NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • April 2006

Archives 2006: January • February • March • May
Archives 2005: Jan/Feb/Mar • Apr/May/Jun/Jul • Aug/Sept/Oct • Nov/Dec
Archives 2004 • 2003

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

30 April 2006

1600 sheep die after grazing in Bt cotton field

Sify.com, 30 April 2006. Hyderabad (India): Sixteen hundred sheep died in Warangal district after grazing in fields on which Bt cotton had been harvested.

A survey conducted by a seven member team of Centre for Sustainable agriculture working in Bt cotton issues revealed that about 1600 sheep died from Bt toxin near Ippagudem in Ghanapur mandal, Madipalli in Hasanparthi mandal and Unikicherla in Dharmasagar mandal in Warangal district.

The sheep started dying after continuously grazing on the leaves and pods of Bt cotton plant residues in the fields for seven days.

The symptoms did not correlate to any of the diseases occurred during the season, the study said.

The team urged the Government to carry out an exhaustive study of the impact of Bt toxin on livestock, a release said in Hyderabad.

GM trees are being grown secretly in UK
They are 'somewhere in Dundee'. But they won't say where. Could it be because of a damning UN verdict?

The Independent on Sunday, 30 April 2006. By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor.

Governments worldwide have issued an unprecedented warning about the greatest biotech hazards so far: GM trees. Trees modified to grow faster, yield better wood, produce whiter paper, resist pests and disease and tolerate herbicides are increasingly being cultivated.

Elms resistant to Dutch elm disease are being grown in Dundee, Scotland. But the scientists involved will not say precisely where they are, or even exactly how many of them are being grown.

The Government was forced to admit for the first time last week that GM poplar, apple and eucalyptus trees have been cultivated outdoors in Berkshire, Derbyshire and Kent.

The admission came after warnings about such trees from ministers from over 100 countries at a UN conference in Curitiba, Brazil. They urged a "precautionary approach" towards them after hearing that they could "wreak ecological havoc throughout the world's forests".

Some 16 countries around the world are developing GM trees, and more than a million have already been planted in China. At least 24 species, from papaya to silver birch, from olive to teak, have already been modified; the most commonly treated are poplar, pine and eucalyptus.

The process can speed growth: GM poplars can grow four times faster than traditional softwood trees used for timber and paper. It has also reduced their content of lignin, which strengthens trees but make the wood harder to pulp and whiten for paper.

Other modifications enable them to produce their own pesticides to fight off insects, to resist diseases and to enable them to endure heavy doses of herbicides so that plantations can be drenched to kill weeds without harming the trees.

A GM orange tree, developed in Spain, bears fruit after only one year of life, instead of six. Danish scientists have worked on modified Christmas trees, with a view to developing specimens whose needles do not fall off. And in the boldest suggestion yet, an American professor has suggested that trees could be modified to make the moon habitable by growing "huge greenhouses over their heads".

But the ministers in Brazil were concerned that genes from the modified trees could spread great distances on the wind and across national boundaries. Tree pollen can travel up to 2,000 km. And, because trees can live for centuries, modified examples pose a long-term threat to the world's forests.

Contamination by genes conferring fast growth, for example, could make some forest trees crowd out other species; genes that produce insecticides could decimate rainforest ecosystems, the richest on earth; and genes that reduce lignin could make trees more vulnerable to pests.

The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs denied late last week that GM trees had ever been grown in the open in Britain, until given details by The Independent on Sunday.

All the plantations have either been destroyed by protesters or cut down at the end of the experiments. Britain's only GM trees are now elms, resistant to Dutch elm disease and being grown in "a controlled environment" somewhere in Dundee.

The scientists developing them say they will not plant any outside because they fear "terrorism" by protesters. They will not disclose precisely where they are or give details of the numbers, but confirm that there are "more than a hundred" of them.

Elm

Being grown at a secret indoor location by Abertay University scientists and modified to be resistant to Dutch elm disease. The scientists hope the trees will in time replace the 20 million taken from the British landscape by the disease. Poplar

Grown at Jealotts Hill Research Station at Bracknell, Berks, and modified so that the wood is whiter for making paper. Most, grown by the biotech firm Zeneca, were destroyed by protesters, but a few were successfully harvested.

Eucalyptus

Grown by Shell Research Ltd at Sittingbourne and West Malling, both in Kent. The tree was modified to resist the use of herbicides, as in most current GM crops. The experiment is now over.

Apple

Greensleeves and Jonagold apple trees, modified to resist insect pests and fungal diseases, were grown by the University of Derby, but destroyed by protesters.

Briefing paper on transgenic trees for the Convention on Biodiversity:
http://globaljusticeecology.org/index.php?name=getrees&ID=379

29 April 2006

Townsend slates 'ridiculous' proposals

Carlow People, 28 April 2006.

Notices of motion from Passage West came under fire at last week's sitting of Carlow Town Council with Cllr. Jim Townsend saying he believed both motions were ridiculous.

The first notice of motion asked that all councils write to the Minister at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Minister at the Department of Agriculture and Food and to the Environmental Protection Agency requesting a moratorium on the planting of genetically engineered crops in Ireland whether at field trial or at full scale until comprehensive scientific research has proven them safe to environmental and human health.

Cllr. Townsend said he had reservations about supporting the motion. 'Here in Carlow we have Oak Park and this notice would be very insulting to them. We can't prevent scientists from researching this. I think we should bin this and I believe that we would be in breach of EU laws if we supported it.

'There was 17 million acres of GM foods planted worldwide and there have been no problems so far. Out of respect for the people in Oakpark I think we should bin this motion.'

Cllr. Rody Kelly agreed saying he thought it was self contradicting and 'I'm taking a certain comfort in the fact that a farmer is rejecting this.'

A second notice of motion from Passage West Town Council was also criticised by Cllr. Townsend.

The motion called on the Minister for Agriculture to support the efforts made by farmers over many years to produce top quality foods by not allowing mass incineration.

'This second one from Passage West is equally ridiculous. I don't even know what they mean by mass incineration. I think we should bin this one too.'

27 April 2006

European Food Safety Authority Criticised for GMO Bias
European Commission Introduces Wide-ranging Changes in Approval Process
A window of opportunity for a comprehensive GM ban. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

ISIS Press Release 27 April 2006

The role of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is to carry out scientific assessment on food products proposed for the market in order to ensure that they are safe for human and animal consumption and for release into the environment. When the EFSA is satisfied that the products are safe, it gives a "positive opinion", which, in the past, would almost certainly have resulted in product approval, despite dissenting opinions from national regulatory authorities.

The EFSA has been long been accused of bias towards the biotech industry, not just by civil society organisations, but by EU member states, including Austria, the current holder of the rotating EU Presidency. They criticise it for "GMO bias" and say it has approved GM products without proper research.

On 12 April 2006, the European Commission decided to introduce "practical changes" to the EFSA's GMO approval process "so that the scientific consistency and transparency of its decisions on GMOs will be improved."

The Commission "invites" the EFSA to fully cooperate with member states' national scientific bodies, to provide them with a detailed justification in case it rejects scientific objections raised by the national authorities, and to clarify which specific protocols should be used by applicants for scientific studies to demonstrate the safety of the proposed products. The Commission is set to reserve itself the right to suspend the authorisation procedure and refer back "important new scientific questions" raised by the member states that are not fully addressed by the EFSA opinion. Applicants and the EFSA will also be asked to address more explicitly the potential long-term effects on health and biodiversity in their risk assessments for placing GMOs on the market.

The changes were based on proposals by Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner Markos Kyprianou and Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, and adopted by the European Commission after discussions with member states and other stakeholders.

The Commission's move to reform the EFSA was generally welcomed by the NGOs. But Greenpeace Europe wants EFSA to be immediately subject to mandatory guidelines on how to evaluate the risks of GMOs, and further, calls for suspension of the current authorisation process and for re-assessment of EFSA's previous opinions on GMOs.

The industry group, EuropaBio welcomes most of the proposals except the one that gives the Commission the right to suspend the authorisation procedure and refer back the question if a member state raises new scientific questions not fully addressed by the EFSA opinion. "I find this point very confusing and wonder how the Commission will do this 'in the existing legal framework', as it says it will," said Simon Barber from EuropaBio.

More importantly, this creates an opening for all independent scientists and civil society to submit new evidence to the European Commission that could result in a ban on all GMOs if the evidence is taken at all seriously (see for example, "GM ban long overdue, dozens ill & five deaths in the Philippines" SiS 29, and many articles in recent issues of SiS).

ISIS will be collating new evidence over the next couple of months; so please send us any information you think relevant to gmhazards@i-sis.org.uk

Sources

Commission for more transparency on GMO decisions. EuroActiv.com 12 April 2006:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/biotech/commission-transparency-gmo-decisions/art icle-154355

Comission proposes practical improvements to the way the European GMO legislative framework is implemented. Europa Press Release, 12 April 2006:
http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/498&fo rmat=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

25 April 2006

Westminster in the dock

The Daily Telegraph, 23 April 2006. By Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite

Just under three weeks ago, an eight-page dossier landed on the desk of John Yates, Scotland Yard's Deputy Assistant Commissioner, who is heading the police investigation into the cash-for-peerages affair.

It is unlikely to have come as a particularly welcome submission for the police chief, who is now in charge of one of the most politically sensitive operations that the Yard has ever undertaken.

...Of the leading figures in the drama, Lord Levy, Mr Blair's personal fundraiser and the president of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, is said to be sticking by his vow, made privately to colleagues, that he will not be the "fall guy" for Mr Blair.

It was revealed last week that offices used by the peer, a key figure in securing Labour's GBP14 million of loans, had been damaged by a fire in November, after some of the facts in the cash-for-peerages affair had been uncovered, but well before the police began their inquiry. No documents relevant to the inquiry were said to have been burnt.

There was continuing political interest in the role of Lord Sainsbury, the science and technology minister, who faces a possible investigation under the ministerial code into failing to tell the most senior civil servant in his Whitehall department about his GBP2 million loan to Labour.

Lord Sainsbury, who has remained in the same ministerial job since Labour came to power in 1997 (the only one to do so, apart from Tony Blair and Gordon Brown), has always denied there is any conflict of interest between his publicly professed support for genetically modified food (and his involvement in several companies which research and produce it) and government policy on GM products.

Last week, details resurfaced of how two of the family firm's supermarkets were given planning permission in London, despite rules that would normally prevent them being built there.

In 1998, a 30,000 sq ft Sainsbury's store in the heart of Pimlico, a built-up area, was given the go-ahead by central government. The development, with 160 flats above it, had been rejected by Westminster Council and opposed by local residents.

A year earlier, a change in planning rules by John Prescott's department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, allowed Sainsbury's to build a superstore between Richmond and East Sheen in south-west London on the basis that it was "out of town".

Lord Sainsbury gave GBP1 million to Labour in the run-up to the 1997 election campaign. Since then, his financial support has grown massively - he has given a total of GBP13.5 million to Labour and lent a further GBP2.3 million.

24 April 2006

Protect farmers' interests
Are new regulations for GM crops a boon for agribiotech?

Financial Express, 24 April 2006. By PV Sastheesh, Director, Deccan Development Society.

Is labelling GMOs a good enough solution to a country where the illiteracy levels are close to 40%? Currently, a huge publicity blitz is on by the ministry of consumer affairs asking the citizens of India to understand what is MRP, expiry date, etc, after these rules have been in operation for over 30 years. If understanding MRP and expiry date is so difficult, how will the Indian consumer comprehend the implication of GM food even if it is labelled?

In a country where the GM debate is almost non-existent - where the first GE crop, Bt cotton, crashed taking along with it hundreds of farmers lives - what is the obscene hurry to open the gates for GM crops? Why are we rushing in where angels are afraid to tread?

As recently as three months ago, Switzerland rejected GM food in a nationwide referendum. Why is our nation so undemocratic? Does the population of this country deserve no role in making such decisions? Are we keeping track of the global evidences about the unsafe character of GM foods that are mounting by the day? Here are few examples.

In a recent experiment, the noted Russian scientist Ermakova from the Russian Academy of Sciences found that the offspring of female rats fed on GM soya were five times more likely to die within three weeks of birth than those of mothers fed on normal soya. The legendary scientist Arpad Pusztai found young rats fed GM potatoes damaged in every organ system including an increase in thickness of the stomach lining to twice that in controls. Data from the 1990s available with the USFDA show that rats fed with GM tomatoes developed small holes in their stomach. A new Australian research says that a harmless protein in bean when transferred to pea caused inflammation in the lungs of mice.

From mice to men is not far away. Five unexplained deaths and mysterious illnesses in the south of the Philippines occurred when a Monsanto GM maize hybrid came into flower. Antibodies to the Bt protein in the GM maize were found in the villagers. These are only tip of the iceberg. Facts that are emerging out of science labs and peasant farms swell the damning evidences against GM in spite of the all cover ups attempted by the powerful industry's continuing spin.

In a country like India, can we say we have labelled GM and let them eat it at their own peril? The irrefutable evidence of pesticide residue in Coca Cola did not deter GenNext from declaring their undying allegiance to the soft drink. The one billion population of this country cannot be left to the market logic of the CII and the biotech industry baying for their profits and the Ministry of Commerce, which is an accomplice. India should initiate a democratic debate, not on whether we should label, but on whether we should let GM food enter this country.

21 April, 2006

Polish Senate Approves National Ban on GMO Seeds

Reuters, 21 April 2006. Story by Ewa Krukowska

WARSAW - Poland's upper house of parliament banned trade and plantings of genetically modified (GMO) seeds on Thursday, increasing the risk of a conflict with Brussels for adopting legislation that breaks EU rules.

The bill was pushed through thanks to the combined forces of the minority-ruling conservatives and their fringe allies, who want to protect Poland's image as an enviromentally-friendly state and fear biotech crops could contaminate other crops.

The legislation still has to get a final green light from lower house deputies following the Senate vote. It also has to be signed by the president to become law.

Poland's plans for what is effectively a national GMO ban have already drawn criticism from the European Commission, the EU executive, for threatening to break EU laws, especially those that aim to preserve the bloc's single internal market.

The Commission takes the view that if a region wants to ban GMO crops, such restrictions have to be scientifically justified and crop-specific -- not overtly political motivated or blanket bans on all biotech seeds or crops.

The Commission's position was put to the test a few years ago by an Austrian region whose proposed regional GMO ban was slapped down by Brussels. The Court of First Instance, the EU's second highest court, upheld the Commission's view last October.

Early last year, Italy adopted a law imposing a ban on GMO crops until all its regions have agreed laws on how farmers should separate biotech crops from organic and traditional varieties. The Commission has already threatened legal action.

No biotech seeds have been planted in Poland and the ruling conservatives, who have long backed a GMO-free Poland, have said they could even seek changes to the bloc's biotech policy.

House and Senate reach genetic seeds deal

Associated Press, 21 April 2006. By Ross Sneyd.

MONTPELIER -- Manufacturers of genetically modified seeds could be sued in state court for damages if their product drifts into the fields of organic farmers under a compromise that was reached Thursday between House and Senate negotiators.

But two of the six members on the conference committee that worked out the deal said they couldn't support it, a possible preview of the chances the legislation faces before the full Legislature and when it reaches a skeptical Gov. Jim Douglas.

"I hope the Legislature will take another look at it and see where they can make some changes," Douglas said at his weekly news conference.

The full House and Senate likely won't vote on the compromise until next week. The issue of genetically altered seeds has tied up the Legislature for the past year. Some farmers and consumers want nothing to do with crops grown from the manufactured seed, arguing they don't know what its long-term health or environmental effects might be.

Organic farmers also don't like the seed because they can charge a higher price for their natural produce. They've argued that they need protection, though, because there's no way to control pollen or seed from drifting into their fields on the wind and contaminating their organic crops.

So lawmakers have been debating what legal remedies should be available to farmers who argue their crops were contaminated by genetically modified seeds they didn't want.

The compromise reached Thursday would recognize farmers as consumers and allow them to sue seed manufacturers if their fields were contaminated and they lost money as a result. They would be able to do that under a notion in state law allowing a consumer to sue if an activity on neighboring property created a nuisance on his.

"It's simply to level the playing field if a case ever gets into the courts," said Senate Majority Leader John Campbell, D-Windsor. "This is only going to come into play if it's a huge loss."

Senators previously wanted to make seed manufacturers strictly liable for damages, giving farmers a significantly lower standard for making and proving a case. The House and governor objected, arguing that such a standard typically was reserved for a product considered patently dangerous, which lawmakers argued they did not to do with genetic seeds.

"We had a hard time pairing strict liability off from dynamite and other dangerous activities," said Rep. Willem Jewett, D-Ripton.

Monsanto Co. and other seed manufacturers have lobbied hard against the bill, suggesting that it could discourage them from selling their products in Vermont. That has helped to stir opposition among some farmers who say they should have the option of using the seed if it works for their businesses.

That's why Sen. Sara Kittell, D-Franklin, decided not to sign the compromise Thursday, even though she expressed support for it. "I'm trying to find language all farmers can agree with and I haven't got there yet," she said.

Rep. Avis Gervais, D-Enosburg, questioned whether the bill was necessary. "How can anyone prove where that contamination came from?" she said. "I don't believe any farmer risks losing market share." _______________________

Biotechnology: Still Fueling Controversy

AlterNet, April 21, 2006. By Charles Shaw.

As America responds to its oil addiction, the biotech industry is once again promising to save the world. And this time, they just might mean it.

It should have been one of the more earth-shattering admissions of the last hundred years when George W. Bush -- the former Texas oilman who steadfastly denies that oil ever played a part in our decision to invade Iraq -- announced that America was in fact "addicted to oil."

Instead, America's response was more akin to hearing one's 55-year-old effeminate bachelor uncle come out of the closet to the family at a holiday dinner: Everyone knew it already, but no one ever expected him to say it.

However, the evidence is indeed staggering. The United States of America uses more than a quarter of the world's annual oil production; the current administration is comprised of oil executives; our foreign policy apparatus consists of a reckless form of petro-diplomacy that requires us to prop up brutal regimes or overthrow unfriendly governments.

The situation has made our economic well-being so dependent on oil that even the slightest interruption to the oil supply has far-reaching ramifications, as we saw first with the removal of Iraqi oil from the world market, and then the refinery catastrophe in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

And it seems to be getting worse. Oil refineries are producing at full capacity, supply has either peaked or is rapidly approaching the peak, even as demand is projected to grow 50 percent by 2025, spurred by the massive economic growth of China, India and Brazil.

As a result of all these factors, oil prices have increased more than 500 percent from the 1998 price of $13 a barrel. And when we consider the very real possibility of another mega-hurricane season, or a terrorist attack on the Saudi refining operation, even an oil-addicted president realizes that we need to make serious changes -- and fast -- or else we may not be around to pick up the pieces.

Enter BIO 2006, the annual convention of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, held last week in Chicago. Nearly 20,000 attendees converged on the city to hawk new technologies, hook up with investment opportunities, or pitch their city or state as the perfect destination for the burgeoning biotech and life-science sector, which, according to the Department of Commerce, will comprise 18 percent of the U.S. GDP by 2020, or nearly 3 trillion dollars.

And this year, "biofuels" -- renewable fuels made from plant materials -- were the center of attention, with biodiesel and ethanol as the industry's two leading hopes for spurring renewed interest and investment.

On the heels of Bush's "addicted to oil" speech, heading into the convention, BIO released a letter to Congress on March 13 requesting full funding for programs that would support research and development into ethanol production. This would all be made possible through the introduction of the newest scintillating field of biotechnology, known as "White" industrial biotechnology.

EuropaBio, the European equivalent of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, is advancing the cause of "White Biotechnology" with claims that it will reduce pollution and waste through using renewable organic resources and recycling waste for more efficient energy supplies.

In the March 13 release, BIO CEO Jim Greenwood said industrial biotech is a force that can "end our national addiction to oil. We need to rapidly move forward commercializing these technologies for cellulosic ethanol production, which will strengthen our energy and national security."

The timing of it all couldn't have been better, especially for an industry that has been reeling in a steady stream of bad PR in recent years. There have been serious problems with the introduction of the first two fields of biotech, "green" bio-agriculture -- genetically modified crops -- and "red" biomedical technology like stem-cell science.

"Green" biotech especially has resulted in a series of black eyes for the industry. News out of India last year showed that since 1997 some 25,000 farmers have committed suicide after going bankrupt when Monsanto's pesticide resistant cotton didn't work as promised. And on March 17 of this year, Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, who spent four years engaged in a court battle with Monsanto, joined with European NGOs to file suit against Monsanto and the agricultural biotech industry at the UN High Commission for Human Rights, alleging that the industry has destroyed farmers' lives and livelihoods around the world.

With the advent of "white" biotechnology, the industry is once again offering a one-size-fits-all solution to our ills. Naturally, skeptics and critics abound. But are there the same concerns with these new technologies? And what precisely do supporters mean when they talk about creating a "bio-based economy"?

The bio-based economy

Through recombinant DNA technology, scientists can use microorganisms in new and exciting ways to manufacture polymers, vitamins, enzymes or transportation fuel. By harnessing the natural power of enzymes or whole cell systems, and using sugars as feedstock for product manufacture, industrial biotech companies can work with nature to help us move from a petroleum-based economy to a "bio-based economy."

-- BIO website

At a BIO conference plenary session on biofuels, former CIA head R. James Woolsey claimed that "Biotechnology will be for the 21st century what physics was to the 20th," unlocking the secret potential of the planet in ways never before imagined, while at the same time rescuing us from the social and environmental perils of the petrochemical system.

"For every billion dollars we shift from foreign oil to domestic biofuels, we can add anywhere from 10-20,000 American jobs," Woolsey said, "and at least half of our gasoline needs can be grown here with cellulose".

This, at least, has become the new conventional wisdom. The January 27 issue of Science Magazine featured "The Path Forward for Biofuels and Biomaterials," a self-described road map to developing a sustainable industrial society without worrying about greenhouse gases.

As of now, ethanol makes up only 2 percent of U.S. transportation fuels, and biodiesel accounts for less than .01 percent. But the U.S. Department of Energy has set goals to replace 30 percent of the liquid petroleum transport fuel with biofuels, and to replace 25 percent of industrial chemicals with biomass-derived chemicals by 2025.

The resulting cry to build an infrastructure around biofuels has come from all quarters. As one European biotech executive put it, "The Stone Age did not come to an end because of a lack of stones. So too, the Oil Age will not come to an end because of a lack of oil."

The benefits of biofuels

There is good reason for the hype around biofuels. On paper, they promise a huge improvement over our fossil-fueled society. Being plant-based, both biodiesel and ethanol are renewable, whereas oil and gas are a finite and dwindling resource. In addition to offering a sustainable fuel supply, a switch to biofuels will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

And because diesel fuel outperforms both ethanol and gasoline -- a gallon of diesel will take you as far as 1.5 gallons of gasoline and two gallons of ethanol -- the economic savings can be at least as enticing as the environmental ones.

But it's the economic incentives that are most likely to drive the shift, according to Matt Atwood, an organic chemist and project manager for Biodiesel Systems, a Madison, Wis.-based biodiesel company. "The creation of the biodiesel industry in the U.S. is imperative," Atwood says. "If we don't begin to solve this problem now, there is a possibility the U.S. economy may collapse. If we can't get products to market, we're in big trouble."

One often-proposed first step is to increase fuel efficiency in automobiles. Unfortunately, Americans have shown that they are unwilling to drive less unless the price of gas goes too high, and we've not yet found out how high "too high" is. But increasing fuel efficiency is just a first step. Converting passenger vehicles to biodiesel could have widespread effects as well.

Atwood says the 'monstrous' diesel market in Europe is a good example. "50 percent of [Europeans'] autos are diesel-powered, as opposed to less than 1 percent in America," he says, "and they get approximately 100 mpg." Once Americans start to see the benefits of biofuels, he believes the market will grow substantially.

Assuming that moving from fossil fuels to biofuels is inevitable -- which it clearly is not -- the question remains: Is it the best long-term solution to our economic and environmental concerns? Here again is where the agricultural biotech industry enters the picture.

While these crop-based fuels promise to be a boon to America's cash-strapped farmers, critics of this technology -- many of them farmers who were convinced to convert their farms to GMOs in the mid-'90s -- are surfacing with big questions, objections and heartfelt recriminations against the ag-biotech industry, whom they have learned to distrust.

Feedstocks and the lingering problem of GMOs

"Feedstocks" are the raw material required for an industrial process, and biofuels use plants and biomass as its feedstock and life-blood. Biodiesel Systems feedstock, as with most biofuel startups, will primarily be soy, grown by farmers in the Midwest. Soybeans are converted to soy oil that is sold on the commodities market. Although there's no sure way to say how much soy-based biodiesel comes from genetically modified stock, as of 2003, 81 percent of the U.S. soy harvest was genetically modified.

"I understand the concerns with using GMOs in the biofuel supply," Atwood says, "but fundamentally, as a scientist, you have to weigh the benefits against the detriments. Do I have a problem with GMO-only fuel crops? I feel the benefits far outweigh the negatives, and nobody really knows the full negatives yet."

At present, feedstocks are the bottleneck for biodiesel production. The Department of Energy estimates U.S. biomass crop potential at around 160 million tons a year, which the say will save us 1 million barrels of oil a day. Unfortunately, right now, our oil consumption is around 21 million per day. So we're going to have to do much better than that.

This means we cannot simply grow our way to diesel independence. To reach our national consumption in diesel we would need twice the arable land we have now, all growing soy. And planting that much soy means planting genetically modified soy.

There are alternatives to soy-based biofuels, including corn (which raises many of the same GMO concerns) and jatropha, a nonedible oil seed, which is a dual-use crop that produces both oil for biodiesel and biomass for ethanol.

Jatropha can produce 200 gallons of oil per acre planted, compared with 75 gallons of oil per acre of soy planted, and 150 gallons per acre of canola. Moreover, jatropha is grown in arid climes, where the agricultural footprint is small to negligible. Additionally, coconut produces 300 gallons of oil, and palm oil can produce a yield as high as 650 gallons.

But controversy ensues even with a purported miracle product like palm oil. In June 2005 British journalist George Monbiot published a column titled "Worse than Fossil Fuel: Biodiesel enthusiasts have accidentally invented the most carbon-intensive fuel on earth." In the column, Monbiot cited a September 2004 Friends of the Earth report about the impacts of palm oil production, which stated that "In terms of its impact on both the local and global environments, palm biodiesel is more destructive than crude oil from Nigeria," mostly due to massive deforestation efforts in Southeast Asia in order to create palm plantations.

Atwood believes Monbiot is overstating the case and insists that the technology is sound. He points to a five-year incentive program of the National Biodiesel Board, which estimates it will add $1 billion to U.S. farm income and create 50,000 new jobs.

But certain people simply aren't convinced. In an op-ed printed last month, John Peck of the National Family Farm Coalition responded to BIO CEO Jim Greenwood's statement that biotechnology will end our national addiction to oil by stating, "nothing could be further from the truth":

"Thanks to Monsanto, farmers are now stuck producing vast quantities of low quality Bt corn that has hardly any market. This unwanted biotech corn must then be dumped -- at taxpayer expense -- into domestic ethanol production or factory livestock farms, or abroad in places like Mexico. There it contaminates indigenous varieties, undercuts peasant farmers and creates desperate people who have no choice but to cross the border. And in the wake of the Starlink disaster, in which genetically modified corn not intended for human consumption found its way into fast-food tacos and elsewhere, one can only imagine the consumer safety threat posed by fields of high-starch, low-fiber biotech corn, engineered with an ethanol enzyme, growing adjacent to sweet corn across the Midwest."

Peck also points out that the conventional ethanol industry is dominated by factory-farm giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), a company with as high a contempt factor as Monsanto, and that many family farmers "have lost their shirts investing in co-op ethanol projects that get gobbled up by ADM when times get tough." Peck and his colleagues are concerned that the millions of dollars Jim Greenwood is asking Congress to approve will end up going right into the pockets of Monsanto and ADM.

The solution, according to Peck, is simple: "Rather than going to war or trusting in biotech," he writes, "the United States would do much better by investing in comprehensive energy conservation, decentralized energy production, and genuine renewable alternatives such as wind, solar and biodiesel."

Where is this ship headed?

Experts at the BIO convention pointed to the United States as the world's No. 1 growth market for ethanol, and they expect to see a series of biorefineries develop in the "corn belt" of America, which will produce fuels, natural biodegradable plastics and food products. ADM has a commercial ethanol plant that is scheduled to come online in 2008, and with congressional approval of the $91 million in energy appropriations, we can expect to see more companies getting in on the act.

Because of this, we should not expect the present system of corporate control to change much unless efforts are made to create a locally based, competitive biomass market. "White biotechnology will require a heavy application of green biotechnology to become successful," said Steen Riisgaard, CEO of Novozymes, a bioengineering firm. "And eventually, white will transform into green when plants are bioengineered to be optimal fuel stocks. This will not please the opponents of GMOs."

But as biotechnology continues to grow as an industry, and the science behind it becomes more sound, it is clear than one can no longer effectively lump biotech into one monolithic category.

For that reason, it is crucial for the opposition to begin to sort out the demonstrably horrible behavior of the Monsantos of the world from more promising technologies that may offer alternative fuels and plastics and biomedical cures for diseases like cancer, AIDS and Alzheimer's.

The jury is still out on the "bio-based society," but from where most of us are sitting, it can't be any worse than what we have now.

Charles Shaw is a regular contributor to AlterNet.

20 April 2006

Poland Set to Approve Gene Crop Ban Despite EU

Reuters, 20 April 2006. By Ewa Krukowska - additional reporting by Jeremy Smith in Brussels.

Poland's upper house of parliament may ban trade and plantings of genetically modified (GMO) seeds on Thursday and put Warsaw on a collision course with Brussels for endorsing a law that breaks EU rules.

The chairman of the Senate's agriculture committee said he expected senators from the ruling conservative Law and Justice party and several fringe groups to support the draft law, which has already been approved by the lower house of parliament.

"Senators from Law and Justice will back the bill and I have not heard any objections from several other parties, so it should pass," Jerzy Chroscikowski told Reuters.

The legislation would still have to get final approval from lower house deputies after the Senate vote. It also has to be signed by the president to become law.

Poland's plans for what is effectively a national GMO ban have drawn criticism from the European Commission, the EU executive, for threatening to break EU laws, especially those that aim to preserve the bloc's single internal market.

The Commission takes the view that if a region wants to ban GMO crops, such a restriction has to be scientifically justified and crop-specific -- not a blanket ban on all biotech seeds or crops.

"We might have to consider excluding an individual GM product from a given area if, for scientific reasons, it genuinely could not co-exist with non-GM crops in that area," said EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel.

"But...we cannot simply ban all GM crops from an entire region because of hostility to GM products per se. Where a product has been shown not to be harmful, in principle the rules of the free internal EU market apply," she told a conference in Vienna earlier this month.

The Commission's position was put to the test a few years ago by an Austrian region whose proposed regional GMO ban was slapped down by Brussels. The Court of First Instance, the EU's second highest court, upheld the Commission's view last October.

Early last year Italy adopted a law imposing a ban on GMO crops until all its regions had agreed laws on how farmers should separate biotech crops from organic and traditional varieties. The Commission has already warned of legal action.

No biotech seeds have been planted in Poland and the ruling conservatives, who have long said they wanted to make Poland GMO-free, fear that potential future sowings of genetically modified crops could lead to contaminatation of other crops.

So-called coexistence laws -- or rules for separating biotech crops from organic and traditional varieties -- have become the most controversial area in the biotech debate across the EU.

Environmental groups in the bloc say no GMOs should be grown in Europe until an EU-wide coexistence law is in place. The biotech industry sees no problems in growing GMO crops next to non-GMO types.

Deputy Agriculture Minister Jan Krzysztof Ardanowski told Reuters this month the government wanted to ban sowing of GMO plants to protect Poland's image as an enviromentally friendly state and that it might seek changes to the bloc's biotech policy.

Quarter of foods tested contain GM ingredients

Irish Independent, 20 April 2006.

A QUARTER of food tested by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) in the last five years contained genetically modified (GM) ingredients.

However, consumers would not be able to choose to avoid them because the makers of these foods were not required to indicate this fact on the label.

Some 58 out of 236 samples of food on sale in Irish shops tested since 2000, had GM ingredients but labelling was not required because they were under the legal threshold of 0.9pc, Roisin Cahillane of the Department of Health told a Dail Committee on Agriculture.

The FSAI focused testing on foods containing maize and soya beans which are the most common GM ingredients.

Fine Gael TD Denis Naughten said this would cause concern to many people if they felt they were eating GM-free food.

In addition, Pat O'Mahony of the FSAI said there was no scientific basis for setting the threshold at 0.9pc.

This limit seemed, he said, to have come "out of fresh air". However, lowering it would make life more difficult for industry because of the strong possibility of shipments of GM-free food being contaminated by previous ones containing GM food, he added.

There was also a problem with companies declaring their foodstuffs to be GM-free when they contained traces of GM ingredients under the 0.9pc threshold - or even when they weren't the type of food that could be genetically modified anyway, making the claim spurious, Mr O'Mahony said.

The FSAI has now taken it up the issue with retailers here.

Department of Agriculture official Dermot Ryan said that vast majority of the 400 shipments of soya, maize, rape-seed oil and cotton that come into Ireland each year contain GM material.

Some 43 consignments that claimed to be GM-free or were not labelled either way, had been tested and six were found to contain GM material.

However, the Department of Health is happy with the arrangements to ensure the safety of GM food on sale in Ireland, said Ms Cahillane.

EU accused of hypocrisy over GM food

Financial Times, 20 April 2006. By Raphael Minder in Brussels.

Leading environmental groups have accused the European Union of double standards over genetically modified food.

The attack by Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace was based on their review of confidential documents and closed-door arguments produced by Brussels to defend its stance in a recent GM food case before the World Trade Organisation.

The environmental groups said their review demonstrated that the European Commission, which is responsible for EU trade policy, had highlighted scientific uncertainty surrounding GM food safety before the Geneva trade arbiter even though it had been arguing publicly at the time that such food presented no health risk.

A Commission spokesman rejected the accusation of double standards, saying the environmental groups had "selectively quoted from what is a long and very complex document". "It is perfectly natural that the Commission seeks to make its legal case to the WTO to the best of its ability," he added.

But the criticism underlines the extent to which the Commission has found itself caught in the middle of a fierce and sensitive political dispute. Brussels has been forced to recognise the high level of anxiety among European consumers about eating GM food, as well as defend EU regulations at the WTO, while trying on the other hand - so far unsuccessfully - to lift national restrictions on genetically modified organisms introduced in member states such as Austria and Italy, which Brussels claims to be unjustified, given tighter EU labelling and tracing legislation.

The case that sparked the dispute arose in February, when the WTO issued an interim ruling condemning the EU for introducing a moratorium on GM food in 1998, in contravention of world trade rules.

The moratorium was lifted in 2004, however, allowing Brussels to argue that the WTO case had become redundant. Still, the US and the other two plaintiffs are demanding that the EU increase the pace of approvals to show that the European market is genuinely open to biotech companies.

19 April 2006

Consumers have power to direct food future

The Guardian (Charlottetown, Canada), April 19 2006

Re: Mr Lank's comments as published in Monday's edition (GM crops a win-win for all).

While I agree that pesticide use on crops should be eliminated, I do not believe that adopting genetic modification of our foods is a viable alternative.

Pesticide use and genetic modification are two sides of the same coin - they are both products of continued efforts to industrialize agriculture. This intense indulstrialization of food production has become the domain of big business and the demise of family farms and local markets. It is multi-national companies that will 'win' if we allow genetic-modification to go ahead, for they are the ones that are patenting these new crops

I question the foresight of accepting genetic modification of our foods based on the suggestion there is only a remote possibiliy that problems could emerge. Pesticides have been used in agriculture for over a half a century and we continue to debate the health implications of introducing these toxins to our diet, whilst spraying more and more each year. One need only recall the enthusasim with which DDT was marketed and accepted by the general public to realise the inherent dangers in accepting a new science simply on the basis that it's not yet proven to be harmful. Aside from the potential health risks from GM foods (some documented and some yet to be determined), I believe the greatest thing we stand to lose is biodiversity. The importance of diversity within any species cannot be overlooked

There is a viable alternative to spraying our crops with pesticides, but it is not GM foods. We need to trust nature's ability to protect crops from disease, to maintain biodiversity and to provide us with food that is rich in taste and nutrients. As consumers we have the power to direct the future of our food. Buying organically and locally, supporting local farmer's markets, eating in-season foods and encouraging our governments to support sustainable agriculture are some of the simple ways that we can take back control of what we eat, where we shop and how we support our local economy.

Shannon Courtney
Cornwall, PE

Serious evidence of harm from GMOs to health and environmental safety grows

Rejoinder Affidavit was filed on the 18th April 2006 in the Supreme Court [in India]. This is a follow-up of the Public Interest Writ Petition, filed last year for a moratorium on Genetically Engineered crops, pending a comprehensive and transparent biosafety testing protocol.

The 'Rejoinder' contains clear and damning evidence from independent world scientists about serious hazards of GM crops to health and biosafety. It effectively destroys the government's stance that GM crops, including those used for animal feed, eg. Bt cotton are safe.

One of the main selling platforms of the biotech industry, for example, is that GM crops are effective against pests and weeds. Scientists have long known that both claims hold little truth based on their knowledge of how 'resistance' occurs in nature. Farmers around the world have reported it for both Bt and herbicide-tolerant GM crops. They were ignored. Now, there is scientific proof that GM crops, both pest and weed resistant crops create a nightmare of super pests and super weeds precisely because of the phenomenon of resistance. Yet various national governments, including the Indian Government, have preferred to be lured by the high claims of the biotech industry and their commercial agenda to profiteer and control farming through patents. The G of I has even ignored the reasons for farmer suicides directly linked to the failure of Bt cotton and has comprehensively ditched farmer interests and public health safeguards to support the biotech industry. So if this fundamental tenet of GE is now proven to be the sham it always was, the Q is:

What is left of this technology and what conclusions must civil society draw from a government that is resolute in its support of the biotech and US commercial agenda?

The evidence against GE on every dimension of biosafety is now so serious that the 'Rejoinder' accuses the Government of "deliberate intent to allow GM contamination in India. The biosafety violations are so extreme that they represent the highest betrayal of India's national interest including national food security".

Transgenic (Bt) cotton is recognised by scientists to be a potentially toxic crop. Therefore, the effects of GM crops are similar to that of pesticides and must be tested accordingly, using stringent safety-testing protocols as required in the Public Interest Writ. It must be stressed that no GM food has been proven safe for human consumption anywhere in the world because the safety testing has simply not been done.

Notwithstanding the serious evidence of biosafety hazards of GE, the Government has concluded an agreement with the US, which will swamp India with GM crops and allow access by multinational biotech corporations to India's rich genetic wealth. The so-called 2nd green revolution to be ushered in by the 'Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agricultural Research and Education', will contaminate India's biodiversity and our food supply in perpetuity. It astoundingly elevates Monsanto, a thoroughly discredited company internationally, to the position of official 'US brand ambassador' to India. Monsanto is the 90% monopoly leader of biotech with the stated dark dream of supremacy over world agriculture, where "NATURAL SEEDS ARE VIRTUALLY EXTINCT and the hope of the industry is that over time, the market is so flooded that there's nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender". This is the same company that in February 22, 2002, was found guilty by a US court in Anniston, of poisoning the water supply of the local residents, on all six counts of "negligence, wantonness and suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage". Outrage, according to Alabama law, usually requires conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society."

Monsanto hasn't changed. If Monsanto hid what it knew about its toxic pollution for decades, what is it hiding now? And what does it mean, what are we called upon to believe, when the Indian Government forms an alliance with such a company, with such a track record? This agreement will deliver Monsanto's dark agenda with the active help of the Indian Government! It is a morally bankrupt and ethically deviant policy on GM; a tragically inappropriate tie-up, wholly detrimental to the national interest, which impacts sovereign issues of genetic wealth and IPRs, bio-safety, food security, farmer and consumer rights and public health. The Country now faces the unbelievable situation, which defies the most elementary logic, where Indian policy concerning these issues will be subject to even greater manipulation than at present, by private multi-national biotech corporations that exist to make a profit. The company with its hand firmly on the rudder is MONSANTO! The Rejoinder provides evidence of why and how this will lead to the predicted fait accompli of contamination that is "the objective of a regulatory body, which is manifestly in a conspiracy of collusion and UNTRUTH with the biotech industry". This is a serious charge. It asks for a high level enquiry based on prima facie evidence of the regulatory bodies including the GEAC of misleading the Prime Minister and his cabinet about the hazards of GM.

It is a truism that the goal of health safety-assessment is that a "food should not cause harm when prepared, used or eaten according to its intended use" (Codex Alimentarious guideline 2003). Or, to expand the logic, if a product causes cancer in animals, it should not be put in food. This is in fact the Delaney AmendmentÇ in the US, which is being used in the case against Monsanto's Aspartame, (the sweetner also called EQUAL), which has been proven to cause cancer amongst other serious hazards as outlined in the Writ Petition. If GMOs cause cancer in rats, as has been demonstrated along with other significant health risks, then, eminent world scientists are absolutely right to call for stringent, independent and peer-reviewed long-term animal feeding studies to determine the health safety of GM crops. Until then they have called for a global moratorium. This is also the impeccable logic of the Petitioners prayer in the WP. The Precautionary Principle is the superior scientific principle and path that must be followed most urgently for GM crops because the spread of GMOs will alter the molecular structure of the world's food supply in PERPETUITY. Even if, eventually, for the sake of argument, the evidence against GM were to be proved wrong on all dimensions of biosafety, it would still prove to be right actionÇ based on prudence, for India to apply the precautionary principle in the SHORT TERM in order to be reasonably sure of the biosafety of GM crops. The short term is a mere blip on the horizon of perpetuity and worth every nano-bit of trouble to avoid a disaster of unimaginable and many magnitudes, should even a small part of the evidence be proved right.

Aruna Rodrigues, Petitioner

Co-Petitioners: Devinder Sharma, Rajeev Baruah and PV Satheesh

18 April 2006

Destitute and dying on India's farms

International Herald Tribune, April 18, 2006, By Amelia Gentleman.


Two years ago a new genetically modified seed, Bt, was introduced into India, and enthusiastically endorsed by the local government. Its manufacturer, Monsanto, said it was resistant to boll weevil - the main cotton pest - and required just two sprays of insecticide for every crop, instead of the usual eight.

The modified seed sold for about four and a half times the cost of normal seed, but many farmers opted to buy it because they believed it was indestructible and would give a higher yield.

They were devastated when many of the Bt cotton plants were afflicted in November with a reddening that destroyed much of the crop...

Sanjay Mahadeorao Todase, senior medical officer in the small hospital in the nearby town of Pandnarkawada, said that treating farmers who have poisoned themselves with insecticides had become so routine that he barely had the emotion left to feel shocked by it.

"They are brought in by bullock cart, on the back of bicycles or on three-wheeler trucks," he said.

EC approved GM crops despite safety fears

The Daily Telegraph, 18 April 2006.

The European Commission approved a range of GM foods and crops despite having serious doubts over their health and environmental impacts, according to new documents released by green charities.

Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth said the documents revealed scientific arguments put forward behind closed doors in the European Commission's recent GM trade dispute.

The groups have called for the immediate suspension in the use and sale of all GM foods and crops until the safety issues have been addressed.

In the documents, the Commission argues that there were "large areas of uncertainty about the health risks posed by GM produce," and that "some issues have not yet been studied at all."

The papers also say "there simply is no way of ascertaining whether the introduction of GM products has had any other effect on human health," and "no unique, absolute, scientific cut off threshold available to decide whether a GM product is safe or not."

Among other revelations, the documents suggested ther were huge disagreements between the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority, the agency that is responsible for GM risk assessments.

At the same time as the Commission wrote and submitted these documents to the World Trade Organisation highlighting safety concerns it approved seven GM foods, despite a lack of support from the majority of EC member states.

Clare Oxborrow, a Friends of the Earth GM Campaigner, said: "This is a political scandal. The European Commission must call a halt to the sale and growth of all genetically modified food and crops given the serious concerns over their safety that have come to light.

"When the EU Commission broke the moratorium and forced GM foods into Europe, it told the public they were safe. But the Commission clearly knew this was not the case and was prepared to recognise the risk behind closed doors. The UK Government must now reveal whether it had access to these documents and whether it voted in support of GM foods while knowing the risks they posed."

EU approves genetically modified foods despite serious concerns
New documents reveal EU Commission's double standards

Friends of the Earth press release, 18 April 2006.

Brussels, 18 April 2006. New documents released to Friends of the Earth reveal that the European Commission has been approving genetically modified (GM) foods and crops despite having serious doubts over their health and environmental impacts. Both Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have today called for a suspension in the use and sale of all GM foods and crops until the safety issues have been addressed.

The documents reveal the scientific arguments put forward behind closed doors in the recent GM trade dispute (1). In them, the Commission argues that there are "large areas of uncertainty" and that "some issues have not yet been studied at all". They also reveal that:

• On human safety: "there simply is no way of ascertaining whether the introduction of GM products has had any other effect on human health - there is no unique, absolute, scientific cut off threshold available to decide whether a GM product is safe or not."

• On growing GM crops: "It is a reasonable and lawful position" that insect-resistant crops (the only GM crops being grown in the EU) should not be planted until all the effects on the soil are known.

• On the environment: a key scientific study that was used to support the environmental safety of a GM crop is "scientifically flawed".

• There are huge disagreements between the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), an EU agency. In one example, the Commission criticises the EFSA for not requiring further investigations after dismissing scientific evidence that showed that a certain GMO had negative effects on earthworms.

A comprehensive report on the new revelations has been written by Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace (2).

At the same time as the Commission was writing and submitting these documents to the WTO highlighting safety concerns, it:

• pushed through the approval of seven GM foods over the past 2 years, despite a lack of support from member states;

• required member states to vote twice on proposals to lift national bans on GM products in five countries (November 2004 and June 2005). It was defeated in both votes (3). Ironically, in the submissions to the WTO, the Commission gave scientific arguments to justify the bans.

• Commercialised 31 varieties of Monsanto's GM maize for cultivation in the EU. (4)

"The sale and growing of all genetically modified food and crops in the European Union must be halted immediately, given the serious concerns over their safety that have now come to light," Adrian Bebb, GM Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe, said.

"This is a political scandal. When the EU Commission broke the moratorium and forced new genetically modified foods into Europe, it told the public they were safe. Now we know that behind closed doors the Commission was arguing the complete opposite," Bebb added.

"These double standards of the EU Commission clearly show that public health and environmental protection are being compromised by an institution intent on promoting trade and business interests at any costs," he said.

Christoph Then, Genetic Engineering Campaigner for Greenpeace, said:

"The truth is now out in the open for all to see. The released EU papers outline detailed scientific concerns about the safety of genetically modified food and crops."

"These revelations are astonishing; they show contempt for humans and the environment, and prove that Europe's safety net is not working. The European Food Safety Authority, on which the Commission depends for advice, comes out particularly badly and needs to be urgently and radically reformed."

Notes to the Editor

1. The Commission's scientific arguments at the World Trade Organisations are outlined in two documents:

Comments by the European Communities on the Scientific and Technical Advice to the Panel, Geneva, 28 January 2005; and Further scientific or technical evidence in response to the other partiesÇ comments by the European Communities, Geneva, 10 February 2005. Both can be downloaded from http://www.foeeurope.org/biteback/EC_case.htm.

2. The Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace report can be downloaded at
http://www.foeeurope.org/biteback/download/hidden_uncertainties.pdf.

3. http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2005/AB_24_June_vote.htm.

4. The Commission put 17 varieties of Monsanto's MON810 maize on the EC Common Catalogue of seeds in September 2004. A further 14 varieties were added in December 2005.

Contacts:

Friends of the Earth:

Adrian Bebb +49 1609 490 1163 (mobile).
Helen Holder +32 474 857638 (mobile).

Greenpeace:

Christoph Then +49 1718780832 (mobile).
Katharine Mill, media officer, tel +32 (0)2 274 1903 or +32 (0)496 156 229.

17 April 2006

The EC is accused of approving products despite safety concerns

BBC News, 17 April 2006

Two environmental groups say they have documents which show a double standard on the safety of genetically-modified organisms in the European Commission.

Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace accuse the commission of telling the public GMOs are safe but admitting to safety concerns in a report.

The two groups are citing a report submitted by the commission to the World Trade Organisation.

The European Commission is the EU's executive body.

'Scientific uncertainty'

Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace are accusing the European Commission of approving GM crops and foods despite serious doubts over their impact on health and the environment.

Using freedom of information rules, they obtained the commission's report to the World Trade Organisation, which is hearing a complaint against European bans on GMOs.

The report warns that there are still large areas of scientific uncertainty and disagreement, and that based on current data there is no way to rule out the development of cancer or allergies as a result of GMOs.

It raises concerns about weeds and insects becoming resistant to the toxins in GM crops, and it warns that GM plants like oilseed rape and sugar beet can easily cross with their wild relatives.

Just two weeks ago the EU agriculture commissioner repeated that no GM products were approved unless they were completely safe.

But those assurances are not getting through. In a recent EU poll, nearly two-thirds said they were worried about the safety of GM foods.

14 April 2006

Austria Could be Target of EU Wrath Over GMO Ban

Reuters, 10 April 2006. Story by Jeremy Smith.

BRUSSELS - Austria, current president of the European Union, looks like the only country that might face an order to lift its bans on certain genetically modified (GMO) products, senior European Commission officials said on Friday.

Between 1997 and 2000, five EU countries banned specific GMOs on their territory, focusing on three maize and two rapeseed types that were approved shortly before the start of the EU's six-year moratorium on new biotech authorisations.

Last June, the Commission, the EU's executive arm, tried to get all the bans scrapped. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has also attacked these "national safeguards", as they are called in EU jargon, for breaking international trade rules.

But it got a stinging rebuff from EU environment ministers, which rejected proposals for the five states -- Austria, France, Germany, Greece and Luxembourg -- to lift their restrictions.

It was the first time that EU countries had managed to agree anything on biotech policy in years, since as a bloc, the EU is consistently divided down the middle on GMO crops and foods.

The Commission's environment department is now expected to resubmit draft decisions for lifting the national GMO bans to the EU-25, following a reassessment of each ban's scientific justification by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

EFSA is expected to give its opinion on the bans very soon.

EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas usually declines to be drawn on his plans for the national bans. But officials and industry observers expect him to bow to WTO pressure and demonstrate to the complainants in the case -- Argentina, Canada and the United States -- that he is taking action on GMOs.

"Let's see what they (EFSA) have to say first," he told reporters on Friday in reponse to a question on his intentions.

PRODUCTS MOSTLY WITHDRAWN

In the meantime, the companies manufacturing the particular GMO products that were the subject of the original bans have withdawn several of them from the market.

One senior Commission official said the companies had now withdrawn most of the products in any case, with only two remaining -- both relating to the bans in force in Austria.

Austria has banned two GMO maize varieties: one in 1997 and the other in 1999. The first was against MON 810 maize made by US biotech giant Monsanto and the second against T25 maize made by German drugs and chemicals group Bayer.

As last June's meeting showed, an EU order for a government to lift its national GMO ban can prove extremely unpopular.

This is especially true in countries such as Austria where opinion is strongly opposed to biotech foods and there is a strong movement to set up GMO-free zones.

Not only that, to try to do this to the current holder of the EU's rotating six-month presidency might run the risk of attracting a lot of sympathy from other EU governments -- meaning the Commission might face a second embarrassing defeat.

One solution could be to wait until after Austria's EU presidency runs out at the end of June and Finland takes the helm, officials suggested. But to wait for too long could also be seen as "undue delay" by Argentina, Canada and the United States and possibly spark more complaints at the WTO, they said.

Pope condemns geneticists 'who play at being God'

The Times, April 14, 2006. By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent.

Pope Benedict XVI will deliver a blistering attack on the mores of modern society

THE Pope will deliver a blistering attack on the "satanic" mores of modern society today, warning against an "inane apologia of evil" that is in danger of destroying humanity. In a series of Good Friday meditations that he will lead in Rome, the Pope will say that society is in the grip of a kind of "anti-Genesis" described as "a diabolical pride aimed at eliminating the family". He will pray for society to be cleansed of the "filth" that surrounds it and be restored to purity, freed from "decadent narcissism".

Particular condemnation is reserved for scientific advances in the field of genetic manipulation. Warning against the move to "modify the very grammar of life as planned and willed by God", the Pope will lead prayers against "insane, risky and dangerous" ventures in attempting "to take God's place without being God".

[For continuation of article see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2134140,00.html.]

Motion on GM foods noted

Carlow People, 13 April 2006.

A notice of motion from Passage West was noted but not supported by members of Bagenalstown Town Council last week.

The notice of motion asked that all councils write to the Minister at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Minister at the Department of Agriculture and Food and to the Environmental Protection Agency requesting a moratorium on the planting of genetically engineered crops in Ireland whether at field trial or at full scale until comprehensive scientific research has proven them safe to environmental and human health.

Cllr. Arthur McDonald was first to raise an objection to the notice saying it 'smells very green'.

'I have a problem with this. It smells very green to me. The scientific research that we have here in front of us was taken from the internet and I won't be supporting this.'

Cllr. Liam O'Brien took a different view. 'If you read down through the research there is evidence to support the claim. In the interest of Irish agriculture we should be supporting this.

GM foods aren't very popular in Europe and if you have a non GM label it will be good for us. We would be well advised to have a moratorium.'

Cllr. McDonald was not to be swayed.

'This is about stopping trials. If you don't have trials for cancer and things how would we find out that happens. This strikes me as Green gobbledy gook.

Cllr. Denis Foley said he wouldn't support a moratorium until the research had shown that GM foods were bad for humans and the environment.

Greenpeace activists occupy Monsanto GM seed facility in France

Massive police presence as Greenpeace, Jose Bove from Faucheurs Volontaires and Confederation Paysanne occupied Monsanto's seed facility in TrËèbes, France. Over 75 activists have occupied the facility and are currently holding a citizens inspection in the search for genetically modified (GM) maize seeds. They have demanded that Monsanto and the French authorities stop import and distribution of GE maize seed into France.

"We are here to demand that the French authorities ban GE seed and in the interim corporate conglomerate Monsanto must stop hiding where these environmentally destructive maize seeds are to be grown. Farmers and consumers have the right to know where GE seeds are entering agriculture and the food-chain, so they can protect themselves against genetic contamination." Said José Bové from Faucheurs Volontaires.

The 'GE free citizens inspection unit' consisting of over 100 conventional and organic farmers, members of the public and activists from across Europe were welcomed by over 50 policemen, including some with police dogs. But over 75 activists managed to occupy the facility affectively shutting it down. The protesters aim to stop distribution of GE maize seeds, and to influence the new GE law currently being discussed in the French parliament. The new law, if passed, would allow massive genetic contamination of both organic and conventional maize. (1)

"We are putting Monsanto on notice, along with each and every Biotech firm that is contaminating our fields and our food supply now - or has future plans to introduce GE seeds - this is the beginning, we will not stop until France is declared a GE free zone." Said Olivier Keller, national secretary of the Confédération Paysanne.

"GE is harming the environment and is causing genetic contamination of the food-chain and agriculture, thus threatening the right of farmers and consumers to grow and eat GE free food. Recently thousands have taken in to the streets in Vienna, France and other countries around the world to protest against these unjust practices. Governments must now listen to their people and 'cease and desist' on the importation and growing of GE seed." Said Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International GE campaigner.

Yesterday the Slovakian inspectorate of environment published a decision that states Monsanto will not distribute there GE maize for the 2006 growing season, effectively shutting out, sales of GE maize for the next year. The halt was put in place, due in part, to pressure from Greenpeace on the Slovakian inspectorate to answer growing concerns about environmental damage and contamination caused by GE maize. (2)

"Resistance against GE in our fields and food has been growing globally since its release onto the market nearly 10 years ago. In Europe alone 172 regions have declared themselves GE free, and around the world many other governments, farmers and citizens are uniting to keep their countries GE free." Concluded, Geert Ritsema Greenpeace International GE campaigner.

For further information or to arrange interviews, please contact:

Geert Ritsema Greenpeace International GE campaigner in TrËbes, France +31 646 197 328
Arnaud, Greenpeace France GE campaigner in Trèbes, France +33 6 07 57 31 60
Adelaide Colin, Greenpeace France communications officer in Trèbes, France +33 6 84 25 08 25
Olivier Keller, national secretary of the Confédération Paysanne in Trèbes, France +33 626 451 948
Christine Thelen, coordinator of the Faucheurs Volontaires in Trèbes, France +33 672 980 613
Suzette Jackson, Greenpeace International communications officer in Amsterdam +31 646 197 324

Relevant Document
Greenpeace International GE Maize briefing:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/BTMaizeBriefing2006

Notes to Editors

(1) It is expected that a draft of the genetically modified organism law will have its final reading in the French Parliament soon. The draft law would allow the presence of 0.9 percent of GE maize in all maize fields in France. According to Greenpeace and independent lawyers this will not only lead to massive genetic contamination of the French countryside, but it will also undermine freedom of choice for consumers and farmers and violate current EU legislation.

(2) On April 12th the inspectorate of environment in Slovakia published a decision halting - for the 2006 growing season - any commercial sales of genetically engineered (GE) maize seeds of the type MON810 produced by US based biotech giant Monsanto. GE maize variety MON 810 is the only genetically engineered crop that is allowed for cultivation throughout the EU.

13 April 2006

Jury out on genetically modified food, as new evidence emerges

Irish Examiner, 13 April 2006.

FARMERS understand better than most and appreciate the benefits of progress over the decades in plant breeding and technology.

They know that without progress of this kind, life would still be in the dark ages.

But as far as they are concerned, the jury is still out on Genetically Modified foods. They are undecided, because the 'unknown' factors outweigh any certain advantages.

Concerns expressed by the European Commission have added weight to arguments against GM foods.

The EU is unhappy with the quality of information available on the long term health effects of GM, and EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas has slapped the hand of the EU's Food Safety Agency, claiming that they had considered only the short term impacts of GM foods, and not the long term consequences.

He also said assessment of GM foods has been over-dependent on information supplied by the GM industry itself. Meanwhile, GM foods, such as maize, are widely used and making their way into Irish homes, albeit in small quantities.

There is already acceptance of the GM technology by every customer who makes a purchase of such a food, and our main Irish farming organisations are unclear about the appropriate way to go.

But Irish consumers are showing an increasing preference for organic, and organic and GM do not go well together.

Tougher GM checks

Irish Independent, 13 April 2006.

EU controls over genetically modified products were strengthened yesterday as it imposed tough new conditions before the controversial foodstuffs can go on sale, writes Conor Sweeney.

The European Commission denied the more rigorous checks amounted to a U-turn on its previous positive stance towards genetically modified (GM) produce.

It will, however, for the first time introduce much stricter background checks on the long-term health consequences of GM crops and foodstuffs. But it won't force the re-examination of 10 products, such as GM sweetcorn, already licensed for sale and distribution.

12 April 2006

European Commission slaps its own food safety body...
...as more countries ban biotech crops

Friends of the Earth press release, 12 April 2006.

Brussels, 12 April 2006 - Friends of the Earth Europe welcomed today's statement by the European Commission calling for major improvements to the workings of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the issue of genetically modified (GM) foods and crops. (1)

The environmental organisation accuses the EFSA of being biased towards the biotech industry and believes that its work on GM foods should be halted until public and environmental safety can be guaranteed.

In a separate move, Austria has confirmed a new ban on the import of Monsanto's GM oilseed rape, a product that was passed as safe by the EFSA. The Austrian government has banned the GM seeds on the basis that no long term safety tests have been done and that imports would likely lead to the accidental spillage of the seeds into the environment. (2)

The EFSA has also today published new opinions on bans of five GM products by Member states. They conclude, as usual, that there is no reason to believe that the GM products in question will "cause any adverse effects for human and animal health or the environment" (3)

Commenting of today's developments, Adrian Bebb, GM Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe, said: "The Commission should be welcomed for acknowledging a problem with their food safety authority, but it needs to go further. The Food Authority has for too long sided with the biotech industry and ignored any research or opinions that questioned the safety of genetically modified foods.

"The Commission should now suspend all new approvals until public and environmental safety can be guaranteed," he demanded.

On the new EFSA opinions, Adrian Bebb added: "Today's opinions by the European Food Safety Authority show how out of touch it is with the real world. This body once again ignored the concerns of the EU member states and seem more interested in protecting the biotech industry then protecting the public or the environment."

Notes to editors

1. Commission proposes practical improvements to the way the European GMO legislative framework is implemented, press release IP/06/498, Brussels, 12 April 2006

2. http://www.bmgf.gv.at/cms/site/detail.htm?thema=CH0255&doc=CMS1141813863564

3. http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gmo_opinions/1439_en.html Contact

Adrian Bebb +49 1609 490 1163
Helen Holder +32 474 857 638

Commission proposes practical improvements to the way the European GMO legislative framework is implemented

European Commission press release, Brussels, 12 April 2006.

Today the European Commission gave its support to an approach proposed by Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner Markos Kyprianou and Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas on further steps to improve the scientific consistency and transparency for Decisions on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). The measures proposed aim to bring about practical improvements which will reassure Member States, stakeholders and the general public that Community decisions are based on high quality scientific assessments which deliver a high level of protection of human health and the environment. These improvements will be made within the existing legal framework, in compliance with EC and WTO law, and avoiding any undue delays in authorisation procedures.

In light of recent practical experience acquired with the placing on the market of GMOs, the Commission has decided that practical improvements could be made to the system to improve the scientific consistency and transparency for Decisions on GMOs and develop consensus between all interested parties. These improvements will be made within the existing legal framework, in compliance with EC and WTO law, and avoiding any undue delays in authorisation procedures.

The Commission proposes that the following practices be implemented:

• - in the scientific evaluation phase:

• to invite the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to liaise more fully with national scientific bodies, with a view to resolving possible diverging scientific opinions with Member States;

• to invite EFSA to provide more detailed justification, in its opinions on individual applications, for not accepting scientific objections raised by the national competent authorities;

• The Commission will fully exercise its regulatory competences foreseen in the basic legislation to specify the legal framework in which EFSA assessment is to be carried out;

• to invite EFSA to clarify which specific protocols should be used by applicants to carry out scientific studies (for example regarding toxicology) demonstrating safety;

• Applicants and EFSA will also be asked to address more explicitly potential long-term effects and bio-diversity issues in their risk assessments for the placing on the market of GMOs;

• - in the decision-making phase:

• The Commission will also address specific risks identified in the risk assessment or substantiated by Member States by introducing on a case by case basis additional proportionate risk management measures in draft decisions to place GMO products on the market, as appropriate; and

• Where in the opinion of the Commission a Member State's observation raises important new scientific questions not properly or completely addressed by the EFSA opinion, the Commission may suspend the procedure and refer back the question for further consideration.

This development of the GMO authorisation process is not just the result of the Commission's internal reflections, but draws on discussions with Member States and stakeholders. The Commission will discuss its proposals with the Member States in the Council, and with EFSA, in the coming months with the objective of building greater consensus and transparency in this area of Community policy.

Background

Over the past five years, the EU has put in place a stringent system to regulate the marketing and production of genetically modified food, feed and crops. The EU authorisation procedure ensures that only GMOs which are safe for human and animal consumption and for release into the environment can be placed on the European market. Clear labelling rules allow farmers, other users and consumers to choose whether or not to purchase such products and the rules also ensure that each GMO can be traced at each stage of its use.

The EU regulatory system, one of the strictest in the world, is based on the granting of individual authorisations for placing GMOs on the EU market, following scientific evaluation on a case‚by-case basis. Requests for authorisations which do not fulfil all criteria have been and will continue to be rejected.

Bt Documents Reveal Lack of Urgency in Food Standards Agency Response

GM Freeze press release, 11 April 2006.

GM Freeze today publishes internal documents, obtained from the Food Standards Agency under the Environmental Information Regulations, relating to the illegal importation of Bt10 GM maize [1] from the USA between 2000 and 2004 [2].

The documents reveal significant delays before sampling of maize gluten and brewerÇs grains imports by the FSA commenced. The EC was first informed of the illegal import on 22nd March 2005. Analytical methods for Bt10 were not available at the time that the US authorities revealed the longstanding contamination.

Key reference material was finally available to UK laboratories in early May 2005.

However, correspondence from the FSA to GM Freeze revealed that monitoring of imported maize did not commence until 20th September 2005. Internal FSA briefings for the Department of Health Ministers reveals that the UK receives one sixth of all maize gluten shipments entering the EU from the USA "which equates to about one shipment every five weeks" [3]. Syngenta, the biotech company which developed the GM maize, estimated that 1000 tonnes of Bt10 entered the EU in total.

After initially denying that Bt10 posed any threat to health [4], Syngenta and the US authorities announced that it contained an ampicillin resistant gene which meant that it would never receive safety approval in the EU [5]. Bt10 has not received approval in the US. Japan has to date found ten cargoes contaminated with Bt10 and Ireland one.

Commenting for GM Freeze Pete Riley said:

"In contrast to other food emergencies, the FSA documents reveal that they approached the Bt10 case with no sense of urgency. Japan and Ireland had both detected Bt10 in imported maize cargoes before the FSA had even started looking in the UK. The result of this tardy response is that the extent of Bt10 contamination in UK animal feed will never be known. Next time GM contamination happens it could involve GM pharmaceutical crops and pose an immediate threat to health. There is no indication from the documents we have seen from the FSA that they will be any better prepared next time".

All the Bt10 documents released to GM freeze are available here.

These include internal email discussions on handling media interest, correspondence with Syngenta and correspondence with the EC regarding the analytical techniques for Bt10.

ENDS

Calls to Pete Riley 07903 341065

Notes

1. The Biotech company Syngenta informed the US authorities that they had discovered that seeds lots of an approved GM maize Bt11 had been found to be contaminated with an unapproved GM variety Bt10 in December 2004. The EC were not informed of the potential of Bt10 contaminating exports to the EU until 22 March 2005.

2. The contamination with Bt10 began in 2000 before being detected by Syngenta in 2004.

3. FSA document entitled Further submission to Minister.

4. Letter from US Mission to EU 22nd March 2005.

5. Antibiotic resistance genes have been used by genetic engineers to tag genes they wish to engineer into crop plants. Plants which have been successfully modified would be resistant to the particular antibiotic when applied to the plant. Resistance genes to front line antibiotics, such as Ampicillin, are now prohibited in EC because of concerns that they could horizontally transfer into pathogenic bacteria thus increasing the risk of antibiotic resistance spreading and threatening their effectiveness in medicine and veterinary medicine.

11 April 2006

EU set to reopen GM debate

EU Politix, 11 April 2006. By Brian Johnson.

Revision of the EU's controversial GM approvals system will be at the centre of a European commission "orientation debate" on biotech policy on Wednesday.

A heated discussion is expected, as the EU executive holds its first major policy discussion on biotech since taking office in 2004.

The main topic will be proposals, presented in an "information note" by Brussels environment and public health chiefs, Stavros Dimas and Markos Kyprianou, to overhaul the authorisation procedures used to place GM products on EU markets.

But the commission's pro GM camp, led by vice president Gunter Verheugen are likely to argue against further delays on biotech, using the threat of WTO action to ward off safety concerns.

Scientific validity

Doubts over the credibility of EU risk assessment procedures used to determine whether a GM product is safe, have dogged the authorisation process for some time.

EU environment ministers, prompted by the current EU presidency holders, Austria, called for greater transparency in the approvals process during a meeting in March.

A number of member states also called into question the validity of risk assessment procedures used by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

The EFSA has come under fire from member states and Green NGOs for failing to fully take account of national safety concerns.

Last week during a Vienna conference on GM coexistence, environment commissioner Stavros Dimas broke Brussels ranks by unleashing further criticism on the troubled Parma based agency.

Dimas accused the EFSA of depending too much on information supplied by the biotech industry, when making risk assessments.

"There is the question of whether scientific opinions relied solely on information supplied by companies which produce GMOs," said Dimas.

"The EFSA cannot deliver a sound scientific opinion on GMOs. They only examine short term effects and they do not take into account the opinions of member states."

Decision deadlock

Dimas and Kyprianou will present a series of possible improvements to the scientific basis of the approvals process, which they believe could help break the deadlock of a system that continues to plague both EU member states and Brussels.

National ministers consistently fail to reach a unanimous result on GM products put to them for approval, and this failure to reach an agreement, for or against a new GM approval, invokes a 'comitology' procedure, passing the decision to the commission.

Brussels follows the advice of EFSA - which has so far always pronounced that GM products are safe - and rubber stamps approvals.

"Many member states... expressed discomfort with the way authorisation decisions for GMOs are taken," says the information note.

"These delegations strongly criticised the current comitology procedure and the fact that the commission authorised products against a simple majority of member states."

Predominant positions

This process, it is suggested goes against the spirit of a "predominant position" regularly adopted by member states, when a qualified majority cannot be reached.

The solution, suggest Dimas and Kyprianou in the information note, would be to build up more confidence in the GM authorisation system.

"The best course of action would appear to be for the commission to seek to achieve majorities [in council] which will not raise the issue of predominant position by restoring member states' confidence in the system."

Speaking to journalists on Friday, Dimas hinted that changes to the comitology process and council voting procedures allowing for a straight majority vote on GM authorisations are not up for discussion, despite pressure from Vienna.

"What you can change is the confidence and trust on the scientific soundness of decisions," said Dimas.

"If member states are satisfied with the scientific method, it is easier to make decisions. We will try to improve this confidence."

Proposals

The package of improvements up for debate on Wednesday include improving transparency and consultation between EFSA and national scientific bodies.

The proposals also include a call for more detailed justification by EFSA when its opinions overrule member states scientific objections and more emphasis on addressing the longer term effects on the environment of placing GM products on the market.

Dimas infuriated the biotech industry last week with comments on the long term safety of GM crops, flouting the EU's mantra that all authorised GM products are safe.

"Applications for cultivation of GMO products raise a whole new series of possible risks to the environment, notably potential longer term effects that could impact on biodiversity," said Dimas.

"No new GM varieties have as yet been approved under new the regulatory framework. And it is essential that we address such potential risks before granting approvals for cultivation."

The Greek commissioner's comments were seen as a hint that he could use strict regulations contained in a 2001 directive on deliberate release to block approvals for GM crops to be grown in Europe's fields.

Right to redress

The information note also proposes adapting internal rules of procedure or introducing more informal means to allow member states the right to redress on EFSA opinions.

Green NGOs warned that Brussels would be making a grave mistake if it continued to ignore the concerns of member sates.

"The European commission has ignored the failings of its system for far too long, but must now listen to member states and allow for a stringent, transparent and independent risk evaluation of GMOs," said Eric Gall of Greenpeace.

"Nothing in the WTO ruling prevents the commission from supporting strict rules for the authorisation of genetically modified products, including the evaluation of long-term effects on health and the environment," said Friends of the Earth's Helen Holder.

Agriculture WTO Panel to Issue Final Ruling In Dispute Over GMOs in Early May

WTO Reporter, 31 Mar 2006, by Daniel Pruzin.

GENEVA - A World Trade Organization panel is due to issue a final ruling in early May in the dispute over the European Union's alleged moratorium on the market authorization of products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The four parties in the dispute--the EU on one side, the United States, Argentina, and Canada on the other--have submitted written comments on the panel's interim report circulated Feb. 7 (26 WTO, 02/8/06). Because of the complexity of the 1,050-page interim ruling, the parties were given extra time to submit their comments and criticisms. The panel will take these comments into account before circulating the final ruling.

WTO panels rarely alter their interim conclusions in the final report, and legal experts following the case believe the panel in the GMO dispute will maintain its preliminary findings. The experts have described the ruling as "well-crafted" since it gives both sides reasons to claim victory while avoiding the politically charged question of whether GMO products are safe(29 WTO, 02/13/06).

The ruling will only become official once it has been circulated to the entire WTO membership and formally adopted by the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body. Because the ruling must be translated into the WTO's three official languages (English, French, and Spanish), officials said the ruling may not be circulated until sometime shortly before the WTO's annual summer break in August. The parties will have 60 days from the date of adoption by the DSB to decide whether to appeal the panel's ruling.

In its interim ruling, the panel upheld claims from the United States, Argentina, and Canada that the EU maintained an effective de facto moratorium on approvals of GM foods between 1999-2003, violating the requirement that the authorization requests be processed without "undue delay" under the WTO's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). The panel also agreed with the co-complainants that marketing or import bans on GMO products in six EU member states -- France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Luxembourg, and Greece -- were in violation of WTO rules.

The panel, however, said the co-complainants failed to prove that the EU's assessment procedures were not appropriate in relation to the actual risk posed by GM products, that there was insufficient scientific evidence to justify its assessment procedures, and that the EU failed to apply its procedures in a consistent manner by subjecting biotech products and products produced using biotech processing aids to different approval requirements.

The panel also refused to rule on whether GM foods are generally safe or not, and whether an EU moratorium on GM foods still existed even though the European Commission has approved a handful of biotech products for use over the past year.

EU Commissioners must heed Council critics on GMOs

Friends of the Earth Europe / Greenpeace press release, 11 April 2006.

Brussels, 11 April 2006 ‚ EU Commissioners will be making a grave mistake, Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace warned today, if they ignore the strong criticism levelled by member states on the way GMOs are currently authorised in the EU. The Commission, which has persistently refused to acknowledge any problems in the process, will hold a debate on GMO policy tomorrow, Wednesday 12 April.

"The GMO authorisation process must be halted until it is truly independent and fulfils legal requirements," said Eric Gall of Greenpeace. "The European Commission has ignored the failings of its system for far too long, but must now listen to member states and allow for a stringent, transparent and independent risk evaluation of GMOs."

The Commission's internal discussion follows a public debate in the Environment Council on 9 March, where a vast majority of member states criticised the current GMO authorisation procedures. Member states urged the Commission to improve the implementation of EU GMO legislation and risk evaluation, in particular for long-term effects on health and the environment. They called for more transparency and questioned the appropriateness of using ëcomitology procedures' to decide on GMOs, which leave all power to approve them with the Commission even when most EU governments is opposed.

At tomorrow's debate, DG Trade, DG Industry and DG Research are expected to try and prevent a change in Commission policy. Mr Mandelson, Mr Verheugen and Mr Potocnik have previously used the threat of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute on GMOs to justify a position in favour of the biotech industry. However, the preliminary ruling of the WTO panel (1) reveals that the panel dismissed many of the claims of the US, Canada and Argentina and, crucially, did not rule on the right of countries to set strict biosafety regulations.

"Nothing in the WTO ruling prevents the Commission from supporting strict rules for the authorisation of genetically modified products, including the evaluation of long-term effects on health and the environment," said Helen Holder of Friends of the Earth Europe. The Commission can no longer use the WTO to justify its automatic approval of all GMOs for the sole benefit of the biotech industry."

Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Europe argue that the legal requirements to evaluate long-term effects of GMOs and to take into account scientific uncertainties and member states' objections have been so far been ignored by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Commission. GMOs are solely assessed on the basis of data provided by the applicant company, most of which is kept secret as ëconfidential business information'. This lack of transparency is in breach of EU law and prevents the public and independent scientists from examining the risks of a GM (genetically modified) product.

Contacts :

Eric Gall, GMO policy director, Greenpeace European Unit, +32 (0) 496 16 15 82
Helen Holder, European GMO campaigner, Friends of the Earth Europe, +32 (0) 474 85 76 38

NOTES :

(1) Leaked on 28 February by Friends of the Earth, see: http://www.foeeurope.org/biteback/WTO_decision.htm.

Helen Holder
European GMO campaign coordinator
Friends of the Earth Europe
Rue Blanche 15
1050 Brussels
Belgium
Tel: +322 542 01 82
Fax: +322 537 55 96
Helen.Holder@foeeurope.org www.foeeurope.org>

Resistance continues to GM crops
Europe: not in our fields

Le Monde diplomatique, April 2006

The European Commission and the GM seeds industry invented the idea of coexistence between GM and conventional farming to get GM crops accepted. So why are the GM companies backing a plan to set up a seed bank near the North Pole where it can't be contaminated?

By Robert Ali Brac de La Perriere and Frederic Prat

The Norwegian government has revived plans to build an artificial cave inside a frozen mountain on the island of Svalbard on the edge of the Arctic Circle. The idea is that the genetic diversity currently found in the crops we grow can be preserved by freezing their seeds in the cave. Two million sets of seeds representing all currently known varieties of crop would be put inside this end-of-the-world safe. According to Cary Fowler, head of the Global Crop Diversity Trust, which is promoting the idea: "Should the worst happen, this will allow the world to restart agriculture on this planet." The project's donors include Dupont and Syngenta, two multinational agrochemicals companies which own a significant share of the world's biotechnology patents, and produce large numbers of genetically modified crops.

So the companies that promote GM crops are among the keenest advocates of the need to safeguard the world's plant life. This should provoke concern, since it reflects compelling evidence that conventional plants are being contaminated by transgenic ones. The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research has also raised the alarm. The group maintains a genebank containing more than half a million samples of seeds and covering most major crops. In 2004 it deemed that the probability of genebank collections becoming contaminated was high for maize and rape, medium for rice and cotton. Its report recommended immediate action (1)

Contamination also threatens sources of diversity within a single species. These specific geographical locations are known as original centres of domestication. Mexico is the original centre of domestication and source of the diversity of maize. In 2001 researchers from Berkeley, California, revealed that local Mexican maize varieties had been contaminated by commercial, transgenic varieties from the United States, even though Mexico had a moratorium on GM crops at the time (2).

Transylvania in Romania is a centre of domestication for Prunus species (plum, peach and cherry trees). In 2005 it was discovered that transgenic plum trees, resistant to the Sharka (plum pox) virus, were being cultivated experimentally at a plantation near Bistrita. For 10 years the plantation had been receiving dozens of specimens of transgenic plants from the Bordeaux branch of France's National Institute of Agronomic Research, without official authorisation from the Romanian government, as part of a programme supported by the European Commission.

In Iraq, original centre of domestication for wheat, a USAid programme created 54 sites to grow "improved" US wheat varieties, shortly after the coalition had issued Order 81, setting out the circumstances under which the re-use of seeds by farmers would constitute patent infringement. This provided Monsanto with a readymade market for its transgenic wheat. The agribusiness giant had a setback in 2004 when pressure from US and Canadian farmers, fearful they would lose markets in Europe and Japan, and from a highly mobilised Italian wheat industry, blocked its plans to sell this worldwide.

Since they were first introduced on the world market 10 years ago, GM crops have spread to cover some 90m hectares, 1.8% of all farmed land. For some industrial-scale plantations, such as soya, GM varieties are on the way to complete replacement of conventional varieties. More than 90% of soya in the US and Argentina is now transgenic. Contamination occurs at all stages of the production cycle. The genebank can become contaminated, via samples from fields or during outdoor breeding near a GM plantation. In fields, cross-pollination spreads GM varieties into neighbouring plots. After the harvest, seeds get mixed up in transit, in the warehouse, and while the crops are being processed into food.

In some areas contamination has become endemic. Brazilian soya, Canadian rape and maize in parts of Spain are examples. When it penetrates breedersÇ seed stocks, and even the soil, this contamination becomes permanent.

EU regulations

In 1990 the European Union introduced regulations to govern the marketing of GM crops. The risk involved in each initiative had to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but the assessed risks did not include the cropsÇ wider impact on the diversity of farm produce and on ecosystems in general. In 1999 a strong popular movement against GM crops, combined with resistance from local and regional governments, won an official EU moratorium on new permits for GM crops. A new directive, 2001/18 CE, based on the precautionary principle, was issued in 2001 but the moratorium effectively remained in place until 2004.

During this period the main exporters of GM plants, the US, Canada and Argentina, lodged a complaint against the EU at the World Trade Organisation. But to widespread surprise, the WTO's expert panel did not rule against Europe in its interim report (3).

The precautionary measures in directive 2001/18 CE are limited to certain environmental and health risks, and the procedure for evaluating those risks is opaque and of questionable effectiveness. In theory, it is up to the European Council (the relevant ministers from each member state) to decide. But the council has to achieve a qualified majority decision. As that rarely happens, the European Commission deals with the cases. The commission bases its decisions on reports by experts who base their decisions on risk assessment studies produced by the GM crop companies themselves, not by independent laboratories.

The authorisation of Monsanto's 863 variety of maize is one case. Compulsory toxicity tests showed that rats fed 863 developed abnormalities in their internal organs (their kidneys got smaller) and changes in the composition of their blood. Monsanto's report said these anomalies were of no concern: they were typical of variations observed in rats, and probably due to chance. But when experts from Germany's biosecurity authority looked at the study, they noted "a long list of significant differences" between different groups of rats, and criticised the methodology. This has not prevented 863 from being authorised.

The European Parliament is not consulted when the EU deliberates the authorisation of new varieties of GM crops. Nor is the Committee of the Regions, nor the European Economic and Social Committee. So the strongest democratic opposition to transgenic produce has come from local and regional authorities that have declared themselves GM-free. It is a burgeoning movement: 172 regions and more than 4,500 local authorities have signed the Florence Charter, drawn up in February 2005, which demands "the activation of procedures to identify areas left out from growing GMO produce... so as to ensure that the result of such procedures are not regarded by the EU as a hindrance or barrier to the operation of the internal market at Community level" (4). The charter also stipulates that GM produce should only be marketed if it is demonstrably useful to the consumer and to society at large.

On 23 July 2003 the European Commission asked its member states to organise the coexistence of transgenic, conventional and organic farming. Regulation no 1829/2003, saying how GM food and feed should be labelled, appeared in the EU's official journal. According to these rules, a product would only have to be labelled as GM when the amount of transgenic material in it topped a tolerable level. The idea of tolerable levels is essential in labelling: without it, contaminations would lead to the declassification of products containing only a trace of the unwanted ingredient. For conventional produce, the tolerable level of GM matter is 0.9% of each ingredient, as long as this is "adventitious or technically unavoidable". Under the new rules, the same level would also apply to food labelled as organic. Until then, only entirely GM-free products could call themselves organic.

The commission backed its recommendations on coexistence with substantial financial support for research programmes that could help legitimise it. Yet opinion poll data has continued to show that a large majority of European citizens are against GM food (5). A recent report by the EU's Institute for Prospective Technological Studies is aimed at reassuring them: "If GM presence in seeds does not exceed 0.5%, coexistence in crop production is technically feasible for the target threshold of 0.9%. For maize, additional measures are needed for some specific situations" (6).

Plans for co-existence

Europe is developing sophisticated systems for farming regulation. Germany has drawn up public registers that note the precise location of GM crops. This allows local authorities to provide accurate information to residents and to mediate in compensation cases when farmers claim to have suffered economically as a result of contamination. At the European level, the Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (a subsidiary of the European Commission's joint research centre) is working on a database listing all GM plots and their surroundings.

But plans for "coexistence" between GM and non-GM crops are unrealistic, not least because nearly 60% of farms in the 25-member EU cover less than five hectares. The commission claims that it wants to ensure freedom of choice and democracy. But the systems it is setting up can only lead to authoritarian regulations that impose crop and seed varieties on farmers according to what the seed companies' lobby wants, where and when it wants it. The totalitarian farming that the French Peasants' Confederation denounced 10 years ago, when it attacked the first patented GM crop plantations in France, is becoming a reality.

The commission and the GM industry conjured coexistence to calm opposition to GM crops. But contamination of seeds and crops is inevitable and rising. Contamination affects all crops, but it particularly threatens landraces (an early, cultivated form of a crop species, evolved from a wild population) and to products sold and labelled according to their specific origin. The damage is immeasurable. For organic and biodynamic farming, contamination ultimately means doom. It makes it impossible to use only seeds that are wholly GM-free, removing the right to choose, today and for future generations. The title of the European Commission's conference this month, "Freedom of choice, coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops", is hypocritical.

Contamination occurs as much via the sale of contaminated seeds as by cross-pollination between fields, so responsibility for all contamination should be laid at the door of the procurers and importers of GM products, who should have to bear the costs of effective separation of the different forms of agriculture, from seed to field to sale. Some regions, in Italy in particular, have introduced laws whereby GM crops can only be introduced once a full study into their impact on local farming and quality products, including organics, has been carried out. These procedures should be mandatory in evaluating all requests for authorisation to market GM products in the EU.

It was unsurprising that GM products, foisted on Europe by a coalition of private interests supported by the commission and most member-state governments, would be resisted by European citizens. Local government GM-free zones are one example. Another is the movement known in France as the Faucheurs Volontaires (volunteer reapers) whose supporters take direct action, destroying GM plantations. This has led to judicial proceedings against several people, including the Peasants' Confederation's former spokesman, José Bové. The movement (founded as a civil disobedience movement in 2003 at the counter-globalisation gathering in France's Massif Central) works on the principle that every participant bears responsibility for his or her own actions, without implicating any organisation. Today the Faucheurs have more than 5,000 campaigners in France and are spreading to other European countries.

Some of the Faucheurs have received heavy fines, backed by threats from bailiffs. But two recent decisions suggest that things may be changing: in December 2005 an Orleans court ruled that the destructions were legal, because of a state of necessity clause in the Environmental Charter adopted by the French government in February 2005, which enshrines the precautionary principle in the constitution. In January 2006 a Versailles court followed suit. When representative democracy no longer works and the fate of biodiversity lies with frozen seeds in a cave near the North Pole, resistance makes the law.

Translated by Gulliver Cragg

Robert Ali Brac de la Perriere is a phytogenetics specialist and administrator of Inf'OGM, a non-profit-making watchdog on the GM issue in France. Frederic Prat is an agronomist, also with Inf'OGM

(1) www.ipgri.cgiar.org/policy/GMO Works.

(2) David Quist and Ignacio Chapela, "Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico", in Nature, no 414, 2001. The biotech lobby hotly contested this article, sparking a major controversy.

(3) According to Le Monde, 2 March 2006, media reports that the WTO had ruled against the EU were wrong: the WTO is critical of some EU's countriesÇ decisions and of procedural delays in the issue of permits, but concludes that there is "no need to rule". The WTO will issue a final report this month.

(4) http://www.gmofree-europe.org/

(5) A BVA survey in January 2006 found that 75% of French people were opposed to GM food. For Britain in 2003, the figure stood at 56%, according to Mori.

(6) "New case studies on the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops in European agriculture", http://www.jrc.es/home/index.htm

Resistance continues to GM crops
Mali: not on my farm

Le Monde diplomatique, April 2006

Cotton is the main currency earner for Mali, one of the world's poorest countries. Before Mali would allow the introduction of GM cotton, it asked a citizen's jury to evaluate its potential advantages and dangers. After deliberation, the jury voted against GM.

By Roger Gaillard

A tall, thin man jumped to his feet and grabbed the microphone. In a resonant voice, his forefinger raised towards the fans that struggled to mitigate the midday heat, he addressed the meeting in Bambara, the local language: "We're just poor farmers. Why are they asking us to accept GMOs if the rich farmers in northern countries don't want them?" There were murmurs of agreement from the audience. The microphone was passed to a young farmer with her baby: "What's the point of encouraging us to increase yields with GMOs when we can't get a decent price for what we already produce?"

This happened in the south of Mali, one of the poorest countries in the world. Sikasso is a quiet town in a rural province that produces two-thirds of Mali's main currency earner, cotton. For five days in January, 43 small farmers, many of them women, met for an extraordinary exercise in participatory democracy. The Sikasso Regional Assembly, the provincial parliament, invited cotton growers from across the region to form a citizensÇ jury to evaluate the potential advantages and dangers of introducing GM into Malian agriculture. The CitizenÇs Space for Democratic Deliberation (Ecid) took its name from a form of public debate that is already well-established in Mali. For the first time in West Africa, the jury was supported by European partners promoting participative methods as a means of assessing technological choices and development policies (1).

The Sikasso forum was a response to the strong pressure being exerted upon African countries by food-processing multinationals, led by the United States company Monsanto and the Swiss Syngenta Foundation, which aspire to industrialise the agricultural sector and open markets to transgenic crops. They are promoting Bt cotton, which produces an effective toxin against certain pests, theoretically allowing the reduction of pesticide use and guaranteeing higher yields to farmers. Since West Africa is the worldÇs third-largest cotton-producing area, there is much at stake for these companies, which enjoy the support of the US Agency for International Development and its $100m budget to encourage biotechnologies in the developing world.

African responses have been varied. Despite the threat of famine, Zambia has refused aid from the World Food Programme, which notoriously peddles surplus US GM maize. Benin has accepted this double-edged gift, despite declaring a five-year moratorium on GMOs in 2002. South Africa, the food industryÇs bridgehead, has grown transgenic cotton and maize for almost 10 years, with controversial results. In Burkina Faso, Mali's neighbour, full field trials of GM cotton have been under way since 2003 despite opposition.

In Sikasso, the citizens' jury members listened with sustained concentration to expert witnesses from western and southern Africa, India and Europe. Molecular biologists, agricultural engineers, members of NGOs and representatives of farmers' movements answered wide-ranging questions about the benefits and dangers: environmental and health risks, real productivity increases, socio-economic factors, ethical and legal issues, and cultural implications, all the more relevant for often being unspoken. The Bambara expression for GM is Bayere ma'shi ("transformed mother"): in a country where animism remains a powerful force beneath a veneer of Islam, the reality of genetic engineering - transferring genes from one species to another - is enough to disturb.

Much discussion

There was much discussion of the crucial problem of intellectual property rights and the patenting of living organisms. As the Beninese geneticist Jeanne Zoundjihekpon, from the NGO Grain, pointed out: "Bt seeds are protected by patents that give companies absolute control over growers. Small farmers have always kept seed from the harvest to re-sow the following year, but now the threat of legal action will deprive them of that right." This is a telling argument in an area of Africa where, as Mamadou GoÔta, director of the Coalition to Protect MaliÇs Genetic Heritage, reminded the assembly, the cotton industry is in crisis. The Malian Textile Development Company, 60% of which is owned by the state and 40% by the French company Dagris, is losing money following the devaluation of the CFA franc and the collapse of the global market in white gold, despite the fact that between 1994 and 2005 annual production rose from 320,000 to 600,000 tonnes.

The World Bank has made the company's privatisation in 2008 a necessary condition for any financial aid to Mali's government. At a time when the cost of imported chemicals is rising, the company's losses have driven down the price it pays to producers from 210 CFA francs per kilo in 2004 to 160 (approx 30 US cents) in 2006. Cotton is no longer profitable and many farmers who grow it exclusively are considering diversifying into food crops such as millet and maize. But GoÔta has another suggestion: "Organic cotton could be a passport to markets in European countries where there is opposition to GMOs. In Mali there are 3,000,000 people who depend on cotton, so we simply can't compete with a power like the US, which practises a policy of dumping by paying massive subsidies of $4bn a year to just 25,000 growers."

The multinationals refused to put their case to the ju