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 with its transatlantic equivalent, said the Lancet. The US Institute of Medicine, a mere baby founded in 1970, had become a vital contributor to American life, publishing 20 substantial reports relevant to public policy this year alone.

The society has long been one of those particularly British establishments that are entrenched in gentlemanly club culture. But, unexpectedly, it came back with scalpels flying, attacking the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, by name.

"The editorial paints a wholly inaccurate and astonishingly ill-informed picture of the Royal Society that will be unrecognisable to anybody who is familiar with the society's activities," said Stephen Cox, its executive secretary, in a statement. "The unsigned editorial is yet another example of the declining standards of a once-respected journal, and continues the personal campaign that Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet, has been conducting against the Royal Society."

The reference is to Dr Horton's decision six years ago to defy the collective wisdom of the society and publish controversial research by Arpad Pusztai which questioned the safety of genetically modified food. Dr Horton later publicly revealed that he had been told in no uncertain terms by a senior member of the society not to publish the paper.

But Mr Cox went further, savaging Dr Horton for publishing the research which led to the public scare over the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, which he later partially retracted on finding that the lead researcher, Andrew Wakefield, had a conflict of interest.

"Presumably the practice of lax standards that endangers the health of children is not the sort of contribution to public health and medical research that Richard Horton expects from the Royal Society," said Mr Cox. " Perhaps instead of directing an illinformed attack at the Royal Society, Richard Horton should be focusing closer to home on improving editorial standards at the Lancet."

The "shrill editorial" which the Lancet had published "would look more at home on the leader page of a red-top tabloid than in a scholarly journal," he said.

The Lancet is a mere johnny-come-lately compared with the Royal Society. The journal was first published in October 1823 by Thomas Wakley, who declared that "a lancet can be an arched window to let in the light or it can be a sharp surgical instrument to cut out the dross, and I intend to use it in both senses".

Dr Horton's willingness to follow in that tradition has caused upset before, but yesterday he expressed surprise at the vitriolic response to his editorial, which, he said, ducked his main point - that the society, unlike its US equivalent, was not leading science policy making in the UK.

"The fellows of the Royal Society are the most distinguished scientists in the UK," he said.

"I'm talking about the contribution that the best minds in science in the UK can bring to bear on the most urgent public health and clinical questions that face not just the UK but Europe.

"It sees itself as a body to celebrate science within the culture of science. The government and the public should want far more of its leading scientists."

He denied waging a campaign against the society, pointing out he had made "some very complimentary and positive statements" about some of its work on science in society in his recent book on the vaccine controversy, MMR, Science and Fiction.

To outsiders it might seem a bare-knuckle fight, but Dr Horton said he welcomed the debate.

"I'm so impressed with the Institute of Medicine and what they do," he said. "I want to be equally proud of what we do in the UK."

18 May 2005

Europe's Regions demand "power-sharing" over GMO crop decisions
GMO Free zones reach all time high

Assembly of European Regions / Friends of the Earth Europe press release.

Brussels, 17 May 2005 ‚ European regions have today reiterated their demand to be included in any decisions over the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops (GM or GMOs) in order for them to enhance and promote quality agriculture and food products.

Over 250 people from across Europe today attended an over-subscribed conference in Brussels to hear regional Ministers and MEP's call for a bigger say in whether GM crops are grown commercially in their region. The number of European regions and provinces now declaring themselves "GM Free zones", or publicly wishing to restrict GM crops, has climbed to 162. Over 4500 local governments and smaller areas in Europe are similarly calling for restrictions to commercial growing (see www.gmofree-europe.org for a full list).

The conference, Safeguarding Sustainable European Agriculture, set out clearly that regions want to develop quality food products instead of GM foods. These demands are driven by a combination of concerns over the environment, food safety, food quality, the local and regional economy, and consumer and farmer choice. The conference also heard support for the Agriculture Commissioners notion that there is a need for EU-wide legislation for the coexistence of GM, conventional, traditional and organic farming in order to prevent contamination. The Assembly of European Regions (AER) and Friends of the Earth Europe, published 10 principles that should be included in any such legislation: http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2005/10_principles_EN.pdf.

The conference was organised by the AER and Friends of the Earth Europe, and was hosted by Mr Janusz Wojciechowski MEP, with the strong support of Upper Austria and Tuscany.

Mr Janusz Wojciechowski MEP said:

"In the New Member States the majority of farms are small family farms, particularly in Poland. For this kind of farming we have the opportunity to produce ecologically and traditionally using natural technologies, which respect environmental and animal welfare standards. GMO and other intensive technologies focus on how to produce more and more products as cheaply as possible. That idea threatens not only human health and environment safety, but also the economical and social interest of millions of small farmers."

Mr Josef Martinz, Carinthian Minister for Agriculture, speaking on behalf of the Assembly of European Regions said:

"I kindly ask the European Commission to lay the ground so that it is feasible to produce food without GMOs."

Mr Rudi Anschober, Minister for the Environment and Consumer Protection in Upper Austria said:

"We have led the way in avoiding the commercial cultivation of GM crops and of seeds and plants containing GMOs with a total ban in our whole region by regional law. Having in mind the right of self-determination, the precautionary and the polluter-pays-principles, Brussels must allow regions to decide their own form of agriculture."

Ms Susanna Cenni, the new Agriculture Minister for Tuscany said: "Tuscany is recognized around the world for its rural culture, quality local products and its special relationship between the environment and its people. These qualities are treasured, especially economically, and the introduction of GMOs could irremediably destroy them. We are strongly determined to defend these qualities from any external factors that could represent a danger for its delicate balance."

Mr Adrian Bebb, GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth said: "The European Commission must wake up to the fact that more and more regions are rejecting the cultivation of genetically modified crops. This is at complete odds with the Commission strategy to force more GM foods and crops into Europe."

CONTACT

Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe, GMO Campaigner
mobile + 49 1609 490 1163

Barbara Thauront, Assembly of European Regions, Head of Press Department
‚ mobile + 33 6 78 69 52 35

Branded food imports under strict scanner

The Asian Age, Wednesday, May 18, 2005. By Shuchi Srivastava. MUMBAI - "The Central Food Technology Research Institute or CFTRI will in the next six months launch a comprehensive testing methodology aimed at identifying the presence of genetically-modified material in branded food imports," said a senior member, requesting anonymity of the Food Safety and Quality Testing lab, CFTRI.

"We are currently in charge of the imports that are landing at the Chennai, Kochi, Mangalore and some of the smaller ports on the west coast," he added.

"We are focusing on preparing a fool-proof methodology that will adequately address the peculiarities of the Indian context especially when we would be the first to embark on establishing such testing procedures in the country, although we have a proven track record in identifying genetically-modified raw material, there is no framework currently t

hat can trace the presence of transgenic material in processed branded foods," he said. "Thus, the entire procedure as of now is spread across labs where we are looking at working across food testing and quality labs so that the entire effort is extremely collaborative and we can truly arrive at a consensus that will do justice to this extremely contentious area," he added.

Read the article: http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=10352&start=1&control=220&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1

Two-thirds of Russians unwilling to eat gm-food

RIA Novosti. Wednesday, May 18, 2005. MOSCOW - According to a poll conducted by the All-Russia Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM), about two-thirds of Russians say they are not ready to eat foodstuffs comprising genetically-modified (GM) ingredients.

Almost half of them (45%) flatly reject GM food, with 23% being unlikely to consume them. Only 3% showed willingness to eat such foods and 4% said they did not care altogether. 21% said they did not know what GM foodstuffs were.

Well-off respondents proved to be more likely to be unwilling to consume GM food than those regarding their financial standing as poor. The higher the educational level of the respondents is, the more often they say they will not eat GM foodstuffs. 95% of the respondents well-versed in the subject would not like to use GM food.

Read the article: http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=10351&start=1&control=220&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1

GM bug trial shelved

ABC Online. Wednesday, May 18, 2005. A 10-year project to develop a genetically modified organism to help cattle fight Gidyea and Heartleaf poisoning has been shelved.

The GM rumen bug has been successfully trialled as a shield against the fluroacetate poison which occurs naturally in plants growing in inland Australia.

Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) has decided against applying to do further testing.

MLA's Dr Ruben Rose says consumer attitudes to GM food could create problems for beef producers.

"It's certainly one of those things where a lot of effort and time has been put to find a solution," he said.

"But I think putting on a larger-scale industry hat it would be really a much bigger concern to producers if in fact this sort of work would lead to an issue with consumers and then an issue in terms of some markets being denied access by Australian products.

"It's clearly something that we have to go cautiously on to make sure that we get a good outcome."

Talks on GM labels stalled at Codex meeting

Novis. Wednesday, May 18, 2005. Members of Codex fail to reach a decision on the creation of labelling guidelines for genetically modified foods as divisions on biotech foods remain entrenched between the countries.

Meeting last week in Malaysia, the global organisation's committee on food labelling deferred any standards, instead opting to continue talks on the controversial topic over the coming year.

According to a report on Checkbiotech.org, country delegations were divided: thirty of the 55 countries present spoke in support of creating GM labeling standards, including the UK, France, India and Brazil. While massive biotech supplier the US, along with Australia, Argentina and four other countries, wanted to 'terminate' the labelling discussions.

Read the article: http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=10349&start=1&control=220&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1

17 May 2005

Farmers oppose draft biotech policy

Indian Express Newspaper, Tuesday, May 17, 2005. By Bv Mahalakshmi. HYDERABAD - As the deadline fixed by the department of biotechnology (DBT) for receiving the feedback from the public on the national biotechnology development strategy paper got over on Saturday, scores of farmers, agricultural and extension associations have termed the policy to be withdrawn as there are no participatory processes on an issue like biotechnology in agriculture even as they object to the policy proposals for fast-track approvals for GM (genetically modified) crops.

DBT has evolved this policy based on the recommendations provided by MS Swaminathan taskforce on agricultural bio-technology and the Mashelkar committee on biotechnology in the pharma sector.

On the content of the policy paper, GV Ramanjaneyulu, executive director, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture said, "The policy is geared towards promoting more corporate control over agriculture, with IPRs and BT going hand-in-hand everywhere. It has dangerous propositions with regard to biosafety which is in addition to proposals to further weaken regulations in the country by proposing single window clearances."

He adds, in this country, accountability for failures which happened in the case of Bt cotton, has not yet been fixed specially in relation to the huge losses in Andhra Pradesh which has banned three Mahyco-Monsanto varieties.

Farmers agree to pay BASF $2.5 million to settle rice patent lawsuit

The Associated Press. Wednesday, May 17, 2005. LITTLE ROCK - A lawsuit by a major agricultural chemical company against a group of northeast Arkansas rice farmers has been resolved.

Dutch-based BASF Agrochemical Products B.V. and BASF Corp. were awarded $2.5 million in damages from 25 farmers who acknowledged violating the patent for a herbicide-resistant rice seed.

BASF holds a patent on the Clearfield rice seed allows farmers to control red rice infestations by also applying BASF's herbicide, Newpath.

Farmers who buy Clearfield rice have to sign an agreement not to save and replant seeds because that could allow red rice and Clearfield rice to cross-pollinate and destroy the unique effectiveness of the Newpath herbicide.

Under the settlement, the defendant farmers must sell all rice seed they produced and plant soybeans next year on any of their Clearfield rice fields of the last two growing seasons. BASF also has the right to inspect their farms.

Clearfield rice was developed by BASF in 2002 to control the red-husked rice that is similar to white rice, except is in fact an aggressive weed that loses its seeds and tends to lie down, causing losses in crop yield.

4 May 2005

Brazil's Paranagua Port Hard Hit by GM Soy Ban

www.TruthAboutTrade.org, 29 April 2005. PARANAGUA, Brazil's largest grain port, saw volumes slip last year as a ban on the movement of genetically modified soy and a strike by port workers forced cargoes to find alternative export outlets.

While total Brazilian soy exports have doubled in the last three years reaching 34.4m tonnes last year, volumes of the important cargo moving through Paranagua fell from 5.9m tonnes in 2003 to 5.1m tonnes in 2004.

Total grain volumes were down as a result from 22.6m tonnes in 2003 to 21.1m tonnes last year, largely as a result of a strike led by critics of the ban. March's strike called for the resignation of controversial administrator of Paranagua and Antonina Port Authority Eduardo Requi'o and changes to the state government policy banning GM exports.

'In Parana and in other states there is a lot of agriculture and they are cultivating this GM soy but the port is not allowing loading. If it is bad for people then all this goes to China and other places. This port should be working for the people of Paranagua,' says Carlos Alberto Calvo, Wilson, Sons manager in Paranagua and a member of the port advisory council.

At the height of the strike Santos surpassed grain volumes moved in Paranagua for the first time as exporters looked elsewhere. Many producers have continued to use ports in Santa Catarina to move their products.

The National Transport Agency (Antaq) joined critics in Paranagua recently arguing that the ban goes against federal law.

In a report published earlier this month, Antaq, which is responsible for health inspections in Brazilian ports, rejected arguments by APPA that it would be impossible to keep GM crops from coming into contact with non-GM crops, the principal justification for the ban.

Despite his opponents, Mr Requi'o has persisted with the ban and his position at the port. He claims that the port is merely following a trend among Brazil's most important trading partners to reject GM products.

'Europe and Asia are among the largest consumers of Brazilian grain and, contrary to under-developed or developing countries, genetically modified products here are being rejected even for consumption by animals,' he said, following a recent visit by Greenpeace inspectors.

Read the article: http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=3793

3 May 2005

Honda's soybean solution encourages non-GMO farming

Great Lakes Radio (USA), 2 May 2005. By Nora O'Flaherty. Most people associate Honda with cars and motorcycles. But the company has an interesting sideline: as a cost-saving measure, they've been exporting soybeans from the US to Japan. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium's Nora Flaherty has more:

Honda started exporting the beans as a way to reuse the huge cargo containers that would arrive at the plant filled with auto parts. Instead of sending them back empty, they wanted to fill the containers with something that they could sell, and soy beans were a good fit. Joe Hannisik is the manager of the plant, called Happy Ohio, where the beans are processed for shipping.

"We basically contract production with about 250 to 280 farmers in Ohio and southern Michigan, for contract production, back to Happy Ohio, for processing and shipment of soybeans primarily to Japan the majority of them."

Honda only buys beans that haven't been genetically modified, because that's what the Japanese prefer. And Honda pays farmers a higher price for their beans than they'd get on the open market. Hannisik says that this can make a difference when farmers are making decisions about whether to plant genetically modified seeds.

30 April 2005

EU ministers stand firm on GM block

Freshinfo.com, 30 April 2005. European ministers have once again thrown out a Commission proposal to allow a GM ingredient into the EU food chain.

Ministers from the 25 member states this week refused to authorise Europeab imports of Monsanto's GM maize GA21.

Despite tough new rules on the labelling of GM ingredients for food products, member states still need to be convinced that introducing genetically modified ingredients into food production is acceptable.

Since November 2003, the European Commission has asked EU states 10 times to vote on authorising a GMO food or feed product. But by all accounts a damp squib, in nine cases there was no agreement on the proposal and in one case the vote was postponed.

This time around, 12 countries abstained, eight voted in favour (including the UK) and five voted against biotech giant Monsanto's GA21, modified to be tolerant to the company's glyphosate herbicide.

To date, only two crops, Bt11 sweetcorn from Syngenta whose approval broke the EU ban, and NK603 maize designed by Monsanto, have been approved, in May and October 2004 respectively.

27 April 2005

EU Urges 5 States To Lift GMO Ban On Corn, Oilseed

Dow Jones Newswires, 27 April 2005, by William Echikson. BRUSSELS -- The European Union Commission Tuesday urged five countries to end bans on genetically modfied maize and oilseed rape varieties.

The five countries targeted are Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, France and Greece.

The E.U. Commission has approved the various types of GM maize and oilseed rape and the European Food Safety Authority has called the products safe. But the countries have continued to ban them.

European farm ministers must still approve the Commission proposal. In a statement, the Commission said that it didn't have the needed votes yet to "ask the five member states to lift their national measures".

If the ministers cannot agree, the Commission has the power to impose its point of view. National governments would then have 20 days to end their national bans.

Don't Rush GMO Use in Tanzania, Says Organic Body

The East African (Nairobi) April 25, 2005, by C. Akitanda. Nairobi -- As parliament is scheduled to debate and approve the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) mid this year, the secretariat of the committee for the establishment of the Tanzania Organic Agriculture Movement (TOAM), called it "an unnecessary rush."

Jordan Gama, the secretary to the committee, said last week that there was an unnecessary rush on the part of some government officials and local scientists, especially the Arusha-based Tropical Pesticides Research Institute (TPRI), to introduce GMOs in the country even before the biosafety law is in place. http://www.armdiscoveryfund.com/

"We should stop the rush to introduce GMOs in Tanzania until proved safe and conducive to smallholder farmers, our health and to our environment, Mr Gama stated.

He said there should be a national public debate on GMOs, and all Tanzanians should be given a chance to know what are GMOs and who is pushing for their use in the country, what is the economic impact on small-scale farmers and Tanzania's exports, especially to the European Union, and the possible health and environmental risks.

According to Gama, before the introduction of GMOs, Tanzanian small farmers should have a say, "Since genetic engineering isn't a normal technology, and once introduced, field trials could eventually have massive negative impacts on people's livelihood and environment that could be irreversible."

"The majority of the investment in the production of GM crops is in the hands of large transnational corporations that are profit-driven, and GM crops are patented by these companies, which will force the smallscale farmers in Africa to depend on them forever, said Mr Gama.

"We therefore say the country needs a 10-year moratorium on GMOs while consulting stakeholders on the technology and building capacity to handle the risks, he added.

Continued: http://allafrica.com/stories/200504261186.html

Commission warns five member states to lift GMO bans or face legal action

EurActiv.com, 27 April 2005. The Commission adopted on 26 April 2005, by written procedure, a decision asking Austria, France, Germany, Greece and Luxembourg to end their national bans on authorised GMOs. Governments have three months to act before the Commission takes legal action.

Following the recent incident where an unauthorised Bt10 GMO variety was traced in the EU market, the EU's Joint Research Centre (JRC) is in the process of building up a database of detection methods for all existing GMOs in order to prevent unauthorised GMOs from entering the EU.

The EU's Health and Consumer Commissioner Markos Kyprianou has said that the United States should consider "establishing a system similar to that of the EU" on the labelling and traceability of GMOs.

26 April 2005

Latest transatlantic GM trade row recedes

The European Commission announced on Monday it has approved a method to detect illegal genetically modified maize variety BT10 in corn batches. Biotech manufacturer Syngenta announced the detection process after the EU earlier this month banned all imports of American corn gluten animal feed unless they could be certified free of BT10. A commission spokesman said the method would be used by all US exporting authorities, and by EU member states concerned about US maize imported before the new requirements took effect. See detection method: http://gmo-crl.jrc.it/detectionmethods/Bt10%20Detection%20Protocol.pdf

24 April 2005

GM industry puts human gene into rice

Independent on Sunday, 24 April 2005, by Geoffrey Lean. Scientists have begun putting genes from human beings into food crops in a dramatic extension of genetic modification. The move, which is causing disgust and revulsion among critics, is bound to strengthen accusations that GM technology is creating "Frankenstein foods" and drive the controversy surrounding it to new heights.

Even before this development, many people, including Prince Charles, have opposed the technology on the grounds that it is playing God by creating unnatural combinations of living things.

Environmentalists say that no one will want to eat the partially human-derived food because it will smack of cannibalism.

Read the article: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=632444

23 April 2005

'Economic advantage' to staying GM-free

The Irish Times, 23 April 2005, by Christine Newman. Keeping Ireland free of genetically modified (GM) crops would provide it with a significant economic advantage in Europe and avoid contamination of the food chain, it was claimed yesterday.

The GM-free Ireland Network announced on Earth Day 2005 that 1,000 GM-free zones had been declared throughout the island by farmers, food-producers, hotels, restaurants, markets, pubs, retailers and households.

The briefing was told the Government's strategy to allow GM crops to coexist on the land would contaminate farms where already GM products had been found in animal feed.

Michael O'Callaghan of the network said: "GM animal feed is already causing Irish farmers to loose access to prime EU export markets and destroying our world-famous clean green reputation as 'Ireland the food island.'"

Kathy Sinnott MEP said Ireland was significantly protected from GM contamination from neighbouring countries. "And if GM bellies up, European farmers and consumers will be able to get safe food and seed stocks from us in Ireland. I believe the Celtic Tiger would look like a kitten if Ireland went all the way and became a trade-mark for GM-free," she said.

John Heney, the rural development chairman of the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association said he had discovered GM product in his animal feed.

Seán McArdle of Irish Farmers' Markets said: "We're being denied the choice of whether we want GM foods."

Farmers and food producers unite to declare 1,000 GM-free zones

Irish Independent, 23 April 2005. By Aideen Sheehan, Agriculture Correspondent. One thousand GMO-free zones were declared in Ireland yesterday by farmers, food producers, hotels, restaurants, markets, retailers and homes who want to protect their areas from genetically modified seeds, crops, trees, livestock, fish and food.

The GM-free Ireland Network, which represents 32,000 farmers, food businesses, chefs, professionals and consumers opposed to the new technology, are stepping up a campaign to keep GM crops out of Ireland as the Government finalises measures to permit their cultivation.

Co-ordinator Michael O'Callaghan called on the Government to abandon the policy of allowing "co-existence" of GMOs with conventional crops which, he said, would contaminate all farms and destroy Ireland's green "food island" status.

Independent research had shown that GM crops often fail and inevitably contaminated surrounding regions, produced superweeds, and could never be recalled, Mr. O'Callaghan said.

The Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association said they were opposing GMOs because the majority of European consumers were against them - their cultivation in Ireland would damage markets for Irish meats.

"As food producers we are aware of not alone our legal obligation to the people who consume our produce. We have yet to be reassured of the safety of GM food," said ICSA rural development chairman John Heney. The BSE crisis had shown the damage that could be done by food scares, and last week's cover-up of unauthorised GM maize imported from the US was also worrying.

Mr Heney said he had been shocked to discover that most animal feed purchased in Ireland now contained GM ingredients.

The GM-free Ireland Network is calling on the EU to recognise the democratic right of regions to ban GM crops which is currently denied them because of a trade war on the issue with the US.

Counties Clare, Monaghan and Fermanagh have already passed GM-free motions, while city and town coucils that have done likewise, including Clonakilty, Derry, Navan and Newry, and others are considering the matter.

However, there has been ambiguity throughout Europe about the rights of regions to ban GM crops, with the Italian Government backing such moves, whereas Westminster, for example, had denied the right of Wales to be GM-free.

A farmers' market opening in Dundrum today will become the first here to be officially declared GM-free.

Organiser Seán McArdle said he would work with stall-holders to make sure all ingredients of the food they sold were GM-free.

MEP Cathy Sinnott said if the EU insisted on continuing with the GM "experiment", then Ireland should be kept as a control zone free of GM because as an island with prevailing western winds, its geographical location was ideal. Uncontaminated Irish land and seedstocks would then become incredibly valuable if GM crops went belly-up in the rest of Europe, she added.

Thousands unite in campaign against GMOs

Irish examiner, 21 April 2005. By Jim Morahan. Eye-catching signs in their hundreds went up across the country yesterday.

From their homes and places of work people took up the fight against genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

A total of 1,000 GMO-free zones on both sides of the border were declared - to mark the 35th anniversary of Earth Day.

The worldwide movement is commited to protecting the plantet and its natural resources and biodiversity.

Hotels, restaurants, markets, pubs, retailers, and homes united in their opposition to GMO food and farming.

As a result of their anti-GMO action, the organisers said these sites require legal protection from contamination by genetically modified seeds, crops, trees, livestock and fish.

GM-free Ireland co-ordinator Michael O'Callaghan said: "Keeping Ireland GMO-free will provide Ireland with significant competitive advantage. The vast majority of European food brands, retailers and consumers refuse GM food."

Independent MEP Kathy Sinnott said: "GMO crops are an experiment. I have told the European Parliament that I do not support the GMO experiment, but it it is to go ahead in Europe, I recommend Ireland as the perfect control."

"It is an island with predominantly western winds and therefore significantly protected from GMO contamination from neighbouring countries," Ms. Sinnott said.

Mr O'Callaghan warned that if the Government and the Northern authorities went ahead with their current strategy to allow "co-existence" of GMO crops on this island, we would forever lose our right to chose safe GM-free farming and food.

John Heney, Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, said the majority of EU consumers were strongly opposed to the use of GM, whether in the production of food for human consumption or as part of the diet of animals destined for dairy and meat production.

They had yet to be reassured of the safety of GM food.

GM-Free Ireland Network is an association of 56 farming organisation, companies and environmental groups which represent 32,000 people. www.gmfreeireland.org

23 April 2005

EU may allow first GMO crop for growing since 1998

Reuters, 22 Apr 2005, by Jeremy Smith. BRUSSELS, - EU environment experts may take a watershed vote in June on whether to allow a new genetically modified (GMO) crop to be grown in Europe's fields, the first such attempt since 1998, officials said on Friday.

While the EU has now lifted its six-year ban on allowing imports of new GMOs, there have been no approvals since 1998 on any new gene-spliced crop that could be planted in Europe -- and the EU's 25 governments are deeply divided on the issue.

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

European consumers tend to take a dim view of GMO products, which have been labelled "Frankenstein foods", despite assurances from producers and scientists that they are safe.

A debate on whether to authorise sowings of the GMO crop, also a maize type, could be held on June 6.

"It is tentatively scheduled for that day, it's on the draft agenda. But we don't know yet if that will be confirmed," an official at the European Commission told Reuters.

Known as 1507, the maize is made jointly by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a subsidiary of DuPont Co., and Dow AgroSciences unit Mycogen seeds.

It is engineered to resist the corn-borer insect, among other pests, and a widely used type of herbicide.

Despite the EU lifting its moratorium on new GMOs, there is little sign of any break in the deadlock between the EU's 25 governments on GMO crops for planting, diplomats say.

While the June 6 meeting, if it happens, will be closely watched, it may yield no majority view to accept or reject the application for growing. If this happens, which is not unlikely, EU environment ministers would be asked to decide the issue.

CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH

The maize was first submitted to Spanish authorities in 2001 where it received the necessary safety approval two years later.

Spain is the only EU state to grow gene-altered crops on a commercial scale, although field trials exist elsewhere.

Earlier this year, the maize got a clean bill of health from the European Food Safety Authority (ESFA), whose views are key to the biotech debate since it is independent and non-political.

"We're looking forward to a positive vote by the member states," said Mike Hall, Communications Manager at Europe Pioneer Overseas Corporation. "The cultivation of 1507 maize will provide benefits to the environment and European farmers." "It's high time all member states assumed their responsibilities for following the process and voting according to scientific evidence given by EFSA declaring all uses of this product safe for animal and human health and the environment."

21 April 2005

Italian Constitutional Court supports 15 GMO-free regions

(AGI) - Rome, Italy, April 12 - "The sentence of the Constitutional Court confirms that the choice for GMO-free produce made by 15 Italian regions is fully legitimate. Now, the "Florence Charter", the manifesto of the program the Regions which have chosen to keep their areas free from genetically modified crops can become a true reference point for the choices made in agriculture by the new regional governments", said Loredana De Petris, a Green senator and the group leader of the Agricultural Commission, in commenting today's sentence from the Constitutional Court about the laws in Marche and Puglia. She added: "This sentence is a clear pronouncement of the Government's vague stance in this issue. The action concerning the regional laws and the allowance of co-existing laws which make it judicially difficult for the regions to choose to be GMO-free are a clear sign of the persistence of the executive body in promoting the indiscriminate introduction of GMO crops to the advantage of interests foreign to those of national agriculture". She added: "I want to also stress that the only public research in this matter which was commissioned by the British government and which concerns the effects of GMO crops in open fields has shown negative irreversible results for both the environment and for bio-diversity. Those who still deny this evidence today are putting at risk the special qualities of the Italian agricultural system".

20 April 2005

Storm of protest against nod for more Bt crops

Financial Express, India, NEW DELHI, HYDERABAD, APRIL 17: Farmers' groups and civil society organisations across the country have expressed deep concerns over the country's regulatory authority approving new biotech (Bt) cotton hybrids for cultivation in new areas when the case for extension of the approval period for three such varieties under cultivation has become controversial.


As part of the Global Week of Action (GWA) being celebrated worldwide, several civil society and farmers' groups have stepped up the campaign against "unwarranted approval of new Bt cotton hybrids, when the case for old varieties remains undecided."

The country's regulatory authority, Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has so far approved six new Bt cotton hybrids for commercial cultivation in north India in the current season. At its last meeting on April 13, the GEAC approved one new Bt cotton hybrid for commercial cultivation in central India and 12 such transgenic cotton varieties are in pipeline for commercial cultivation in central India.

In March 2002, three Bt cotton hybrids developed by Mahyco Monsanto, namely Mech-162, Mech-12 and Mech-184 were approved for commercial cultivation in south and central India. This approval period expired on March 31, 2005. The GEAC, which deliberated twice on the proposal for extension of the approval period, could not decide on the issue as the Andhra Pradesh government had given unfavourable reports about the performance of Bt cotton. The GEAC is awaiting favourable reports from other states before giving its nod for the extension of the approval period for these three varieties.

Some civil society groups have conducted scientific studies, which show the failure of Bt cotton in south India. The Secunderabad-based Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) conducted a study under the leadership of Dr GV Ramanjaneyulu and entomologist Dr SMA Ali, which showed the failure of Bt cotton in Warangal and Medak districts of Andhra Pradesh. A similar study conducted by Dr Abdul Qayum and Kiran Sakkhari on behalf of the Deccan Development Society (DDS), Andhra Pradesh Coalition in Defence of Diversity and Permaculture Association of India bared farmers suffering from heavy losses on account of Bt cotton cultivation. The district authority of Warangal has asked Mahyco Monsanto to compensate the farmers for the losses.

Also, studies conducted by the Gene Campaign, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology and Greenpeace India have shown the failure of Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil nadu. Eminent scientist and Padma Bhushan awardee Dr Pushpa M Bhargava has gone on record saying that Bt cotton has failed to live up to expectations. So far, only one survey which was conducted by an advertising and market research agency, IMRB on behalf on Monsanto India has attested to the success of Bt cotton cultivation. However, the CSA has refuted point-by-point the survey conducted by IMRB.

As part of the GWA campaign, a two-day international consultation on Bt cotton was organised by DDS and Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) in Hyderabad. Farmers' groups and civil society organisations from Bangladesh, Canada, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Nepal, the Phillipines, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Thailand, who gathered for this conclave called 'Southern Encounters' expressed concerns over the deliberate thrusting of transgenic technology in farmers' fields at the cost of genetic pollution, environmental degradation and health hazards. Local farmers' groups from Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra narrated their experiences of incurring losses on account of Bt cotton cultivation.

"The use of transgenic crops has unleashed new hazards into our farms. The profit-driven life science industry is more life-destroying than life-giving. Newer evidences and ever-growing failures of promise and performance of both the products and the corporate interests marketing them reveal darker truths about this technology. Claims of increased yields, reduced pesticide and larger profits for farmers have proved to be false. On the contrary, it has increased their losses. This was the essence of the two-day deliberations," said PV Satheesh, Convenor, Deccan Development Society.

Among the notable participants in the Hyderabad Southern Encounters were Collen Ross and Jennifer Bromm of National Farmers' Union of Canada, Lawrence Mkhaliphi of Biowatch, South Africa, Hira Jhamtani, Konphalindo, Indonesia, Lim Li Lin of Thrid World Network, Malaysia, Vladimir Riveria of GRAIN, The Philippines, Witoon Lianchamroon of BioThai, Thailand. Noted Indian scientist Dr MV Rao also participated.

In New Delhi, the National Kisan Panchayat organised a one-day seminar on 'Globalisation and Indian Agriculture' on April 16, where former Union agriculture minister Chaturanan Mishra, farmers' leaders like Atul Anjaan, Dr Krishna Bir Chaudhary, Naresh Sirohi and civil society groups like Gene Campaign participated. As a follow-up to the GWA, Kheti Virasat and Punjab Organic Farming Association have planned a 'Peoples Dialogue on GM Crops' and Organic Cotton Workshop.

19 April 2005

Latest on GM scandal needs immediate public debate

Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association news release, 18 April 2005. Following the latest GM scandal, John Heney, rural development chairman of the Irish Cattle and Sheep FarmersÇ Association has called on the Irish Government to stop sitting on the fence and immediately initiate a comprehensive public debate on the consumption and cultivation of GM food in Ireland.

"Last Friday the EU imposed a ban on imports of U.S. GM maize after it was revealed that over the last four years 1,000 tonnes of illegal and untested Bt10 maize entered the EU food chain. Syngenta the biotech company which produced the Bt10 maize has been unable to provide a method to test for this GMO. This places a very serious question mark over the effectiveness of current GM safety procedures," said Mr Heney.

"Irish consumers should be allowed to decide what they eat and the Irish Government must realise that it has a moral obligation not to gamble with its citizens' health," said Mr Heney. ICSA also feels that the importation of GM or transgenic corn into Ireland as feed has added implications for the future of Ireland's unique, natural, farming systems.

"The unseemly rush by vested interests on both sides of the Atlantic to play down this scandal also alarms ICSA. The reality is that the Bush administration failed for three months to inform European customers that they were importing banned maize and the scandal was admitted only after it was exposed by the scientific magazine Nature on 22 March," said Mr Heney.

"This type of spin is very reminiscent of the deceitful, political and industry inspired cover-up associated with the BSE crisis. Irish farming is still struggling to recover from the effects of that disaster and Irish farmers certainly cannot afford to have another food scandal foisted on them," concluded Mr Heney.

ENDS

Further Information

John Heney, ICSA Rural Development Chairman, 087-8148840

Jenny Young, Press and Communications Officer, 087-6785269

GM corn blockade
German Consumer Protection Minister: "Unbelievable Sloppiness!"

Spiegel International, Germany, April 18 2005. Renate Kuenast, Germany's consumer protection minister, says Europe had no choice but to ban genetically modified corn from the United States because American farmers have no system in place for labeling GMOs and tracing them back to their producers.

DPA Consumer Protection Minister Renate Kuenast: "There is a lack of transparency."

SPIEGEL: Ms. Kuenast, last Friday the European Union decided that no genetically modified corn from the US can enter Europe anymore. What about the ships that are anchoring in front of Rotterdam? Can they still be unloaded?

Kuenast: No. Nobody will accept their cargo right now. It's about setting a precedent. The action is the only possible way of dealing with an unbelievable sloppiness -- the mixing of different genetically modified corn families. The so-called Bt10 corn from the US, with its resistance against the antibiotic Ampicillin is neither permitted in the US nor in Europe. The EU has not banned all US corn imports. It is merely demanding proof that the imported corn products do not include any Bt10.

SPIEGEL: ... which the Americans are unable to provide.

Kuenast: That's a problem. In the US, unlike Europe, genetically-modified food isn't labelled and it can't be traced back to the producer. This deficiency is a stumbling block in cases like this. There is a lack of transparency.

SPIEGEL: US agricultural corporations are now threatening to sue for billions in damages. Isn't the measure excessive?

Kuenast: The Europeans, and especially we Germans, have also learned our lesson. Think of the BSE (mad cow disease) scandal or foot-and-mouth disease. They cost farmers and the EU billions. And as a consequence we introduced transparent rules both in Berlin and Brussels that are easy to monitor. Ever since, consumer protection has had top priority.

SPIEGEL: But couldn't it be that you want to force the world to adopt your rigid position on agricultural genetic engineering. According to estimates of the German Economics Ministry, this position comes at the expense of both know-how and jobs.

Kuenast: It's quite the contrary. Organic farming has already created 150,000 jobs in Germany alone. A study by Ernst & Young showed that there are only 2,000 jobs in the sector of agricultural genetic engineering. And our clear-cut requirements -- security, labeling, and traceability -- have already created an economic advantage, especially in the export sector. Throughout the world, consumers are weary of genetically modified products. Producers know this. For many, abstaining from these products is already paying off.

SPIEGEL: The US are going to fight the Brussels decision. What do you think the outcome will be?

Kuenast: I do acknowledge that the decision is a challenge for the US. But I do not believe that a solution lies in imposing further trade restrictions.

SPIEGEL: US diplomats have indirectly threatened in recent days and weeks that there could be an escalating trade war.

Kuenast: I would not phrase it that way.

SPIEGEL: Then how would you phrase it?

Kuenast: The Americans were very committed on the issue. They wanted to change our mind, but, as you can see, without success.

SPIEGEL: So you expect the US to follow Germany's fixation with the environment?

Kuenast: Rubbish. To begin with, this is a European measure, not a German one. And US corn exporters have to comply with EU rules just as European exporters have to comply with US rules. But I do believe that America will start discussing whether the current lax position on genetically modified foods is still maintainable.

18 April 2005

E.U. Votes Ban on U.S. Corn Gluten

Washington Post, 15 April 2005. By Raf Casert. BRUSSELS - European Union nations voted Friday to ban U.S. shipments of suspect corn gluten animal feed unless they are assured that the imports are free of unauthorized genetically modified corn.

The vote could affect millions of dollars' worth of corn gluten exports. The dispute centers on a batch of Bt10 genetically modified corn that Swiss agrochemicals company Syngenta AG inadvertently sold in the United States and exported to Europe without approval.

"This is a targeted measure which is necessary to uphold E.U. law, maintain consumer confidence and ensure that the unauthorized GMO Bt10 cannot enter the E.U. Imports of maize products which are certified as free of Bt10 will be able to continue," said E.U. Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner Markos Kyprianou.

The ban will effectively shut out all imports of U.S. corn gluten, since there is currently no effective way of testing for Bt10, which has not been approved by U.S. or European regulators. E.U. spokesman Philip Tod said Syngenta was working to develop and validate such a test, but they could not say when it would be ready for use.

Michael Mack, chief operating officer of Syngenta Seeds, said it would quickly have a workable test for the E.U.

"We will make operational within a mat ter of days a valid test method to detect for Bt10," Mack said. Such a test would still need further approval from E.U. authorities. It was not immediately clear how long such approval would take.

U.S. shipments of corn gluten feed to the E.U. totaled 347 million euros ($450 million) last year.

The United States said the ban was exaggerated.

"We view the E.U.'s decision to impose a certification requirement on U.S. corn gluten due to the possible, low-level presence of Bt10 corn to be an overreaction," said Edward Kemp, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the E.U.

U.S. regulatory authorities have determined there are no hazards to health, safety or the environment related to Bt10," Kemp said. "There is no reason to expect any negative impact from the small amounts of Bt10 corn that may have entered the E.U."

The ban is to come into force early next week, pending approval by the E.U.'s head office.

Environmental campaigners welcomed the move. "Europe now has a de facto ban on the import of many U.S. animal feeds," said Friends of the Earth spokesman Adrian Bebb.

However, Greenpeace said stricter controls are needed to prevent more cases of unauthorized biotech imports.

"Europe is currently helpless to defend itself from contamination by GMOs that are suspected to harm human health and the environment," said Christoph Then, genetic engineering expert for the group.

"As long as E.U. authorities have no means to test imports for all the GMOs being released in the U.S. and elsewhere, it must say 'no entry' to the E.U. for any food, feed or seeds that are at risk of contamination," he said.

The E.U. said it is in continuous contact with U.S. authorities on the issue, but its decision to ban suspect corn gluten imports further strains trans-Atlantic trade relations.

Syngenta said last week it has reached a settlement with the U.S. government over the inadvertent sale to farmers of Bt10.

The company said in a written statement that under the settlement reached with U.S. authorities, it would pay a fine of $375,000 and teach its employees the importance of complying with all rules.

However, the E.U. has been annoyed that U.S. authorities allowed the export of Bt10 to Europe after it was mixed up with an authorized biotech Syngenta maize labeled Bt11. About 1,000 tons of animal feed containing the corn are thought to have entered the E.U. since 2001. The E.U.'s head office earlier had said some food products, including flour and oil may also have been imported, but its statement Friday said that, "according to current information from the U.S. authorities and the European food industry, food products in the E.U. are not affected."

Nevertheless, the case has underscored European concerns about biotech foods, coming shortly after the E.U. relaxed restrictions on genetically modified organisms.

16 April 2005

EU restricts GM maize imports:
De facto ban on maize-based animal feeds

RESULTS: Hungary abstained, Lithuania and Malta not present, 22 Countries in favour

Friends of the Earth press release, Brussels, 13 April 2005 - The European Union has today introduced emergency measures restricting the import of animal feeds from the United States. EU member states voted almost unanimously for proposals that only permit shipments from the US that are certified free of an illegal genetically modified (GM) maize. (1) With no means to test reliably for the contamination, and no segregation from the US, the measures are likely to result in a de facto ban on the import of US maize-based animal feeds for the foreseeable future.

The agrochemical firm Syngenta admitted three weeks ago that it had sold unlicensed GM seeds - called Bt10 - to US farmers for four years, and that this illegal maize entered Europe. Syngenta has since refused to make public the information needed for governments to test food and feed imports for the illegal GM maize.

The new EU law is applicable to US imports of gluten feed and brewers grains (animal feeds) that are produced from GM maize. It states that "Despite requests made by the Commission, the US authorities were not in a position to provide any guarantee on the absence of "Bt10"...considering the lack of segregation or traceability measures in the United States..."

Adrian Bebb, GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth said:

"Europe now has a de facto ban on the import of many US animal feeds. Today's emergency measures will be unpopular with US Government and the biotechnology industry but will start to protect Europe from more contaminated products. Syngenta must now come clean and give European countries the information needed to reliably test for illegal contamination in foods and animal feeds already imported into the EU."

"The public should never have been exposed to an untested and illegal genetically modified crop. This incident exposes an incompetent and complacent industry, an absence of regulation in the United States and a breakdown in Europe's monitoring of food imports. Immediate action is needed at an international level to prevent further contamination in the future."

Whilst Friends of the Earth is backing the EU measures, it is urging the European Commission to go further and:

* Urgently review the EU's monitoring system to guarantee public protection from unapproved GM products in the future

* Demand a public investigation into how a biotechnology company can for 4 years sell the wrong seeds without anyone knowing

* Insist that Syngenta, the polluter, pays for all testing in Europe and not the public.

The incident was first made public through an article in Nature on 22 March (2). Between 2001 and 2004 Syngenta sold several hundred tonnes of a GM maize seed, called Bt10, to US farmers, mistaking it for another GM maize, Bt11. Unlike the Bt11 maize, Bt10 has not been approved for human consumption anywhere in the world. It has been estimated that around 1000 tonnes of the illegal GM maize entered the European food chain and was even planted at test sites in Spain and France.

Syngenta claimed that the Bt10 maize was "physically identical" to Bt11, a view initially endorsed by governments and the European Commission. Friends of the Earth disagreed, pointing out that the unapproved GMO also contained a controversial antibiotic resistance gene, which confers resistance to an important group of antibiotics. Syngenta finally admitted that this was indeed the case (3).

Contact:

Adrian Bebb, + 49 1609 490 1163 (mobile)

Geert Ritsema + 31 629 005 908 (mobile)

(1) Member states voted in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health

(2) The original Nature article can be found at: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050321/full/nature03570.html

(3) Bt 10 contains the amp gene, which confers resistance to the ampicillin family of antibiotics. In recent guidance, the European Food Safety Authority stated that GMOs containing this gene should not be approved for cultivation and their use restricted to field trials.
_______________________

'Amaizing' Setback for GM Imports

Inter Press Service (subscription), Apr 14 2005, By Sanjay Suri - London. Environmental groups scored a resounding victory when European governments agreed to consider a ban on maize-based animal feeds from the United States. Experts from European Union member states agreed late Tuesday to...

Read the article: http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=28293

India delays licenses for Monsanto's transgenic seed

San Luis Obispo Tribune, CA, USA. Apr. 13 2005. BANGALORE, India (AP) - The Indian government on Wednesday deferred a decision on renewing marketing licenses for three Monsanto seeds and fresh approval for nine others, jeopardizing sales of the transgenic seeds for the sowing...

Read the article: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/business/technology/11384622.htm

China Grows GM Rice Illegally

Donga, South Korea, 14 April 2005. By Yoo-Seong Hwang (yshwang at donga.com) The environmental organization Greenpeace announced on April 13 that up to 1,200 tons of genetically manipulated (GM) rice, unapproved by the Chinese authorities, was illegally planted and sold in Hubei Province, and that GM rice seed...

Read the article: http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=060000&biid=2005041539798

Illegal GM ingredient Bt10 unlikely to pose risk, says EFSA

Food Navigator, France, 14 14/04/2005 - Vulnerabilities in the international food chain are evident as an unapproved genetically modified corn leaks into feed, flour and oils; but Europe's food safety agency says this week the illegal Bt10 corn is unlikely to pose any threat...

Read the article: http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/news-ng.asp?n=59391-illegal-gm-ingredient

China promises to probe sale of GM rice in domestic market

123Bharath.com, India : Beijing, Apr 14 : China has promised to investigate Greenpeace's allegation that it has discovered genetically modified (GM) rice in the Chinese market, the state media reported today. The Ministry of Agriculture said it would "judge and deal with"...

Read the article: http://www.123bharath.com/world-news/index.php?action=fullnews&id=45346

11 April 2005

GMO pollution in Japan

Articles in Bio Journal, April 2005:
http://www5d.biglobe.ne.jp/~cbic/english/2005/journal0504.html

GMO contamination of Japanese ports: According to a report published by the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), both Roundup (glyphosate) resistant and Basta (glufosinate) resistant GM canola were found growing around import ports in Japan. Read more on "NIES publishes results on GM canola pollution".

Additional information:

Glyphosate resistant GMO canola seeds were found in: Ibaraki, Chiba, Aichi, Mei and Hyogo.

Glufosinate resistant GMO canola seeds were found in Ibaraki and Mie.

Glyphosate + Glufosinate* resistant GMO canola seeds were found in Aichi (* stacked genes?).

GM food international meeting: The Codex Alimentarius task force on GM food will be held in Japan this year. It will be another 4 years of struggle over GM foods. Read about the possible agenda for the task force II on "Codex Biotech Task Force re-opens in September".

GM rice: 2 Japanese Ministries battle over GM rice. Is it a drug or food? Whatever, consumers keep saying NO! (Additional comment)

GM cultivation restriction: Hokkaido is the first possible candidate from Japan for joining the international GMO free zone community! Please read this month's closeup article, "Bylaw restricting GM crop cultivation being debated in Hokkaido assembly" and learn about Hokkaido's positive attitude, which paints a bright picture for the future.

For details see: http://www5d.biglobe.ne.jp/~cbic/english/2005/journal0504.html

Greens seek 'GMO-free' clothing

The Times of India, 11 April 2004. New Delhi: If green activists are to be believed, the next few months could see the start of a "GMO-free clothing" campaign, roping in not just Indian designers but also international names such as Nike and Esprit.

GMO stands for genetically-modified organism. The aim is to hit supporters of transgenic cotton, more usually termed Bt cotton, where it hurts most - their pockets. The only genetically-modified (GM) crop which can legally be grown in India is Bt cotton, infused with a bacterial gene which is supposed to make it resistant to the dreaded pest bollworm. Activists opposed to it saying they want to "build a big Bt cotton boycott campaign which includes designers".

Vandana Shiva of the NGO Navdanya, backed by environment organisations Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, says she has sent "feelers" to some big firms, including fashion houses in England and those working on khadi in India, to see if they might be willing to reject transgenic cotton.

Many seem "ready to go on board" and the campaign, she hopes, would be ready for take-off on August 9, the day they first launched a campaign asking Monsanto to quit India.

Monsanto's Bt technology is now being used in India. Activists like Shiva say it has proved disastrous for the farmer, halving his yield while doubling or trebling his costs. Monsanto says this is bunkum, the yields are good and farmers have made profits. Shiva and civil society groups from the EU met recently and agreed on the need to exchange experiences and work on improving India's biosafety laws to protect farmers, consumers and the environment.

EU Mulls US Trade Ban in Illegal GMO Import Row

Reuters News, April 11, 2005. BRUSSELS - The EU executive Commission considered halting imports of genetically modified animal feed from the United States on Friday in a row with a major Swiss agrochemicals group over illegal shipments to Europe.

Syngenta disclosed in March that some of its maize seeds were mistakenly contaminated between 2001 and 2004 with Bt-10, an insect-resistant strain that was not approved by the European Union for distribution.

The Bt-10 got mixed up with another biotech maize, Bt-11, which is authorised for import into Europe. The US, a major biotech crop grower, exported the contaminated seed, food and animal feed to the EU.

The European Commission waNts Syngenta to help it identify Bt-10 so the 25-nation bloc can differentiate the two types of biotech maize and trace the tainted consignments but the Swiss firm has so far refused to give the information.

"The Commission is reflecting about possible action ... a temporary suspension of imports of corn gluten feed," said an EU official.

The EU imports 3.5 million tonnes of biotech corn gluten feed from the US per year. It is a mixture of different types of EU approved genetically modified maize so it is impossible to single out Bt-10 without the Syngenta detection method.

The Commission estimates that 1,000 tonnes of Bt-10 maize entered the EU as food and animal feed while 10 kg of seeds were planted in France and Spain in research field trials which were then destroyed.

Up until now, the Commission has sought to calm fears and leave Washington to carry out the investigation into how the Syngenta biotech maize was contaminated.

But repeated refusals by the Swiss firm to hand over information have raised tensions in Brussels. Under EU law, a biotech firm is responsible for contamination.

"We have again emphasised to Syngenta we must have it (detection method) as soon as possible ... before next Tuesday," EU Health and Consumer Protection Commission spokesman Philip Tod told a news conference.

Syngenta said it was in touch with Brussels.

"We are in constant contact with the European Commission," said Syngenta spokesman Markus Payer.

EU vets from the 25-nation bloc will meet on Tuesday to discuss the situation and receive a report from the EU's food safety authority on the risks associated with Bt-10.

The Commission will hold a video conference with the US later on Friday to get details on the quantities of biotech maize involved, Washington's assessment of the safety of Bt-10 and how much was planted in the U.S, added Tod.

Brooklin Votes to Become Maine's First GMO-Free Zone
Voters Cite Importance of Preventing Contamination and Protecting the Environment As Primary Concerns.

Friends of the Earth Europe email, 11 April 2005. BROOKLIN, MAINE, USA - Brooklin voters approved an article on the town meeting warrant declaring Brooklin a Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)-Free Zone. The vote in Brooklin is the 98th resolution opposing genetic engineering to be passed in New England and the first to declare a voluntary moratorium on the planting of GMOs. The Brooklin vote was also the first such vote of any kind on the GMO issue by a municipality in Maine. The article was developed by a handful of local residents who later sought assistance from the six-month old farmer advocacy group GE Free Maine (www.gefreemaine.org).

According to Brooklin resident Marilyn Anderson, "Simply stated, this article is about declaring the importance of preserving the environment, human health and food by resisting the irreversible GMO contamination of Brooklin. This approved article is not an ordinance and does not restrict businesses from selling, serving or marketing GMO products, nor does it restrict laboratory research." Anderson and several other Brooklin residents circulated the petition that led to the item being included on the town's warrant.

The area in and around Brooklin has an increasing number of conventional and organic farmers and gardeners and fishermen, providing the community with healthy food uncontaminated by GMOs. The residents voted to voluntarily preserve the lands, waters and livelihoods of these businesses, which are a great asset to their community, and which would be threatened by the raising of GMOs.

The vote was brought to the Brooklin town meeting on April 2 by residents concerned about the legal and economic ramifications if genetically modified crops contaminate local organic or conventional farms, as well as the impact GMO crops have on the environment. "Once introduced into the environment, these invasive life forms can never be recalled," said Anderson. "The purpose of the article was to ask Brooklin residents to speak out about the importance of safeguarding our town lands and waters by not cultivating genetically modified organisms - GMO plants, trees, fish and animals - in Brooklin."

GE Free Maine is working with residents in municipalities around the state to bring the question of how to best deal with genetically modified crops to town meetings. According to Meg Gilmartin, cofounder of GE Free Maine, "Towns have a responsibility to protect the rights of farmers and landowners who choose not to grow [GE crops] on their land. Town meeting is the purest of our democratic institutions, a place where the issue can be decided face-to-face by local residents without the interference of paid lobbyists."

GE Free Maine stayed away from the Brooklin Town Meeting at the request of local residents believing it important that local residents discuss the issue on their own and make a decision on whether they wished Brooklin to become a GMO-Free Zone. The vote did attract outside opponents of the measure. Doug Johnson, a professional lobbyist for the biotech industry and a partner in biotechnology public relations firm GreenTree Communication, attended the meeting and sought to speak. Local residents did not take kindly to this outside interference. Recently- arrived Brooklin resident John Bradford, a former Republican legislator from Massachusetts moved that Johnson be given the floor, but the Town voted down the motion. Several voters stated that, "We are educated and intelligent people -- we don't need slick, highly paid corporate lobbyists coming in here trying to tell us what to do."

According to Anderson, "The vote Saturday was just a first step for the State. We are confident that Brooklin will be the first of many towns in Maine to take up this issue, educate themselves on the issue, and take action to help farmers and other landowners, as well as the natural environment, avoid irreversible damage by GMO contamination."

Gilmartin agrees. "GE Free Maine applauds the residents of Brooklin for banding together, starting a dialogue within their community, and considering what actions to take to protect the right of their fellow citizens, farmers and land owners to remain free from genetic contamination. This action will encourage communities around the state to start similar dialogues, educate themselves and take appropriate steps to protect their communities from the contamination and lawsuits that result from these unnatural and unpredictable crops."

A genetically modified organism is a plant, animal or microorganism whose genetic code has been altered by subtracting or adding genes (either from the same, or a different species) in order to give it characteristics that do not occur in nature. Outside of the United States, Canada, Argentina and South Africa, most countries in the world have rejected or placed restrictions on these crops.

The approved article read "Shall the town vote to voluntarily protect its agriculture and marine economies, environment and private property from irreversible Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) contamination by declaring Brooklin a GMO-free zone?"

The Brooklin response: YES!

For More Information contact Rob or Meg and 207-244-0908 or via email info@gefreemaine.org or Marilyn Anderson 207-359-4617.

9 April 2005

EU rules for Monsanto on GM patent

HAMBURG, April 7 (Reuters) - A European agency has ruled that U.S. agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. does have a right to patent its genetically modified (GMO) seeds in Europe, a spokesman said on Thursday.

Environment lobbyist Greenpeace, Swiss biotech group Syngenta and other groups had complained to the European Patent Office that Monsanto had no right to its previously awarded patent on its Roundup Ready genetically modified seeds for soybeans, maize and other crops.

The Munich-based office, which issues rulings on patent disputes on behalf of 30 European countries, decided that Monsanto did have a right to keep the patent, an office spokesman said.

The patent was originally granted by the office in 1996.

"The office has decided to essentially confirm the patent in its previous form," the spokesman said. "A limitation was imposed on its use but this is seen as technical and basically the patent is confirmed."

Details of the ruling were not yet available and would be published in due course, he said.

Greenpeace said in its complaint it believed Monsanto would be able to claim royalties in Europe on Argentine exports of Roundup crops such as soybeans if its right to a patent was confirmed.

That would give corporations unacceptable commercial rights over farmers' harvests even after the original seeds had been used to produce many new generations of crops, Greenpeace said.

Other seed makers cannot claim royalties on new generations of crops produced from their seeds.

The issue is especially heated in Argentina, where farmers have bought Monsanto seeds and then used them to produce new seeds to continually produce Roundup soybeans without buying more each year.

Right of appeal against had now expired, the spokesman said, although in theory special appeals could be lodged in courts in of each of the countries covered by the office.

EU Allowing U.S. To Handle GMO Corn Investigation

USAgNet - 04/08/2005. According to The New York Times, a spokesman for the European commissioner for health and consumer affairs has stated that The European Union will allow the United States to conduct its own investigation of the incident in which an unapproved strain of Bt corn was inadvertently allowed to be imported into union countries. The EU does not plan its own investigation.

Syngenta, the manufacturer of the corn, notified U.S. authorities when it discovered the error in mid-December. Because the corn was mislabeled at the time of its planting, the EU health commission spokesman says officials there have no way to determine whether the imports have stopped or where the corn may have ended up.

The unapproved strain of corn contains a gene that can result in resistance to ampicillin. The fear is that human consumption may lead to a degree of antibiotic resistance.

European authorities have asked Syngenta to disclose the corn's genetic makeup in order to expedite the process of locating and isolating the unapproved corn.

EU mulls U.S. trade ban in illegal GMO import row

Reuters/ Associated Press [via Agnet]. April 8, 2005 BRUSSELS - The EU executive Commission was cited as considering halting imports of genetically modified animal feed from the United States on Friday in a row with a major Swiss agrochemicals group over illegal shipments to Europe.

The stories explain that Syngenta disclosed in March that some of its maize seeds were mistakenly contaminated between 2001 and 2004 with Bt-10, an insect-resistant strain that was not approved by the European Union for distribution.

The stories add that the European Commission wants Syngenta to help it identify Bt-10 so the 25-nation bloc can differentiate the two types of biotech maize and trace the tainted consignments but the Swiss firm has so far refused to give the information.

An EU official was quoted as saying, "The Commission is reflecting about possible action ... a temporary suspension of imports of corn gluten feed."

EU Health and Consumer Protection Commission spokesman Philip Tod was quoted as telling a news conference that, "We have again emphasised to Syngenta we must have it (detection method) as soon as possible ... before next Tuesday."

Syngenta spokesman Markus Payer was quoted as saying, "We are in constant contact with the European Commission."

EU vets from the 25-nation bloc will meet on Tuesday to discuss the situation and receive a report from the EU's food safety authority on the risks associated with Bt-10.

Syngenta fined for introducing unauthorised GM corn into US

Agence France Presse English [via Agnet]. April 8, 2005. BASEL, Switzerland - The Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta was cited as saying Friday that it had been fined 375,000 dollars (292,000 euros) by US authorities over the unauthorised release of genetically modified corn in the United States.

The fine followed the sale of "very small amounts" of Bt10-type corn, which is not approved in the United States, under the label of the authorised Bt11 line between 2001 and 2004, the company said in a statement.

Mike Mack, chief operating officer of Syngenta Seeds, was quoted as saying the company welcomed "the governments conclusion that Syngenta's misidentification of Bt10 corn, while a regrettable mistake, does not pose any risks to consumers, public health or the environment".

Syngenta Agrees to Settlement With USDA on Unintended Bt10 Corn

BASEL, Switzerland and WASHINGTON, April 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Syngenta announced today that it has agreed to a settlement with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) for the unintended release of a limited amount of Bt10 corn.

The coordinated investigation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USDA concluded: "EPA and USDA have reviewed scientific information and have concluded that there are no human or animal health or environmental concerns with Bt10 corn." (see: http://www.usda.gov/) USDA issued a $375,000 fine and a requirement that Syngenta sponsor a compliance training conference.

"We welcome the settlement with the USDA and the government's conclusion that Syngenta's misidentification of Bt10 corn, while a regrettable mistake, does not pose any risks to consumers, public health or the environment," said Mike Mack, Chief Operating Officer of Syngenta Seeds. "While the amount of Bt10 corn that was mistakenly supplied represents an extremely small quantity, we fully accept and will abide by the USDA's decision and requirements. We continue to cooperate with the EPA in the USA and with governments and authorities concerned around the world, including in Asia and the European Commission. Syngenta will make all efforts to provide the relevant authorities with any necessary additional information."

Bt10 corn is genetically modified corn that was mistakenly supplied in very small amounts as Bt11 corn between 2001 and 2004. The proteins expressed by Bt10 and Bt11 are identical, with the Bt gene in a different location in the corn's genome; this has no impact on the safety of the corn.

Bt11 field corn is approved for food and feed use and for cultivation in the USA, Canada, Argentina, Japan, South Africa, and Uruguay. Additionally, it is approved for import for food and feed use in the European Union, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, the Philippines, China, Russia, and Korea. Bt11 was approved for cultivation and human consumption in the USA in 1996, for food and feed use in Japan in 1996 and for human consumption in the EU in 1998.

Bt10 also has an antibiotic resistance marker gene, which has been approved and widely used around the world for many years, including in the European Union. This marker is not active in the plant and therefore has no impact on the safety profile of the corn.

Syngenta identified the Bt10 event using advanced DNA-based testing. The Bt10 event was found in five Bt corn breeding lines in the USA, three of which were used between 2001 and 2004 primarily for pre-commercial development. The seeds produced could have planted an estimated 37,000 acres (15,000 hectares) in the USA accumulative over the four-year time period. This equates to one- one hundredth of one percent (0.01 percent) of the annual total US corn acreage (annual US corn plantings is 80 million acres or 32 million hectares). Only around 18 percent of US corn is exported to other countries. Therefore, although it is possible that some Bt10 corn could have entered US export channels, any such amount would have been in very small volumes.

A summary of the settlement with the USDA can be found on USDA's website: http://www.usda.gov/.

Further information on antibiotic resistance marker genes is available at: http://www.syngenta.com/en/news/arm-genes-quotes-050407.aspx.

Syngenta is a world-leading agribusiness committed to sustainable agriculture through innovative research and technology. The company is a leader in crop protection, and ranks third in the high-value commercial seeds market. Sales in 2004 were approximately $7.3 billion. Syngenta employs some 19,000 people in over 90 countries. Syngenta is listed on the Swiss stock exchange (SYNN) and in New York. Further information is available at http://www.syngenta.com.

8 April 2005

Spanish government retreats on GM coexistence

Environment Daily, 8 April 2005. Spain's agriculture ministry this week suspended draft legislation on coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops "to permit further consideration".Ý The move follows objections by environmentalist and farmers' groups to clauses in the proposed law setting a minimum separation distance of 25 metres between GM and non-GM crops and absolving GM cultivators from legal responsibility for contaminating non-GM crops.Ý Given the ministry's traditional support for GM - Spain is the only EU country with commercial-scale cultivation - the decision appears to indicate a potential shift of opinion.Ý See Spanish agriculture ministry http://www.mapya.es

7 April 2005

Senate passes GMO liability bill

Vermont Press Bureau (Times Argus), April 6, 2005, by Louis Porter. MONTPELIER ó The Vermont Senate on Tuesday gave nearly unanimous approval to a bill designed to make seed manufacturers liable for the impacts of genetically modified crops.

As many as a dozen senators were expected to oppose the bill, but the final vote was 26-1. Sen. Wendy Wilton, R-Rutland, voted against final passage.

But the political wrangling over the bill, which now goes to the House, is far from over and could end in a veto by Gov. James Douglas.

And a portion of the bill which defines the extent to which manufacturers of genetically modified seeds are liable for potential harm remains a sticking point.

Two amendments designed to strengthen the protection afforded to farmers were added to the bill almost without debate.

But the amendment which caused the most consternation and discussion in the Statehouse wasn't even offered on the floor in the end.

That change, which hung on a single word, would have removed the "strict liability" provision of the proposed legislation.

Under strict liability a seed manufacturer would not have to be proven at fault before they could be held liable for potential damages from pollen drift of genetically modified crops.

The change supported by Wilton, Sen. Robert Starr, D-Essex/Orleans, and Sen. Harold Giard, D-Addison, who also proposed the other two amendments, would have changed the wording of the bill from "is liable" to "may be liable"."The dog in this bill is strict liability," said Starr, who vowed to work to change the language in the bill in the House, where he used to be a state representative. Strict liability is "killing a fly with a baseball bat," he said.

Wilton agreed.

"I thought long and hard about what I was going to do," she said. "It's the strict liability provision that is most damaging."

If strict liability remains in the bill, Agriculture Secretary Steve Kerr said he will recommend to Douglas that he veto the bill.

"The governor shares the concerns that have been articulated by Secretary Kerr," said Douglas spokesman Jason Gibbs. "The governor is hopeful we will be able to reach a compromise before the bill arrives on his desk."

Strict liability is typically used with chemicals and products which are known to be abnormally dangerous, Kerr said, and that claim has not even been discussed this year during the debate over the genetically modified seed bill.

Pesticides, which are known to be dangerous, are not governed under strict liability, he said.

Amy Shollenberger, policy director for Rural Vermont, said strict liability was the only way to ensure that seed manufactures, not farmers, were liable for the impact of genetically modified crops.

"It's the only way to get it off their backs and establish a clear course of action," she said.

"The fundamental part of the strict liability is to have the responsibility lie where it belongs," said Senate President Pro Tem Peter Welch, D-Windsor.

Seed manufacturers who will reportedly not sell their products in Vermont if the bill passes may have been responsible for the nearly unanimous vote, senators said.

"Some of the manufacturers made threats that undermined their arguments," Welch said.

Sen. John Campbell, D-Windsor, was even more direct.

"I don't take well to threats from international companies that don't want to come into the state and compete on a level playing field," he said. "It's not acceptable."

Contact Louis Porter at louis.porter@rutlandherald.com.

Canadians Support Anti-GMO Legislation

CPOD - Global Scan, Canada April 3, 2005 - Many adults in Canada support a proposal to ban all genetically modified organisms (GMO's), according to a poll by LÈger Marketing for Greenpeace. 43 per cent of respondents support the idea, while 31 per cent are opposed....

Read the article: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=6597

Greens ask India to keep GMOs out of europe

Financial Express April 4, 2005. "If you want to keep your exports to Europe up, keep out genetically modified organisms"...

MNCs, designers join lobbies against GM crops

Deepika, India New Delhi, Apr 3 (UNI) Western Multi-National Companies and Indian Fashion designers are to join hands with environmental activists to make the country a GMO- Free Zone.

The campaign for making India a GMO-free zone will begin in two months, according to Indian environmentalists.

Indian activists have already asked American Sports goods giant Nike, international lifestyle brand Espirit and several domestic fashion designers the big question--If we launch a campaign, will you refuse to procure GM products for manufacturing your products? ''The answer was Yes. They will come on board when we start our campaign,'' says Vandana Shiva of Delhi-based environmental group Navdanya.

The Indian lobbies, who have raised fears of health hazard from GMO, will be supported in their action by European anti-GMO groups like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace Europe. The campaign will also be targeting the Monsanto-owned GM crop BT cotton, presently being cultivated in six Indian states.

According to Dr Shiva, the campaign will be in three phases.

In the first phase, a ''People's Commission'' will be set up to spread awareness about the health and environmental hazards from GMO. The year-long phase also plans to bring back attention on farmers' suicides in Karnataka and Kerala last year.

The second phase will be, in fact, an extension of the global movement for a GMO-free zone. ''Presently, about 30,000 zones in Europe have been categorised as GMO-free zones,'' says Dr Shiva.

''In India, thousands of villages have already taken pledge not to plant GM seeds.'' The first genetically modified crop to be introduced in India three years ago, BT Cotton is cultivated in Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. A month ago, six new varieties of transgenic cotton developed by domestic seed companies were allowed for cultivation in Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan.

The case for further extension of the GM crop in these six states will come up before the Genetical Engineering Approval Committee of the Ministry of Environment on April 13.

The campaign will focus in its last phase on making the GMO industry shift its base through intensifying protests. The case against Mahyco, the Indian subsidiary of multinational GM seeds company Monsanto Mahyco, in the Supreme Court will also receive the attention in this phase, according to Dr Shiva.

The lobbies also want to direct their campaign at the government to force it enact laws to label anything that is genetically engineered. ''The labelling will help consumers identify whether the food they are buying is GM food or not,'' says Geert Ritsema of Friends of Earth Europe, which led a successful campaign to introduce a labelling law in Europe last year.

Besides legislations, the environmental groups also want facilities for conducting tests on GM foods to find out the risks.

6 April 2005

EC admits it has no power to punish GM corporation for illegal Bt10 imports

Press Notice from GM Free Cymru, 5th April 2005. In another bizarre twist to the GM maize contamination scandal, the EC has now admitted that in spite of its proud boast that it runs the "most rigorous GM regulatory regime in the world" it has no powers to punish Syngenta for the illegal import of US maize supplies contaminated with Bt10. (1)

"This is an extraordinary development," said Dr Brian John, a spokesman for GM Free Cymru. "It shows that the EC has been conniving with the Americans and the biotechnology corporations to "facilitate" the spread of GM crops and foods across Europe, against the wishes of the people of the EU and even against the wishes of the EU Parliament. If it cannot prosecute Syngenta for the contamination of the EU food supply with an unstable and potentially dangerous maize variety (2), the regulations are not worth the paper that they are written on.

"Thus far, over the course of a fortnight, the EC has done virtually nothing to sort this problem out. It has not even started testing maize products derived from the USA (3), and claims that it is waiting for Syngenta to inform them as to "a testing method" later this week. In the meantime, Genetic ID, a firm with testing laboratories in Germany and the UK, says that "the detection of Bt10 maize as well as the distinction from Bt11 is possible immediately."(4) It seems to us that the EC policy at the moment can be summarized in four words -- don't look, don't find."

ENDS

Contact:

Dr Brian John Tel + 44 (0)1239 820470

NOTES

(1) http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=18785 Commission unable to stop unauthorised GMO 04.04.2005 - EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS: "The EU Commission, which has no power to punish Syngenta, sent a letter to the company protesting against the mistake ............ The spokesman dismissed any EU measures against Syngenta, saying "that would be a matter for US authorities".

(2) Bt10 is a discontinued GM sweetcorn line containing genes inserted for herbicide tolerance, as well as toxins lethal to insects and also antibiotic resistance marker genes. It is thought to be a "failed" variety which was unstable. It has never been through an authorisations process either in the US or Europe. Import of Bt10 into the EU -- in whatever form and for whatever purpose -- is strictly illegal.

(3) About 20,000 tonnes of contaminated maize have come into Europe over the past four years, and Syngenta claims not to know where it has gone or which canned, frozen and processed sweetcorn products might contain it. It might even be contained in baby food. Now the company has admitted --after a delay of almost four months -- that Bt10 seeds were also exported illegally to France and Spain "for research purposes."

(4) Press release from Genetic ID (Europe) GENETIC ID RESPONDS TO INDUSTRY NEED FOR Bt10 DETECTION Ý(Augsburg, Germany, 31 March 2005) info-europe@genetic-id.com

Natural Green or Genetically Modified

Letter to the editor of Farm Week, from National Beef Association, Northern Ireland Branch , 20 March 2005.

Dear Sir

Natural Green or Genetically Modified

On the back of NVZ directive, water directives and forthcoming water charges we must surely qualify for organic status or as near as we can to organic farming methods, that have sustained us for hundreds of years.

We hear a lot about Beef prices, what the market wants and farmers inefficiencies and even industrial gurus telling us in conversion terms 200p now, is the equivalent of 250p in the early 90s.We do know there is 250 p/kilo for organic beef at present and we must consider this option if we are to have a future.

However with all the directives to protect the environment foisted upon farmers, we are witnessing corporate forces, attempting to contaminate our farming and wider environment unchecked, with genetically modified material, including transgenic plants, animals and fish. Action must be taken to prevent this otherwise there may be some truth in statement by the Six Nations Confederacy of Native Americans that Ñwe are on a death path on which industrial practices offer no viable answers and when the last of our natural way of life is gone, all hope for human survival will be gone with itâ.

The companies promoting GM are now saying that UK farmers want to grow GM crops, this is in spite of trials showing contamination up to two Kilometres from crops. A German Farmer growing GM crops was successfully sued when his neighbours land was contaminated. It would therefore be prudent and in farmers interests to ascertain if they are growing crops that may contain GM

There is a window of opportunity for all Ireland food production interests that presents itself to sell our products in niche markets; but only if farmers can keep GM out. Ireland must act now in unison North and South if we are to retain and protect our natural green image where it applies to food production. If we allow GM to be foisted upon us, our food products could not be differentiated in the market from the commodities dumped by countries that have gone down the GM road. There is also no retrieving the damage to the environment or going back to factory settings if GM is embraced, evidenced by BrazilÇs modified killer bees that escaped and have caused havoc all the way to California and beyond, as just one example. The Politicians, NIFCC, LMC, NIMEA and farmers representive organisations need to immediately, put their opinions in the public domain with regard to GM technology, as farmers saddled with EU Directives and swamped with bureaucracy, can no longer afford to obediently trot blindly to stage managed Multinational Corporate Agendas that could irreparably damage our future trading prospects and perhaps even threaten our very existence.

We must act immediately and turn the issues that are causing so much concern to our advantage, otherwise it may be the last opportunity we will have to sustain financial viability and simultaneously protect the environment.

Yours sincerely

Arthur McKevitt NI NBA Secretary, 43 Clontigora Road, Killeen, NEWRY. BT35 8RR ( Phone & Fax 028 30 848254)

Range of organic produce to widen

Irish Independent, 5 April 2005, by Anita Guidera. The range of Irish organic products on shop shelves is expected to increase dramatically following yesterday's launch of a unique development company to represent the interests of up to 250 organic producers on both sides of the border.

Demand for organic produce, which was worth between §35m and §38m in 2003, is expected to treble in the next three years, on a parallel with European trends.

Yesterday, Minister for Agriculture, Mary Coughlan, was at the Organic Centre in Rossinver, Co Leitrim, to launch Atlantic Organics - a joint commercial venture between producers in counties Leitrim, Roscommon, Sligo, Donegal, Fermanagh and Derry - which is set to become a key driver of organic food production and sales in Ireland.

The company, supported by the European funding Programme, Interreg, aims to market a high quality branded range of products

Transgenic Corn Sent to Europe Conveys Antibiotic Resistance

Environmental News Service, 4 April 2005. Syngenta's unintended distribution across the European Union of a genetically modified corn variety that was not approved has got EU officials and environmental groups demanding answers from the biotechnology company and from the U.S. government. European officials were alarmed to learn from company representatives on Thursday that the unauthorized corn carries a gene that confers resistance to a widely used antibiotic.

Up to 1,000 metric tons of the engineered corn, or maize, was exported to the EU over a four year period between 2001 and 2004.

The European Commission said Friday that officials have written to the U.S. authorities and to Syngenta requesting clarification regarding Bt10, the unauthorized transgenic strain of maize developed by the company.

Syngenta genetically modified corn has a built in resistance to insects. The Bt10 variety also resists an antibiotic. Bt10 is engineered to include a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is inserted into the plant genome as a pesticide. A different variety of the engineered maize, called Bt11, is approved for sale in the European Union and in the United States.

The Commission said it has learned from Syngenta that up to 10 kilograms (22 pounds) of Bt10 seed may have been exported inadvertently as Bt11 for research purposes to Spain and France. The resulting materials have all been destroyed.

In addition, the Commission said an estimated 1,000 metric tons of Bt10 food and feed products may have entered the EU through the Bt11 export channels since 2001.

European officials are concerned about the health effects of Bt10. At a meeting Thursday with representatives of Syngenta, representatives of the European Commission were informed that "Bt10 included the gene conferring resistance to the antibiotic ampicillin," the Commission said.

Ampicillin is a penicillin drug used to treat bacterial infections.

The Commission was first informed by the U.S. Mission to the European Union on March 22 about an inadvertent release in the U.S. of a nonauthorized genetically modified maize line called Bt10.

But the U.S. authorities did not inform the Commission that Bt10 contains the gene conferring resistance against the antibiotic ampicillin. It was only on March 31 that this information was given officially to the Commission by Syngenta.

According to the advice of the European Food Safety Authority, the ampicillin resistance gene should not be present in crops grown commercially. According to Syngenta, this gene is inactive in Bt10.

"The European Commission deplores the fact that a GMO which has not been authorized through the EU's comprehensive legislative framework for GMOs, nor by any other country, has been imported into the EU," said EU Health and Consumer Protection Commissoner Markos Kyprianou.

"We are writing to the U.S. authorities asking them to guarantee, by taking the appropriate measures, that present and future exports of maize to the EU do not contain GMOs which are not authorized for the EU market, including Bt10," he said. "This case again shows the importance of the European Union's comprehensive framework for traceability and labeling of GMOs," Kyprianou said. The EU traceability and labeling laws took effect in April 2004.

In the UK, Friends of the Earth has written to the Food Standards Agency demanding "an urgent investigation" into whether unapproved genetically modified maize has been illegally imported into the UK.

Over 16 thousand metric tons of U.S. maize was imported into the UK last year.

"The British public will be concerned that this unapproved GM ingredient may have found its way into food and animal feed, and will demand answers. The Food Standards Agency needs to urgently reassure us that this maize was not imported into the UK. And if it was it must ensure that any contaminated products are withdrawn immediately."

Friends of the Earth's GM Campaigner Clare Oxborrow said, "This is an industry out of control. For four years Syngenta failed to notice that they were selling farmers an unapproved GM seed. How are consumers and farmers supposed to trust them to produce our food in the future?

This case makes a complete mockery of the U.S. regulatory system for GM crops. To make matters worse the US government has known about this accident for months and together with Syngenta decided to keep it a secret until now."

Syngenta found out about the mixup from one of its seed manufacturers. The researchers were trying to use engineered maize seeds to breed experimental plants when they discovered the seed was not Bt11.

Syngenta has not said when it was informed of the error. In a statement dated March 21, the company said it "recently discovered" the "unintended event."

The European Commission informed the 25 EU member states without delay via the Rapid Alert System for food and feed. The Commission is asking all member states to stop the entry of Bt10 into their countries and to report any of the unauthorized crop that they detect.

EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said, "In order to avoid any adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment of such an accidental release, the Commission has asked member states to carry out appropriate control measures to stop Bt10 entering their territory."

"Member states should also notify the state of play regarding past or current national experimental releases of Bt11, and implement any necessary monitoring and surveillance measures in the surrounding areas where these releases took place," Dimas said.

The Commission has asked the Bush administration for "the full safety information about Bt10 at its disposal without delay, including the full risk assessments upon which it is based as well as for an urgent audit and an official view as to the quantities exported, including the channels they may have taken in the EU."

The Commission has also asked Syngenta, the developer of the Bt10 crop, to release the full information about the molecular characterization of Bt10 and its distinction from Bt11, as well as the specific detection method and adequate reference materials to trace Bt10.

Syngenta said, "The Bt protein produced by these lines is identical to that produced by the commercialized, fully approved Bt11 varieties. Therefore, there is no change to the food, health and environmental profile of the corn."

The Commission also has asked Syngenta to confirm that all Bt10 plantings and seed stock in the United States have been destroyed or isolated for further destruction. Syngenta has committed to provide that information this week.

The U.S. government has given reassurance that "no food, feed or environmental concerns are associated with the inadvertent release of this nonauthorized genetically modified crop," based on the fact that the Bt protein in Bt10 is similar to the one in Bt11, which is fully authorized in the U.S. and which the EU has authorized for use in food and feed.

Regulators and the company have been involved in "months of discussions over what should be done about the error, and how and when information should be released to the public," according to an article in the journal "Nature" published March 22.

The issue is particularly sensitive because the United States and the European Union are at odds over whether the new European rules on traceability and labeling of genetically modified crops are required scientifically.

In the United States, three agencies have oversight of transgenic foods. The U.S. Department of Agriculture takes the position that genetically modified crops are safe and do not require special attention.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration believes that genetically engineered foods are "substantially equivalent" to traditional foods and does not give them special scrutiny.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates the pesticide, but not the plant. In the case of corn genetically engineered to produce Bt, the agency regulates the Bt toxin, but the USDA regulates the genetically engineered corn. The EPA does not subject plants that are engineered with traits other than pesticide resistance, such as herbicide tolerance, to environmental review.

The European Union takes the position that environmental risk assessments are needed for each new genetically modified organism before it is marketed to identify and evaluate potential adverse effects.

"These include direct or indirect, immediate or delayed effects, taking into account any cumulative and long term effects on human health and the environment which may arise from the deliberate release or placement on the market," the EU states in its position paper of the regulation of transgenic organisms.

The European environmental risk assessment procedure requires evaluation in terms of how the genetically modified organism was developed and examines the potential risks associated with the new gene products produced by the organism - such as toxic or allergenic proteins - and the possibility of gene-transfer of antibiotic resistance genes.

4 April 2005

GM Maize scandal: authorities slammed for incompetence and complacency

Press Notice from GM Free Cymru 4th April 2005. The official response within the UK and Europe to the GM maize scandal has been "incompetent and complacent", according to GM watchdog group GM Free Cymru. The group also claims that Europe's GM regulatory system, promoted as being the most rigorous and robust in the world, is actually a shambles.

It is more than ten days since the world was alerted to the "accidental release" onto the world food market of GM maize contaminated with an unauthorized and untested Syngenta variety known as Bt10. The story was kept under wraps for almost four months by the US authorities and Syngenta, and when "Nature" reported the contamination incident on 22 March (1) there was a carefully coordinated "damage limitation campaign" involving statements to the press which were extremely economical with the truth. In the UK, DEFRA put out a statement on 23 March which was evasive and dishonest. More seriously, it contained lies which have still not been officially admitted or corrected.

The notes below itemize some of the features of the disinformation campaign within Britain and the EU.

Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: "We have uncovered an appalling catalogue of evasions, cover-ups, lies and complacency relating to this scandal. We do not expect anything better from Syngenta, but we do expect some level of competence from our own regulatory authorities in Britain and the EU. Instead, we have had a clear demonstration that the GM regulatory system simply does not work.

Nobody is testing for unauthorized GM material in animal feed or human food imports, and nobody is taking responsibility for dealing with this massive contamination incident. What has the EU done since the disaster came to light? For ten days it did nothing at all. Now it has "deplored the incident" and "requested information from the US authorities". It has even had the gall to boast about the activation of its "Rapid Alert System"! DEFRA has done even less, and has effectively said that the import of illegal GM maize into the UK is none of its business."

"And while all this evasion and obfuscation is going on, there may well be food products on the shelves of British supermarkets which contain concentrations of illegal Bt10 maize (2). These products need to be identified and withdrawn from sale. All imports of maize and maize products from the US into Europe must be stopped while studies are going on, and then only resumed when a tight and properly funded GM testing and monitoring system is in place." (8) (10)

"Let's face it. If Bt10 is contained within any food or feed products within the EU, at even the smallest concentrations, those products are illegal. We simply want the authorities to uphold the laws which they themselves have brought onto the statute books (9)."

ENDS

Contact:

Brian John, tel + 44 (0)1239 820470

NOTES:

Some of the more dishonourable features of this PR campaign are as follows:

** Syngenta stated in it original press release that "several hundred tonnes" of Bt10 maize had gone into the food market. GM Free Cymru then calculated that the real figure was closer to 185,000 tonnes, and when a further estimate of 133,000 tonnes was published in "New Scientist" magazine, the company had to admit the truth, and acknowledged a distribution of 150,000 tonnes of contaminated grain (3).

** The company stated at first that " Bt10 and Bt11 are physically identical and the proteins are identical" as an explanation for the fact that the unauthorized variety was grown "accidentally" for four years in 20010-2004. This is completely untrue, and information on the record in the US and Canada shows that the varieties are different in a number of important respects (4).

** Syngenta made no mention in its press statements or interviews that Bt10 contains an ampicillin antibiotic resistance marker (ARM) gene, which makes it substantially different from Bt11. It has now been forced to admit the presence of ARMs in Bt10, following investigations by FoE Europe.

** The company has refused to name those countries which have imported the contaminated and illegal grain for food use, in spite of repeated requests. All it has said so far is that "up to 10 kg of Bt10 seed may have been exported inadvertently as Bt11 for research purposes to Spain and France."

** The company has refused to give a full characterization of the unauthorized GM variety, which means that products that might be derived from it cannot be tested for Bt10. Neither has it yet provided a specific detection method for use by the relevant authorities.

** The company has maintained the pretence that their Bt10 maize was used mainly for animal feed. This is contradicted by the Syngenta web pages on its Bt maize, which make it clear that Bt11 (and by implication Bt10, which is supposedly "identical") was developed mainly as a sweetcorn variety intended for human consumption (5).

** In spite of numerous requests from GM Free Cymru and other NGOs to the EC, to EFSA and DEFRA, including personal letters to Elliot Morley MP and the the relevant EC Commissioners, no action was taken for ten days after the breaking of the story. At last the EU made a statement to the press (6) which was complacent and ineffectual. The statement maintained the pretence that the EU is not in possession of information on "the structure of Bt10" -- but it has had key information about it on its files for at least a year, since Bt10 was used as the "control" during the authentication process for the later variety called Bt11.

** In the UK, the DEFRA press release issued on 23 March simply regurgitated some of the disinformation put out by Syngenta, including a number of statements that were demonstrably false (7). The intention of the statement was clearly to show that the contamination incident was "on an extremely small scale" (which it patently was not); that Bt10 is an animal feed or fodder maize line (which it is not); that the lines contain the same GM event (which they do not); and that there are no safety concerns (which is untrue, given the presence of ARMS in Bt10).

** In feigning ignorance of the real nature of the genetic event in Bt10, and in pretending to be unaware of the presence of genes capable of increasing antibiotic resistance to bacteria in the human gut, DEFRA failed to mention that it has data on its own files, from Syngenta submissions and ACRE advisory notes in late 2003 and early 2004, which give key facts about the ARMS and other genes inserted into Bt10.

References:

(1) US launches probe into sales of unapproved transgenic corn, Colin Macilwain, NATURE, 22 March 2005. http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050321/full/nature03570.html

(2) Products which could contain Bt10 include frozen and canned sweetcorn, corn on the cob, baby food, corn oil, corn flour, polenta, maize meal, maize pasta, maize based snacks and tortillas (including tortilla chips and tacos). The American authorities calculate that 1,000 tonnes of contaminated GM maize has come into the food chain in Europe since 2001; we suspect that the figure could be far higher.

(3) Farming Today Programme, BBC R4, Friday 1st April 2005.

(4) For example, Bt10 and Bt11 appear to have different promoters, and Bt10 is reputedly unstable. The company has refused to issue information on the nature of the toxins produced in the plant, or their safety.

(5) www.syngenta.com/en/downloads/ Bt_sweet_corn_update_3-04_final.pdf

(6) EU deplores unauthorized imports of maize http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/biotech/2005-04-01-eu-gmo-corn_x.htm BRUSSELS (AP) ó The European Union said Friday that it deplored unauthorized imports of BT10, a form of genetically modified maize made by Switzerland's Syngenta.

(7) DEFRA Press Release, 23 March 2005 (see below) http://www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=153346&NewsAreaID=2

(8) South Korea, a major US market for canned and frozen sweetcorn, has reacted with fury to the news of the Bt10 contamination incident. See this: www.soyatech.com/bluebook/news/viewarticle.ldml?a=20050331-3 "Reports from private analysts in South Korea said the country's Food and Drug Administration, or KFDA, is looking into how it can test corn imports for Bt10. And Syngenta has mobilized, sending top level representatives to Seoul. Syngenta spokeswoman Sarah Hull confirmed that Paul Tenning, head of the company's global biotech regulatory compliance division, has been sent there."

(9) Quote from EU Press Release, 1st April 2005: "EU environment commissioner Dimas said Brussels was taking action to prevent the banned maize type reaching consumers. "To avoid any adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment ... the Commission has asked (EU) member states to carry out appropriate control measures to stop Bt10 entering their territory," he said."

Commissioner Dimas is now being challenged to specify exactly what these control measures are, and to explain exactly how they will be implemented. He is also being challenged to specify how the EU plans to identify and deal with Bt10 contamination of food supplies already on sale within the EU. "We wish the Commissioner luck," said Brian John of GM Free Cymru, "since he is trying to deal with a horse that bolted while he and his colleagues were fast asleep."

(10) Japan and South Korea, which are the biggest importers of sweetcorn from the US, have both taken steps to shut off contaminated supplies at the ports. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/23/business/bio.html Japan tests for modified corn from U.S. Reuters. Thursday, March 24, 2005 "An official from the Japanese Health Ministry said inspection offices at Japanese ports would start testing samples of corn cargoes from the United States after the ministry obtained the necessary data from Syngenta to detect Bt10 ............... If the inspections discover contaminated cargoes, the ministry will order importers to destroy them or ship them back to the United States. Bt10 is not approved either for human consumption or animal feed in Japan, although Bt11 is approved for both purposes."

GM crops less damaging to environment - expert

Irish Independent, 4 April 2005. By Aideen Sheehan. CERTAIN genetically modified (GM) crops can be less damaging to the environment than conventional crops, according to a new study by Irish scientists.

However there is still strong public concern about GM crops and it is essential that Ireland does its own research into their impact, concluded ecologist Dr Conor Meade of NUI Maynooth and Dr Ewen Mullins of Teagasc Oak Park.

Their paper on the ecological and economic considerations associated with GM crop cultivation in Ireland is published in the Royal Irish Academy journal 'Biology and Environment'.

The debate around GM crops had become highly polarised making it increasingly difficult to decipher scientific fact from speculation, although a number of websites were providing transparent information on their risks and benefits, they said.

However, the pertinent question was not whether GM crops were damaging, because conventional agriculture in all forms was inherently damaging.

"Ireland's rural landscape is not a pristine green environment that might perhaps be compromised for the very first time by the introduction of GM crops. Rather it is among the most heavily fertilised land anywhere on earth," the study said.

Irish farmland already received an average 14 tonnes of fertiliser per hectare compared with an EU average of 11 tonnes and with considerable use of herbicides and pesticides as well, so the proper question might be whether or not GM crops were more or less damaging.

"It may be that GM crops have a role to play in diminishing our overall impact on the environment, if not necessarily our impact on particular species and food webs," they said.

The use of GM pesticide-resistant crops allowed farmers to drastically reduce the amount of pesticides they used with major financial and health savings as a result they said.

The worldwide acreage of GM plants had increased 35-fold since 1995, more than any other new crop technology, and a wide range of crops offering pest control, salt and drought tolerance, improved nutrition and pharmaceutical uses were likely in the next few years.

Although, without the consent of society at large, the future of GM crops remained in doubt in Europe.

"If consumers are against the presence of GM crops in the food chain, then there will be no economic benefit to growers in using the new technology."

Field trials and monitoring were needed to protect the environment from undesirable GM crops.

"All agriculture has an impact on the environment and this study reveals that GM crops can help reduce this impact by reducing our dependency on pesticides. From an ecological and conservation standpoint this is significant," he said.

3 April 2005

EU Seeks Advice on Long-Term Effects of GMO Crops

Reuters, 30 March 2005. BRUSSELS - The European Commission wants to know how genetically modified (GMO) crops might affect human and animal health in the longer term, eight years after the EU first allowed biotech crops, a document showed on Tuesday.

In a tender published on its website, the Commission's environment unit has advertised for interested parties to study the "potential cumulative long-term effects" of individual groups of GMO crops, and say where more research is required.

Only a handful of GMO crops may be grown commercially on EU territory, mostly maize types. These crop approvals were issued in 1997 and 1998, before the bloc began a six-year moratorium on new GMO authorisations that ended in May 2004.

"This task should be prioritised to take account of the types of GM plants released within the Community at the present time and those predicted in the near future," the notice said.

Last week the Commission held its first debate on GMO policy in more than a year, vowing to press ahead with authorising more gene-altered crops and foods even if EU governments could not break years of deadlock over the issue.

While new approvals are trickling in, they have so far related to imported GMOs for use in food, animal feed and industrial processing. No GMO crop has been won EU approval for planting since 1998.

"This study is partly about finding out where the gaps are. There are still some things about GMOs that we don't know...but we know more about them now than we did at the time (in 1997 and 1998)," a Commission official told Reuters.

But green groups said the tender demonstrated how little EU research had been conducted on the long-term effects of GMOs on human and animal health, as well as on the environment.

"We've a huge debate (on GMOs) for eight years and in that time there have been no long-term studies," said Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner at environment group Friends of the Earth.

"Consumers have been exposed to this, animals on farms have been exposed to eating huge amounts of GM feed with no long-term study," he said. "And they (Commission) are now admitting they haven't done the research because they're calling a tender."

A budget of 50,000 euros, excluding tax, has been allocated for the study. The deadline for bids is May 17.

Joint US-UK cover-up alleged over GM maize

The Guardian, 1 April 2005. By Paul Brown, environment correspondent. The whereabouts of 170,000 tonnes of contaminated GM maize and its possible import into the UK has caused an international investigation and claims of a cover-up on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) first put out a statement saying the contamination was "on a small scale" but later retracted it, instead saying the maize was unlikely to have got into food but might have been fed to cattle.

The maize is not licensed to be grown in Europe and contains a GM antibiotic-resistant marker of a type scientists have advised the EU to phase out. It is theoretically possible for bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics as a result of contact with the marker genes - although the company which developed the maize, Syngenta, denies it.

The row intensified yesterday because it was realised that the US administration had known of the contamination since December, but did not notify Britain until late last month when an article in Nature revealed the problem.

One GM maize, BT10, not licensed for Europe, was found to have been mixed up with another GM maize, BT11, which was licensed. The two varieties produce the same proteins, which led Syngenta and the US watchdogs, the food and drug administration and the environment protection agency, to claim there was no problem; the two crops were the same.

It was a line that Defra followed until it was realised that BT10 contained the suspect antibiotic marker. This caused anti-GM groups to claim a cover-up by the company and the US administration.

Markus Payer, a spokesman for Syngenta in Switzerland, said yesterday that 37,000 acres (15,000 hectares) of the suspect seed had been grown unknowingly in the US between 2001 and 2004. It appeared BT10 seed had been planted in the belief it was the licensed BT11. As a result the harvested crops were mixed and sold. This was not discovered until routine tests in December 2004 revealed BT10's DNA sequence.

A Syngenta spokesman said 150,000 tonnes would have been marketed but it believed only a tiny amount reached Europe. Only 18% of US maize was exported and less than 1% came to Europe. He conceded that, before 2004, GM maize destined for Europe was not labelled, so it would be impossible to know where it had gone. The company and the US authorities were investigating and would notify all concerned as soon as possible.

Lindsay Keenan, a Greenpeace campaigner, said: "It is unbelievable that Syngenta, after four months of preparation for releasing this information, should say that these GE crops are physically identical ... This case exposes the basic unpredictability of GMOs [genetically modified organisms], the incompetence of Syngenta to handle GMO seeds safely, the complete lack of regulatory controls in the US, and the lack of implementation of controls in the EU."

The European Food Safety Authority, which advises EU states, said marker genes conferring resistance to ampicillin "should be restricted to field trials and not be present in GM plants placed on the market". And the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the international food standards body, has urged the agricultural biotech industry to use alternative methods to refine GM strains in the future.

Brian John, of GM Free Wales, accused the US authorities and the British government of trying to cover up the problem. "Nobody, either in the government or in the food safety agencies, appears to be doing anything."

Defra said it believed only a small amount of the maize may have been imported, and was unlikely to be in food, only cattle feed. There was no danger to the public.

Trans-Atlantic GMO contamination blunder not safe

www.edie.net, 1 April 2005. Agro-chemical giant Syngenta has been accused of misleading governments and the public following the recent disclosure it had been trading unapproved genetically modified corn for the past four years.

Although the GMO producer claimed that the corn in question, named Bt10, was identical to approved product Bt11 when their blunder was uncovered last week, it has emerged that Bt10 contains a gene which confers resistance to an important group of antibiotics, making it unfit for human consumption.

Syngenta has now admitted that Bt10 does contain this gene, which is not present in the approved GMO, and that the two are not identical.

The use of antibiotic resistant genes has been widely condemned by eminent bodies such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, the Royal Society and the Pasteur Institute, all of who are concerned that the genes could flow from crops to micro-organisms and spread problems of anti-biotic resistance in both humans and animals.

"Governments around the world have been taken in by Syngenta's attempt to play down the real scale of their huge error," GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth, Adrian Bebb said in response to the news.

"In view of this new information, the European Commission must take immediate action to ensure that foods which aren't permitted for human consumption are removed from the food chain."

In the UK, a spokesperson for Defra said that although the unapproved GMO could have contaminated UK corn stocks, it did not present a huge threat to the public as Bt10 would only have been present in animal feed.

But Liberal Democrat Shadow Agriculture Secretary Andrew George said that it was about time Defra implemented a tight system of controls to prevent such an event from occurring again.

"The Government should be able to guarantee genuine consumer choice so people can avoid eating GM food if they wish, but the fact is that Ministers simply don't know how many unapproved or experimental GM products are unwittingly getting on to our plates," Mr George stated.

"This news will only raise further suspicions among consumers. The Government and biotech companies need to provide robust reassurance and confidence in traceability and labelling."

Yes to GMO-Free Zones Say 58% of Canadians and 62% of PEI residents

CNW Group, 3 April 2005. MONTREAL, March 30 /CNW Telbec/ - While the government of Prince-Edward Island (PEI) continues public hearings to make the Island a GMO-Free Zone, two surveys (1) released today by Greenpeace show that a GMO-Free PEI, has wide approval in Canada and Quebec.

"Once you re-distribute the undecided respondents, 58% of Canadians and 62% of PEI residents said they want their Province to be declared a GMO-Free Zone. In Quebec, support for the GMO-Free Zone reaches as high 64%. These percentages are surprising because as of yet there has been no widespread campaigns or public debates on this subject" said Eric Darier, Greenpeace GMO Campaigner.

"In PEI, the proportion of undecided respondents is only 14%, whereas this figure is almost twice as high (27%) elsewhere in Canada. Given the political debate currently taking place in PEI the only conclusion is that the more people know about GMOs, the less they want them," added Darier "To further illustrate the point the percentage of undecided respondents in this survey from Quebec is also low (17%), likely because of the public hearing held in 2004 by the Commission sur l'Agriculture, les pÍcheries et l'alimentation (CAPA)."

The movement for GMO-Free Zones is picking up speed everywhere in the world. In Europe, more than 100 regions and 3500 municipalities are now GMO- Free Zones. Last January, the movement adopted the Berlin Manifesto for GMO- free Regions and Biodiversity in Europe (2). In the United States, many counties (the equivalent of MRCs in Quebec), in California, Hawaii, Vermont and Maine among others, have decided to become or are in the process of becoming GMO-Free Zones. In a poll held in 2004, 56% of voters in Mendocino County, California agreed to turn their county into a GMO-Free Zone. In British Columbia, the City of Powell River is now a "genetically engineered free crop zone".

Part of the popular support for GMO-Free Zones results from the citizens frustrations towards the pro-GMO positions adopted by upper levels of government. In April 2004, the Federal Government adopted a "voluntary" labelling policy on GMOs. Until now, despite an overwhelming 83% of Canadians wanting mandatory GMO labelling (3), we have yet to find a single product with a "Contains GMO" label on it. In Quebec, Jean Charest's Liberal Party has promised mandatory GMO labelling but has so far failed to follow through on the promise," concluded Darier.

1. by LÈger Marketing and Corporate Research Associates in Moncton.

2. http://www.zs-l.de/conference (3) LÈger Marketing survey, April 2004.

3. http://www.greenpeace.ca/f/campagnes/ogm/etiquetage/ sondage_etiquetage_mai2004.pdf

For complete survey results, visit: www.greenpeace.ca/f/

For further information: Eric Darier, Greenpeace GE Campaigner, (514) 933-0021, x15, cell: (514) 605-6497; Andrew Male, Greenpeace Communications Coordinator, cell: (416) 880-2757

Senate advances GMO liability bill

Associated Press, 2 April 2005. By Lisa Rathke. MONTPELIER -- The Vermont Senate on Friday gave preliminary approval to a bill that would make seed manufacturers rather than farmers liable for damages from genetically modified crops.

As the measure heads for a final vote, an amendment is expected to be introduced next week that could dramatically change the bill.

The version passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week and approved by the full Senate on Friday is designed to help farmers recover losses from the accidental spread of genetically modified crops, supporters say.

"The purpose is to establish some legal protection for Vermont farmers," said Sen. John Campbell, D-Windsor.

The bill applies so called "strict liability" to seed manufacturers, making them responsible for damages their products cause even if they are found to be not at fault.

Opponents, including Agriculture Secretary Steve Kerr, who said he would urge the governor to veto the bill in its current form, say strict liability is inappropriate for GMOs.

Sen. Wendy Wilton, R-Rutland, the only member of Judiciary Committee who opposed the bill, said the strict liability standard may drive manufacturers to stop selling GMO seeds in Vermont. If consumers buy seeds from other states and plant them in Vermont, they could end up being liable, she said.

"Right now I think there's lots of problems in this bill that may result in farmers really not being protected and that's my big concern," Wilton said.

She plans to sponsor an amendment with two other senators that would reduce the liability requirement for manufacturers.

Supporters on Friday suggested that the bill is not about the safety of GMOs but is instead about the legal issues surrounding them.

"This is not about whether GE seeds are good or bad. It's about lawsuits and the liability that people face," said Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington.

Supporters said misinformation had been circulating about the bill. The legislation does not pass judgment on the safety of GMOs or pit organic farmers against nonorganic farmers, Campbell said.

"It does not restrict the use or sale of GE seeds in Vermont," he said.

The Senate Agriculture Committee is expected to consider the amendment on Tuesday.

Argentine farmers head to Europe in Monsanto fight

St. Louis Business Journal, 30 March 2005. A group of Argentine farmers plans to travel to the European Union next week to prevent Monsanto Co. from forcing them to pay royalties on its soybean seeds, according to published reports.

The farmers, backed by Greenpeace, say they are traveling to Europe to prevent the agricultural giant from using European courts to break Argentine laws, the reports said. They plan to tell the European Patent Office that because Monsanto doesn't have a patent on Roundup Ready soy in Argentina, it should not be able to collect royalties on soy imported into Europe from Argentina.

Earlier this month, the company's Argentine unit said it planned to charge $15 per ton on shipments of Roundup Ready soy from Argentina in countries where its seeds are patented. The company has patents on its Roundup Ready soy in five European countries, which together imported more than 9 million tons of Argentine soybean products last year.

Monsanto stopped selling the Roundup Ready soybean seeds in Argentina last year because it was unable to collect royalties and said the business was unprofitable. The company has been unable to obtain a patent on its soy, so most farmers use it without paying royalties.

Argentina is the world's third-largest soybean producer behind the United States and Brazil. An estimated 95 percent of the crop in Argentina is planted from genetically modified seeds, most of which are bought in the black market.

St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. (NYSE: MON) develops insect- and herbicide-resistant crops and other agricultural products.

2 April 2005

ICSA calls on government to face up to its responsibilities on GM issue

Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association (ICSA) press release, 1 April 2005. ICSA rural development chairman John Heney, has called on the Minister for Agriculture, Mary Coughlan TD, to immediately suspend all imports of GM food and animal feedstuffs into Ireland. Mr Heney was responding to the very serious and worrying revelations on the dangers of using GM technology in food production, discussed last night on RTE's Prime Time.

Mr Heney warned that Irish farming with its clean, green image is being seriously and irrevocably damaged by the government's decision to put the interests of large multinational companies ahead of the democratic wishes of Irish and EU consumers. He said, "this blatant betrayal of citizens rights simply cannot be justified by the misleading claims of infallibility by pro GM scientists."

"The Irish government must face up to its responsibilities and stop pandering to the interests of large corporations. It should immediately initiate an informed public debate based on independent, balanced, credible and comprehensive information and end its current introduction by stealth, of GM food onto Irish dinner plates. The island of Ireland should then be declared a GM free zone which would guarantee our naturally produced farm produce access to rapidly growing, high value EU GM Free, markets," concluded Mr Heney.

ENDS

Further Information:

John Heney, ICSA Rural Development Chairman, 087 814 8840
Jenny Young, Press and Communications Officer, 087 678 5269

GM crop scandal - too little, too late

Friends of the Earth Press Release, 1 April 2005. Brussels - Friends of the Earth today criticised the European Commission for doing too little, too late, about the illegal import into the EU of unapproved genetically modified (GM) maize. It is ten days since Swiss-based Syngenta announced that it had inadvertently sold hundreds of tonnes of the unapproved GM corn to US farmers for four years. The Commission confirmed today that around 1000 tonnes of the illegal GM maize has entered the European food chain and some was planted at tests sites in Spain and France. The Commission has now written to the United States and to the GM company for more information.

The incident was first made public through an article in Nature on March 22. The article revealed that, between 2001 and 2004, Syngenta produced and sold several hundred tonnes of a GM corn, called Bt10, which contains an insecticide. The corn has not been approved for human consumption anywhere worldwide. According to the article, Syngenta and the US Government were in discussions since last year over what should be done about the error, and how and when information should be released to the public.

Initially Syngenta claimed that the maize was "physically identical" to a GMO maize already approved, called bt11, a view mimicked by the Commission. However, Friends of the Earth disagreed, pointing out that the unapproved GMO also contained a controversial antibiotic resistant gene, which confers resistance to an important groups of antibiotics. This week, Syngenta finally admitted this was the case. (1)

Adrian Bebb, GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth said: "The European Commission's response is too little and too late. For ten days they haven't taken action, even though it was public knowledge that a food unapproved for human consumption had entered the European food chain. The public expects and deserves better. The Commission must now get back into control and demand that any illegal foods are immediately removed from the food chain."

Contact: Adrian Bebb, + 49 1609 490 1163 (mobile)

The original Nature article can be found at: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050321/full/nature03570.html

1. Bt 10 contains the amp gene, which confers resistance to the ampicillin family of antibiotics. In recent guidance, the European Food Safety Authority stated that GMOs containing this gene should not be approved for cultivation and their use restricted to field trials.

EU deplores unauthorized imports of maize

BRUSSELS (AP) ó The European Union said Friday that it deplored unauthorized imports of BT10, a form of genetically modified maize made by Switzerland's Syngenta.

Genetically modified products can be sold in the European Union only once they have been approved by EU authorities. Syngenta has yet to win approval for BT10, but the product has been imported into some EU countries, including France and Spain, the EU head office said.

U.S. federal and regulatory agencies are investigating after it emerged that Syngenta sold BT10 in the United States for four years without approval. Syngenta said the seeds had been used in four U.S. states and may have made their way in food supplies in the U.S. and elsewhere.

"Today we have written to the U.S. authorities and Syngenta asking for clarification of the situation with BT10," said Philip Todd, a spokesman for EU Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou.

Up to 22 pounds of the seeds were imported into Spain and France for research purposes, according to the commission. Around 1,000 tons of food and feed products are thought to have entered the food chain in Europe since 2001, it added.

The Commission has asked Washington to supply it with a full risk assessment of BT10 and the quantities of the product it believes have been exported to Europe.

Syngenta must supply the commission with information on the structure of BT10 so that its presence can be detected by national governments.

BT10 contains proteins that are identical to the proteins in its BT11 crop, which has been approved in both the EU and the United States.

EU governments remain divided over genetically modified foods and have shied away from approving any new applications for the last six years due to public fears over health and environmental risks.

Last May, the Commission took the controversial step of exercising its power to overrule EU governments, approving BT11 for import and sale, but not cultivation.

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

Archives 2004 • 2003

Sponsored by Global Vision Corporation

© 2003 - 2005 Global Vision Consulting Ltd • updated 28 July 2005
Privacy policy
For enquiries contact mail@gmfreeireland.org
URL of this page: www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2005/index2.php