NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • May - June - July 2005

Archives 2005: Jan/Feb/Mar • Apr/May/Jun/Jul • Aug/Sept/Oct • Nov/Dec
Archives 2004 • 2003

Please submit news items for this page to news@gmfreeireland.org.

28 July 2005

Ghana stops importation of GM Foods

Ghanaian Chronicle, 28 July 2005, by Joseph Coomson. Ghana has taken a strong stance against the importation and cultivation of Genetically Modified (GM) foods in Ghana.

The Food and Agriculture minister, Mr. Ernest Debrah said the country would reject, without hesitation, the importation of any Genetically Modified (GM) foods, crops and materials into the country although it might solve the famine problems being experienced, especially in the Northern part.

This implies that the government of Ghana has resolved to oppose anything to do with GM foods. Mr. Debrah said this last Friday in Accra.

GM technology in agriculture first appeared in the mid 1990s in the United States of America (USA), which is still the world's largest grower of GM crops.

A decade later, while member states of the European Union (EU) proceed cautiously on allowing commercial plantings of GM crops, increasing numbers of developing countries are joining the US in allowing the commercial planting of GM crops.

In 2004, 81 million hectares of land were under legal cultivation of GM crops in 17 countries. This is around 1.6 % of the total agriculture land in the world and the area is growing at a rate of 20 % every year. The year also saw 8 million farmers legally growing GM crops, up from 7 million in 2003.

The actual number of farms growing GM crops and the amount of land given over to GM crops are both likely to be much higher than the official figure, as illegal planting is widespread, particularly in Argentina, Brazil, India and Mexico as well as some portions of Africa.

The majority of the crops grown on commercial scale has been developed by private companies and either crop would be used in animal feed or GM cotton.

So far, private companies have shown little interest in developing GM crops unless they have the potential to be bought and sold on a mass scale. Because of this, only four varieties of GM crops, soyabean, maize, cotton, and canola occupy 99% of commercial plantings, and are worth more than $40 million each year. Majority of the crops are modified to resist viruses and insects as well as tolerate chemical weed-killers.

By contrast, scientists and governments in developing countries are more interested in research and commercialization of GM food crops for human consumption and help ensure food security. Varieties of wheat, rice, sweet potatoes, millet, sorghum, cassava and many other fruits and vegetables are being developed in laboratories and test plots across the developing world. The traits being tried out are largely insect and virus resistant.

In developing countries, public institutions such as the Ghana Atomic Commission in Ghana, fund much of the researches into GM crops.

26 July 2005

New set-back for GMO crops in Europe:

Bayer withdraws GMO oilseed rape

Friends of the Earth press release, Brussels/London, 26 July 2005 - The German biotech giant Bayer has withdrawn its applications to grow genetically modified (GM) oilseed rape in the European Union, Friends of the Earth revealed today. The move comes as public calls for GM-free zones spreads across Europe and follows a series of research findings which have uncovered environmental damage resulting from the GM crop being grown.

Bayer is the only biotech company to have applied for permission to grow GM oilseed rape commercially in Europe, but it was revealed this week that their applications have been withdrawn [1].

Earlier this year, results from the world's biggest environmental trials confirmed that growing GM oilseed rape, which has been modified to make it resistant to a weed killer, reduced the level of wildlife in the field [2]. New research by the UK Government, revealed yesterday, showed that the GM crop had also crossed with wild plants to produce herbicide-resistant 'superweeds' in the UK [3].

While pressure to grow and import GM crops in Europe has grown, so has resistance from local authorities and communities. There are now GM-free initiatives virtually in every European country; 164 European regions and over 4500 local governments and smaller areas have declared themselves GM free or want to restrict commercial growing of GM crops [4]. Last month European countries voted to allow France and Greece to maintain their national bans on the import and cultivation of GM oilseed rape [5].

Friends of the Earth Europe's GM Campaigner, Adrian Bebb said:

"Bayer's decision to withdraw its oilseed rape is a major step forward to protecting Europe from genetically modified crops. If this oilseed rape was grown commercially in Europe it would have been a disaster for consumers, farmers and wildlife. It is now time to move forward and for Europe to support the type of farming and food production that people want and trust."

CONTACT

Adrian Bebb +49 1609 1163 (mobile)

Clare Oxborrow (UK) +44 7712 843211 (mobile)

Notes:

[1] Bayer's about turn on GM oilseed rape was revealed in correspondence from the UK Department of the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and confirmed by the German authorities handling the applications. Received in an email from DEFRA, 25 July 2005. "On our DEFRA web site we say that these applications are pending transfer from a 90/220 and 2001/18 application to a 1829/2003 food and feed application. Our understanding is that the applications have actually been withdrawn by Bayer."

[2] www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/gm_crop_trial_blow_to_biot_21032005.html (March 2005)

[3] www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/government_study_finds_uks_25072005.html

[4] www.gmofree-europe.org

[5] www.foeeurope.org/press/2005/AB_24_June_vote.htm

GM crops created superweed, say scientists

Modified rape crosses with wild plant to create tough pesticide-resistant strain

The Guardian, 26 July 2005. By David Adam and Paul Brown. Modified genes from crops in a GM crop trial have transferred into local wild plants, creating a form of herbicide-resistant "superweed", the Guardian can reveal. The cross-fertilisation between GM oilseed rape, a brassica, and a distantly related plant, charlock, had been discounted as virtually impossible by scientists with the environment department. It was found during a follow up to the government's three-year trials of GM crops which ended two years ago. The new form of charlock was growing among many others in a field which had been used to grow GM rape. When scientists treated it with lethal herbicide it showed no ill-effects.

Unlike the results of the original trials, which were the subject of large-scale press briefings from scientists, the discovery of hybrid plants that could cause a serious problem to farmers has not been announced. The scientists also collected seeds from other weeds in the oilseed rape field and grew them in the laboratory. They found that two - both wild turnips - were herbicide resistant. The five scientists from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, the government research station at Winfrith in Dorset, placed their findings on the department's website last week. A reviewer of the paper has appended to its front page: "The frequency of such an event [the cross-fertilisation of charlock] in the field is likely to be very low, as highlighted by the fact it has never been detected in numerous previous assessments." However, he adds: "This unusual occ urrence merits further study in order to adequately assess any potential risk of gene transfer."

Brian Johnson, an ecological geneticist and member of the government's specialist scientific group which assessed the farm trials, has no doubt of the significance. "You only need one event in several million. As soon as it has taken place the new plant has a huge selective advantage. That plant will multiply rapidly." Dr Johnson, who is head of the biotechnology advisory unit and head of the land management technologies group at English Nature, the government nature advisers, said: "Unlike the researchers I am not surprised by this. If you apply herbicide to plants which is lethal, eventually a resistant survivor will turn up." The glufosinate-ammonium herbicide used in this case put "huge selective pre ssure likely to cause rapid evolution of resistance". To assess the potential of herbicide-resistant weeds as a danger to crops, a French researcher placed a single triazine-resistant weed, known as fat hen, in maize fields where atrazine was being used to control weeds. After four years the plants had multiplied to an average of 103,000 plants, Dr Johnson said.

What is not clear in the English case is whether the charlock was fertile. Scientists collected eight seeds from the plant but they failed to germinate them and concluded the plant was "not viable". But Dr Johnson points out that the plant was very large and produced many flowers. He said: "There is every reason to suppose that the GM trait could be in the plant's pollen and thus be carried to other charlock in the neighbourhood, spreading the GM genes in that way. This is after all how the cross-fertilisation between the rape and charlock must have occurred in the first place."

Since charlock seeds can remain in the soil for 20 to 30 years before they germinate, once GM plants have produced seeds it would be almost impossible to eliminate them. Although the government has never conceded that gene transfer was a problem, it was fear of this that led the French and Greek governments to seek to ban GM rape.

Emily Diamond, a Friends of the Earth GM researcher, said: "I was shocked when I saw this paper. This is what we were reassured could not happen - and yet now it has happened the finding has been hidden away. This is exactly what the French and Greeks were afraid of when they opposed the introduction of GM rape." The findings will now have to be assessed by the government's Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (Acre). The question is whether it is safe to release GM crops into the UK environment when there are wild relatives that might become superweeds and pose a serious threat to farm productivity. This has already occurred in Canada.

The discovery that herbicide-resistant genes have transferred to farm weeds from GM crops is the second blow to the hopes of bio-tech companies to introduce their crops into Britain. Following farm scale trials there was already scientific evidence that herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape and GM sugar beet were bad for biodiversity because the herbicide used to kill the weeds around the crops wiped out more wildlife than with conventionally grown crops. Now this new research, a follow-up on the original trials, shows that a second undesirable potential result is a race of superweeds. The findings mirror the Canadian experience with GM crops, which has seen farmers and the environment plagued with severe problems.

Farmers the world over are always troubled by what they call "volunteers" - crop plants which grow from seeds spilled from the previous harvest, of which oilseed rape is probably the greatest offender, Anyone familiar with the British countryside, or even the verges of motorways, will recognise thousands of oilseed rape plants growing uninvited amid crops of wheat or barley, and in great swaths by the roadside where the "small greasy ballbearings" of seeds have spilled from lorries. Farmers in Canada soon found that these volunteers were resistant to at least one herbicide, and became impossible to kill with two or three applications of different weedkillers after a succession of various GM crops were grown. The new plants were dubbed superweeds because they proved resistant to three herbicides while the crops they were growing among had been genetically engineered to be resistant to only one. To stop their farm crops being overwhelmed with superweeds, farmers had to resort to using older, much stronger varieties of "dirty" herbicide long since outlawed as seriously damaging to biodiversity.

Q&A: What the discovery means for UK farmers

What's the GM situation in the UK?

No GM crops are currently grown commercially in the UK. Companies who wish to introduce them face a series of licensing hurdles in Britain and Europe and interest has waned in recent years amid public opposition. Other firms have dropped applications in the wake of the government field scale trials that showed growing two GM varieties - oilseed rape and sugar beet - was bad for biodiversity. The EU has approved several GM varieties and the UK government insists that applications will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Where are GM crops grown?

Extensively in the wide open spaces of the US, Canada and Argentina. In Europe, Portugal, France and Germany have all dabbled with GM insect-resistant maize. Spain plants about 100,000 hectares (250,000 acres) of it each year for animal feed.

What is a superweed?

Many GM crop varieties are given genes that allow them to resist a specific herbicide, which farmers can then apply to kill the weeds while allowing the GM crop to thrive. Environmental campaigners have long feared that if pollen from the GM crop fertilised a related weed, it could transfer the resistance and create a superweed. This "gene transfer" is what appears to have happened at the field scale trial site. It raises the prospect of farmers who grow some GM crops being forced to use stronger herbicides on their fields to deal with the upstart weeds.

Is it a big problem?

Not yet. Farmers in the UK do not grow GM crops commercially. If they did, then the scale of possible superweed contamination depends on two things: whether the hybrid superweed can reproduce (many hybrids are sterile) and, if it could, how well its offspring could compete with other plants. Herbicide-resistant weeds could potentially grow very well in agricultural fields where the relevant herbicide is applied. Most experts say superweeds would be unlikely to sweep across the UK countryside as, without the herbicide being used to kill their competitors, their GM status offers no advantage. Some GM crops, such as maize, have no wild relatives in the UK, making gene transfer and the creation of a superweed from them impossible. Ý

Is it a surprise?

On one level no, gene flow and hybridisation are as old as plants themselves. Short of creating sterile male plants, it's simply impossible to stop crops releasing pollen to fertilise related neighbours. But government scientists had thought that GM oilseed rape and charlock were too distantly related for it to occur. The dangers of hybridisation where it does happen are well documented - experts from the Dorset centre behind the latest research published a high-profile paper in 2003 in the US journal Science showing widespread gene flow from non-GM oilseed rape to wild flowers.

Have superweeds surfaced elsewhere?

Farmers in Canada and Argentina growing GM soya beans have large problems with herbicide-resistant weeds, though these have arisen through natural selection and not gene flow through hybridisation. Experiments in Germany have shown sugar beets genetically modified to resist one herbicide accidentally acquired the genes to resist another - so called "gene stacking", which has also been observed in oilseed rape grown in Canada.

28 June 2005

EU Environment Ministers Let Five States Keep GM Crop Bans

Environment News Service, 28 June 2005. The environment ministers of five European countries are standing firm on their rejection of genetically modified crops. They have turned down a package of proposals by the European Commission to lift their bans on transgenic varieties of maize and oilseed rape that are authorized across the European Union. Ý

At a European Environment Council meeting Friday, the ministers of Austria, France, Germany, Greece and Luxembourg won a majority of their counterparts over to their view that several varieties of genetically modified maize, or corn, and oilseed rape, or canola, present risks to human health and the environment.

This is the first time that the Environment Council found a qualified majority against a Commission proposal on genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said, "The Commission has a legal obligation to make sure that the existing regulatory framework governing the release of GMOs is correctly applied by member states. That is why we proposed to lift the current bans or restrictions on certain GMOs in Austria, France, Germany, Greece and Luxemburg."

Some of these eight national safeguard measures include bans or restrictions on cultivation, while others include bans on import and use in food and feed.

"The fact that the Council rejected all eight proposals raises a host of questions," Dimas said. "What is certain is that todayís vote sends a political signal that member states may want to revisit some aspects of the existing system." Attempts by the European Commission to overturn the bans follow a dispute over GM foods at the World Trade Organization, where the United States claims they are a barrier to trade.

Now the Commission "will have to carefully consider the legal and scientific bases that underpin any further proposals, as well as the implications for EU internal market and trading partners," Dimas said.

Environmentalists were pleased with the Environment Council vote. Friends of the Earth's GM campaigner Emily Diamand said, "Today's vote to allow EU countries to maintain their bans on GM food and crops, is a vote for common sense, and a victory for European consumers, who are overwhelmingly opposed to GM food."

But the environmental group criticized the UK government for again siding with the GM industry, and voting to have the bans overturned. "It is bad enough that Elliot Morley should ignore public opinion on this important issue. But it is outrageous that he should try and stop other countries saying no to GM," said Diamand. "His actions will do nothing to improve the UK's battered reputation on this issue, or help its poor image in Europe."

The proposals to lift the national safeguard measures concern authorized genetically modified organisms from several manufacturers.

Aventis T25 maize, tolerant to glufosinate-ammonium, has been banned in Austria. Also called Chardon LL, it is the active ingredient in LibertyÆ. It was approved in 1998 for all uses - cultivation, food and feed, processing. Austria has expressed the concern about the risk of out-crossing with wild relatives and conventional crops as well as in sensitive areas, and worries that no monitoring is conducted.

Austria supplied additional information about its allergenic and toxicological risk assessment of T25 to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in response to a request from the Commission. But in its opinion of July 2004, the EFSA concluded, as it has for all previous arguments and information, that Austria's additional information did not invalidate the original risk assessment for T25.

Monsanto's product MON810, known commercially as YieldGard corn, is also banned in Austria. The maize, expressing the Bt cryIA(b) gene, is engineered to repel three corn borers. It was approved in 1998 for all uses.

Austria is concerned about the effects of the Bt toxins on non-target organisms and development of resistance to toxins by target organisms. Austria presented additional information about MON810 to the food safety authority, citing the potential environmental impact of Bt toxin and allergenic and toxicological risk assessments. But this information did not change the authority's original risk assessment carried out as part of the authorization process.

Syngenta GM maize, Bt176 has been banned in Austria, Germany and Luxemburg. This Bt-maize is engineered to include genes that confer tolerance to glufosinate ammonium. In 1997, the EU approved it for all uses - cultivation, food and feed, processing. The three countries are concerned about the effects of Bt toxins on non-target organisms and development of resistance to toxins by target organisms. They are also worried about risks associated with the development of resistance to ampicillin antibiotic.

The oilseed rape varieties MS1xRF1 banned in France were approved by the European Union in 1996. This Swede rape, or canola, is resistant to the herbicide glufosinate MS1/RF1.

France claims the GM plants have negative effects on human health, the environment and agriculture and raises concerns about gene drift, gene flow and the accumulation of resistance genes.

Topas 19/2 made by Bayer CropScience is banned in France and Greece. This Swede rape, or canola, is tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate was approved in 1998 for import, storage and processing, but not cultivation. France and Greece raise issues concerning dissemination, persistence, volunteers and gene flow in the environment arising from spillage or unintended release.

Greece filed additional information with the food safety authority concerning environmental risks, consumer protection and co-existence of Topas 19/2. Greece is especially concerned about the plants out-crossing with their wild relatives, which are consumed by humans in Greece, as well as the enhanced capability of the rape and its wild relatives and hybrids to survive and spread. Greece also cites the potential for multi-resistant wild plants and weeds.

In a separate proposal involving the authorization of placing Monsanto's MON863 maize, with resistance to corn rootworm, on the European market for import, processing and feed use, the Council did not find the required qualified majority for or against. This case will now go back to the Commission for a final decision.Ý

24 June 2005

EU ministers uphold sovereign right to ban GMOs

Reuters, 24 June 2005. By Jeremy Smith. LUXEMBOURG - EU environment ministers dealt a blow on Friday to efforts to get more GMO crops grown in Europe as they agreed to uphold eight national bans on genetically modified maize and rapeseed types.

The vote was a sharp rebuff for the European Union's executive Commission, which had wanted the ministers to endorse an order to lift the bans within 20 days. EU law provides for national GMO bans if the government can justify the prohibition.

It also played into the hands of the United States, Canada and Argentina, whose suit against the European Union at the World Trade Organisation alleges that EU biotech policy harms trade and is not founded on science.

The EU's 1998-2004 biotech ban, they say, was illegal.

The WTO is now expected to issue its initial ruling on the GMO case in early October, postponed from August, officials say.

"A very large majority, 22 member states, rejected proposals to lift these national bans. We were able to give a clear message to the European Commission," Luxembourg Environment Minister Lucien Lux told a news conference.

It was the EU's first agreement on GMO policy since 1998, when the bloc began its unofficial moratorium on approving new GMO foods and crops -- lifted last year by a legal default.

Between 1997 and 2000, Austria, France, Germany, Greece and Luxembourg banned specific GMOs on their territory, focusing on three maize and two rapeseed types approved shortly before the start of the EU moratorium.

For the Commission, the votes were a setback, especially in its WTO defence, but it was still "business as usual".

The EU executive now has several options, including returning to the ministers with the same proposals for lifting the bans, though at a later date, or changing them radically.

"The EU is under considerable pressure at the WTO, and not only due to the lack of action (on national GMO bans) in previous years. And further delays would weaken our position at the WTO," EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said.

"This does not call our regulatory framework into question...(which) is the strictest in the world. We are going to apply the existing framework and we are obliged to do so."

Ironically, on the same day that the EU's Official Journal issued an authorisation for a GMO rapeseed, made by Monsanto, it was forced to revoke it due to a bureaucratic error.

The authorisation, for GT73 rapeseed made by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto (MON.N: Quote, Profile, Research), will probably be issued in a few weeks.

GREENS ECSTATIC, INDUSTRY ANGRY

Spain was the only country to uphold all eight bans, despite the fact that its farmers grow one of the maize types, the Bt-176 strain made by Swiss biotech giant Syngenta (SYNN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research).

Spain is one of the few countries that grows GMO crops extensively in Europe, where much of the public view them as "Frankenstein" foods despite industry assurances they are safe.

Green groups were ecstatic that the EU had finally agreed to slap down not just one of the national bans, but all eight.

"The European Commission asked for more guidance from the member states and they got it," said Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner at environmental lobby group Friends of the Earth Europe.

"Countries today have demanded the sovereign right to ban genetically modified crops if there are questions over their safety," he said in a statement.

Apart from the Bt-176 strain, the other maize types were MON 810, made by Monsanto, and Bayer's (BAYG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) T25 maize. There are also two rapeseed types, both made by Bayer.

But Europe's biotech industry was incensed by the decisions.

"Today's vote is another failure of member states to play by the rules that they themselves established. The EU's approval process for safe GMOs is arguably the strictest in the world and these bans are not scientifically justifiable," said Simon Barber at European biotech industry association EuropaBio.

GMO DEADLOCK ELSEWHERE

Even though the EU has now lifted its six-year unofficial moratorium on approving new GMO products, national governments have consistently clashed over biotech policy.

The EU's member states have now ended meetings in deadlock 14 times in a row on whether to approve new GMO products, usually for use in industrial processing or as animal feed.

The latest occasion was also on Wednesday, when the ministers failed to agree on authorising another Monsanto maize known as MON 863, modified to resist the corn rootworm insect.

The Commission will now take up the dossier and most likely issue a rubberstamp authorisation in the next few months, officials say. This process kicks in when EU ministers fail to agree after three months on whether to authorise a GMO or not.

Monsanto's requested use was for processing into animal feed, not for growing or for consumption as human food.

EU ministers vote to keep GM food bans
Commission defeated

Friends of the Earth press release, Luxembourg 24 June 2005 - Environment Ministers from across Europe today voted to allow countries to keep their safety bans on genetically modified (GM) foods. The Ministers rejected by a qualified majority all the proposals by the European Commission to lift the bans in Austria, Luxembourg, France, Greece and Germany. The Commission's move follows a dispute over GM foods at the World Trade Organisation, where the United States is claiming national bans are a barrier to trade. Over 70% of the European public are against GM foods.

The Ministers however failed to reach the qualified majority required to prevent approval of another GM maize - referred to as MON 863 - which caused unexplained kidney damage to rats, according to research conducted by the manufacturer, biotech giant Monsanto. Monsanto has refused to release all the results of its own test on this GM food.

Adrian Bebb, GMO Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said: "The European Commission asked for more guidance from the member states and they got it. Countries today have demanded the sovereign right to ban genetically modified crops if there are questions over their safety. The Commission now faces a test of credibility - will it listen to national governments and the public, or carry on with its unpopular policy of pushing GM foods and crops into Europe? It is time to reconnect with the public and protect them from unwanted GM foods and crops."

Since 1997, five EU countries have banned various GM crops on safety grounds. (1) The Commission asked all EU member states to vote on proposals requiring the five countries to lift their bans within 20 days.(2) Ministers today voted overwhelmingly to allow these bans to remain.

The Commission's proposals are seen as a direct result of the trade dispute in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) that was started in 2003 by the United States, Argentina and Canada. These countries, all big producers of GM crops, claim that Europe's precautionary stance on GM food, including the national bans, are a barrier to free trade and harm their farmers. The WTO is expected to deliver an interim ruling in August.

Today's vote also questions the credibility of the European Food Standards Agency (EFSA). Last year the EFSA claimed the national bans had no scientific basis - a view rejected today by member states. Friends of the Earth, who have been deeply critical of EFSA's pro-biotech position and their close links with the GMO industry, today called for a major review into the independence and scientific standards of the EFSA. (3)

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Adrian Bebb
GM Campaigner
Friends of the Earth Europe
+ 49 1609 490 1163

NOTES

(1) Friends of the Earth briefings and a cyber action urging Ministers to reject the Commission proposals are available at http://www.foeeurope.org/ban_risky_gm_food/index.php

(2) The Commission proposals can be found at: www.foodlaw.rdg.ac.uk/news/eu-05037.htm

(3) The Friends of the Earth report: Throwing Caution to the Wind can be downloaded at: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/publications/EFSAreport.pdf

The national bans are:

Germany
Syngenta's Bt176 maize (banned 31/03/2000) - Reason: effects on non-target insects + transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to humans and animals + insects could develop resistance to the Bt

France
Bayer's oilseed rape Topas 19/2 (banned 16/11/1998) - Reason: impact of genetic escape and spread of herbicide tolerance Bayer's oilseed rape MS1xRf1 (banned 16/11/1998) - Reason: impact of genetic escape and spread of herbicide tolerance

Austria
Syngenta's Bt176 maize (banned 13/02/1997) - Reason: effects on non-target insects such as butterflies + transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to humans and animals
Bayer's T25 maize (banned 28/4/2000) - Reason: protection of sensitive areas, lack of monitoring plan and concerns about the herbicide used
Monsanto's MON810 maize (banned 10/06/1999) - Reason: Effects on non-target insects

Luxembourg

Syngenta's Bt176 maize (banned 07/02/1997) - Reason: Transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to humans and animals

Greece

Bayer's oilseed rape Topas 19/2 (banned 08/09/1998) - Reason: impact of genetic escape

23 June 2005

Roche to resist move to lift national GMO bans

The Irish Times, 23 June 2005, by Tim O'Brien. Moves by the European Commission to lift national bans on the licensing of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will be blocked by Minister for the Environment Dick Roche and environment ministers from Austria, Germany and Luxembourg.

The commission's attempt to lift bans on the licensing of a maize product known as BT176 requires the approval of the Council of Ministers which meets in Luxembourg tomorrow.

Five member states in the EU have imposed a total of eight bans on specific GMOs.

In the past Ireland has consistently supported commission moves to license GMOs. But in a significant policy change Mr Roche said he would intervene strongly on the side of governments which had imposed the bans when the subject is discussed by the EU environment ministers.

Ireland will not advocate a blanket ban on GMOs, however, and in a second proposal that the council authorise a new genetically modified maize - MON863, - Mr Roche will abstain.

Addressing the Oireachtas Committee on the Environment yesterday he confirmed the change but told Green Party spokesman Ciar·n Cuffe his attitude was based on the right of national governments to legislate for themselves. Direction by Brussels was he said "exactly the type of action by the commission which stokes up public disillusionment with the EU project as a whole.

In future, Ireland's attitude would be that each application for GMO authorisation should be addressed on its merits. Ý

22 June 2005

Ministers to vote on GM foods
Key test for Europe

Friends of the Earth press release, Brussels 22 June 2005 - Environment Ministers from across Europe will vote this Friday (June 24) on whether countries should lift their bans on genetically modified foods (called GM or GMOs). The proposal to lift the bans has been tabled by the European Commission in response to a dispute over GM foods at the World Trade Organisation, where the United States claim that the national bans are a barrier to trade.

Ministers will also vote on a controversial GM maize which caused unexplained kidney damage to rats, according to research conducted by the manufacturer, biotech giant Monsanto, which refused to release all its results into this maize.

Since 1997, five EU countries have banned various GM crops on safety grounds. (1) The Commission is asking all EU member states to vote on proposals requiring the five countries to lift their bans within 20 days.(2) One of the GMOs in question, Syngenta's BT176 maize, was never even supported by member states; it was forced onto the market by the Commission in 1997.

The Commission's proposals are seen as a direct result of the trade dispute in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) that was started in 2003 by the United States, Argentina and Canada. These countries, all big producers of GM crops, claim that Europe's precautionary stance on GM food, including the national bans, are a barrier to free trade and harm their farmers. The WTO is expected to deliver an interim ruling in August.

The ministerial vote will also be a key test of the European Food Standards Agency (EFSA). Last year the EFSA claimed the national bans had no scientific basis. So far, member states have never supported any of the GMO products cleared by the EFSA and Friends of the Earth has been deeply critical of EFSA's pro-biotech position and close links with the GMO industry. (3)

Adrian Bebb, GMO Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said: "After the recent shocks to the European project, this vote will be a key test for Ministers. It's the unpopular European institutions who have been forcing GM foods onto the market, despite huge public concern right across Europe. Now is the chance for Ministers to help to make Europe more relevant to people, by following public opinion and allowing countries to ban GM foods."

The Ministers will also vote on the import of Monsanto's GMO maize, called MON863. The maize has been seeped in controversy following feeding studies that showed differences in blood cell parameters, kidney weights and kidney structure in rats fed MON863. The EFSA rejected all concerns raised by member states and Monsanto refused to publish the whole feeding study. The German government won a court ruling earlier this month against Monsanto who are trying to prevent the publication of the study.

NOTES

(1) Friends of the Earth briefings and a cyber action urging Ministers to reject the Commission proposals are available at http://www.foeeurope.org/ban_risky_gm_food/index.php

(2) The Commission proposals can be found at: www.foodlaw.rdg.ac.uk/news/eu-05037.htm

(3) The Friends of the Earth report: Throwing Caution to the Wind can be downloaded at: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/publications/EFSAreport.pdf

The national bans are:

Germany
Syngenta's Bt176 maize (banned 31/03/2000) - Reason: effects on non-target insects + transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to humans and animals + insects could develop resistance to the Bt

France
Bayer's oilseed rape Topas 19/2 (banned 16/11/1998) - Reason: impact of genetic escape and spread of herbicide tolerance Bayer's oilseed rape MS1xRf1 (banned 16/11/1998) - Reason: impact of genetic escape and spread of herbicide tolerance

Austria
Syngenta's Bt176 maize (banned 13/02/1997) - Reason: effects on non-target insects such as butterflies + transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to humans and animals.
Bayer's T25 maize (banned 28/4/2000) - Reason: protection of sensitive areas, lack of monitoring plan and concerns about the herbicide used.
Monsanto's MON810 maize (banned 10/06/1999) - Reason: Effects on non-target insects

Luxembourg
Syngenta's Bt176 maize (banned 07/02/1997) - Reason: Transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to humans and animals

Greece
Bayer's oilseed rape Topas 19/2 (banned 08/09/1998) - Reason: impact of genetic escape

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Adrian Bebb
GM Campaigner
Friends of the Earth Europe
Mobile + 49 1609 490 1163

19 June 2005

Food agency accused of Stalinist tactics over GM maize cover-up

Independent on Sunday, 19 June 2005. By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor. Britain's official food safety watchdog - which prides itself on its "openness" - is embroiled in a row over the blanking-out of large sections of a document relating to a banned GM maize illegally imported into the country.

The Food Standards Agency had even erased the telephone numbers of the European Commission and the biotech company Syngenta, along with statistics on the total trade in maize between Europe and the US.

The documents, which were finally released under the Freedom of Information Act after weeks of pressure from a small environmental group, GM Free Cymru, help to expose one of the greatest GM scandals of recent years.

As reported in The Independent on Sunday in April, at least a thousand tons of the maize has been illegally exported from the United States to Europe over the past four years.

The Bush administration failed to inform European countries that they were inadvertently importing the maize, which had been confused with a similar approved one. The imports were later exposed by the scientific magazine Nature. Even then it was not revealed that the maize contained a gene conferring resistance to antibiotics that could potentially cause people to resist vital medicines.

The Food Standards Agency refused to try to track down the banned maize in Britain. Having carried out no tests, it says it was "not aware" of the crop's presence. It took action to stop the imports only when forced to do so by the European Commission.

The censoring of the documents is bound to raise new questions about the agency's role in the scandal, and its relationship with giant biotech companies.

Dr Brian John of GM Free Cymru, who has lodged a formal complaint with the agency, said: "After endless procrastination, we have at last been sent a bunch of documents relating to the scandal, only to find that they have been heavily censored in a manner that would have done credit to Stalinist Russia."

16 June 2005

Roche urged to reject EU plan to end GM bans

The Irish Times, 16 June 2005. By Alison Healy. TDs and senators have urged Minister for the Environment Dick Roche to reject a plan by the European Commission to stop member states from banning individual genetically modified (GM) products.

Mr Roche and other EU environmental ministers will vote on the issue when the Council of Ministers meets tomorrow.

The European Commission is seeking support to revoke national bans on individual GM products that were approved for marketing in the EU between 1996 and 1998. The bans are being implemented by Austria, France, Germany, Greece and Luxembourg.

Two Oireachtas committees - European Affairs and the Environment - met yesterday to consider the issue. There was cross-party support that member states should have the right to ban specific GM products.

Fianna Fáil deputy Michael Mulcahy said this State was in danger of "sullying its reputation" as a green, natural food producer if it allowed GM material in food production. "I have yet to meet a consumer who wants to eat GM food. They don't exist."

Oisín Coghlan, director of Friends of the Earth Ireland, said the commission's plan to remove the GM bans "fly in the face of European public and political opinion". He said 70 per cent of Europeans did not want to eat GM foods.

John Heney, rural development chairman of the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association, had not noticed a "great groundswell" from farmers wanting to use GM technology.

Chairman of the Joint Committee on Rural Affairs John Deasy said it was "pretty clear" that committee members supported the right of member states to invoke GM bans.

But farmer and PD senator John Dardis said people had to ask which was better - to use chemicals, fungicides and seed dressings or to use GM technology so that these additives were no longer needed?

Dr Tom McLoughlin, of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said there was no such thing as "zero risk, but the risk has to be managed". The EPA was "neither for nor against" GM technology. Its role was to ensure such technology was used safely.

Meanwhile, Pat O'Mahony, of the Food Safety Authority, warned that some producers were misleading consumers by using GM-free labelling as a marketing ploy.

Download the GM-free Ireland Network briefing for the Oireachtas hearing (700k PDF file)

12 June 2005

Judges order disclosure of secret study on GM risks

Independent on Sunday, 12 June 2005. By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor. Judges have ordered the publication of a secret study which has raised fears that eating GM food may harm human health, after it was revealed in The Independent on Sunday last month.

A court in Cologne last week granted Greenpeace access to the 1,139-page study - by the giant biotech firm Monsanto - which found that rats fed a modified corn had smaller kidneys and raised levels of white blood cells and lymphocytes compared with those fed a non-GM corn.

The maize - code-named MON 863 - is expected to be approved for human consumption in Europe later this year. Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, who scrutinises the safety of GM products for the European Commission and French government, describes the findings as "very worrying".

Environmental groups in several European countries have been pressing for the report's publication for months. They intensified their campaign after The Independent on Sunday's disclosures, and the EC also called for the secrecy to be lifted.

Monsanto - which dismisses the differences between the rats as pure chance - supplied the study to safety authorities on condition it was kept confidential. It has consistently refused to make the study public, saying it "contains confidential business information which could be of commercial use to our competitors". Last week the dispute ended in a German court, where Greenpeace argued the study should be published under a European Union law, namely the public should have access to documents assessing GM risks.

The court agreed. Greenpeace hailed the victory as "an important success". Monsanto appealed. Tony Combes, UK director of corporate affairs, said: "Everyone who needs to see [the study] has seen it."

The company denies environmentalists' accusations that it is appealing to try to keep the study secret while European ministers decide next month whether to allow the corn to be sold for human consumption. If ministers cannot agree, the EC has made clear it will wave it through anyway, using a loophole in European law.

Dr Brian John, of GM-free Cymru, welcomed the court's decision and said it would be "irresponsible and cynical in the extreme" to pass the corn for human consumption.

Follow up:

Background information

Suppressed report on the Monsanto study by Dr. Arpad Pusztai (160kb PDF file)

10 June 2005

No need to inspect corn exports for Bt-10: U.S. official

Jiji Press, Monday, June 6, 2005. WASHINGTON - An official of the U.S. Agriculture Department on Friday stressed the safety of gene-modified Bt-10 corn, and said Washington sees no need to inspect U.S. corn exports for the unapproved variety.

The department, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environment Protection Agency have concluded that the corn variety, developed by Swiss biochemical company Syngenta AG, is harmless to humans or the environment, the official told Jiji Press.

Syngenta said in March that it had mistakenly sold Bt-10, which has a pest-killing gene, in the United States, and was fined 375,000 dollars by the Agriculture Department. The firm did not seek the FDA's approval for Bt-10 since Bt-11, another Syngenta-developed GM corn variety with similar pest-killing effects, has already been authorized for sale in the country.

The U.S. official said the penalty had nothing to do with the safety of Bt-10.

The official made those comments after Japan last month found Bt-10 mixed in U.S. corn imports.

Japan in March started inspecting U.S. corn imports for Bt-10 at domestic ports following the revelation of Syngenta's sale of the unapproved variety in the U.S. market.

The country is set to expand the scope of the inspections to cover all ships carrying U.S. corn bound for Japan. Tokyo is also requesting the United States to conduct corn inspections before shipment to Japan.

The United States is continuing talks with Japan's Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Ministry on the issue of Bt-10, the official said, while asking Japan to understand its safety.

FDA seen ok'ing Bt-10 corn soon to satisfy Japan

Reuters, 10 June 2005. By Sophie Walker. WASHINGTON - Japan's concern about U.S. corn shipments tainted with an unapproved biotech variety should be resolved if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration quickly approves Syngenta's Bt-10 corn, the head of the National Corn Growers Association told Reuters on Thursday.

"We think that will go a long way in answering any questions and addressing the regulatory concerns in Japan," Leon Corzine, president of the National Corn Growers Association, said in an interview.

"We're pleased with Syngenta making this decision and the FDA is going to work through it rather quickly I think. My impression is it will be pretty quick -- less than 90 days."

Japan found two U.S. corn shipments tainted with the unapproved Bt-10 biotech variety last week and said as a result it would test every U.S. vessel when it arrived.

"We really are confident that this will resolve the issue for our important Japanese customers," Corzine said, adding: "We have not had market disruptions to this point and we want to make sure that we don't."

Bt-10 corn is engineered to resist the corn borer insect. Swiss-based Syngenta said it was accidentally mixed with U.S. grain shipments between 2001 and 2004.

Under Japan's feed safety law, the government allows a cargo of feed grains for livestock to enter the country even if it is found to have traces of biotech crops not approved in Japan, on the condition that the gene-altered strain was approved by other countries that conduct biotech safety checks in a manner similar to Japan. Also, the contamination level must be no more than 1 percent.

But the Japanese government allows no exceptions to the zero tolerance rule on crops for human consumption.

Under U.S. regulations, Bt-10 corn is an unapproved pesticide and cannot be planted by American farmers.

However, Corzine said the Environmental Protection Agency granted a "tolerance exemption" for the biotech corn several months ago, meaning it did not need a tolerance or threshold applied to it because it was safe.

"The EPA said you don't need any kind of tolerance because it is the same as any other number two yellow corn," Corzine said. "Most thought that would probably address what Japan needed for their regulatory process. As it turned out there were some differences of opinion."

"Once the regulatory issue is resolved, Japan has a higher tolerance level and everything will be fine. So it will clear up the regulatory issue between the two countries on the product," he added.

Syngenta said earlier this week it would ask the FDA to approve its Bt-10 corn, even though it does not plan to commercialize it.

An FDA spokesman declined to comment on the Bt-10 corn issue. However, he noted that a similar case occurred when the maker of a new variety of biotech canola asked for FDA approval, even though it did not plan to commercialize it, "because of the possibility that the canola might get mixed with other canola, and therefore be present in the U.S. food supply at low levels."

To satisfy Japan, Syngenta seeks FDA OK of Bt10 corn

Reuters, 8 June 2005. By Randy Fabi. WASHINGTON - Syngenta AG, the Swiss maker of Bt-10 biotech corn that tainted two U.S. shipments to Japan, will ask the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve the corn for commercialisation to reassure Tokyo that the variety is safe, a company spokeswoman said on Tuesday.

After finding two instances of contamination last week, Japan said it would test every U.S. corn shipment upon arrival for traces of Bt-10.

If the FDA approves the corn, Japan could set a tolerance level for Bt-10 in U.S. exports, said Sarah Hull, spokeswoman for Syngenta Seeds division in the United States.

"We are putting in a consultation with FDA," she said. "If that is successful, by Japanese regulations Bt-10 could meet a 1 percent threshold in U.S. exports, which would solve a lot of this."

FDA officials were not immediately available for comment.

The USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency, which also share oversight of biotech crops, have already concluded that Bt-10 corn is not a danger to people, animals or plants.

Syngenta said that if the FDA approves Bt-10, the company would not sell the variety to American farmers. "It's a little bit out of the ordinary because this product was never going to be commercialized," Hull said.

Separately, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said he was confident that an agreement would be reached with Japan to satisfy its concerns about Bt-10 contamination. "We work with Japan every day on this issue," Johanns told reporters after testifying at a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing on trade issues. "I am confident we can work through it, and we will."

Johanns also said the issue would not affect U.S. corn sales to Japan.

Japan, the biggest buyer of American corn, has demanded that the United States also test for Bt-10 at U.S. ports and that the tests be paid for by the U.S. government or Syngenta. Because Japan buys about 16 million tonnes of corn annually, 90 percent of it from the United States, such extra tests could be costly.

Bt-10 corn is engineered to resist the corn borer insect. It was accidentally mixed with U.S. grain shipments between 2001 and 2004.

The Japanese government has a zero tolerance rule on imports of biotech crops for human consumption. However, it will allow imports of feed grains for livestock that contain less than 1 percent of a biotech variety that has been approved by other countries that conduct safety checks of gene-spliced crops.

9 June 2005

Survey: Scientific Misbehavior Is Common
One-Third of Scientists Surveyed in New Study Say They've Engaged in Some Kind of Misbehavior

Associated Press, 8 June 2005. NEW YORK- It's not the stuff of headlines, like fraud. But more mundane misbehavior by scientists is common enough that it may pose an even greater threat to the integrity of science, a new report asserts.

One-third of scientists surveyed said that within the previous three years, they'd engaged in at least one practice that would probably get them into trouble, the report said. Examples included circumventing minor aspects of rules for doing research on people and overlooking a colleague's use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data.

Such behaviors are "primarily flying below the radar screen right now," said Brian C. Martinson of the HealthPartners Research Foundation in Minneapolis, who presents the survey results with colleagues in a commentary in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

Scientists "can no longer remain complacent about such misbehavior," the commentary says.

But "I don't think we've been complacent," said Mark S. Frankel, director of the Scientific Freedom, Responsibility & Law Program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Frankel, who wasn't involved in the survey, said its results didn't surprise him. But he said that the survey sampled only a slice of the scientific community and shouldn't be taken as applying to all scientists.

The survey included results from 3,247 scientists, roughly 40 percent of those who were sent the questionnaire in 2002. They were researchers based in the United States who'd received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Most were studying biology, medicine or the social sciences, with others in chemistry and a smaller group in math, physics or engineering.

Of the 10 practices that Martinson's study described as the most serious, less than 2 percent of respondents admitted to falsifying data, plagiarism or ignoring major aspects of rules for conducting studies with human subjects. But nearly 8 percent said they'd circumvented what they judged to be minor aspects of such requirements.

7 June 2005

More shipments of unapproved Bt10 maize discovered in Japan

Japan Agricultural News, 4 June 2005. The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) announced on June 3, 2005, that a US shipment of unapproved Bt10 geneticallly modified maize for animal feed was detected in Tomakomai port, Hokkaido Prefecture. This is the second discovery of unapproved Bt10 after the first detection in Nagoya port, Aichi Prefecture on 26 May. The MAFF is now planning to put stricter controls in place for all imports of animal feed maize from USA, and has requested the US Government for stricter measures to prevent further contaminated shipments. Any shipments found to contain Bt10 will be destroyed in order to prevent contamination in Japan.

After the US Embassy in Japan informed the Japanese government in March about the cultivation of unapproved Bt10 GM maize, the MAFF started to check for the presence of Bt10 in 25 locations in May. According to MAFF, animal feed inspectors visited Tomakomai port on May 30, checked 822 tons of imported feed, and detected some Bt10. Out of the five locations for which test results have been completed, two were found to have been contaminated with Bt10.

Under Japanese Feed Safety laws, the importer must cover the costs of disposal if Bt10 is detected, to prevent its release in Japan. However, MAFF commented that "presumably, we will not find a large amount. We have a two month stock of feed corn and barley, so this will not impact the availability of animal feed".

In late March, MAFF requested the US government to take stricter measures to prevent the exort to Japan of any animal feed contaminated with Bt10. But as of 3 June, the Animal Health and Animal Products Safety Division of the MAFF said the US government has not yet confirmed anything clearly. The Ministry will continue its request to the US government.

Japan imports 11,660,000 tonnes of maize per annum, of which 93 per cent came from the USA in 2003. Because Japan's feed maize self-sufficiency is nearly zero, any incident would have a major impact on Japanese farmers.

Some 15,000 hectares of Bt10 were cultivated in the USA between 2001 and 2004 -- about 0.01 per cent of the total food and maize cultivation acreage in the USA.

Additional links:

The MAFF: http://www.maff.go.jp/eindex.html

Recombinant DNA Techniques, its potential and safety (includes information about Japanes laws on GMOs and Feed Safety): http://www.s.affrc.go.jp/docs/anzenka/colum8_e.pdf.

Animal Health and Animal Products Safety Division of the MAFF
Tel: + 81-3-3502-8206
Fax: + 81-3-3502-3385

US Embassy in Japan: http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/.

5 June 2005

International environmental safety talks end in acrimony
New Zealand and Brazil block tighter rules on GMOs

PR Direct, 3 June 2005. Montreal / Quebec - Key United Nations negotiations on the safe trade of genetically modified (GM) crops and foods ended today in acrimony. Despite over 100 countries demanding comprehensive controls to limit GM contamination, the move was blocked by just two countries that sided with the GMO industry - New Zealand and Brazil.

This week's negotiations on the UN's Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety were aimed at bringing in international rules to reduce contamination from imports of GM crops and to introduce full labelling. However, little progress was made in making laws stronger, a move called for by virtually all countries, especially in the developing world. Needing consensus to bring in the new laws, New Zealand and Brazil sided with big business and shamelessly blocked all moves.

"The actions of Brazil and New Zealand are shameless. They have prevented the vast majority from bringing in rules that will protect the environment," said Doreen Stabinsky, GMO Coordinator for Greenpeace International. "Their victory, however, will be short-lived as global opposition to genetically engineered foods continues to grow."

"The world community has shown here this week that it wants laws to protect itself from the threat of genetically modified foods and crops," said Juan Lopez, GMO Coordinator of Friends of the Earth International. "Two countries, Brazil and New Zealand, acting in the interest of big business, have held these talks hostage and destroyed the hopes of improving international laws."

The Biosafety Protocol provides a safety net to protect the environment from the threat of GM crops. Countries are encouraged to develop legislation that protects their biodiversity and can also ban imports of GM products if there are questions over its safety. To date 119 countries have ratified the Protocol.

For information, pictures and reports from Friends of the Earth see: www.foecanada.org.

For more information from Greenpeace Canada see: www.greenpeace.ca.

Follow up:

Doreen Stabinsky, Greenpeace International + 1 202 285 7398
Andrew Male, Greenpeace Canada Communications Coordinator, Cell: (416) 880-2757

3 June 2005

Contamination by Experimental Genetically Engineered Crops
Should Not be "Found Acceptable"

Oakland Institute, by Lim Li Ching. The US Food and Drug Administration recently issued its draft guidance for industry, for early food safety evaluation of new non-pesticidal proteins produced by experimental bioengineered or genetically engineered plants intended for food use.

There are concerns that the draft guidance, instead of assuring genuine food safety evaluation, will instead permit contamination of food supplies with inadequately tested experimental genetically engineered proteins. The FDA draft guidance is part of a package of US proposals for the unintentional presence of experimental genetically engineered material to be "found acceptable". Continues...www.oaklandinstitute.org/?q=node/view/162

Japan to test all US corn after Bt10 find-official

WASHINGTON, June 1 (Reuters) - Japan is to start testing all U.S. corn imports after a consignment shipped from the United States was found to be tainted with unapproved genetically modified Bt-10 corn, a Japanese official told Reuters on Wednesday.

The official, who is familiar with agricultural trade matters, confirmed that a 390-tonne shipment to Japan had been found to contain Bt-10 on May 26.

"Bt-10 is not approved in Japan and we cannot allow this corn to be imported into Japan. Because of this incident, we will test every U.S. vessel importing corn into Japan," the official said.

Bt-10 corn, manufactured by Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta AG , is engineered to resist the corn borer insect. It was accidentally mixed with U.S. grain shipments between 2001 and 2004.

The corn is not approved for use in the United States, but the U.S. Agriculture Department and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have said the variety does not pose a danger to people, animals or plants.

Consumers in Japan, a major buyer of American commodities, have long been skittish about gene-altered food and its possible long-term impact on human health and the environment.

The official said Japan would continue to buy corn from the United States. "We will continue to import U.S. corn but we have to test it," he told Reuters.

A spokesman for Syngenta in Zurich said: "We knew that because of the mix-up in the United States between 2001 and 2004 there could be small amounts of BT-10 in the export distribution. Therefore, it is possible that that would also be found in Japan."

US Corn Grower Official Cites Japan Biotech Qualms

Reuters News Service, 27 April 2005 by Randy Fabi. WASHINGTON - Japan is seeking further assurance from the United States that an unapproved biotech corn strain accidentally mixed with US grain shipments was not a risk to people, animals or plants, a senior official of a US industry group told Reuters Tuesday.

Japanese corn buyers have slowed purchases due to fears they could face millions of dollars in losses if their cargoes contain Bt10 -- an unauthorized strain of genetically modified corn made by Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta AG . The maize mix-up occurred between 2001 and 2004.

National Corn Growers Association Chief Executive Officer Rick Tolman said Japan wanted assurances from the US Food and Drug Administration about the safety of the Bt10 corn strain in food and feed.

"Japan is looking for a strong statement from the FDA on this being approved," Tolman said in an interview after meeting with top Bush administration officials.

But Tolman said the FDA does not have oversight in the Syngenta case.

Both the US Agriculture Department and the Environmental Protection Agency have concluded that the Bt10 strain does not pose a danger to people, animals or plants.

USDA officials were expected to seek clarification from Japan on what exactly Tokyo wanted. Tolman said the issue "should be resolved shortly."

Tolman said Tokyo was also close to deciding whether to begin testing for Bt10 in US corn shipments.

"Syngenta has delivered tests to Japan and they are currently looking at the tests to verify them and make sure that it is what they want to do," he said.

Earlier this month, Europe blocked imports of US maize animal feed and grains unless there was proof the shipments did not contain the biotech strain.

The European Union this week approved the Syngenta tests, enabling imports of US maize animal feed and grains to resume.

"They (USDA) reassured us that things were pretty well straightened out with the EU," he said.

USDA has fined Syngenta $375,000 for the mistake. The EPA was expected to conclude its own separate investigation soon.

Tolman and other members of the US Agriculture Department's trade advisory committee met with USDA Secretary Mike Johanns and other government officials to discuss the Bt10 corn incident and other trade issues.

2 June 2005

Illegal US GM maize found in Japanese ports
as international talks on the safety of GM crops reach crucial stage

Friends of the Earth Press Release, 2 June 2005. Unapproved genetically modified (GM) maize, originating from the United States, has been found in shipments arriving in Japan, according to reports [1]. The contamination incident comes as key United Nations negotiations in Montreal, Canada, reach a crucial point in agreeing regulations for a safe trade in GM foods and crops.

Japanese officials said that a shipment of corn from the US was found to be contaminated by an illegal experimental GM maize, called Bt10. The Swiss-based biotech company, Syngenta, admitted in March that it had mistakenly sold the wrong maize to farmers in the US for the last four years [2]. The EU introduced emergency measures to stop shipments of contaminated corn-based animal feeds in April and last week a contaminated shipment was detected and blocked in Ireland [3].

Japan, the biggest importer of US maize, said that they will now test every shipment for illegal contamination. Trade sources claimed that the shipment is likely to be sent back to the US, at Syngentaís expense.

In Montreal, UN negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol [4], are discussing the issue of the export of GM crops that are not licensed in the importing country. The talks are at a critical stage with a small number of countries - New Zealand, Brazil, Mexico and Peru - holding up progress that would reduce contamination from GM crops. An agreement is expected in the next 24 hours, despite the huge lobbying by the GM industry for weaker rules.

Friends of the Earthís GM Campaigner Clare Oxborrow said: "The biotech industry clearly needs to be brought under control. Every new contamination incident highlights the urgent need for strong international laws. Unless we have strict controls then the contamination of our foods will continue and our environment will be put at risk. The Biosafety Protocol negotiations taking place in Montreal are key to solving these problems."

On Monday, Friends of the Earth International released a report showing that tougher measures are needed to prevent contamination from GM crops [5].

[1] www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8669951

[2] www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/has_illegal_gm_maize_been_23032005.html

[3] http://www.gmfreeireland.org/scandal/

[4] For more information on Biosafety Protocol and the "Second meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety" go to the official UN website: http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety

[5] The report, Tackling GMO contamination can be found here: http://www.foecanada.org

CONTACT:

Helen Burley
Media Officer
Tel: 020 7566 1702
Press office (24hr): 020 7566 1649
Mobile: 07778 069930
Email: helenby@foe.co.uk

1 June 2005

Call for tighter GM controls

Pressure groups release first international register of contamination mishaps
as governments meet to discuss problem

The Guardian, Wednesday June 1, 2005. Paul Brown, environment correspondent. The first register of GM contamination incidents across the world, which includes eight in Britain, is being published today as governments meet to discuss how to protect the environment from unauthorised releases.

Details of all known contamination of food, feed for animals, seed and wild plants since GM crops were introduced in 1996 are available on a website launched by GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace. More than 60 incidents of illegal or unlabelled GM contamination have been documented in 27 countries. Cases of illegal releases of GM organisms and damaging side-effects such as the development of super-weeds are also included.

Governments are meeting in Montreal, Canada, to try to develop rules to allow all GM products to be traced so that if they were accidentally or deliberately released into the environment the extent of the contamination among non-GM plants or animals could be tracked. The second thorny issue governments are dealing with is liability - who pays when either the natural environment is damaged by the spread of GM genes or organic and conventional farmers lose markets through contamination. This is an issue on which the British government has so far failed to develop a policy.

Progress in these areas has been slow internationally and governments are anxious to complete work this week on the agreement called the Caragena protocol, part of the convention on biodiversity, to prevent further contamination incidents. The US and the large agribusinesses which market GM are anxious to avoid any liability for unauthorised releases.

Campaigners compiled the register to show the extent of the problem and put pressure on governments for action.

Sue Mayer, the director of GeneWatch UK said "No government or international agency has established a public record of contamination incidents or other problems associated with GM crops. The official approach of turning a blind eye is not good enough when dealing with a technology like GM where living organisms are released into the environment."

Campaigners believe that only strict rules with liability regulations applied by governments can stop the unauthorised spread of GM seeds and products. "If states do not act and set strict rules now GM crops will further contaminate lands, seeds and food around the world," Doreen Stabinsky of Greenpeace International said yesterday.

The worst single contamination incident was of StarLink Maize, a GM variety approved only for animal feed which entered the human food chain in seven countries, the US, Canada, Egypt, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Japan and South Korea.

The maize was found in taco shells, a popular snack, and had been genetically modified to produce an insecticidal toxin to protect the plant against boring insects. It does not break down in gastric acid, a characteristic shared by many substances which can cause an allergic reaction. Thousands of stores across the world were forced to withdraw products from sale because of the illegal contamination.

Other illegal releases into the environment or food chain include cotton in India, cotton and soya in Brazil, rice in China, maize in Croatia, papaya in Germany and cotton and papaya in Thailand.

Trial and error

There have been eight incidents of GM contamination in Britain:

1. In September 2000, during the UK field trials of herbicide tolerant GM sugar beet, Aventis reported some plants did not die even when they were sprayed with a different herbicide designed to kill them. Investigations showed that some of the original seed was tolerate to two herbicides and this had probably happened as a result of cross-pollination during production of original seed in Germany.

2. Aventis (now Bayer) revealed in 2002 that oilseed rape used at 12 sites in the UK's farm trials was contaminated with an unapproved GM variety. The seed had been used at a total of 25 British trials dating back to 1999.

3. The Food Standards Agency surveyed food and food ingredients in 2002 and found GM soybean in some products, including several labelled non-GM. None were above the 1% level requiring a GM label under EU law, but failure to segregate GM and non-GM crops was thought to be the cause.

4. Friends of the Earth tested 21 samples of food and three of animal feed in 1999 and found five contained GM material. Only one was labelled. The companies concerned changed their suppliers.

5. Routine tests by the Soil Association in 2002 of animal feed labelled organic found GM contamination even though GM is not permitted in organic products. The feed is believed to have come from Italy.

6. In 2001 trading standards officers in the Medway, Kent, sampled a range of foods and found low levels of contamination in 10% of the processed food sampled.

7. Ten samples out of 25 health and organic foods screened were found to contain GM soya at levels below 1%, above which there is a legal requirment to label them, but eight of those were wrongly labelled as non-GM or organic.

8. In May 2000 the government admitted that Advanta seeds had imported an oilseed rape variety called Hyola, which was contaminated with GM herbicide tolerant seed because of cross-pollination. The seed was sown on 4,700 hectares before the mistake was discovered. The company Advanta Seeds eventually paid compensation to farmers who were forced to plough up their crop because it was unsaleable.

First on-line worldwide register of GM contamination incidents launched today

GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace International Press Release: Wednesday June 2005. Amsterdam/Buxton, 1 June 2005 -- Today, GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace International are launching the first on-line register of genetically modified (GM ‚ also known as genetically engineered, GE) contamination incidents. The on-line, searchable web site gives details of all the known cases of GM contamination of food, feed, seed and wild plants that have taken place worldwide.

"No Government or international agency has established a public record of contamination incidents or other problems associated with GM crops. This register has been established because the official approach of 'turning a blind eye' is not good enough when dealing with a technology like GM where living organisms are released to the environment", said Dr. Sue Mayer, GeneWatch UK's Director. "We hope this register will form an important resource for citizens and regulators in the future."

Since their introduction in 1996, GM crops have contaminated food, feed, seed and the environment right across the globe. Over 60 incidents of illegal or unlabelled GM contamination have been documented in 27 countries on 5 continents, and those are only the recorded incidents. The register (which can be found at www.gmcontaminationregister.org) also gives links to more information about the incidents. Cases of illegal releases of GM organisms and negative agricultural side-effects are also included.

"This register is being launched when governments are meeting in Montreal to decide on liability regulations for GM crops. If states don't act and set strict rules now, GM crops will further contaminate lands, seeds and food around the world" said Doreen Stabinsky, of Greenpeace International. Highlights from the register:

* 27 countries have experienced a total of 63 cases of GM contamination of food, feed, seed or wild plants.

* The largest number of contamination incidents have taken place in the USA (11 incidents).

* Contamination from StarLink maize was found in 7 countries: USA, Canada, Egypt, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Japan and South Korea.

* Illegal releases of GM crops into the environment or food chain have taken place in India (cotton), Brazil (cotton and soya), China (rice), Croatia (maize), Europe, Germany (papaya) and Thailand (cotton and papaya).

* Six cases of negative agricultural side-effects have been recorded including deformed cotton bolls and the emergence of herbicide tolerant 'super-weeds'.

For more information:

Dr. Sue Mayer, GeneWatch UK +44 1298 871898
<

Doreen Stabinsky, Greenpeace International +1 202 285 7398 Notes to editors:

Two maps of the contamination incidents are available on the web site:

* Incidents of GM contamination, illegal releases and negative agricultural side-effects worldwide.

All the countries affected by a GM contamination incident are shown in this map produced using data from the register

Since the first GM tomatoes were grown commercially in the USA in 1995, and followed by Roundup Ready soybeans in 1996, there have been a range of different incidents of GM contamination and illegal plantings. This register has records of 63 incidents of contamination, 10 illegal releases and 6 negative agricultural side-effects (some incidents fall into more than one category). The map shows how they are distributed worldwide.

* How StarLink contamination spread around the world

A new map shows how Starlink maize contamination has spread from the US.

In September 2000, sampling by a coalition of public interest groups in the US, showed that a variety of GM maize known as StarLink was present in taco shells being sold for human consumption even though it was not approved for this use and should only have been used for animal feed. The StarLink maize, produced by Aventis (now Bayer CropScience), is genetically modified to contain a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis coding for an insecticidal Bt toxin known as Cry9C. Unlike the Cry1A and Cry3A Bt toxins used in other GM crops, it is heat stable and does not break down in gastric acid ‚ characteristics shared by many allergens.

Before the Starlink maize contamination was detected, it was exported from the US and has now been found in a whole range of countries as this map, produced using data from the register, illustrates.

29 May 2005

Monsanto agrees to release of GM feeding study evaluations

Press Notice from GM Free Cymru, 31 May 2005. In a major new development in the MON863 scandal, Monsanto has agreed that it does not object to the widespread dissemination of the "Pusztai Report" on its controversial 90-day rat feeding studies.

After an extended campaign from NGOs to achieve the publication of Dr Pusztai's evaluation, Monsanto's UK head of Corporate Affairs, Tony Combes, has now written to GM Free Cymru (1) to say that the company has not been responsible for the suppression of this Report, and claiming that the refusal to release it into the public domain was entirely down to the German Regulatory Authorities. Some of the findings of the rat feeding study were exposed in a special feature in the "Independent on Sunday" newspaper on 22 May 2005 (2), and the repercussions of the newspaper coverage have gone around the world.

Dr Arpad Pustai, one of the few genuinely independent scientists specializing in plant genetics and animal feeding studies, was asked by the German authorities in the autumn of 2004 to examine Monsanto's 1,139-page report on the feeding of MON863 to laboratory rats over a 90-day period. The study found "statistically significant" differences to kidney weights and certain blood parameters in the rats fed on the GM maize as compared with the control groups, and a number of scientists across Europe who saw the study (and heavily-censored summaries of it) expressed concerns about the health and safety implications if MON863 should ever enter the food chain. There was particular concern in France, where Prof Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen has been trying (without success) for almost eighteen months to obtain full disclosure of all documents relating to the MON863 study. Continues...

Download the Pusztai Report

Italy calls for independent EU research on GMOs

Reuters, 30 May 2005. By Jeremy Smith BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Italy, known as skeptical about genetically modified (GMO) foods and crops, called on Monday for Europe's top food safety agency to use its own research when deciding if GMOs are safe -- not just that of the manufacturers.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is regularly asked for its independent scientific views on the safety risk of GMO products for entry into the EU's food chain, for consumption by humans and animals, and release into the environment as crops.

EFSA's opinions are required by law if any country objects to a company's application to authorize a new GMO product on EU territory. The agency, set up in 2002, conducts its assessments based on data given by the biotech companies that make the GMOs.

"The EFSA ... does not conduct any scientific tests to ascertain whether new genetically modified products are safe to use. It merely examines the scientific data supplied by applicants," said a statement written by Italy's EU delegation.

"In our view, the EFSA should itself be able to perform the analysis required for independent assessment of the safety of products for which marketing authorization is sought, either by making its own checks on data supplied or, if necessary, by having further investigations carried out," it said.

Italian Agriculture Minister Giovanni Alemanno read out the statement to a regular meeting of EU farm ministers in Brussels. Even though he won support from several other countries, such as Greece and Luxembourg, his comments largely fell on deaf ears.

"I don't share the concerns, the point of view that we have to have EFSA performing its own tests," EU Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner Markos Kyprianou told reporters.

"Any change in the system would change the EU's whole approach on GMO authorizations, and it would alter the burden of proof," he said. "Based on the system we have, there is no reason for a change."

EFSA, which recently moved from Brussels to its new base in the Italian city of Parma, came under fire late last year from environmental group Friends of the Earth, which accused the agency of repeated bias in favor of the biotech industry.

Friends of the Earth said EFSA's GMO panel had ignored views of scientists working for EU governments and issued a string of positive assessments on GMO safety. EFSA denied the charges, saying it was not influenced by commercial or other interests. Alemanno said he was disappointed by the Commission's response and would continue to insist that EFSA take a more proactive role in its GMO assessments.

"Kyprianou's response was unsatisfactory," he said.

"We want more severe and objective rules for approving GMOs for food. It must be possible to EFSA to do their own experiments, or have a list of certified institutes who they can ask," he told reporters.

Despite the EU ending a five-year blockade on authorizing new GMO products around a year ago, EU governments are still deeply divided on the merits and disadvantages of GMO foods.

GM amendment to Aarhus convention agreed

European and central Asian governments have agreed a change to the 1998 Aarhus convention that will see the treaty's rules on public participation extended to all government decisions to cultivate and market genetically modified organisms.

Jubilant green campaigners hailed the deal as the "first time that a pan-European obligation will provide the public with effective information and participation on decisions to authorise a GMO release".

The original text of the convention had made public participation in GM decision-making optional, at the discretion of authorities. The new rules will enter force once the amendment is ratified by three-quarters of convention parties.

Environmentalists said the agreement also marked a victory for the "Eecaa" countries of eastern Europe, the Caucasus and central Asia over the EU.Ý Until the final session of the meeting the EU had favoured a softer wording requiring public consultation rather than more involved participation in decisions.

Campaigners said the EU's own legislation on GM approvals already provides for public participation, but that the bloc was backing a weaker wording in the Aarhus treaty because of pressure from its biotechnology industry.

Assembled in the Kazakhstani capital, Almaty, for the second meeting of parties to the convention since its entry-into-force four years ago, delegations also adopted guidelines on applying Aarhus principles in "other environment-related forums".

Meanwhile an official report revealed that western European parties are generally complying with the treaty, but that "significant obstacles to implementation remain" in other countries covered by the convention.

FOLLOW UP:

Aarhus convention http://www.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html;
meeting details http://www.unece.org/env/pp/mop2.htm;
final press release http://www.unece.org/press/pr2005/05env_p07e.htm.
See also NGO press release http://www.eeb.org/press/civil_society_celebrates_victory_almaty_270505.htm.

Food quality and safety are crucial aspects

(AGI) - Rome, Italy, May 30 - "With regards to the GMO affair, we set some crucial points: food safety and precaution principle; safeguard of consumers and producers; safeguard of Italian diversidied agriculture and its tradition; quality of our rural areas; preservation of our crops; certainty for farmers". That's what CIA (Italian Farmers Association) president Giuseppe Politi said this morning at a joint press conference with Green Party secretary Pecoraro Scanio, Francesco Baldarelli (in charge of agriculture for the Left Democrats), Federconsumatori president Rosario Trefiletti and VAS deputy president Ivan Verga, on GMOs.

30 May 2005

GMO maize imported into Louth comes under fire from ICSA

Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers news release, 30 May 2005. ICSA rural development chairman John Heney has condemned the importation of over 2,500 tonnes of illegal BT 10 maize, mislabeled as a legal variety into Greenore Port in Co. Louth last Thursday. "This latest GMO importation raises very serious questions regarding EU food safety procedures," he said.

"Mindful of the fact that the US exporters send 3.5 million tonnes of corn gluten feed to Europe each year, the EU and Ireland must immediately launch an investigation into how much of this banned product has already been imported and used in foodstuffs and animal feed over the last four years. This potential disaster highlights the abject failure of current Irish and EU regulations to protect us from illegal food contaminants," he said.

"It also highlights the fact that Irish farmers can no longer trust official Department assurances on the safety of animal feed. The Irish Government must get off the fence on the GM issue and face up to its responsibilities to both food producers and consumers. It must immediately place a total ban on the importation of all transgenic food and animal feed and declare Ireland a GM free zone," he said.

Genetically engineered (GE) crops contaminate fields and food around the world

Greenpeace press release, Montreal, 30 May 2005 - Greenpeace, farmers' organizations and community representatives today called on delegates to the Biosafety Protocol meeting to urgently introduce strict liability regulations to make companies accountable for the contamination and damage caused by their GE products.

In a written invitation to Canadian Environment Minister StÈphane Dion, the groups called on the minister to join them for the opening of the biosafety protocol meeting, for a Return to Sender activity in order to hand over to him Canadian GE canola found to be growing wild in Japan.

As predicted by environmental, farming and social movements, GE seeds have, since their introduction in 1996, contaminated food crops and the environment right across the globe. Over 50 incidents of illegal or unapproved GE contamination have been documented in 25 countries on 5 continents, and those are only the recorded incidents.

Illegal and unapproved GE contamination of seeds and crops has been recorded in maize in Mexico, rice in China, soya in Brazil, papaya in Thailand, oilseed rape in Europe, cotton in India, canola in Canada, and now, in the latest example, GE canola in Japan. In Chile, where the World Seed Congress starts today, Greenpeace is calling attention to the latest case of illegal maize seed contamination, the first to be found in this country highly dependent on its export seed industry.

"GMOs have been found growing in the fields of farmers who never asked for, nor ever wanted, GE anywhere near their fields. Yet instead of compensation the farmers have found themselves forced by sharp lawyers and intimidation to pay the GE seed companies -- for damage to the company's patent!" Greenpeace GE Campaigner Doreen Stabinsky said.

Potentially allergenic GE maize (Starlink) has contaminated food products on two continents and dangerous GE pharmaceutical crops have been discovered in silos of harvested crops in the USA. In the meantime, field trials or commercial growing of anything from pig vaccines to industrial plastics continues apace in the USA.

"If states don't act now to make producers and exporters accountable, further and more dangerous GMO contamination is around the corner," said Stabinsky.

Greenpeace demands negotiators immediately establish an interim liability regime and compensation fund for harm done to farmers, consumers or the environment.

"The evidence shows that GMOs may cause irreversible harm to ecosystems and biodiversity even far away from their country of origin. As long as no binding international liability regulations have been agreed, importing countries risk that they may have to pay for the damage themselves," said Stabinsky. "Under these conditions, countries should simply refuse to accept imports of GMOs."

Contact information

Matilda Bradshaw
Ottho Heldringstraat 5
1066 AZ Amsterdam
Telephone: +31 (0)6 5350 4701

Doreen Stabinsky PhD, Greenpeace GE Campaigner +1 202 285 7398
Andrew Male, Greenpeace Canada Communications Coordinator +1 416 880 2757

29 May 2005

Legal move to make EU publish GM test results

The Independent, 29 May 2005. By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor. Two legal initiatives are to be launched to force European bureaucrats to make public secret research on the effects of feeding GM corn to rats, whose results were exclusively revealed in The Independent on Sunday.

This week, in separate moves, a British pressure group is to approach the European ombudsman, and a former French environment minister is to write to the European Court to ask it to lift the cloak of confidentiality from a 1,139- page report by the biotech giant Monsanto, which showed that rats fed a modified corn had smaller kidneys and raised levels of white blood cells compared to those who ate a similar non-GM one.

The results have raised fears that human health might also be at risk from the corn, which the EU is expected to approve for sale this year.

Prof Gilles-Eric Seralini, professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen, who scrutinises the safety of GM products for the EC, told The Independent on Sunday last week that he found the research results "very worrying".

He is president of the Scientific Council of the French Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetics, which has been trying to get the research made public for 18 months.

Monsanto claims to have published "all the relevant safety information" in an 11-page report in December 2002, but while asserting that the rats "responded similarly" to GM and non-GM food, it contains no detailed data.

28 May 2005

Illegal GM maize must be returned to USA

GM-free Ireland Network press release, 28 May 2005. An illegal shipment of 2,546 tonnes of genetically modified (GM) corn-gluten animal feed made from the unauthorised Bt10 maize arrived in Ireland aboard the ship Helena Oldendorff on Wednesday 25 May and was unloaded at Greenore Port in Co. Louth, on Thursday.

The Bt10 maize, which has for years been mislabelled as a legal GM variety called Bt11, is not allowed for importation into the EU because it contains an antibiotic resistance gene which threatens the health of animals and humans. But instead of returning the illegal cargo to the sender in the USA, the Government allowed it to be taken ashore, together with GM soybean hull pellets and distillers dried grain destined for the Irish food chain.

This shipment of Bt10 is the first known case of the banned biotech maize arriving in the EU since emergency measures were recently adopted by the EC to prevent Bt10 seeping through European borders (4). According to an EU Commission spokesman, US officials tested the shipment for Bt10 corn before it left, "and notified to Irish authorities before the ship arrived" in Ireland. So why did the Government not act in time?

Press release continues at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/scandal/

Court untangles Italian precautionary muddle

Environment Daily, 26 May 2005. The European court of justice (ECJ) on Thursday rejected arguments made by Italian consumer group Codacons in a dispute with the Italian government over the proper application of the precautionary principle.

The judgement is the latest development in a longstanding national dispute over the correct interpretation of a 1999 EU genetically modified (GM) product labelling law when applied to baby food.

EU legislation states that the accidental presence of GMOs does not have to be indicated on food labels below a threshold of 1% of the final product.Ý Codacons, in opposition to the Italian health ministry, said the threshold should not apply to baby food, citing the precautionary principle.

The ECJ maintained however that, since the GMOs covered by the EU labelling legislation have all undergone a strict risk assessment before being authorised for use, no "uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks to human health" remains to justify further precautionary measures.

"The precautionary principle, where relevant, is part of such a decision-making [authorisation] process," the court pointed out.Ý It added that nothing else in EU GM and baby food legislation allowed a special GM labelling regime for baby food.

Follow-up:

European court of justice http://www.curia.eu.int, tel: +352 43031

judgement in case C-132/03:

http://www.curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&Submit=Submit&docrequire=alldocs&numaff=c-132/03

26 May 2005

GM corn from US impounded by officials in Co Louth

The Irish Times, 25 May 2005, by James Fitzgerald. A consignment of genetically modified corn containing an illegal strain was impounded yesterday by Department of Agriculture officials in Co Louth. Ý

The shipment of livestock feed, which came in from the US, was seized at Greenore Port near Dundalk as it did not have the necessary documentation for entry into the EU.

After testing, the corn gluten feed was found to be contaminated with the banned Bt-10, a genetically modified strain of maize.

Ý "We are satisfied that the testing arrangements and protocols that are in place worked very well," said a spokesman for the Department of Agriculture.

The matter is being investigated but officials have described the breach as an "inadvertent contamination" and the company in question has reportedly co-operated fully with the department.

"The matter will have to be examined," said the spokesman, who added that the feed would be unloaded, tested and then destroyed.

According to the European Commission the shipment was tested in the US and the positive results for Bt-10 were sent to Ireland so officials here could stop the cargo on arrival.

"The Irish authorities are taking necessary measures to ensure that the contaminated consignment does not enter the food chain," commission spokesman Philip Tod told a news conference in Brussels yesterday.

Last month the EU blocked imports of maize from the US unless shipments carried proof that they were free of Bt-10, which is not authorised for use either in Europe or the US.

The curb will be reviewed at the end of October but the EU's food safety chief said last month the conditional ban may be extended if more contaminated products were discovered.

US exporters send 3.5 million tonnes of corn gluten feed to Europe each year, a trade worth some §350 million.

25 May 2005

Ireland intercepts shipment of illegal US corn

The European Commission said today that Irish port authorities intercepted a shipment from the United States of animal feed that contained genetically modified (GM) corn, which is banned in the European Union.

US officials tested the shipment for Bt10 corn before it left, "and notified to Irish authorities before the ship arrived" in Ireland, an EU Commission spokesman said.

About 290 tests for Bt10 have been conducted on EU-bound shipments, but this was the first time a test turned up positive.

The EU's six-year ban on biotech foods in general ended in May 2004 when the European Commission approved a new corn

Leaked Monsanto GM report causes uproar

FoodNavigatorDaily.com 25 May 2005. Published details of a Monsanto report are at the center of a new storm over whether genetically modified (GM) food could be harmful to human health, writes Anthony Fletcher

Details of the report, published by the Independent on Sunday in the UK, are alleged to show that rats fed the genetically modified (GM) corn MON 863 developed internal abnormalities, while these health problems were absent from another batch of rodents fed non-GM food as part of the research project.

The controversy comes as the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol summit meets in Montreal this week to discuss issues such as bulk labeling of GM crops and state liability in cases of contamination. Unsurprisingly therefore, food safety campaigners have pounced on the disclosure.

"Monsanto's refusal to hand over animal feeding studies concerning its biotech corn is outrageous" Bill Freese, research analyst for Friends of the Earth US told FoodNavigator-USA.com

"I think it's fair to ask: Would Monsanto be hiding its safety studies if it didn't have something to hide?" He points out that controversy surrounding the rat study was first broken by French daily Le Monde over a year ago, and that Monstanto is still refusing to release the study in its entirety.

Nonethlesess, it appears that this most recent disclosure has hit Monsanto hard. Shares were down 34 cents at $57.66 in early trading on the New York Stock Exchange on Monday. But the US biotech giant insists that it supplied all required information to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) prior to EFSA's 2004 favorable scientific opinion on the company's MON 863 corn.

What's more, the company is adamant that there is no new information about MON 863, modified to protect itself against corn rootworm, which has not been submitted to EU regulators.

"That is not the case," said Jerry Hjelle, vice president for Monsanto Worldwide Regulatory Affairs. "Monsanto has provided all required data and studies, including the subject rat study, to European regulatory authorities, and EFSA reviewed these studies before issuing its opinion."

Monsanto said that the product, which has been grown commercially in the United States and Canada since 2003, is safe, and that EFSA's Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms even published a statement on 29 October 2004 verifying this.

The company insists therefore that the research does not provide evidence of any hidden dangers in biotechnology, only inconsequential differences in kidney size and blood composition in the animals used. It has also defended its right not to disclose the full study as it "could be of commercial use to our competitors and exploited by others for commercial advantage, if made available."

It insists that all the information about its MON 863 maize, which was sent to the Independent on Sunday many weeks ago, is available (http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=8846)

Monsanto, based in St. Louis, Missouri, is the world's leading developer of genetic modifications for corn, soybeans, cotton and canola. It argues that GM corn resistant to corn rootworm larvae could save US business millions of dollars; the US Department of Agriculture estimates that this pest causes $1 billion in lost revenue annually to the US maize crop.

U.S. farmers have largely embraced new bitechnology. But other countries, notably in the European Union, have been slow to approve the products because of questions about how genetic changes in the plants affect humans and animals.

Monsanto is still seeking approval to import the biotech corn for use in processed foods and derived food products, but the EU's 25 governments remain deadlocked over the issue.

Bt10: Ireland notifies contaminated consignment stopped in port

European Commision press release, Brussels, 25 May 2005. Today the Irish authorities informed the European Commission through the Rapid Alert System that a shipment with a consignment of corn-gluten feed contaminated with the unauthorised GMO maize Bt10 arrived in Ireland yesterday. The Irish authorities are taking the necessary measures to ensure that this consignment does not enter the feed chain. This is the first case of a contaminated consignment arriving in the EU since the adoption of EU measures to prevent the import of products containing the maize Bt10 (see IP/05/437) and it demonstrates that the measures in place are functioning as they should.

Since the measures were adopted on 18 April, consignments of genetically modified corn-gluten feed and brewers grain from the USA can only be placed on the EU market if they are accompanied by an analytical report by an accredited laboratory which demonstrates that the product does not contain the unauthorised maize Bt10.

On 25 May, the Irish authorities informed the Commission and the other Member States via the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) that a consignment of corn gluten feed containing Bt10 arrived in Ireland on 24 May 2005. The Irish authorities were informed by the importer prior to the arrival of the vessel and the necessary measures are being taken in order to ensure that the contaminated feed does not enter the feed chain and that it is disposed of. This situation arose because the results of the testing became available when the vessel was already en route to the EU. The contaminated consignment will be disposed of under the supervision of the Irish authorities.

This is the first time that the arrival of a consignment of maize containing the unauthorised GMO Bt10 has been reported. To date, 290 tests on corn gluten feed and brewers grain have been carried out in the United States, and 289 have proved negative.

Further information

The ship contains five separate holds. The first contains only soybean hull pellets, no maize. Of the remaining four holds, three containing corn-gluten feed and distillers dried grain tested negative for the presence of Bt10. The fourth hold contains two separate consignments of corn-gluten feed, one of which (2,546 t) tested positive for Bt10, the other tested negative.

The contaminated material will be offloaded and detained in a dedicated store pending a decision on its disposal. In addition, the Irish authorities intend to carry out a risk assessment concerning all of the other feed materials on the shipment.

This assessment will include examination of the results of further sampling and testing by the authorities and examination of information on the port of loading, sequence of loading and type of feed material. Pending the outcome of this assessment, all of the feed materials on the shipment are detained by the Irish authorities.

Once the Irish authorities have completed this risk assessment to their satisfaction, the consignments of corn gluten feed and distillers dried grain which tested negative can be placed on the market.

24 May 2005

GM maize conspiracy revealed

GM Free Cymru press release, 24 May 2005. A GM watchdog group in Wales has revealed the full extent of a conspiracy by UK and EC officials which has, against the public interest, enabled a highly damaging study on the safety of GM maize to be held on a secret dossier and which has gagged scientists who have seen it. The study, into the effects of feeding rats for 90 days on Monsanto's MON863 maize, was requested by various EU countries as part of the MON863 assessment process, and was completed in September 2003. The results showed "statistically significant" changes to blood and to certain vital organs in the rats fed on the GM maize, as compared with those in the control group, and immediately alarm bells started to ring in scientific circles throughout Europe. The revelation was made on 24 May 2005. See press release

US: Biotech testing falls short

FoodProductionDaily.com, 23 May 2005. When representatives from around the world gather this week in Montreal to debate an international convention on biotechnology, the US will be making its case that current testing methods to detect trace amounts of genetically modified substances in food products are unreliable and unnecessary.

The problem leaves food producers and suppliers to EU countries exposed to the risk of regulatory and economic sanctions if such tests do not pick up the presence of GM substances in their products, according to an advisory committee to the US agriculture department on biotechnology.

Uncertainties as to liability transfer and exclusions for biotechnology-related claims by some insurance companies for certain portions of the food supply chain may have significant impacts on exports, the committee states in a report it issued earlier this month.

The committee is made up of academics, companies involved in food production, farmers and non-governmental organisations, said the executive secretary to the committee, Michael Schechtman.

"Many of the requirements (on biotech labelling and tracking) do not match the ability of current testing methods to detect their presence or do not yield consistent results," he said in an interview with FoodProductionDaily.com.

The possibility exists that a grain product grown from compliant seed, delivered as compliant grain to a processing facility, processed to produce a compliant grain product, and incorporated into the finished food will not test ìin complianceî under another testing programme, the committee states in its report. [Continues...]

Read the article: http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/printNewsBis.asp?id=60155

European scientists back cultivation of GM crop

Environmental News Daily, 24 May 2005. The EU's food safety authority Efsa has supported a proposal to authorise cultivation of genetically modified (GM) maize variety Bt11 in Europe. Bt11 is already approved for import as a processed food and animal feed. Efsa concluded "No data have emerged to indicate that Bt11 maize is less safe than its conventional counterpart". Meanwhile, member state experts failed to agree either for or against allowing imports of two other GM maize types: 1507 and MON863. Both applications now go to ministers. See press releases from Efsa http://www.efsa.eu.int/press_room/press_release/923_en.html and Greenpeace http://eu.greenpeace.org/issues/news.html.

23 May 2005

Revealed: health fears over secret study into GM food
Rats fed GM corn due for sale in Britain developed abnormalities in blood and kidneys

Independent on Sunday, 22 May 2005. By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor. Rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn developed abnormalities to internal organs and changes to their blood, raising fears that human health could be affected by eating GM food.

The Independent on Sunday can today reveal details of secret research carried out by Monsanto, the GM food giant, which shows that rats fed the modified corn had smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood.

According to the confidential 1,139-page report, these health problems were absent from another batch of rodents fed non-GM food as part of the research project.

The disclosures come as European countries, including Britain, prepare to vote on whether the GM-modified corn should go on sale to the public. A vote last week by the European Union failed to secure agreement over whether the product should be sold here, after Britain and nine other countries voted in favour.

However, the disclosure of the health effects on the Monsanto rats has intensified the row over whether the corn is safe to eat without further research. Doctors said the changes in the blood of the rodents could indicate that the rat's immune system had been damaged or that a disorder such as a tumour had grown and the system was mobilising to fight it.

Dr Vyvyan Howard, a senior lecturer on human anatomy and cell biology at Liverpool University, called for the publication of the full study, saying the summary gave "prima facie cause for concern".

Dr Michael Antoniu, an expert in molecular genetics at Guy's Hospital Medical School, described the findings as "very worrying from a medical point of view", adding: "I have been amazed at the number of significant differences they found [in the rat experiment]."

Although Monsanto last night dismissed the abnormalities in rats as meaningless and due to chance, reflecting normal variations between rats, a senior British government source said ministers were so worried by the findings that they had called for further information.

Environmentalists will see the findings as vindication of British research seven years ago, which suggested that rats that ate GM potatoes suffered damage to their health. That research, which was roundly denounced by ministers and the British scientific establishment, was halted and Dr Arpad Pusztai, the scientist behind the controversial findings, was forced into retirement amid a huge row over the claim.

Dr Pusztai reported a "huge list of significant differences" between rats fed GM and conventional corn, saying the results strongly indicate that eating significant amounts of it can damage health. The new study is into a corn, codenamed MON 863, which has been modified by Monsanto to protect itself against corn rootworm, which the company describes as "one of the most pernicious pests affecting maize crops around the world".

Now, however, any decision to allow the corn to be marketed in the UK will cause widespread alarm. The full details of the rat research are included in the main report, which Monsanto refuses to release on the grounds that "it contains confidential business information which could be of commercial use to our competitors".

A Monsanto spokesman said yesterday: "If any such well-known anti-biotech critics had doubts about the credibility of these studies they should have raised them with the regulators. After all, MON 863 isn't new, having been approved to be as safe as conventional maize by nine other global authorities since 2003."

Global biotech battle heats up in Montreal

FoodProductionDaily.com 23/05/2005 - A transatlantic trade dispute over genetically modified food will come to the fore over the next 10 days in Montreal, Canada, where government, civic and business representatives are gathering for a second round of international negotiations on biotechnology. Ahmed ElAmin reports.

About 800 representatives from around the world are due for the second round of negotiations on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, from 25 May to 3 June. Among them will be representatives of the food processing, shipping and the agricultural sectors. The main decision-making meeting begins on 30 May.

Biotechnology lies at the centre of debates on the future of world agriculture, on international trade relations, on how to protect biological diversity, on the role of multinational corporations, globalisation, and, in the end, on whether consumers can have confidence in the food they eat. It means multinational food processors will have to walk carefully and carry a lot of lawyers when venturing into this new world, because all of the restrictions being put into place exposes them to risk and liability. [Continues]

Read the article: http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/news-ng.asp?n=60154-special-report-biotech

Europe's food safety agency clears GMO maize

Reuters, 22 May 2005. BRUSSELS: Europe's food safety agency gave a clean bill of health on Friday for the planting of a genetically modified (GMO) maize, its second positive assessment on the growing of biotech crops.

The maize, a sweet variety known as Bt-11, is marketed by Swiss agrochemicals company Syngenta and engineered to protect itself from attacks by corn borer insects. "The GMO panel concluded that there is no evidence to indicate that the placing of Bt-11 maize and its derived products on the market is likely to cause adverse effects on human or animal health or on the environment in the context of its proposed use,î the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said.

The only possible adverse effect might be a resistance to a new protein introduced in corn borers that were exposed to the maize after several years of growing, the EFSA said.

To delay the development of resistance to this, cultivation of the maize should be accompanied by a risk management programme, it said, without elaborating.

The EFSA's broadly positive assessment for Bt-11 maize is only the first step towards possible EU approval for growing. While its opinion is needed for the application to proceed, it will be many months before this is presented to any EU panel of experts.

In March, the EFSA cleared another GMO maize for cultivation, the agency's first foray into the politically sensitive issue of GMO crops that might be grown in the European Union.

Set up in '02, the EFSA's views are used by the European Commission as the independent scientific opinion on the safety risk of GMO products for entry into the food chain, for consumption by humans or animals, and for release into the environment.

While the EU has now lifted its six year ban on allowing imports of new GMOs, there have no approvals since 1998 on any new gene-spliced crop that could be planted in Europe's fields.

A handful of GMO crops, mainly maize types, were authorised for growing across the EU shortly before the moratorium began in 1998. No new crop has been allowed for planting since then.

20 May 2005

GM sweetcorn from Monsanto rejected by EU states, again

FoodNavigator.com, 20 May 2005. Deep divisions over biotech food ingredients once again evident as member states fail to approve a gene-altered corn designed by US biotech giant Monsanto, reports Lindsey Partos.

Food and feed experts from member states failed to reach a qualified majority yesterday, that would have cleared the way for imports of Monsanto's Mon 863 maize into the European food chain.

Reflecting disparate opinions on biotech foods, the vote saw ten members in favour (including the UK and France), eight voting against (Greece and Italy for example) and six abstaining, an EU source tells FoodNavigator.com.

The outcome should come as no surprise. Since tough new labelling rules on GMOs entered into force last year, propelling an end to the moratorium on GM ingredients, only two products have been cleared for import: a GM sweetcorn supplied by Swiss biotech firm Syngenta and Monsanto's MON810 biotech maize, engineered to be resistant to the European corn borer.

By comparison, over ten dossiers for GM ingredients have failed to gain approval for use in foods.

But while the biotech companies are pushing forward their applications for approval, there is little chance the European food industry will actually use the GM ingredients in their formulations.

By all accounts, the business savvy food maker, who cannot afford to lose sales, will opt to skip the use of GM ingredients in their European food formulations: knowing, as they do, that the cynical European consumer will refuse to buy any GM food product.

Critics of the Commission believe Europe's executive body is caving into pressure from the US: last year the US, the leading producer of GM crops, filed a case against the EU at the World Trade Organisation claiming Europe's precautionary stance on GM food, including the national bans, is a barrier to free trade that harms their farmers.

But for Monsanto, all may not be lost for EU approval of its MON 863 maize. The proposal now goes back to the Commission, which will then send it to the Council. According to the EU official, the proposal should be with the Council by June, which will then have three months to make a decision.

If the gridlock continues at the Council level, and in the absence of a vote, the Commission can actually adopt the proposal under a legal loophole.

In a separate vote, this time by post, member states yesterday failed to reach a qualified majority for a maize, known as 1507, made jointly by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a subsidiary of DuPont, and Dow AgroSciences unit Mycogen Seeds. The application was for import and processing for animal feed use and will now pass to the Council.

Scalpels out over quality of science leadership
Royal Society hits back as Lancet calls it lazy, self-serving and shrill

The Guardian, Friday May 20, 2005, by Sarah Boseley, health editor. Britain's oldest scientific institution and its most celebrated medical journal came to blows yesterday, with an unprecedentedly vitriolic display of their disenchantment with each other.

The Lancet started it. In a scathing editorial, it called the Royal Society "a lazy institution, resting on its historical laurels" which had become "self-serving and parochial" and "little more than a shrill and superficial cheerleader for British science". What, asked the Lancet, is the Royal Society for?

The society began, in 1660, as "a radical idea - a place to discuss the subversive subject of science and to witness remarkable experiments," said the Lancet.

Today, however, "its marbled cupboards are largely bare". In the past six months it had produced only "meagre morsels" - the launch of inquiries into the use of monkeys in research and pharmacogenetics.

Contrast that output