Phase III – Stealth Is.

Genetically modified plants grown from seeds engineered in labs now provide much of the food we eat. Most corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United States have been genetically modified to resist pesticides or insects, and corn and soy are common food ingredients.

USA. Genetically engineered crops timeline

The Agriculture Department has approved three more genetically engineered crops in the past month, and the Food and Drug Administration could approve fast-growing genetically modified salmon for human consumption this year.

Agribusiness and the seed companies say their products help boost crop production, lower prices at the grocery store and feed the world, particularly in developing countries. The FDA and USDA say the engineered foods they’ve approved are safe — so safe, they don’t even need to be labeled as such — and can’t be significantly distinguished from conventional varieties.

Executive Director Andrew Kimbrell of the non-profit Center for Food Safety vowed to seek a court order immediately reversing and voiding the U.S. Agriculture Department’s approval of “Roundup Ready” alfalfa — the fourth Roundup Ready crop approved for U.S. commercial-farming use, after soybeans, corn and cotton.

“We will be back in court representing the interest of farmers, preservation of the environment and consumer choice,” Kimbrell said.

The department’s decision “comes despite increasing evidence that (genetically altered) alfalfa will threaten the rights of farmers and consumers, as well as damage the environment,” he said.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Thursday he would permit unrestricted commercial cultivation of alfalfa that’s been genetically modified to survive applications of the Monsanto Co. herbicide Roundup, allowing spraying of the chemical to kill weeds without hurting the crop. The decision lets farmers begin planting this year’s alfalfa crop grown from the biotech seeds.

The department indicated last month it might create a first-ever compromise, with a range of restrictions for planting. But the department dropped the conditions after the proposal drew criticism at a recent congressional hearing and in public forums at which Vilsack outlined the option, The New York Times said.

Vilsack said Thursday his department would take other measures, such as conducting research and promoting dialogue, to make sure pure, non-engineered alfalfa seed would remain available.

Organic and conventional farmers say they can lose sales if biotech alfalfa is detected in their crops, which occurs through cross-pollination from a nearby field or through intermingling of seeds. Alfalfa is pollinated largely by honey bees.

The stated reason for their attack was that “Europe is moving backwards not forwards” on GMOs, with “France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the [EU] Commission.” The Ambassador was concerned that France and others would put a ban on the cultivation of Monsanto’s GM corn seeds called Mon 810, engineered with a gene that produces a toxic insect-killing pesticide in every cell. Mon 810 is the first GM crop approved for planting EU-wide and has been a test case for biotech expansionism into the continent.

According to the cable, the Ambassador also rejected the France’s new “Grenelle” environment process, which looks beyond just the science of new technologies to also take into account “common interest.” Evidently a government that looks out for common interest is just too much for Ambassador Stapleton. He wrote, “Combined with the precautionary principle, this is a precedent with implications far beyond MON-810 BT corn cultivation.”

He was also upset about France’s draft biotech law that “would make farmers and seed companies legally liable for pollen drift.” This concept that the “polluter pays” is a foundational principle of US law–except for GMOs. Here Stapleton also wants France to give a free pass for Monsanto and the other GM seed companies.

The French government and EU Commission tried to placate the US suggesting that the rejections of Mon 810 “are only cultivation rather than import bans.” But Stapleton says, “We see the cultivation ban as a first step, at least by anti-GMO advocates, who will move next to ban or further restrict imports.”

Mutating the genetic code of our healthy bacteria is incredibly dangerous because these healthy bacteria live inside us for a reason. They are our first line of immune defense and they keep us well by crowding out many harmful bacteria, fungus, and pathogens that cause innumerable diseases. But when their genetic structure is changed, who knows if they’ll be able to do this job effectively? Who knows if they’ll even be beneficial anymore? More than likely they won’t.

Because GM soy transfers its genetic code into our healthy bacteria, it’s possible that our own healthy bacteria will now produce abnormal GM proteins inside us for the rest of our lives. Mad cow disease is one example of a problem that abnormal proteins cause.

…