NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • November - December 2005
Archives 2005: Jan/Feb/Mar • Apr/May/Jun/Jul • Aug/Sept/Oct • Nov/Dec
Archives 2004 • 2003
31 December 2005
The facts behind the science
The Irish Times, Letters to the Editor, 31 December 2005
Madam,
Methinks Dr David McConnell doth protest too much ("The facts behind the science" - Health Supplement Dec 20th ). It is little wonder that there is scepticism amongst "the public" when such an eminent academic attempts to paint science and technology as a whiter than white issue.
Of course they have brought undreamed of benefits to humanity, particularly in the developed world, but there is a downside too, whether Dr McConnell wishes to acknowledge it or not. Has he heard of the Union of Concerned Scientists? Has he read the Millennium Assessment Report, the result of the joint deliberations of 1,500 international scientists over the past three years recently released under the auspices of the World Health Organisation and the United Nations, which in summary indicates that we are over-utilising the earth's resources by a factor of 63 per cent?
I would contend that this damage is possible only through the abuse of science and technology. Perhaps this is "bad" science? The hole in the ozone layer resulted from the use of what science thought was a harmless gas. Climate change, currently generally rated as the greatest threat to humanity, has essentially resulted from similar abuse. Science has given each of us the gift of traces of between 300 and 500 synthetic chemicals in our bodies, many of which are known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic and/or reprotoxic.
Dr McConnell's views on genetic modification are well known and predictable, but he evidently grossly underestimates the intelligence of "the public" when he equates genetic manipulation to plant (or animal) development by selective breeding. Every second-level student knows that there is absolutely no relationship between the two. Further, to equate laboratory-based development of genetic manipulation for medical or other purposes with the growth of GM crops in the wild with their proven potential for cross-pollination amounts at best to gross oversimplification and is disingenuous in the extreme. The statement that "GM foods have been rigorously tested for over 30 years and have been proven to be safe" to my knowledge is incorrect. I would be most grateful if Dr McConnell would provide references indicating what independent properly controlled tests have been done in humans.
I believe the public's health will be preserved only if we maintain a critical scepticism of science and technology founded on the profit motive.
Yours, etc,
Dr Philip Michael
Chairman, Irish Doctors' Environmental Association
Bandon, Co Cork.
22 December 2005
European Commission allows genetic contamination of organic farming
Friends of the Earth press release, 22 December 2005. Brussels ‚ The European Commission has authorised genetic contamination in organic agriculture, clearly putting the biotech industry before organic farmers and consumers.
In a draft Regulation on Organic Production, adopted by the Commission yesterday, products containing up to 0.9% GMOs (genetically modified organisms) can be labelled as organic [1]. This is a step backwards compared to existing EU legislation. Independent legal advice obtained by Friends of the Earth and other NGOs concludes that the Organic Regulation currently in force does not allow an organic product to contain GMOs or GM derivatives in any quantity [2].
The organic sector in the EU must be given the means to develop and ensure its economic growth without any risk of genetic contamination. The European Commission continues to refuse to consider strict EU-wide legislation on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.
The Commission is also refusing to take environmental and health issues into account when considering coexistence, insisting that it is a purely economic concern.
Independent legal advice has found that the Commission's Recommendations on coexistence [3] are ìfundamentally flawed" and that Member States must have regard to the aims of protection of human health and the environment [4].
Helen Holder, GMO campaign coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe, said:
ìGenetic contamination of organic food is completely unacceptable to consumers throughout the EU. The European Commission should be protecting organic farmers and consumers with laws that prevent organic farming from being contaminated by genetically modified organisms (GMOs ). If the biotech industry can't prevent contamination, then GMOs shouldn't be grown in the EU."
Contact:
Helen Holder: +324 74 857 638 or +322 542 01 82
NOTES:
_______________________
EU Outlines Labelling Plans for Organic Farming
Reuters, 22 December 2005. BRUSSELS - Organic farmers across the European Union will soon have to move away from national labels for their produce and clearly inform consumers that it comes from the EU, a draft law on organic farming said on Wednesday.
While the European Commission, author of the draft, would like to encourage greater use of an EU organic logo that it launched in 2004, it would still allow farmers the freedom to use other labels provided they include the words "EU-organic".
At present, producers have difficulty selling organic food in different EU countries as there is a patchwork of national and private logos which can be costly and complicated to obtain.
The draft, to be discussed by agriculture ministers next year, requires that at least 95 percent of the final product must be organically produced to be labelled as such.
Products containing genetically modified (GMO) material may not be labelled as organic, except for those with up to 0.9 GMO percent through accidental or unavoidable contamination. This is in line with current EU law on biotech food and feed thresholds.
The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) welcomed the Commission's draft law but voiced concern that it failed to address the thorny issue of liability in cases where GMO material is detected in organic crops.
"It is welcome news that the EU organic label will not be made obligatory, allowing full space for private labels," IFOAM said in a statement.
"An existing legal loophole will be closed so that products labelled as containing GMOs can never be called organic. However, not addressing here the issue of liability in case of GMO contamination is a continuing concern," it said. Separating GMO, traditional and organic crops, known as coexistence, is a problem that EU has yet to get to grips with.
Several EU states, particularly those like Austria and Luxembourg that consistently vote against new authorisations of GMO products, want hard-and-fast EU legislation in this area.
Although Europe saw its organic farming area jump by nearly 70 percent in the late 1990s, this growth rate has now slowed down in several countries where it has reached a plateau.
In the EU-25, the amount of organic farmland is around 5.7 million hectares, or some 3.5 percent of its total agricultural area, and around 175,000 farms are now run organically.
Germany has Europe's largest organic market at just over $3 billion, with fruit and vegetables as its top revenue earners.
Britain, Italy and France also have important markets, where there have been high growth rates in recent years. Britain, for example, is home to Europe's largest organic fruit market.
But the average market share for organic products in the EU remains small at around two percent, with some exceptions such as vegetables at between five and 10 percent.
21 December 2005
EU Farm Ministers Clash on GMO Maize Approval
Reuters, December 21, 2005, by Jeremy Smith. BRUSSELS - EU agriculture ministers failed to agree on Tuesday on authorising imports of a genetically modified (GMO) maize, again revealing their deep divisions over biotech crops and foods, officials said.
The maize, known by its code number 1507, is jointly made by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a subsidiary of DuPont Co. and Dow AgroSciences unit Mycogen Seeds. Their application is for import and use in food.
Hungary was the only country to change its position from a meeting of EU ambassadors earlier this month, voting against an authorisation after its previous abstention.
The ministers' failure to agree means that the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, will very likely rubber-stamp an authorisation in the next month or so.
This is permitted under EU law when ministers are unable to reach a consensus on a GMO approval when there has also been a inconclusive vote by EU-25 national experts.
This happened last month under a different application for the same GMO maize, for use in processing for animal feed.
The 1507 maize type is modified to resist certain insects and herbicides and would not be for cultivation, although Pioneer/Mycogen has also requested this use under a separate application still pending in the EU authorisation process.
"1507 maize has successfully completed the rigorous safety assessment required by EU legislation and brings real benefits to the environment, consumers and the agricultural chain," said Mike Hall, Pioneer's European communications manager.
"This is also the highest number of votes in favour of a biotech dossier at Council (of EU ministers) under the latest EU regulations," he told Reuters.
Despite last year's lifting of an effective biotech moratorium by a legal default procedure, EU countries have not managed to agree by themselves on a GMO approval since 1998.
A minority number of EU countries maintains the power, with its combined voting weight, to block new GMO authorisations.
Luxembourg, Greece and Austria, for example, consistently vote against GMO approvals -- and are offset by Britain, Finland and the Netherlands, which almost always vote in favour.
Others countries sit on the fence, or vary their vote according to the product concerned.
Japan to test Canadian rapeseed for unapproved GMO
Reuters, Wednesday, December 21, 2005. TOKYO - Japan plans to test rapeseed imports from Canada to check if they contain an unapproved strain of genetically modified (GMO) oilseed developed by U.S. agricultural products maker Monsanto Co.
An official at Japan's Health Ministry said on Friday that Canadian cargoes might be contaminated with RT73 Brassica rapa, a herbicide-resistant GMO rapeseed strain that is not approved for human consumption in Japan.
Japan has a zero-tolerance policy on imports of unapproved GMO crops, and importers of crops tainted with illegal GMOs must destroy them or ship them back to exporting countries.
"We will start testing rapeseed cargoes from Canada if we can develop a method to detect the strain," the official said, adding that it might take several months to develop.
The Canadian government told the ministry that RT73 Brassica rapa was planted by a small number of farmers in Canada in 2004 and 2005, and part of the production was already on the market.
RT73 Brassica rapa is approved as human food and animal feed in Canada. But it was taken off the list of seeds for commercial production in Canada in 2003, as requested by Monsanto.
The Canadian government has told the ministry that it had identified farmers who planted RT73 Brassica rapa this year, and rapeseed from those farmers was consumed domestically, the ministry official said.
But the GMO strain harvested last year may have been mixed with supplies from other farms and exported, he said.
Canada is a major producer and exporter of rapeseed, while Japan is one of the biggest importers of the crop.
In the first 10 months of this year, Japan imported 1.92 million tons of rapeseed, of which 1.52 million tons were from Canada and 397,943 tons were from Australia.
Rapeseed is crushed to make cooking oil.
Currently Japan tests corn cargoes from the United States to detect illegal Bt-10 biotech corn.
Japan has discovered 13 U.S. feed grain cargoes tainted with Bt-10 since it began testing last May.
Bt-10 is a corn strain that is genetically modified to produce a toxin that kills pests. It is made by Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta AG but not approved for distribution.
20 December 2005
EU warns France, Germany over lapses in GMO laws
Reuters, 20 December 2005. BRUSSELS, DEC France and Germany received final warnings on Tuesday of legal action and possible fines unless they quickly update their national laws on genetically modified (GMO) foods and crops, the European Commission said.
The Commission said it had sent its last written warnings to both countries for failing to integrate an EU directive on the environmental release of GMOs into their national statute books. The law, agreed by EU governments in 2001, regulates how GMO crops may be grown and approved across the 25-nation bloc and ranks as the EU's main law, of around five, on biotech crops. ìThis directive is the cornerstone of the EU's legislative framework on GMOs," the Commission said in a statement. The warnings are the final chance for both countries to update their legislation before the Commission becomes entitled to ask the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the EU's highest court based in Luxembourg, to impose financial penalties. EU governments had a deadline of October 2002 to revise their national laws to include the directive.
16 December 2005
60 Million People Say: "WTO Take Your Hands Off Our Food"
Campaigners are delivering a petition toWorld Trade Organisation (WTO) Director General Pascal Lamy during trade talks today in Hong Kong today. (at 7.30 am Irish Time ).
The petition was signed by more than 135,000 citizens from 100 countries and more than 740 organisations representing 60 million people opposing the WTO trade dispute over genetically modified (GM) food filed by the US, Argentina and Canada. [1]
French Farmer JosÈ BovÈ, Indian ecologist Vandana Shiva and Caroline Lucas, Member of the European Parliament, are among those who delivered the petition.
Through the petition citizens ask the WTO not to undermine the right of individual countries, in this case European countries, to take appropriate steps to protect their farmland, environment and consumers from the risks posed by GM foods and crops. [2]
The WTO is expected to issue an interim ruling on 5th January 2006. In line with WTO secrecy, the draft ruling will only be made available to the countries in the dispute. This will form the basis for the final ruling expected later on in March or April.
Friends of the Earth International Chair Meena Raman said in Hong Kong: "The WTO should not force anybody to eat genetically modified foods. The WTO is the wrong place to be deciding what we eat and how we protect our environment. It is time for the WTO to get its hands off our food! "
French Farmer José Bové said in Hong Kong:
"Farmers and consumers strongly oppose genetically modified organisms. We will take action to keep Europe free from GMOs and to protect the world from GM farming."
Indian Ecologist Vandana Shiva said in Hong Kong:
"The transatlantic trade dispute shows the worst face of the WTO. Despite the fact that the UN Biosafety Protocol allows countries to use the Precautionary Principle to ban the import of GMOs, the WTO may force feed us GMOs anyway"
UK Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas said:
"The right of individual countries to decide whether or not to allow GMOs in their food chains or their environment is a key element of the democratic principles which are supposed to underpin the EU itself. Neither the WTO nor the EU have any right to overrule the clear majority of EU citizens who do not want GMOs in their communities."
PETITION DELIVERED: WHEN: December 14, 3.30-3.40 p.m. Hong Kong time ( 7.30am Irish Time)
WHERE: Hong Kong Convention Centre, in front of room 401.
PICTURES AVAILABLE:
High-resolution pictures will be available after the event from:
www.anphotos.com
www.bite-back.org/pics/handover.htm
CONTACT
In Hong Kong (Dec 14-19)
Meena Raman, Chair, Friends of the Earth International +852 6129 0032
Alexandra Wandel, Trade Coordinator, Friends of the Earth Europe +852 6125
7644 José Bové , Confé deration Paysanne, +852 9305 9672
Vandana Shiva, Research Foundation for Sciences, Technology and Ecology +9198 1002 5169
Caroline Lucas, MEP, European Parliament, +44 780 272 1996
In Europe
Oisin Coghlan, Friends of the Earth Director in Ireland 086-8529528 and 01-6394653
Adrian Bebb, GM Campaigner, Friends of the Earth Europe +49 1609 490 1163
NOTES
[1] A briefing about the dispute is online at http://www.foeeurope.org/biteback/pics/transatlantic_trade_dispute_media_briefing.pdf
[2] Detailed information is available at http://www.bite-back.org/ The "Bite Back" citizen's objection was initiated by Friends of the Earth International with the support of Action Aid Alliance, Public Services International, Public Citizen, the International Gender and Trade Network, the French Confé dé ration Paysanne, and the Indian Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology.
-- Friends of the Earth
9 Upper Mount Street
Dublin 2
Ireland
Ph: +353-1-6394653
http://www.foe.ie
14 December 2005
GMO trade war: has Europe lost?
WTO fails to confirm rumours as 60 Million people say: "WTO take your hands off our food"
Friends of the Earth press release. Brussels/Hong Kong, 14 th December, 2005 ‚ The Deputy Director General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) today refused to comment at the Hong Kong ministerial conference on rumours that Europe has lost the transatlantic trade dispute on genetically modified (GM) foods. Former WTO chief, Supachai Panitchpakdi, hinted recently that Europe had lost, a view confirmed in the past days by the French International Trade Minister, Christine Lagard. [1]
Campaigners at the WTO Ministerial Conference delivered earlier today a petition to the WTO signed by more than 135,000 citizens from 100 countries and more than 740 organisations representing 60 million people against the trade dispute at the WTO over GM food by US, Argentina and Canada. [2] [3]. Deputy Director General Alejandro Jara refused to comment on the statements from Supachai and Lagard.
In the objections, citizens ask the WTO not to undermine the right of individual countries, in this case Europe, to take appropriate steps to protect their farmland, environment and consumers from the risks posed by GM foods and crops. French Farmer JosÈ BovÈ, Indian ecologist Vandana Shiva and Caroline Lucas, a Member of the European Parliament, also took part in the hand-over.
The WTO is expected to issue a draft final report on 5 th January 2006. In line with WTO secrecy, the draft ruling will only be sent to the countries in the dispute. This will be the basis for the final ruling expected later in March or April.
Friends of the Earth Europe Trade campaigner Alexandra Wandel said:
"The World Trade Organisation should have the guts to tell Europeans that free trade rules come before their safety and that they will be forced to eat genetically modified foods whether they want to or not. The WTO is the wrong place to be deciding what we eat and how we protect our environment . It is time they got their hands off our food! "
French Farmer JosÈ BovÈ said in Hong Kong:
"Farmers and consumers are strongly opposed to GMOs. We will take action to keep Europe GMO free and to protect the world from GM farming."
Indian Ecologist Vandana Shiva said in Hong Kong:
"The transatlantic trade dispute shows the worst face of the WTO. Despite the fact that the UN Biosafety Protocol allows countries to use the precautionary principle to ban the import of GMOs, the WTO may force feed us GMOs"
Green Party WTO delegate Caroline Lucas MEP said:
" The right of individual countries to decide whether or not to allow GMOs in their food chains or their environment is a key element of the democratic principles which are supposed to underpin the EU itself. Neither the WTO nor the EU have any right to overrule the clear majority of EU citizens who do not want GMOs in their communities."
PHOTOGRAPHS AVAILABLE
WTO Deputy Director General Alejandro Jara met Jose Bove, Vandana Shiva, Caroline Lucas MEP and campaigners earlier today at the WTO Ministerial in Hong Kong. High-resolution photographs are available from Friends of the Earth at: www.bite-back.org/pics/handover.htm
Contacts
In Hong Kong
Alexandra Wandel, Trade Coordinator, Friends of the Earth Europe + 852 6125 7644
Meena Raman, Chair, Friends of the Earth International +852 6129 0032
José Bové, Conféderation Paysanne, +852 9305 9672
Vandana Shiva, Research Foundation for Sciences, Technology and Ecology +9198 1002 5169
Caroline Lucas, MEP, European Parliament, +44 780 272 1996
In Europe
Adrian Bebb, GMO Campaigner, Friends of the Earth Europe +49 1609 490 1163
Notes to editors
[1] According to witnesses, former WTO Director General and now Secretary General of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Supachai Panitchpakdi, made it clear that Europe had lost the trade dispute over GM foods in a meeting on November 28th with Indian NTGOs. French International Trade Minister, Christine Lagard, confirmed this in a meeting with French NGOs on December 8 th. She apparently deplored the fact that such information, which should have remained confidential in the pre-Ministerial period, was communicated in the context of the "Pre-Hong Kong Ministerial Meeting Consultation Workshop: Identifying India's Core Concerns", organised jointly by the Indian Minister of Commerce and Industry (Department of Commerce) and UNCTAD.
[2] Detailed information is available at www.bite-back.org. The "Bite Back" citizen's objection was initiated by Friends of the Earth International with the support of ActionAid Alliance, Public Services International, Public Citizen, the International Gender and Trade Network, the French ConfÈdÈration Paysanne, and the Indian Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology.
[3] A briefing about the dispute is attached and also available at http://www.foeeurope.org/biteback/pics/transatlantic_trade_dispute_media_briefing.pdf
9 December 2005
Farming faces GM time-bomb
Irish Examiner, letter to the editor, 8 December 2005. There is a time-bomb ticking for Irish agriculture and nobody seems to notice. After a recent EU decision the floodgates are now open for the import of GM oilseed rape for [animal] feed and we are facing a nightmare.
Let's have a look at some scenarios for oilseed rape in Ireland.
It is, according to Japanese experience, impossible to unload and transport the rape seed without spillage. As a result, volunteer plants are growing now in Japanese harbours and beyond, and cannot be controlled by [weedkiller] spray.
Most Brassicas, which are closely related to oilseed rape, are very tough survivors, being able to germinate after lying dormant, in reported cases, for decades.
Just imagine that a lorry drives from an Irish port across the country spilling seeds all along the way. Most of those will germinate by the roadside and nobody will notice anything unusual. They will then cross-pollinate uncontrollably with other brassicas, be it cabbage, broccoli, oilseed rape or charlock.
This is the case on a government research station in Dorset, England, where modified genes from crops in a GM trial transferred into local wild plants, creating a form of herbicide-resistant superweed.
Any production of such an uncontrollable cross-fertilisation will contain the glyphosate-resistant genes, which means the vegetable grower intending to grow a break crop will be unable to kill these plants. So they will thrive and shed even more seeds, and so on.
A single oilseed rape plant is capable of producing 14,500 seeds. For a farmer contemplating the cultivation of oilseed rape, the situation is quite similar: if her or his oilseed rape contains a certain percentage of GM seeds, the oil is not suitable for human consumption, according to current legislation.
Oilseed rape growers be warned: Monsanto and Co. could sue you because you're illegally cultivating patented GM plants. Monsanto has done this in the US and Canada.
Apart from this, persistent GM plants will come up and flourish in any crop. Irish fields will be infested with GM brassicas, and no way to control them. Organic vegetable growers will be out of business because organic means zero per cent GM.
GM crops do nothing for this green and clean island, which Bord Bía is spending a fortune promoting as the "food island". If we do not stop the beginnings of GM pollution, our markets will be closed before we even know it.
GM is not feeding the hungry of this world; it is not, in the long term, reducing the amounts of pesticides, and it is not conclusively proven that it has no negative effects on human health.
There are so many unanswered questions about GM crops that I feel it is absolutely irresponsible to create an irreversible situation solely because an industry is trying to make money for its shareholders.
Richard Auler
Ballybrado, Cahir, Co. Tipperary
Animal feed move defies logic and democracy
Irish Examiner, letter to the editor, 8 December 2005. The article by David Storey on GMOs (Irish Examiner Farming, December 1) is welcome in that it brings up a subject that is truly neglected. The introduction of genetically modified organisms into our food chain defies all logic, as well as democracy.
A film entitled The Future of Food by Deborah Koons Garcia exposes the myths perpetuated by supporters of GMOs - i.e. that there is sufficient testing prior to release, that yields are better, that fewer chemicals are used and that GMOs will feed the world.
The film points out that Monsanto has patented over 11,000 seeds and are buying up seed companies at speed. They have also taken farmers to court to protect their patented seeds despite the obvious uncontrollable process of pollination in nature.
I have no faith in our current level of protection. Experimental animal feed is being imported. Will those animals getting this GM feed be labelled?
Cllr. Donal Ó Beara
Ennis Town Council
Waterpark House, Drumbiggle, Ennis, Co. Clare.
8 December 2005
Biotech-Crop Battle Heats Up as Strains Mix With Others
The Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2005. By Scott Miller & Scott Kilman, Staff Reporters
Huesca, Spain - For 15 years Felix Ballarin labored to perfect a strain of organically grown red corn. He figured the crop could fetch twice the price of traditional yellow corn because local chicken farmers say it gives their meat and eggs a rosy color.
But when the ears first emerged late last year, the farmer made a horrifying discovery: Yellow kernels were mixed in with the red. As government scientists would later confirm with a DNA test, the kernels had been contaminated with a genetically modified strain. No longer considered "organic," Mr. Ballarin's corn lost its premium value and his decade and a half of careful breeding was down the drain. "Why me?" he asked, pointing out the field choked with weeds where the corn stood last year.
As genetically modified crops win a growing share of the world's farmland, they are increasingly altering the makeup of traditional crops like Mr. Ballarin's corn. "Biotech pollution," as critics call it, results when genetically modified plants are mixed with ordinary crops by mistake, carelessness or just the wind. With billions of dollars in crop sales at stake, the issue is becoming a significant one for governments around the world. And it is beginning to pit growers of nonbiotech crops against the big biotech producers, as each side battles to serve their very different markets.
U.S. farmers say they are losing out on exports because overseas customers are afraid of contamination by genetically modified, or GM, varieties. Farmers of organic produce in both Europe and the U.S. say their crops are frequently tainted by stray GM seeds, forcing them to buy seeds from as far away as China to ensure purity.
Growers of biotech crops in the U.S. increasingly worry the struggle is hurting acceptance of their product both domestically and abroad. Three California counties have banned GM crops, and a fourth is considering doing so today. Beer-making giant Anheuser-Busch Cos. has demanded that its home state of Missouri keep a GM rice project 120 miles away from rice it buys to make beer. The European Union is now trying to establish buffer zones meant to halt the unwanted spread of GM crops. Spain is close to finalizing a law that would require GM crops to be grown at least 165 feet away from traditional varieties.
Such moves to restrict the spread of GM crops often are ineffective. Last month in Australia, government experts discovered biotech canola genes in two non-GM varieties despite a ban covering half the country. "Regretfully, the GM companies appear unable to contain their product," said Kim Chance, agriculture minister for the state of Western Australia, on the agency's Web site.
St. Louis-based Monsanto Co., the global GM leader, last year dropped plans to introduce the world's first bioengineered wheat amid fears by Northern Plains farmers in the U.S. that the new plant would contaminate the non-GM wheat they promise customers in Japan, Europe and South Korea. Increasingly those countries are enforcing strict rules on the makeup of non-GM products. Keeping out the GM strains that foreign customers don't want is a growing expense for American exporters. "It's just a mess for the grain traders," says M. Ann Tutwiler, chief executive of the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council, a Washington think tank.
Future of Farming
Biotech crops have been held out by their producers and many scientists as the future of farming, improving agriculture and even human health. The first genetically modified plants made their own pesticides and tolerated exposure to herbicide, making it easier for farmers to spray weedkillers without hurting their crops. Scientists are now engineering plants to grow on less water and fertilizer, modifications that would reduce agriculture's toll on the environment.
Advocates argue that hardier plants could help Africa feed itself, and that future generations of the technology promise groundbreaking benefits. Already scientists have developed a strain of rice that could be used as a source of missing vitamin A for poor Asians. Monsanto is using genetic material from algae and fungi to modify plants so that they make healthier vegetable oil.
Biotech company officials say small leaks aren't a surprise. It's long been accepted in agricultural circles that farm fences are no barrier to plant reproduction. They argue that the biotech boom in the U.S. hasn't harmed the organic movement, pointing out that organic acreage has climbed in the U.S. since the first genetically modified crops were commercialized in the U.S. a decade ago. "We think co-existence is a reality," says Christopher Horner, a spokesman for Monsanto, which offers advice to buyers of its genetically modified seeds on avoiding problems with neighboring farmers.
To be sure, Monsanto and rivals such as DuPont Co. and Syngenta AG have a financial stake in how countries decide to deal with the leaky nature of crop biotechnology. Moves to shift liability to growers of biotech crops, or to the inventors, would slow the torrid growth of the market, which has more than doubled Monsanto stock over the past two years. Kevin McCarthy, an analyst at Banc of America Securities, New York, figures that crop farmers around the world paid a $2.2 billion premium for biotech crops this year, up from $1 billion in 2001.
GM critics have produced volumes of studies claiming to show that biotech food can cause allergies or that the world's biodiversity will be put at risk if biotech genes infect natural plants. All such claims are adamantly rejected by the GM industry, which can call on an equally large body of research to back up its counterarguments.
There's no evidence to date that biotech crops have caused any health problems. And GM crops now make up a majority of the world market in soybeans, along with big portions of the market in cotton, canola and corn. Total GM acreage globally climbed 20% last year to 200 million acres in 17 countries, according to the industry.
The U.S. government takes a laissez-faire attitude on GM contamination. As long as the genetically modified material in question comes from plants approved for human consumption, Washington doesn't see any safety threat. "Why do they need to be treated any differently?" asks Cindy J. Smith, deputy administrator of biotechnology regulatory services at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "They're not any more unsafe."
Some local communities have stepped in. Mendocino County in Northern California, known for wine and pears, was the first U.S. locality to ban GM crops in March 2004. Nearby Sonoma County, a major wine and dairy producer, could become the next when it votes today on whether to declare a 10-year moratorium on GM crops; advocates of a ban fear biotech grains being fed to milk cows could eventually cause some unforeseen health problems, such as allergic reactions. Legislatures in both California and Vermont, meanwhile, are considering measures that would hold makers of GM seeds legally liable for incidents of contamination. GM seeds carry a unique genetic sequence that can be identified by testing laboratories.
Many Precautions
In the Midwest, some similar measures have been considered but rejected. So Lynn Clarkson, president of Clarkson Grain Co., a Cerro Gordo, Ill., grain marketer that specializes in non-GMO crops, goes to great lengths to try to keep his crops that way. He sends inspectors to visit fields before they are harvested and requires the farmers he contracts with to send him sealed plastic bags with samples of their grain for testing before they are allowed to bring their harvest to the elevator.
He uses an optical scanner to sort through blue and white varieties of corn. Since the biotechnology industry has only genetically modified yellow corn, the optical scanner kicks out any yellow corn it finds.
Despite the precautions, Mr. Clarkson finds genetically modified organisms in 6% of the grain he contracts with farmers to grow. A survey of organic farmers about their 2001 crops by the Organic Farming Research Foundation in Santa Cruz, Calif., found similar results: About 7% of 270 growers of organic corn, soybeans and canola reported GM materials in their crops.
Such a problem can be costly: An Illinois farmer can charge roughly three times as much for organic corn as for genetically modified corn. "Once we had to kiss good-bye to 20,000 bushels that had gotten into our bins," says Mr. Clarkson. "If you are a biotech farmer and your pollen comes over my fence, you are taking away my choice."
Now Mr. Clarkson is mulling growing crops in desert areas in parts of South America where genetically modified crops have yet to penetrate. "I think of it as a leaky technology. It is the nature of the thing," says Mr. Clarkson. In addition to adding to his costs, the persistence of contamination is limiting his market, he says. "We could do five times as much business in South Korea otherwise," Mr. Clarkson says.
Japan and the EU, the U.S.'s third and fourth largest agricultural exports markets, still allow small amounts of GM material in non-GM goods. But South Korea, the U.S.'s sixth-largest market, is moving toward forbidding genetically modified material of any kind in food that is supposed to be 100% organic. That limits what Mr. Clarkson can sell there.
Contaminated Seed
Craig Wedig, a Cuba City, Wis., farmer, blames contaminated seed for the GM crops that appeared on his organic cornfield in 2001. Mr. Wedig, 28 years old, had a contract to sell his crop to a mill making organic corn syrup for export. When the mill detected GMOs in the third and fourth truckload from his farm, he had to sell the corn for less money to a company making livestock feed.
The GMO discovery cost Mr. Wedig $2,250. He has since shifted his business so that the only food he sells comes from the milk and meat produced by his organic dairy herd. Genetically modified crops can't be detected in the milk or meat of the cows that eat them. "My advice to the organic farmers in Europe is to make sure that any GMO drift becomes the legal responsibility of the GM farmer," says Mr. Wedig. "Here, I'm responsible for my neighbor's pollen, and that's not fair."
In the 25-nation EU, most countries are working on rules governing how far GM crops can be grown from non-GM ones. Some are so strict that GM farmers worry they will amount to a virtual ban. European reluctance to allow wider planting of GM crops is part of a dispute the U.S. has brought against the EU at the World Trade Organization. A ruling is expected in January.
The debate over GM contamination has surfaced most passionately in Mexico. Four years ago, scientists from the University of California, Berkeley, discovered that GM corn had mingled with native varieties in the southern state of Oaxaca. The report, later supported by Mexican government research, staggered local farmers. Mexican peasants depend on corn for as much as 40% of their diet, using it in everything from tortillas to a hot drink called "atole."
On Agustin Leon Santiago's family farm in Oaxaca, maize seeds have been handed down from father to son for countless generations. "Each family has its own heritage, expressed in corn," said the 73-year-old patriarch, as three generations of Leons took a break from their chores. "We feel that the day our traditional corn is contaminated, we will lose a tremendous heritage going back thousands of years."
Mr. Leon's son, Jesus Leon Santos, is leading an anti-GM drive in the region, producing pamphlets and encouraging local farmers to plant only seeds that come from the region.
Nevertheless, the technology is spreading. In Europe, authorities have begun approving GM strains to be sold there after an effective ban on testing new biotech crops took effect in 1998. North of Barcelona in Spain -- the only European country with GM crops before the ban was instituted -- a trio of farmers took a late afternoon break recently to argue in favor of biotech. Leaning against a mud-caked Honda ATV parked next to rows of green corn stalks, Joaquim Paretas said his farm would be doomed without it. He plants a strain of biotech corn that defends itself against an insect known as the corn borer, a bug that burrows inside a corn plant, making it hard to combat with traditional insecticide. The GM plant produces a protein that, when eaten by the insects, gives them a deadly ulcer.
Traditional strains of corn, Mr. Paretas says, are weakened by the bugs and are often destroyed by high winds that sweep over the region late in the growing season. "If we didn't plant GM, we would face fierce competition from countries like the U.S. and Argentina and others who do," Mr. Paretas said. "We would have to give up our land and raise goats."
Balancing the needs of Mr. Paretas and those of Mr. Ballarin, whose red-corn effort took place around 220 miles away, is tricky.
Spain's evolving plan to require separating the GM crops from non-GM varieties seems to satisfy neither side. Mr. Paretas says it will be impossible to follow the rules as some of his scattered corn plots are only a few rows wide. He says he'll instead work out agreements with his non-GM neighbors to stagger their planting seasons.
Meanwhile, Mr. Ballarin says the 165-foot barrier is woefully insufficient. Looking over his rolling field, he points to droplets from a sprinkler carrying at least that far on the late afternoon wind. Pollen, he believes, can easily float farther.
3 December 2005
EU Eyes WTO Case to Drive Policy Forward on GMOs
Reuters, 2 December 2005. BRUSSELS - Senior EU policymakers are unclear where they stand on genetically modified (GMO) foods even after years of debate and are looking to a world trade ruling that may dictate where to move next, diplomats say.
While the European Union restarted approvals of GMO products in 2004 after a break of almost six years, the end of the bloc's unofficial biotech ban did not come with the blessing of all its 25 governments -- which repeatedly fail to agree on GMO policy.
Since 1998, EU member states have not found enough of a voting majority to agree any new GMO approvals. And since the moratorium ended, the European Commission, the bloc's executive arm, has rubberstamped five new authorisations on their behalf.
The limbo is reflected at the Commission itself, which says it is following EU law by issuing new approvals -- but where nobody in the top echelons seems to be driving policy forward.
The "leadership vacuum" on GMOs shows few signs of being filled until the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules on a suit filed against the EU by Argentina, Canada and the United States.
Fearing a new trade war, the Commission is keen to show the three complainants that Europe is ready to push GMO applications through the EU system, diplomats say. The WTO is due to issue its ruling, already delayed several times, in early January.
"The WTO outcome will clarify things and inject some reality into the GMO debate, which at the moment is dominated by the idea that the EU can do whatever it likes," one said. "The ruling is the only thing that can bring any kind of political movement."
Europe's shoppers are known for their wariness towards GMO products, often dubbed as "Frankenstein foods", with opposition polled at slightly over 70 percent: a stark constrast with the United States, where they are far more widely accepted.
SITTING ON THE FENCE
Six European Commissioners are pivotal for the direction of GMO policy in Brussels, and represent the environment, trade, agriculture, research, industry and food safety portfolios.
Probably the most pro-biotech is Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen, who said in a speech in September: "the Commission, public authorities, academia and industry together, should try to present the usefulness of GMOs to the public".
On green biotech, "public attitudes as well as member states' positions hamper the development in this area," he said.
Verheugen may get some backing to push for a firmer line on accelerating GMO approvals from Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson if the WTO attacks EU biotech policy, officials say.
But the others seem to be sitting more on the fence. Food Safety Commissioner Markos Kyprianou, for example, would like to see an end to the deadlock in GMO votes, where EU states debate whether to authorise a particular product.
Not completely convinced about the benefits of GMOs, Kyprianou does not want EU farming to be dominated by biotech to the same extent as in the United States, insiders say.
Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, one of the more GMO-wary commissioners, has refrained from putting "live" GMOs for cultivation up for debate and looks in no hurry to do so.
Dimas will participate in a GMO policy debate with EU environment ministers on Friday but little concrete is expected to come of it until after the WTO makes its ruling.
And for Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, the main issue to be resolved is coexistence: EU jargon for how farmers should separate traditional, organic and biotech crops.
Fischer Boel has often said she may consider a legal framework, maybe in 2006, for how EU governments should regulate coexistence on national territories, instead of the current non-binding guidelines. Now, her rhetoric seems to have faded. "There seems to be a lack of urgency among some of the Commissioners to address some of the problems," said Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner at lobby group Friends of the Earth Europe.
"They (Commission )... know they're not going to get support from the majority of member states so they're just playing a long game now," he said.
Apart from the WTO case, another factor that may force the EU to take a firmer stance on biotechnology - either for or against - will be the Commission's reviews of some of the EU's plethora of GMO laws, due sometime next year.
"The Commission will be under quite a lot of pressure to publish its review of the existing regulatory regime by the summer," the diplomat said.
"The pressure is building all the time for a serious debate and there's a limit as to how long they (Commission) can resist the pressure," he said. "There's a serious debate on GMOs coming and that should kick off sometime in the middle of next year."
2 December 2005
Dither over GM crop stance hit
Irish Independent, 2 December 2005. By Deaglá°n de Brádán. The Government has been slammed for saying it won't take a firm stand against genetically-modified crops when European environment ministers meet in Brussels today.
Environment Minister Dick Roche told a Dail committee yesterday that Ireland will abstain when a proposal to approve the importation of a hybrid maize product is voted on by EU ministers.
The maize is not intended for animal feed, food or for cultivation.
However, Green Party TD Ciaran Cuffe criticised the government's weak stance on the issue.
1 December 2005
Give us the right to ban GM foods!
Friends of the Earth Europe press release, Brussels, December 1st 1005.
Friends of the Earth Europe is calling on EU Environment Ministers to allow Europeans to ban GM foods and crops, similar to the example of Switzerland, which banned GM crops and food earlier this week. Ministers at the EU Environment Council will tomorrow discuss GMO (genetically modified organisms) policy in the EU.
The Network of GMO free Regions held their annual conference in Brittany, France on Tuesday and Wednesday this week [1]. The Network is calling for EU Regions' rights to decide on GMOs and to develop sustainable agriculture and quality food. Throughout Europe, 165 Regions and 4500 local gov and smaller zones have declared themselves GMO free [2].
Opinion polls throughout the EU consistently show 70-80% of citizens opposed to GMOs. Studies in the US and Canada, where GMOs are grown extensively, indicate that GM crops do not produce higher yields, are leading to an increase in pesticide use, and are contaminating conventional and organic crops [3].
The European Commission has recently authorized two GM maize and one GM oilseed rape [4] despite a majority of Member States voting against or abstaining. Futhermore, the EU regulatory procedure has serious shortcomings: scientific evidence used as the basis for authorizing GMOs, much of which is not made publicly available, is not independent, and the legal requirements for the assessment of long term effects on the environment and on human health are not being met.
Helen Holder, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said: "Swiss people are allowed to ban genetically modified food and agriculture, so why can't the rest of us? Virtually no-one in EU wants GM food, and EU Ministers tomorrow should give Regions and citizens the right to ban these foods. The EU regulatory framework for GMOs is neither democratic nor transparent, and the legal requirements for risk assessment are not being met."
For further information:
Helen Holder +324 74 857 638
Adrian Bebb +49 160 949 01163
NOTES:
[1] http://www.gmofree-europe.org/NetworkofGMOfree_regions.htm
[2] http://www.gmofree-europe.org/
[3] "GM Crops Have Failed", December 2001, Lim Li Ching and Jonathan Matthews: http://www.i-sis.org/GMcropsfailed.php and Benbrook, C.M. (2003), Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: the First Eight Years. AgBioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 6: http://www.biotech-info.net/technicalpaper6.html
[4] http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/pending/approvals_timetable_Nov05.pdf
GM crops 'not risky for humans but could be for nature'
Irish Independent, 1 December 2005, by Aideen Sheehan. Genetic modification of crops is not morally objectionable and holds a great deal of promise, as well as some risks, an Irish thinktank has concluded.
The health risks of eating GM foodstuffs are very low but the environmental risks of growing GM crops are more difficult to estimate, although they should be managed carefully to avoid them spreading irreversibly in Ireland, the Irish Council for Bioethics has found.
The technology should not be abandoned at this stage but must be developed in a cautious and gradual manner, with full information made available to consumers, the Council concluded in a lengthy study of the controversial system of food production.
The Council is a government-funded body of expert scientists and philosophers which advises on ethical issues surrounding new technologies and its report on GM crops was led by Professor Peter Whittaker of the Institute of Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy at Lancaster University in the UK.
It urged a case-by-case assessment of the likely impact of each GM crop, because concerns would vary according to the plant, the type of modification and the way it was cultivated.
"The Council has concluded that an ethical approach to the development of a new and potentially beneficial technology that poses some risk would not be to abandon the technology but to progress it in a cautious and stepwise manner," the study said.
The individual autonomy of consumers and farmers could be protected through adequate labelling and measures to allow conventional and GM crops co-exist.
The Council also called calledfor public research into GM crop development to be targeted at the needs of developing countries.
30 November 2005
Austria to launch EU-wide GMO debate after Swiss referendum
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS, 29.11.2005. By Lucia Kubosova. Austria is planning to hold a pan-European debate about genetically-modified (GM) farming, following strong Swiss support for a five-year ban on gene technology in a referendum on Sunday (27 November ).
Vienna will take over the EU's six-month rotating presidency in January and aims to host a conference about GM crops on 4-5 April, the country's agriculture minister Josef Proell has announced.
Austria is one of the staunchest opponents of GM technology in the EU and is sticking to its own ban on modified plants within its territory.
Along with Italy, Austrian authorities indicated they view the Swiss vote as strong proof of the European public's opposition to GM farming.
Although Switzerland is not a member state of the EU, the result of the referendum will "make people think," Italian agriculture minister Gianni Alemanno commented.
Swiss citizens supported a five-year moratorium on the farming of genetically modified plants and animals, paving the way for introduction of the toughest restrictions yet in Europe.
Over 55 percent of voters backed the moratorium, with a majority supporting the move in all 26 of the country's regions or "cantons."
The decision forces the Swiss government to impose a full moratorium on the cultivation of GM crops and the import of animals whose genes have been modified in the laboratory, despite officials' pro-GM feeling.
But the new law will not forbid import of genetically modified food or ban research into GMOs (genetically-modified organisms ).
EU battle
Swiss campaigners say they co-operated with groups from the EU and expect the Swiss result to generate strong popular backing for similar moves across the EU.
But the biotechnology sector fears that a Europe-wide anti-GMO trend could stifle research.
The European Commission declined to comment on the result of the Swiss vote on Monday, but confirmed it would study its implications for future trade relations with the Alpine federation.
The EU executive last year lifted a six-year moratorium on the sale of GM foods.
Some of the bloc's member states, like Spain, the UK and the Netherlands argue that Europe has sufficient safeguards in place and should move ahead on GM farming.
But several other countries insist new tests must be carried out before allowing widespread farming of GM crops.
Spain is currently the only EU country with large areas given over to GM crops.
Greenpeace seeks total ban on field trials of GE food crops
News.WebIndia123.com. New Delhi, November 29, 2005. Greenpeace has demanded a total ban on all field trials of genetic engineering food crops aimed at preventing it from entering the food chains in the country and also unveiled the 'biohazard hotspots map' of India revealing the shocking scale of field trials of Genetically Engineering (GE) of food crops.
After meeting the Health Minister Dr Anbumani Ramadoss today, Greenpeace GE Campaigner Divya Raghunandan told reporters here that ''Greenpeace activists have sought urgent intervention of the Minister to ban all field trials of GE Food crops in the country.'' The Greenpeace expressed concerns on various revelations occurred during trials in the foreign countries which were dangerous to health.
The map, a result of Greenpeace investigations revealed that 21 vegetables including brinjal, cabbage, tomato, cereals including kabuli channa and pigeon peas and fruits like banana, musk melon and water melon are being genetically engineered in at least 26 institutions in 16 cities, she added.
"The Australian research clearly demonstrates that GE is a dangerous technology. Unexpected and unpredicted effects can occur with far reaching implications to the environment, animal and human health. Our wheat, pigeon pea and chick pea is exposed to rsearch and similar genes and the Ministry of Health must prevail upon the Ministry of Science and Technology to abandon this and other such irresponsible experiments," said Ms Raghunandan.
The presumption of safety with foreign genes in our food is dangerous. Instead of taking a precautionary approach, the scale and scope of research on GMOs in the country suggests that the government would soon allow commercial cultivation of these dangerous foods, the Greenpeace Campaigner said and added, "If urgent action is not taken, it is feared that within two years the government will allow atleast one of these crops to be sold in the markets." She also said "lack of transparency is preventive effective public scrutiny. Public health is at risk and the government must make available all data from all institutions, including private ones on health and safety impacts of rsearch on GMOs for public scrutiny by independent scientists."
The 2004 Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) clearly states that "various uncertainties exist regarding the safety of these foods, because there is limited scientific evidence regarding their toxicity or health risks, the methodology used for assessing the risk is not robust enough or sensitive enough and the molecular and genetic effects of the technology are unpredictable in nature," Ms Raghunandan said.
She urged the Ministries of Health and Science and Technology that the New Biotech Policy should be reoriented to focus on biosafety concerns and risks to health caused by GE foods.
29 November 2005
Western Australia to fund independent health testing on GM foods
State GM study splits farmers
The West Australian, 28 November 2005. The State Government has announced it will fund laboratory testing on rats to determine the safety of genetically modified food crops, sparking a rift between farming groups. Agriculture Minister Kim Chance said most GM research in Australia was done by or funded by companies with a vested interest in promoting GM food, prompting community concern about its safety. Mr Chance said the study by Adelaide's Institute of Health and Environmental Research would give the Government independent data. But the announcement has divided farming groups.
Anti-GM lobby group Network of Concerned Farmers welcomed the decision, but WAFarmers fears the announcement will stall the formation of a high-level advisory group to examine a path for commercialised genetically modified crops in WA. Concerned Farmers spokeswoman Julie Newman said an independent study was vital considering GM crops could not be recalled if they later proved dangerous." We cannot rely on voluntary testing done by companies focused on promoting GM crops," Mrs Newman said. "They only give the public information that supports their case and are unlikely to release any information that would damage their ultimate goal of having GM crops in Australia."
WAFarmers president Trevor DeLandgrafft suspects the study will duplicate testing already done. "At the end of the day, all testing has to get past the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, which is a Federal office for determining the safety of foods," Mr De Landgrafft said." It may be useful, in that it could allay fears in the minds of people who don't trust existing studies but may trust an independent study." If it did this it could be useful, but it could end up just duplicating other studies and be a means of stalling the formation of the high-level advisory group."
A spokesman for Mr Chance said the Minister was committed to the high-level group and expected to announce the committee this week. The study will involve two initial trials on three GM corn varieties and two canola varieties given approval for commercial planting in Australia. It will examine rats for cancerous and pre-cancerous growths and assess the potential for GM DNA to enter the animals' body.
GM crops highly dangerous, warn Austrian campaigners
Vienna, Nov 28, 2005. Genetically modified crops have the potential to wreak economic havoc on farmers, Austrian campaigners told a press conference Monday, warning that the development was the "biggest danger of our time".
One day after a Swiss referendum in which 55 percent of people voted against planting GMOs, Austrian campaigners insisted the rejection rate would have been 70 percent in Austria.
"But we're not allowed to vote," protested organic farmers' spokesman Volker Helldorff. "The European Union is forcing us to GMOS against the will of the population," he added.
In 1997, a total of 1.2 million Austrians signed a petition against GMOs.
"GMO technology serves to enrich gene seed firms. Everyone else comes to harm," said Helldorff, citing the example of farmers in Iraq who were urged to burn their seeds, and instead use gene-manipulated products from the US firm Monsanto.
There was adequate proof of the dangers, he insisted. He cited the example of the first "gene farmer" in Germany, who fed his cattle GM maize and watched the entire herd of more than 60 cows "wither away and die".
The reason was that with each kilogramme of "gene-maize", the animals had eaten 8.3 nanogrammes of insecticide. "Gene technology is the biggest danger of our time," Helldorf warned.
Richard Tomasch, founder and spokesman of the anti-gene pressure group "Pro Leben", warned of the irreversibility of gene manipulation.
He spoke of so-called "terminator plants" which destroys the ability of seeds to germinate.
In India, planting gene-altered cotton had led to "catastrophic harvest losses which drove thousands of farmers to ruin and suicide", Tomasch said.
In Argentina, the population suffered hunger because genetically modified soya destined for export had cut back the planting of traditional foods, he said.
Swiss back GM moratorium
swissinfo, November 27, 2005. Voters have given their approval to a five-year ban on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Swiss agriculture - including crops, trees and livestock.
Final results show 55.7 per cent of voters approved a people's initiative put forward by environmentalists and consumers groups for a temporary ban on GMOs in agriculture.
All 26 cantons came out in favour of the moratorium.
It is a rare occurrence in Swiss politics for a people's initiative to be passed in a nationwide ballot. To do so it requires a majority of the popular vote and the backing of more than half the cantons.
Turnout was average at 42 per cent.
Consumers and research
Supporters of the moratorium, mainly from the political centre-left, said their victory proved the power of the alliance between environmentalists, consumer organisations and farmers.
In their campaign they had argued that GMOs are neither in the interest of consumers nor of Swiss farmers, and that a moratorium is an opportunity for farmers to improve their marketing of organic products.
The government, the business community as well as the main centre-right and rightwing parties were all against the temporary ban. They said the current law contains enough safety guarantees and a ban could be detrimental to biotechnology research in the country.
Campaigners for a moratorium said they were not opposed to research but wanted more time to consider the potential risks of GMOs.
NEW EVIDENCE OF HARM FROM GM FOOD TRIGGERS CALL FOR IMMEDIATE BAN
UK Government and EC accused of criminal negligence and willful suppression of facts
GM Free Cymru Press Notice 25th November 2005. Three new studies of the health effects of GM foods have triggered fresh demands for GM components in human food and animal feed to be banned immediately, and have also led to accusations of criminal negligence aimed at the UK Government and European Commission.
The first of the studies, conducted by Russian scientist Irina Ermakova, showed that an astounding 55% of the offspring of rats fed on GM soya died within three weeks of birth, compared with only 9% in the control group (1 ).Ý The second, conducted by Manuela Malatesta and colleagues in the Universities of Pavia and Urbino in Italy, showed that mice fed on GM soya experienced a slowdown in cellular metabolism and modifications to liver and pancreas (2 ).Ý And the third study, conducted byÝCSIRO in Australia, showed that the introduction of genes from a bean variety into a GM pea led to the creation of a novel protein which caused inflammation of the lung tissue of mice (3 ).Ý So serious was the damage that the research was halted, and stocks of the GM pea have been destroyed.Ý The developers have now made a commitment that the "rogue" variety will never be marketed.
These studies, all revealed in the scientific literatureÝwithin the past few weeks, have caused widespread alarm throughout the world, since two of them suggest that GM soya (used in a large number of foods) might be very dangerous, and since they appear to confirm the findings of Dr Arpad Pusztai and Dr Stanley Ewen, whose paper on physiological changes in rats fed on GM potatoes caused a worldwide sensation in 1999 (4 ).Ý The authors were given the full "shoot the messenger" treatment;Ý they were widely vilified by the scientific community, and following an intervention from the office of Prime Minister Tony Blair Dr Pusztai was sacked, his research team was dismantled, and his funding stopped.Ý The Ewen/Pusztai research has never been repeated, let alone extended, for fear that their results will also be replicated. And there has never been a comprehensive human feeding trial involving GM food.
There is now overwhelming evidence in the literature of deaths attributable to GM products -- among laboratory and farm animals and in the human population.Ý Some of this evidence is presented below.Ý And yet the GM industry, and the UK and EC regulators who are charged with the protection of the public, seem to live in a permanent state of denial reminiscent of that of the early days of the smoking/health debate.Ý Despite opposition from European Member States, the European Commission appears to be intent upon issuing one contentious and dangerous GM authorization after another,ÝandÝbasing its decisions upon highly selective and biased research by the applicants themselves, while taking guidance from a despised European Food Safety Authority which has lost the confidence of NGOs and consumer groups across Europe.Ý
Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said today:Ý "Neither the UK government nor the European Commission can pretend any longer that GM foods are harmless.Ý They must stop singing from the hymn-sheets provided for them by the GM industry,Ý and -- not before time -- recognize that they have a legal duty to protect residents and consumers.Ý In our view they are already guilty of criminal negligence and the willful suppression of facts.Ý There must be no further GM consents, and GM foodstuffs must be banned immediately -- at least until such time that independent research on animals and humans gives GM a clean bill of health (24 ).Ý We already know enough to be confident that that will never happen (25 )."
Professor Malcolm Hooper (20) said:Ý "The genetic modification to food is not without danger to the consumer who may be affected by genetic changes that subsequently lead toÝ serious chronic illnesses (cancer and chronic inflammatory disease ). Further independent studies, divorced from any influence of government orÝ corporations, are now imperative and urgent."
Prof Vyvyan Howard (21) said: "We need to change the focus of the debate away from the limited studies that have been done to date onto the size of the irreversible legacy that we are probably going to leave for future generations."
ENDS
Contact:
Dr Brian John, GM Free Cymru, tel + 44 1239-820470
Briefing note:
OTHER EVIDENCE OF HARM
In spite of concerted efforts from the GM industry and from the political establishment to prevent truly independent research on the health effects of GM food, there is now a mass of information in the public domain to demonstrate that such food is potentially dangerous.Ý We will never know how many GM varieties have been developed and then quietly abandoned before reaching the regulatory process as a result of deaths or physiological damage during animal feeding trials, since studies by Monsanto, Syngenta and the other GM corporations are conducted in-house and under conditions of great secrecy.Ý But we do know of at least seven cases where GM varieties have been withdrawn because of direct evidence of health damage (5) (6) (7);Ý and there are many instances of human and animal deaths arising from GM feeding trials and premature release onto the market of GM products (8-12 ).
In the most deadly case of all, the premature release of the GM food supplement L-tryptophan in the USA led to a large number of human deaths (estimates range from 39 to well over 100) and to the development of a new disease (referred to as eosinophilia myalgia syndrome, or EMS) which afflicted up to 10,000 people (8 ).Ý When StarLink maize (intended and only approved for animal fodder) found its way into the US human food chain in 2000, there was a massive food scare when it was realized that it was potentially capable of triggering severe allergic reactions;Ý the crop was recalled (far too late), and $9 million had to be paid out in compensation (6 ).Ý People may well have died, but the medical impact of the Starlink fiasco is a closely-guarded secret. In Hesse, Germany, 12 dairy cows died in 2001-2002 after eating GM fodder maize Bt176, which contains the Cry1Ab protein (11 ).Ý When broiler chickens were fed on a diet of Chardon LL (T25) maize, the mortality rate was twice as high as that of the control group.Ý That fodder maize variety has now been withdrawn.Ý When the infamous Flavr-Savr GM tomato was tested, 7 out of 40 rats died within two weeks due to necrosis (5 ).Ý In the case of the GM bovine growth hormone known as rBGH or BST Monsanto has persistently attempted toÝ promote its use in spite of abundant evidence of cattle deaths and attributable problems including mastitis (10 ).Ý Allergic reactions among farm workers have been preliminarily linked to Monsanto Bt maize and Bt cotton in the Philippines (2004) and India (2005), respectively (14 ).
In 2005 Monsanto was heavily criticised across the world for the obsessive secrecy with which it sought to keep animal feeding studies for MON863 maize out of the public domain (6 ).Ý The company even insisted on a "gagging order" on Dr Arpad Pusztai, the scientist retained by the German Government to assess the scientific dossier submitted with the Monsanto authorization application to the EU.Ý The study found "statistically significant" differences to kidney weights andÝ 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.Ý There was particular concern in France, where Prof Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen had been trying (without success) for almost eighteen months to obtain full disclosure of all documents relating to the MON863 study.Ý At last, it required a resolute campaign from NGOs and a German court order to obtain the release of the study, which was then revealed to have been highly selective, and carefully designed to minimize negative health effects.
There have still been virtually no studies of the impact of GM food consumption on human health.Ý But in one small study, referred to as the "Newcastle Feeding Study", showed in 2003 that even after one small meal containing a GM soya component, transgenes could transfer out of GM food into gut bacteria at detectable levels (15 ).Ý The study was commissioned by the FSA in the UK, and that body (which has consistently promoted the merits of GM food) was so frightened by the implications of the result that it has refused absolutely to commission any repeat or follow-up studies in spite of a flood of requests from NGOs and consumer groups.
AÝ CONSPIRACY OF FALSEHOOD
During the past decade, as the giantÝ biotechnology corporations have extended their power base and have taken over the role as the prime funders of GM research, politicians worldwide have been happy to promote the merits of biotechnology and to believe almost everything fed to them by the spin-doctors of Monsanto, Syngenta and other companies.Ý They have blindly promoted the interests of these corporations in spite of on-going and vociferous opposition from the public -- and from concerned NGOs and consumer groups.Ý Public opinion polls consistently show large majorities in Europe who are opposed to the use of GMOs in food supplies.Ý Independent scientists who have had the temerity to question the objectivity of studies submitted with applications for GM approvals, or who have themselves published "uncomfortable" research, have been victimised, marginalised and "warned off" further involvement with community groups.Ý The conclusion is inescapable that the British Government, and the EC, subscribe to a corrupt scientific system which is based upon the following contract:Ý "we tell you in advance what the result is, and you will be paid to get on with your work and provide us with the evidence we need".
For at least ten years the industry has consistently peddled the line that nobody has ever died or even been harmed as a result of consuming GM products.Ý That is a lie, and it is still a lie if it is repeated a thousand times.Ý These are typical reproductions of the lie:
Eliott Morley, Environment Minister:Ý "In terms of existing products there has never been any indication that there is a health risk."
Dr Christopher Preston: "Many studies have been published since 2002 and all have reported no negative impact of feeding GM feed to the test species."
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.html CSIRO plant industry deputy director T. J. Higgins:Ý "People have been eating GM food for 10 years and there isn't a single piece of evidence that it's any less safe than conventional food."
SIGNS OF PANIC
There are signs that the new studies of damage inflicted by GM foodstuffs is spreading panic in the corridors of power.Ý That is why representatives of the President of the EC rang up Manuela Malatesta and her colleagues in Italy.Ý That is why there is growing mistrust between the European Parliament and EFSA, which has a long reputation for "facilitating GM approvals" instead of protecting the European public.Ý That is why EFSA has been forced to hold a stakeholders meeting (17) and to accept a barrage of criticism from NGOs and consumer groups furious with its secrecy, its complacency and its easy acceptance of all the evidence placed before it by Monsanto and other GM corporations (18 ).Ý That is why the FAO organized an invitation-only workshop in its Rome HQ in October 2005 with 12 invited scientists, in order to assess the likelihood of health damage in the general population arising from the spread of GM foods.Ý Dr Stanley Ewen, a practicing consultant histopathologist at Grampian University Hospital Trust, was invited to give the opening presentation.Ý He subsequently said:Ý " We laid down a definitive protocol for the testing of GM food using animals and, indeed, humans. However, Dr Harry Kuiper of the European Food Safety Authority made it quite clear that his organisation was content to accept the results of "objective studies" carried out by the GMÝcompanies.Ý I am concerned that such objectiveÝstudies are still only being developed.Ý Additionally, that the EFSA will only commission animal experiments if there were serious molecular differences between the parent protein and the genetically modified protein.Ý Then there would seem to be the question of who would fund such experiments and where would they be carried out?Ý I firmly believe that there continues to be an urgent need for independent animal and human testing."
We understand from others present at that meeting that there was a consensus that there are many gaps in scientific knowledge, particularly related to GM health risks, and thatÝnew work on such risks must be commissioned at the earliest opportunity;Ý but that Dr Kuiper, on behalf of EFSA, effectively refused to sanction such new work and refused to commit funding to it.Ý As far as he is concerned, he is blind to any ill-effects arising from the consumption of GM foods, and he is also content to continue leading the blind European Commissioners who foolishly depend on him for guidance.
COMMENTS
Responding to the three new GM studies, and to the avalanche of new work demonstrating that GM foods are actually harmful to human beings and other animals, Dr Michael Antoniou (22) said:Ý "If the kind of detrimental effects seen in animals fed GM food were observed in a clinical setting, the use of the product would have been halted and further research instigated to determine the cause and find possible solutions. However, what we find repeatedly in the case of GM food is that both governments and industry plough on ahead with the development, endorsement and marketing GM foods despite the warnings of potential ill health from animal feeding studies, as if nothing has happened.Ý This is to the point where governments and industry even seem to ignore the results of their own research! There is clearly a need more than ever before for independentÝ research into the potential ill effects of GM food including most importantly extensive animal and human feeding trials." (24)Ý
Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said:Ý "With news of these three studies, we have come to the inescapable conclusion that there is something seriously wrong with GM food.Ý Any averagely intelligent person must also come to that conclusion.Ý We think that GM soya is particularly dangerous.Ý The GM industry,Ý the regulatory authorities in Britain and Europe, and the politicians who are supposed to look after us, have been living in a permanent state of denial about GM ever since Arpad Pusztai and Stanley Ewen published their Lancet paper in 1999.Ý If they persist in the pretence that all is well in the GM garden for a moment longer, they will compound their criminal negligence and their willful suppression of facts (23 ).Ý They have already lost the trust of the present generation of consumers;Ý if they continue to treat the protection of biotechnology multinationals as a greater priority than the protection of consumer health they will be guilty of a deliberate and cynical betrayal of the interests of future generations.Ý We want nothing less than an immediate ban on all GM crops, all GM food and all GM animal feed."
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1.Ý See Jeffrey Smith: fully referenced article in "Spilling the Beans," Oct 2005: http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=299 The study was a preliminary study and has not yet been peer-reviewed and published by the author. But her results were so worrying to independent scientists that dissemination became imperative.
2.Ý Manuela Malatesta and her colleagues have published five papers 2002-2004. http://www.greenplanet.net/Articolo9833.html&prev=/search?q=Manuela+Malatesta&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=G Mangiare OGM non fa differenza? Non proprio....... Abstracts of the papers can be found here: http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/GMfeedsafetypapers.html
3.ÝStudy conducted by theÝCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jafcau/2005/53/i23/abs/jf050594v.html
New Scientist article: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8347
4.Ý Ewen SWB, Pusztai A (1999) Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354:1353-1354
5.Ý The Flavr-Savr tomato was withdrawn in 1996, amid claims that it was a commercial failure.Ý So was another variety called Endless Summer. But trials of the Flavr-Savr tomato showed there were health concerns which contributed to the "commercial" decision. http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/0/80256cad0046ee0c80256d1f005b0ce5?OpenDocument
6.Ý The StarLink maize fiasco occurred in 2000and is well documented.Ý See also:Ý http://www.i-sis.org.uk/biotechdebacle_updated.php
7.Ý A new GM soya was developed, containing genes from Brazil nuts (1996 ).Ý A novel protein was accidentally created which had the potential to affect people with nut allergies -- so the GM soya was withdrawn: http://www.health24.com/dietnfood/Food_causing_disease/15-737-740,32410.asp
8. As a consequence of the L-tryptophan scandal (1989) there were c 100 deathsÝ (Jeffrey Smith ).Ý See these: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?ObjectID=283&find=L%2Dtryptophan
www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/index.cfm
9.Ý Fares NH, El-Sayed AK. 1998. Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on delta-endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Nat Toxins. 6:219-33.
10.Ý The rBGH bovine growth hormone (BST) has been promoted globally by Monsanto in the full knowledge of science showing damage to both cattle and those who consume the milk of cows treated with rBGH. http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?ObjectID=193&find=BST
11.Ý The deaths of cattle in Hesse, Germany, have been linked with Bt176 maize, but there appear to have been determined efforts to "lose" key scientific information and to attribute the cattle deaths to mismanagement and other factors. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CAGMMAD.php
12.Ý Broiler chickens fed on Chardon LL -- the mortality rate was twice as high as that of the control group (NB the infamous case of Prof Alan Gray of ACRE and the failure of that Committee to examine evidence placed before it........) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/appeal.php
13.Ý Rats fed on Chardon LL -- weight gain was much reduced http://www.i-sis.org.uk/appeal.php
14.Ý The work of the Norwegian scientist Terje Traavik and his colleagues is on-going and has still to be published.Ý But see: "Filipino islanders blame GM crop for mystery sickness. Monsanto denies scientist's claim that maize may have caused 100 villagers to fall ill" -- John Aglionby in Kalyong, southern Philippines, The Guardian, Wednesday 3 March 3, 2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1160789,00.html
Allergic reactions and cattle deaths 2005 attributable to Bt cotton In India (Madhya Pradesh): http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=170692&cat=Health
15.Ý The Newcastle feeding study (published 2003)Ý involved a small portion of GM soya fed to just seven ileostomy patients: http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/statement
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=990
Comments by Dr Michael Antoniou http://www.gmwatch.org/print-archive2.asp?arcid=143
16.Ý Re the Monsanto rat feeding study on MON863 maize, which the company was desperate to keep out of the public domain (2004): http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=221
GeneticallyÝ Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-up, by Jeffrey M.Ý Smith http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=640430
http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gmo_opinions/381_en.html
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5270
17.Ý See this for the Stakeholders Meeting: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5804
18.Ý See, for example: http://eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/gmo/Bt11reportOct05.pdf
19.Ý Workshop on Safety of Genetically Modified Foods held at FAO Headquarters, Rome, 13 - 14 October ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/meetings/2005/gm_workshop_info.pdf
20.Ý Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry, School of Sciences, University of Sunderland, UK.
21.Ý Professor of Bioimaging,Ý School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Ulster, Coleraine campus.
22.Ý Reader in Medical and Molecular Genetics, King's College London
23.Ý The regulatory system for GM crops and foodstuffs is a disgrace, and needs to be scrapped and replaced.Ý The GM authorizations process in both Europe and the USA is underpinned by the scientifically nonsensical concept of "substantial equivalence", by which a cow with BSE would be considered to be "substantially equivalent" to one without.Ý Further, the authorities depend almost exclusively upon the "science" submitted by the biotechnology corporations with their applications, which is almost always partial and selective.Ý In other words, it is corrupt.Ý Again, the regulatory process is designed - quite specifically - to facilitate authorizations rather than to protect the consumer.Ý The regulatory bodies themselves are packed with placements from the GM industry -- people whose very careers depend upon a continuation of the GM enterprise.Ý The precautionary principle, which is supposed to underpin the regulatory process, has now been effectively replaced by the "anti-precautionary principle", by which GMs are assumed to be harmless unless opponents can prove otherwise, on a variety-specific basis.Ý But independent scientists cannot undertake effective research because the genetic constructs of new GM varieties are closely guarded secrets, and because governments will not fund their studies.Ý And finally, in Europe at least, the Commission is more concerned about politics than science, and is determined to issue GM authorizations, come hell or high water, just to show the Americans and the WTO that there is no GM moratorium in place.
24. Letters have now gone from GM Free Cymru to the UK Food Standards Agency and to the European Food Safety Authority demanding the initiation of an urgent programme of independent research into the health effects of GM food, on the lines discussed at the recent unpublicised FOA meeting in Rome. Copies of these letters are available on request.
25. According to a letter received 24.11.05 from Arpad Pusztai, "A consistent feature of all the studies done, published or unpublished, including MON863, indicates major problems with changes in the immune status of animals fed on various GM crops/foods, the latest example of this coming from the GM pea research in Australia."
Corporates gain control over nature's seeds as the Terminator patent is granted
Amsterdam, 25 October 2005 - Greenpeace today exposed details that the patent for the controversial "Terminator technology" was granted in Europe on 5 October 2005. The Terminator patent (1) has been approved for all plants that are genetically engineered so that their seeds will not germinate. Further research by the "Ban Terminator Campaign", a network of farmers' unions and environmental organisations revealed that a patent was also granted in Canada on 11 October 2005.
Plants created using Terminator technology will produce sterile seeds, creating a monopoly and unnatural control of the seeds. Farmers will not be able to use seeds from such plants for the following season's cultivation. The seeds will rot in the soil without producing new plants. If this technology is introduced in crops such as soya, wheat, canola and cotton it will force farmers to buy new seeds every year from the same company.
"Farmers should be aware that corporations all over the world are ready to take control of their seeds with genetic engineering (GE ). These corporations will control the entire food chain with the help of monopoly patents and Terminator technology," said Christoph Then, Greenpeace International GE campaigner. "We need a global ban on this technology and on any patents on seeds. These corporate instruments will disrupt the backbone of global food supply, making it impossible for the farmers to reuse their own harvest for planting."
So far, the market introduction of the Terminator technology-which was already developed about ten years ago-was successfully prevented through worldwide protest of several groups and stakeholders. But many observers believe that the GE industry will drive towards the legalisation of this technology at the meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in March next year. The grant of the patent could push even harder for market introduction.
"These new patents confirm that corporations are once again actively pursuing Terminator technology and an international ban on the technology is urgently needed," said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the new global Ban Terminator Campaign, which involves farmers unions, environmental and Indigenous people organisations (2 ).
Although the GE industry claims that Terminator technology will help contain the spread of GE contamination, Greenpeace believes otherwise. "GE technology can not be controlled by Terminator seeds. On the contrary, it is likely that farmers will find their harvest being contaminated with this Terminator technology, if introduced. This is a real threat for estimated 80% of the farmers all over the world who save their seeds for cultivation."
Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organisation that uses non-violent creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems to force solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
For further information, contact:
Christoph Then, Greenpeace International GE Campaign, +49 171 8780832
Judit Kalovits, Greenpeace International Communications, +31 621 296914
Lucy Sharatt, Ban Terminator Campaign, +1 613 2412267, mobile: +1 613 2226214
Notes to Editors:
(1) The Terminator patent, EP 775212B, was granted to US-based Delta &Pine and the United States of America, represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. According to further data bank research the patent was already granted in similar versions in USA, further applications were filed in Australia, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Turkey and South Africa.
(2) http://www.banterminator.org
24 November 2005
Denmark may compensate for GMO contamination -EU
BRUSSELS, Nov 23 (Reuters) - Denmark became the first European Union country on Wednesday to win EU permission to compensate farmers who have detected genetically modified (GMO) material in traditional or organic crops, the EU executive said.
Denmark's parliament last year approved a tough law on GMO co-existence, EU jargon for how farmers should separate the three farming types -- GMO, organic and conventional/traditional -- and minimise cross-contamination.
It was the first EU state to pass such a law, which was steered through parliament by Mariann Fischer Boel, then Danish agriculture minister but now EU agriculture commissioner.
"This is the first case where the (European) Commission has authorised such state aid," the Commission said in a statement. Officials said the amount concerned was a little less than one million euros ($1.18 million ).
"The admixture of conventional crops with GM material may cause economic losses to the farmer with conventional crops if his products have to be labelled as containing GM material and he gets a lower price for them," it said.
Danish authorities will first pay out the compensation, and then recover the amount paid from the farmer from whose fields the GMO material has spread.
In line with EU laws on GMO traceability and labelling, compensation will only be granted to farmers if the presence of GMO material exceeds 0.9 percent.
This must also be limited to the price difference between the market price of a crop that has to be labelled as containing GMO material and a crop for which no such labelling is required.
Denmark's law obliges farmers planning to grow GMO crops to pay a fee, per sown hectare, into a fund that would compensate conventional farmers whose crops might become contaminated.
The idea is to replace the compensation fund, due to run for five years, by private insurance when it becomes available.
GMO farmers in Denmark must also inform neighbouring farmers of their plans and ensure mandatory separation distances. But they only have to pay out compensation if the rules are broken.
Biotechnology remains an extremely controversial area for the EU, even after it lifted its unofficial ban in May 2004 on authorising new GMOs by approving a modified sweet maize type to be sold in cans for human consumption.
For many EU countries, especially anti-GMO diehards such as Austria, Greece and Luxembourg, it is essential to clarify the issue of coexistence -- but with EU-wide, not national, laws.
Fischer Boel has often said she will look into an EU-wide law and indicated this may be proposed after an EU conference on coexistence scheduled to be held in Vienna in April.
Wine industry advice is 'no' to GMO
Australian Wine Research Institute press release, 23 November 200. Genetically modified wine yeasts have arrived on the North American market; what does this mean for the Australian industry?
Until now, the GMO debate has largely been academic for Australian grape growers and winemakers but this is likely to change: Springer Oenologie (a division of Lesaffre Yeast Corporation) has released the first GM wine yeast, known as ML01, to the North American market.
For the time being release of ML01 to the North American market should make little or no difference to what is done in Australia; this yeast has not been approved for use in this country. Before GMOs (and GMO-derived products) can be used in food production or processing in Australia they are subjected to prescribed risk assessments and there is considerable public consultation required during this process.
In addition to this, even if a GM yeast was to get through the above approvals processes, it still would not be used to make wine in Australia; at least not at this time. The Australian wine industry's position on the application of gene technology in grape and wine production is: ... that no genetically modified organisms be used in the production of Australian wine. The reason for this is not that the industry is anti-GM but rather that it acknowledges the importance of safety and public acceptance before adopting any new technology in wine production. The industry takes the view that: ' ... there are potentially great benefits in employing gene technology ... ' however ' ... the industry is also conscious of the need for safety, openness and quality assurance in any use of gene technology'.
In this context it is important to note that U.S. legislation does not require labeling to notify the consumer that Springer Oenologie's ML01 yeast is a GMO. Therefore it is important for Australian winemakers to be vigilant in case some ML01 does find its way here.
Whether the Australian wine industry's position on use of GMOs in winemaking is likely to change in the foreseeable future depends on the balance between risks and benefits associated with using such yeasts and whether local and overseas markets are seen to be ready to accept wines that have been made using GMOs.
What are the risks associated with using ML01? In terms of health risks there should be none. The two foreign genes incorporated into the wine yeast to make it MLF-competent come from organisms that are typically associated with foods and/or beverages. One comes from the yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe, which is found in many alcoholic beverages, and the other comes from O. oeni, which is used routinely in the wine industry for MLF. A great deal of work has been done to show that the two genes are stable in their new background and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration designated it a GRAS (generally recognised as safe) organism in their response to Lesaffre's submission to that office (although it should be pointed out that 'GRAS' is not recognised as a global standard ).
It would seem from balancing some of the more obvious risks and benefits associated with the use of ML01, that having access to this yeast might be a good thing for Australian winemakers. However, even if ML01 was to be approved by Australian authorities for use in this country, public acceptance of GMOs in domestic and overseas markets remains a major hurdle, and until the industry can be assured of this it will toe a cautious line. Thus, for now it is important to adhere to the Australian Wine Industry's position that no genetically modified organisms be used in the production of Australian wine.
Further information:
Dr Paul Chambers, Principal Molecular Biologist, The Australian Wine Research Institute Telephone: 08 8303 6600; email: paul.chambers@awri.com.au
or
Rae Blair, Manager - Communication and Information Services, The Australian Wine Research Institute Telephone: 08 8303 6600; email: rae.blair@awri.com.au
21 November 2005
NGO findings on Bt cotton raise a stink
Financial Express, India, 16 November 15. NEW DELHI: Reacting strongly to the studies done by a network of local NGOs reporting failures of Bt cotton crops in parts of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, the Delhi-based Gene Campaign has called for legal action against the regulatory body for approving these crops for commercial cultivation.
The Gene Campaign convenor, Dr Suman Sahai, in a Press statement said: "Legal action under the Environment Protection Act should be instituted against members of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) for criminal negligence and willful suppression of facts in the Bt cotton case, leading to grave economic losses to the farming community, resulting in several instances of farmers' suicides."
Dr Sahai said a number of studies conducted by some agencies, including government departments, have reported over the last three to four years that Bt cotton had failed in many regions and farmers suffered huge losses. GEAC had so far not taken any action in this regard, she alleged.
Dr Sahai also mentioned that a study conducted by the Nagpur-based Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR) showed the resistance of Bt cotton crops to targeted pests reduced over a period of time. The Gene Campaign study on the first harvest of Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in 2002-03 showed that the crop performed so poorly that 60% of the farmers could not even recover their investment.
A network of over 20 local NGOs had earlier reported that the seed companies used fraudulent means to market Bt cotton seeds this year. The marketing divisions of the seed companies concerned, however, denied that any such foul means was adopted. The NGOs also spoke of prevalence of Tobacco Streak Virus in Bt cotton in parts of Andhra Pradesh. They said the incidence of this virus was confirmed by CICR, ICRISAT and ANGRAU. Also reportedly found by the NGO network was an incidence of wilt in Bt cotton in parts of Madhya Pradesh and germination failure of Bt cotton in some pockets of Tamil Nadu.
The NGO organisation consisted of Adivasi Ekta Sangathan, AKRSP, CEAD, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Grameen Vikas Trust, Greenpeace India, Jan Saahas, Kheti Virasat Mission, Krishnadevaraya Rythu Sankshema Sangam, Krushi, MARI, Navajyothi, Pasumai Tayagam, Prasun, Rashtriya Satyagrah Dal, Sampark, Sarvodaya Youth Organisation, SECURE, VASPA and YUVA.
GM ending for Africa?
Science in Society magazine, issue 28 (Winter 2005 ). From the Editor, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho.
South Africa sprang a big surprise when it slapped a moratorium on genetically modified (GM) imports at the end of October. The country has been the biotech industry's main entry-point into Africa as the industry was being driven out of Europe. South Africa has a weak biosafety regime with biotech lobbyists acting in a regulatory capacity, and is the only country on the continent that has commercialised GM crops. This puts it seriously out of step with neighbouring Lesotho, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique, which are among the dozen or so African countries that have imposed bans and restrictions on GM imports following Zambia's outright rejection of GM food aid in 2002 ( SiS 16, SiS 17 ).
The South African government has commissioned its Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to study the implications of GM imports on trade; and the moratorium is not likely to end before the DTI study is complete by the end of next year.
As a major food producer and exporter, South Africa is clearly worried about trade, especially in GM maize. GM maize accounts for 70 percent of maize traded on the global market. As very few countries want to import GM maize, there is a glut. So South Africa, a net maize-exporter, finds it cheaper to import GM maize from Argentina than to source it from within the country, with the result that 3.5 million tons of local non-GM maize could not be sold in 2005, leaving South African farmers devastated.
Meanwhile, Zambia is holding firm against GM food aid and imports despite projected food shortages due to drought, and amid intense pressure to accept GM crops from an international pro-GM lobby. It is opting instead for organic and other low input agriculture that are boosting yields and farm income, and most important of all, liberating farmers from decades of indebtedness and dependence on agrochemicals.
Whether intentional or not, South Africa and Zambia are both making wise moves towards food security for the same reason. High input/GM agriculture and cheap imports both depend on cheap oil, which is fast disappearing.
Petrol queues are increasingly common across the globe, and Zambia is no exception. Crude oil price keeps rising, while fuel production lags further and further behind consumption. On one occasion, I was trapped in my hotel room in Lusaka with no electricity for part of the day because the hotel had been " shedded" from the grid on a regular basis for weeks; and taxis were going nowhere because the petrol pumps were empty. Could the end of cheap oil signal the end of subsidised dumping as well as high input/GM agriculture? If governments need more convincing to give up GM crops, they should look at the new damning scientific evidence.
GM crops debacle now complete
GM crops are industrial monocultures only far worse. Two traits account for very nearly all the GM crops grown commercially worldwide: more than 75 percent are herbicide tolerant, nearly all to the herbicide glyphosate, or Roundup, Monsanto's formulation; the rest are insect-resistant, due to a class of Bt-toxins from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Evidence has been accumulating over the years that all is not well with both types of GM crops: yield drag, poor performance in the field, more pesticides used, reduced profit for farmers, and bad for health and biodiversity.
A spate of recent findings not only confirm what we already know, but also complete the debacle. Roundup resistant superweeds and Bt-resistant insect pests have now been documented, making both Roundup tolerant crops and Bt crops useless. The problems don't end there.
Bt crops express variable amounts of the toxins, often insufficient to kill target pests; but harm beneficial insects including predators, bees and soil decomposers. (Bt toxins are already known to be actual or potential allergens and can provoke strong immune reactions.) Roundup herbicide causes sudden crop death. It is lethal to frogs, and highly toxic to human placental cells, even at one-tenth the recommended dosage. (It is already linked to cancers, neuro-defects and spontaneous abortions.)
That's not all. A research team led by Dr Irina Ermakova of the Russian Academy of Sciences has just reported that 36 percent of rats born to GM-soya fed mothers were severely stunted compared with 6 percent of rats born to mothers fed non GM-soya. Within three weeks, 55.6 percent of the progeny of GM-soya fed rats died; the death rate was six to eight times that of progeny from rats fed non-GM soya, or a diet without added soya. This latest is perhaps the most dramatic in a string of revelations indicating that GM food is far from safe, which have been systematically dismissed, suppressed or not followed up. It is sheer lunacy to expand the cultivation of GM crops like these across the world, as the pro-GM lobby is pushing for. It can lead nowhere else but towards global biodevastation, massive crop failures and global famine.
Stop GM soya in Latin America
We need look no further than Latin America for the nightmare scenario. It is being destroyed by soya cultivation, especially with the arrival of GM soya ( "Argentina's GM woes", SiS 20; "How Europe is recolonizing America", SiS 25 ). Soya is inextricably tied to the meat industry ever since agronomists discovered that adding soya to grain could improve the feed to meat conversion ratio up to two-fold. Countries like Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay are driven to grow soya for foreign exchange, to repay foreign debt, and in response to demand from importing countries especially China, currently the world's largest importer of soybean and soybean products. Soya fields have been spreading in Latin America like an ecological canker, eating up the pampas, the savannahs and the Amazonian forests; bringing with it massive infrastructure projects for transporting and processing soybean that obliterate natural habitats far beyond the areas cleared for soya cultivation. This is happening just when the integrity of the Amazonian forests is absolutely essential for stabilizing global climate against the increasingly frequent climatic catastrophes of hurricanes, floods, droughts, and heatwaves.
It is time to wipe GM crops off the planet. Governments in Latin America should put a halt to the spread of GM soya right away and reconvert monoculture soya fields back into forests or sustainable agro-forests with the help of the international community, under the provision of the Kyoto Protocol. The rest of us can contribute by rejecting not only GM soya, but also soya-fed beef in favour of organic grass-fed beef.
Scientists and universities for rent
Unfortunately, a powerful pro-GM lobby has infiltrated every level of civil society from international aid agencies to governments, and academia; I have crossed paths with it all too often.
Monsanto and other biotech corporations have been funding university scientists to do their research cheaply, yes; but also to do propaganda and to ë debate' with scientists like me. We are defamed and libelled at public conferences, in the popular media and pages of the learned journals. This happens worldwide. In Lusaka recently, I came up against a scientist from the University of Zambia leading an aggressive disinformation campaign against his country's rejection of GM crops, and exploiting the most horrendous image of a starving African child to make his case. Following him, a scientist from Kenya used the same image and told the exact same story.
Scientists like us risk losing research grants and jobs, even those relatively high up in the academic echelon.
Fred Kirschenmann was director of the Leopold Center in Iowa State University for the past five years, until he was suddenly and involuntarily made " distinguished fellow". His sins? He argued once too often that there is an urgent need for "a more intelligent, diversified farming system." Genetic modification, he said, is "simply another tool to make the monoculture work a little longer" in the face of the pests and diseases that monocultures encourage.
For his parting shot, Kirschenmann said Iowa State's College of Agriculture " draws agribusiness cash the way a penned-up pig wallowing in its own waste draws flies."
If it's any comfort, I have found it refreshing and liberating to work outside academia since I was strongly encouraged to retire early in 2000, for speaking out on the risks of genetic modification.
18 November 2005
GM crop scrapped as mice made ill
The Australian, 18 November 2005. By Selina Mitchell and Leigh Dayton.
CSIRO scientists have abandoned a decade-long GM crop project in its last stages of research after learning that peas modified to resist insects had caused inflammation in the lung tissues of mice. It is only the second time in the world a GM project has been abandoned after a gene transfer from one crop to another, deputy chief of CSIRO Plant Industry T.J.Higgins said yesterday.
The findings - published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry this week - suggest the allergic-style reaction in the mice was triggered because the protein was altered by a natural process. Dr Higgins said it was disappointing to have to discontinue work on the genetically modified field pea, which had proved almost 100 per cent effective against insect attack. But he said the case demonstrated the effectiveness of strict regulations on research into genetically modified crops. The regulations did not allow the commercial release of a genetically modified crop unless it satisfied all health and safety requirements.
"It's a good example of why the regulations are necessary," he said. "This work strongly supports the need for case-by-case examination of plants developed using genetic modification and the importance of decision-making based on good science."
But Greenpeace GM campaigner Jeremy Tager disagreed. "That's complete nonsense," he said. "Withdrawing a failure doesn't show the success of the regulatory system. "It just shows the failure of the science in relation to this gene product."
Director of the GeneEthics Network Bob Phelps was pleased the project was scrapped. "Not only are these experiments on a minor crop a waste of public money, they highlight the growing concern worldwide about the health impacts of all GM foods," Mr Phelps said.
The GM peas will be destroyed, Gene Technolgy Regulator Sue Meeks said. "The whole proof-of-concept study will be wrapped up under contained conditions - nothing has entered the human food chain," Dr Meeks said.
The CSIRO was working with the Grains Research and Development Corporation to genetically modify peas to resist attack by the pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum) and fungus. Pea weevils alone can cause yield losses of up to 30per cent a year in the $100million-a-year field pea industry. The scientists added a gene that produces a bean protein to the peas that causes weevil larvae to starve. Humans have been eating the naturally occurring bean protein for years.
But a team at the John Curtin School of Medical Research found that when mice were fed the GM peas, they suffered an adverse reaction and their lung tissue became inflamed. "It was not life-threatening, but nonetheless it was a concerning reaction," Dr Higgins said. However, he said the search for weevil and fungus-resistant peas would continue, using the gene transfer system that was developed at the CSIRO as part of a $3million project.
In an earlier case of GM research, work on a protein-enhanced soy product was abandoned when it was discovered that the brazil nut gene transferred to the soy produced a protein that could cause allergic reactions in some people.
Grains Research and Development Corporation managing director Peter Reading said it was good to be able to identify problems "early in the piece".
A spokeswoman for Bayer Crop Sciences, also involved in researching GM products, said the CSIRO's decision had no impact on the firm's GM work.
Melbourne-based Monsanto - which has developed several GM food products, including corn - was unavailable for comment yesterday.
Abstract of scientific paper: Transgenic Expression of Bean-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity:
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jafcau/2005/53/i23/abs/
Greenpeace Blocks Ship in Poland, says GMO Aboard
Reuters, November 18, 2005. Gdynia, Poland. - Rough seas on Thursday forced Greenpeace activists to give up a blockade of a ship they say carried 25,000 tonnes of genetically modified (GMO) Argentinian soya to Poland.
In part of a campaign for a wider ban on GMO crops, protestors tied themselves and a rubber dinghy to the ship's anchor chain after it moored, preventing it from docking.
They were forced to call off the protest after five hours as the weather worsened in the Baltic coast port and temperatures plunged to below zero.
"The weather just got too bad and we couldn't risk the lives of the people attached to the anchor," said Polish official Maciej Muskat. "Unless the weather gets any better and we can try again, it seems like the boat will land its cargo."
Production of genetically modified crops is banned in Poland but imports are not, and Greenpeace wants firms, including US hog and pork producer Smithfield, to stop feeding pigs with modified soya at its Polish farms.
"It cannot be the case that Poles do not have an influence on what they eat," Muskat said. "GMO production harms people and destroys the environment and we must oppose it."
Campaigners say gene-altered strains threaten to destroy local ecosystems through cross-pollination, and say they contribute to deforestation and lower soil fertility.
The manufacturers say the products are safe.
The Warsaw office of US firm Cargill, which Greenpeace identified as the importer of the shipment, had no immediate comment.
GMO foods are gaining acceptance around the world, but have run into strong resistance in the European Union where many consumers fear what they view as "Frankenstein" foods.
Greenpeace says the import of shipments of modified soya from Argentina to Poland, the largest food producer among the EU's new member states, has risen six-fold in the last five years.
Warsaw's new government said last week it wanted to make Poland a "GMO-free" zone.
"We are counting on this government, after the prime minister's comments, to be more sympathetic to what we are fighting for," Muskat said. "Certainly it is more so than the last government."
Story by Malgorzata Rakowiec
17 November 2005
Swiss to Vote November 27 on Five-Year GMO Ban
Reuters, November 16, 2005. ZURICH - Swiss voters go to the polls on November 27 to review a measure that would impose one of the strictest bans in Europe on the use of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
The referendum, if approved, would impose a five-year moratorium on the cultivation of any plant or import of any animal whose genes have been altered in the laboratory.
The measure would tighten controls already put in place in 2004 and give independent Switzerland one of the most rigid regimes governing the use of GMOs in Europe, including the 25-nation European Union that surrounds it.
Within the bloc, restrictions are specific to types of crops and temporary in nature, in contrast to Switzerland's proposal for a five-year blanket ban.
The moratorium specifically bans Swiss agricultural production using GMOs. The use of imported livestock feed containing GMO material would still be permitted and research on GMOs, including for the pharmaceutical branch, would be allowed to continue under the measure.
The debate pits those who say that GMOs offer more productive, disease-resistant crops and livestock against those who fear possible environmental fallout or unintended consequences of manipulating genetic codes.
GMO DIFFERENCES
Switzerland's legislative system allows for regular referendums giving voters a direct say in lawmaking.
Although not a part of the EU, Switzerland has not escaped Europe's deep-seated and often bitter divisions over GMOs.
The bloc started an effective moratorium on authorising new gene crops and products in 1998. This ended in May 2004, when the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, issued an approval for imports of a GMO maize type.
A move by a province of Austria to apply a similar moratorium by becoming a GMO-free zone was rebuffed by the EU's highest court, the European Court of Justice, in October. The court ruled that a regional GMO ban ran counter to EU law.
The EU has several laws to govern the import, use and cultivation of GMOs. If a particular GMO product is approved under one of those laws, that approval applies across the EU.
Swiss-based agro-technology firm Syngenta, the world's third-largest producer of GMO seeds, said the measure - if approved - would have little economic effect on the company but would send the wrong signals about Switzerland.
"This has no impact on us today because we do all of our research in the United States," said spokesman Guy Wolff. "But it is damaging for research in Switzerland and especially in gene technology."
Switzerland accounts for roughly 1 percent of the firm's trade in GMO seeds, which in turn comprises only a fraction of the group's $7 billion annual turnover, Wolff said.
16 November 2005
Innovative Report on GMO Management Welcomed
GE Free Northland (New Zealand) press release, 16 November 2005
GE FREE NORTHLAND welcomes the release of the "Risks Evaluation and Options Report", as commissioned by Waitakere City Council, Rodney, Kaipara, Whangarei and Far North District Councils.
Both widespread community concern and a growing concern about the ability of central government agencies to protect our existing GM free status have led to the joint study sponsored by the five local authorities. The focus of this study was to examine in greater depth the risks to local government and their communities posed by GMO releases to the environment.
Under existing legislation in NZ, the release of GMOs to the environment may create financial exposure for local government, including the Northland peninsula councils, and the costs involved could be substantial.
GE FREE NORTHLAND encourages local government to act on the concerns of ratepayers and work to ensure the regions economy and environment is protected by making appropriate changes to the District Plan and Long Term Council Community Plan.
A spokeswoman for GE FREE NORTHLAND, Zelka Grammer has said that there are many benefits to maintaining our existing GM free status.
"NZ's "clean green" brand and reputation for providing safe, high quality food is a most important asset to retain. Ideally, a shared approach to prohibiting GM activities will be taken by local government on a regional level," said Ms. Grammer.
Northland peninsula is ideally placed geographically to achieve the distinction of a Regional Exclusion Zone for GMOs, which would minimise the economic, environmental, public health and liability exposures from GM experiments and releases while protecting its "Northland Naturally" brand and uniqueness.
We applaud the commitment of local government to address the criti