There have been an unusual number of decisions and statements made over the last few weeks that frame genetically modified crops in a negative light. The State of California recently announced plans to list glyphosate, the major ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, as carcinogenic which would require businesses to post specific warnings about glyphosate’s dangers. Scotland, under the relatively new EU rule that allows its members to opt out of growing GMOs, has decided to do just that, followed by Germany, Latvia and Greece. France is also considering a ban. The New York Times published an article on Sept. 5 suggesting that Monsanto and other Big Ag companies have been deliberately buying scientific approval in order to sway public opinion, which some are comparing to the tobacco industry’s campaign of using medical doctors to promote smoking. And finally, The New England Journal of Medicine published an op ed calling for the FDA to label GMOs as well as for that agency to demand more thorough research. These decisions and statements are the most public attempts to slow down and/or stop the global encroachment of GMOs and the pesticides they depend upon.
California, as the top agricultural producing state, surely will be able to influence public opinion by its recent decision to list glyphosate as dangerous. The Cal/EPA’s California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has determined that under California’s Proposition 65, glyphosate must be listed with other chemicals “known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm.” California came to this conclusion after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization, declared glyphosate to be ‘probably carcinogenic to humans.’ According to Dr. Nathan Donley, a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, based in Tucson, Arizona, “this is the first regulatory agency in the country to determine that glyphosate is a carcinogen. So this is a very big deal.”
A less flashy stance has been taken by Germany, Scotland, Latvia and Greece to ban GMOs. As previously stated, a new EU law approved in March, which among other things allows individual countries the right to opt out of producing genetically modified crops , even if those crops have been approved by the EU. That so many are moving to do so now is directly related to the new law’s condition that any countries wishing to eschew GMOs must inform the European Commission by October 3, 2015. Up until this new law was passed, individual states within a country’s border could decide to ban GMOs or not. At least in the case of Germany, five state governments pressured the national government to ban GMOs altogether across the country so as not to divide public opinion. Most of the European countries operate in this fashion. Italy, for example, contains four regions that have banned GMOs, as well as a variety of provinces, cities and communes. Three provinces in Spain outlaw GMOs. And in Britain, which approves the production of GMOs, the Church of England has refused to allow genetically engineered crop trials on its 60,000 hectares of land. It’s obvious that the EU has been under pressure to create a uniformity of policy, and it would appear that many EU countries will decide to ban GMOs across the board.
With such pressure growing world wide to ban GMOs, it’s not surprising that Monsanto, et.al, would use every weapon in their arsenal to maintain their profit levels. The September 5 article published in The New York Times released information of how the biotech industry is pushing a PR campaign to promote their products by enlisting allegedly independent public university scientists to lobby state legislators to interfere with whatever initiatives various states are proposing to combat GMOs. According to the article’s investigative reporter, Eric Lipton, Monsanto and their “industry partners retooled their lobbying and public relations strategy to spotlight a rarefied group of advocates: academics, brought in for the gloss of impartiality and weight of authority that come with a professor’s pedigree.” Many of the professors cited in the article protested that they believe in the promotion of GMOs, but it’s difficult to imagine that when you work in cash strapped public universities and receive hundreds of thousands of dollars for research in other areas that you could remain “independent.”
Most surprisingly, however, was the article published on August 26 in the conservative New England Journal of Medicine. While certainly not calling for a ban on GMOs, the Journal most decidedly called for a more stringent examination of the continuing expansion of GMOs. The article notes that “the application of biotechnology to agriculture has been rapid and aggressive.” And the article shows concern about “two recent developments [that] are dramatically changing the GMO landscape. First, there have been sharp increases in the amounts of numbers of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops, and still further increases – the largest in a generation – are scheduled to occur in the next few years. Second, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate, the herbicide most widely used on GM crops, as a ‘probable human carcinogen and classified a second herbicide,…2,4-D, as a ‘possible human carcinogen.” The article also calls for labeling. Their most potent argument, however, was when they said, “and the argument that there is nothing new about genetic rearrangement misses the point that GM crops are now the agriculture products most heavily treated with herbicides and that two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer.”
There has been growing global protest concerning the effects of GMOs, and particularly the effects of ever increasing amounts of toxic chemicals on human health. With the more overt and public declarations from countries, states, regions and respected journals, perhaps the movement will gain momentum and continue apace until we come to our senses and invest our agricultural lands with sustainable means of food production.
Recipe of the Week
Years ago, when I owned a Spanish tapas bar, I made paella regularly, in the restaurant and at home. I stopped for a while as it was time consuming and expensive. I recently, however, made a very simple version of the dish and remembered why it’s so good. You do need three things, at least, to make this rice dish authentically – a paella pan, short-grain rice and homemade chicken stock.
Chicken and Sausage Paella
1 organic or free range chicken, any size. Remove the skin. Cut the breast into four pieces, and the thighs into two pieces.
3.5 cups chicken stock
1 small jar pimientos
1 cup tomatoes (organic canned or fresh – if fresh then peel them)
4 cloves garlic, minced
1 large green bell pepper, chopped
1 onion, chopped
1/4 tsp. saffron (the real thing, not powder)
2 cups short grain rice
1/2 cup white wine
salt and pepper
6 tbls. extra virgin olive oil
1/2 lb of your favorite sausage, cut up
Heat the oil in the paella pan, and briefly brown the chicken pieces, adding a little salt. Remove the chicken and add the green pepper, sausage and onion, sauteing until the green pepper is soft. Add the garlic. Add the tomatoes and pimientos and cook, uncovered, a few more minutes. Add the saffron and rice and stir to coat with oil. Add the broth, which has been heated, the wine, salt and pepper. Cook over medium heat, stirring now and then, for up to ten minutes, or until the rice is no longer soupy but not yet dry. Arrange the chicken pieces over the top and place in a 325 degree oven, uncovered, for 15 minutes. Remove from the oven and let sit, lightly covered with foil, for at least ten more minutes. The rice should be done at this point.
