This is about FUSARIUM in GMO’d crops. The mycotoxins produced by fusarium are deadly in high enough quantity, as discussed in earlier postings. It’s why it has been illegal to sell grain that has fusarium in it.
It is disconcerting to see (Western Producer article below) that the proposed response to higher levels of fusarium in food grains is to raise the tolerance level. (Instead of it being illegal to sell.)
There is a serious plant diseaseissue around GMO’d crops. (Makes sense to me – applied toxins eventually compromise immune systems.)
One disease, fusarium, should be discussed along with the increase in other crop diseases (just as the increases in human disease should be discussed together, not in isolation).
CLUB ROOT in canola (the disease remains in the soil for 60 years) has appeared and is on the march. Pretty well all the canola grown in Canada is GMO. (I’ll add the link to earlier posting on club root asap.)
The Western Producer article below gives two reasons for the increase in fusarium:
largely influenced by local weather conditions.
Seeding date was also an important factor
The first article (Organic Consumers Assoc) says . . .
crops grown in the fields the year after Roundup Ready crops are at higher risk of disease.
Chemical loads on the fields are high, there are residual chemicals in the field which weakens immunity. And maybe the fusarium fungus remains in the soil, the same as for the club foot organism?
I wonder if the Western Producer has EVER reported on the connections between crop disease and GMO agriculture?
Canadian research just released confirms the suspicions raised by other
studies and farmers that Monsanto¹s glyphosate herbicide ³Roundup² leads to
increased presence of the Fusarium fungus on crops. The Fusarium pathogen
can lead to Fusarium Head Blight in wheat and other cereals, as well as
Sudden Death Syndrome in soybeans.
This is bad news for growers of GM Roundup Ready crops, as well as for
Monsanto. It means that Roundup Ready crops sprayed with Roundup
(glyphosate) are at higher risk from disease. Furthermore, crops grown in the fields the year after Roundup Ready crops are at higher risk of disease.
This new research which links glyphosate applications to Fusarium Head
Blight in wheat comes at a controversial time in Canada and America, as
Monsanto¹s application to commercialise Roundup Ready wheat is being
considered. Fusarium Head Blight devastates huge proportions of North
America¹s and Europe¹s wheat crops, and farmers, activists and NGOs are
pleading with the Canadian government to reject or delay RR wheat approval
while there is a risk of increasing fusarium.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
FROM A MEMBER OF OUR NETWORK:
one of the lead authorities on fusarium…did PhD research on it… has worked with some of leads around world on this problem..
told me a dozen years ago that this train was coming down tracks…
said that by end of last decade, fully expected it to reach SK/AB border.
What is more interesting is that work uncovered a problem which took to a conference in States along with a colleague from Australia (?)
about 10 years ago….it had something to do with the spraying of roundup on newly planted crops as a guard against the fusarium fungus…seems the spraying was taking place at such a time in such a way . . showing me pix of the stock of young wheat shriveling or rotting around the base or few inches up from there.
research clearly attributed it to use of RoundUp…when the two disclosed this, they had Monsanto around their necks…paranoid about personal safety as was counterpart in Australia…
Yields cut by nearly half | Concerns rise over spread of disease through cleaned pedigreed seed
Fusarium graminearum took a huge bite out of pedigreed seed supplies in 2012, particularly in Saskatchewan where some seed growers harvested unusually small crops that were heavily infected with the disease.
Fusarium cut grain yields by as much as 50 percent in some parts of the province, and the proportion of fusarium damaged kernels (FDK) in certified wheat and barley crops was unusually high, leading to additional cleanout losses of 30 percent or more.
The disease’s prevalence is raising concerns about whether it is being spread via pedigreed seed that contains traces of fusarium graminearum, even after the seed has been cleaned and conditioned. Graminearum is the most aggressive and costly of the fusarium species.
The yield losses caused by fusarium will almost certainly result in regional shortages of certified wheat and barley seed, said Bruce Carriere, manager of Discovery Seed Labs.
“There’s going to be a seed shortage, big time,” Carriere said. “There are some growers that have nothing to sell.”
Fusarium losses in Saskatchewan varied from region to region and were largely influenced by local weather conditions.
Seeding date was also an important factor in determining overall infection rates.
Some crops planted in early to mid-May were heavily infected while others planted later experienced minor losses.
Overall, there were numerous hotspots where infections rates reached record levels and where fusarium graminearum was evident on more than 50 percent of harvested kernels.
Joe Rennick, a certified seed grower from Milestone, Sask., south of Regina, said certified seed crops on his farm produced variable yields, depending on when they were seeded.
In some instances, wheat crops that looked like they would produce 50 or 60 bushels per acre yielded in the mid 20s.
“In the crops that were affected, it really hit the yield hard,” said Rennick.
He said certified wheat crops that were hardest hit produced yields of 22 to 28 bu. per acre, a disappointing outcome considering the density of the stands.
Clean-out losses on that material could cut production by another 20 to 30 percent, pushing the total marketable yield of conditioned certified seed as low 15 to 20 bu. per acre.
The prevalence of fusarium in certified seed crops is prompting discussions about whether the pedigreed seed industry should establish fusarium thresholds on certified seed supplies.
Most fusarium damaged kernels can be cleaned out of pedigreed seed using a gravity table, but there is no guarantee that the remaining seeds do not carry traces of fusarium graminearum.
Commercial grain growers who buy certified seed are responsible for asking whether the seed has been tested for fusarium graminearum and whether fusarium damaged kernels were prevalent in pre-conditioned seed lots.
Growers who plant farm-saved seed should check seed for traces of the disease.
In Alberta, fusarium graminearum was declared a pest under the province’s Agricultural Pest Act in 1999.
The declaration, when combined with Alberta’s fusarium management plan, means there is a zero-tolerance threshold on pedigreed seed that contains detectable traces of fusarium graminearum.
In other words, it is illegal for any Alberta farmer to buy, sell, distribute or grow seed that is contaminated with the fungus.
The increasing prevalence of the disease in Western Canada has the Alberta government and some Alberta seed growers questioning whether the zero-tolerance policy for seed-borne fusarium graminearum should be revisited.
Fusarium has already been detected in cereal crops produced in southern Alberta in 2010 and 2011.
The disease has also been confirmed in the Peace River district.
As well, unusually wet weather in Alberta last year is expected to encourage the disease’s spread.
Gayah Sieusahai, chair of the province’s fusarium action committee, said plant pathologists are reviewing the province’s fusarium management plan.
Support for a zero-tolerance policy on seed-borne fusarium may be waning in Alberta, especially given that the disease has already been detected in the province.
As well, Sieusahai said it is difficult to ensure that all certified seed transported across the Saskatchewan-Alberta border is fusarium-free.
To complicate matters, plots of breeder seed planted at Agriculture Canada’s seed increase unit near Indian Head, Sask., were also heavily infected in 2012.
That has prompted concerns that breeder seed from Agriculture Canada’s newest and most promising cereal varieties may contain traces of fusarium graminearum, even after the seed has been cleaned and conditioned.
If that is the case, breeder seed from Agriculture Canada’s Indian Head facility would be prohibited from entering Alberta’s pedigreed seed system unless existing terms of the province’s fusarium management plan are amended.
Officials at Indian Head will be examining conditioned seed lots in early 2013 to determine if heat treatment procedures were effective in eliminating seed-borne traces of fusarium graminearum.
The increase in the fungal disease, fusarium, in GMO crops was well-documented years ago. Traditionally, crops infected with fusarium have to be destroyed whether they are for human or animal consumption because of the associated production of deadly myco-toxins. Now, here is another related fungal disease:
Don Huber: I have been doing research on glyphosate for 20 years. I began noticing problems when I saw a consistent increase in “take-all” (a fungal disease that impacts wheat) where glyphosate had been applied in a previous year for weed control. I tried to understand why there was an increase in disease with glyphosate. . . . .
. . . There are a lot of serious questions about the impacts of glyphosate that we need answers for in order to continue using this technology. I don’t believe we can ignore these questions any more if we want to ensure a safe, sustainable food supply and abundant crop production.
Rolf Penner states: “One of the first problems GM wheat eliminates is a common fungus, fusarium, which attacks wheat and produces deadly mycotoxins.”
Let me explain:
GM wheat is engineered to withstand applications of, e.g. glyphosate (Monsanto’s “Roundup” and accompanying “Round-up Resistant” GMO wheat). Different chemical companies have their equivalent to Round-up and their own brand of GM seeds, different names from different chemical/biotech companies, but the process is the same: develop a GM crop that is resistant to your particular chemical, and patent the seed.
Response to Penner’s statement about fusarium: The research on the connection between glyphosate (roundup) and fusarium is conflicting. The industry is known for deliberately creating the “conflicting science”.
MONSANTO’S GLYPHOSATE (ROUNDUP): IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND PLANT LIFE
What is being said here is consistent with scientific research circulated earlier: fusarium (a fungus that you absolutely do not want in the food supply because of the health implications) is a problem in genetically modified crops (wheat at the time of the discussion). The crops are engineered to be resistant to applications of glyphosate (Monsanto’s Roundup). In my simple description: the application of the chemicals compromises the immune systems of the plants. The “scientists” who promote these technologies are doing an incredible disservice to the long term viability of the food system. This is just one of the associated issues.
Think you can plant genetically modified seeds with your crop and no one will notice? Better not try it in Hungary, where agriculture officials literally took a scorched-Earth approach to GMO seeds, which are banned there, and burned 1,000 acres of corn crops. Much of what was burned was believed to have come from seeds made at the genetic-engineering company Monsanto, but farmers complained they didn’t realize the seeds were modified — and Monsanto denies selling any seeds to Hungary farmers. An independent laboratory in France tested the seeds Monsanto says they sold to Hungary and found no GMO. GMO seeds are allowed across much of the rest of the European Union, but there is growing world-wide objection to Monsanto and other genetically engineered food producers.
The technology of genetic engineering – the application of patented gene sequences and the accompanying laws, policies and regulations – facilitates corporate control over seed.
SIX MAJOR COMPANIES developing and selling GE crops are: Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, Dow, Bayer, BASF
Collectively, they control 59.8% of seeds and 76.1% of agrochemicals globally.
They also account for 76% of total private research and development in seed and agrochemical sectors. At least 70% of this R&D is devoted to biotechnology and GE crops.
These six companies accounted for 98% of all biotech acres in 2007. Monsanto’s GE traits were in 85% of the total acreage planted with GE crops (in 13 countries).
Since the first GE seeds were introduced in 1996, the market share of the world’s three largest seed companies – Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta – has more than doubled, from 22% to 53.4% of commercial seed sales.
These six companies regularly cross license to each other, reinforcing their market power. About half of all commercial GE seeds with stacked traits are the result of cross licensing between companies.
• is the largest seed company in the world (accounted for 23% of the world’s commercial seed market in 2007).
• Owns the seed planted on approximately 85% of the GE crop acres in the world (in 13 countries).
• Sells the top selling global herbicide Roundup (glyphosate).
• Owns the patent and research on Terminator technology (Monsanto bought Delta & Pine Land in 2006 which developed Terminator seeds, genetically engineered to be sterile after first harvest to stop farmers from saving and reusing seed.) There is an international moratorium on the field testing and commercial growing of Terminator technology.
• Monsanto accounts for over 57% of the US cotton seed market.
The Canadian Army tried to cancel the purchase of a new armoured vehicle fleet, wanting to use the $2 billion instead to offset budget cuts that are hurting its combat readiness.
But the Conservative government decided against scuttling the Close Combat Vehicle project, worried that the cancellation would give it yet another military procurement black eye. Instead, it is proceeding with the purchase of the new armoured fighting vehicles the military’s leadership is not overly keen to acquire.
The army is facing a 22-per-cent cut in its budget and has been trying to figure out how to deal with those reductions. It is scaling back on training and cutting some support programs for the troops.
The government has already announced billions of dollars in contracts to purchase new tactical armoured patrol vehicles for the army, refurbished Leopard tanks, and an upgrade to the military’s fleet of light armoured vehicles. Some in the Canadian Forces leadership saw the Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) as something that, while nice to have, is not essential at a time of cost-cutting.
Defence and industry officials say that senior military leaders looked at a number of scenarios on where the $2 billion for the CCV project could be better used. One included using the money to offset the government-ordered cutbacks the army is required to make. Another was to use the money for the government’s multi-billion dollar naval shipbuilding program, which some inside DND fear is underfunded.
There was initial interest among Treasury Board officials for the cancellation of the CCV project but that initiative was shut down by the Conservatives.
The CCV, announced with great fanfare in the summer of 2009, has already fallen two years behind schedule, according to industry officials.
The government will buy 108 of the vehicles. There would be an option for the purchase of up to 30 more. The army originally argued that the vehicles, which would accompany its Leopard tanks into battle, are a priority for future missions.
The Defence Department did not answer Citizen questions about why the army wanted to put a halt to the CCV project. Instead it emailed a link to a public relations information sheet on the CCV project, which notes that the contract will be awarded sometime this year.
Industry representatives have been told that a winning bidder has been identified. That winning company will be announced when it suits the Conservative government’s public relations plan.
But there are concerns inside the department and industry about the government announcing yet more purchases of armoured vehicles when the Conservatives have yet to move ahead with the acquisition of a new and much-needed search-and-rescue aircraft fleet. That project is estimated to cost a little more than $3 billion and the ongoing delays on that purchase were criticized in a recent report from the country’s auditor general.
Meanwhile, the government is spending $1 billion upgrading the army’s light armoured vehicles and has its $1 billion program for second-hand but modernized Leopard 2 tanks. It is also spending more than $600 million to buy 500 new tactical armoured patrol vehicles for the army.
Alan Williams, a former assistant deputy minister for matériel at DND, said the government is taking the position that it knows what is best for the military. “Here you have a government again politicizing the acquisition of military hardware,” said Williams.
He said instead there needs to be an internal debate to examine the effect that cancelling the CCV would have on Canadian defence policy as well as why the army has now changed its view that such a vehicle fleet is no longer essential.
The army is bearing the brunt of government cost-cutting in the Canadian Forces and will see its budget drop from $1.5 billion to just under $1.2 billion by 2015.
Those reductions will cut into how the army trains as well as its operations. To deal with the cuts, it wants to scale back on costly Arctic exercises, noted a Jan. 31 planning document from army commander Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin.
The document points out that deployments overseas will also be scaled back to involve smaller groups and certain specialized training will stop entirely.
In December, Devlin warned a Senate committee that the 22-per-cent cut to the army’s budget would mean significant changes, although he did not get into many of the details. “We are training to a lower level than we trained, when we were training for combat operations,” he acknowledged.
At the time, Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s office released a statement noting that training is expected to slow since the Canadian Forces are no longer in combat missions in Afghanistan or Libya and their contribution to missions such as the one in Haiti has been substantially reduced.
OTTAWA – The Harper government may have “hit the reset button” on the purchase of F-35s, but planning for the stealth fighter continues — and Canada is facing a series of deadlines that will increase pressure to stick with the program.
Eight Canadian military officers continue to work on the multinational program in the U.S., at both the Pentagon and at Edwards Air Force Base in California, where they fill a variety of technical and planning roles.
An additional 16 military officers and civilians also work on the possible acquisition in Canada, according to a statement from the public works secretariat, which is overseeing the replacement of the air force’s current fleet of CF-18s.
They will remain on the project until the government makes a decision whether to continue with the F-35 purchase, or buy some other fighter jet, the secretariat said.
But the complex multinational ties run deep, and the country is facing is a series of deadlines and important program milestones, all of which increase the pressure on the Conservatives to either stay, or leave the project behind.
“As a signatory to the (Production Sustainment and Follow-on Development memorandum of understanding),
As part of the existing deal, “Canada is expected to contribute its share of personnel in support of the effort to co-operatively produce, sustain and upgrade the F-35 (joint strike fighter) over its life,” said an August 2011 memo from the F-35 project office at National Defence.
The document is part of more than 1,120 pages of reports on the stealth fighter released to The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. The briefings and slide presentations capture the crucial year of 2011, when the air force was ramping its participation before a scathing auditor general’s report forced the government to reconsider its stalwart support of the program.
Retired air force colonel Paul Maillet, a critic of the program, said the question of what has happened to all of the project’s moving parts since the government reset is crucial.
“If the reset button has been pushed, and we’re going to look at this, maybe the program should be at full stop, and we should either withdraw or limit the activities of program staff down there” in the U.S., Maillet said.
The country signed on to help develop the F-35 in 1997, contributing $332 million to date, including a recent $36 million cheque cut by the Harper government.
The documents paint a detailed portrait of how deeply entwined all nations, particularly Canada, have become in the development and success of the plane.
The country is so involved that Canadians are due to take over chairmanship of a key multinational board at the Pentagon’s Joint Strike Fighter project office in the spring of 2014.
Since the government stepped back late last year and “hit the reset button,” a market evaluation of potential rivals to the Lockheed Martin-built fighter was started. The results are not expected until the fall at the earliest, and that punts the government’s decision down the road, possibly into 2014 and within proximity of the next federal election in fall 2015.
Important decisions on creating the jet’s supply system, software development and weapons all hang in the balance while the Harper government considers its options.
“Canada’s participation in development of the Global Sustainment Solution is essential to ensure that DND’s weapons support requirements are adequately addressed in the development of the F-35 release to service and in-service support processes,” the documents say.
“Failure would leave Canada without a voice at the table at a very important time. Any resultant deficiencies/differences will have to be addressed separately, and at additional costs.”
The air force and the government are working on a tight deadline to replace the CF-18s, which are due to retire in 2020. The original plan, before a scathing auditor general’s report last year forced the government to put the procurement on hold, was to buy a handful of F-35s starting in 2016.
They were to be eased into service as the manufacturer continued to work out the kinks.
Documents show the lead time between ordering a jet and its delivery is four years.
And in order to keep the program on track, ” the first aircraft in 2016, must have procurement expenditure authority to formalize (Joint Strike Fighter) Program Partner Procurement Request by (no later than) Fall 2012,” warned a Aug. 19, 2011 slide deck written by the project management office.
The National Farmers Union asks you to submit your letter to stop the significant regulatory changes to Seed Variety Registration in Canada. These changes will:
Permit companies to take seed varieties off the market whenever they like, which will increasingly force farmers to use only varieties subject to royalties under the Plant Breeders Rights Act or varieties with gene patents.
Empower companies to introduce new varieties of soybeans and forage crops – including alfalfa – that have not been field-tested for merit and which therefore may not provide any benefit to farmers.
Allow seed companies to transfer to farmers’ shoulders all risks of poor seed/crop performance when planting varieties that have not been field-tested by independent third parties.
Transfer decision-making about which new varieties are introduced, and when, from a transparent, publicly accountable process based on expert advice offered by Recommending Committees to a behind-closed-door process controlled by private seed companies.
Letting companies de-register varieties will permit companies to unilaterally stop farmers from accessing and using perfectly good varieties developed through long-term collaboration among farmers, public plant breeders and international seed collections.
- LABELLING: There is no labelling of GMO content in food in Canada (or in the U.S.)
There was an early and huge battle to obtain labelling of GMO’s. In the end the decision was going to turn on the input from the Consumers Assoc of Canada. The industry got to them with lots of money and guess who the Consumers Assoc supported?
We lost the battle to require labelling of GMO content.
The food supply in Canada is as laced with GMO’s as is the American (“harmonization” is focused on conformity with the corporate interest in “North America”).
- CROPS: (GM plants spread; visually you can’t tell the difference between a not-GM kernel or seed and one that is GM’d. The seed has to be tested in a lab. Also, the industry tells a distorted story. The focus may be on “virus resistance” (squash), or “delayed ripening” (tomatoes), or “improved nutrition” (rice). They don’t tell you that the majority of the crops are genetically modified so they can withstand chemical applications, that “super weeds” and “super bugs” are Nature’s response (within a very short time) and the situation is that MORE chemicals are required and MORE POTENT chemicals (poisons). This is now built right into our food supply.
CANOLA (the first and the biggest in Canada) - GM canola has taken over; it’s not possible to get canola that isn’t GM. Any product that contains canola oil has GMO content. The industry has done a thorough job of convincing people that canola is a superior and healthy food.
CORN - Corn is one of the largest GMO’d crops in the U.S. Not much is grown in Saskatchewan, I don’t know how much you have in Ontario. The Mexicans tried to protect their corn (original maize) by passing a law against GMO corn. But their corn is now contaminated with GM corn.
Who knows how much GM corn we are eating in various foods? Think of just one ingredient, corn meal – tacos, corn chips, . . . lots of different foods.
GM WHEAT AND ALFALFA – two crops that the industry is fighting hard to get. The battle has been raging for a few years to stop them.
GM FLAX – another battle (about 15 years for some people) that seemed to have been won, but then these pernicious interests come back and infiltrate in another way. After reading the last Flax Growers Newsletter, I am afraid that GM (called by another name) flax is on its way.
- Regulation of GMO’s in Canada is “harmonized” with the U.S. (done through the CFIA (Cdn Food Inspection Agency)). The U.S. side of the regulation is effectively run by Monsanto. I am encouraged, the outrage is mounting – citizen demand for a congressional hearing into Monsanto’s skulduggery and the recent Monsanto Protection Act May Soon be Repealed, Thanks to Activism
- Canadian tax-payers generally foot at least half the bill for development of GMO food through Government matching of research dollars spent by the corporation.
- In addition, UNIVERSITIES are used to develop the “science” around GMOs. And to produce the agricultural reps who become the bureaucrats in the CFIA and PMRA and provincial departments of agriculture. In Saskatchewan the Government recently gave directed funding to the University for the “Global Institute for Food Security”. It’s a centre to serve the “research needs” of the chem-biotech industry.
- It doesn’t end there. The NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NRC) is heavily into GMOs. (My nephew had a summer job there a few years back.) Yesterday I talked with a scientist from the NRC. He said that they are feeling the effects of the Feds withdrawing money from science. “The NRC will do anything for money and it doesn’t matter who it’s coming from, or for what, whether it’s Monsanto or BASF or Bayer Crop Science.”
That’s a bit of a run-down Joe, I hope it answers your questions.
The so-called Monsanto Protection Act signed into law earlier this year caused such an outrage that people around the world are planning to protest the biotech company later this month. Now a United States Senator isexpected to try and repeal that law after mounting pressure.
The notorious ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ rider stuffed into the non-related Senate spending bill may soon be repealed thanks to the massive amounts of activism and outrage that have now amounted into a legislative charge towards action. Action that has turned into legislation progress through Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, who has announced an amendment that would remove Section 735 (the Monsanto Protection Act as its known) from the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 Senate spending bill.
The rider, which almost managed to slip incognito and pass by the alarm system of the alternative media, grants GMO juggernaut Monsanto full immunity from federal courts in the event that one of its genetically modified creations is found to be causing damage to health or the environment. Essentially, it grants Monsanto power over the United States federal government. Thankfully, I was able to get on the subject through news tips and covered the Monsanto Protection Act all the way up until the bill containing it was signed into law by Obama.
Ultimately, as the Monsanto Protection Act became more a hot issue, we had an increasing amount of publicity — but the Senate vote came just too quickly for the attention to put a halt on the rider. But even after its passing, sources like Russia Today, NaturalNews, Infowars, and myself here at NaturalSociety were sounding the alarm big time. Enough so that it even led to an apology from the top Senator who actually ended up approving the bill containing the rider.
Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland actually went and released a statement apologizing for allowing the Monsanto Protection Act through and vowing to fight against GMOs and Monsanto. Ultimately, multiple Senators had entered damage control after the jig was up. That is besides Senator Roy Blunt from Missouri, who actually worked with Monsanto (as in he let them write it while he received funding) on the Monsanto Protection Act rider. A rider he says is perfectly reasonable. After all, why not give Monsanto full immunity from the legal system the rest of us are subject to?
Even Obama was getting blasted on his Facebook page following the approval of the Monsanto Protection Act, with the majority of comments coming into his page criticizing his signature on the bill that contained the rider.
Thanks to this activism, it looks like the Monsanto Protection Act may soon be repealed after this new bill hits Washington. This time, we will have plenty of time to let the Senators know that they are voting against the public if they choose to side with Monsanto. And with such a specific agenda for this bill, I see it doing well in the Senate.