SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The transgenic Darling 58 chestnut tree as a sign of our collapsing regulatory ecosystem.
On December 8th, the American Chestnut Foundation (TACF) announced it was withdrawing support "for several pending regulatory petitions that would authorize distribution of transgenic Darling 58 trees outside permitted research plots". The announcement was shocking, one that should have huge implications for the idea of releasing GMOs into the wild.
TACF, in league with the State University of New York Environmental School of Forestry (SUNY-ESF) has been publicly stating that it can restore the dominance of the American chestnut, which was decimated by logging and blight, with a genetically engineered version called Darling 58 (D58). They claimed D58 was engineered with a wheat gene inserted into its genome to enable it to resist the blight. It was a high-profile venture intended (the petition is still pending) to deregulate, for the first time, a GE plant for release into the wild to contaminate its wild relatives, something Dr. Donald Davis, an expert on the history of the American Chestnut, called “a massive and irreversible experiment.”
More recent statements by TACF have revealed that it was not merely because of “significant performance limitations” of the Darling progeny that TACF has withdrawn its support but also because they have been working with the wrong GE Tree. The TACF press release explained that “a significant identity error in the propagation materials supplied to TACF” had occurred, and that “independent confirmation now shows all pollen and trees used for this research was derived not from Darling 58.” Throughout the regulatory process, no one noticed that they were working with the wrong tree.
As the promise of the Darling 58 withers on the proverbial vine, it should be a cautionary tale of publicity-driven science as well as a wakeup call to our collapsing regulatory environment
Not since Cold Fusion has so much scientific hype been generated around a fundamental error. Frankly, it strains credulity that the Federal government was so close to making such a monumental, precedent-setting regulatory decision based upon misinformation. This should call into question any and all claims by SUNY-ESF about their GE tree research and disqualify this and future petitions by them.
The Campaign to STOP GE Trees has, for years, argued that the Darling 58 is a Trojan Horse—an iconic tree used to reduce public opposition to GE trees, and to support approval for other more commercial applications of the technology. Despite the shocking admission by TACF that their Darling 58 is not what they claimed, this regulatory threat still exists, and the Campaign to STOP GE Trees will remain vigilant until the USDA pulls the plug on this ill-conceived experiment.
Benefiting from the public relations efforts of SUNY-ESF, TACF and other pro-GMO organizations, headlines in small newspapers to giants such as the New York Times considered the project as a fait accompli giving scientific concerns raised by organizations such as ours tertiary acknowledgement.
So ubiquitous was the praise for the D58 that a recent headline stated, “ESF scientist who brought back American chestnut tree from the brink of extinction has died”. The story was a well-meaning memorial to the scientist who headed the D58 project, yet it exemplifies how the press overstated the success of the D58. With TACF officially withdrawing its support for the D58, it is now the responsibility of those outlets to let the public know that the unparalleled support for the GE tree was misplaced and that the silvicultural messiah was less than all that.
We will continue to echo the warnings of scientists who urge caution, such as TACF’s former staff geneticist, Dr. Paul Sisko who said that there needs to be 50 years of testing prior to release given that the trees are long-lived organisms. Sisko also expressed concern that since only young trees were tested that they do not know whether these genes will have unintended side effects on the trees, or the organisms that interact with the trees as they mature.
In fact, one of the reasons TACF stated for withdrawing its support was poor performance as the trees matured. This underscores the impossible task of understanding the impacts of introducing long-lived organisms into the wild- not to mention researching the wrong variant.
As the promise of the Darling 58 withers on the proverbial vine, it should be a cautionary tale of publicity-driven science as well as a wakeup call to our collapsing regulatory environment and our agencies’ inherent inability to regulate proposals to release genetically engineered long-lived organisms into the wild.
Glyphosate’s association with cancer grows like a weed.
So-called “Free trade” promises lower prices and more supply, but it derails food security. Mexico has been fighting this since the United States began a dispute over genetically modified (GMO) corn. In November, a trade panel made initial filings public. They reveal that the U.S. plays for agribusiness, which includes chemical and biotech companies. Meanwhile, by banning GMO corn, Mexico secures supplies of an important daily staple and limits cancer risks from glyphosate. American positions appear oblivious to this.
This involves Mexico’s Decree, announced in February. It bans GMO corn for human consumption, limited to corn in tortillas or masa (dough). In August, the U.S. invoked a panel under NAFTA 2.0, formally called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Showing its hand, the U.S. is out to lunch on various fronts.
First regards what the ban does. The U.S. argues that Mexico requires substitutes for GMOs in animal feed. Nonsense. The Decree does not touch animal feed. It does envision eventual GMO alternatives, but no timeline is given for this. No measures are announced. Addressing these fears, the Decree explains that authorizations for GMOs will still be granted, so long as they are not used for corn in tortillas or masa.
Other American positions note that Mexico is the “second largest export market for corn” and corn is its “largest agricultural import.” These observations may be true, but they seriously conflate separate commercial realities. American farms overwhelmingly grow corn that is GMO and yellow. Exports to Mexico are mostly yellow corn, for “non-human consumption,” and for animal feed or industry. A lobby group, the Corn Refiners Association explained this last year.
The Decree impacts a different type of corn, which is white corn. Mexican cuisine prefers white corn as the kernels are softer and easier to grind than yellow corn.
Economic figures show the confusion. Only about 3% of corn grown in the U.S. is for human consumption and less than one percent of that is white corn, as reported by the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center at Iowa State University last year. US Department of Agriculture studies on exports confirm these amounts.
After the ban, American farmers will continue exporting GMO yellow corn and corn for animal feed or industrial use. Mexico will import these. American fog in this dispute is real.
Why twist the trade numbers? Because of a third problem: cancer risks. American stances hype lower prices and higher yields to distract from worries intrinsic to glyphosate. GMO farms need this herbicide. This may be the US’s “tilt,” a poker term meaning frustration leading to bad aggressive choices.
Glyphosate’s association with cancer grows like a weed. A few weeks ago, a Missouri jury ordered its maker, Bayer Monsanto, to pay $1.56 billion finding the chemical caused lymphoma cancer. This dealt the agribusiness giant its fourth straight loss.
Its run started to change in 2015 when a World Health Organization (WHO) agency found glyphosate was a likely cause of cancer. U.S. courts started agreeing with this finding three years later. There have been many lawsuit losses for glyphosate since then. For these health-based reasons, Mexico is preparing to discontinue glyphosate with Decrees from 2020 and this year.
The U.S. effectively ignores these risks. Its filing mentions the toxin only when it must because of the titles of Mexico’s Decrees and press releases. The American game is to bring up old stories on GMO safety. These include “prescient” claims of “new biotechnology breakthroughs” from a Nobel Laureate in 2000. They cite a National Academy of Sciences report finding that GMOs were “environmentally sound”—but it's from two decades ago. They also reference the WHO in 2014 confirming there was “no evidence of ill effects” from consuming GMO crops. But these are all outdated studies. That's the “tell,” providing clues on its strategy on the trade fight over corn.
Mexico can stick to the current science on glyphosate dangers, including pediatric medicine and public health studies from 2021 and 2023. Conducted in Mexico, they find worrying levels of glyphosate in children who lacked any direct contact with herbicides and in neonate infants whose exposure is via “maternal routes.” This is alarming since children and infants lack developed organs and immune systems. These risks are expected to come from GMO corn consumption, by children or their mothers, respectively.
Where do we go from here? The USMCA, Chapter 9, preserves food safety measures to protect human life and health. A limited ban on GMO corn is not too much to ask. Will it convince trade panelists? Hopefully.
But what is clear, after the first hand was played, American stances ignore the Decree's objectives, its impacts, and the cancer risks at hand. Ideally, Mexico’s food safety efforts are protected by the trade rules American officials tout.
Otherwise, NAFTA 2.0 just gets another update, forcing GMOs, with a trade panel determining the justifications. Observers describe this as prioritizing corporate profits and “nothing short of 21st-century imperialism.” Stay tuned. It’s a long game, but Mexico’s plan for corn is part of larger global efforts to make international trade more fair and sustainable.
By using commodity grains produced on factory land farms to feed fish in factory ocean farms, Big Ag has brought small-scale farmers and fishermen like us together.
Farmers neither milk cows with nets, nor harvest vegetables with rods. And fishermen neither scatter seeds in the oceans, nor catch fish with sickles.
Despite our differences, something we do share is a common threat from the expansion of industrial fish farming and big agribusiness.
More specifically, the expansion of industrial fish farming provides an increasingly profitable outlet for large-scale agriculture corporations to market surplus grains like soy and corn as “fish feed.” Such developments threaten both fishing and farming communities, as the model promotes industrial production of genetically modified monocrops for concentrated animal feeding operations on land and at sea.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), marine and inland aquaculture production has significantly increased around the world from 1990 to 2022, with the former growing from 12.6 to 44.7 million live weight tons, and the latter moving from 9.2 to 26.8 million live weight tons.
Factory fish farms have emerged to line the pockets of big corporations by producing monocultures of fish at mass volume, under the guise of satisfying seafood demand. This "demand" is artificially created by the fact that we currently export 75-80% of U.S. wild-caught seafood. US wild-capture fishermen landed more fish domestically than Americans consumed in 2020, according to the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration.
The influx of nutritionally inferior farmed fish devalues sustainable and diverse wild-caught fisheries, forcing fishermen to accept pennies on the pound for hard-earned fish. Furthermore, wild forage fish, which make up the base of healthy marine ecosystems, are being harvested for incorporation into aquaculture fish feeds, along with soy and corn. These fish, specifically Menhaden and herring, are the main source of protein for every species of finfish.
Densely packed fish farms also degrade ocean ecosystems. They amount to floating feedlots that pollute waters with antibiotics and fish waste; endanger marine mammals that interact with the cages; and compromise local coastal economies that depend on fishing and tourism. From coast to coast, lobbyist-backed efforts are underway to expand this industry in the United States.
Certain large-scale agribusiness firms have jumped on the bandwagon and made offshore industrial fish farming an area of focus. In a nutshell – or perhaps a soybean – the firms together referred to as “ABCD” (Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, Cargill, and the Louis Dreyfus Company) are developing what is known as “aquafeed.”
According to Cargill, aquafeed includes “co-products” that are “not of marine origin.” Those “co-products” include all kinds of things, including large amounts of soymeal and corn - most of which is genetically modified.
Should fish eat corn or soy? Common sense says no.
As you can imagine, fish have trouble digesting grains. On top of that, placing thousands of fish in confinement generates other issues, including disease and illness.
In response, Cargill has acquired firms, such as Diamond V, which specialize in producing feed additives to improve fish health and digestion. They are also working on new “co-products,” such as insects and algae to supplement the soy and corn that fish are forced to eat.
Notice the circle: agribusiness firms create solutions for problems they created in the first place. In fact, we wouldn’t have to worry about fish diets if they were not sick from being crammed into unnatural habitats, eating manufactured food — basically, if there were no factory fish farms.
Meanwhile, our current industrial agricultural system rests upon bailing out farmers just enough through schemes like crop insurance, so that they continue to grow excess corn and soy, regardless of demand. In fact, crop insurance has become the second largest section of the Farm Bill, the mammoth piece of federal legislation that covers programs ranging from rural development to food access to beginning farmer training. In comparison, federal agencies spend a pittance on policies that could promote diverse operations and climate solutions.
The truth is that mega-scale agribusinesses' grain merchants wouldn’t be looking to force-feed soybeans and corn to fish if we had a decent agriculture policy that supported farmer incomes and local, diversified operations, rather than crops that feed into the commodities market. Instead, soy and corn are being overproduced in the U.S. and the Global South, often on land seized from Indigenous peoples for mono-crop expansion that relies on deforestation and pesticide use.
This plays out as a perfect scenario for agribusiness giants to pad their pockets. But not so for small-scale farmers and fishermen, who don’t see any benefits for themselves or their communities.
Still, there’s hope. New proposed legislation for the currently debated Farm Bill may yield positive results, instead of more commodities in our global industrial food system.
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) recently introduced the Improving Agriculture, Research, Cultivation, Timber, and Indigenous Commodities (ARCTIC) Act, much of which is aimed at including seafood in the Farm Bill. The legislation bans offshore fish farms in federal waters, while increasing portside processing facilities for small-scale fishermen. It also calls for country of origin labeling for cooked crab that may come from outside of the US into our markets, as well as a ‘Wild USA Seafood’ label for fish that is landed in US waters.
Preventing the development of offshore factory fish farms is a win for fishing communities. But it’s also a potential win for farmers and the environment. It could deter farmers from continuing on the commodity grain treadmill, allowing them to instead diversify in search of market alternatives and better profits.
By using commodity grains produced on factory land farms to feed fish in factory ocean farms, Big Ag has brought small-scale farmers and fishermen like us together. The Farm Bill, up for reauthorization, seems like an apt opportunity for cross pollination. Why not use this important legislation to address farmers’ and fishermen’s issues together?
We hope more food producers from land and sea join in on our shared fights. After all, our farming and food systems don’t end at the water’s edge.