sustainablepulse--2020-10-01--Gates Foundation Doubles Down on Misinformation Campaign at Cornell as African Leaders Call for Agro

Gates Foundation Doubles Down on Misinformation Campaign at Cornell as African Leaders Call for Agroecology

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded another $ 10 million last week to the controversial Cornell Alliance for Science , a communications campaign housed at Cornell that trains fellows in Africa and elsewhere to promote and defend genetically engineered foods , crops and agrichemicals .
The new grant brings BMGF grants to the group to $ 22 million , USRTK reported Wednesday .
The PR investment comes at a time when the Gates Foundation is under fire for spending billions of dollars on agricultural development schemes in Africa that critics say are entrenching farming methods that benefit corporations over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders in Africa posted an open letter to the Gates Foundation asking it to reassess its grant-making strategies for Africa .
“ While we are grateful to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for its commitment to overcoming food insecurity , and acknowledging the humanitarian and infrastructural aid provided to the governments of our continent , we write out of grave concern that the Gates Foundation ’ s support for the expansion of intensive industrial scale agriculture is deepening the humanitarian crisis , ” says the sign-on letter coordinated by the Southern African @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
The letter cites the Gates-led Alliance for a Green Revolution ( AGRA ) for its “ highly problematic ” support of commercial seed systems controlled by large companies , its support of restructuring seed laws to protect certified seeds and criminalize non-certified seed , and its support of seed dealers who offer narrow advice about corporate products over much-needed public sector extension services .
“ We appeal to the Gates Foundation and AGRA to stop promoting failed technologies and outdated extension methods and start listening to the farmers who are developing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the faith leaders said .
Despite billions of dollars spent and 14 years of promises , AGRA has failed to achieve its goals of reducing poverty and raising incomes for small farmers , according to a July report False Promises .
The research was conducted by a coalition of African and German groups and includes data from a recent white paper published by Tufts Global Development and Environment Institute .
The Gates Foundation has not yet responded to requests for comment for this article but said in an earlier email , “ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with countries to help them implement the priorities and policies contained in their national agricultural development strategies.
” Launched in 2006 by the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations , AGRA has long promised to double yields and incomes for 30 million farming households in Africa by 2020 .
But the group quietly removed those goals from its website sometime in the past year .
AGRA ’ s Chief of Staff Andrew Cox said via email that the group has not reduced his ambition but is refining its approaches and its thinking about metrics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ evaluation on its results next year .
AGRA declined to provide data or answer substantive questions from researchers of the False Promises report , its authors say .
Representatives from BIBA Kenya , PELUM Zambia and HOMEF Nigeria sent a letter to Cox Sept. 7 asking for a response to their research findings .
Cox responded Sept. 15 with what one researcher described as “ basically three pages of PR.
” “ African farmers deserve a substantive response from AGRA , ” said the letter to Cox from Anne Maina , Mutketoi Wamunyima @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AGRA ’ s public sector donors , who would seem to be getting a very poor return on their investments .
African governments also need to provide a clear accounting for the impacts of their own budget outlays that support Green Revolution programs.
” African governments spend about $ 1 billion per year on subsidies to support commercial seeds and agrichemicals .
Despite the large investments in agricultural productivity gains , hunger has increased thirty percent during the AGRA years , according to the False Promises report .
Gates Foundation investments have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shaped in Africa , according to a June report from the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems ( IPES ) .
The group reported that billions of dollars in Gates Foundation grants have incentivized industrial agriculture in Africa and held back investments in more sustainable , equitable food systems .
“ BMGF looks for quick , tangible returns on investment , and thus favours targeted , technological solutions , ” IPES said .
The Gates Foundation agricultural development approach of building markets for larger-scale , high-input commodity crops puts it at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best deal with the volatile conditions caused by the twin crises of climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic .
In September , the UN Food and Agriculture Organization said it is essential to build more resilient local food systems as the pandemic “ has put local food systems at risk of disruptions along the entire food chain.
” The report documents pandemic-related challenges and lessons from a global survey conducted in April and May that drew 860 responses .
“ The clear message is that , in order to cope with shocks such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and agroclimatic conditions should adopt policies and programmes to empower local producers to grow food , and promote short food chains to enable urban citizens to access food products , ” the report concluded .
“ Cities have to diversify their food supplies and food sources , reinforcing local sources where possible , but without shutting off national and global supplies.
” As the pandemic threatens farming communities already struggling with climate change , Africa is at a crossroads , wrote Million Belay , coordinator of the African Food Sovereignty Alliance , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tufts analysis of AGRA , in a Sept. 23 op-ed .
“ Will its people and their governments continue trying to replicate industrial farming models promoted by developed countries ?
Or will they move boldly into the uncertain future , embracing ecological agriculture ?
” Belay and Wise described some good news from recent research ; “ two of the three AGRA countries that have reduced both the number and share of undernourished people – Ethiopia and Mali – have done so in part due to policies that support ecological agriculture.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hunger drop from 14 % to 5 % since 2006 .
According to a case study in the False Promises report , “ progress came not because of AGRA but because the government and farmers ’ organizations actively resisted its implementation , ” Belay and Wise wrote , pointing to land and seed laws that guarantee farmers ’ rights to choose their crops and farming practices , and government programs that promote not just maize but a wide variety of food crops .
“ It ’ s time for African governments to step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chart a new food system that respects local cultures and communities by promoting low-cost , low-input ecological agriculture , ” they wrote .
Against this backdrop , the Gates Foundation is doubling down on its investment in the Cornell Alliance for Science ( CAS ) , a public relations campaign launched in 2014 with a Gates grant and promises to “ depolarize the debate ” around GMOs .
With the new $ 10 million , CAS plans to widen its focus “ to counter conspiracy theories and disinformation campaigns that hinder progress in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ innovations and other key issues.
” But CAS has become a polarizing force and a source of misinformation as it trains fellows around the world to promote and lobby for genetically engineered crops in their home countries , many of them in Africa .
Numerous academics , food groups and policy experts have called out the inaccurate and misleading messaging of CAS and its messengers .
Community groups working to regulate pesticides and biosafety have accused CAS of using bully tactics in Hawaii and exploiting farmers in Africa in its aggressive promotional and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Mark Lynas , a Cornell visiting fellow who works for CAS , illuminates the controversy over the group ’ s messaging .
Citing a recent meta-analysis on conservation agriculture , Lynas claimed , “ agro-ecology risks harming the poor and worsening gender equality in Africa.
” His analysis was widely panned by experts in the field .
Marc Corbeels , the agronomist who authored the meta-analysis , said Lynas made “ sweeping generalizations ” about his work .
Other academics described Lynas ’ article as “ really flawed , ” “ deeply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” an erroneous conflation that jumps to “ wild conclusions , ” and “ an embarrassment for someone who wants to claim to be scientific.
” The article should be retracted , said Marci Branski , a former USDA climate change specialist and Marcus Taylor , a political ecologist at Queen ’ s University .
The controversy resurfaced this week over a webinar CAS is hosting Thursday Oct. 1 on the topic of agroecology .
Citing concerns that the Cornell-based group is “ not serious enough to engage in an open , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withdrew from the webinar earlier this week .
The two scientists said they agreed to participate in the webinar after seeing each other ’ s names among the panelists ; “ that was enough for both of us to trust also the organization behind the event , ” wrote Pablo Tittonell , PhD , Principal Research Scientist in Argentina ’ s National Council for Science and Technology ( CONICET ) and Sieglinde Snapp , PhD , Professor of Soils and Cropping Systems Ecology at Michigan State University , to panel moderator Joan Conrow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reading some of the blogs and opinion pieces issued by the Alliance , the publications by other panelists , learning about the biased and uninformed claims against agroecology , the ideologically charged push for certain technologies , etc .
we came to the conclusion that this venue is not serious enough to engage in an open , unbiased , constructive and , most importantly , well informed scientific debate , ” Tittonell and Snapp wrote to Conrow .
“ We therefore withdraw from this debate.
” Conrow has not responded to requests for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Nassib Mugwanya , a 2015 CAS global leadership fellow and doctoral student at North Carolina State University , who has also been accused of making unfair attacks on agroecology .
In a 2019 article for the Breakthrough Institute , Mugwanya argued , “ traditional agricultural practices can ’ t transform African agriculture.
” The article reflects typical biotech industry messaging : presenting GMO crops as the “ pro-science ” position while painting “ alternative forms of agricultural development as ‘ anti-science , ’ groundless and harmful , ” according to an analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice .
“ Particularly notable in the article , ” the group noted , “ are strong usages of metaphors ( e.g.
, agroecology likened to handcuffs ) , generalizations , omissions of information and a number of factual inaccuracies.
” With Tittonell and Snapp off the roster at Thursday ’ s webinar , Mugwanya will be joined by Pamela Ronald , a professor of plant pathology at the University of California , Davis , who has ties to pesticide industry front groups , and Frédéric Baudron , senior scientist at the International @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , a Gates Foundation-funded group .
Mariam Mayet , executive director of the African Centre for Biodiversity , sees the ramped up PR campaigns as “ evidence of desperation ” that they “ just can not get it right on the continent.
” Her group has for years been documenting “ the efforts to spread the Green Revolution in Africa , and the dead-ends it will lead to : declining soil health , loss of agricultural biodiversity , loss of farmer sovereignty , and locking of African farmers into a system that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but for the profits of mostly Northern multinational corporations.
” The Cornell Alliance for Science should be reigned in , Mayet said in an August webinar about the Gates Foundation ’ s influence in Africa , “ because of the misinformation ( and ) the way that they are extremely disingenuous and untruthful.
” She asked , “ Why don ’ t you engage in a fair fight with us ?
” Stacy Malkan is co-founder and reporter for U.S .
Right to Know , a nonprofit investigative research group focused on public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2007 book , “ Not Just a Pretty Face : The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry.
” Follow her on Twitter @ StacyMalkan

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded another $10 million last week to the controversial Cornell Alliance for Science, a communications campaign housed at Cornell that trains fellows in Africa and elsewhere to promote and defend genetically engineered foods, crops and agrichemicals. The new grant brings BMGF grants to the group to $22 million, USRTK reported Wednesday.
The PR investment comes at a time when the Gates Foundation is under fire for spending billions of dollars on agricultural development schemes in Africa that critics say are entrenching farming methods that benefit corporations over people.
Faith leaders appeal to Gates Foundation
On September 10, faith leaders in Africa posted an open letter to the Gates Foundation asking it to reassess its grant-making strategies for Africa.
“While we are grateful to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for its commitment to overcoming food insecurity, and acknowledging the humanitarian and infrastructural aid provided to the governments of our continent, we write out of grave concern that the Gates Foundation’s support for the expansion of intensive industrial scale agriculture is deepening the humanitarian crisis,” says the sign-on letter coordinated by the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI).
The letter cites the Gates-led Alliance for a Green Revolution (AGRA) for its “highly problematic” support of commercial seed systems controlled by large companies, its support of restructuring seed laws to protect certified seeds and criminalize non-certified seed, and its support of seed dealers who offer narrow advice about corporate products over much-needed public sector extension services.
“We appeal to the Gates Foundation and AGRA to stop promoting failed technologies and outdated extension methods and start listening to the farmers who are developing appropriate solutions for their contexts,” the faith leaders said.
Despite billions of dollars spent and 14 years of promises, AGRA has failed to achieve its goals of reducing poverty and raising incomes for small farmers, according to a July report False Promises. The research was conducted by a coalition of African and German groups and includes data from a recent white paper published by Tufts Global Development and Environment Institute.
The Gates Foundation has not yet responded to requests for comment for this article but said in an earlier email, “We support organisations like AGRA because they partner with countries to help them implement the priorities and policies contained in their national agricultural development strategies.”
Disappearing promises of the green revolution
Launched in 2006 by the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, AGRA has long promised to double yields and incomes for 30 million farming households in Africa by 2020. But the group quietly removed those goals from its website sometime in the past year. AGRA’s Chief of Staff Andrew Cox said via email that the group has not reduced his ambition but is refining its approaches and its thinking about metrics. He said AGRA will do a full evaluation on its results next year.
AGRA declined to provide data or answer substantive questions from researchers of the False Promises report, its authors say. Representatives from BIBA Kenya, PELUM Zambia and HOMEF Nigeria sent a letter to Cox Sept. 7 asking for a response to their research findings. Cox responded Sept. 15 with what one researcher described as “basically three pages of PR.”
“African farmers deserve a substantive response from AGRA,” said the letter to Cox from Anne Maina, Mutketoi Wamunyima and Ngimmo Bassay. “So do AGRA’s public sector donors, who would seem to be getting a very poor return on their investments. African governments also need to provide a clear accounting for the impacts of their own budget outlays that support Green Revolution programs.”
African governments spend about $1 billion per year on subsidies to support commercial seeds and agrichemicals. Despite the large investments in agricultural productivity gains, hunger has increased thirty percent during the AGRA years, according to the False Promises report.
Gates Foundation investments have a significant influence on how food systems are shaped in Africa, according to a June report from the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES). The group reported that billions of dollars in Gates Foundation grants have incentivized industrial agriculture in Africa and held back investments in more sustainable, equitable food systems.
“BMGF looks for quick, tangible returns on investment, and thus favours targeted, technological solutions,” IPES said.
Local producers and short food chains
The Gates Foundation agricultural development approach of building markets for larger-scale, high-input commodity crops puts it at odds with emerging thinking about how to best deal with the volatile conditions caused by the twin crises of climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic.
In September, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization said it is essential to build more resilient local food systems as the pandemic “has put local food systems at risk of disruptions along the entire food chain.” The report documents pandemic-related challenges and lessons from a global survey conducted in April and May that drew 860 responses.
“The clear message is that, in order to cope with shocks such as COVID-19, cities with suitable socio-economic and agroclimatic conditions should adopt policies and programmes to empower local producers to grow food, and promote short food chains to enable urban citizens to access food products,” the report concluded. “Cities have to diversify their food supplies and food sources, reinforcing local sources where possible, but without shutting off national and global supplies.”
As the pandemic threatens farming communities already struggling with climate change, Africa is at a crossroads, wrote Million Belay, coordinator of the African Food Sovereignty Alliance, and Timothy Wise, lead researcher of the Tufts analysis of AGRA, in a Sept. 23 op-ed. “Will its people and their governments continue trying to replicate industrial farming models promoted by developed countries? Or will they move boldly into the uncertain future, embracing ecological agriculture?”
Belay and Wise described some good news from recent research; “two of the three AGRA countries that have reduced both the number and share of undernourished people – Ethiopia and Mali – have done so in part due to policies that support ecological agriculture.”
The biggest success story, Mali, saw hunger drop from 14% to 5% since 2006. According to a case study in the False Promises report, “progress came not because of AGRA but because the government and farmers’ organizations actively resisted its implementation,” Belay and Wise wrote, pointing to land and seed laws that guarantee farmers’ rights to choose their crops and farming practices, and government programs that promote not just maize but a wide variety of food crops.
“It’s time for African governments to step back from the failing Green Revolution and chart a new food system that respects local cultures and communities by promoting low-cost, low-input ecological agriculture,” they wrote.
Doubling down on PR efforts
Against this backdrop, the Gates Foundation is doubling down on its investment in the Cornell Alliance for Science (CAS), a public relations campaign launched in 2014 with a Gates grant and promises to “depolarize the debate” around GMOs. With the new $10 million, CAS plans to widen its focus “to counter conspiracy theories and disinformation campaigns that hinder progress in climate change, synthetic biology, agricultural innovations and other key issues.”
But CAS has become a polarizing force and a source of misinformation as it trains fellows around the world to promote and lobby for genetically engineered crops in their home countries, many of them in Africa.
Numerous academics, food groups and policy experts have called out the inaccurate and misleading messaging of CAS and its messengers. Community groups working to regulate pesticides and biosafety have accused CAS of using bully tactics in Hawaii and exploiting farmers in Africa in its aggressive promotional and lobby campaigns.
A July 30 article by Mark Lynas, a Cornell visiting fellow who works for CAS, illuminates the controversy over the group’s messaging. Citing a recent meta-analysis on conservation agriculture, Lynas claimed, “agro-ecology risks harming the poor and worsening gender equality in Africa.” His analysis was widely panned by experts in the field.
Marc Corbeels, the agronomist who authored the meta-analysis, said Lynas made “sweeping generalizations” about his work. Other academics described Lynas’ article as “really flawed,” “deeply unserious,” “demagogic and non-scientific,” an erroneous conflation that jumps to “wild conclusions,” and “an embarrassment for someone who wants to claim to be scientific.”
The article should be retracted, said Marci Branski, a former USDA climate change specialist and Marcus Taylor, a political ecologist at Queen’s University.
Debate over agroecology heats up
The controversy resurfaced this week over a webinar CAS is hosting Thursday Oct. 1 on the topic of agroecology. Citing concerns that the Cornell-based group is “not serious enough to engage in an open, unbiased” debate, two food-system experts withdrew from the webinar earlier this week.
The two scientists said they agreed to participate in the webinar after seeing each other’s names among the panelists; “that was enough for both of us to trust also the organization behind the event,” wrote Pablo Tittonell, PhD, Principal Research Scientist in Argentina’s National Council for Science and Technology (CONICET) and Sieglinde Snapp, PhD, Professor of Soils and Cropping Systems Ecology at Michigan State University, to panel moderator Joan Conrow, editor of CAS.
“But reading some of the blogs and opinion pieces issued by the Alliance, the publications by other panelists, learning about the biased and uninformed claims against agroecology, the ideologically charged push for certain technologies, etc. we came to the conclusion that this venue is not serious enough to engage in an open, unbiased, constructive and, most importantly, well informed scientific debate,” Tittonell and Snapp wrote to Conrow.
“We therefore withdraw from this debate.” Conrow has not responded to requests for comment.
The webinar will go forward with Nassib Mugwanya, a 2015 CAS global leadership fellow and doctoral student at North Carolina State University, who has also been accused of making unfair attacks on agroecology. In a 2019 article for the Breakthrough Institute, Mugwanya argued, “traditional agricultural practices can’t transform African agriculture.”
The article reflects typical biotech industry messaging: presenting GMO crops as the “pro-science” position while painting “alternative forms of agricultural development as ‘anti-science,’ groundless and harmful,” according to an analysis by the Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global Justice.
“Particularly notable in the article,” the group noted, “are strong usages of metaphors (e.g., agroecology likened to handcuffs), generalizations, omissions of information and a number of factual inaccuracies.”
With Tittonell and Snapp off the roster at Thursday’s webinar, Mugwanya will be joined by Pamela Ronald, a professor of plant pathology at the University of California, Davis, who has ties to pesticide industry front groups, and Frédéric Baudron, senior scientist at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), a Gates Foundation-funded group.
Asking for a ‘fair fight’
Mariam Mayet, executive director of the African Centre for Biodiversity, sees the ramped up PR campaigns as “evidence of desperation” that they “just cannot get it right on the continent.”
Her group has for years been documenting “the efforts to spread the Green Revolution in Africa, and the dead-ends it will lead to: declining soil health, loss of agricultural biodiversity, loss of farmer sovereignty, and locking of African farmers into a system that is not designed for their benefit, but for the profits of mostly Northern multinational corporations.”
The Cornell Alliance for Science should be reigned in, Mayet said in an August webinar about the Gates Foundation’s influence in Africa, “because of the misinformation (and) the way that they are extremely disingenuous and untruthful.” She asked, “Why don’t you engage in a fair fight with us?”
Stacy Malkan is co-founder and reporter for U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit investigative research group focused on public health issues. She is author of the 2007 book, “Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry.” Follow her on Twitter @StacyMalkan


sustainablepulse--2020-10-04--Environmental Factors to Blame for Increase in Childhood Cancers – New Coalition Report

A 34 % increase in childhood cancers since 1975 has led a group of scientists , health professionals , businesses , and advocates to ignite a call to action to highlight preventable environmental factors that threaten our children .
This coalition seeks to establish a National Childhood Cancer Prevention Research Agenda and National Childhood Cancer Prevention Plan to eradicate non-hereditary Childhood Cancers through a dramatic reduction of toxic chemicals with a strong “ all hands-on deck ” cross-sector approach to childhood cancer prevention .
The group ’ s report released last week , “ Childhood Cancer : Cross-Sector Strategies for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sustainable Business Council , Cancer Free Economy Network , Children ’ s Environmental Health Network , Clean and Healthy New York , Clean Production Action , UMass Lowell Center for Sustainable Production , Max Cure Foundation and Made Safe .
The report calls for a cross-sector approach to reduce use and emissions of toxic chemicals at a time when rates of new cancers in children are climbing .
Based on a comprehensive review of the science , the report finds sufficient evidence to warrant preventative actions for a number of risk factors in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including traffic-related pollution , pesticides and solvents .
“ When I think of what my life was like growing up versus what it is now , the differences are very striking .
We didn ’ t have an exterminator we didn ’ t have herbicides for use in the garden .
We didn ’ t have non-stick pans or plastics enveloping all of our food products .
Infants do not smoke , drink alcohol or have stressful jobs .
Is the rise in children ’ s cancers related to the ocean of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” stated Dr. Margaret Kripke , Professor Emerita University of Texas – MD Anderson and former Panelist of the President ’ s Cancer Panel .
“ Our children are exposed in the womb and face unique environmental exposures at home , in their learning environments , and in their communities .
These must be addressed by changing business practices and making courageous public policy decisions to promote healthy environments , based on the best available evidence , ” added Nsedu Obot Witherspoon , MPH , Children ’ s Environmental Health Network .
Parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposure to toxic chemicals where they live , go to school and play .
With new knowledge , they can make choices to protect their children , but many exposures are beyond an individual ’ s control .
Businesses and governments have a responsibility–and opportunity–to accelerate the reduction in the use of toxic chemicals , to give families the best chance at a cancer-free future , sparing their children severe chemotherapy treatments , originally intended for adult use .
It ’ s time to take preventative measures to reduce the number of children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This initiative to shift to safer chemicals and processes that protect rather than harm our environment , people and especially children , should be seen as a great opportunity for businesses .
Many companies are already providing safe and healthy products and services that consumers , especially parents , are increasingly coming to trust and rely on , meaning there is a growing market .
This initiative also calls upon policy makers to fund essential research , regulate toxic chemicals and incentivize the production and use of safer chemicals , ” concluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Business Council .
With the publication of this report the Childhood Cancer Prevention Initiative was launched , which will utilize these findings to engage businesses , advocacy groups , elected officials , and the scientific community to cooperate in this multi-sector effort to remove dangerous chemicals from our children ’ s lives .
The Childhood Cancer Prevention Initiative is a collaborative effort to improve children ’ s health by widely sharing the evidence base about the impacts of toxic chemicals on children , as well as opportunities for preventing childhood cancer by removing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children live , learn and play .
Together , we will engage scientists and health professionals to review and interpret research ; help manufacturers and retailers drive a shift in business practices ; and encourage elected officials to implement responsible state and federal policies .
We will learn from the experiences of parents , workers , businesses and communities , and provide them with information and tools to avoid exposure to potentially dangerous substances and exercise their power to shift the marketplace .

A 34% increase in childhood cancers since 1975 has led a group of scientists, health professionals, businesses, and advocates to ignite a call to action to highlight preventable environmental factors that threaten our children. This coalition seeks to establish a National Childhood Cancer Prevention Research Agenda and National Childhood Cancer Prevention Plan to eradicate non-hereditary Childhood Cancers through a dramatic reduction of toxic chemicals with a strong “all hands-on deck” cross-sector approach to childhood cancer prevention.
The group’s report released last week, “Childhood Cancer: Cross-Sector Strategies for Prevention,” includes contributions from American Sustainable Business Council, Cancer Free Economy Network, Children’s Environmental Health Network, Clean and Healthy New York, Clean Production Action, UMass Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, Max Cure Foundation and Made Safe. The report calls for a cross-sector approach to reduce use and emissions of toxic chemicals at a time when rates of new cancers in children are climbing.
Based on a comprehensive review of the science, the report finds sufficient evidence to warrant preventative actions for a number of risk factors in the environment to which children are exposed, including traffic-related pollution, pesticides and solvents.
“When I think of what my life was like growing up versus what it is now, the differences are very striking. We didn’t have an exterminator we didn’t have herbicides for use in the garden. We didn’t have non-stick pans or plastics enveloping all of our food products. Infants do not smoke, drink alcohol or have stressful jobs. Is the rise in children’s cancers related to the ocean of chemicals in which we now live?” stated Dr. Margaret Kripke, Professor Emerita University of Texas – MD Anderson and former Panelist of the President’s Cancer Panel.
“Our children are exposed in the womb and face unique environmental exposures at home, in their learning environments, and in their communities. These must be addressed by changing business practices and making courageous public policy decisions to promote healthy environments, based on the best available evidence,” added Nsedu Obot Witherspoon, MPH, Children’s Environmental Health Network.
Parents are often unaware of children’s exposure to toxic chemicals where they live, go to school and play. With new knowledge, they can make choices to protect their children, but many exposures are beyond an individual’s control. Businesses and governments have a responsibility–and opportunity–to accelerate the reduction in the use of toxic chemicals, to give families the best chance at a cancer-free future, sparing their children severe chemotherapy treatments, originally intended for adult use. It’s time to take preventative measures to reduce the number of children diagnosed with the disease each year.
“This initiative to shift to safer chemicals and processes that protect rather than harm our environment, people and especially children, should be seen as a great opportunity for businesses. Many companies are already providing safe and healthy products and services that consumers, especially parents, are increasingly coming to trust and rely on, meaning there is a growing market. This initiative also calls upon policy makers to fund essential research, regulate toxic chemicals and incentivize the production and use of safer chemicals,” concluded David Levine, President, American Sustainable Business Council.
With the publication of this report the Childhood Cancer Prevention Initiative was launched, which will utilize these findings to engage businesses, advocacy groups, elected officials, and the scientific community to cooperate in this multi-sector effort to remove dangerous chemicals from our children’s lives.
The Childhood Cancer Prevention Initiative is a collaborative effort to improve children’s health by widely sharing the evidence base about the impacts of toxic chemicals on children, as well as opportunities for preventing childhood cancer by removing toxic chemicals from products and environments where children live, learn and play. Together, we will engage scientists and health professionals to review and interpret research; help manufacturers and retailers drive a shift in business practices; and encourage elected officials to implement responsible state and federal policies. We will learn from the experiences of parents, workers, businesses and communities, and provide them with information and tools to avoid exposure to potentially dangerous substances and exercise their power to shift the marketplace.


sustainablepulse--2020-10-06--Gene-Silencing Pesticides Pose Massive Environmental Risks – New Report

“ Gene-silencing pesticides ” now under development pose unique risks to surrounding ecosystems and beneficial insects , including bees , according to a new report , released today by Friends of the Earth and Dr. Eva Sirinathsinghji .
The report summarizes the gaps in research on experimental gene-silencing pesticides and the risks they pose to human health , the environment , and farmers .
Several biotech and agrichemical companies are moving quickly to patent and bring gene-silencing pesticides to market .
Corporations including Bayer , and Syngenta , are using genetic engineering to develop the new pesticide sprays that exploit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ RNAi ) , in order to switch off or “ silence ” genes that are essential for the survival of insects — thus killing them .
The first gene-silencing pesticide spray is slated to be submitted to the U.S. EPA for registration by the end of this year .
The product , developed by GreenLight Biosciences , targets the Colorado potato beetle .
The spray is designed to be applied to crop leaves .
When a beetle eats the contaminated leaves , genetic material enters the cells of its body and silences a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ functioning , causing the beetle ’ s death .
“ This open-air experiment poses a serious and unacceptable risk to our planet ’ s collapsing insect populations , particularly the pollinators essential to our food system and functional ecosystems , ” said Dana Perls , food and technology program manager at Friends of the Earth .
“ There is no regulatory framework for responsibly assessing gene silencing pesticides , and huge gaps exist in our understanding of their possible impacts .
Mounting evidence shows that these pesticides could harm ecosystems and human health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities.
” Recent studies suggest that RNAi genetic modification can last multiple generations .
It is also imprecise — RNAi technology is widely associated with off-target impacts within the genomes of target organisms .
Sprays may be applied to entire fields of crops , with the potential to harm thousands of non-target insects and drift to surrounding farms , communities and ecosystems .
Research shows the potential for RNAi pesticides to target genetic sequences that are not an exact match for the targeted gene , potentially impacting an unknown number of non-target species @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A recent global metastudy found that 40 percent of insects are facing extinction and could disappear within a century due largely to industrial agriculture and heavy use of pesticides , threatening a “ catastrophic collapse of nature ’ s ecosystems.
” Biotech and agrichemical corporations are filing patents for RNAi pesticide products that include claims of property rights to exposed organisms and their offspring .
This could constitute a massive expansion of property rights over nature , further entrenching the power of biotech and agrichemical corporations over the food system , farmers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gene-silencing sprays raise new concerns and challenges for risk assessment .
While engineered crops can , at least in theory , be assessed in laboratories for certain unintended effects prior to cultivation , these RNA sprays would be applied to entire fields , ” said Dr. Eva Sirinathsinghji , co-author of the report .
“ This opens the door for any exposed organism to potentially be genetically modified directly in the field , without any prior risk assessment .
Such uses also have implications for property rights , with companies filing patents for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to exposed organisms and their offspring.
” The report covers more than two decades of research and dozens of studies and highlights serious warnings from scientists about the environmental and health risks of this new genetic modification application , as well as extensive gaps in knowledge .
Examples include : • None A 2017 indicated that existing interfering RNAs developed for other target species could also directly impact gene activity in honeybees , and a 2019 study showed the uptake and exchange of interfering RNAs within bee colonies across generations .
• None @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assessment for RNAi technologies , that “ knowledge gaps make it difficult to predict ” exactly what problems might arise from RNAi pesticides in relation to non-target species .
• None Human health risks such as inhalation exposures remain completely unstudied .
In mammals that have consumed interfering RNAs , indicate that they may remain active in their bodies and can silence genes .
In 2017 , to be used in conjunction with RNA pesticide formulations were also shown to cause an immune reaction in mammalian cells .
Key questions around human health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigated .
Based on the latest science , RNAi pesticides should fall within the scope of government regulatory oversight of genetic engineering and GMOs , using the Precautionary Principle to protect human health and the environment .
Oversight and regulations for interfering RNA applications should include independent , transparent health and environmental assessment , including examination of potential long-term impacts , before being allowed to enter the market or environment , and products of all genetic modification should be traceable , and labeled as GMOs .

“Gene-silencing pesticides” now under development pose unique risks to surrounding ecosystems and beneficial insects, including bees, according to a new report, released today by Friends of the Earth and Dr. Eva Sirinathsinghji. The report summarizes the gaps in research on experimental gene-silencing pesticides and the risks they pose to human health, the environment, and farmers.
Several biotech and agrichemical companies are moving quickly to patent and bring gene-silencing pesticides to market. Corporations including Bayer, and Syngenta, are using genetic engineering to develop the new pesticide sprays that exploit a cellular process called RNA interference (RNAi), in order to switch off or “silence” genes that are essential for the survival of insects — thus killing them.
The first gene-silencing pesticide spray is slated to be submitted to the U.S. EPA for registration by the end of this year. The product, developed by GreenLight Biosciences, targets the Colorado potato beetle. The spray is designed to be applied to crop leaves. When a beetle eats the contaminated leaves, genetic material enters the cells of its body and silences a gene that is essential for healthy cell functioning, causing the beetle’s death.
“This open-air experiment poses a serious and unacceptable risk to our planet’s collapsing insect populations, particularly the pollinators essential to our food system and functional ecosystems,” said Dana Perls, food and technology program manager at Friends of the Earth. “There is no regulatory framework for responsibly assessing gene silencing pesticides, and huge gaps exist in our understanding of their possible impacts. Mounting evidence shows that these pesticides could harm ecosystems and human health, particularly farmworkers, farmers and rural communities.”
Recent studies suggest that RNAi genetic modification can last multiple generations. It is also imprecise — RNAi technology is widely associated with off-target impacts within the genomes of target organisms. Sprays may be applied to entire fields of crops, with the potential to harm thousands of non-target insects and drift to surrounding farms, communities and ecosystems. Research shows the potential for RNAi pesticides to target genetic sequences that are not an exact match for the targeted gene, potentially impacting an unknown number of non-target species, including beneficial insects like bees. A recent global metastudy found that 40 percent of insects are facing extinction and could disappear within a century due largely to industrial agriculture and heavy use of pesticides, threatening a “catastrophic collapse of nature’s ecosystems.”
Biotech and agrichemical corporations are filing patents for RNAi pesticide products that include claims of property rights to exposed organisms and their offspring. This could constitute a massive expansion of property rights over nature, further entrenching the power of biotech and agrichemical corporations over the food system, farmers, and the natural world itself.
“Gene-silencing sprays raise new concerns and challenges for risk assessment. While engineered crops can, at least in theory, be assessed in laboratories for certain unintended effects prior to cultivation, these RNA sprays would be applied to entire fields,” said Dr. Eva Sirinathsinghji, co-author of the report. “This opens the door for any exposed organism to potentially be genetically modified directly in the field, without any prior risk assessment. Such uses also have implications for property rights, with companies filing patents for products that include claims of property rights to exposed organisms and their offspring.”
The report covers more than two decades of research and dozens of studies and highlights serious warnings from scientists about the environmental and health risks of this new genetic modification application, as well as extensive gaps in knowledge. Examples include:
A 2017 meta-analysis indicated that existing interfering RNAs developed for other target species could also directly impact gene activity in honeybees, and a 2019 study showed the uptake and exchange of interfering RNAs within bee colonies across generations.
EPA scientists agreed in a Scientific Advisory Panel meeting on Risk Assessment for RNAi technologies, that “knowledge gaps make it difficult to predict” exactly what problems might arise from RNAi pesticides in relation to non-target species.
Human health risks such as inhalation exposures remain completely unstudied. In mammals that have consumed interfering RNAs, studies indicate that they may remain active in their bodies and can silence genes. In 2017, nanoparticles to be used in conjunction with RNA pesticide formulations were also shown to cause an immune reaction in mammalian cells. Key questions around human health impacts thus remain and must be fully investigated.
Based on the latest science, RNAi pesticides should fall within the scope of government regulatory oversight of genetic engineering and GMOs, using the Precautionary Principle to protect human health and the environment. Oversight and regulations for interfering RNA applications should include independent, transparent health and environmental assessment, including examination of potential long-term impacts, before being allowed to enter the market or environment, and products of all genetic modification should be traceable, and labeled as GMOs.


sustainablepulse--2020-10-06--Lawsuit Challenges USDA over Lack of Labeling for GMO Seeds

Center for Food Safety ( CFS ) has filed an amended complaint in their ongoing litigation challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture ’ s ( USDA ) “ bioengineered ” ( more commonly known as “ genetically engineered ” ) food labeling rule , challenging the law ’ s prohibition on states ’ labeling of genetically modified seeds .
The new filing adds claims challenging the part of the “ bioengineered foods ” rule that will leave genetically engineered seeds unlabeled , preventing consumers and farmers from knowing if seeds are genetically modified .
“ Consumers have a right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including whether it is genetically engineered or not .
That ’ s what this case is fundamentally about : meaningful labeling , ” said George Kimbrell , CFS legal director and counsel in the case .
“ The same goes for seeds .
The decision takes away states ’ rights to label seeds , while offering absolutely nothing in return.
” CFS filed the 120-page lawsuit in late July 2020 .
The provisions then-challenged covered the inadequacies of the law as it relates to food labeling ; the new amendment adds the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explains , the “ bioengineered ” food rule will unlawfully leave the majority of genetically engineered foods unlabeled .
First , it discriminates against tens of millions of minority , poor , elderly , and rural Americans , by allowing labeling through digital “ QR ” codes only accessible by smartphones with broadband , despite the government ’ s own study showing this labeling method was discriminatory , inadequate , and unworkable in grocery stores .
Second , when on-package text is used , the rules misleadingly limit text to only the term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowing use of similar , better-known terms—for twenty-five years , the commonly used terms have been “ genetically engineered ” ( GE ) or “ genetically modified ” ( GMO ) , not “ bioengineered.
” Third , the vast majority of genetically engineered foods ( highly processed foods , such as oils and sodas , over 70 % of all genetically engineered foods by some estimates ) are unlawfully left out of the labeling standard entirely .
Fourth , the law prohibits retailers and producers from voluntarily providing more meaningful information to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms GE and GMO , in violation of their free speech rights .
Finally , the new case amendment covers the prohibition on state seed labeling .
Despite not including any seed labeling provisions , the federal law prohibits states from enacting laws that would directly or indirectly require the labeling of genetically engineered seeds .
That prohibition unconstitutionally interferes with states ’ rights to regulate their own citizens in the absence of federal regulation .
States have chosen to label GMO seeds for a variety of reasons , including to protect biodiversity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A number of states , including Vermont and Virginia , have seed labeling laws that cover genetically engineered seeds .
CFS is representing a coalition of food labeling nonprofits and retailers , including the Natural Grocers , operating 157 stores in 20 states , and Puget Consumers Co-op , the nation ’ s largest community-owned food market .
The 2019 rules implement a 2016 federal law that for the first time required the labeling of GMO foods .
Congress passed the federal law after several states ( Vermont , Connecticut , Maine ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other states poised to do the same .
The labeling is required to be implemented by food manufacturers in January 2022 .
CFS ’ s lawsuit seeks to have the court declare the regulations unlawful and nullify them , and then return the issue to USDA with orders to fix the unlawful portions of the rules .
“ Retailers and shoppers have relied on the term GMO for more than a decade to identify and avoid GMO foods , ” said Mark Squire , co-founder of Good Earth Natural Foods , a plaintiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term and replacing it with a term nobody has ever heard of is misleading and will create massive confusion in the marketplace.
” “ The National Organic Coalition has weighed in repeatedly with the USDA to urge a meaningful disclosure standard for GMO foods that uses terms that are understandable to consumers and provides on-package labeling , rather than electronic means of disclosure that are inaccessible to millions of Americans .
The 2019 regulations put forward by USDA are woefully lacking , ” said Abby Youngblood , Executive Director at the National Organic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Natural Grocers , we believe in meaningful transparency .
This means providing our shoppers with the information they deserve and demand about foods produced with genetic engineering , ” said Alan Lewis , Vice President Advocacy & Governmental Affairs of Natural Grocers , a plaintiff .
“ Our rights and those of our customers are damaged by the USDA ’ s unlawful bioengineered labeling rule.
” “ A disclosure law that exempts 70 % of the foods it is supposed to disclose is not a meaningful disclosure law : it is a fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ingredients secret , ” said Tara Cook Littman of Citizens for GMO Labeling , a plaintiff .
“ PCC believes that our members and shoppers have a right to transparency about the food they eat , and that retailers and manufacturers have a fundamental 1st Amendment right to provide truthful information to customers .
The USDA rules unlawfully restrict that protected speech and do not provide the transparency on GMO foods that consumers deserve , ” said Aimee Simpson , Director of Advocacy & Product Sustainability for PCC Community Markets , a plaintiff @

Center for Food Safety (CFS) has filed an amended complaint in their ongoing litigation challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) “bioengineered” (more commonly known as “genetically engineered”) food labeling rule, challenging the law’s prohibition on states’ labeling of genetically modified seeds. The new filing adds claims challenging the part of the “bioengineered foods” rule that will leave genetically engineered seeds unlabeled, preventing consumers and farmers from knowing if seeds are genetically modified.
“Consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, including whether it is genetically engineered or not. That’s what this case is fundamentally about: meaningful labeling,” said George Kimbrell, CFS legal director and counsel in the case. “The same goes for seeds. The decision takes away states’ rights to label seeds, while offering absolutely nothing in return.”
CFS filed the 120-page lawsuit in late July 2020. The provisions then-challenged covered the inadequacies of the law as it relates to food labeling; the new amendment adds the seed labeling aspect.
As the lawsuit explains, the “bioengineered” food rule will unlawfully leave the majority of genetically engineered foods unlabeled. First, it discriminates against tens of millions of minority, poor, elderly, and rural Americans, by allowing labeling through digital “QR” codes only accessible by smartphones with broadband, despite the government’s own study showing this labeling method was discriminatory, inadequate, and unworkable in grocery stores. Second, when on-package text is used, the rules misleadingly limit text to only the term “bioengineered,” despite the law allowing use of similar, better-known terms—for twenty-five years, the commonly used terms have been “genetically engineered” (GE) or “genetically modified” (GMO), not “bioengineered.” Third, the vast majority of genetically engineered foods (highly processed foods, such as oils and sodas, over 70% of all genetically engineered foods by some estimates) are unlawfully left out of the labeling standard entirely. Fourth, the law prohibits retailers and producers from voluntarily providing more meaningful information to consumers, such as using the well-known terms GE and GMO, in violation of their free speech rights.
Finally, the new case amendment covers the prohibition on state seed labeling. Despite not including any seed labeling provisions, the federal law prohibits states from enacting laws that would directly or indirectly require the labeling of genetically engineered seeds. That prohibition unconstitutionally interferes with states’ rights to regulate their own citizens in the absence of federal regulation. States have chosen to label GMO seeds for a variety of reasons, including to protect biodiversity and ensure transparency for their citizens. A number of states, including Vermont and Virginia, have seed labeling laws that cover genetically engineered seeds.
CFS is representing a coalition of food labeling nonprofits and retailers, including the Natural Grocers, operating 157 stores in 20 states, and Puget Consumers Co-op, the nation’s largest community-owned food market.
The 2019 rules implement a 2016 federal law that for the first time required the labeling of GMO foods. Congress passed the federal law after several states (Vermont, Connecticut, Maine) passed GMO labeling laws, with numerous other states poised to do the same. The labeling is required to be implemented by food manufacturers in January 2022.
CFS’s lawsuit seeks to have the court declare the regulations unlawful and nullify them, and then return the issue to USDA with orders to fix the unlawful portions of the rules.
Additional Plaintiff quotes:
“Retailers and shoppers have relied on the term GMO for more than a decade to identify and avoid GMO foods,” said Mark Squire, co-founder of Good Earth Natural Foods, a plaintiff. “Banning the use of this term and replacing it with a term nobody has ever heard of is misleading and will create massive confusion in the marketplace.”
“The National Organic Coalition has weighed in repeatedly with the USDA to urge a meaningful disclosure standard for GMO foods that uses terms that are understandable to consumers and provides on-package labeling, rather than electronic means of disclosure that are inaccessible to millions of Americans. The 2019 regulations put forward by USDA are woefully lacking,” said Abby Youngblood, Executive Director at the National Organic Coalition, a plaintiff.
“At Natural Grocers, we believe in meaningful transparency. This means providing our shoppers with the information they deserve and demand about foods produced with genetic engineering,” said Alan Lewis, Vice President Advocacy & Governmental Affairs of Natural Grocers, a plaintiff. “Our rights and those of our customers are damaged by the USDA’s unlawful bioengineered labeling rule.”
“A disclosure law that exempts 70% of the foods it is supposed to disclose is not a meaningful disclosure law: it is a fraud and allows producers to keep their GMO ingredients secret,” said Tara Cook Littman of Citizens for GMO Labeling, a plaintiff.
“PCC believes that our members and shoppers have a right to transparency about the food they eat, and that retailers and manufacturers have a fundamental 1st Amendment right to provide truthful information to customers. The USDA rules unlawfully restrict that protected speech and do not provide the transparency on GMO foods that consumers deserve,” said Aimee Simpson, Director of Advocacy & Product Sustainability for PCC Community Markets, a plaintiff.


sustainablepulse--2020-10-12--France Clamps Down on Use of Weedkiller Glyphosate in Farming

France ’ s health and environment agency announced restrictions on weedkiller glyphosate in farming , but stopped short of a full ban in the European Union ’ s top agricultural producer due to a lack of non-chemical alternatives in some areas , Reuters reported .
The new rules set out by ANSES on Friday are part of a push by the French government to phase out glyphosate by 2021 and reflect a global debate about the safety of the weedkiller , first developed by Bayer ’ s Monsanto unit under the brand Roundup .
President Emmanuel Macron in 2017 pledged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three years , but his government later said it would take into account whether other solutions existed .
In a decision on the main farming and forestry uses of glyphosate , regulator ANSES said the weedkiller would no longer be used in alleys between vines and fruit trees , or in crop fields that are ploughed .
Glyphosate would still be allowed under vines and trees where mechanical weeding was impractical or costly , and would also be permitted on crop farms that avoid ploughing to preserve soil fertility , ANSES said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of glyphosate authorised per year would be reduced by 60 % for orchards and crop fields , and 80 % for vineyards , it said .
The stricter conditions are to apply within six months for glyphosate products re-approved by ANSES , it added .
ANSES has already withdrawn dozens of glyphosate-based weedkillers and is in the process of reviewing those still on the market .
The time needed for reviews may mean some products do not fall immediately under the new rules but remaining renewals should be completed during 2021 , Marie-Christine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market authorisations told Reuters .
Non-farm professional uses of glyphosate , like maintenance of railway embankments , would stay permitted in the absence of feasible non-chemical alternatives , but such cases represented only 1.5 % of glyphosate use in France , she added .

France’s health and environment agency announced restrictions on weedkiller glyphosate in farming, but stopped short of a full ban in the European Union’s top agricultural producer due to a lack of non-chemical alternatives in some areas, Reuters reported.
The new rules set out by ANSES on Friday are part of a push by the French government to phase out glyphosate by 2021 and reflect a global debate about the safety of the weedkiller, first developed by Bayer’s Monsanto unit under the brand Roundup.
President Emmanuel Macron in 2017 pledged to end glyphosate use in France within three years, but his government later said it would take into account whether other solutions existed.
In a decision on the main farming and forestry uses of glyphosate, regulator ANSES said the weedkiller would no longer be used in alleys between vines and fruit trees, or in crop fields that are ploughed.
Glyphosate would still be allowed under vines and trees where mechanical weeding was impractical or costly, and would also be permitted on crop farms that avoid ploughing to preserve soil fertility, ANSES said in a statement.
Glyphosate Box Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Out Your Long-Term Exposure
But the maximum amount of glyphosate authorised per year would be reduced by 60% for orchards and crop fields, and 80% for vineyards, it said.
The stricter conditions are to apply within six months for glyphosate products re-approved by ANSES, it added.
ANSES has already withdrawn dozens of glyphosate-based weedkillers and is in the process of reviewing those still on the market.
The time needed for reviews may mean some products do not fall immediately under the new rules but remaining renewals should be completed during 2021, Marie-Christine de Guenin, ANSES’ head of market authorisations told Reuters.
Non-farm professional uses of glyphosate, like maintenance of railway embankments, would stay permitted in the absence of feasible non-chemical alternatives, but such cases represented only 1.5% of glyphosate use in France, she added.


sustainablepulse--2020-10-12--Argentina Becomes First Country to Approve GMO Wheat

Argentina has approved HB4 drought-resistant GMO wheat by biotechnology firm Bioceres SA , the company and the government said last Wednesday , making it the first country in the world to approve a strain of GMO wheat , Reuters reported .
No countries have yet given the green light to imports of GMO products and Bioceres said it will only begin marketing HB4 once it is approved for importation by Brazil , the biggest destination for Argentine wheat .
“ Today Argentina is leading technological transformation at an international level , ” the CEO of Bioceres , Federico Trucco , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the country ’ s science and technology ministry .
“ HB4 technology provides seeds that are more tolerant to drought , minimizing production losses , and giving greater predictability to yields , ” the ministry said in the statement .
While other crops such as corn and soybeans have been widely genetically modified ……………… , GMO wheat has not been approved anywhere for commercial production because of consumers ’ concerns .
Wheat is primarily used for human consumption .
“ I will not plant HB4 wheat , and I would not recommend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been approved by importing countries .
It seems risky in the sense that we could end up with crops that no one wants to buy , ” said Francisco Santillan , who manages farms in Cordoba , Santa Fe and Buenos Aires province .
Last year , 45 % of the 11.3 million tonnes of wheat harvested in Argentina was shipped to Brazil .
The head of the Brazilian Wheat Industry Associations , Rubens Barbosa , told Reuters the group was following the situation with interest .
“ We have requested information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the importation of GMO wheat , ” said Gustavo Idigoras , head of Argentina ’ s CIARA CEC grains export industry chamber .
Dave Green , executive vice president of the Wheat Quality Council , a U.S. trade group , said : “ I don ’ t hear anything about GMO wheat efforts here .
None of our export customers want any .
”

Argentina has approved HB4 drought-resistant GMO wheat by biotechnology firm Bioceres SA, the company and the government said last Wednesday, making it the first country in the world to approve a strain of GMO wheat, Reuters reported.
No countries have yet given the green light to imports of GMO products and Bioceres said it will only begin marketing HB4 once it is approved for importation by Brazil, the biggest destination for Argentine wheat.
“Today Argentina is leading technological transformation at an international level,” the CEO of Bioceres, Federico Trucco, said in a statement issued in conjunction with the country’s science and technology ministry.
“HB4 technology provides seeds that are more tolerant to drought, minimizing production losses, and giving greater predictability to yields,” the ministry said in the statement.
While other crops such as corn and soybeans have been widely genetically modified ………………, GMO wheat has not been approved anywhere for commercial production because of consumers’ concerns. Wheat is primarily used for human consumption.
“I will not plant HB4 wheat, and I would not recommend that anyone else does, until it has been approved by importing countries. It seems risky in the sense that we could end up with crops that no one wants to buy,” said Francisco Santillan, who manages farms in Cordoba, Santa Fe and Buenos Aires province.
Last year, 45% of the 11.3 million tonnes of wheat harvested in Argentina was shipped to Brazil. The head of the Brazilian Wheat Industry Associations, Rubens Barbosa, told Reuters the group was following the situation with interest.
“We have requested information from the government because no countries allow the importation of GMO wheat,” said Gustavo Idigoras, head of Argentina’s CIARA CEC grains export industry chamber.
Dave Green, executive vice president of the Wheat Quality Council, a U.S. trade group, said: “I don’t hear anything about GMO wheat efforts here. None of our export customers want any.”


sustainablepulse--2020-10-20--EU Moves Towards a Toxic-Free Future with New Restrictions on Harmful Chemicals

Last week , the European Commission adopted the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability .
The Strategy is the first step towards a zero pollution ambition for a toxic-free environment announced in the European Green Deal .
The EC Strategy will boost innovation for safe and sustainable chemicals , and increase protection of human health and the environment against hazardous chemicals .
This includes prohibiting the use of the most harmful chemicals in consumer products such as toys , childcare articles , cosmetics , detergents , food contact materials and textiles , unless proven essential for society , and ensuring that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustainably .
Chemicals Strategy fully recognises the fundamental role of chemicals for human well-being and for the green and digital transition of European economy and society .
At the same time it acknowledges the urgent need to address the health and environmental challenges caused by the most harmful chemicals .
In this spirit , the Strategy sets out concrete actions to make chemicals safe and sustainable by design and to ensure that chemicals can deliver all their benefits without harming the planet and current and future generations .
This includes ensuring that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the environment are avoided for non-essential societal use , in particular in consumer products and with regard to most vulnerable groups , but also that all chemicals are used more safely and sustainably .
Several innovation and investment actions will be foreseen to accompany the chemicals industry through this transition .
The Strategy also draws the attention of Member States to the possibilities of the Recovery and Resilience Facility to invest in the green and digital transition of EU industries , including in the chemical sector .
Increasing protection of health and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the protection of human health and the environment from harmful chemicals , paying particular attention to vulnerable population groups .
Flagship initiatives include in particular : • Phasing out from consumer products , such as toys , childcare articles , cosmetics , detergents , food contact materials and textiles , the most harmful substances , which include among others endocrine disruptors , chemicals that affect the immune and respiratory systems , and persistent substances such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ( PFAS ) , unless their use is proven essential for society ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presence of substances of concern in all products .
Priority will be given to those product categories that affect vulnerable populations and those with the highest potential for circular economy ; • Addressing the combination effect of chemicals ( cocktail effect ) by taking better account of the risk that is posed to human health and the environment by daily exposure to a wide mix of chemicals from different sources ; • Ensuring that producers and consumers have access to information on chemical content and safe use , by introducing information requirements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Policy Initiative .
Making chemicals safer and more sustainable is a continued necessity as well as a great economic opportunity .
The Strategy aims to capture this opportunity and enable the green transition of the chemicals sector and its value chains .
As far as possible , new chemicals and materials must be safe and sustainable by design i.e .
from production to end of life .
This will help avoid the most harmful effects of chemicals and ensure the lowest possible impact on climate , resource use , ecosystems and biodiversity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a globally competitive player in the production and use of safe and sustainable chemicals .
The actions announced in the Strategy will support industrial innovation so that such chemicals become the norm on the EU market and a benchmark worldwide .
This will be done mainly by : • Developing safe-and-sustainable-by-design criteria and ensuring financial support for the commercialisation and uptake of safe and sustainable chemicals ; • Ensuring the development and uptake of safe and sustainable-by-design substances , materials and products through EU funding and investment instruments and public-private partnerships ; • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both at the borders and in the single market ; • Putting in place an EU research and innovation agenda for chemicals , to fill knowledge gaps on the impact of chemicals , promote innovation and move away from animal testing ; • Simplifying and consolidating the EU legal framework – e.g .
by introducing the ‘ One substance one assessment ’ process , strengthening the principles of ‘ no data , no market ’ and introducing targeted amendments to REACH and sectorial legislation , to name a few .
The Commission will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in particular by leading by example and promoting a coherent approach aiming that hazardous substances that are banned in the EU are not produced for exports .
Executive Vice-President for the European Green Deal Frans Timmermans said : “ The Chemicals Strategy is the first step towards Europe ’ s zero pollution ambition .
Chemicals are part and parcel of our daily life , and they allow us to develop innovative solutions for greening our economy .
But we need to make sure that chemicals are produced and used in a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the environment .
It is especially important to stop using the most harmful chemicals in consumer products , from toys and childcare products to textiles and materials that come in contact with our food ” .
Commissioner for the Environment , Oceans and Fisheries Virginijus Sinkevicius said : “ We owe our well-being and high living standards to the many useful chemicals that people have invented over the past 100 years .
However , we can not close our eyes to the harm that hazardous chemicals pose to our environment and health .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ chemicals in the EU , and with this Strategy we want to build on our achievements and go further to prevent the most dangerous chemicals from entering into the environment and our bodies , and affecting especially the most fragile and vulnerable ones.
” Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Stella Kyriakides said : “ Our health should always come first .
That is exactly what we have ensured in a Commission flagship initiative such as the Chemical Strategy .
Chemicals are essential for our society and they must be safe and sustainably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protected from the harmful chemicals around us .
This Strategy shows our high level of commitment and our determination to protect the health of citizens , across the EU.
” In 2018 , Europe was the second biggest producer of chemicals ( accounting for 16.9 % of sales ) .
Chemical manufacturing is the fourth largest industry in the EU , directly employing approximately 1.2 million people .
59 % of chemicals produced are directly supplied to other sectors , incl .
health , construction , automotive , electronics , and textiles .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 2030 , and the already widespread use of chemicals is likely to also increase , including in consumer products .
The EU has a sophisticated chemicals legislation , which has generated the most advanced knowledge base on chemicals in the world and set up scientific bodies to carry out the risk and hazard assessments of chemicals .
The EU has also managed to reduce the risks to people and the environment for certain hazardous chemicals like carcinogens .
Yet , EU ’ s chemicals policy needs to be further strengthened to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens concerns .
Many chemicals can harm the environment and human health , including future generations .
They can interfere with ecosystems and weaken human resilience and capacity to respond to vaccines .
Human biomonitoring studies in the EU point to a growing number of different hazardous chemicals in human blood and body tissue , including certain pesticides , biocides , pharmaceuticals , heavy metals , plasticisers and flame retardants .
Combined prenatal exposure to several chemicals has led to reduced foetal growth and lower birth rates .
Communication on Chemicals Strategy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Answers on Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability

Last week, the European Commission adopted the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. The Strategy is the first step towards a zero pollution ambition for a toxic-free environment announced in the European Green Deal.
The EC Strategy will boost innovation for safe and sustainable chemicals, and increase protection of human health and the environment against hazardous chemicals. This includes prohibiting the use of the most harmful chemicals in consumer products such as toys, childcare articles, cosmetics, detergents, food contact materials and textiles, unless proven essential for society, and ensuring that all chemicals are used more safely and sustainably.
Test Your Hair for Toxic Chemicals Here – Find Out Your Long Term Exposure.
Chemicals Strategy fully recognises the fundamental role of chemicals for human well-being and for the green and digital transition of European economy and society. At the same time it acknowledges the urgent need to address the health and environmental challenges caused by the most harmful chemicals. In this spirit, the Strategy sets out concrete actions to make chemicals safe and sustainable by design and to ensure that chemicals can deliver all their benefits without harming the planet and current and future generations.
This includes ensuring that the most harmful chemicals for human health and the environment are avoided for non-essential societal use, in particular in consumer products and with regard to most vulnerable groups, but also that all chemicals are used more safely and sustainably. Several innovation and investment actions will be foreseen to accompany the chemicals industry through this transition. The Strategy also draws the attention of Member States to the possibilities of the Recovery and Resilience Facility to invest in the green and digital transition of EU industries, including in the chemical sector.
Increasing protection of health and the environment
The Strategy aims to significantly increase the protection of human health and the environment from harmful chemicals, paying particular attention to vulnerable population groups. Flagship initiatives include in particular:
Phasing out from consumer products, such as toys, childcare articles, cosmetics, detergents, food contact materials and textiles, the most harmful substances, which include among others endocrine disruptors, chemicals that affect the immune and respiratory systems, and persistent substances such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), unless their use is proven essential for society;
Minimising and substituting as far possible the presence of substances of concern in all products. Priority will be given to those product categories that affect vulnerable populations and those with the highest potential for circular economy;
Addressing the combination effect of chemicals (cocktail effect) by taking better account of the risk that is posed to human health and the environment by daily exposure to a wide mix of chemicals from different sources;
Ensuring that producers and consumers have access to information on chemical content and safe use, by introducing information requirements in the context of the Sustainable Product Policy Initiative.
Boosting innovation and promoting EU’s competitiveness
Making chemicals safer and more sustainable is a continued necessity as well as a great economic opportunity. The Strategy aims to capture this opportunity and enable the green transition of the chemicals sector and its value chains. As far as possible, new chemicals and materials must be safe and sustainable by design i.e. from production to end of life. This will help avoid the most harmful effects of chemicals and ensure the lowest possible impact on climate, resource use, ecosystems and biodiversity. The Strategy envisages the EU industry as a globally competitive player in the production and use of safe and sustainable chemicals. The actions announced in the Strategy will support industrial innovation so that such chemicals become the norm on the EU market and a benchmark worldwide. This will be done mainly by:
Developing safe-and-sustainable-by-design criteria and ensuring financial support for the commercialisation and uptake of safe and sustainable chemicals;
Ensuring the development and uptake of safe and sustainable-by-design substances, materials and products through EU funding and investment instruments and public-private partnerships;
Considerably stepping up enforcement of EU rules both at the borders and in the single market;
Putting in place an EU research and innovation agenda for chemicals, to fill knowledge gaps on the impact of chemicals, promote innovation and move away from animal testing;
Simplifying and consolidating the EU legal framework – e.g. by introducing the ‘One substance one assessment’ process, strengthening the principles of ‘no data, no market’ and introducing targeted amendments to REACH and sectorial legislation, to name a few.
The Commission will also promote safety and sustainability standards globally, in particular by leading by example and promoting a coherent approach aiming that hazardous substances that are banned in the EU are not produced for exports.
Executive Vice-President for the European Green Deal Frans Timmermans said: “The Chemicals Strategy is the first step towards Europe’s zero pollution ambition. Chemicals are part and parcel of our daily life, and they allow us to develop innovative solutions for greening our economy. But we need to make sure that chemicals are produced and used in a way that does not hurt human health and the environment. It is especially important to stop using the most harmful chemicals in consumer products, from toys and childcare products to textiles and materials that come in contact with our food”.
Commissioner for the Environment, Oceans and Fisheries Virginijus Sinkevicius said: “We owe our well-being and high living standards to the many useful chemicals that people have invented over the past 100 years. However, we cannot close our eyes to the harm that hazardous chemicals pose to our environment and health. We have come a long way regulating chemicals in the EU, and with this Strategy we want to build on our achievements and go further to prevent the most dangerous chemicals from entering into the environment and our bodies, and affecting especially the most fragile and vulnerable ones.”
Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Stella Kyriakides said: “Our health should always come first. That is exactly what we have ensured in a Commission flagship initiative such as the Chemical Strategy. Chemicals are essential for our society and they must be safe and sustainably produced. But we need to be protected from the harmful chemicals around us. This Strategy shows our high level of commitment and our determination to protect the health of citizens, across the EU.”
Background
In 2018, Europe was the second biggest producer of chemicals (accounting for 16.9% of sales). Chemical manufacturing is the fourth largest industry in the EU, directly employing approximately 1.2 million people. 59% of chemicals produced are directly supplied to other sectors, incl. health, construction, automotive, electronics, and textiles. Global chemicals production is expected to double by 2030, and the already widespread use of chemicals is likely to also increase, including in consumer products.
The EU has a sophisticated chemicals legislation, which has generated the most advanced knowledge base on chemicals in the world and set up scientific bodies to carry out the risk and hazard assessments of chemicals. The EU has also managed to reduce the risks to people and the environment for certain hazardous chemicals like carcinogens.
Yet, EU’s chemicals policy needs to be further strengthened to take into account the latest scientific knowledge and citizens concerns. Many chemicals can harm the environment and human health, including future generations. They can interfere with ecosystems and weaken human resilience and capacity to respond to vaccines. Human biomonitoring studies in the EU point to a growing number of different hazardous chemicals in human blood and body tissue, including certain pesticides, biocides, pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, plasticisers and flame retardants. Combined prenatal exposure to several chemicals has led to reduced foetal growth and lower birth rates.
For more information
Communication on Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability: Towards a toxic-fee environment
Questions and Answers on Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability
Factsheet on Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability


sustainablepulse--2020-10-22--Toxic Levels of Heavy Metals and PAHs Discovered in Some Alternatives to Glyphosate-Based Weedkiller

Toxic Levels of Heavy Metals and PAHs Discovered in Some Alternatives to Glyphosate-Based Weedkillers

A group of researchers from France , led by Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini , have identified toxic levels of undeclared ingredients such as heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in some new alternatives to glyphosate-based herbicides , which have been entered on to the European market since restrictions were put on glyphosate in certain European Union countries .
This new research follows a study by the same group of researchers in 2018 , which identified petroleum residues and heavy metals in glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup .
According to the researchers their undeclared presence can explain carcinogenic effects in humans but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kidney diseases .
Prof. Seralini ’ s team recently analysed 14 formulations of some of the new alternative chemical herbicides using gold standard mass spectrometry .
Heavy metals were detected at toxic levels of up to 39 mg/L , including iron , lead , nickel , silicium , titanium and arsenic .
Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were also detected , at levels up to 32–2430 μg/L in 12 of the herbicides studied .
Sustainable Pulse Director , Henry Rowlands , stated ; “ These results show that the difference between “ active ingredient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a regulatory assertion with no demonstrated toxicological basis and thus an immediate ban on both these specific new alternative herbicides and glyphosate-based herbicides is required.
” “ There are most likely some alternative chemical herbicides that do not contain such toxic ingredients , however it is vital that the companies that manufacture them are transparent on all the ingredients they contain , both active and inert , ” Rowlands continued .
The Detox Project has recently proposed a transition to new technology , that does not involve toxic chemicals for weed control , @ @ @ @

A group of researchers from France, led by Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini, have identified toxic levels of undeclared ingredients such as heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in some new alternatives to glyphosate-based herbicides, which have been entered on to the European market since restrictions were put on glyphosate in certain European Union countries.
This new research follows a study by the same group of researchers in 2018, which identified petroleum residues and heavy metals in glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup. According to the researchers their undeclared presence can explain carcinogenic effects in humans but also mammalian tumours and lethal liver and kidney diseases.
Prof. Seralini’s team recently analysed 14 formulations of some of the new alternative chemical herbicides using gold standard mass spectrometry. Heavy metals were detected at toxic levels of up to 39 mg/L, including iron, lead, nickel, silicium, titanium and arsenic. Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were also detected, at levels up to 32–2430 μg/L in 12 of the herbicides studied.
Sustainable Pulse Director, Henry Rowlands, stated; “These results show that the difference between “active ingredient” and “inert compound” is a regulatory assertion with no demonstrated toxicological basis and thus an immediate ban on both these specific new alternative herbicides and glyphosate-based herbicides is required.”
“There are most likely some alternative chemical herbicides that do not contain such toxic ingredients, however it is vital that the companies that manufacture them are transparent on all the ingredients they contain, both active and inert,” Rowlands continued.
The Detox Project has recently proposed a transition to new technology , that does not involve toxic chemicals for weed control, including electric weeding.


sustainablepulse--2020-10-22--RIP Percy Schmeiser – A Hero of the Fight against GMOs

Percy Schmeiser , a hero of the fight against GMOs globally , passed away at the age of 89 , on October 13 , 2020 .
He will be remembered forever as a man who never backed down !
The large seed and biotechnology company Monsanto took Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser to court alleging infringement of the company ’ s patent rights over its genetically engineered ( genetically modified or GM ) Roundup Ready glyphosate-tolerant canola .
Monsanto ’ s GM canola was found in Schmeiser ’ s field but he had never paid for the right to grow it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ onto his field in the wind .
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada which , in a 5-4 decision ( 2004 ) , ruled that Percy was guilty of having Monsanto ’ s patented genetic sequence in canola on his land , and of not having advised Monsanto to come and remove the GM plants .
The court held that Monsanto had the right to their patented genetic material , even though the company could not prove how it got onto the farm .
In this case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the question of liability for accidental contamination .
The case did , however , confirm that the patent over a genetic sequence applies to the whole organism that hosts it .
Read “ The Implications of the Percy Schmeiser Decision ” by E. Ann Clark .
In 2007 , Percy and his wife Louise were awarded the Right to Livelihood award “ for their courage in defending biodiversity and farmers ’ rights , and challenging the environmental and moral perversity of current interpretations of patent laws.
” The story of Percy ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 feature film “ Percy ” , starring Christopher Walken as Percy , released in theatres just days before his death .
You can also watch this short 2005 Canadian documentary that includes footage of Percy ’ s reaction to the Supreme Court ruling and explanations of the case ( beginning at 9 minutes in ) .
In his own words : Percy Schmeiser claims moral and personal victory in Supreme Court Decision by Percy Schmeiser , 22 May 2004 The Supreme Court handed down their decision yesterday and I have mixed emotions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone calls and emails from concerned supporters and friends and I appreciate this very much .
It was a personal victory and I want to thank my lawyer Terry Zakreski for his dedication and perseverance on my behalf .
On the broader issues of my case , I regret that things did not work out for my supporters .
I do not have to pay Monsanto one cent for profits , damages , penalties , court costs or their technology use fee of $ 15/acre .
I feel good about this ruling , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I didn ’ t take advantage or profit from Monsanto ’ s technology in my fields .
I am pleased that the Supreme Court felt that way as well .
It has been my position that I didn ’ t want their technology in my fields , that I didn ’ t use their technology by spraying , didn ’ t sell their technology as seed to another farmer and didn ’ t earn any profit from it .
I felt it hard to accept that I should have to pay them for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a hard time in pursuing patent infringement against other farmers .
They are now going to have to prove that a farmer profited from having RR canola in their field .
The Court noted that my profits were the same whether I had conventional canola or RR canola , so I find it hard to see how Monsanto can say in any future case that the farmer made more money because of their product .
This decision may have removed the “ teeth ” from their patent .
I also believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the road .
The Court determined that they have ownership to the plant and that I infringed by having it in my field .
With ownership comes responsibility and I assume more lawsuits will be filed against them for the contamination of farmer ’ s fields .
I was always concerned about this lack of responsibility that Monsanto took for the unconfined release of RR canola in western Canada .
I think the Court ’ s decision will force them to be held accountable for it now .
On the bigger issue of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Court ruled that it is , and we have to accept that judgment .
For this to be changed our Parliament will have to act .
We have a conflict between plants breeder ’ s rights and patent law and the government will have to sort that out .
All I did was save my seed from year to year .
Now it is clear that a company ’ s patent will take precedence over the rights of farmer ’ s to save and reuse their seed .
Farmer ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they now may lose their ability to continue with this practice .
I believe that this ruling is an injustice and Parliament must act to ensure that farmer ’ s rights are protected .
The playing field between farmer ’ s rights and the bio-tech companies rights has been tilted towards the companies with this decision .
I have always campaign on the right of a farmer to save and re-use his own seed .
This is what I have been doing for the last 50 years .
I will continue to support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a farmer to save and re-use his own seed .

Percy Schmeiser, a hero of the fight against GMOs globally, passed away at the age of 89, on October 13, 2020. He will be remembered forever as a man who never backed down!
Percy’s Story
The large seed and biotechnology company Monsanto took Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser to court alleging infringement of the company’s patent rights over its genetically engineered (genetically modified or GM) Roundup Ready glyphosate-tolerant canola.
Monsanto’s GM canola was found in Schmeiser’s field but he had never paid for the right to grow it, and he said the seeds blew onto his field in the wind. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada which, in a 5-4 decision (2004), ruled that Percy was guilty of having Monsanto’s patented genetic sequence in canola on his land, and of not having advised Monsanto to come and remove the GM plants. The court held that Monsanto had the right to their patented genetic material, even though the company could not prove how it got onto the farm. In this case, the courts were not ruling on the question of liability for accidental contamination. The case did, however, confirm that the patent over a genetic sequence applies to the whole organism that hosts it. Read “The Implications of the Percy Schmeiser Decision” by E. Ann Clark.
In 2007, Percy and his wife Louise were awarded the Right to Livelihood award “for their courage in defending biodiversity and farmers’ rights, and challenging the environmental and moral perversity of current interpretations of patent laws.”
The story of Percy’s fight with Monsanto is fictionalized in the 2020 feature film “Percy”, starring Christopher Walken as Percy, released in theatres just days before his death.
You can also watch this short 2005 Canadian documentary that includes footage of Percy’s reaction to the Supreme Court ruling and explanations of the case (beginning at 9 minutes in).
“The work will continue against these corporations. You cannot fight a battle alone.” – Percy Schmeiser, 2005
“I never met a man like him that could face the challenges that he did and withstand it and still … be the jovial person that he was. It is an inspiration about Percy, not just standing up for oneself, but to meet our burdens and challenges with enthusiasm.” – Terry Zakreski, Percy’s longtime lawyer, from the CBC story about Percy Schmeiser, October 14, 2020.
In his own words:
Percy Schmeiser claims moral and personal victory in Supreme Court Decision
by Percy Schmeiser, 22 May 2004
The Supreme Court handed down their decision yesterday and I have mixed emotions to it. I have received many phone calls and emails from concerned supporters and friends and I appreciate this very much. It was a personal victory and I want to thank my lawyer Terry Zakreski for his dedication and perseverance on my behalf. On the broader issues of my case, I regret that things did not work out for my supporters.
I do not have to pay Monsanto one cent for profits, damages, penalties, court costs or their technology use fee of $15/acre. I feel good about this ruling, as I have said all along that I didn’t take advantage or profit from Monsanto’s technology in my fields. I am pleased that the Supreme Court felt that way as well. It has been my position that I didn’t want their technology in my fields, that I didn’t use their technology by spraying, didn’t sell their technology as seed to another farmer and didn’t earn any profit from it. I felt it hard to accept that I should have to pay them for it.
I believe that Monsanto will have a hard time in pursuing patent infringement against other farmers. They are now going to have to prove that a farmer profited from having RR canola in their field. The Court noted that my profits were the same whether I had conventional canola or RR canola, so I find it hard to see how Monsanto can say in any future case that the farmer made more money because of their product. This decision may have removed the “teeth” from their patent.
I also believe that Monsanto will face huge liability issues down the road. The Court determined that they have ownership to the plant and that I infringed by having it in my field. With ownership comes responsibility and I assume more lawsuits will be filed against them for the contamination of farmer’s fields. I was always concerned about this lack of responsibility that Monsanto took for the unconfined release of RR canola in western Canada. I think the Court’s decision will force them to be held accountable for it now.
On the bigger issue of whether or not their patent was valid, the Court ruled that it is, and we have to accept that judgment. For this to be changed our Parliament will have to act. We have a conflict between plants breeder’s rights and patent law and the government will have to sort that out. All I did was save my seed from year to year. Now it is clear that a company’s patent will take precedence over the rights of farmer’s to save and reuse their seed.
Farmer’s should be concerned about this judgment as they now may lose their ability to continue with this practice. I believe that this ruling is an injustice and Parliament must act to ensure that farmer’s rights are protected. The playing field between farmer’s rights and the bio-tech companies rights has been tilted towards the companies with this decision.
I have always campaigned on the right of a farmer to save and re-use his own seed. This is what I have been doing for the last 50 years. I will continue to support any efforts to strengthen the rights of a farmer to save and re-use his own seed.