On Monday, a federal appeals court dismissed organic farmers’ lawsuit against the biotech firm Monsanto Company — but extracted a binding promise from Monsanto that they would not sue farmers whose crops were inadvertently contaminated with their product. Monsanto, which owns the patents to the vast majority of genetically modified staple crops in the U.S., devotes $10 million a year and a staff of 75 specifically to investigate and sue farmers who use their GM technology without paying royalties. To date, they have pursued more than 800 patent infringement cases.

Organic farmers sued Monsanto in 2011, fearing the company could unleash their enormous legal power on farmers whose crops were accidentally contaminated with their patent-protected technology. Given that seeds are scattered easily by wind, animals, and birds, traces of genetically modified DNA often intermingles with non-GM crops. A study of non-GM crops in the U.S. found that 50 percent of traditional corn seed, 50 percent of soy, and 83 percent of canola was contaminated with GM material.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals tossed the suit against Monsanto, but emphasized that there was no issue because Monsanto had made binding assurances that it will not ‘take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower’s land).”

The farmers’ attorney, Dan Ravicher of the Public Patent Foundation, heralded the decision as a step in the right direction. “Before this suit, the Organic Seed plaintiffs were forced to take expensive precautions and avoid full use of their land in order to not be falsely accused of patent infringement by Monsanto,” he said. “The decision today means that the farmers did have the right to bring the suit to protect themselves, but now that Monsanto has bound itself to not suing the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals believes the suit should not move forward.”

However, the decision still leaves organic farmers unprotected from financial ruin if GM contamination disqualifies their crops from organid and other specialty market certification. The USDA has also shrugged at the risk to non-GM farmers, advising only that they buy insurance to protect against nearly inevitable losses.

As the Center for Food Safety notes, many farmers have had to simply give in to GM crops after contamination: “In some parts of this country and Canada, conventional and organic farmers alike have lost premium markets as they have been forced to sell contaminated crops into the genetically engineered crop stream.”

In general, the rest of the world’s vehement opposition to GMOs and Monsanto has essentially sealed off foreign markets for conventional and organic farmers in the U.S. Most recently, farmers’ lawsuits against Monsanto are piling up after unapproved GM wheat contamination caused several countries to turn away their imports last week.

After a long, concerted attempt to persuade the European Union to accept genetically modified (GM) crops, Monsanto is finally giving up the fight. The biotech giant will not apply for the approval of new GM seeds in Europe in the face of widespread protests and suspicion among farmers. Monsanto has not applied for GM plant approval in Europe for the past couple of years, but officially told the German newspaper Taz they would halt applications in Europe. They are also shutting down all European lobbying efforts.

“As long as there’s not enough demand from farmers for these products and the public at large doesn’t accept the technology, it makes no sense to fight against windmills,” explained Ursula Luettmer-Ouazane, Monsanto’s German spokeswoman.

Still, she left the door open for future action, saying Europe simply “needs more time” to get used to the idea of GMOs.

Though GMOs are increasingly unavoidable in the U.S. — Monsanto owns roughly 90 percent of the staple crops in the country — Europe has remained wary. Monsanto, with the help of the U.S. government, has lobbied hard to weaken European regulatory safeguards and force the EU to accept GM imports, with little success.

Europe has stood firm against the biotech onslaught not merely because Europeans are opposed to GMOs, but because their political leaders are listening to their constituents. Americans are just as skeptical of Monsanto and GMOs in general as Europeans are, but the company continues to flourish and even skirt environmental law thanks to its entrenched ties to the U.S. government, regulators, and politicians. In contrast, several EU member nations have outright banned GM crops, citing concerns that Monsanto’s products would contaminate native crops and could be unsafe for the environment.

Their suspicions are warranted. In the U.S., Monsanto’s GM seeds have driven conventional and organic seeds to near extinction, putting food diversity in peril. Mexico, whose political leaders have warmed to Monsanto despite farmers’ protests, stands to lose generations of cultivated maize diversity to GM contamination.

The U.S. is also starting to see an epidemic of “superweeds” and “superinsects” that have evolved to overcome Monsanto’s patented gene, forcing farmers to use even heavier doses of pesticides on their crops. American farmers, left with few non-GM alternatives, have suffered from Monsanto’s dominance, as well; though they have historically saved seeds and bred their own non-GMO strains, farmers must pay Monsanto each year for new seeds or face the very real threat of legal action. Meanwhile, the consolidation of the global seed market among a handful of powerful companies has driven up seed prices and stifled innovation by smaller firms.

Europe is currently screening American wheat imports after illegal GM wheat contamination was detected in Oregon last week. Japan and South Korea have both banned some wheat imports from the U.S. altogether.

Genetically modified wheat that was never approved for sale has inexplicably turned up in a field in Oregon. A farmer found the crop when it survived a dousing of Roundup weedkiller. When he took it to a lab to be tested, the wheat was revealed to be an illegal strain, genetically modified to resist pesticides by Monsanto, the biotech corporation that owns the patents to most of the staple crops in the country.

Monsanto tested the genetically modified (GM) wheat in 16 states from 1998 to 2005, but dropped the project because many countries refused to accept genetically altered strains. It is unclear if any of the wheat made it into grain shipments to other countries. Though there is no compelling evidence that GM wheat is dangerous, any contamination could mean American wheat exports will be rejected.

Monsanto was quick to emphasize that GM wheat is harmless and that the scope of the problem was “very limited.” But the seemingly innocuous patch of wheat could blow up into a much larger headache for the company soon.

While it is too early to determine the guilty parties, USDA investigators are looking into possible violations of the Plant Protection Act, which regulates GM crops as “plant pests.” If Monsanto is found liable for the Oregon wheat, the company could face up to $1 million in civil penalties and even criminal prosecution.

Because the wheat was growing randomly, like a weed, it seems likely that this was a case of accidental contamination, rather than a deliberate planting of the illegal crop. In the past, the USDA has shown little sympathy for farmers whose crops have been inadvertently contaminated by Monsanto. Last year, the agency dismissed complaints by conventional and organic farmers that GM seeds intermingle with their own strains, simply advising they buy insurance to recoup their financial losses. The USDA report refused to even acknowledge that these farmers are still exposed to costly lawsuits from the biotech giant, even if the patent infringement was accidental. The Oregon wheat investigation may prove once and for all that tougher regulation and actual penalties are needed to curb GM contamination.

Monsanto’s approved crops have already driven non-GM seeds near extinction — one study found that at least half of the organic seeds left in the U.S. are contaminated with genetically modified material. Wheat is one of the shrinking number of staple crops that has thus far been insulated from Monsanto’s influence.

Read more

Over the weekend, protesters marched in 436 cities in 52 countries to protest the biotech giant Monsanto Company’s tightening grip on the global seed market. As hundreds of thousands of people rallied against a range of issues, including Monsanto’s treatment of farmers, the much-publicized Monsanto Protection Act, and the ubiquity of genetically modified ingredients, one overriding concern became clear: how people can identify, let alone avoid, Monsanto products.

Outside of Connecticut and Vermont, GMO labeling efforts have been trounced time and again in Congress, in state legislatures, and even on ballot initiatives. Though companies will not be legally required to disclose GMOs on a national scale anytime soon, the tech industry is rising to the challenge to help consumers find out for themselves. A slew of new mobile food trackers are proving that, as always, there’s an app for that.

One mobile app, Buycott, recently caused a stir among people looking to make more informed purchases. Buycott lets users scan a product before they purchase it to see its connections to companies with certain agendas. Users can sign on to campaigns to help them avoid the Koch Industries, Monsanto, companies that lobbied against GMO labeling, companies that contribute to the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and many more. There’s a wide range of right-wing causes, too — if they wish, users can support Koch Industries or companies that have pushed for looser gun laws. The app also lays out the network of corporations, exposing how seemingly unrelated companies are linked.

On Tuesday, Food Safety News highlighted a number of other apps dedicated to tracing food back to its source. HarvestMark has the most extensive database thus far, tracking five billion fresh food items (vegetables, fruits, and meat) from major companies like The Kroger Company, Driscoll’s Berries, and Coleman Natural, as well as international companies shipping food from China, Mexico and Taiwan. The app lets shoppers scan a product or type in a label to pull up a full profile of the farm it came from, how it was grown, and whether or not the farm has had any foodborne illness issues. The app has already helped limit foodborne illness outbreaks — during one recall, 15 percent of consumers who used HarvestMark discovered their leafy greens had been flagged for health risks.

Food companies are also sensing marketing opportunities in the push for greater transparency. One organic meat company, Applegate, has started using scannable labels called QR codes that let consumers watch videos about the farmer that raised their meat. Top 10 Produce, a tracing company, is working with small independent farms to help them promote their products via mobile technology. In Seattle, a shellfish company is rolling out QR codes to let customers know where each oyster they buy came from.

Read more

After a big win in the Supreme Court on Monday, biotech firm Monsanto Company has more or less solidified its control of the American food supply. Monsanto’s patented genetically modified (GM) seeds comprise roughly 90 percent of the U.S. seed market, driving conventional seeds to near extinction. Now, the company has set its sights on the rest of the world.

A report released Monday from Food and Water Watch details how the State Department has bolstered the biotech industry in its quest to dominate the global seed market. The report found that in 926 diplomatic cables between the State Department and embassies, officials pushed embassies to pressure foreign lawmakers to accept American seeds and intervene in “problematic legislation” banning or restricting GM crops. Even after Monsanto was caught violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and bribing an Indonesian official, U.S. diplomats continued to aggressively promote the company’s interests.

Cables show that embassies in South Africa, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Vietnam lobbied against GMO labeling initiatives, while the embassy in Spain asked for “high-level U.S. government intervention” to combat GM opposition at the “urgent request” of Monsanto. Other outposts regularly worked to kill laws meant to give native farmers a fighting chance against the biotech industry’s rapid takeover of the international seed market:

In 2008, the State Department joined Polish livestock and grain interests and the American Soybean Association to defeat a proposed ban on GE livestock feed. The embassy in Poland promoted pro-biotech rules and legislation but recognized that “we need to take care to be seen as protecting choice, not pushing use.” In 2007, the State Department and the USDA worked with Turkish biotech proponents to defeat proposed legislation that threatened over $1 billion in U.S. GE crop exports. In 2005, the USDA launched a lobbying and public relations campaign to successfully derail proposed anti-biotech legislation in Nicaragua. The embassy in Thailand lobbied to lift the ban on biotech papaya field trials in 2006. The embassy in Egypt tried to break “the regulatory logjam” that was stalling the approval of new GE crops. In Europe, the State Department has targeted the EU to weaken the regulatory safeguards that have delayed the approval of GE crops and to force the EU to accept biotech imports.

Though foreign leaders remain suspicious of these biotech corporations, the media has enthusiastically billed GM seeds as the solution to the global food crisis with little basis. An analysis of articles touting this claim found that virtually none of them identified specific technologies or crops that would help, preferring to make general calls for greater agricultural productivity. Meanwhile, the influential International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development advised that developing nations avoid GM seeds because of their high costs, uncertain yields, and threat to local agriculture. GM seeds, which initially promised greater yields and lower herbicide levels, have actually lowered yields in the U.S. while forcing farmers to apply heavier doses of herbicides to combat “superweeds” that evolved to overcome Monsanto’s gene.

What’s more, several strains of non-GM drought-resistant seeds in India and Africa have actually increased yields and are spreading rapidly. These accomplishments of conventional seed-breeding went largely ignored by the media.

Read more

Health and environmental advocates have fought for years for a federal labeling program for genetically engineered food. Now, for the first time, their battle has bipartisan support in Congress.

On Wednesday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced the Genetically Engineered Food Right-To-Know Act, a bill whose nine cosponsors in the Senate include Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and whose 22 cosponsors in the House include Don Young (R-Alaska).

According to a press release from Boxer’s office, the bill has gained support from a range of organizations and companies, including the Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union and AllergyKids Foundation. The bill would “require the Food and Drug Administration to clearly label genetically engineered foods,” an objective that, as the press release notes, has the support of most Americans: polls have shown more than 90 percent of Americans think GE foods should be labelled. The press release also explains why the FDA needs to make this policy change:

The FDA requires the labeling of over 3,000 ingredients, additives and processes, but the agency has resisted labels for genetically modified foods. In a 1992 policy statement, the FDA allowed GE foods to be marketed without labeling, claiming that these foods were not “materially” different from other foods because the genetic differences could not be recognized by taste, smell or other senses.

Unfortunately, the FDA’s antiquated labeling policy has not kept pace with 21st century food technologies that allow for a wide array of genetic and molecular changes to food that can’t be detected by human senses. Common sense would indicate that GE corn that produces its own insecticide – or is engineered to survive being doused by herbicides – is materially different from traditional corn that does not. Even the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has recognized that these foods are materially different and novel for patent purposes.

The bill was introduced at a time when news and debate surrounding GE food is at a high. Last month, despite promises during his campaign that he’d require labeling of GE food, Barack Obama signed the so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” into law, giving the U.S. Department of Agriculture the power to override court orders to stop planting a GE crop. Around the same time that provision was passed, a group of major grocery retailers including Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s pledged they would not sell GE seafood if it were approved in the U.S. And last year, California’s Proposition 37, which would have mandated GMO labeling in the state, was narrowly defeated after biotechnology giants like Monsanto spent $44 million dollars in a campaign against the bill.

Though representatives from Monsanto and GE trade group Biotechnology Industry Organization said they haven’t yet read the full text of the GE Food Right-To-Know Act, they told the Huffington Post Wednesday that they oppose GE labeling in general, calling it “an agenda to vilify biotechnology.”

Liberals and Tea Party members alike are up in arms over the so-called “Monsanto Protection Act,” a provision snuck into the emergency budget bill that essentially exempts biotech firms like Monsanto Company from judicial review. Now that President Obama has signed the law, Monsanto may plant genetically modified seeds even if a court of law orders them to stop. While this is blatantly unethical, and possibly unenforceable, the newfound public outrage over the Monsanto Protection Act ignores the fact that Monsanto has already been above the law for decades.

The Monsanto Protection Act is merely a drop in the bucket of government-embedded protections the agricultural giant already enjoys. The company has spent decades packing the US Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency with its own members. A new Food and Water Watch report maps out the many ways the company stacks the regulatory deck in their favor:

Monsanto’s board members have worked for the EPA, advised the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and served on President Obama’s Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations. They presided over multiple universities in various senior positions, including South Dakota State University (with whom Monsanto has a significant research agreement), Arizona State’s Biodesign Institute and Washington University in St. Louis [...] The prevalence of Monsanto’s directors in these highly influential positions begs a closer look at how they’re able to push the pro-GE agenda within the government and influence public opinion.

An extended list of policymakers with Monsanto histories is available here.

Monsanto insists that its revolving door is in overdrive because Monsanto employees are simply the best qualified for positions in these agencies, who certainly don’t hold onto their loyalty to the company in their new roles.

Yet it’s hard to ignore how Monsanto has benefited from these connections. The USDA has never denied a single application for Monsanto’s genetically engineered crops. USDA chief Tom Vilsack briefly considered limiting Monsanto’s alfalfa planting to protect organic crops from contamination, but deregulated it entirely instead. In another win for the company, their controversial growth hormone for cows was approved under Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto lobbyist-turned-USDA-administrator-turned-FDA Deputy Commissioner, even though it was banned in the European Union, Japan, Australia, and Canada over health concerns. The hormone was approved in the US after Monsanto employee Margaret Miller oversaw a report on its safety, took a job at the FDA, and promptly approved her own report. Another Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddiqui, later wrote the USDA’s organic food standards, allowing irradiated and genetically modified foods to label themselves as organic. And Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a Monsanto lawyer, will help decide a challenge to Monsanto’s GMO patents this year.

Read more

A celebrity-driven PSA that’s been making the rounds on television and subscription services like Hulu urges Americans to stuff Easter baskets this Sunday with toys — rather than the traditional high-sugar, high-fat candies like chocolate bunnies. The ad presents itself as a campaign to “save the bunny” while encouraging parents to shift away from giving kids the unhealthy treats.

Watch it:

It’s worth noting that the project is sponsored by Mattel, Fisher-Price, and various other toy-makers, and the campaign’s webpage directs visitors to retailers that sell their products, so there is an obvious financial motive at play here.

However, while candy consumed on one day out of the year is a mere drop in the bucket compared to other factors feeding into America’s obesity crisis, such as the over-consumption of fast foods and unhealthy school lunches, the empirical data suggests that there is some merit to the movement. Figures compiled by online retailers and the National Confectioners’ Association show that Americans purchase 120 million pounds of Easter candy annually — and the vast majority of it is particularly unhealthy foods like chocolate:

Holidays in general are a gold mine for chocolate makers — particularly for corporate giants Hershey and Mars, the two companies that produce 70 percent of all chocolate. Hershey’s webpage is currently pushing chocolate products such as the aforementioned bunnies, Cadbury cream eggs, and a variety of other sugary concoctions for Easter Sunday. Most chocolate products in the U.S. are actually made up mostly of Monsanto-produced corn.

On Wednesday, the Senate passed a continuing resolution to fund the federal government through September and avoid a government shutdown — and tucked into the 587-page bill are two brief provisions worth millions of dollars for large agribusinesses. The first blocks basic protections for livestock farmers already passed in the 2008 Farm Bill, effectively giving large meatpacking corporations free rein to manipulate the livestock market. The second exempts biotechnology giants like Monsanto and Dow from judicial review, allowing them to sell and plant genetically engineered crops even if a court of law orders them to stop.

These so-called “riders” often have little to do with the bill they piggyback, but special interests deploy them to avoid the scrutiny of the legislative process. A similar rider to deregulate the biotech industry quietly appeared in the stalled House Farm Bill last year. This time, agribusinesses took advantage of the urgency of averting the impending government shutdown on March 27. No lawmaker has come forward to claim responsibility for the riders.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-MO), the Senate’s only working farmer, introduced two amendments to remove these “corporate giveaways,” but was not allowed to bring his amendments to a vote. Last week, Tester gave a fiery speech eviscerating the backdoor move to further consolidate power among a handful of corporations:

The House inserted a provision in the bill that gives enormous market power to America’s three largest meatpacking corporations while stiffing family farmers and ranchers. Family-run production agriculture faces tremendous market manipulation. Chicken farmers, hog farmers, and cattle ranchers all struggle to get a fair price from meatpackers. And if they fight back, they risk angering corporate representatives and being shut out of the market. Thanks to this provision, the Agriculture Department will not be able to ensure a fair, open market that puts the brakes on the worst abuses by the meatpacking industry. What’s worse is that the USDA took Congressionally-mandated steps to protect ranchers from market manipulation over the last few years. That’s what we told them to do in the 2008 Farm Bill. And this provision will actually overturn rules that USDA has already put in place. But apparently intense behind-the-scenes lobbying won out in the House of Representatives, and now we’re back to square one with big meatpackers calling the shots.

The second provision sent over from the House tells USDA to ignore any judicial ruling regarding the planting of genetically-modified crops. Its supporters are calling it the “farmer assurance” provision, but all it really assures is a lack of corporate liability. The provision says that when a judge finds that the USDA approved a crop illegally, the department must re-approve the crop and allow it to continue to be planted – regardless of what the judge says.

The “farmer assurance” rider addresses a 2010 controversy, in which a judge ordered a halt on planting Monsanto’s Roundup Ready beets until an environmental study could be conducted. The USDA ignored the judge’s ruling and allowed farmers to keep planting the beets without an environmental study. Nevertheless, the company unleashed a lobbying blitz of almost 6 million dollars on Washington. In summer of 2012, the farmer assurance rider popped up in the appropriations bill.