NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • January - February - March 2005
30 March 2005
GMO corn scandal - Syngenta misled the world
European Commission urged to take action
Friends of the Earth Europe, 30 March 2005. Brussels - Friends of the Earth has accused the world's largest agro-chemical company, Syngenta, of misleading Governments and the public. The company has been claiming that the unapproved genetically modified (GM) corn, which they sold to US farmers for four years, is identical to a GM corn previously approved for consumption.
But according to Nature, who published an article on their website last night, Syngenta has now admitted that the corn, called Bt10, actually contains a gene which confers resistance to an important group of antibiotics (1). The approved GMO, Bt11, does not contain this gene. Friends of the Earth revealed this information last week but Syngenta refused to confirm it publicly. The use of antibiotic resistant genes has been widely condemned by eminent bodies such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, the Royal Society and the Pasteur Institute, who are concerned that the genes could flow from crops to micro-organisms and spread problems of antibiotic resistance in humans and animals.(2)
The European Commission last week mimicked Syngenta's view and stated in
the press that the Bt10 is "genetically the same as Bt-11 which is already
approved in the EU". In April 2004, the European Food Safety Authority said
that marker genes conferring resistance to ampicillin "should be restricted
to field trials and not be present in genetically modified plants placed on
the market". (3)
Adrian Bebb, GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth said:
"Governments around the world have been taken in by Syngenta's attempt to
play down the real scale of their huge error. In view of this new
information, the European Commission must take immediate action to ensure
that foods which aren't permitted for human consumption are removed from
the food chain. "
Contact: Adrian Bebb, + 49 1609 490 1163 (mobile)
1. The Nature article can be found at: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/full/434548a.html
2. Bt 10 contains the amp gene, which confers resistance to the ampicillin
family of antibiotics. In recent guidance, the European Food Safety
Authority stated that GMOs containing this gene should not be approved for
cultivation and their use restricted to field trials.
3.The EFSA opinion can be found at: http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gmo_opinions/384_en.html
Stray seeds had antibiotic-resistance genes
Accidental release of genetically-modified crops sparks new worries
Nature magazine, 29 March 2005. By Colin MacIlwain. Hundreds of tonnes of genetically modified corn seeds sold to farmers by mistake over the past four years contained a gene for antibiotic resistance, Nature has learned. The release of such genes into the environment is sometimes considered inadvisable, as there is a small chance that they could flow from crops to microorganisms and spread problems of antibiotic resistance.
The Swiss biotechnology company Syngenta admitted last week that it had accidentally released a variety of corn (maize) called Bt10 between 2001 and 2004. Like other crops with the name Bt, this corn had been genetically modified to produce a protective pesticide. But Bt10 has not been approved for sale by regulatory agencies.
Officials at the company last week argued that Bt10 is basically identical to Bt11 corn, which has been approved for sale (see Nature 434, 423; 2005). But this week, Sarah Hull, a spokeswoman for Syngenta, confirmed that a marker gene that confers resistance to ampicillin, a commonly used antibiotic, was present in the Bt10 seeds. She adds that this gene would not have been active in the corn plants that grew from the seeds.
Antibiotic-resistance genes are widely used as 'tags' during the production of genetically modified crops, to help breeders identify and preserve desirable strains. But the genes are often removed before the seeds enter the food chain. The presence of the marker gene in Bt10 corn was noted in a 2003 advice notice from a UK government committee, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which was using Bt10 as a comparison to prove that there were no marker genes in Bt11 corn.
Critics have expressed surprise that neither Syngenta nor the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the presence of the marker when they admitted that the release of Bt10 had taken place. "It is quite scandalous," says Greg Jaffe, head of the biotechnology project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a pressure group in Washington DC. "This shows that the government and the company are not being forthright."
Hull says that the company didn't mention the gene's presence because "it wasn't relevant to the health and safety discussion". She adds that the antibiotic-resistance genes have been around for a long time. "They've been studied extensively, and they pose no risk to humans or animals," she says. Regulators say that the genes present a very small risk to human health, either directly - if in the stomach of a patient on antibiotics, for example - or indirectly through gene flow into microbes.
Michael Rodemeyer, director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, a think-tank in Washington DC, says that the presence of such genes would be unlikely to see a crop declared unsafe in the United States - but adds that it could cause problems in Europe.
In a ruling published last April, for example, the European Food Safety Authority, which advises European Union governments on food issues, said that marker genes conferring resistance to ampicillin "should be restricted to field trials and not be present in genetically modified plants placed on the market". And the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the international food-standards body, has urged the agricultural biotechnology industry to use alternative methods to refine genetically modified strains in the future.
The EPA, which is jointly investigating the release of the Bt10 corn with the US Department of Agriculture, declined to say what it knew about the antibiotic-resistance marker. "What the company told us and when about the marker gene is part of our ongoing investigation and we are not able to discuss it at this time," the agency said in a statement.
"I think they've done a terrible job," says Margaret Mellon, head of the food and environment programme at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington DC, referring to both Syngenta and the government agencies. "There are lots and lots of unanswered questions, and the longer they remain, the less confidence people are going to have in the technology and in the regulatory system."
29 March 2005
DEFRA accused of key role in GM contamination cover-up
Press Notice from GM Free Cymru, 30th March 2005. DEFRA was accused today of playing a key role in a spin-doctored
cover-up designed to protect the GM industry from the effects of the
latest GM contamination scandal. According to GM Free Cymru, the
Government Department rushed into print last week to protect the
corporate giant Syngenta, within 24 hours of receiving notification of
the contamination of maize supplies with the unauthorized variety Bt10.
The organization insists that the DEFRA press notice was inaccurate
and misleading, and contained statements which DEFRA must have known to
be untrue (1).
** The DEFRA statement stresses in several places that the
contamination incident was on "an extremely small scale". But GM Free
Cymru points out that by using Syngenta's own figures (2) it is clear
that around 187,000 tonnes of contaminated maize has entered the food
chain, and that unauthorised GM material has been distributed on a
massive scale. Some of this material has been exported to Europe, but
Syngenta refuses to release details.
** DEFRA pretends that because USDA has concluded that there are no
safety concerns about the contamination incident, we should all come to
the same conclusion. What DEFRA does not say is that there is no
effective regulation of GM crops and foods in the USA, and that Bt 10
maize has never come before the authorities for assessment or
regulation either in the US or Europe (3). The DEFRA attitude is
complacent and even negligent.
** DEFRA states that Bt10 maize "is covered by the existing tolerance
exemption for Bt11" and that it is virtually identical in its proteins.
This is a disingenuous and dangerous statement, since DEFRA and ACRE
knew as long ago as 2003 that Bt10 is unique and identifiable (4). It
also contains ampicillin antibiotic resistant marker genes, which makes
it illegal in Europe (5).
** DEFRA and ACRE are in possession of detailed technical data about
Bt10 which they have refused, in spite of requests from a number of
NGOs, to place in the public domain. This information is not
commercially sensitive. We believe that since Bt10 was developed about
ten years ago by the Northrup-King company (later taken over by
Syngenta) it has changed its character and may be unstable. If this is
the case, and if Bt10 really is a "failed" variety, DEFRA should be
taking steps to protect the public instead of taking steps to protect
Syngenta.
Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: "It is well known that
one of DEFRA's policy objectives is the promotion of GM crops and foods
against the clearly-expressed wishes of the British public. But in
rushing to "damp down" speculation about the extent of Bt10
contamination, and any associated health dangers, it has danced to
Syngenta's tune and has failed in its duty of care. Has DEFRA not
learned anything from the BSE disaster and the F&M disaster? We may
now have maize products on our supermarket shelves that contain
antibiotics, and our Government appears to be quite disinterested."
ENDS
Contact: Dr Brian John
Tel + 44 1239 820470
(1) DEFRA Press Release, 23 March 2005 (see below)
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=153346&NewsAreaID=2
(2) Press Release: Following Syngenta-initiated investigation of
unintended corn release, EPA and USDA conclude existing food safety
clearance applies, no human health or environmental concerns ,
Washington, DC (USA), 21 March 2005, Syngenta web site. http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050321/full/nature03570.html
http://www.syngenta.com
(3) http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5029
GM Maize imported into Europe had no US or EU approval
Press Notice from GM Free Cymru, 24 March 2005
Seven packages of information about Bt10 were submitted to EPA between
Jan 7th and March 10th 2005; these were reviewed, and EPA then
confirmed the Syngenta view that there was no risk associated with the
releases of Bt10 into the environment and the food chain. There appear
to have been no laboratory analyses of Bt10 maize either by EPA, USDA
or FDA.
(4) We now know that the differences between the Bt10 and Bt11
varieties were so significant that the former was used as a 'control'
to establish the distinctiveness of the latter. If these differences
had not been established, Bt11 would never have been given approval in
Europe. See ACRE advice as follows: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/advice/pdf/acre_advice35.pdf
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ acre/advice/pdf/acre_advice46.pdf
In the Syngenta press release, the company said that the Bt protein
produced by the Bt10 breeding lines is identical to that produced by
the commercialized, fully approved Bt11 varieties. They claimed, on
this basis, that there is no change to the food, health and
environmental profile of the corn. In the view of GM Free Cymru this
is a fraudulent statement.
(5) According to FoE Europe, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the
Environment (ACRE) notes that Bt10 contains one or more copies of the
ampicillin resistance marker gene (beta lactamase), which is not
present in Bt11. This therefore makes Bt10 a very different GMO than
Bt11. Since ampicillin is a widely used clinical antibiotic, and EFSA,
Codex Alimentarius, FAO-WHO and many medical and scientific experts
have recommended against the use of genes for such antibiotics in GM
foods, it would certainly not be licenced in the EU.
GM Maize imported into Europe had no US or EU approval
Press Notice from GM Free Cymru, 28 March 2005. In another twist to the biggest scandal ever to hit the GM
multinationals, it has now been revealed that Syngenta's BT10
(Punchstock A) maize has never been authorized for release in the USA,
and never authorized for export (1). Neither has it received any
approvals for growing or food use within Europe (2).
GM Free Cymru has discovered that the GM variety has been imported into
Europe, probably for use in human food rather than in animal feed. And
since these imports have been going on, undetected and undeclared, for
more than four years, the corn is probably already on supermarket
shelves. This has happened in spite of accumulating evidence that BT10
is unfit for human consumption:
** BT10 is virtually indistinguishable from BT11 sweetcorn, which was
given EC approval for use in food (fresh or processed) in 2004 in spite
of grave reservations and even protests from independent scientists and
member states (3).
** BT10 was clearly an "experimental GM variety" which never entered
the US approvals process, probably because it was found to be defective
or genetically unstable.
** The variety has never had its genetic "character" described in the
literature, which means that even if the EU countries had effective
import monitoring in place (which they do not) the GM testing
laboratories would not know what they are supposed to look for.
** Syngenta has stated that the approved BT11 strain and the
experimental BT10 strain produce the same proteins. This has not been
demonstrated. This is a cause for considerable concern, because the BT
toxins produced in these varieties are almost completely unknown and
are untested for toxicity (3).
** Belgian and French studies have shown that BT11 is an unstable
transgenic line which is contaminated with BT176. This component
contains antibiotic marker genes, and was linked with "unexplained"
cattle deaths in Hesse, Germany, in 2001-2002 (4). It is reasonable to
assume that BT10 is also unstable and contaminated with BT176.
** BT10 contains certain synthetic genes and proteins which are not
easily broken down by stomach enzymes. In some cases, such proteins
may survive in the gut for ten to twenty times as long as most
"natural" proteins, and this may account for the lesions and other
physiological abnormalities observed in animal feeding studies
involving GM crops (5). There are concerns that allergic reactions may
follow, and that some abnormalities may lead to cancerous growths (6).
Syngenta refuses to name the countries into which contaminated maize
supplies have been exported, but it has admitted that 37,000 acres of
BT10 crops were grown between 2000 and 2004 (7). That means that at
least 185,000 tonnes of BT10 maize grain (not "several hundred tonnes"
as claimed by Syngenta) that should have been condemned has entered the
food chain in many different countries (8).
Following the revelations about the four-year-long contamination of US
maize supplies by BT10 crops, and the coordinated attempts by Syngenta
and the US authorities to cover up the scandal, there is now a
concerted effort emanating from the US to convince the rest of the
world that BT10 maize is safe to eat and poses no environmental threat.
GM Free Cymru refuses to accept these bland assurances, and says that
the episode shows that the US regulatory system is a shambles, with no
serious attempt to control GM contamination of related crops in the
countryside, and no effective method for keeping GM and non-GM food
supplies apart. Like many other NGOs, GM Free Cymru claims that there
is an undeclared Bush Administration policy to allow the whole of the
US food chain to be polluted with GM materials. Through the WTO and
through foreign aid programmes and diplomacy, the Adminstration is
seeking to extend this policy across the planet.
GM Free Cymru spokesman Dr Brian John said today: "This really is the
last straw. American complacency about GM crops and foods has allowed
a large GM corporation to pollute food supplies with unauthorised GM
materials, and to go on polluting them for five years. Then they
withhold information for at least four months, try to cover the whole
episode up, and finally mount a massive PR campaign designed to allay
our fears. And what has the EC, the British Government, and our own
FSA done about it? Nothing at all, as far as we can see, apart from a
bland and complacent response from DEFRA (9) (10). We demand an
immediate halt to all American maize imports into Europe as a minimum
first step. We also demand the immediate implementation of GM testing
measures at all British ports -- something that should have been done
long ago (11). The US exporters and the EU importers must be
prosecuted if any traces of BT10 are found in their shipments or food
products or if their documentation is defective. And then imports
should not be resumed until the EU has effective monitoring and testing
procedures in place, and until GM liability legislation is on the
statute books of all the EU countries. If they want it, let the
Americans eat their own BT10 sweetcorn."
ENDS
Contact: Dr Brian John, GM Free Cymru, tel + 44 1239 820470.
(1) "I have confirmed with FDA that 'BT10 never went through an FDA
consultation process.'Ý Therefore, it was never reviewed for
unintended human health effects, at least not by the U.S."
Ý– Doug Gurian-Sherman, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Center for Food
Safety, 660 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 302, Washington, D.C. 20003.
(2) A search of the EC / EFSA web site reveals that BT10 has never
featured in any studies or discussions. The Syngenta event Bt 10 is a
Lepadopteran toxin Cry1Ab.
(3) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Bt11.php
24 May 2004. Approval of Bt11 Maize Endangers Humans and Livestock, by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho.
(4) http://www.indsp.org/ManorBeast.php
GM Food & Feed Not Fit for "Man or Beast" by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof.
Joe Cummins.
(5) The Lancet 354, 1353-4; also
http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm.
(6) http://www.indsp.org/StanleyEwenSummary.php.
(7) http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050321/full/nature03570.html.
http://www.syngenta.com.
(8) For typical Bt maize grain yield statistics, see:
http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/1998/1-19-1998/yieldbt.html.
Bt maize yields are c 150 bushels per acre or c 5 tonnes per acre.
(9) DEFRA and FSA were informed by Syngenta of the contamination incident
on 22 March 2005; http://www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=153346&NewsAreaID=2.
(10) According to DEFRA: "Food or feed derived from a mixture of Bt 11
and Bt 10 maize seeds would not reveal the two original sources of Bt
protein as they are identical." This is an unsupportable contention,
and has no scientific validity.
(11) At present, in spite of the EU's claim that it has the best GM
regulatory system in the world, there is no mechanism for testing
imported cargoes of GM grains -- or other materials that might be
contaminated with GM -- at ports and other points of entry into the EU.
GM blunder has polluted food for years
Western Mail, Mar 29 2005. NEWS that a strain of unapproved genetically modified sweetcorn has been
accidentally sold in Britain for the past four years was described yesterday as
"the last straw".
GM Free Cymru spokesman Dr Brian John said that he believed American
complacency about GM crops had allowed food to be polluted with unauthorised GM
materials for years.
He also alleged that the case revealed a lack of adequate controls over GM
crops, and demanded an immediate halt to imports of American GM maize.
Liberal Democrat shadow agriculture secretary Andrew George said,
"Ministers simply don't know how many unapproved or experimental GM products
are unwittingly getting on to our plates. Today's news will only raise
further suspicions among consumers. It is about time Defra got its act together
and made sure there was a tight system of controls to prevent this."
Regulators in the United States have launched an inquiry into the mistake,
which came to their attention at the end of last year but was only revealed in
the scientific journal Nature last week.
Dr John believes the case raises serious questions about how carefully GM
technology is controlled.
The maize was modified with a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt), inserted into the crop to act as a pesticide.
Syngenta, one of the world's largest agricultural biotech companies, has
permission to sell a variety of the GM crop called Bt 11 which has been used for
many years in the US and elsewhere.
The strain has been approved for consumption in the EU and may be one of the
first GM food crops licensed for cultivation in Europe. According to the
magazine Nature, Syngenta accidentally produced and distributed several hundred
tonnes of a different strain, Bt 10, which has not been approved, between
2001 and 2004.
When the mistake came to light, Syngenta promptly revealed it to the US
authorities responsible for approving GM crops.
Bt 10 differs from Bt 11 by only a handful of DNA "letters" on a part of the
gene that does not code for the pesticide toxin. US government scientists
have concluded that it is safe to eat and poses no environmental threat.
About 150sq km of Bt 10 strain were planted over four years, just 0.01% of
corn planted in the US.
But Michael Rodemeyer, director of the Washington DC think-tank the Pew
Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, told Nature, "This will raise questions in
the minds of countries that import food from the United States about whether
we have adequate controls in place. It will provide ammunition for critics of
genetically modified food."
The corn may have been sold abroad, but Syngenta officials refused a request
from Nature for a list of the countries involved.
The US Environmental Protection Agency said agencies were conducting an
investigation.
The last major accidental release of a GM crop in the United States occurred
in 2000 when a Bt corn "StarLink", for animals, was planted for human
consumption. Recalling the corn cost the food industry an estimated £530m.
Dr John said the British Government's latest response had been "bland and
complacent". He said, "We demand an immediate halt to all American maize
imports into Europe as a minimum first step.
"We also demand the immediate implementation of GM testing measures at all
British ports - something that should have been done long ago." He believes US
exporters and EU importers should be prosecuted if traces of Bt 10 were
found in shipments or food products. Imports should not be resumed until the EU
has effective monitoring and testing.
Friends of the Earth demanded an inquiry. Campaigner Clare Oxborrow said,
"The British public will be concerned that this unapproved GM ingredient may
have found its way into human food and animal feed, and will demand answers.
The Food Standards Agency needs to urgently reassure us that this maize was not
imported into the UK. And if it was, it must ensure that any contaminated
products are withdrawn immediately."
26 March 2005
GMO and Public Opinion in Macedonia
OneWorld Southeast Europe, 26 March 2005.
By Elene Simoniska. The Movement of Environmentalists of Macedonia ‚ DEM presented the results of the public opinion poll on the Genetically Modified Organisms in Macedonia.
The poll was conducted in cooperation with the Ministry of Environment, the Environmental Press Centre ‚ ERINA, professor Cane Stojkovski from the Faculty of Agriculture. The survey was supported by the Regional Environmental Centre for SEE.
The poll was conducted in ten municipalities in Macedonia, and the sample included consumers, farmers, food processing industry, and government and public institutions with competencies in the field of GMO use and application.
According to DEM, the citizens in Macedonia are only partially informed about the GMO related issues. The only clear position is that, for the majority of the polled, the genetically modified organisms are harmful, and that only a few of them noticed ìGMO Freeî products in their local groceries and supermarkets.
A huge majority (80.2%) don't want to consume GMO food, while 93.8% of the polled said that the adoption of legislation to regulate the use and production of GMOs should be the priority for the Republic of Macedonia, as well as establishment of an official procedure and institution that would mark the GMO products on the market. [Contines].
_______________________
24 March 2005
EU says unapproved Syngenta GMO maize sets no risk
Reuters, 24 March 2005. By Jeremy Smith. BRUSSELS - The European Union on Wednesday played down fears about the impact of an unauthorised strain of US genetically modified maize, saying it was similar to a type already approved.
This week, Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta said some of its maize seeds were mistakenly contaminated between 2001 and 2004 with Bt-10, an insect-resistant strain that was not approved for distribution.
Industry sources said a small amount of Bt-10 maize seeds, probably as little as 100 kilograms, may have been shipped from the United States into France and Spain during the three-year period -- for research, not for commercial growing.
"We've alerted the member states," said Michael Mann, agriculture spokesman at the European Commission.
"We've also been assured there should be no health or environmental risks as basically, this product is genetically the same as Bt-11 which is already approved in the EU," he said.
But green groups were furious at the prospect of an unapproved GMO finding its way from the United States to Europe.
"This is an industry out of control," said Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth. "This case makes a complete mockery of the US regulatory system for GM crops," he said in a statement.
Britain's farm ministry said there was no indication that the contamination could have affected maize exports to the UK.
Imports of Bt-11 maize were approved by the EU for use in industrial processing in 1998. The product is mainly used in animal feed rather than in food production.
Most EU consumers are sceptical about GMO foods, worried about possible risks to health and the environment. But gene-altered products are widely accepted in the United States, the world's top GMO grower where consumer opposition is minimal compared with Europe.
Syngenta insists Bt-10 poses no health or safety risk, saying Bt-11 and Bt-10 strains have identical characteristics.
This week, the Commission said it would carry on authorising GMO foods and crops, if necessary without the agreement of EU states if they could not break years of deadlock over GMOs.
23 March 2005
The end for GM crops: Final British trial confirms threat to wildlife
The Independent, 22 March 2005. By Steve Connor, Michael McCarthy and Colin Brown. Yet another nail was hammered into the coffin of the GM food industry in Britain yesterday when the final trial of a four-year series of experiments found, once more, that genetically modified crops can be harmful to wildlife.
The study was the fourth in a series that has, in effect, sealed the fate of GM in the UK - at least in the foreseeable future. They showed the ultra-powerful weedkillers that the crops are engineered to tolerate would bring about further damage to a countryside already devastated by intensive farming.
Only one of the four farm-scale trials, which have gone on for nearly five years, showed that growing GM crops might be less harmful to birds, flowers and insects than the non-GM equivalent - and even that was attacked as flawed, because the weedkiller the particular conventional crop required was so destructive it was about to be banned by the EU.
Even so, a year ago the Government gave a licence for that crop - a maize known as Chardon LL, created by the German chemical group Bayer - to be grown in Britain, thus officially opening the way for the GM era in Britain, to loud protests from environmentalists.
However, only three weeks later Bayer withdrew its application, suggesting the regulatory climate would be too inhibiting. That followed the withdrawal from Europe of the world leader in GM crops, the American biotech giant Monsanto, which also seemed to have tired of the struggle.
Since then, the GM industry in Britain has withered on the vine, despite the fact that some members of the Government, and Tony Blair in particular, were privately great supporters of it from the outset. Official policy is portrayed as being neutral and based simply on scientific advice.
But yesterday's results make it even less likely that other big agribusiness firms will want to come forward and go through the extensive testing process - and public opposition - that bringing a GM crop to market in Britain would involve.
Last night, the Conservatives spotted a political opportunity from the latest test results and, this morning, the shadow Environment Secretary, Tim Yeo, will pledge to prevent any commercial planting of GM crops until science showed it would be safe for people and the environment, and there was a liability regime in place to deal with any cross-contamination.
Observers saw that as yet another Tory attempt to win over Middle England voters in the pre-election campaign.
The fourth and final mass experiment involving GM crops has found that they caused significant harm to wild flowers, butterflies, bees and probably songbirds. Results of the farm-scale trial of winter-sown oilseed rape raised further doubts about whether GM crops can ever be grown in Britain without causing further damage to the nation's wildlife.
Although the experiment did not look directly at the catastrophic demise of farmland birds over the past 50 years, ornithologists said the results suggested that growing GM oilseed rape would almost certainly exacerbate the problem.
David Gibbons, the head of conservation at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said the herbicides used to spray GM rape killed broad-leaved wild flowers such as chickweed and fat hen which are important to the diet of songbirds such as skylarks, tree sparrows and bullfinches.
"For most farmland birds, broad-leaved weeds are a particularly important part of their diet. There are a few birds that will take grass seeds but, by and large, it would be hard to see how the loss of broad-leaved weeds would be beneficial to them," Dr Gibbons said. "Broad-leaved weeds are particularly important to farmland birds and the widespread cultivation of this crop, in this way, would damage hopes of reversing their decline."
The trial of winter oilseed rape involved planting conventional and GM forms of the crop in adjacent plots at 65 sites across Britain. Scientists then carefully monitored wild flowers, grasses, seeds, bees, butterflies and other invertebrates. Over the course of the three-year experiment, the scientists counted a million weeds, two million insects and made 7,000 field trips. Although they found similar overall numbers of weeds in the two types of crop, broad-leaved weeds such as chickweed were far fewer in the GM plots. The scientists counted fewer bees and butterflies in the GM plots compared to plots of conventional oilseed rape.
Les Firbank, of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Lancaster, who led the study, said that there was about one-third fewer seeds from broad-leaved flowers in the GM plots compared to fields with conventional oilseed rape.
"These differences were still present two years after the crop had been sown ... So we've got a significant biological difference that is carrying on from season to season," he said.
GM oilseed rape is genetically designed to be resistant to a weedkiller that would kill the non-GM crop. It means that farmers are free to use broader-spectrum herbicides.
The three previous farm-scale trials into crops investigated spring-sown oilseed rape, maize and beet. These showed that growing GM rape and GM beet did more harm to wildlife than their conventional counterparts.
"All of the evidence that we've got from the farm-scale evaluations points out that differences between the treatments are due to the herbicides. It's the nature of the chemicals and the timing at which the farming is done," Dr Firbank said.
Christopher Pollock, chairman of the scientific steering committee that oversaw the farm-scale trials, said: "What's good for the farmer is not always good for the natural populations of weeds, insects, birds and butterflies that share that space."
Farm-scale trials of GM crops are unique to Britain and represent the first time that scientists have evaluated the environmental impact of a new farming practice before it has been introduced, Professor Pollock said. Results of the latest trial are published in Proceedings of the Royal Society.
The Four Tests
Test 1: Spring-sown oilseed rape, October 2003
Nationwide tests found that biotech oilseed rape sown in the spring could be more harmful to many groups of wildlife than their conventional equivalent. There were fewer butterflies among modified crops, due to there being less weeds. Verdict: GM fails.
Test 2: Sugar beet, October 2003
The GM crop was found to be potentially more harmful to its environment than crops that were unmodified. Bees and butterflies were recorded more frequently around conventional crops, due to greater numbers of weeds. Verdict: GM fails.
Test 3: Maize, October 2003
The production of biotech maize was shown to be kinder to other plants and animals compared to conventional crops. More weeds grew around the biotech maize crops, attracting more butterflies, bees and weed seeds. Verdict: GM passes, but critics brand study as flawed.
Test 4: Winter-sown oilseed rape, March 2005
Tests showed that fields sown with the biotech crop had fewer broad-leaved weeds growing in them. This impacted on the numbers of bees and butterflies, which feed on such weeds. Verdict: GM fails.
HALF A CENTURY OF DEBATE
1953: James Watson and Francis Crick unravel double-helix form of DNA, making biotechnology a possibility.
1983: Kary Mullis, a scientist and surfer from California, discovers the polymerase chain-reaction which allows tiny pieces of DNA to be replicated rapidly. Shortly after, US patents to produce GM plants are awarded to companies. US Environment Protection Agency approves release of first GM crop: virus-resistant tobacco.
1987: Potato becomes first GM plant introduced to UK.
1994: Flavr Savr tomato is approved by US Food and Drug Administration, paving way for more GM products.
1997: Public find Monsanto GM soya is used, unlabelled, in processed UK food.
June 1998:The Prince of Wales stokes debate by saying he will neither eat GM produce nor serve it to his family or friends.
July 1998: English Nature, the Government's wildlife advisory body, calls for a moratorium on planting of GM crops while trials are conducted into effects on wildlife of their weedkillers.
February 1999:Michael Meacher, the environment minister, persuades GM companies to agree to a moratorium until farm-scale weedkiller trials are done.
Spring 2000: Farm-scale trials of GM crops begin.
October 2003: Preliminary results find that two of three GM crops are believed to damage the environment.
March 2004: Cabinet members approve qualified planting of first UK GM crop.
Cress overturns textbook genetics
Surprise finding shows that plants rewrite genetic code
news@ature.com, 23 March 2005. In a discovery that has flabbergasted geneticists, researchers have shown that plants can overwrite the genetic code they inherit from their parents, and revert to that of their grandparents.
The finding challenges textbook rules of inheritance, which state that children simply receive combinations of the genes carried by their parents. The principle was famously established by Austrian monk Gregor Mendel in his nineteenth-century studies on pea plants.
The study, published this week in Nature1, shows that not all genes are so well behaved. It suggests that plants, and perhaps other organisms including humans, might possess a back-up mechanism that can bypass unhealthy sequences from their parents and revert to the healthier genetic code possessed by their grandparents or great-grandparents.
_______________________
GMO crop scandal - Did Syngenta's illegal corn come to Europe?
Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 23 March 2005. Brussels - Friends of the Earth has written to the European
Commission asking for urgent reassurance that unapproved genetically
modified (GM) corn has not been imported into Europe. The threat was
highlighted as Swiss-based Syngenta admitted yesterday that they
inadvertently sold hundreds of tonnes of the wrong GM corn to US farmers
over the past four years.
According to Nature, who published a story on their website last night (22
March), Syngenta produced and sold several hundred tonnes of a corn
containing an insecticide, called Bt10 between 2001 and 2004. The corn has
not been approved for human consumption anywhere worldwide. According to
the article, Syngenta and the US Government have been in discussions since
last year over what should be done about the error, and how and when
information should be released to the public.
Adrian Bebb, GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth said:
"This is an industry out of control. For four years Syngenta failed to
notice that they were selling farmers an unapproved genetically modified
seed. How are consumers and farmers supposed to trust them to produce our
food in the future? This case makes a complete mockery of the US regulatory
system for GM crops. To make matters worse the US Government has known
about this accident for months and together with Syngenta decided to keep
it a secret until now. This is complete scandal."
"Friends of the Earth is seeking urgent assurances from the European
Commission that this corn was not imported illegally into Europe. The
public will be concerned that they may have been exposed to unapproved GM
foods and will demand answers. The Commission should insist that the US
withdraws all corn suspected of contamination."
Contact: Adrian Bebb, + 49 1609 490 1163 (mobile)
_______________________
EU to push approving GMOs, could come in few weeks
Reuters. 22 March 2005. By Jeremy Smith. BRUSSELS - Europe will quietly press ahead with authorising more genetically modified (GMO) crops, if necessary without the blessing of EU governments or the majority of European consumers, the EU's executive said on Tuesday.
The first could be approved in a matter of weeks.
Holding its first debate on GMO policy since January 2004, the European Commission said it was ready to push a backlog of GMO requests through the EU's complex authorisation process if member states could not break their years of deadlock over GMOs.
"The Commission concluded that it would continue to comply fully with its legal obligations and proceed with the approval of pending authorisations as appropriate," it said.
Green groups say the Commission's pledge to return to "business as usual" on GMOs flies in the face of public opinion -- although the biotech industry disputes this -- since most EU consumers oppose GMOs, calling them "Frankenstein foods".
One aim of the Commission is to see clearer member-state positions on GMOs. Since taking office in November, the new team has put several key decisions "on hold" while it sorts out a common position on the way forward for biotech policy.
One of these, a Commission approval of a GMO rapeseed, was due for mid-January and can now be expected within a few weeks, officials say.
A proposal on whether to order a handful of EU governments to lift national bans on specific GMO products should be debated by environment ministers in June. "This morning, the Commission was not trying to question the existing system," Commission spokeswoman Francoise Le Bail told a news briefing. "What the Commission would like to see is that member states assume more responsibility within the system."
More and more countries now abstain in GMO votes, which reduces the chances of a consensus agreement. A small group always votes in favour, such as Finland and the Netherlands; a counter-group, including Austria, Denmark and Greece, always votes against. The rest either abstain or vary their vote.
When this happens, EU law allows for the Commission to take a decision when member states fail to do so themselves.
BID TO WOO CONSUMERS?
Surveys show more than 70 percent of European consumers oppose GMO foods, usually on health and environment grounds, although these figures are disputed by the biotech industry which claims that a "silent majority" holds different views.
Only one EU country, Spain, grows substantial amounts of GMO crops and the continent as a whole remains a major holdout against the spread of the largely U.S.-engineered plants, which are meant to increase yields and be resistant to pests.
"Consumers don't want to eat genetically modified foods, regions across Europe want GM crops banned and member states refuse to support new applications," said Adrian Bebb at Friends of the Earth. "This has all been ignored by the Commission."
Commission officials hinted that one goal was to reduce Europe's high level of scepticism over biotech foods.
"We have to pay attention to communication ... and the benefits of GMOs," one official told reporters.
"We know a lot of people are doubtful about the benefits of GMOs, and there is a lot of unfounded fear," she said. "We need to bring a subjective debate onto an objective level."
EU member states have not themselves approved any new GMO since 1998, when a moratorium on new approvals came into effect.
This was triggered when a handful of governments said they would refuse to endorse new approvals until there were tougher laws on GMO traceability and labelling.
The moratorium, which inspired an international trade suit against the EU from Argentina, Canada and the United States, was lifted by a legal default procedure in May 2004.
Commission confirms quality of European GMO legislative framework
EC press release, 22 March 2005. Today the European Commission took stock of the EU legislative framework on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). During the debate, the Commission confirmed its full confidence in the existing regulatory framework on GMOs, one of the strictest in the world, which provides for a high level of scientific assessment and at the same time safeguards the consumers' right to choose. The Commission concluded that it would continue to comply fully with its legal obligations and proceed with the approval of pending authorisations as appropriate. While continuing to fulfil the responsibilities imposed on it by the EU legislative framework, the Commission has reflected on the need to develop consensus between all interested parties.
Over the past four years, the EU has put in place a stringent system to regulate genetically modified food, feed and crops. The authorisation procedure under this new system ensures that only GMOs which are safe for human and animal consumption and for release into the environment can be placed on the European market. Clear labelling rules allow farmers, other users and consumers to choose whether or not to purchase such products.
Individual authorisations are granted following scientific evaluation on a case by case basis. Requests for authorisations which do not fulfil all criteria have been and will continue to be rejected.
The Commission will fulfil its responsibilities in the establishment of labelling thresholds and, on the implementation of co-existence measures, it will reflect on possible further steps on the basis of a report to be finalised by the end of this year concerning the experience gained in the Member States.
Syngenta says sold some unapproved GMO corn in US
Reuters, 22 March 2005. WASHINGTON - Swiss biotechnology company Syngenta AG said Tuesday it mistakenly sold to farmers an experimental corn seed genetically engineered to resist bugs that was never approved by U.S. regulators.
Hundreds of tons of the resulting corn crop were shipped to consumers and overseas between 2001 and 2004, but three U.S. government agencies investigating said there was no health or environmental risk because of the seed's similarity to another Syngenta product approved for sale and consumption by federal regulators.
"While there are no safety concerns, the regulatory agencies are conducting investigations to determine the circumstances surrounding and extent of any violations of relevant laws and regulations," said Cynthia Bergman, an Environmental Protection Agency spokeswoman. "The U.S. government is also communicating with our major trading partners to ensure they understand there are no food safety or environmental concerns that could affect trade."
The Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration are also investigating.
In trading Tuesday, U.S.-traded Syngenta shares fell 39 cents, or 1.8%, to close at $21.45 on the New York Stock Exchange. The stock has traded in a 52-week range of $13.93 to $23.26.
Biotechnology critics say the incident confirms their fears that the industry can't ensure genetically engineered seeds won't mix with conventionally grown crops and contaminate the food supply.
Nearly half the nation's corn approved for market by the Department of Agriculture is genetically modified, but many consumers pay a premium for organic food or otherwise demand their groceries remain biotechnology free.
Also Tuesday, Syngenta acknowledged some of the unapproved corn may have been shipped overseas to countries that allow the company's approved genetically engineered corn in some form.
The company's approved genetically engineered corn seed is allowed to be sold in Canada, Argentina, Japan, South Africa, and Uruguay. Additionally, food and feed produced by the company's approved corn can be imported in the European Union, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, the Philippines, China, Russia, and Korea.
The United States and the European Union are in a bitter trade dispute over how to strictly to regulate U.S. biotechnology imports, but Syngenta spokeswoman Sarah Hull did not say whether any of its member countries have received the unapproved corn.
"Instead of building international confidence in genetic engineering, the industry continues to shoot itself in the foot," said Greg Jaffe, biotech director for the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington D.C. "It proves this technology is hard to control and we have an industry that is not as diligent as we would like."
The corn in question is spliced with bacteria genes to resist bugs without the need for pesticides. It differs from Syngenta's approved seeds only where the foreign genetic material is placed in the plant's genome, said Jeff Stein, head of Syngenta's U.S. regulatory affairs.
Syngenta also did not say where in the United States the corn was grown, other than to say it sprouted on a total of 37,000 acres in four states ó representing less than 1% of all U.S. corn. Still, the mislabeled corn amounted to several hundred tons shipped over the last four years.
In 2000, the inadvertent planting and distributing of genetically engineered corn not approved for human consumption ó so-called StarLink ó cost the food industry an estimated $1 billion in recalled products.
Hull said because the government has declared the corn poses no health or environmental risks, no recall of the wrongly shipped corn is planned. But all the plants involved have been destroyed, she said. She declined to say how much the incident is expected to cost the company.
Hull said the Swiss-based company discovered the mistake itself in mid-December and reported it immediately as required by law to federal authorities. She said Syngenta didn't publicize the mishap because of the ongoing investigation.
The science journal Nature first reported the mishap on its Web site Tuesday. Agriculture Department spokesman Jim Rogers said the government had not wanted to publicize the problem until the investigation was completed.
Poland to ban Monsanto GMO maize seed
Reuters, 23 March 2005. WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland wants to ban the import and planting of 17 varieties of genetically modified (GMO) maize seed made by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto for two years, a senior Farm Ministry official said on Tuesday.
The EU newcomer will soon notify its plan to ban the seed, made from a parent seed known as MON 810, to the European Commission and expects a decision within one to two months, said Wieslaw Podyma, deputy director at the ministry's plant protection department.
Poland is the second central European country to ban a GMO maize type after Hungary, which outlawed the planting of Monsanto's MON 810 hybrid seeds in January.
While MON 810 is permitted across the 25-nation bloc, individual countries have discretion on whether to allow it and other gene-altered crops on their national territory.
"We are not yet announcing a ban. We are going to submit a motion to ban the imports and trading of 17 types of genetically modified MON 810 seeds for two years," Podyma said. "The ban will be introduced if Brussels approves this.
"Our motion was prepared on a different basis than in the case of Hungary. We have had no field experience related to these types of maize in Poland," he added.
Hungary banned biotech seed planting pending tests to establish whether GMO crops contaminated other crops and said old stocks must be destroyed, although it will continue to allow GMO maize in food production.
No GMO crops are yet grown in Poland, where maize production reached around 2.3 million tonnes last year.
Environmental lobby group Greenpeace welcomed Poland's decision and called on all EU member states to take action to prevent cultivation of gene crops in Europe.
Opponents of the genetic modification have expressed concern that the new EU countries, many of them relatively poor ex-communist states, could provide a back door for GMO production -- a claim strongly denied by the biotech industry.
In the late 1990s, Austria, France, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg imposed national bans on a number of GMO products.
22 March 2005
Poland asks EU to ban genetically modified corn cultivation for two years
eubusiness.com, 22 March 2005. The Polish government is to ask the European Union to ban the genetically modified corn seed in Poland for two years to allow environmental safety tests to be carried out, a statement issued Tuesday said.
"Given the absence of tests conducted locally, there is a risk to farming... As a result, until tests are carried out, Poland will ask for the right to ban for two years the use of and trade in genetically modified MON 810 corn seed," the statement said.
Environmental groups in the central European country called the government's move "responsible."
The ban would "protect Polish farmers against the pollution of their crops by genetically modified organisms," said an official from Greenpeace Poland, Maciej Muskat.
"Given the irresponsibility of the European Commission, other EU countries should follow Poland's example," he added.
GMOs on the Commission's table: still not edible for farmers, consumers and the environment
Joint press release from:
European Environmental Bureau (EEB)
European Community of Consumer Cooperatives (EURO COOP)
Friends of the Earth Europe (FOEE)
Greenpeace European Unit
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) EU Group:
Brussels, 21 March 2005 - Environmental organisations, consumers and organic farming groups urged the European Commission today to listen to public opinion and break with the former executive's pro-GMO policy. They also presented a legal opinion criticising EU plans on the "co-existence" (growing together) of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops. The Commission will debate its policy on genetically-modified organisms tomorrow.
The document that Commissioners will discuss tomorrow is likely to acknowledge the growing demand for GMO-free zones across Europe, and express concern about the fact that decisions on new GMOs default to the Commission, due to deadlocks and disagreement among member states. Even so, the Commission will say that it plans to press ahead with new approvals for the cultivation of GMOs, in spite of a legal loophole in EU legislation concerning coexistence.
"The Commission has to send a signal that it is ready to listen to the concerns of the public, farmers and member states on the impact of GMOs on the environment and the economy," said Eric Gall of Greenpeace. "The Commission cannot simply pass the hot potato to member states and then blame them for failing to agree. It should first ensure that the EU's own legal requirements on risk evaluation and monitoring of GMOs are properly implemented."
A new legal opinion, published today, has criticised the European Commission's approach on GM crop co-existence with other crops as 'fundamentally flawed". The opinion, by Paul Lasok QC, an expert in European law, was commissioned by a coalition of environment and consumer organisations in the UK and criticises the Commission Recommendation as having "no basis in Community legislation" and being "wrong in law". [1] [2]
"The Commission's plan to release GMOs without proper co-existence legislation to protect the environment, consumers, conventional and organic farmers is totally irresponsible. If this policy is adopted, Europe's countryside will soon be completely contaminated by GMOs. These outrageous plans need to be stopped by all means," said Geert Ritsema of Friends of the Earth Europe.
Mauro Albrizio of the European Environmental Bureau added: "The Commission needs to initiate EU legislation on co-existence as soon as possible, and it must recognise that local authorities and regions have the right to set up GM-free zones,"
Francesco Montanari of Euro Coop said: "At this stage, a stricter EU legal framework for GM labelling is urgently needed in order to ensure an adequate protection both for the large number of consumers who do not want to eat GM foods and the food chain operators who want to be GM-free. Labelling of seed contamination must therefore be fixed at the detection level of 0.1% and labelling of products derived from animals fed GM feed needs to be introduced.
"Endangering jobs in Europe's organic farming and GM-free sector for the benefit of a few GMO producers is economic madness," said Marco Schl¸ter of the organic farming association IFOAM EU Group. "In Germany alone, the organic farming sector has created around 75,000 new jobs, compared to some hundred new jobs in the agri-GMO business. The only new jobs the GMO business creates are in laboratories, to test products to exclude any GMO contamination."
Contacts:
Mauro Albrizio, Vice-president, EEB, tel + 32 (0) 479 940251
Eric Gall, GMO policy advisor, Greenpeace European Unit, tel + 32 (0)2 274 1906, tel + 32 (0) 496 161582
Francesco Montanari, EURO COOP Food Policy Officer, tel + 32 (0)2 285 0074
Geert Ritsema, GMO co-ordinator, Friends of the Earth Europe, tel + 31 (0)6 290 05 908
Marco Schlüter, IFOAM EU Group (organic farmers association), tel + 32 (0)2 735 2797
Notes:
[1] See press release for further details: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/coexistence/FOE/UKpressrelease21march.doc
[2] See full legal advice: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/coexistence/FOE/CoexLasok.pdf (180K PDF file)
European Commission to ram GM foods through
Green group slams lack of democracy or precaution
Friends of the Earth Europe, Brussels, 22 March 2005 - Friends of the Earth today attacked the European
Commission for putting business interests before the safety of the public
or the environment. The Commission's newly announced policy to force
through genetically modified (GM) foods despite overwhelming public
opposition, was described by the green group as "a bad day for consumers,
democracy and the environment."
The new European Commission agreed today to:
* push through new approvals of GM foods regardless of the lack of
consensus over their safety by EU member states
* submit to the Environment Council proposals to get countries to lift
their bans on GM products
* approve GM crops for cultivation without proper (so called "coexistence")
legislation to avoid the contamination of the countryside by GMOs
Friends of the Earth believes the Commission should have instead:
* Stopped all approvals in order to re-evaluate safety concerns raised by
member states and the public
* Introduced EU legislation that would prevent contamination from fields of
GM crops and ensure biotech companies are liable for any damage caused by
their products
* Allow regions a say in whether GM crops should be grown
Adrian Bebb, GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth said:
" The European Commission is more interested in supporting big business
then in food safety and the environment. Consumers don't want to eat
genetically modified foods, regions across Europe want GM crops banned and
member states refuse to support new applications. But this has all been
ignored by the Commission. This is a bad day for consumers, democracy and
the environment."
Key facts
* According to Eurobarometer 70% of the public don't want to eat GM foods.
* 23 out of the 25 member states are against the growing of GM oilseed
rape, Bayer does not want to proceed, but the Commission nevertheless wants
to press ahead and has submitted it to a scientific panel for their
opinion. (1)
* The final results of the world's largest experiments of GM crops were
published in the UK yesterday showing that there were less bees and
butterflies in the GM winter oilseed rape trialled than in non-GM fields. (2)
* A legal opinion published yesterday showed that the European Commission's
policy on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional crops is
"fundamentally flawed" and "wrong in law". (3)
Contact: Adrian Bebb, +49-1609 490 1163 (mobile)
Notes to editors
1. www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/biotech_firm_rejects_gm_cr_18032005.html.
2. www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/gm_crop_trial_blow_to_biot_21032005.html.
3. http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2005/UKpressrelease21march.doc.
EU states urged to take responsibility for GMOs
Environment Daily, 21 March 2005. The European Commission is to press EU governments to take more responsibility for European policy on commercial approval of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in a communication due for adoption after debate on Tuesday. The move reflects continuing political strains over GMO policy despite the supposed end of the bloc's five-year moratorium on such approvals.
A draft of the document seen by Environment Daily criticises current procedures. Under these, if national governments fail to agree for or against an application, responsibility passes back to the Commission, which is legally obliged to rubber stamp an approval.
In practice, the council is reaching stalemate on every new application. As a result the Commission has had to approve unilaterally three GM farm products in the last 12 months. Each decision has drawn a hail of criticism from environmental and consumer groups, accusing the EU executive of behaving undemocratically.
In the longer term, the communication states, the Commission will have to "reflect how to improve the decision making process". For now, it says ministers "should be requested to hold a thorough debate in order to avoid adoption by abstention and to openly discuss the reasons for their reluctance to support the authorisation."
Environmentalists on Monday accused the Commission of shirking its responsibility when it comes to biotech crops. A coalition of NGOs said the EU executive "cannot simply pass the hot potato to member states and then blame them for failing to agree."
* In a related development, NGOs also released a legal opinion which they say shows the Commission should withdraw its recommendation on the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops. The 2003 recommendation, though not legally binding, is intended to be used as a starting point for EU countries planning their own biotech crop laws.
The opinion says that the recommendation's advice that member states should not introduce coexistence laws stricter than necessary to keep crop contamination below 0.9% is "legally irrelevant". It also dismisses the recommendation's claim that only economic concerns should be taken into account when setting coexistence rules, saying that environment and health issues should also be considered.
** Meanwhile, the UK announced completion of a major series of field tests of herbicide-tolerant GM crops. Wildlife protection group RSPB said the latest results - on winter oilseed rape - show that the herbicides used are a threat to bird life.
Follow-up:
European Commission http://europa.eu.int/comm/index_en.htm, tel: +32 2 299 1111
NGO reaction http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2005/joint_21_March_GMOs.htm.
Legal opinion http://www.eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/gmo/CoexLasok.pdf
on coexistence.
UK environment ministry press releases:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2005/050321c.htm
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2005/050321b.htm.
EU Commission to continue introducing GM products amid opposition
Finfacts.com, Mar 22, 2005.
The European Commission is set to keep going with its practice of introducing new genetically modified products to the EU market, amid reluctance by several member states and general public opposition.
The forthcoming steps by the Commission on GM products in Europe are outlined in a paper put forward by the institution's president and six other commissioners, which is to be adopted today.
According to the document, the Commission will take steps to authorise several products that have been neither approved nor rejected by a sufficient number of member states ‚ such as GM oilseed rape and maize.
Existing legislation allows the Commission to go ahead with the authorisation procedure if a threshold of votes by member states against the proposal is not obtained.
The Commission argues that member states have so far abstained from taking a clear position, leaving it up to the Brussels executive to make unpopular decisions.
However, several environment organisations oppose the plans to introduce new GM products without necessary European legislation to protect the consumers - as well as conventional and organic crops - from contamination.
Meanwhile, the EU is facing an on-going trade dispute in the World Trade Organisation, initiated by the US, Argentina and Canada in 2003, due to its failure to apply its own regulatory regime on GMOs.
The Commission's paper points out that the EU food market of GM labelled food remains limited, while the genetically modified products are more accepted in the feed sector.
It mentions a rising number of highly restrictive national or regional measures on the cultivation of GMOs, and a network of twenty European "GMO-free" regions, mainly in Spain, France, Germany, Greece and the UK.
There is a new regulatory framework for placing new GM products on the EU markets, but member states are reluctant to implement it by taking decisions on specific products.
Also, several of the Commission's recommendations on the rules adopted in the individual countries "have not been taken into account", according to the paper.
Austria, Luxembourg, Greece, Italy and Denmark are those member states most strongly opposed to new GMOs being introduced in Europe. But opposition is mounting in the new member states, as well.
"There was a great miscalculation in Brussels about the countries from eastern and central Europe. As strong US allies in other issues, they were expected to be also pro-GMO, but the opposite has been the case," said Mauro Albrizio, Vice-president of the European Environmental Bureau.
On the other hand, the UK, Netherlands and Finland are on the pro-GMO side of the argument, and usually vote in favour of new products to be authorised.
Polls show that around 70 per cent of Europeans are against the GMOs.
A number of environmental groups have rebuffed the Commissionís position, suggesting Brussels should not press ahead with the new GMOs without properly enforced rules for preventing contamination at place.
"The document is a great disappointment for us as it does not make any suggestions on how to fill in the legal loopholes for preventing some countries contaminating the agricultural areas of the others by growing the GMOs," said Geert Ritsema of Friends of Europe.
He suggested that different standards in different countries cause huge costs for the conventional and organic farmers, as they are left alone to prevent contamination.
The Commission argues that there is currently not enough support for new pan-European rules.
But according to Eric Gall of Greenpeace, the Commission's position is influenced by pressure from the WTO, the US and lobby groups.
"We have seen evidence of real American pressure in various member states, with letters to Greek and Austrian embassies threatening US sanctions if the countries go ahead with anti-GMO steps. But it is up to the European Commission not to bow to such pressure," said Mr Gall.
Biggest study of GMO finds impact on birds, bees
Reuters, 21 March 2005. By David Cullen.
The world's biggest study to date on the impact of genetically modified (GMO) crops on wildlife found birds and bees are more likely to thrive in fields of natural rapeseed than GMO seed, scientists said.
But scientists behind the British study were keen to stress the differences between the two arose not because the crop was genetically engineered but because of the way pesticides were applied.
"The study demonstrates the important of the effects of herbicide management on wildlife in fields and adjacent areas," researcher David Bohan said.
Green groups, however, were aghast.
"These results are yet another major blow to the biotech industry. Growing GM winter oilseed rape would have a negative impact on farmland wildlife," Friends of the Earth campaigner Clare Oxborrow said.
The trial was the last in a four-part 5.5 million-pound ($9.5 million) test of controversial technology -- the largest experiment of its kind in the world.
Scientists said that when compared with conventional winter-sown rapeseed, GMO herbicide-resistant plants kept the same number of weeds overall, having more grass weeds but fewer broad-leaved weeds.
Flowers of broad-leaved weeds provide food for insects, while their seeds are an important food source for other wildlife.
Researchers said that while fields planted with the biotech version were found to have fewer butterflies and bees, differences arose not because the crop was genetically-changed but because of the way they were sprayed.
In October 2003, the same government trials found that GMO sugar beet spraying was significantly more damaging to the environment than the management of conventional varieties.
They also concluded that gene-spliced spring-sown rapeseed may also have a negative impact on wildlife, while GMO feed maize did not.
"GMO CROPS ARE BETTER"
The biotech lobby insist the crops are safe.
"GM crops offer a better, more flexible weed management option for farmers and, as the results today indicate, the difference between the impact of growing GM and non-GM crops on biodiversity is minimal," Tony Combes, deputy chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, which represents biotech firms like Monsanto and Syngenta.
Despite optimism from proponents of the technology, GMO crops seem a long way off in Britain.
Last year, the only firm to win approval to grow a GMO crop in Britain -- Germany's Bayer CropScience -- abandoned field testing of GMO crops in Britain. It also withdrew any outstanding applications awaiting government approval to sell biotech seeds.
As a result, no new GMO seeds are awaiting approval in Britain, whereas in the mid-1990s more than 50 different GMO
EU states overruled on GMOs by own deadlock -greens
Reuters, 21 March 2005. By Jeremy Smith. BRUSSELS, March 21 (Reuters) - Europe could see a series of new biotech foods quietly approved with no influence from EU governments if they cannot escape from years of deadlock over genetically modified (GMO) foods, green groups warned on Monday.
The European Commission will hold its first debate on GMO policy on Tuesday, the first such discussion of the issue since January 2004. It appears keen to push a backlog of GMO requests through the EU's complex authorisation process.
For the environmental lobby, this would be riding roughshod over public opinion since most European consumers oppose GMOs -- calling them "Frankenstein foods".
"The Commission is not giving a lot of space to member states in the process. They are overruling an overwhelming majority of member states and the public, who say 'We don't want them'," said Geert Ritsema of Friends of the Earth Europe.
Apart from recommending that new GMOs should continue to be submitted for EU approval, the Commission is also expected to ask EU governments to "participate effectively in the process with a view to reaching clear positions", a draft document says.
"The Commission simply cannot pass the hot potato to member states and then blame them for failing to agree," said Eric Gall, GMO campaigner at environmental lobby group Greenpeace.
"They simply advocate going along as they used to, throwing the ball back to the member states. We don't think this is a responsible attitude and they will end up again as they were in 1998 before the moratorium," he told a news conference.
The EU's de facto moratorium on new GMOs came about in late 1998 when a handful of governments said they would refuse to endorse new approvals until there were tougher laws on GMO traceability and labelling, among other areas.
The moratorium, which inspired an international trade suit against the EU from Argentina, Canada and the United States, was lifted by a legal default procedure in May 2004. But EU member states have not themselves approved any new GMO since 1998.
More and more countries now abstain in Europe's GMO votes, reducing the chances of agreement. A small group always votes in favour, while a counter-group always votes against.
The result is that no decision is taken, and it falls to the Commission to approve the new GMO, months later, under a complex process that allows the EU executive to step in if member states cannot reach a decision themselves.
If it fell to the Commission to approve new GMOs, Europe might find itself faced with a new moratorium, other greens say.
Surveys show 70 percent of European consumers oppose GMO foods, usually on health and environment grounds, although these figures are disputed by the biotech industry which claims that, instead, a "silent majority" of the public has different views.
TANZANIA: Involve other stakeholders in GMO plan, government urged
IRIN, 21 March 2005.
DAR ES SALAAM, 21 March (IRIN) - A network of about 40 civil society organisations working with smallholder farmers in Tanzania has cautioned the government against its plans to introduce genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the country, saying stakeholders in the agricultural sector must be involved in approving the move.
"GM crops and foods have a potential negative impact on the environment, economy, culture and health," the network said in a statement on Friday.
The network comprises PELUM, an umbrella body for 30 civil society organisations that work with farmers in 14 regions of the country, and then MVIWATA, a network of farmers' groups in 17 regions of the country.
"Even GM [genetically modified] crop-producing countries in the north have been unable to ensure the safety of GM crops," the organisations said.
They said GMOs reduced small-scale farmers into "slaves" for big companies in the rich countries, which have a monopoly of the technology, setting the stage for diminished food production.
"Blind adoption of the technology will bring a lot of problems to farmers as it will lead to dependency, loss of natural biodiversity, promotion of inappropriate farming systems and denial of farmers' right to save, share and choose seeds to plant," the network said.
The network was reacting to a decision by the government to form a team that would look at the feasibility of introducing GMOs in the country and to prepare relevant rules to govern imports.
Another environmental organisation, the National Environmental Management Commission (NEMC) said the threat of GMOs at global and domestic levels were real, particularly the impact on natural biodiversity.
"We may, for example, lose natural strains of maize after bringing in GMO maize seeds," Magnus Ngoile, the NEMC director-general, told IRIN on Monday. "Likewise, GMO animals could wipe out the indigenous species if the imported ones have problems that could lead to disasters."
However, he said because of globalisation, it was impossible to avoid the importation of GMOs, therefore, strong monitoring and control mechanisms must be put in place.
Ngoile said GMO seeds were normally patented and care should be taken to ensure the indigenous strains were not lost; otherwise the country would remain dependent on foreign firms forever.
"We must build up the capacity to control the imported stuff," he said, "and where possible, we can allow the importation of maize flour instead of seeds."
21 March 2005
Welsh farmers dismiss claim by GM firm's boss
Farmers Union of Wales press release, 16 March 2005. THE Farmers' Union of Wales today hit back at the boss of American biotechnology giant Monsanto after he claimed that most British farmers want to grow genetically modified crops.
Speaking on Radio 4's Farming Today programme, company president Hugh Grant also said that he hoped that GM crops could be grown in the UK within five to 10 years.
"Hugh Grant is taking us all for a ride if he really believes that most farmers want to grow GM crops," said FUW President Gareth Vaughan.
"This may come as a blow to Mr Grant, but surveys have shown that 90 per cent of the British public don't want GM crops and it is our experience that the vast majority of farmers don't want them either," said Mr Vaughan.
The FUW is at the forefront of a campaign to make Wales a GM-free zone, and the organisation has worked alongside Friends of the Earth Cymru, GM Free Wales and the National Federation of Women's Institutes to achieve this aim.
"In our experience, the vast majority of Welsh farmers are against the growing of GM crops because of the seemingly endless list of unanswered questions that surround them," said Mr Vaughan.
"Most Welsh farmers believe that GM crops are unnecessary and could damage Wales' excellent reputation as a supplier of clean, green, traditionally produced food - sentiments that reflect the general public's widely held views on GM crops," he said.
"As well as worries over adverse environmental effects and the possible dangers of GM food, the FUW is also concerned that GM crops are being developed in a way that could effectively enslave farmers, compelling them to become customers of particular companies."
The FUW, together with its three anti-GM partners and a cross party group of AMs, have already called on the National Assembly to maintain its restrictive policy on the growth of GM crops; prohibit the growth of specific GM crops in Wales similar to restrictions already imposed in other parts of Europe and continue its European campaign to declare Wales a GM-free zone.
If this is not possible, the alliance partners wants legislation governing coexistence to be as tough as possible with any additional costs met by the GM industry. In this case the alliance has called for:
* The right of the public to choose GM-free food;
* Strict laws to prevent GM contamination;
* Liability laws to ensure biotech companies pay for all damage arising from contamination;
* Meaningful protection for organic farmers.
Mr Vaughan said: "The position of Welsh farmers is clear, as was the conclusion of the Government's five year consultation on GM crops - we don't want them and the general public don't want them.
"Wales must not let these powerful biotechnology companies dictate a policy that goes against the wishes of the general public and the farming community," he said.
EC accused of "ongoing conspiracy" to suppress research on GM health hazards
GM Free Cymry press release, 20 March 2005. The EC has been accused today by community groups across Europe of an ongoing conspiracy
to keep sensitive information on GM safety studies out of the public domain. It has also been
accused of "playing politics with public health" by turning a blind eye on inconvenient scientific
findings and approving potentially dangerous GM varieties simply to please the Americans and
the WTO.
GM Free Cymru, a watchdog group based in West Wales, has been trying without success to
obtain sight of a secret dossier relating to Monsanto's MON863 maize variety, which is one of a
family of GM crops already listed for use in Europe. The dossier contains the full application
submitted by Monsanto for EC approval, details of a 90-day rat feeding study commissioned by
the seed owners, a critique of that study commissioned from Dr Arpad Pusztai by the German
Environment Ministry, and other material sent to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
by its own GMO Scientific Panel. None of this material has been released for public perusal, in
spite of many requests from Greenpeace, GeneWatch, GM Watch, Friends of the Earth and other
organizations.
According to GM Free Cymru this conspiracy extends back at least five years. Members claim
that the holding of "secret dossiers" acts against the public interest, and that it is also unlawful.
With respect to MON863, there are now strong indications that the rat feeding study completed
five years ago (and still not peer reviewed or released to the public) has thrown up physiological
changes which show the crop to be unsuitable for either animal or human consumption (1).
Doubts have been thrown on the integrity of Monsanto's commissioned research results by a
French study published last year (5), by a Belgian review of the evidence, and finally by the
refusal of other EU nations to accept releases of MON863 into the food chain. Now it has
emerged that Dr Pusztai's September 2004 review of the rat feeding study was only allowed by
Monsanto on condition that it would not be published or released to the public. Furthermore, Dr
Pusztai himself was required to sign a "confidentiality agreement" which means that he can not
even talk about the study. The creation of what is in effect a "secret dossier" by Monsanto and
the EC contravenes EU law (2), and NGOs are furious about the "gagging" of a respected
independent scientist.
This is not all. Monsanto is seeking approvals for MON863 in Australia and New Zealand as
well, and although it has signed a declaration to the effect that it will not withhold any
information that might prejudice its application, it now appears that the company has broken
the law and failed to submit the full report on the study showing abnormalities in rats fed on
MON863 (3). Further, the evidence that it HAS submitted is highly selective and misleading.
"This situation is totally unacceptable, and shows that the whole GM approvals process is
corrupt (8)," said Dr Brian John of GM Free Cymru. "Critical health and safety information is
being kept out of the public domain simply because Monsanto, a gigantic biotechnology
corporation, insists on its right to "commercial confidentiality." [contines]
Download full press release (64k PDF file)
19 March 2005
More info needed for GM food debate
Yomiuri Shimbun (Japan), 18 March 2005. By Noriyuki Yoshida.
A bill to create the nation's first ordinance to restrict growing genetically modified crops is being deliberated by the Hokkaido Assembly.
As the assembly votes on whether to enact punitive measures against farmers growing GM crops without permission, the central government needs to join its local counterparts in providing more information on GM crops, because public debate at the moment is suffering from a lack of information.
The ordinance bill being discussed in Hokkaido is aimed at preventing GM crops from affecting non-GM farm produce.
If the assembly enacts the ordinance, farmers in Hokkaido will have to get approval to commercially grow GM crops outside, a move that in reality will put a virtual ban on commercial production of GM crops.
Under the bill, farmers wishing to grow GM crops would have to hold a meeting to explain their neighbors on how to prevent their GM products from being mixed with others' non-GM crops before requesting approval from the governor of Hokkaido.
The governor would then decide whether to approve the request after screening its content and the hearings of a panel on food safety.
Under the ordinance, those growing GM crops without approval would be subject to a prison sentence of up to one year or a fine of up to 500,000 yen...
_______________________
18 March 2005
EU to push for GMO foods despite opposition
Reuters, 18 March 2005. BRUSSELS: Europe should press ahead with authorising more genetically modified (GMO) foods despite overwhelming opposition among European consumers, a draft EU document showed on Friday. Citing the lack of unanimity among the European Union's 25 member states on gene-altered crops, viewed by many European consumers as "Frankenstein foods", the EU executive plans to push new products through the system.
The document, obtained by Reuters, says the commission should back the "continued submission of draft decisions for the placing on the market of new GMO products".
It will need support from a majority in the 25-strong commission to become policy. This proposed position for the EU executive comes in the face of surveys that show 70% of European consumers oppose GMO foods, usually on health and environment grounds.
Only one EU country, Spain, grows substantial amounts of GMO crops and the continent as a whole remains a major holdout against the spread of the largely US-engineered plants, which are meant to increase yields and be resistant to pests. Next week, the EU executive will debate the subject, hoping to end the policy vacuum that has existed since it took office in November.
The discussion, slated for Tuesday, will be the commission's first on biotechnology since January 2004. Apart from guarded comments from some members of the new commission, little of substance has been said on where the EU might head next with its policy on GMO crops and imports.
Six commissioners carry the most weight, since they are directly involved in GMO policy. They represent agriculture, environment, trade, research, industry and food safety. The six will present a discussion document that calls for GMO authorisations to continue despite years of stalemate among governments, even after the EU lifted its six-year moratorium on approving new GMOs by a default legal procedure last year.
"So far, every single one of the 13 commission proposals (for GMO approval) failed to get the required qualified (voting) majority, even for those GMOs not intended for cultivation, but for import and processing only," the draft document says. "It is expected that ... the commission will have to continue to take ultimate responsibility for adoption of pending decisions for the placing on the market of new GMO products, at least for the immediate future," it said.
Under the EU's decision-making process, if EU member states cannot agree after three months at ministerial level on allowing imports of a new GMO, then the Commission may rubber-stamp an approval. This is how the EU moratorium was lifted in May 2004. More and more countries now abstain in GMO votes, reducing the chances of agreement. A small group always votes in favour, such as Finland and the Netherlands; a counter-group, including Austria, Denmark, Greece and Luxembourg, always votes against.
The rest either abstain or vary their vote. The result is that no decision is taken, and it falls to the commission to approve the new GMO, months later. To avoid this, governments should be asked to "participate effectively in the process with a view to reaching clear positions", the Commission document said.
GMO Use is Madness
One World Southeast Europe, 18 March 2005. The participants in the debate "Does Croatia Need GMO Crops?", held yesterday in Osijek, gave negative answer to that question. They also concluded that it is the ecological agricultural production that can bring great benefits for Croatia.
The GMO seeds didn't get the support of a single participant. To the contrary, the panel supported the initiative of the Osijek Greens and the Croatian Environmental Press Centre, the organizers of the debate, to declare the Osijek-Baranja District GMO free area.
The debate was mediated by professor Marijan Jost, prominent Croatian scientist in the field of genetics and an outspoken opponent of genetically modified seeds and their use in Croatia.
Jost said that he was convinced that Croatia will be able to resist "the powerful global GMO lobbyists", but that the success will depend on the "people who will sit on the competent committees".
Jost added that the science, lamentably, lost its ethics when faced by the capital. He pointed out that in the US, the members of the scientific community that support the use of GMOs are well paid lobbyists of the multinational corporations.
"The claim that GM products are placed under strict scrutiny and control is not true," said Jost. "Analyses show that GMO seeds don't yield better crops. Quite to the opposite, the yields are weaker by 15% on average. Also, it is not true that they require less herbicides, for they need, for some crops, up to 30% more", warned Jost, convinced that organic food has much better chances to be sold profitably in the global markets.
Ljiljanka Mitos-Svoboda, from the Osijek Greens, said that Croatia, under the obligations it accepted with the WTO membership, can't close its borders to the imports of genetically modified food, but that the public has the right to be informed and decide what to buy on its own. It implies the obligation to declare the contents of the products. Mitos-Svoboda believes that the Law on GMOs, currently in the process of drafting, should clearly state the Croatia doesn't need GMOs and that control and supervision have to be strict and efficient.
The Director of the Croatian Food Agency, Boris Antunovic, presented the organizers and participants with a letter of support of the need to debate this issue. In the letter, Antunovic emphasizes that the draft-Law on GMOs obligates the Government to permanently or temporarily restrict or prohibit GMO imports if they miss the proper scientific data on possible harmful consequences for the environment of human health.
Declare Ireland a GM-free zone
Irish Farmers Journal, 18 March 2005, letter to the Editor:
Dear Sir,
Genetically modified crops are spreading round the world.
With the intense commercial pressure from the US chemical companies to encourage us to grow more food, supposedly safely, by using their products - when we have set-aside to stop us growing food - Ireland is, like everyone else, being squeezed to follow the herd.
However, there are a considerable number of people, apparently the majority in Europe, who do not wish to succumb.
We always complain that we cannot compete on the world market for meat or cereals.
This is because we have been foolishly pushed by idiotic bureaucrats to produce quantity, when quality should have been the aim all along. Subsidy encouraged this.
However, we have an immense opportunity staring us in the face.
This island should immediately declare that we will only produce GM-free food. Don't let's have some fool civil servant or minister squander this opportunity through heir onw brainlessness as so often happened before.
This is an opportunity - seize it.
– Johnny Couchman, Johnston House, Carlow.
EU Parliament conference on GMO-free zones
The Assembly of European Regions (AER) and Friends of the Earth Europe (FOEE) will co-host a conference on "Safeguarding sustainable European agriculture: Coexistence, GMO free zones and the promotion of quality food produce in Europe" on 17 May 2005 in the European Parliament, Brussels. This is taking place with the kind invitation of Mr Janusz Wojciechowski - member of the European Parliament - and the support of the regions of Upper Austria and Tuscany.
How can we safeguard the rights of farmers and manufacturers to produce food without genetically modified organisms (GMOs)? And how do we ensure that traditional and organic agriculture can not only be safeguarded but also effectively promoted in future European agriculture?
These two questions will be at the heart of the conference. For the first time members of the European Parliament, representatives from European regions, the European Commission, the EU member states, farmersorganisations and environmental NGOs will discuss together the possible content of an EU wide legislative framework for the coexistence between genetically modified (GM), conventional, traditional and organic agriculture.
The conference will take place against a highly charged background. As a consequence of the decision by the European Commission in May 2004 to restart the EU authorisation process for genetically modified products, more than 100 regions and 3500 areas throughout Europe have declared themselves a GMO free area. This growing movement is driven by concerns over the freedom of choice for farmers and consumers, environmental safety and the lack of so-called coexistence rules at the EU level, that tell farmers how they should separate traditional, organic and GM crops.
However, a new political opportunity is opening up with the EU agricultural Commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boell, stating that she will consider a new EU regulatory framework on coexistence. The conference on 17 May will explore the legal possibilities to include the concerns and wishes of the regions into any new legislative framework. The conference will be free of charge and there will be simultaneous translation in 5 languages (English, French, Italian, German and Polish).
Further information about the conference and a registration form are available at
www.gmofree-conference.org.
_______________________
Food fight looms over Europe
Reuters, 14 March 2005. Brussels - Europe looks on course for another clash with its top trading partners over genetically modified (GMO) foods as negotiations get under way for the gradual enforcement of a treaty to control global GMO trade.
Europe's skeptical stance on GMOs has long poisoned its trade relations with biotech-friendly countries like the United States, Canada and Argentina, where consumers shrug off claims from green groups that these products may be pose risks.
In Europe, genetically modified maize, soybeans and other crops and their products are shunned as "Frankenstein Foods" by most consumers, leading retailers to keep them off shelves.
This puts a dent in world trade and prompted the GMO-growing trio to file suit against the EU at the World Trade Organization for its policy, begun in 1998, of not accepting imports of new GMOs: the EU's de facto moratorium, which ended last year.
The battleground now switches to a UN treaty, the Cartagena Protocol, that came into force in 2003 and aims for more transparency and control in international GMO trade.
It has been signed by 116 countries but not the United States, the world's GMO giant. Negotiations on implementation and enforcement have moved slowly, with the next meeting set for Montreal in late May and early June.
The protocol obliges exporters to provide more information on GMO products like maize and soybeans before any shipment to recipient countries, to help them decide whether to accept it.
Crucially, it lets a nation reject GMO imports or donations, even without scientific proof, if it fears they pose a danger to traditional crops, undermine local cultures or cut the value of biodiversity to indigenous communities.
U.S. frustration
The biotech industry complains the treaty will create costs running into millions of dollars for testing export cargoes for the presence of gene-altered grains.
In the meantime, those countries that have not signed the treaty -- the major exporters, who say GMOs are no different from natural organisms -- are struggling to make their voices heard.
This was the situation at the last major meeting of the protocol's signatory countries in Kuala Lumpur in February 2004.
"They (exporters) were unhappy (at Kuala Lumpur). They get their view heard and then it's ignored," said Doreen Stabinsky, genetic engineering campaigner at Greenpeace International.
"They were frustrated, they will continue to be frustrated and they'll do what they can to influence the terms of the agreement," she told Reuters.
Too complex, industry says
Many details on how countries put the protocol into practice still have to be thrashed out. Whatever happens, all signatories must work its provisions into national laws. And this is where GMO exporters, and the biotech industry, want to play a role.
"The protocol itself is not so bad, it's how it would be interpreted. It's a question of how far you go. That's where the battleground for ideas will be," said Christian Verschueren, director-general of CropLife International, a Brussels-based federation representing the global plant science industry.
"The complexity of this could grind the trade to a halt and add costs. Liability is also one of the major issues," he said. "We're seeing two trading blocs emerge, GMO and non-GMO. It will eventually equalize out, but it's creating some tension."
U.S. officials say they want to see proper implementation of the protocol by its signatories, in line with WTO rules. If not, this would disrupt trade and could be challenged.
EU diplomats were skeptical about U.S. attempts to influence the final shape of the treaty.
"It really doesn't look like it's progressing very fast," said one. "The U.S. doesn't think we (EU) have implemented it in a particularly fair way so I can't see what the immediate incentive is for them to take the process very seriously."
Problem areas for the Montreal meeting will be agreeing requirements for labeling and documentation of GMO cargoes, as well as thresholds for the percentage content of GMO material that may exist by chance in a non-GMO shipment.
"There will be a push by the United States and other countries for allowing adventitious presence of unapproved GMOs -- for which Europe has a zero percent threshold. Those things are on the table," Stabinsky said.
Half of Poland Declares Itself GMO Free Zone
International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside, Press release, 17 March 2005. Mazowieckie Province (with capitol Warsaw), with a population of over five
million, has become the sixth Province in Poland whose local authorities
have passed a resolution declaring themselves a GMO Free Zone.
Earlier, similar decisions were made by the boards of Podkarpackie (with
capitol Rzeszow), Malopolska (with capitol Krakow), Podlaskie (with capitol
Bialystok), Lubelskie (with capitol Lublin) and Kajawsko-Pomorskie (with
capitol Torun). Further, strong declarations of intent against GMO's have
been made by the main farmers organisation in Donaslaskie.
Together with single communities in different parts of Poland, in total
almost half the Polish population are now living in an area where local
authorities have declared GMO Free Zones. Another four Provinces are
currently taking steps in this direction.
This situation highlights the success of ICPPC's campaign "Stop GMOs in
Poland' for a GMO Free Poland. However, this is just the begining of the
campaign. Provinces and local authorities, in common with many other
European GMO Free Zones, are not empowered to 'make laws' to stop GMOs in
their regions. So consequently, growing pressure is needed to pursuade the
Polish Government and European Commission to officialy recognise and respect
regional declarations of GMO Free Status; and to create legal tools for
local gavernments.
ICPPC is so far operating on a very minimum budget and badly needs help to
carry out the next phase of the campaign - to achieve a complete ban on the planting
of GM crops and the sale of GM seeds. This will require a major awareness
raising campaign for both farmers and consumers in Poland, as well as
Pan-European pressure on the Commission of the European Union.
_______________________
Greenpeace alleges double standards over GM food practices
China Daily, 15 March 2005, by Qin Chuan. Greenpeace has accused two international food companies in Beijing of double-standards with their genetically modified (GM) food policies.
Meanwhile, the latest consumer survey commissioned by the environmental group shows that Chinese consumers have become more aware of GM food, and more of them are rejecting it.
During December and January, a total of 28 food products were bought in markets in Beijing and Guangzhou, capital of South China's Guangdong Province, and then tested by GeneScan, an international testing company, according to Greenpeace's Ma Tianjie.
The testing found that Kraft Food's Ritz cracker and Campbell Soup Company's Golden Corn soup contain ingredients made from GM soybean, Ma said.
The two companies have both promised not to use GM ingredients in Europe, but have not done so in China, Ma said.
"We are asking these companies not to sell GM food in China, as consumers deserve the same rights and safety standards everywhere," he said...
_______________________
17 March 2005
GM 'forced on public' by EC
Western Mail (Wales), 15 March 2005, by Steve Dube.
THE European Commission has been accused of covering up major concerns about the safety and environmental hazards of GM crops and foods.
The environmental group Friends of the Earth has lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman over the EC's refusal to allow public access to the Second Submission it made to the World Trade Organisation Dispute Panel in August last year.
The revelations led GM Free Cymru to renew its call on the National Assembly Government for an outright ban on GM crops and food.
The dispute centres on the claim by the United States, Canada and Argentina, the world's three largest producers of GM crops, that the EU is breaking WTO rules with its moratorium on GM products for human consumption.
They say that the moratorium, together with national bans in France, Germany, Austria, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg, are not scientifically justified and hinder the development of the technology, which they claim could benefit health and reduce hunger.
The EU's Second Submission was considered by scientists and politicians at the final meeting of the Dispute Panel in Geneva last month.
FoE says the submission argues that the science is constantly evolving, that uncertainties about antibiotic resistant genes and the side effects of GM crops on beneficial insects are legitimate scientific concerns and that EU member states should be able to determine their own level of protection.
FoE Europe, which is monitoring the WTO case, says the submission shows that the EC is admitting on the one hand to legitimate scientific concerns about the safety of GM foods and crops.
But on the other hand, the EC is effectively putting people's health and the environment at risk by forcing new GM products on to the European market despite these concerns.
GM Free Cymru spokesman Dr Brian John said the revelations showed that the EC attitude to GM was shot through with hypocrisy and disregard for the health and safety of the people of Europe.
The group has written to Wales Environment Minister Carwyn Jones calling for Wales to harden opposition to GM crops from being as restrictive as possible to a complete ban.
Dr John said the first signs of EC doubt over the human and environmental risks came with its First Submission to the WTO Dispute Panel.
"But we now know that by August 2004 - more than six months ago - those doubts had become firmed up into real concerns, expressed in writing," said Dr John.
"But in spite of this the EC has continued to push GM crops and foods on to a reluctant European public."
For example, last October the EC approved the import of Monsanto NK603 maize despite the fact that EU members failed to agree on its safety. And last November the Commission tried to force various member states to lift their de facto bans on GM crop plantings. Most refused, although the UK Government was in favour.
"To call the European Commission's actions hypocritical and two-faced would be to put it mildly," said Dr John.
"It would be more appropriate to say that it has been criminally negligent."
Ireland's climate is set to get warmer
Irish News, 17 March 2005. Ireland's climate is set to change slowly but surely over the next century, with winter floods and summer droughts becoming regular events. The Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) yesterday held a conference at W5 in the Odyssey in Belfast to draw the attention of public bodies such as councils and government departments to the effects global climate change will have on the north. Nine of the 15 warmest years on record in Northern Ireland have occurred since 1990, and a Met Office study predicts that in less than 20 years, average temperatures will rise by up to 1C, with summer rainfall falling by up to 20 per cent and winter precipitation rising by up to 10 per cent.
Temperature changes will become even more marked by the 2050s, with summer and autumn daily temperatures being up to 2.5C warmer. Summers will also be up to 30 per cent drier and winters 15 per cent wetter. By the 2080s, autumn days could be up to 4C warmer and summers 50 per cent drier. Conference delegates heard that benefits of a warmer climate could include reduced year-round heating costs, increased tourism and the ability to grow new crops such as maize. Downsides include increased frequency of extreme weather, such as flash-flooding, storm surges, droughts and heat waves.
The science of Iraqi farming
Western Mail (Wales), 15 March 2005. By Gill Evans, MEP. THE Western Mail has reported in detail on the GM crops debate, and the latest articles in these pages concerned whether or not GM crops could benefit developing countries.
I believe the evidence is quite clear that the shortage of food in developing countries is due to poverty not to the lack of GM crops. But if anyone needs further evidence of how the biotech companies try to influence governments and the GM debate itself, just look at the evidence from Iraq this week.
Dr Brian John of GM Free Cymru has discovered that new laws were quietly introduced by the United States in Iraq last year which effectively put the whole of the country's agriculture sector under the control of Western multinational companies.
The new Order 81 was put in place last April by the US Administrator Paul Bremer, aided by the United States Agriculture Department.
It enables the US to shape the kind of agricultural system they want in Iraq - a small number of cash crops controlled by a small number of big companies which supply both the seeds and the pesticides.
The order basically means that Iraqi farmers will have to use "protected" crop varieties and enter into contracts with the registered owner of the seed, which is normally one of the major companies which also supply the pesticides and herbicides. Seed saving from these "protected" crops is not allowed.
Most worryingly, there is no distinction made between GM plants and other plants.
Given the disastrous state of Iraq following the attack and occupation, it will be of no surprise that most new seed will be brought into the country by US and other aid agencies and that within a few years the Iraqi farmers will find themselves having to pay out royalties every year for their seeds.
With no protection for conventional crops, contamination is inevitable.
While the debate about GMOs and co-existence goes on in Europe and elsewhere, the reality is that the use of GMOs worldwide is increasing.
From June this year there will be applications to the EU for permission to grow GM maize and GM sweet maize crops which are resistant to insects and to the herbicide Glufosinate.
The European Commission has at last recognised that EU-wide regulations on co-existence are needed and will produce a report by the end of this year.
But they will have to move much faster to keep up with the companies which are pressing ahead regardless, as they have done in Iraq.
Jill Evans MEP is Deputy Leader of Plaid Cymru - the Party of Wales
16 March 2005
Plowing Iraq for Profits
American agribusiness isn't wasting any time exploiting Iraq's fragile food sector, battered by decades of war and sanctions.
Guerilla News Network, 16 March 2005. Summary:
Critics of American agribusiness warn that this confluence of privatization policies, GMO-friendly patent protections and U.S. exports is a volatile mix that could further destabilize war-ravaged Iraqi farmers while producing few benefits for their American counterparts.
_______________________
GMO ban legal: province
Canadian Broadcasting Company - Prince Edward Island, 16 March 2005. CHARLOTTETOWN - Lawyers with the provincial government say the province has the legal latitude to ban genetically modified organisms.
A legislative committee has been hearing submissions over the last few months about a possible ban of GMOs.
Last week, two grain producers asked the committee if it was even possible to ban seed that has already been approved by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
The province's legal department said Wednesday that the Constitution allows provinces make their own rules for agriculture.
The only exception is if there are rules on the federal level that override the provincial laws.
Provincial lawyers have found there are no federal rules in place to prevent a ban on GMOs.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/29952/story.htm
The committee's is about half way through hearing the presentations.
Bulgaria Bans Some GMO's To Harmonise With EU
Reuters, 16 March 2005. SOFIA - Bulgaria's parliament passed a law on Tuesday banning the produce and sale of some genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including wheat, to harmonise with EU norms as it gears up for entry in 2007.
The law represents an about-face for the poor Balkan state, which experimented extensively with GMO strains of tobacco and other products last decade but has since changed tack to join the largely GMO-sceptical EU.
"In passing this law, we fully meet our commitments to the EU in the accession process, and at the same time we are defending Bulgaria's interests," Dzhevdet Chakurov, head of the parliamentary commission on environment, told Reuters.
Deputies voted to ban, as of June 1, a list of foods including wheat, tobacco, grapes, roses and all fruits and vegetables, as well as produce already banned in the Union and those with marker genes for antibiotic resistance....
_______________________
Stay away from genetically modified foods
Fiji Times. 16 March 2005. Consumers have a fundamental right to know what they are eating and that it is safe, says Minister for Commerce Mr Tomasi Vuetilovoni.
Launching yesterday's World Consumers Rights Day in Suva, Mr Vuetilovoni said governments should not be complacent about developments in areas such as the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) in food.
"Genetically engineered products are a new phenomenon that are yet to be introduced within Pacific Island countries. However in an era of increasing globalisation and trade liberalization, it is crucial that the governments of these countries do not adopt a complacent attitude towards these serious issues," he said.
"Food is different from other consumer products in that it is something we literally take inside ourselves. It's necessary on a daily basis for growth and life and bound up in our cultures and traditions so we care about it intensely."
The theme for this year's celebrations was "Consumers say NO to GMOs".
Mr Vuetilovoni said the World Health Organisation defined GMOs as organisms in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally.
The Consumer Council of Fiji is joining with their international partners in their campaign on Genetically Modified Foods in ensuring that all GM foods are required to be safe for human health and the environment.
Trends in Citizens' Movements against GM crops in 2005
Citizens' Biotechnology Information Center - Bio Journal, Japan, February 2005 issue. It is predicted that world areas planted to GM crops will further expand this year, but especially notable is the problem of China's GM rice approval. China already cultivates GM cotton, but if GM rice is approved this will possibly open the gates for a flood of other GM crop approvals, making China a large GM crop cultivator similar to the USA. If GM crop cultivation expands in China, India will probably be influenced, and this may lead to a wave of GM crop cultivation expansion throughout the whole of Asia.
The trend being observed in Japan is that of a strategic shift on the part of the GM crop developers. As well as the continuation from last year of the anti-pollen allergy rice being developed by NIAS, Syngenta is developing an ethanol-producing corn (maize), and Monsanto has a herbicide-resistant lawn variety in the works. Thus there is a shift towards non-food GM crop applications, including flowers.
In the opposition movement to genetic engineering, the expansion of the GMO-free zone movement is now attracting attention. The movement is now spreading like wildfire in Europe and has also begun anew in North America, Asia, and Australia. It will possibly spread to the whole world. In Japan, Hokkaido has produced a bylaw to regulate GM crop cultivation, and a GMO-free zone movement has begun, showing that not only consumers but also local administrations and farmers are likely to become very active in this movement.
With the spread of genetic pollution from GM crops, contamination of food is continually increasing. The further amplification of consumer anxiety is expected, and with the citizen investigation of rapeseed pollution now well underway, the reality of the situation is expected to come to light during the year. It is also expected that the movement for a review of the GM food labeling system will gather momentum during the year. .
30% of processed foods are contaminated with GM crops
Citizens' Biotechnology Information Center - Bio Journal, Japan, February 2005 issue. On December 10, 2004, MAFF announced results of its investigation into the actual situation regarding food labelling of processed foods, concerning GM crops and place of origin. 1845 products were objected, and 3 samples of each were purchased and analysed by the IAA Center for Food Quality, Labelling and Consumer Services. Concerning the GM crops, 117 processed food products, which are sold all over Japan, and which carried NON-GM labels, were tested. Traces of GM varieties were found in 37 products (31.6%).
15 March 2005
MEPs demand dedicated EU biodiversity fund
The European parliament has urged the creation of a dedicated EU biodiversity fund to finance management of the bloc's Natura 2000 network. In a resolution adopted in Strasbourg, MEPs said a European Commission proposal to group funding of protected wildlife sites with existing structural and rural development funds was inadequate.
MEPs want a new fund to be created under the remodelled Life+ programme. Though the resolution does not explicitly propose a budget, it makes it clear that at least € 21bn would be needed over seven years from 2007-13.
In other business, the parliament responded to the European Commission's proposed EU action plan on Organic Farming.Ý In line with the EU executive's "pragmatic" approach, its resolution does not call for quantitative targets to increase organic cultivation.
The parliament also adopted a resolution setting out its thoughts on the mid-term review of the EU's Lisbon Strategy.
Separately, the parliament's environment committee has circulated a highly critical report on European Commission plans to grant exemptions to substance bans under the ROHS Directive.
Initiated by the Greens/EFA group, the draft resolution (see link
below) will be voted on by committee members on Tuesday.
Follow-up:
_______________________
Department's animal-feed tests faulty, court finds
Irish Times, 14 March 2005. By Seán MacConnell. The Department of Agriculture and Food's animal-feed sampling and testing regime, under which it has seized hundreds of tonnes of imported animal feedstuffs, has been found by the High Court to be faulty.
The ruling has thrown into doubt the system of checking used by the department, which it claimed is being used across the EU.
A department spokesman confirmed last night that it would be appealing to the Supreme Court the ruling of Mr Justice Peter Kelly in a challenge by importers Albatros Feeds against it and the State for impounding a consignment of animal feed from the United States in November/December last year.
He ruled that the tests carried out, which found samples of bone in the feed, did not prove that the presence of bone fragments indicated processed animal protein.
Irish regulations are based on EU legislation introduced in the early 1990s banning any bone material in cattle feed. It has been used extensively in the last decade as Ireland operates a zero-tolerance attitude towards any bone material found in cattle feed.
Samples of the maize gluten, which formed the basis of the case, were discharged at Foynes and Ringaskiddy and were found to contain particles of bone known as "spitule" when tests were carried out on the them abroad.
However, on Monday in the High Court, Albatros Feeds challenged the seizure of more than 7,400 tonnes of the material, which is normally incorporated into animal feed.
It claimed the authorised officer did not have the necessary powers under the Irish legislation to impound the feed and instruct its recall from the market. It also claimed that the Minister could not prove that the presence of bone fragments indicated processed animal protein.
Mr Justice Kelly found for the appellant on both issues, ruling that the department official did not have the necessary power to seize the material and instruct its recall from the market.
However, of greater significance was his ruling on the second issue, which rendered us