" Do you really know the chemicals and GMO ingredients, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) probably EVEN doesn’t know many of them due to Monsanto’s probable unreported and/or hidden ‘science’ not surrendered as part of the ‘approval’ process for either glyphosate, Roundup® and Roundup Ready seeds for soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sorghum—with wheat under development!
(Article by Catherine J Frompovich, republished from NaturalBlaze.com)"
Monsanto’s lobbyist, Patrick Moore, refuses to drink some Roundup® after proclaiming it won’t hurt you because, as he says, “I’m not an idiot!” What does it tell you about that herbicide and, especially, Monsanto’s own lobbyist, who was promoting GMO Golden Rice, and their products?
MONSANTO HEAVY HANDED AGENDA - Download PDF
Monsanto’s role in the South African agricultural landscape, with a particular focus on
"The maize seed market and the markets for Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup.
South Africa is the only country in the world to permit the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) seed for the production of a staple food-maize. 86% of the 2012/13 maize crop was planted to GM seed on 2.7 million ha. 81% of the white maize seed sold was GM-and belonging to Monsanto. GM white maize is used principally as milled maize meal for human consumption and eaten by several million South Africans as a staple food, at least once a day.
Three major food producers Tiger Brands, Pioneer Foods and Premier Foods control the milling of 60% of the nation’s white maize crop. Milled maize products, Ace, White Star and Iwisa Super Maize Meal belonging to Tiger Brands, Pioneer Foods, and Premier, respectively, constitute over 73% of the maize meal market respectively.
The test results are as follows:
Premier’s Iwisa 81.2% GM content (labelled as ‘contains genetically modified organisms”) October 2013;
Pioneer’s White Star Super Maize meal 72,04% GM maize content (labelled as “produced using genetic modification”) October 2013;
Premier’s course braai pap, 55.22% GM maize content (labelled as “may contain genetically modified organisms”) October 2013;
Premier’s Nyala Super Maize Meal, 87.44% GM maize content (labelled as “contains genetically modified organisms”) March 2013;
Woolworth’s Super Maize meal, 79.78% GM maize content (labelled as “may be genetically modified”) March 2013.
“We are hugely taken aback and disappointed by the test results for the Woolworths’ Maize Meal as this high GM content and misleading labelling flies in the face of their stated position. Woolworths is on record as stating that their policy is to replace or remove ingredients derived from GM crop sources, or to label the final products containing ingredients derived from GM crops, to ensure customer choice,” said Zakiyya Ismail, ACB’s consumer awareness
Pioneer’s ‘White Star’ super maize meal corners 25.3% of the market, Tiger Brand’s ‘Ace’ super maize meal 22.5%, Premier Foods flagship brand ‘Iwisa’ 13.3%, and when combined with sales of its other brands ‘Impala’ maize meal and ‘Nyala’ maize, Premier lays claim to a hefty 25.5% of the market.1
The ACB has during June 2013 also subjected several Tiger Brands’ ‘ACE’ milled maize products for testing and these were unlabelled and showed extremely high GM content:
ACE Super maize meal 78% GM maize content
ACE Maize Rice 70% GM maize content
ACE Instant Porridge 68% GM maize content "
Between 70% and 80% of maize consumed in South Africa is genetically modified, and ours is the only country in the world whose staple is primarily GMO. So what? Three decades after its adoption, GM maize remains contentious. ANDREA TEAGLE takes a look at some of the risks and benefits of South Africa’s beloved mielie today.
Across the globe countries are taking action against a herbicide that the World Health Organization says might cause cancer.
Colombia has suspended the aerial spraying of illegal coca plantations with glyphosate because several studies - including one by a research arm of the WHO - suggest that the herbicide is likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
European countries, including the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, have banned or restricted the use of glyphosate.
In South Africa, a position on its continued use is unclear, with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry failing to respond to queries yesterday.
The WHO study, published in the journal The Lancet Oncology, said there was limited evidence that the herbicide caused non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in humans, although there was sufficient evidence that it caused cancer in animals.
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is a cancer that attacks the lymphocytes that form part of the immune system.
The study found that glyphosate had been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, suggesting absorption.
In South Africa, the use of glyphosate - an active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, which is used on genetically modified crops - has been growing.
According to the African Centre of Biodiversity, an activist organisation, half of South Africa's maize crop and 100% of the soya crop is genetically modified, meaning it has to be grown with the use of glyphosate.
According to Christo Joubert, from the market economic research centre at the National Agricultural Marketing Council, the country consumes nearly 27000 tons of maize daily.
EcoWatch produced the article “15 Health Problems Linked to Monsanto’s Roundup,” which include: ADHD, Alzheimer’s disease, Anencephaly (birth defects), Autism, Brain cancer, Cancer, Celiac disease and gluten intolerance, chronic Kidney disease, Colitis, Depression, Diabetes, Heart disease, Hypothyroidism, Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBS) and “Leaky Gut Syndrome”, Liver disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Parkinson disease, Pregnancy problems (infertility, miscarriages, stillbirths), Obesity, Reproductive problems, and Respiratory illnesses
It is unclear what portion of this is genetically modified maize.
In 2012, the African Center for Biodiversity conducted a study of glyphosate levels in maize and soya in South Africa.
"We found traces of glyphosate, but it was below the maximum residue levels permitted," said Gareth Jones, one of the researchers.
What concerned the organisation was that it had to get the tests done in France because none of the laboratories in South Africa could perform the analysis.
"There is no testing facility in South Africa, so there is no active monitoring,'' said the centre's Zakiyya Ismail.
Last year, the centre tested the amount of genetically modified soya flour used in the making of bread and discovered glyphosate traces in the output of seven of eight big manufacturers of bread in the country.
Jones said even though the levels were within legal South African limits, there has not been sufficient tests on the long-term effects of low exposure to the pesticide.
Attempts to get clarity on the government's policy on glyphosate had been unsuccessful, he said.
"For six to nine months at the time of the study we tried to get information from the Department of Agriculture, but we couldn't get a response," he said.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestries told The Times it would respond to queries only today.
Rhodes University has tested the affect of glyphosate on aquatic animals. The herbicide is known to effect the embryonic development of frogs.
Professor Tally Palmer, of the Rhodes Institute for Water Research, said glyphosate was used to control a number of aquatic weeds. But to test the amount of glyphosate in South Africa's waterways would be expensive.
A concern, she said, was that because genetically modified crops are resistant to glyphosate, farmers have a tendency to over-spray plants, releasing more of the weed killer into the environment.
The South African Consumer Protection Act requires all food containing 5% or more genetically modified content to be labelled.
Monsanto has said the WHO's research was biased.
"We are outraged with this assessment," said Dr Robb Fraley, Monsanto's chief technology officer.
"This conclusion is inconsistent with the decades of ongoing comprehensive safety reviews by the leading regulatory authorities around the world that have concluded that all labelled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health. [The WHO] result was reached by 'cherry picking' of data and is a clear example of agenda-driven bias."
He said that repeated safety assessments had formed "the foundation for the long history of safe, highly effective use of this important agricultural tool in more than 160 countries around the world."