announced on Dec. 19, showing the government’s continued screening of U.S. corn and and dried distillers’ grains, or DDGS, for the unapproved insect resistanr MIR 162 gene. Net corn sales to China from the U.S. in the seven days through Dec. 26 dropped by 116,000 tons from the previous week, according to a report on the website of U.S. Department of Agriculture.

China National Complete Engineering carries out overseas engineering projects, often funded by Chinese government, according to its website. It began to market grain from Ukraine last year under a contract that became effective December 2012, according to the Dec. 25 statement.

China’s Ministry of Agriculture said in May 2012 the country agreed to finance $3 billion worth agriculture projects in Ukraine in exchange for terms including rights to sell Ukrainian farm products.

Ukraine may export 18 million tons of corn in 2013-2014, tying it with Argentina as the third-biggest supplier behind the U.S. and Brazil, the U.S. Department of Agriculture forecast in December.

From CNBC (3/18/2014; part, emphasis is mine):

...Now everything from an unstable currency to tight credit threatens the spring planting season, and the uncertain outlook for the Ukrainian economy is a longer-term threat to the prediction by some of the biggest agricultural companies that a future Ukrainian corn belt will rival the U.S. market.

Ukraine and, to a wider extent, Eastern Europe, are among the most promising growth markets for farm-equipment giant Deere, as well as seed producers Monsanto and DuPont, said Michael Cox, senior analyst and research director at Piper Jaffray. Ukraine's growth is becoming even more important, as it will serve to counterbalance the South American farm markets, where overseas growth has been increasing in places like Argentina and Brazil for these companies.

..."It's the Western corporate farm operators that are pushing these new techniques,'' Cox said. "The U.S. has made this same transition. It took several decades, but that's as the technology was being developed. Since the technology and tools are readily available now, the improvement in yields could progress much faster in Eastern Europe.''

DuPont already has a corn seed production plant in Ukraine. Monsanto is building a $140 million seed plant that isn't open yet. Last week DuPont said in a regulatory filing that first-quarter earnings forecasts would be "challenged'' by the Ukraine crisis, which has caused delays in shipments of corn seed from its plant in Ukraine.

Here's Monsanto's current job openings in Kiev, Ukraine.

Tweet

US State Department Awards "2013 World Food Prize" to Executive Vice President of Monsanto

With Monsanto's former vice president serving as Obama's Food Safety Czar, what else could you expect?

From the US State Department Press Release on 6/19/2013 (emphasis is mine):

Three Scientists Win 27th Annual World Food Prize

Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
June 19, 2013

Secretary of State John Kerry delivered the keynote address at a ceremony at the U.S. Department of State on June 19, where three distinguished scientists were named winners of the 2013 World Food Prize: Marc Van Montagu, Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries, Department of Molecular Genetics at Ghent University, Belgium; Mary-Dell Chilton, Distinguished Science Fellow at Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc. in Triangle Park, North Carolina; and Robert T. Fraley, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer at Monsanto Company in St. Louis, Missouri.

They were honored for their independent breakthrough achievements in founding, developing and applying modern plant biotechnology. Their research has made it possible for farmers to grow crops with improved yields, resistance to insects and disease, and the ability to tolerate extreme variations in climate such as excessive heat and drought.

(Full press release at the link)

Mark Bittman at New York Times says Dr. Robert T. Fraley is a pioneer in genetic engineering in agriculture, and that Monsanto is actually a sponsor of this Prize.

What a joke.

Some of Mr. Bittman's fuming (emphasis is mine):

If Secretary of State John Kerry’s G.M.O.-boosting speech announcing the World Food Prize at the State Department last week is any indication of his ability to parse complicated issues, he might be better off windsurfing. Because Kerry appears to have bought into the big ag-driven myth that only by relying on genetic engineering will we be able to feed the nine billion citizens of our planet by 2050. And he enthusiastically endorsed granting this mockery of a prize to three biotech engineers, including Robert Fraley, executive vice president and chief technology officer at Monsanto and a pioneer of genetic engineering in agriculture.

Never mind that Monsanto is a sponsor of the prize (and that the list of other backers reads like a who’s who of big ag and big food), or that we never get to know the names of either the nominees or the nominators. [1] Never mind that we’re not feeding the seven billion now, or that we’re sickening a billion of those with a never-before-seen form of malnourishment. Never mind that we already grow enough food to feed not only everyone on the planet but everyone who’s going to be born in the next 30 or 40 years. And never mind that, despite the hype, there’s scant evidence that the involvement of genetic engineering in agriculture has done much to boost yields, reduce the use of chemicals or improve the food supply.

Tweet

Case of Genetically Modified Wheat in Oregon That Is Not Supposed to Exist (But Did)

I read the news yesterday that the Japanese government canceled the order to purchase wheat from Oregon because of the wheat was genetically modified. I didn't think much about it.

Then just now, I read a Businessweek article that says that genetically modified wheat is not supposed to exist in the US but it did in Oregon. A wheat farmer noticed some wheat plants that survived glyphosate when he sprayed the field for preparation for new planting. These wheat plants were those that sprout voluntarily from seeds knocked loose during harvest.

(Wait a minute... That means the last year's crop from this field WAS genetically modified wheat...)

The Businessweek article doesn't give any answer to this enigma. But since the wheat in question is resistant to glyphosate, which Monsanto has been marketing as "Roundup" since 1973, it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that it was from Monsanto. Washington Post seems to think so, too.

From Businessweek (5/30/2013; emphasis is mine):

Genetically Modified Wheat Isn't Supposed to Exist. So What Is It Doing in Oregon?

By Justin Bachman

Wheat farmers, advocates of food safety, and pretty much anyone who eats bread or noodles have turned their attention to Oregon, where a wheat farmer found a genetically engineered strain of wheat in his otherwise unmodified crop. He couldn’t kill it in any of the normal ways, so he sent it to the lab for testing, which sounds like the set-up for a farm-belt horror movie. The reality has caused alarm of a different sort: Genetically modified wheat hasn’t been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and unlike corn and soy and other so-called GMO foods, there isn’t supposed to be any genetically modified wheat in the U.S. food supply at all.

There are two reasons to care. Food safety folks lobby hard for labeling of genetically modified foods, saying that the jury is out on the long-term health and environmental effects and consumers deserve to know what they’re buying. The companies that make the seeds say they’re perfectly safe. And for wheat farmers and exporters, this potentially cripples the export market: Many foreign buyers don’t want genetically modified wheat and can switch their buying to Russia, Ukraine, Australia, and other large exporters. Japan reacted quickly, canceling an order today for nearly 25,000 tons of wheat, Bloomberg News reported, and wheat futures dropped on the Chicago Board of Trade.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which is responsible for keeping unapproved GMOs out of the food supply, has begun testing the wheat. In a full-court PR press, the agency has also released a Q&A (PDF) and video to address the issue. Here are a few points to consider:

It’s probably too late to do much about this.

The U.S. has some 1,000 field trials for new gene-altered crops each year, most in multiple sites. The protocols for containing those genes are lax, argue such critics as the Center for Food Safety, which wants a moratorium on field testing of gene-altered crops. ”I would not be at all surprised if there are a number of experimental genes that have contaminated and are happily being passed along at low levels in the food supplies of various crops already, but nobody’s testing,” says Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington. “It’s really a ‘don’t look, don’t tell’ situation. We just really don’t know.”

After all, this isn’t the first time.

In 2000, a strain of corn called StarLink, engineered by Aventis (SNY) to kill caterpillars, was found in taco shells. In 2006, Bayer’s (BAYN) LibertyLink experimental rice made its way into the food supply, leading to lost exports. In 2012, the German company agreed to pay $750 million to settle claims from 11,000 U.S. farmers in five states. Restoring genetic purity to a crop is a very expensive process and takes time.

Is there a public safety issue?

That’s a matter of debate. Regulators were quick to jump on the Oregon discovery with a battery of tests and extensive investigations that are under way now. Monsanto (MON) designed the Roundup Ready wheat to withstand its Roundup herbicide used to keep fields free of pests, and the gene isn’t considered harmful. “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confirmed the food and feed safety of Roundup Ready wheat more than a decade ago,” Monsanto said in a May 29 statement.

Critics of gene-altered food argue that the periodic crop discoveries highlight a regulatory system that is woefully inadequate to monitor the expansion of modified crops and to detect any dangerous genes that could materialize. “The question is why APHIS does not tighten its procedures for field trials. It’s incredibly lax, whatever APHIS may try to say,” says Bill Freese, a science policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety.

(Full article at the link)

Monsanto seems to be able to do whatever they want to do anyway. They have the US Supreme Court siding with them, and President Obama keeps the former VP of Monsanto as his Food Safety Czar.

Foreign markets don't want GM crop? Poor Monsanto, suffering from 'baseless rumors'...

Tweet

CBS News: Obama Signs "Monsanto Protection Act" into Law, GMO Opponents Furious

The "Act" is actually the Section 735 of H.R. 933 "Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013" which enables the US government to fund itself without passing any budget until the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2013):

Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.

As CBS News (3/28/2013) puts it:

Critics slam Obama for "protecting" Monsanto

There's no love lost between Washington and the American public, it seems, five days after Congress for the first time in years managed to handle a budget-related issue without reaching the brink of crisis.

Protesters have descended on Pennsylvania Avenue outside the White House this week, enraged at a potentially health-hazardous provision they allege lawmakers inserted surreptitiously into a continuing resolution (CR) that will fund the government through the remainder of the fiscal year. The bill sailed through the Capitol on Friday; President Obama signed it into law on Tuesday.

Opponents have termed the language in question the "Monsanto Protection Act," a nod to the major agricultural biotech corporation and other like firms geared at producing genetically modified organisms (GMO) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds and crops. The provision protects genetically modified seeds from litigation suits over health risks posed by the crops' consumption.

Food safety advocacy groups like Food Democracy Now, which collected more than 250,000 signatures on a petition calling for the president to veto the CR, argue not enough studies have been conducted into the possible health risks of GMO and GE seeds. Eliminating judicial power to halt the selling or planting of them essentially cuts off their course to ensuring consumer safety should health risks emerge.

Seeking a "balance" to the newly minted law, Food Democracy Now has shifted its tactics to encouraging supporters to sign and send letters to Mr. Obama, chiding him for signing the legislation despite that refusal to do so would have expired the federal budget and triggered a government-wide shutdown this week.

Part of the template for the letter reads: "In an effort to balance this violation of our basic rights, I am urging you as President to issue an Executive Order to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, something that you promised farmers while on the campaign trail in 2007. It is urgent that the U.S. government rectify the 20 year old politically engineered loophole and allow for open and transparent labeling of genetically engineered foods," the letter continues, "a basic right that citizens in 62 others countries already enjoy."

Other groups have aimed their ire toward the more worthy target, criticizing Congress for slipping the language into a must-pass bill without review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees. The International Business Times reports that the Center for Food Safety is putting in the hot seat Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., chairwoman for the Senate Appropriations Committee, for not giving the amendment a proper hearing. According to Salon, many members of Congress who voted to approve the bill were unaware the language existed.

(Full article at the link)

Seeking a "balance"? It's amusing that Food Democracy Now is urging the president to use an Executive Order to mandate GMO labeling. As if campaign promise is something that any candidate should fulfill once in office. As if the president cares, when his food safety czar is a former vice president of Monsanto. And an Executive Order?

I'd love to know who put this section into the bill, though.

CBS says "refusal to do so [sign the bill] would have expired the federal budget and triggered a government-wide shutdown this week", as if it is a really bad thing. Very funny.

The proposition that would have required GMO labeling in California was soundly defeated in the November 2012 election by an extremely well-funded, out-of-state industrial lobby headed by Monsanto.

Tweet

Obama FDA Declares GM Salmon as "Safe as Food"

Now that the presidential election is over, say the supporters of this salmon.

I suppose. Huge multinational ag companies and food companies were busy doing the smear campaign to successfully defeat California's GMO labeling proposition.

The AquAdvantage salmon by AquaBounty Technologies contains genes from two different fish so that the growth hormone is produced all year round, instead of just during warm weather.

From New York Times (12/21/2012):

Engineered Fish Moves a Step Closer to Approval

by Andrew Pollack

Government regulators moved a big step closer on Friday to allowing the first genetically engineered animal — a fast-growing salmon — to enter the nation’s food supply.

The Food and Drug Administration said it had concluded that the salmon would have “no significant impact” on the environment. The agency also said the salmon was “as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon.” While the agency’s draft environmental assessment will be open to public comment for 60 days, it seems likely that the salmon will be approved, though that could still be months away.

The environmental assessment is dated May 4. It is unclear why it took until now for it to be released, but supporters of the salmon say they believe it is because the Obama administration was afraid of an unfavorable consumer reaction before the election in November.

Environmental and consumer groups quickly criticized the federal agency’s conclusions.

“The G.E. salmon has no socially redeeming value,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, a Washington advocacy group opposed to farm biotechnology, said in a statement. “It’s bad for the consumer, bad for the salmon industry and bad for the environment. F.D.A.’s decision is premature and misguided.”

But the decision was long in coming. AquaBounty Technologies, the company that developed the salmon, has been trying to win approval for more than a decade.

“We’re encouraged by this,” Ronald Stotish, the chief executive of AquaBounty, said on Friday. However, he added, “We’re not so foolish as to be wildly enthusiastic” that Friday’s action will definitely lead to approval. Among other things, some members of Congress have tried to block the agency from approving the fish.

The AquAdvantage salmon, as it is called, is an Atlantic salmon that contains a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon and a genetic switch from the ocean pout, an eel-like creature. The switch keeps the gene on so that the salmon produces growth hormone year round, rather than only during warm weather. The fish reach market weight in about 18 months instead of three years.

(Full article at the link)

AquaBounty Technologies is based in Maynard, Massachusetts. The company is listed on London Stock Exchange (FTSE), whose share price skyrocketed on the news, almost tripled from the recent low.

Tweet

Genetically Modified "Golden Rice" Fed to Unsuspecting 25 Elementary School Children in China As Part of Joint Study by Tufts University and Chinese Authorities, the Same Study Continued in the US

The Chinese government says it has compensated the parents of the children with 80,000 yuan (US$12,800) each.

The director of Tufts University's Carotenoids and Health Laboratory is Chinese. Dr. Guangwen Tang has published her paper titled " Golden Rice is an effective source of vitamin A" in June 2009 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

What is "Golden Rice"? It's one of the projects supported by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Which multinational corporation is behind "Golden Rice"? Syngenta, of Switzerland.

Who's behind the clinical studies by this director of Carotenoids and Health Laboratory at Tufts University? The US government.

After Greenpeace busted the study in China, the Tuft University researcher continued the study using the US children. She is still at it, now using adults.

First, from China Daily (12/7/2012; emphasis is mine):

Parents of students in GM rice test win payout

by Qiu Quanlin

Parents whose children unknowingly took part in a study involving genetically modified rice in Hunan province have received compensation but said they are more worried about their youngsters' health.

Each of 25 families, whose children were fed 60 grams of the GM food "golden rice" in the study, received 80,000 yuan ($12,800) on Friday from local government authorities.

The study, which covered some 80 children then aged between 6 and 8, was conducted in a primary school in Jiangkou township, Hengnan county, in 2008.

"Compared with the compensation, I have more concerns over possible health hazards to my child," said Xie Xiaohua, whose 11-year-old daughter, Liao Ke, was included in the study.

The girl developed dizziness and fever shortly after the test, Xie said.

"We were not told before the test by relevant authorities that it was genetically modified rice. We were only asked to sign names and we thought it was a nutrition program," Xie told China Daily.

Investigations by health authorities show the research team told parents about the experiment but did not say GM rice would be used.

Xie said local authorities have not announced the names of the 25 children.

Authorities in Hengnan county have promised to take full responsibility if children suffer health problems as a result of the test.

Another mother, who gave her name only as Luo, told the Beijing News the local government will soon arrange for all children involved in the study to have medical checks.

"I signed the compensation agreement with the government on Dec 1. I would rather not have received the money. So far, I don't know how dangerous the "golden rice" will be to my child's health," said Luo, whose daughter was fed the GM food.

Three officials who approved and conducted the controversial test have been sacked, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention said on Thursday.

The officials are Yin Shi'an, from the center: Wang Yin, from the Zhejiang Academy of Medical Sciences: and Hu Yuming, from the Hunan Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

US-based Tufts University, which jointly organized the study, is aware of the announcement made by the Chinese health authorities.

"While we respect China's review process which led to the statement, it would be inappropriate to make further comments at this time as investigations are currently under way in the United States," Andrea Grossman, assistant director of public relations at the Massachusetts-based institution, was quoted as saying by Xinhua News Agency.

Grossman said the university launched a full review in August to determine if proper study procedures were followed. This was after becoming aware of questions about the "golden rice" study, raised after the test was disclosed by environmental group Greenpeace.

"We have also been cooperating with Chinese investigators engaged in their own review. We will continue to cooperate with China's authorities on this matter," Grossman said.

According to the Chinese statement, Guangwen Tang, director of the Carotenoids and Health Laboratory of Tufts University, cooked the GM rice in the United States and brought it to China on May 29, 2008, without declaring it to the Chinese authorities.

Four days later, Tang and other research participants re-cooked the rice, mixed it with ordinary rice and served it for the children's lunch.

The central government introduced a regulation in 2001 to ensure the safety of GM food, with strict provisions for research, testing, production and marketing such products, according to Xinhua.

The regulation states that those conducting GM agricultural experiments should have certain qualifications, and form a panel to oversee the safety of the experiments.

Contact the writer at qiuquanlin@chinadaily.com.cn

A non-profit organization in Wales in the UK called GM-Free Cymru alleges that this Golden Rice is an untested, unapproved GM variety. Further (emphasis is mine),

Project NCT 00680212. Vitamin A Equivalence of Plant Carotenoids in Children. We infer that the earlier trial with children was inconclusive, causing the managers of the Golden Rice Project to engineer so-called "improvements" in later varieties of Golden Rice -- and to press on with another round of trials using children. 24 children of 6-8 years of age at the Center Primary School in Hengyang in Hunan province were to be used as guinea pigs. Zhejiang Academy of Medical Sciences, Hang Zhou, China was initially shown as a project sponsor. However, when Greenpeace alerted the Chinese authorities to the fact that Golden Rice is an unauthorised GM variety, they refused to sanction the experiments (12) and pulled out of the project. Undeterred, the Tufts University team has now decided to press ahead. On 6th February 2009 the US Clinical Trials web site posted news that the trial will now be conducted in the USA, not China. The study is currently recruiting participants; 24 children with and without Vitamin A deficiency will be fed on Golden Rice for an unspecified number of days. Again, the source of funding is unspecified.
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show?term=golden+rice&rank=3

These experiments raise major ethical issues. Very young children suffering from varying degrees of Vitamin A deficiency have been fed on an unauthorised and untested GM variety. According to the Nuremberg Code, which underpins modern medical ethics, there are three principles which have been breached (13). First, children under the age of ten do not have the legal capacity to give informed consent prior to being used in these experiments. Second, it has in no case been demonstrated by Tufts University or the other participants that the results desired could not be obtained by other means of study. And third, the studies were not preceded by animal experiments which might have shown up hazards for the trial subjects. There has been a cavalier disregard for the safety of the vulnerable persons used in these tests, driven by the ideological conviction that Golden Rice is "just another rice." It is most definitely NOT just another rice, as indicated in a number of studies (14). And it is not just the genetic manipulation of the plant that causes concern, since studies have shown that in certain circumstances high doses of Vitamin A can in themselves be very damaging when fed to patients / normal consumers who are not suffering from Vitamin A deficiency. (15)

It is clear that there is more than a little sensitivity in the research community about the three Golden Rice feeding experiments. The lead researcher, Dr Guangwen Tang, refuses to respond to Email messages, and when a journalist reached her by telephone she refused point-blank to answer any questions about the research. It was only after persistent questioning of key Golden Rice promoters that the same journalist obtained an admission from Syngenta that there had been no animal feeding studies.

After checking the government link on clinical trials above, the test of Golden Rice on young children in the US by Tufts University was completed in January 2009. According to the government page:

• 72 children, aged 6 to 8, with or without adequate Vitamin A nutrition

• Duration of the study, 21 days

It was a Phase 2 study, but GM-Free Cymru says Syngenta has admitted that there has been no animal studies. So they basically used children as lab animals.

I wonder what the incentive was for the parents of these 72 children to agree to have their children subjected to a GMO test. I wonder they knew what the test was about.

Ms. Guangwen Tang is currently recruiting participants in her Phase 1 study of "Bioavailability of Golden Rice Carotenoids in Humans":

• A well-nourished population will be fed hydroponically grown Golden Rice

• 15 adults, aged between 40 and 70 years

But the government data is as of April 2012. This clinical trial may have also been over.

Tweet

California Proposition 37 (GMO Food Labeling) Heading for Defeat

As Obama wins, Monsanto and its coalition of large ag and food companies look set to win in defeating Proposition 37 in California.

Yes, the proposition has many flaws and exemptions. But the argument often used that it would hurt small farmers and small grocers (as if Monsanto cares about small farmers) if they have to comply started to smell to me like the same argument to support Fukushima produce: "Farmers are hurting, we must help them by eating food produced in Fukushima, even if it contains radioactive cesium. It's safe anyway, because the government says so. We're in this together, aren't we?"

From NBC San Diego (11/6/2012):

Early Returns Show Prop 37 Food-Labeling Law Failing

Anywhere between 40 and 70 percent of food products sold in California grocery stores contain some genetically engineered ingredients.

A statewide proposition that would require manufacturers to label all foods made with genetically-modified ingredients was failing in very early returns Tuesday, according to the Secretary of State.

As of 8:45 p.m., Prop 37 was losing 58.3 percent to 41.7 percent.

If Prop 37 passes, California would become the first state in the nation to enforce the GMO labeling requirements.

The potential law was heavily bankrolled by chemical companies and food manufacturers. And the majority of that funding – some 93 percent of the $44 million raised to defeat the proposition – came from out of state.

By comparison, the Yes on 37 camp poured some $7 million into a campaign dubbed the "crusade against Frankenfood."

Genetic engineering involves manipulating the genes of an organism, usually with the goal of improving a plant’s resistance to pests or to allow a plant to withstand the use of pesticides.

While there have been no long-term studies that suggest consuming genetically-modified foods are harmful to humans, supporters of Prop 37 cited a lack of evidence to the contrary in their arguments for the measure.

"Whether you buy genetically engineered food or not, you have a right to know what you are buying and not gamble on your family’s health," supporters said.

(Full article at the link)

The website "No on Prop. 37" has a list of donors to the successful campaign:

Abbott Nutrition
B&G Foods, Inc.
BASF Plant Science
Bayer CropScience
Bimbo Bakeries USA
Bruce Foods Corporation
Bumble Bee Foods, LLC
Bunge North America, Inc.
C. H. Guenther & Son, Inc.
Campbell Soup Company
Cargill, Inc.
Clement Pappas & Company, Inc.
Clorox Company
Coca-Cola North America
ConAgra Foods
Council for Biotechnology Information
CropLife America
Dole Packaged Foods Company
Dow AgroSciences LLC
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.
Faribault Foods, Inc.
Flowers Foods, Inc.
Four K Farms
General Mills, Inc.
Goya de Puerto Rico, Inc.
Goya Foods Great Lakes
Grocery Manufacturers Association
H.J. Heinz Company
Hero North America
Hershey Company
Hillshire Brands Company
Hirzel Canning Company
Hormel Foods Corporation
House-Autry Mills, Inc.
Idahoan Foods, LLC
Inventure Foods, Inc.
JMR Farms, Inc.
Kellogg Company
Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc.
Kraft Food Group
Kraft Foods Global, Inc.
Land O’Lakes, Inc.
McCain Foods USA, Inc.
McCormick & Company, Inc.
Mead Johnson Nutrition Company
Mondelez International
Monsanto Company
Moody Dunbar, Inc.
Nestle USA, Inc.
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.
PCS Administration (USA) Inc. (Also Known As “PotashCorp”) PAC (Out of State PAC)
PepsiCo, Inc.
Pinnacle Foods Group LLC
Reily Foods Company
Rich Products Corporation
Richelieu Foods, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
Saticoy Foods Corporation
Smithfield Foods, Inc.
Snack Food Association
Solae, LLC
Sunny Delight Beverages Company
Syngenta Corporation
The J.M. Smucker Company
Tree Top, Inc.
Tri-Cal Inc.
Unilever
Welch Foods, Inc.

Tweet