Genetically Modified Organisms Risk Global Ruin, Says Black Swan Author

Experts have severely underestimated the risks of genetically modified food, says a group of researchers lead by Nassim Nicholas Taleb

It is 20 years since the FDA approved the Flavr Savr tomato for human consumption, the first genetically engineered food to gain this status. Since then, genetically modified food has become a significant part of the human diet in many parts of the world, particularly in the US. In 2013 roughly 85 per cent of corn and 90 per cent of soybeans produced in the US were genetically modified.

Given the ubiquity of this kind of foodstuff, you could be forgiven for thinking that the scientific debate over its safety has been largely settled. It is certainly true that a large number of scientists seem to take that view. In 2012, for example, the American Association for the Advancement of Science declared that genetically modified crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques.

Today, Nassim Nicholas Taleb at New York University and a few pals say that this kind of thinking vastly underestimates the threat posed by genetically modified organisms. “Genetically modified organisms represent a public risk of global harm,” they say. Consequently, this risk should be treated differently from those that only have the potential for local harm. “The precautionary principle should be used to prescribe severe of limits on genetically modified organisms,” they conclude.

Taleb and co begin by making a clear distinction between risks with consequences that are local and those with consequences that have the potential to cause global ruin. When global harm is possible, an action must be avoided unless there is scientific near-certainty that it is safe. This approach is known as the precautionary principle.

The question, of course, is when the precautionary principle should be applied. Taleb and co begin by saying that their aim is to place the precautionary principle within a formal statistical structure that is grounded in probability theory and the properties of complex systems. “Our aim is to allow decision-makers to discern which circumstances require the use of the precautionary principle and in which cases evoking the precautionary principle is inappropriate.”

Voracious Worm Evolves to Eat Biotech Corn Engineered to Kill It

Credit: Tom Hlavaty

One of agricultural biotechnology’s great success stories may become a cautionary tale of how short-sighted mismanagement can squander the benefits of genetic modification.

After years of predicting it would happen — and after years of having their suggestions largely ignored by companies, farmers and regulators — scientists have documented the rapid evolution of corn rootworms that are resistant to Bt corn.

Until Bt corn was genetically altered to be poisonous to the pests, rootworms used to cause billions of dollars in damage to U.S. crops. Named for the pesticidal toxin-producing Bacillus thuringiensis gene it contains, Bt corn now accounts for three-quarters of the U.S. corn crop. The vulnerability of this corn could be disastrous for farmers and the environment.

“Unless management practices change, it’s only going to get worse,” said Aaron Gassmann, an Iowa State University entomologist and co-author of a March 17 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study describing rootworm resistance. “There needs to be a fundamental change in how the technology is used.”

First planted in 1996, Bt corn quickly became hugely popular among U.S. farmers. Within a few years, populations of rootworms and corn borers, another common corn pest, had plummeted across the midwest. Yields rose and farmers reduced their use of conventional insecticides that cause more ecological damage than the Bt toxin.

By the turn of the millennium, however, scientists who study the evolution of insecticide resistance were warning of imminent problems. Any rootworm that could survive Bt exposures would have a wide-open field in which to reproduce; unless the crop was carefully managed, resistance would quickly emerge.

Key to effective management, said the scientists, were refuges set aside and planted with non-Bt corn. Within these fields, rootworms would remain susceptible to the Bt toxin. By mating with any Bt-resistant worms that chanced to evolve in neighboring fields, they’d prevent resistance from building up in the gene pool.

But the scientists’ own recommendations — an advisory panel convened in 2002 by the EPA suggested that a full 50 percent of each corn farmer’s fields be devoted to these non-Bt refuges — were resisted by seed companies and eventually the EPA itself, which set voluntary refuge guidelines at between 5 and 20 percent. Many farmers didn’t even follow those recommendations.

Fast forward to 2009, when Gassmann responded to reports of extensive rootworm damage in Bt cornfields in northeast Iowa. Populations there had become resistant to one of the three Bt corn varieties. (Each variety produces a different type of Bt toxin.) He described that resistance in a 2011 study; around the same time, reports of rootworm-damaged Bt corn came in from parts of Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota. These didn’t represent a single outbreak, but rather the emergence, again and again, of resistance.

In the new paper, Gassmann describes further incidents of Bt resistance in other parts of Iowa. He also found rootworms resistant to a second variety of Bt corn. Moreover, being resistant to one variety heightened the chances of resistance to another. That means corn engineered to produce multiple Bt toxins — so-called stacked varieties — won’t do much to slow the evolution of rootworm resistance, as was originally hoped.

Farmers likely won’t stop using Bt corn, as it’s still effective against other pests — but as rootworms become more resistant, said Gassmann, farmers will turn to insecticides, thus increasing their costs and losing the ecological benefits originally gained by using Bt corn. As entomologists concerned by rootworm resistance wrote to the EPA in 2012, “When insecticides overlay transgenic technology, the economic and environmental advantages of rootworm-­protected corn quickly disappear.”

Entomologist Bruce Tabashnik of the University of Arizona called Bt resistance “an increasingly serious problem,” and said that refuge sizes need to be increased dramatically and immediately. He and other scientists have pushed the EPA to double current refuge requirements, but so far without success.

“Biotech companies have successfully lobbied EPA for major reductions in refuge requirements,” said Tabashnik.

Entomologist Elson Shields of Cornell University agrees. “Resistance was caused because the farmers did not plant the required refuges and the companies did not enforce the planting of refuges,” said Shields, who has written that “a widespread increase in trait failure may be just around the corner.”

In addition to increasing refuge sizes, farmers also need to vary the crops planted on their fields, rather than planting corn season after season, said Gassmann. Breaks in the corn cycle naturally disrupt rootworm populations, but the approach fell from favor as the high price of corn made continuous planting appealing. “Continuous corn is the perfect habitat for rootworm,” said Gassmann.

Shields also lamented the difficulty he and other academic scientists long experienced when trying to study Bt corn. Until 2010, after organized objections by entomologists at major agricultural universities forced seed companies to allow outside researchers to study Bt corn, the crop was largely off-limits. Had that not been the case, said Shields, resistance could have been detected even earlier, and perhaps stalled before it threatened to become such a problem.

“Once we had legal access, resistance was documented in a year,” Shields said. “We were seeing failures earlier but were not allowed to test for resistance.”

There’s a lesson to be learned for future crop traits, Shields said. Rootworm resistance was expected from the outset, but the Bt seed industry, seeking to maximize short-term profits, ignored outside scientists. The next pest-fighting trait “will fall under the same pressure,” said Shields, “and the insect will win. Always bet on the insect if there is not a smart deployment of the trait.”

ORIGINAL: Cornucopia Institute

by Brandon Keim Wired

March 20th, 2014

La tragedia de las Semillas Transgénicas, Dra. Vandana S

Magnífica y sencilla exposición de esta mujer sabia y luchadora, reflexiones sobre todo el entramado detrás de las semillas transgénicas.

ORIGINAL: laboticaescondida

Apr 5, 2011

The Plight of the Honeybees (Magazine Article Preview)

ORIGINAL: TIME
By Bryan Walsh

Aug. 19, 2013

Mass deaths in bee colonies may mean disaster for farmers--and your favorite foods 

Photograph by Hannah Whitaker for TIME

You can thank the Apis mellifera, better known as the Western honeybee, for 1 in every 3 mouthfuls you'll eat today. Honeybees — which pollinate crops like apples, blueberries and cucumbers — are the "glue that holds our agricultural system together," as the journalist Hannah Nordhaus put it in her 2011 book The Beekeeper's Lament. But that glue is failing. Bee hives are dying off or disappearing thanks to a still-unsolved malady called colony collapse disorder (CCD), so much so that commercial beekeepers are being pushed out of the business.

So what's killing the honeybees? Pesticides — including a new class called neonicotinoids — seem to be harming bees even at what should be safe levels. Biological threats like the Varroa mite are killing off colonies directly and spreading deadly diseases. As our farms become monocultures of commodity crops like wheat and corn — plants that provide little pollen for foraging bees — honeybees are literally starving to death. If we don't do something, there may not be enough honeybees to meet the pollination demands for valuable crops. But more than that, in a world where up to 100,000 species go extinct each year, the vanishing honeybee could be the herald of a permanently diminished planet.

Peru says no to GMO

ORIGINAL: CSMonitor

By Annie Murphy

April 25, 2013

Peru is the first country in the Americas to ban genetically modified foods, putting its food policy closer to that of Europe, than the United States or many of its South American neighbors.

A man drags a cart loaded with vegetables in downtown Lima, Peru, Wednesday.  Mariana Bazo/Reuters

LIMA, PERU

There isn’t much local Chef Pedro Miguel Schiaffino won’t eat. His highly accliamed Amaz restaurant is devoted to finding and using Amazonian food native to the country, like a 600-pound freshwater fish or a little-known fruit nicknamed “cannonball” that tastes like a cross between a guava, coconut, and melon.

But a year ago Mr. Schiaffino stopped eating supermarket tomatoes.

Even though Peru is the birthplace of the crop, it’s difficult to find anything other than hard, pale Roma tomatoes in supermarkets, and Schiaffino says that worried him.

“They’re a big monoculture, which is why people usually end up using [genetically modified organisms] GMOs. Because when you have monocultures, the crops end up getting diseases, and you have to look for these extreme ways to fix them,” he says.

Peru was the cradle of the Inca Empire, and today it’s home to many crops indigenous to the Americas. It has 400 varieties of potato alone, and a geography that allows farmers to grow almost anything.

It's also the only country in the Americas to put a 10-year ban on genetically modified food, with a law that was first introduced in 2011, and went into effect at the end of last year. Its basic intention, say Schiaffino and others, is to protect Peru’s biodiversity, as well as the practices that have kept it intact for so long. 

“In the end, it’s not a law that’s ‘against’ anything,” says Antonietta Gutierrez, a biologist at Peru’s National Agrarian University. “This is a law in favor of biosecurity. The idea is that there should be a responsible way of using technology, so that it helps us develop resources – and at the same time, doesn’t destroy what we already have."

GMOs are organisms that have been altered via genetic engineering – and this can mean anything from bacteria, to animals, and plants. Supporters praise the ability of engineers to do things like create plants resistant to pests and drought, or ones that have higher yields. Yet those wary of GMO crops worry about food safety, a lack of longterm research, and the potential for contaminating and even wiping out non-GMO species.

For the past few decades, Profesor Gutierrez has kept a packed schedule, doing experiments in the test fields and laboratories of the agrarian university, and as a proponent of laws to regulate GMO crops.

“There aren’t yet long term studies of GMOs,” says Gutierrez in a spartan concrete and linoleum lab just outside the capital. “You can’t measure their real effects in five, 10, or even 20 years. It takes more time to observe those effects, especially when we’re talking about entire ecosystems.”

Peru's new law puts its food policy closer to that of Europe, than to that of the United States or many of its South American neighbors. While genetically modified species can still be tested in controlled lab settings, as of December 2012, they can’t be planted or set free, and GMO seeds are barred from entering the country. Both activists and many scientists consider this a coup.

GMOs produced outside the country, however, are still present in products sold in supermarkets. A law requiring products containing GMOs to be labeled was passed in 2011 – but terms and regulations were never set. According to a study done by the Peruvian Association of Consumers and Users, of 13 basic products bought and tested for the presence of GMOs, 10 tested positive.

Activists say this is all the start of a long fight. 

'Ancient culture'

Uldarico Reyes Roldán has been working at the popular Madre Natura natural food market in Lima’s Miraflores neighborhood since the store opened 30 years ago. He jokes that a lot of the people who come into the store “want to stay thin,” and that if healthy food also happens to be organic and GMO-free, they just see it as an added bonus.

“But seriously, for instance, take a look at this,” he says, pawing through a wooden cabinet filled with bags of freshly milled grain. He holds up a small sack of coarsely ground wheat the color of tree bark, explaining that it’s a Peruvian variety, unaltered, and free of pesticides. “People taste the difference. It’s nuttier, more malty. They come back asking for this stuff. Not some stuff that comes from who knows where.” 

Many of these products have been around for centuries—since the Incas, and earlier.

“Our ancient cultures knew how to do this,” says Schiaffino, the chef. “They grew crops together, in terraces, with the seasons, with the rain, and natural irrigation. I think they had more knowledge about crops and cultivation and farming than we have now.”

Back in the dining room of Amaz, one of Schiaffino’s two restaurants, an enormous mural of a tropical serpent covers the wall behind him. It’s done in tiny iridescent beads, meant to evoke the indigenous, plant-based hallucinogen ayahuasca.

Schiaffino’s restaurants function according to the logic that monoculture and the implementation of GMOs is “going against nature. What nature tells you is that you have to have different plants and different animals around.” He relies on small producers and foragers, many of whom are from indigenous groups that have long acted as stewards of Peru’s biodiversity. A few of those producers even introduced him to a tomato native to the Amazon.

“It’s an heirloom seed that’s stayed in the Amazon. It looks like a bull’s heart, but smaller. Very tasty.”

Schiaffino says the flavor of a good tomato is all about the smell. 

“Like some humidity, with earth, along with a green scent. You can tell it’s just-picked," he says. "The supermarket tomatoes have no smell. 

"Sometimes we don't think to appreciate the possibility of doing this another way."

Switzerland Creates Secure Test Site for GM Crops

ORIGINAL: Science Magazine

by Jop de Vrieze

28 February 2013

Secure site. Switzerland will provide security for field trials of genetically modified crops at this research station near Zurich. Credit: Wikimedia

The Swiss government will create a permanently protected area on federal land for experiments with genetically modified (GM) crops. The goal is to enable researchers to run experimental trials without running the risk that the fields will be vandalized and to reduce costs associated with security.

In a paper published today in the journal Trends in Biotechnology, scientists from the Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon research station and the University of Zurich detail the plan, which was approved by the Swiss Parliament and officially announced on 7 February.

GM crops are controversial in Europe, and European law requires scientists to notify the public about the precise locations of the fields where they are running experiments. This has led to protests and sometimes vandalism at more than 100 European trials since 2010. One result is that the number of GM field experiments conducted in the European Union dropped from about 250 per year in the late 1990s to fewer than 50 in 2011, the researchers report. In Switzerland, researchers have submitted just six applications for field experiments with GM plants since the late 1990s; authorities rejected two in 1999 because "the social and environmental impacts compared to any possible economic benefits were clearly too high."

In a bid to make such experiments easier, the Swiss Federal Council approved spending €600,000 annually from 2014 to 2017 to create a protected field site of approximately three hectares at the Reckenholz research station, 10 kilometers north of Zurich. Researchers will initially use it to test GM wheat with resistance to powdery mildew, a fungal disease, but they could ultimately plant other crops such as potatoes.

The Reckenholz site is already being used for GM experiments and other types of research. In 2008, a group of more than 30 masked activists threatened researchers at a nearby field site and destroyed about one-third of their experimental plants. In 2009, the researchers used grant funds to install three surveillance cameras, build a double fence with barbed wire and motion sensors, and hire security guards who kept a day-round watch.

The study released today estimates that Swiss researchers running recent GM trials spent 78% of their research funds on security. Now, the Swiss government will carry those costs at the Reckenholz site, enabling researchers to use more of their grants for science.

The move shows that legislators believe approved GM experiments "should be protected and that the research agenda should not be determined by vandals," writes Michael Winzeler, a co-author of the paper and a senior researcher at the Reckenholz station, in an e-mail to ScienceInsider.

The plan comes 5 years after two plant scientists of the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom, Peter Urwin and Howard Atkinson, called for protection of European transgenic crop research in a letter to Nature.

Atkinson says he is pleased with the Swiss plan: "You can't have a policy based on evidence if the data cannot be collected. This site will be good for that."

The Swiss government and public do not have a pro-GM reputation. In 2005, voters approved a 5-year moratorium on the commercial use of GM products, which has been extended until 2017. The moratorium includes an exception for scientific research.

"Still, that record suggests that there is no demand among Swiss citizens for GM plants on their plates, says Marianne Kuenzle, GM specialist at the environmental group Greenpeace Switzerland, which opposes GM technologies. "This field site is a waste of money. If you look at this symbolically, the fact that these studies will happen behind fences shows that there is no public acceptation of this technology." The group says it will scrutinize applications to perform GM crop trials and consider ways to prevent the establishment of the field site.

EuropaBio, the European association for bio-industries, says the Swiss move is both good and bad news. "The biotech industry welcomes this possibility to carry out research but laments that it has to happen under such conditions," the group wrote in a statement. "The need for protected field sites is a sad reflection of the power of anti-science groups, who prevent public and private research to be done in Europe."

Anne Glover, the European Commission's chief scientific adviser, says she strongly supports controlled field trials of GM plants. "[I]t is the only way we can gather evidence on any adverse impacts they may have on humans, animals and the environment as well as gauge their efficacy," she wrote in a statement. "Citizens deserve complete transparency, but they also deserve the possibility to use the best science available to meet some of the most pressing challenges of the 21st century."

Activists Vow to Stick it to Frankenfoods Following Prop 37's Defeat at the Polls

ORIGINAL: OCWeekly.com/Stickaforkinit

By Gabriel San Roman

Nov. 9 2012

labelityourself.org

In the wake of the defeat of Proposition 37 this Tuesday, which, if passed, would have required the labeling of most genetically modified foods in the state, many are pondering what comes next? The angered among them have suggested a boycott against biotech bullies like Monsanto who produce GMO products and waged an effective propaganda campaign ensuring the prop would drop at the polls.

For months, activists haven't waited on corporations or government for the answer, opting instead for direct action tactics. The nationwide Label It Yourself(LIY) movement has been literally "sticking it" to frankenfoods with downloadable open source GMO warning labels for anyone to take into grocery stores! 

The tactics are pure activism 2.0 with suggested Twitter hashtags and a Tumblr site set up to promote their exploits. Froot Loops, Teddy Grahams, Honey Nut Cheerios andPop Tarts have all been given the sticker treatment by the campaign that describes itself as "decentralized," "autonomous" and "grassroots."

http://labelityourself.tumblr.com/ Honey Nut GMOs?

Taking a keen interest in Prop 37's fate, the Facebook page for LIY posted that, "We, the people need to stand up for ourselves and each other, not just at the voting booth every couple of years, but in our every day lives. Please feel free to download sticker templates... and print them out, so the next time you head to your grocery store, you can help let people know what's in their food. It's time to take our food supply back!"

The Label It Yourself campaign is compelled by the dangers it sees posed by GMO tampering of food to personal health, the environment, and consumer rights. Ironically, the act of putting a sticker on a Pop Tarts box saying that they may contain GMOs has folks concerned that doing so can be construed as a violation of the Federal Anti-Tampering Act.

Either way, posing the question, "If there's nothing to hide, why hide it?" to the makers and sellers of much of our processed foods, activists are already taking the fight to the aisles.

Follow Stick a Fork In It on Twitter @ocweeklyfood or on Facebook! And don't forget to download our free Best Of App here!

Genetically Modified: The 2 Words the Food Industry Spent $45 Million to Avoid Using

ORIGINAL: Daily Finance

By M. Joy Hayes, Ph.D., The Motley Fool

11/15/12

Getty Images

Despite significant popular support for the labeling of genetically modified foods in recent polls, when it came time to vote on election day, Californians rejected Proposition 37, which would have required businesses to label products containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

Proponents of Proposition 37 argued that the labeling requirements would provide consumers with valuable information that would allow them to make better purchasing decisions. Opponents countered that labels would mislead consumers by creating the impression that GMOs are harmful to human health.

Many attribute the loss to a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign against the proposition funded largely by agriculture and food companies like Monsanto (MON), PepsiCo (PEP), Coca-Cola (KO), Kraft (KRFT), and Kellogg (K). Opponents of Proposition 37 raised at least $45 million to affect voter sentiment, while supporters of the proposed law -- mostly consumer advocacy groups -- raised only about $8 million.

Was it a fair fight?

Prop 37 advocates complain that their defeat wasn't merely due to being outspent, but also due to opponents using deceptive marketing practices to shift public opinion. One example called out was a mailing to state residents which used the FDA logo and a quote saying, "The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be 'inherently misleading.'" FDA spokesperson Morgan Liscinsky later pointed out that the FDA did not make this statement or express any opinion on the proposed legislation.

Valuable Tool or Unnecessary Information?

If Prop 37 had passed, the law would have forbidden food companies from labeling foods with GMO ingredients as "natural", "naturally made", "naturally grown", or "all natural." Businesses would have had to label raw GMO produce as "genetically engineered," and to label all processed foods containing GMOs as "partially produced with genetic engineering," or "may be partially produced with genetic engineering."

The law also would have empowered consumers to stand up to companies that label their products inaccurately by making it possible for them to win lawsuits against food companies without having to prove specific damages resulting from the labeling violation.

While Big Ag argued that studies haven't shown GMOs are harmful to human health, Prop 37 advocates point out that most industry-funded studies last only 90 days. And although the Food and Drug Administration has deemed GMOs safe for human consumption, proponents worry that the FDA doesn't actually test these foods before they go to market, and so they don't have sufficient evidence to declare these goods safe.

Other advocates argue that even if GMOs are safe to eat, mandatory labeling would provide valuable information for consumers who worry about the sustainability of GMO farming, and its potential to breed "superbugs."

The fight over Prop 37 isn't just a California issue: Opponents were worried the law would set a precedent for the rest of the country to pick up the anti-GMO torch. In fact, about 93% of the money raised to turn voters against the law came from outside the state.

Advocates in Washington state, Connecticut, and Vermont are pushing to require labeling in their own states. Others are trying to utilize the national awareness arising from California's campaign to gain signatures on a petition asking the FDA to require labeling of GMO foods nationally.

Do you think Prop 37's requirements would have been good for consumers? Would you like your home state to push for similar legislation? Chime in below!

Motley Fool contributor M. Joy Hayes, Ph.D., is the Principal at ethics consulting firmCourageous Ethics. She doesn't own shares of any of the companies mentioned. Follow @JoyofEthics on Twitter.

How Genetically Engineered Soy Threatens Ecological Stability

ORIGINAL: Mercola

By Dr. Mercola

November 01 2012

Soybeans are touted by the food industry as the answer to world hunger. But very few pieces of propaganda could be more misleading. Not only does soy consumption lead to a number of health problems, but its production is leaving a trail of ecological devastation beyond belief.

While most people know the Amazon is under threat, few know that one of the principal perpetrators is soy.

One of the regions hardest hit by soy monoculture is Brazil, home of the largest expanse of precious Amazon rainforest. For several years, Greenpeace has been involved in an intense investigation of Amazon soy production using satellite images, aerial surveillance, previously unreleased government documents and on-the-ground monitoring, to expose the links in the soy chain.

Many of their findings are presented in the documentary "Soy: In the Name of Progress," which you can watch in its entirety in the link above. For more information, you can also read their final report, Eating up the Amazon1.

Agricultural multinational bullies are rushing into Brazil to flatten forests into massive soy farms, expelling native peoples from their land by any means possible, legal or otherwise.

Peaceful community protests are met with violent beatings from large soy producers and their hired thugs, and individuals speaking out the loudest have been assassinated. The Brazilian government is sadly absent, uninvolved, and ineffective on this issue.

Not only is the soy takeover harming the Brazilian people and their native culture, but it's having a devastating ecological impact that could potentially affect the rest of the world.

Soy Monoculture Could Alter Global Climate Patterns

The Amazon is the largest expanse of tropical rainforest on the planet, but deforestation is occurring at an alarming rate. An area the size of France has been destroyed thus far. Not only does the Amazon contain some of the richest biodiversity in the world, but it's being destroyed before it can even be studied — so we don't even know what treasures have been lost.

The rainforest is tied into climatic patterns worldwide and provides a major source of the water vapor that ends up falling on your garden as rain. Some estimate that, if trends continue, the entire Amazon rainforest could be gone in 30 to 40 years. Consequences would be far reaching to the world's climate, including the U.S. and Europe — a climate that is already undergoing significant stress.

Soy's Cycle of Destruction in the Amazon

Between 2007 and 2008, almost three million acres of Brazilian rainforest were lost to illegal logging, soy plantations, and cattle ranching2. Soy traders encourage farmers to cut down forest vegetation and plant massive soy monocultures. The traders then take the soy and ship it to Europe where it's fed to animals like chickens and pigs. The animals are then turned into fast food products.

Before soy can be planted, soy farmers have to remove the most valuable timber from areas they illegally occupy. According to Greenpeace2 :

"As one of the first steps in the cycle of destruction, land grabbers build logging roads into pristine rainforest. Once accessible, these roads open the door to further devastation of the forest ecosystem through clearing for agricultural operations, fuel wood gathering, and mining."

The illegal timber trade supports the cheap sale of once-valuable tree timber. Then deforested lands are set on fire to clear any remaining debris. So not only is the rainforest destroyed, but tons of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere by these burnings. Profits from this illegal logging are then used to seed soy plantations and line the pockets of a few select multinationals.

Three major companies account for 60 percent of the total financing of soy production in Brazil: ADM, Bunge and Cargill3. These enormous corporations build soy silos and terminals at the rainforest edge and buy soy from illegally cleared and operated farms, including those implementing slave labor.

As if this cycle of destruction is not bad enough, most of the soy crops are genetically engineered, which introduces an entire new set of dangers to you and the food chain. Genetically engineered crops come with serious risks, including resistant super weeds and super pests, uncontrollable cross contamination and serious health hazards, including allergies, infertility, birth defects, bizarre mutations and cancer, just to name a few.

Brazil Sees Fastest Climb in GE Soybean Share

The United States is the world's top soybean producer (33 percent), with Brazil running a close second (27 percent), followed by Argentina (21 percent)4. As of 2007, more than half of the world's soybean crops (58.6 percent) were genetically engineered (GE).

GE soybeans contain a gene that confers herbicide resistance, engineered by Monsanto. "Roundup ready soy" is being cultivated on a massive scale across the globe, having devastating effects in many countries, such as Argentina, where people are being sickened daily by massive herbicide spraying. According to GMO Compass5, at one time, GE soybeans were not permitted in Brazil, but that isn't the case today. GE seed was smuggled in from neighboring countries and planted illegally.

Unfortunately, the GE soybean share has risen faster in Brazil over the past decade than in any other major soy-producing country, as you can see in the following graphic illustrating GE soybean share trends over time.

GE Soybean Share: From GMO-Compass. Strategies for Avoiding GE Foods

There are some measures you can take to make sure the foods you select are not genetically engineered. Soy is one of only nine common GE food crops, but their derivatives are in over 70 percent of supermarket foods, particularly processed foods. So, the more fresh, organic and local foods you eat, the less likely you'll be consuming GE ingredients. Also, look for the USDA Certified 100% Organic seal: This green or black seal assures the product is certified organic by the USDA, which means it contains at least 95 percent organic ingredients that are free of genetically engineered ingredients. 

GMO Toxins Are in Nearly All Pregnant Women & Fetuses

ORIGINAL: GreenMedInfo

Written by: Heidi Stevenson

Tuesday, October 2nd 2012

Add caption

The GMO mass experiment on the public is producing results—terrifying ones. GM toxic elements can be found in nearly all pregnant women and children. (Update of the article featured in Genetic Roulette movie.)

The toxins designed into genetically modified crops are finding their way into the bloodstreams of all pregnant women and their fetuses. This shocking result belies the genetic modification industry's claims that such toxins are destroyed by the digestive tracts of people who eat the animals fed these GMO crops. Obviously, that claim was based on nothing.

(If you've seen reports claiming less than 100% are affected, it's because they picked up the wrong figures from the study, as shown below.)

The Study and Results

The study, "Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modi?ed foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec", was published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology. The authors, Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc, examined the blood of 30 pregnant women and 39 nonpregnant women. All births associated with the study were considered normal; babies were at normal birth weights and considered healthy.

The authors looked for:

• Glyphosate, brand name Roundup
• Gluphosinate, a broad-spectrum herbicide
• AMPA, aminomethyl phosphoric acid, a metabolite of glyphosate
• 3-MMPA, 3-methylphosphinico propionic acid, a metabolite of gluphosinate
• Cry1Ab, the Bt toxin of gluphosinate

Interestingly, both glyphosate and gluphosinate were found in large percentages of nonpregnant women, but neither was found in pregnant women or their fetuses. Obviously, a metabolic change occurs when a woman becomes pregnant. One might have hoped that would be adequate to prevent the toxic effects of GMO feed crops. Unfortunately, it appears that the opposite occurs with Bt corn metabolites, though no toxins from gluphosate were found.

The Bt GMO toxins, 3-MPPA and Cry1Ab, show up in mothers and fetuses, as this table shows:

Toxin	Maternal	Fetal Cord
3-MPPA	100%	100%
Cry1Ab	93%	80%

Toxicity of 3-MPPA and Cry1Ab

The first thing that needs to be noted is that 3-MPPA and Cry1Ab are used in pesticides for their toxic effects. There can be little doubt that ingestion of them carries some risk.

Unsurprisingly, there is little serious research on these chemicals, since the manufacturers control access for studies. Nonetheless, there is enough information available to know that assumptions of safety in genetically engineered foods is irresponsible. The risks are serious.

3-MPPA

3-MPPA is a propionic acid. Notice that the PAN Pesticides Database shows several issues with propionic acid, including:

• Inhalation: burning sensation, cough, shortness of breath, and sore throat.
• Skin: burns, pain, blisters.
• Eyes: redness, pain, blurred vision, severe deep burns.
• Ingestion: abdominal cramps, burning sensation, nausea, shock, collapse, sore throat, vomiting.

Propionic acids are classed as Bad Actor Chemicals, and 3-MPPA is one of them. One surely must ask how the FDA and USDA came to accept the notion that any GMO with 3-MPPA should be classed as "generally accepted as safe".

And now we have proof that the highly toxic 3-MPPA is showing up in nearly all pregnant women and fetuses!

Cry1Ab

Though the PAN Pesticides Database lists no toxicity for Cry1Ab, any assumption of safety is misplaced. If we look further, we find that story is false. Greenpeace has been studying Cry1Ab, and what they've found is far from calming. They have found that:

• Cry1Ab is a potent immunogen, meaning that it creates an immune response. It contains a gene for resistance to the antibiotic streptomycin. Therefore, it is likely to increase the problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
• The immunogenic response can be initiated by either injection or gastrointestinally, that is, by eating it.
• The immunogenic response affects the mucus membranes and can be systemic.
• Cry1Ab binds to to proteins in the mouse gastrointestinal tract.

And now we have proof that the highly toxic Cry1Ab is showing up in all pregnant women and fetuses!

Study Authors' Claims Versus Reality

The authors conclude only:

Since the basis of better health is prevention, one would hope that we can develop procedures to avoid environmentally induced disease in susceptible population such as pregnant woman and their fetuses.

After showing evidence that virtually all pregnant women and fetuses are accumulating toxins in their blood because of genetically modified crops, the authors suggest only developing procedures to avoid exposure in pregnant women and their fetuses? Surely they can do better than that!

They have demonstrated that there is no truth behind any claim that any genetically modified food can be considered GRAS—generally recognized as safe. Yet, that's the excuse the USDA is using to virtually rubber stamp every application for a GMO. The only thing that even slows them down is a strong public outcry, as with GM salmon.

We now have proof that virtually every pregnant woman and every fetus is—or soon will be—intoxicated with dangerous chemicals because of genetically engineered foods. Experiments have demonstrated that the effects of GMOs can be catastrophic.

As documented in Antidepressants Increase Death Rate: Non-Pharma Funded Research, even when researchers' results clearly slow serious risks in profitable Big Pharma or Agribusiness products, they pull their punches in the conclusions. This study is no different.

Genetically modified organisms are enormously profitable. There is no other reason that the term GRAS can exist in reference to them. They have never been shown to be safe—and now it's obvious that an entire generation is at risk because of them. The results of the mass experiment are in. It's time to call a halt—and hope that the damage can be reversed so it doesn't pass down the generations.

See the new film, Genetic Roulette, for a broad perspective of the disaster that genetically engineered food has already become. Please, support the California initiative to require labeling of GMOs, and start pushing for such labels—if not outright banning of GMOs!

Sources

Abstract of Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modi?ed foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. ReprodToxicol (2011), doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004

PAN Pesticides Database: Propionic acid

PAN Pesticides Database: Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab protein and the genetic material (PV-ZMBK07) necessary for its production in corn event MON-00810

Genetically engineered (GE) Bt eggplant (talong): Health risks, environmental impacts and contamination from field trials (PDF)

Modelling in the light of uncertainty of key parameters: a call to exercise caution in field predictions of Bt-maize effects

Maternal and Fetal Exposure to Pesticides Associated with GM Foods

GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies

Bt toxin found in blood of pregnant women and fetuses

Heidi Stevenson is Allopathy's Gadfly. She's an iatrogenic survivor whose prior career in computer science, research, and writing was lost as a result. She has turned her skills towards exposing the modern medical scam and the politics surrounding it, along with providing information about the effectiveness of much alternative medicine, without which she would not be here today acting as Allopathy's Gadfly. Find her work on GaiaHealth.com

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Americans Eat Their Weight in Genetically Engineered FoodAli

ORIGINAL: Environmental Working Group

by Renee Sharp

October 15, 2012

Americans are eating their weight and more in genetically engineered food every year, a new Environmental Working Group analysis shows. On average, people eat an estimated 193 pounds of genetically engineered food in a 12-month period. The typical American adult weighs 179 pounds.

These figures raise a question: If you were planning on eating your body weight of anything in a year, wouldn’t you want to make sure it was safe to eat?

Shockingly, virtually no long-term health studies have been done on consumption of genetically engineered food.

And there aren’t likely to be any such studies anytime soon. The government isn’t doing this kind of research and is not requiring it of the food industry. It isn’t even making it possible for independent scientists to do it, since under the law, those who hold patents on genetically engineered food get to decide in most cases what testing can – and cannot – be conducted.

As a result, the jury is still out – in fact, it hasn’t even heard the evidence – on whether genetically engineered food might cause health problems. And the answer to this question will likely remain unclear for years.

So what can consumers do in the meantime? Not much – unless they demand that genetically engineered food be labeled. At least then consumers would know whether the food they buy contains genetically engineered ingredients, and could decide for themselves if this is what they want for themselves and their families.

This basic right-to-know issue is only going to become more important in the future, because consumption of genetically engineered food is expected to grow substantially.

193 pounds of genetically engineered food is an underestimate

To calculate how much genetically engineered food people eat each year, EWG researchers started with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2011 data on per capita consumption of four foods commonly derived from genetically engineered crops: sugar, corn-based sweeteners, salad oil and “corn products.”

We estimated how much of each of these foods were likely to be genetically modified. We compared the consumption figures with the latest USDA data showing that

• 95 percent of the sugar beets, 
• 93 percent of the soybeans and 
• 88 percent of the corn grown in the U.S. are genetically engineered. We also applied federal data showing that 
• 79 percent of the salad oil consumed in the U.S. is soybean oil, and 
• 55 percent of the sugar comes from sugar beets.

From these figures, EWG calculated that the average American annually consumes genetically engineered foods in these quantities: 68 pounds of beet sugar, 58 pounds of corn syrup, 38 pounds of soybean oil and 29 pounds of corn-based products, for a total of 193 pounds.

That’s a lot, but it’s likely to be an underestimate, since it does not account for all the genetically engineered foods that people eat. Other foods that commonly come in genetically engineered versions – but are not included in EWG’s calculations – are canola oil, cottonseed oil, papaya, yellow squash and soy products other than soybean oil. (EWG also excluded genetically engineered animal feed that people may consume indirectly by eating meat raised on genetically engineered crops.)

As more genetically engineered crops are approved and grown commercially, the average amount of genetically engineered food consumed would be expected to spike far above 193 pounds a year. EWG considered only three genetically engineered crops, but more than 30 others are currently being tested in field trials, including apples, barley, bell peppers, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, cherries, chili peppers, coffee, cranberries, cucumber, flax, grapefruit, kiwi, lentils, lettuce, melons, mustard, oats, olives, onions, peanuts, pears, peas, persimmons, pineapple,popcorn, radishes, strawberries, sugar cane, sunflower, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, walnuts and watercress.

While it is unclear how long it may take for these new genetically engineered crops to reach the market, this long list makes it likely that people could be eating two or three times their weight in GE food annually within the next decade.

Children, Hispanics likely eating more genetically engineered food

Some people are likely already eating more than their share of genetically engineered food. Hispanic Americans, for example, who typically eat between 2-to-3 times more corn flour than people of other ethnicities, would be expected to get an extra dose of genetically engineered food in their diet.

Similarly, data show that children eat more corn flour and sweeteners per pound of body weight than adults. Given how much of these ingredients tend to be derived from genetically engineered sources, kids are likely ingesting more genetically engineered food.

Taking a stand for their right to know should be reason enough for people to vote for labeling of genetically engineered foods. Here’s another good reason: Americans are eating their body weight in genetically engineered food every year – and have little idea where it’s coming from. That’s certainly something to chew on.

References:

• Center for Food Safety. 2012. GE Crops: Crops in the pipeline. Available at: http://truefoodnow.org/campaigns/genetically-engineered-foods/ge-crops/
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2012. FastStats: Body Measurements. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/bodymeas.htm
• Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Major crops grown in the United States. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropmajor.html
• US Department of Agriculture. 2011. Agricultural Statistics Annual. Available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/2011/index.asp
• US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2012. Sugar and Sweeteners. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-sweeteners/background.aspx
• US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2012. Commodity Consumption by Population Characteristics. Available at: http://ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-consumption-by-population-characteristics.aspx

WWF scandal (part 1): Bears feeding on toxic corporate waste

ORIGINAL: Redd Monitor

By Chris Lang, 27th July 2011

WWF, the world’s biggest environmental organisation, is under fire. On 23 June 2011, the German TV station ARD broadcast a documentary highlighting WWF’s cozy relationship with distinctly unsustainable companies like the genetically modified giant Monsanto and the rainforest destroying palm oil company Wilmar. This week Global Witness published a report criticising WWF’s Global Forest and Trade Network.

The only surprising thing is that it has taken so long for the WWF scandal to become public. The title of this post, “Bears feeding on toxic corporate waste,” is borrowed from an email that was circulated anonymously back in April 2003 (posted in full, for a little light relief, below). Sooner or later, the WWF scandal had to go public.

Today’s post is part 1 of the WWF scandal. It looks at the ARD documentary. Part 2 (coming soon) will look at the Global Witness report investigating WWF’s abysmal failure to rein in the logging industry.

The ARD documentary, “Der Pakt mit dem Panda”, was produced by Wilfried Huismann, a prize winning investigative journalist. It is posted below and can be viewed on ARD’s website(in German).

The film produced shock waves in Germany. But rather than facing up to the fact that these are serious criticisms, WWF Germany responded defensively, producing a “fact check” page on its website and a series of interviews with staff of WWF Germany who, surprise, surprise, tell us that they are doing everything they can to save the planet.

The film focusses in on WWF’s cozy relationships with corporate eco-nasties. Here are two particularly egregious examples, from the palm oil sector in Indonesia and the soy industry in Argentina.

In Indonesia, WWF has a partnership with Wilmar, a company that has converted vast areas of rainforest to monoculture oil palm plantations. WWF is quick to point out that its Memorandum of Understanding with Wilmar is to protect high conservation value forest and that it receives no money from Wilmar under this MoU. But as Nordin, who works with WALHI (Friends of the Earth Indonesia), points out in the film, WWF is in effect helping to greenwash an environmental disgrace:

“WWF says that you can produce palm oil in a sustainable way. Look around. How can that be sustainable? Nothing regrows here. The partnership with Wilmar improves the image of the firm, not their practices. I have no evidence that WWF is corrupt but it helps the industry to expand further.”

Predictably, Wilmar mentions the MoU in its 2007 Corporate Social Responsibility report as an example of how it implements its policies:

Wilmar upholds a policy of enhancing and maintaining flora and fauna species, and uses a flexible menu of conservation practices to protect natural habitats that are found to be rich in biodiversity.

There are two toe-curlingly embarrassing interviews in the documentary with WWF staff. In the first, a WWF Indonesia employee explains that she doesn’t really know what’s happening on the ground in the Wilmar plantation where Huismann filmed. In the second, Dörte Bieler, WWF Germany’s manager for “sustainable biomass”, is interviewed at an industry conference. No other NGOs took part in the conference. She tells Huismann that

“Our work is science-based. We always conduct a study before we have an opinion… And with this science-based evidence we have been able to achieve some things.”

But she is unable to point to a single thing that WWF has achieved through its cooperation with corporations. What’s important for WWF, according to Bieler, is that the NGO is “not just ridiculed, but accepted as a competent discussion partner.”

In Argentina, Huismann looks at WWF’s relationship with soy companies. The film includes an interview with Dr Hector Laurence,[*] the personification of the WWF scandal. In a World Business Council for Sustainable Development brochure he is quoted as saying,

“I am surprised to find that some people consider that if NGOs work with business they risk loosing [sic] objectivity. Efficient and transparent collaboration between these sectors is precisely the way to overcome this prejudice.”

We shouldn’t be surprised by this, since Laurence’s career included being head of a conservation organisation called Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina (WWF’s associate in Argentina), President of the Argentinean Asociation of Agrobusiness; and Vice-president of Pioneer Overseas Corporation, part of Dupont.

Laurence’s position on pesticides and GM soy is identical to that of the agribusinesses who have planted millions of hectares of GM soy in Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil.

WWF’s response to the interview with Hector Laurence is particularly odious:

Hector Laurence was never with WWF, instead he worked with the associated partner organisation Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina (FVSA) until 2008.

In fact, the panda is very cuddly with FVSA. WWF’s website, under the headline “WWF-Argentina: Our solutions”, states that

Together, [WWF and FVSA] held joint campaigns, arrange global actions and receive financial backup for executing programs and projects.

The layout of FVSA’s website design is very similar to a previous WWF layout (WWF’s website has since been re-designed). FVSA’s url even includes the magic letters wwf and panda.org:

WWF-Argentina: wwfar.panda.org 

WWF-International: wwf.panda.org

WWF was one of the founders of the Round Table on Responsible Soy. But the issue of genetically modified soy is not part of RTRS discussions. Members of the RTRS can use as much GM soy as they wish. WWF denies that it promotes GM crops, arguing that it remains in the Round Table on Responsible Soy in order to reduce the amount of GM soy planted. But the reality, whether WWF likes it or not, is that its presence in the RTRS is lending legitimacy to RTRS and thus to GM soy, monocultures and agribusiness. WWF knows this – it’s beenpointed out to them many times.

Jason Clay of WWF-US [*] declined Huisman’s request for an interview. Instead the documentary included a 2010 presentation that Clay gave to the Global Harvest Initiative, an agribusiness lobbying initiative set up by Archer Daniels Midland, DuPont, John Deere and Monsanto. Among GHI’s consultative partners are Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy and WWF. “We need to freeze the footprint of agriculture,” Clay says in his presentation. He explains that WWF is suggesting seven or eight things we need to work on to achieve this. “One is genetics, we have got to produce more with less,” he says, sounding just like an GM agribusiness lobbyist.

“It takes 15 years, at least and maybe longer as we go along, to bring a genetically engineered product to market. If we don’t start today, we’re already at 2025. The clock is ticking. We need to get moving. There is a sense of urgency.”

WWF’s response? “WWF Germany disagrees.” But the programme is not about WWF Germany. It is about WWF. And WWF admitted to the Süddeutsche newspaper that it has accepted money from Monsanto. Meanwhile, Jason Clay is not a paper pusher in some neglected outpost of the WWF empire. He is Senior Vice President for Market Transformation at WWF-US.

Not everything in Huismann documentary hits the target. A handful of WWF’s rebuttals appear plausible. But that does not make WWF’s response either acceptable or adequate. The documentary raises important issues about WWF’s cozy relationship with massive, destructive corporations. That WWF is not even interested in an intelligent and open discussion of these issues, let alone changing the way it works with destructive corporations, is a disgrace.
UPDATE and APOLOGY – 30 July 2011: I have deleted the descriptions of Hector Laurence and Jason Clay. Thanks to everyone who pointed out that the way these people look has nothing to do with the argument. I apologise for causing any offense to anyone and promise not to do that again.

Here, for the record, is Jason Clay’s presentation in full to the Global Harvest Initiative:

Global Harvest Initiative Symposium – Clay from Global Harvest Initiative on Vimeo.

Return to text: Laurence ^^; Clay ^^.

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 06:04:32 -0800 (PST)

From: Panda Person

Subject: Bears feeding on toxic corporate waste

Leading ecologists call for an ‘Urgent Global Coalition to save the Panda’

Grass roots environmental groups around the world must unite to save the Giant Panda (Wufwuf martinensis) from imminent extinction, say some of the world’s top ecological experts. The Giant Panda’s habitat (most of which is found near Gland, Switzerland) is being invaded by rapacious multinational companies intent on gaining control of this crucial environmental area. Recent reports indicate that the Giant Panda’s territory is now completely surrounded and heavily infiltrated by mining, logging, chemical and drug corporations.

Some scientists believe that, because of the ecological impacts caused by these companies, only a few Giant Pandas are likely to remain within a few years. As their native habitat has been destroyed, the bears have increasingly become dependent on scraps of food found at the corporations’ waste dumps. This change of diet causes Pandas to become bloated and listless, and also impairs their sight and hearing.

The Giant Panda’s population has actually been increasing in recent years, and the beasts have been seen roaming in areas where they have never previously been encountered. This has caused problems in itself. One leading bear expert has said that “The Pandas seem disorientated, lost. They’ve been stumbling around and trampling all over the habitat of other species. They’re constantly hungry and have eaten all the food needed by other, smaller, bears. Giant Pandas are lovable creatures in the right place but, to be honest, they’ve become a real pest. Ideally, they should be rounded up and put back into National Parks, where they will be less of a danger to themselves and others. Some people now feel that, if the rogue bears can’t be got rid of in any other way, then we may have to start shooting them.”

Increasingly, the Pandas are finding themselves in mortal battles with other species of bear. One renowned ecologist has reported that “The Giant Panda’s favourite tactic is to use its horribly distended size simply to crush other smaller bears to death. In some cases, the Pandas rip out the brains of the other bears and eat them. Very few smaller bears have been able to defend themselves so far, and mostly they just have to run away and hide. However, these kinds of ‘bear against bear’ clashes are likely to become more frequent and more bloody.”

Many scientists now believe that the Giant Panda’s recent population explosion will inevitably be followed by an equally dramatic, and possibly terminal, population crash. One expert (who wished to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals) has said that “The Pandas appear to have lost the ability to feed themselves with fresh food in their own natural habitat. If the corporations decide to stop leaving their waste around for the bears to eat, as they eventually will, then the Panda population will plummet. This is the kind of phenomenon observed in some small-brained creatures such as lemmings, but never before with species that are supposedly as intelligent as Giant Pandas.”

Other sub-species of the Panda around the world are equally threatened. The population of the South African Panda, for example, is being held in captivity by the country’s two largest plantation companies, one of which is a world leader in the development of genetically modified ‘Frankenstein trees’. Some observers believe that it is only a matter of time before the companies slay the South African Pandas for their precious skins, which corporate executives value highly for use as camouflage when hunting down local environmentalists. Others believe that sinister experiments are underway in which the captive bears are also being genetically modified such that, in future, they would become dependent on leaves from the company’s bio-engineered eucalyptus trees.

In Canada and Sweden, some of the most controversial logging companies have been seen feeding the local Pandas. There is widespread speculation that the food is either laced with poison or possibly with a strong tranquillising drug which will render the Pandas helpless and immobile. Canadian corporate executives regularly force captive Pandas to perform humiliating and degrading dances at international events, just for the sake of public entertainment.

In Australia, the huge Vino Tinto mining company has bought the entire local population of Pandas. It has been reported that Tinto has also been feeding the Australian Pandas with huge quantities of food spiked with a highly addictive drug, and has set the doped animals to work in guarding the company’s mines.

In the US, corporate executives have successfully disguised themselves as Pandas in order to infiltrate the local population of bears. Some local observers see this as part of a cunning long-term plan to ensure that future generations of Pandas never learn from their parents how to use either their teeth or claws.

Ecologists believe that these problems are part of a worldwide pattern. However, the fate of other Panda sub-species is not entirely known. A spokeswoman for the newly formed ‘Save the Panda Coalition’ said “We suspect that Pandas from Japan to Brazil, and Germany to Indonesia may have already been captured by multinational corporations, and are being forced-fed with contaminated food. We urgently need more research on this by local experts.”

Summing up the tragic situation, a bear expert has said that “Some Pandas seem to have escaped the clutches of the big industrialists but, really, there’s nowhere else for them to go. They will probably just die of starvation. We need a global effort to get the corporations out of the Giant Panda’s habitat, and to free all the sub-species now being held in captivity. This has to be a top priority for the world environment and conservation movement. Any genetically modified and mutant Pandas will probably have to be destroyed, along with those that have become totally dependent on corporate waste, but this is a price worth paying if it helps to protect the species as a whole.”