Genetic Engineering News List Dear Readers,      Yes, this is politics as usual.  Just when there seems to be some progress and transparency with GE crops, the "back door" is opened.  Please go to the Center For Food Safety site as well as the Food Democracy Now site and take action.  See links below. Onward, Thomas Toxic Biotech Provisions of the Farm Bill Deniza Gertsberg GMO Journal, July 16 2012 http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2012/07/16/toxic-biotech-provisions-of-the-farm-bill/ If you thought that the regulatory framework for regulating genetically engineered crops in the United States was weak before, the new proposed changes in Sections 10011-10014 of the    House Agriculture Committee's discussion draft of the 2012 Farm Bill, will practically eviscerate the oversight function of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Earlier this month, consumer advocate group, Center for Food Safety (CFS), wrote a letter to the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Agriculture, urging Congress to strike provisions which will create "serious risks to farmers, the environment and public health    by forcing the    rushed commercialization of GE crops and eliminating meaningful review of their impact." CFS identified these provisions as follows: *Outlaw any review of GE crops' impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or any other environmental law, or by any agency other than USDA.  For example, harm to protected species could occur without any input from expert wildlife agencies. *Prohibit other agencies from offering expert input in the review process and instead limit review to solely USDA under the Plant Protection Act.  However, meaningful review would likely be eliminated by this rider, as USDA's analysis of potential harmful impacts is barred from informing any approval decision. The agency is also barred from using its broader statutory authority granted in the PPA of 2000 and instead is limited to its old 1957 Federal Plant Pest Act authority. *Force the backdoor approval of GE crops, even if USDA has not reviewed and approved them, through unreasonably short deadlines, which, if not met by the agency, would default to immediate approval and commercialization.  The provisions would also bar any agency funds from being spent on impacts analysis beyond the riders' narrow and time-forced approval. *Codify a dangerous national policy of allowing transgenic contamination in crops and foods, risking loss of GE-sensitive domestic and export markets and loss of biodiversity. *Limit EPA's oversight of biotech crops engineered to produce or contain a pesticide by forcing the agency to choose the least burdensome choice for industry, regardless of environmental consequences. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/2Group-Letter-Opposing-Biotech-Riders-to-House-Farm-Bill-7.10.11.pdf Given the amount of attention paid to Congress by members of agricultural biotech industry, these measures, which no doubt respond to industry complaints about the process that the industry helped to establish in the first instance, surprise few people by now. http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2012/06/21/genetically-engineering-washington-politics/ But someone has to send a memo to the industry PR machine telling it to stop trying to convince the public that GM foods are strictly regulated by government. That argument was not true before and it certainly would not be true if these measures are passed. NOTE: Even the National Grain and Feed Association, representing the likes of Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge and Cargill, are alarmed by what is happening. --- --- Foodies mobilize against effort to speed GMO approvals Carolyn Lockheed, Hearst Washington Bureau http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/07/12/foodies-mobilize-against-effort-to-speed-gmo-approvals/ Buried in the House Agriculture Committee's farm bill, approved yesterday after a 15-hour markup, is a provision that will speed approval of genetically modified crops. As it stands, USDA has never not approved a GMO crop. Genetically engineered foods enjoy a very weak regulatory regime dating back to Dan Quayle that splits authority among USDA, EPA and FDA, none of which has much power to block them. California will be a focus of the GMO fight this fall, when voters consider Proposition 37, already provoking a huge fight between the biotech industry and anti-GMO groups. The initiative would require labeling of GMO foods. But regulatory approvals haven't come fast enough for the biotech industry, or farmers beset by "superweeds" that have attacked the current generation of GMO crops. So the House Aggies slipped the GMO provision into their bill, and it probably stands a good chance of surviving if the farm bill itself survives. It's not in the Senate-passed version, but it could easily survive a House-Senate conference. It has already been all but lost amid bigger fights over food stamps. Anti-GMO groups such as the Center for Food Safety, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund have begun mobilizing against the provision. The Center for Food Safety sent a letter Tuesday to the committee charging that GMO "riders" would "completely eliminate" some environmental rules governing GMOs, "unreasonably pressure USDA" to approve such crops, "create multiple backdoor GE crop approval mechanisms" that would allow approval of untested bio-traits to enter the food supply, and force USDA to set "allowable levels of GE contamination" in crops and food. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/2Group-Letter-Opposing-Biotech-Riders-to-House-Farm-Bill-7.10.11.pdf The National Grain and Feed Association, representing grain millers, has also weighed in against the provisions, saying they could have "unintended consequences in domestic and export markets." http://www.ngfa.org/full_story.cfm?id=4039 Scott Faber, who follows the Hill for Environmental Working Group, which lobbies for more ag conservation and fewer crop subsidies, said both sides of the GMO debate were surprised that House Ag chair Frank Lucas, R-Ok., and top Dem Collin Peterson, D-Minn., put the GMO language in there. "Most of agribusiness was just as surprised as the Center for Food Safety that Lucas and Peterson would choose to use the farm bill to gut USDA review of GMO crops and open this particular Pandora's Box," Faber said. Stop the Monsanto Protection Act! This week the House of Representatives will consider a provision to House Agricultural Appropriations Bill that will fundamentally undermine the concept of judicial review. Hidden under the guise of a "Farmer Assurance Provision" (Section 733), the provision strips the rights of federal courts to halt the sale and planting of genetically engineered crops during the legal appeals process. In the past, legal advocates have successfully won in court the right to halt the sale and planting of unapproved GMO crops while the approval of those crops is under review by a federal judge. This dangerous new House provision, which we're calling the Monsanto Protection Act, would strip judges of their constitutional mandate to protect consumer rights and the environment, while opening up the floodgates for the planting of new untested genetically engineered crops, endangering farmers, consumers and the environment. Once again, Monsanto and the biotech industry are working behind closed doors to undermine your basic rights. This time they've gone too far! Join us in putting a stop to the Monsanto Protection Act! http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/stop_the_monsanto_protection_act/ The Genetic Engineering News is produced by Thomas Wittman and EcoFarm, and supported by a generous donation from the Newman's Own Foundation.  Please pass this vital information on.  If you would like to get on this list go to www.eco-farm.org and select Newsletters.