****What’s Up on for Michigan Organic Farmers and Company
Week of June 5-9,06*****
***TELL USDA THAT
ORGANIC ANIMALS MUST GRAZE ON PASTURE
COMMENTS DUE JUNE 12, 2006
***Genetically Engineered Crops May
Produce Herbicide Inside Our Intestines
*** THOUSANDS OF
************************************************************************
TELL USDA THAT ORGANIC
ANIMALS
MUST GRAZE ON PASTURE
COMMENTS DUE JUNE 12, 2006
USDA/NOP IS ASKING FOR COMMENTS ON "the relationship between
ruminant animals, particularly dairy animals, and pasture," in an Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (see ANPR at: http://www.agmatters.net/Organic/Pasture_ANPR.pdf)
Since June 2000, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has made recommendations
to the USDA to clarify the pasture requirements (see Recommendations at: http://www.agmatters.net/Organic/NOSBCmte_Pasture_11_17_05_draft.doc
.) Yet, the Department has not responded with clear pasture standards, and it
is increasingly clear that feedlot factory farms with zero to minimal pasture
are being certified organic.
TELL USDA/NOP THAT ORGANIC ANIMALS ARE
PASTURED ANIMALS. THE STANDARDS MUST BE CLEAR:
Years of discussion among organic dairy producers countrywide led to the
following widely supported position:
** To make quick comments, request
the bulleted points in italics, above.
** To make more detailed comments, request the specific change in regulatory
language below.
** If you're really energized, answer the questions in the ANPR (link to ANPR
again). See answers from the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers
Thanks for your Voice!
COMMENTS DUE JUNE 12, 2006
TO COMMENT: Identify all comments with the Docket Number: TM-05-14
Email: [log in to unmask]
Internet Direct: www.regulations.gov
Internet with sample comments (that you can customize):
www.centerforfoodsafety.org (
http://ga3.org/campaign/pasture);
www.consumersunion.org
(
https://secure.npsite.org/cu/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserActi
on&id21 )
Fax: 202-205-7808
Mail: Mark A. Bradley, Assoc. Deputy Administrator
Transportation and Marketing Programs
National Organic Program
Room 4008- So. Ag Stop 0268
ASK FOR THE FOLLOWING AS REVISED RULE LANGUAGE:
§ 205.237 Livestock feed.
(b) The producer of an organic operation must not:
(7) Prevent dairy animals from grazing pasture during lactation, except as
allowed under §205.239(b).
(c) Ruminant livestock must graze pasture for the growing season but not
less than 120 days per year. The grazed pasture must provide a significant
portion of the total feed requirements but not less than 30% of the dry matter
intake on an average daily basis during the growing season.
§ 205.239 Livestock living conditions.
(a) The producer of an organic livestock operation must establish and maintain
livestock living conditions which accommodate the health and natural behavior
of animals, including:
(1) Access to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, and
direct sunlight suitable to the species, its stage of production life,
the climate, and the environment;
(2) Access to pasture for ruminants, as required in 205.237(c).
(b) The producer of an organic livestock operation may provide temporary
confinement for an animal because of:
(2) The animal's stage of production life; for ruminants this
includes only:
(i) birthing;
(ii) dairy animals up to 6 months of age; or
(iii) beef animals during a final finishing stage not to exceed 90 days.
***************************************************
Liana Hoodes
National Campaign
for Sustainable Agriculture
3540 Route 52
Pine
Phone and Fax: 845-744-2304
http://www.sustainableagriculture.net
[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
The following is an article written by Dr. Chris DiFonzo,
Soybean aphid suction
trap network for vegetable and field crop growers
Why should vegetable growers care about this network? In previous years, large
numbers of soybean aphids taking flight from soybean fields in late July and
early August are thought to have spread viruses to a variety of vegetable crops
(including vine crops, snap beans and peppers). Soybean aphids, like other
aphid species, find new fields by flying, landing and “tasting”
plants with their mouthparts and then flying on if the plant is not to their
liking. During this “tasting” behavior, plant viruses are both acquired
and spread. The “tasting” (and consequent virus spread) occurs so
quickly that insecticides have no impact on virus transmission. But, by being
aware of the timing and size of the aphid flight in late July and August,
growers can avoid planting virus susceptible varieties when aphid flight is
high. The web site given in the article (http://www.ncipmc.org/traps/) shows
up-to-date aphid trap catch numbers for the (soon to be) five locations in
Northcentral Regional Aphid Suction Trap Network was turned on last week in at
least eight states. As in 2005,
The traps suck in migrating insects, including winged aphids, flying over 20
feet above the ground. The insects end up in a jar of antifreeze just above the
fan in the base of the trap. Sample bottles are changed weekly, and mailed to
the
How can you use the suction trap data?
In early to mid-July, increasing flight tells you that winged soybean aphids
are being produced in early-infested fields and are now dispersing across the
landscape. These infested fields could be local, in another part of the state
or even in a neighboring state. This means that previously uninfested,
low-infested fields or seed-treated fields may get an influx of landing aphids
that leave babies behind. This is how fields in areas that lack buckthorn (for
example, many locations in southwest
Later in the season, in late July and early August, increases in flight often
time with peak infestations in soybean fields. For example, last season (see
the 2005 data at http://www.ncipmc.org/traps),
tremendous numbers of soybean aphid were trapped in early to mid-August, when
aphid populations peaked in nearby fields. Such heavy aphid flights increase
the risk of reinfestation in previously-sprayed fields we certainly experienced
that frustrating situation in 2005.
In the last four years, heavy aphid flights in late July to early August
coincided with virus infection in vegetable crops in
At the end of the season, the suction traps play their most important role,
potentially predicting next year’s soybean population. Suction traps
catch the winged males and females that leave soybean and go back to buckthorn,
where soybean aphid overwinters.
In
Joy Neumann Landis
Assistant IPM Coordinator and Communications Manager
Michigan State University Integrated Pest Management Program
B18 National Food Safety & Toxicology Bldg, East Lansing, MI 48824
Voice: (517) 353-4951 Fax: (517) 353-4995
Web: http://www.ipm.msu.edu
www.msue.msu.edu/macomb
586.469.6440
586.469.6948 fax
[log in to unmask]
*******************************************************************
Genetically
Engineered Crops May Produce Herbicide Inside Our Intestines
·
By Jeffrey M. Smith
Spilling the Beans/Institute for Responsible Technology
Straight
to the Source
By Jeffrey M. Smith
Spilling the Beans/Institute for Responsible Technology,
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMFree/EducationalMaterials/SignUpforNewsletter/index.cfm
Pioneer
Hi-Bred's website boasts that their genetically modified (GM) Liberty Link corn
survives doses of
Herbicide tolerance (HT) is one of two basic traits common to nearly all GM
crops. About 71% of the crops are engineered to resist herbicide, including
There are no required safety tests for HT crops in the
The problem is that the NAG, which is not naturally present in plants, remains
there and accumulates with every subsequent spray. Thus, when we eat these GM
crops, we consume NAG. Once the NAG is inside our digestive system, some of it
may be re-transformed back into the toxic herbicide. In rats fed NAG, for
example, 10% of it was converted back to glufosinate by the time it was
excreted in the feces. Another rat study found a 1% conversion. And with goats,
more than one-third of what was excreted had turned into glufosinate.
It is believed that gut bacteria, primarily found in the colon or rectum, are
responsible for this re-toxification. Although these parts of the gut do not
absorb as many nutrients as other sections, rats fed NAG did show toxic
effects. This indicates that the herbicide had been regenerated, was
biologically active, and had been assimilated by the rats. A goat study also
confirmed that some of the herbicide regenerated from NAG ended up in the kidneys,
liver, muscle, fat and milk.
More information about the impact of this conversion is presumably found in
"Toxicology and Metabolism Studies" on NAG, submitted to European
regulators by AgrEvo (now Bayer CropScience). These unpublished studies were
part of the application seeking approval of herbicide-tolerant canola. When the
Toxicity of the herbicide
Glufosinate ammonium is structurally similar to a natural amino acid called
glutamic acid, which can stimulate the central nervous system and, in excess
levels, cause the death of nerve cells in the brain. The common reactions to
glufosinate poisoning in humans include unconsciousness, respiratory distress
and convulsions. One study also linked the herbicide with a kidney disorder.
These reactions typically involve large amounts of the herbicide. It is unclear
if the amount converted from GM crops would accumulate to promote such
responses or if there are low dose chronic effects.
Perhaps a more critical question may be whether infants or fetuses are impacted
with smaller doses. A January 2006 report issued by the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Inspector General said that studies
demonstrate that certain pesticides easily enter the brain of young children
and fetuses, and can destroy cells. That same report, however, stated that the
EPA lacks standard evaluation protocols for measuring the toxicity of
pesticides on developing nervous systems. Scientists at the agency also charged
that "risk assessments cannot state with confidence the degree to which
any exposure of a fetus, infant or child to a pesticide will or will not
adversely affect their neurological development." Furthermore, three trade
unions representing 9,000 EPA workers claimed that the evaluation techniques
used at the agency were highly politicized. According to a May 24, 2006 letter
to the EPA's administrator, the unions cited "political pressure exerted
by Agency officials perceived to be too closely aligned with the pesticide
industry and former EPA officials now representing the pesticide and agricultural
community."
Although the EPA may be hampered in its evaluations, research has nonetheless
accumulated which suggests that glufosinate carries significant risks for the
next generation. According to Yoichiro Kuroda, the principal investigator in
the Japanese project entitled "Effects of Endocrine Disrupters on the
Developing Brain," glufosinate is like a "mock
neurotransmitter." Exposure of a baby or embryo can affect behavior,
because the chemical disturbs gene functions that regulate brain development.
When mouse embryos were exposed to glufosinate, it resulted in growth
retardation, increased death rates, incomplete development of the forebrain and
cleft lips, as well as cell death in part of the brain. After pregnant rats
were injected with glufosinate, the number of glutamate receptors in the brains
of the offspring appeared to be reduced. When infant rats were exposed to low
doses of glufosinate, some of their brain receptors appeared to change as well.
Glufosinate herbicide might also influence behavior. According to Kuroda,
"female rats born from mothers that were given high doses of glufosinate
became aggressive and started to bite each other-in some cases until one
died." He added, "That report sent a chill through me."
Disturbing gut bacteria
If the herbicide is regenerated inside our gut, since it is an antibiotic, it
will likely kill gut bacteria. Gut microorganisms are crucial for health. They
not only provide essential metabolites like certain vitamins and short fatty
acids, but also help the break down and absorption of food and protect against
pathogens. Disrupting the balance of gut bacteria can cause a wide range of
problems. According to molecular geneticist Ricarda Steinbrecher, "the
data obtained strongly suggest that the balance of gut bacteria will be
affected" by the conversion of NAG to glufosinate.
When eating Liberty Link corn, we not only consume NAG, but also the pat and
bar genes with their pat and bar proteins. It is possible that when NAG is
converted to herbicide in our gut, the pat protein, for example, might
reconvert some of the herbicide back to NAG. This might lower concentrations of
glufosinate inside of our gut. On the other hand, some microorganisms may be
able to convert in both directions, from glufosinate to NAG and also back
again. If the pat protein can do this, that is, if it can transform NAG to
herbicide, than the presence of the pat protein inside our gut might regenerate
more herbicide from the ingested NAG. Since there are no public studies on
this, we do not know if consuming the pat gene or bar genes will make the
situation better or worse.
But one study on the pat gene raises all sorts of red flags. German scientist
Hans-Heinrich Kaatz demonstrated that the pat gene can transfer into the DNA of
gut bacteria. He found his evidence in young bees that had been fed pollen from
glufosinate-tolerant canola plants. The pat gene transferred into the bacteria
and yeast inside the bees' intestines. Kaatz said, "This happened rarely,
but it did happen." Although no studies have looked at whether pat genes
end up in human gut bacteria, the only human GM-feeding study ever conducted
did show that genetic material can transfer to our gut bacteria. This study,
published in 2004, confirmed that portions of the Roundup-tolerant gene in
soybeans transferred to microorganisms within the human digestive tract.
Since the pat gene can transfer to gut bacteria in bees, and since genetic
material from another GM crop can transfer to human gut bacteria, it is likely
that the pat gene can also transfer from Liberty Link corn or soybeans to our
intestinal flora. If so, a key question is whether the presence of the pat gene
confers some sort of survival advantage to the bacteria. If so, "selection
pressure" would favor its long term proliferation in the gut.
Because the pat protein can protect bacteria from being killed by glufosinate,
gut bacteria that take up the gene appears to have a significant survival
advantage. Thus, the gene may spread from bacteria to bacteria, and might stick
around inside us for the long-term. With more pat genes, more and more pat
protein is created. The effects of long-term exposure to this protein have not
been evaluated.
Now suppose that the pat protein can also re-toxify NAG back into active
herbicide, as discussed above. A dangerous feedback loop may be created: We eat
Liberty Link corn or soy. Our gut bacteria, plus the pat protein, turns NAG
into herbicide. With more herbicide, more bacteria are killed. This increases
the survival advantage for bacteria that contain the pat gene. As a
consequence, more bacteria end up with the gene. Then, more pat protein is
produced, which converts more NAG into herbicide, which threatens more
bacteria, which creates more selection pressure, and so on. Since studies have
not been done to see if such a cycle is occurring, we can only speculate.
Endocrine disruption at extremely low doses
Another potential danger from the glufosinate-tolerant crops is the potential
for endocrine disruption. Recent studies reveal that endocrine-disrupting
chemicals (EDCs) can have significant hormonal effects at doses far below those
previously thought to be significant. The disruptive effects are often found
only at minute levels, which are measured in parts per trillion or in the low
parts per billion. This is seen, for example, in the way estrogen works in
women. When the brain encounters a mere 3 parts per trillion, it shuts down
production of key hormones. When estrogen concentration reaches 10 parts per
trillion, however, there is a hormone surge, followed by ovulation.
Unfortunately, the regulation and testing of agricultural chemicals, including
herbicides, has lagged behind these findings of extremely low dose effects. The
determination of legally acceptable levels of herbicide residues on food was
based on a linear model, where the effect of toxic chemicals was thought to be
consistent and proportional with its dosage. But as the paper 'Large Effects
from Small Exposures' shows, this model underestimates biological effects of
EDCs by as much as 10,000 fold.
In anticipation of their (not-yet-commercialized) Liberty Link rice, Bayer
CropScience successfully petitioned the EPA in 2003 to approve maximum
threshold levels of glufosinate ammonium on rice. During the comment period
preceding approval, a Sierra Club submittal stated the following.
"We find EPA's statements on the potential of glufosinate to function as
an endocrine-disrupting substance in humans and animals as not founded on
logical information or peer-reviewed studies. In fact EPA states that no
special studies have been conducted to investigate the potential of glufosinate
ammonium to induce estrogenic or other endocrine effects. . . . We feel it's
totally premature for EPA at this time to dismiss all concerns about glufosinate
as an endocrine-disrupting substance. . . . Due to the millions of Americans
and their children exposed to glufosinate and its metabolites, EPA needs to
conclusively determine if this herbicide has endocrine-disrupting
potential."
The EPA's response was that "glufosinate ammonium may be subjected to
additional screening and/or testing to better characterize effects related to
endocrine disruption" but this will only take place after these protocols
are developed. In the mean time, the agency approved glufosinate ammonium
residues on rice at 1 part per million.
Since glufosinate ammonium might have endocrine disrupting properties, even
small conversions of NAG to herbicide may carry significant health risks for
ourselves and our children.
The EPA's response was that "glufosinate ammonium may be subjected to
additional screening and/or testing to better characterize effects related to
endocrine disruption" but this will only take place after these
protocols are developed. In the mean time, the agency approved glufosinate
ammonium residues on rice at 1 part per million.
Since glufosinate ammonium might have endocrine disrupting properties, even
small conversions of NAG to herbicide may carry significant health risks for
ourselves and our children.
Inadequate animal feeding studies
If we look to animal feeding studies to find out if Liberty Link corn creates
health effects, we encounter what independent observers have expressed for
years-frustration. Industry-sponsored safety studies, which are rarely published
and often kept secret, are often described as designed to avoid finding
problems.
If we look to animal feeding studies to find out if Liberty Link corn creates
health effects, we encounter what independent observers have expressed for
years- frustration. Industry-sponsored safety studies, which are rarely
published and often kept secret, are often described as designed to avoid
finding problems.
In a 42-day feeding study on chickens, for example, 10 chickens (7%) fed
Liberty Link corn died compared to 5 chickens eating natural corn. Even
with the death rate doubled, "because the experimental design was so
flawed," said bio-physicist Mae-Wan Ho, "statistical analysis failed
to detect a significant difference between the two groups."
Similarly, although the GM-fed group gained less weight, the study failed to
recognize that as significant. According to testimony by two experts in chicken
feeding studies, the Liberty Link corn study wouldn't identify something as
significant unless there had been "huge" changes. The experts said,
"It may be worth noting, in passing, that if one were seeking to show no
effect, one of the best methods to do this is would be to use insufficient
replication, a small n," which is exactly the case in the chicken study.
Without adequate tests and with a rubber stamp approval process, GM crops like
Liberty Link corn may already be creating significant hard-to-detect health
problems. In Europe,
Jeffrey Smith is the author of the international bestseller, 'Seeds of
Deception.' The information in this article presents some of the numerous
health risks of GM foods that will be presented in his forthcoming book,
'Genetic Roulette: The documented health risks of genetically engineered
foods,' due out in the fall.
Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at www.responsibletechnology.org.
Organic Vegetable and Crop Outreach
Specialist
C.S. Mott Sustainable Food Systems
303 Natural Resources Bldg.
517-353-3542
517-282-3557 (cell)
517-353-3834 (fax)
[log in to unmask]" align=left hspace=12 v:shapes="_x0000_s1026">
[log in to unmask]"
align=bottom>