NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • August 2006

Archives 2006: January • February • March • April • May • June• July • Sept
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.

31 August 2006

Food watchdog to clear banned US rice from shops

Irish Indedendent, 31 August 2006. By Aideen Sheehan.

BABYFOOD and other rice-based products on sale in Irish shops could contain banned genetically modified (GM) rice from the US.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland announced yesterday that it will test and remove from sale any unauthorised GM rice products discovered in a new EU-wide crackdown on imports of US long grain rice that have not been certified GM-free. But anti-GM campaigners warned that unauthorised GM rice could have already been on sale here for years and may have contaminated processed rice products such as baby food.

The FSAI is working with customs officials to find out how much long grain rice is imported into Ireland from the United States and send it back unless it has been certified to be free of GM strains. They said they would also test existing stocks of US rice and rice-based products already on the market for genetic modification and, if confirmed, would remove them from sale immediately.

The move comes as part of a new EU-wide ban on the sale of US long grain rice that has not been certified free of GM components.

The EU introduced the ban last week after the Bush administration alerted them that an unapproved GM strain of rice called "Liberty Link" LL 601 - was being illegally grown over there and could have got into exports destined for Europe. The FSAI stressed there were no immediate food safety issues from GM rice in the food chain but it had not been authorised for sale and should not be on the market.

"Consumers can be assured that this is not a food safety issue but is related to the presence of an unauthorised line of GM rice in the food chain which is not tolerated under EU law," said FSAI Chief Biotechnology Specialist Dr Pat O'Mahony. Babyfood made from rice would be among the products tested for GM ingredients, the scientist said.

The GM-Free Ireland Network however said this strain of GM rice had been tested in the US since 1998, meaning that contaminated imports could go back many years.

The owners - Bayer Crop Science - have now been hit with a massive lawsuit by rice farmers whose crops it contaminated even though it was never approved for commercial growth or consumption.

Official CSO figures show Ireland imported 34 different types of rice product from the US.

"This latest contamination scandal shows how easily European and Irish food are being contaminated by imports of both illegal and legal GM food and animal feed from the USA and other countries," said GM-Free Ireland spokesman Michael O'Callaghan.

"The fact that such contamination may have occurred for years without being discovered should be the final nail in the coffin of the unworkable EC and Irish government plans to allow the so-called co-existence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming," Mr O'Callaghan said.

The European Food Safety Authorities are currently assessing the safety of a related strain of GM rice, but it is also banned from going on sale here unless it is given the all-clear which will take some time.

Ferris: Survey Confirms Concerns Over Food Imports

Sinn Féin press release 31 August, 2006

The Sinn Féin Spokesperson on Agriculture and Food, Martin Ferris TD has said that a consumer survey published this morning by Agri Aware confirms the concern that has been expressed by many over the origin and standard of items on sale to the consumer. Less than 20% of those polled had full confidence in fresh imported food. This compares to almost 70% who are fully confident in domestically produced food.

The Kerry North TD said: "The survey confirms a number of things that have been highlighted by people involved in the Irish food sector over the past number of years, including food producers themselves. The main one is the belief that much of the food that this country is expected to open its markets to in no way conforms to the health and safety criteria expected of Irish and EU produce. This is especially true with regard to imported meat.

"The other concern is that food imports may affect consumer's health. The report cites more than a dozen reasons including freshness, disease, and the possibility that produce may be genetically modified, as to why Irish consumers have no confidence in imported food. Significantly, most people cited lack of trust in the information given about the product.

Given the huge confidence that Irish people have in Irish food it is crucial that the Government resist further attempts to swamp the market in inferior imports, and that it radically alters its stance on both the importation of genetically modified food imports, and moves to allow the growing of GM crops here."

When genetically modified plants go wild
Even advocates of these crops were shaken recently when GM plants 'escaped' from test areas

The Christian Science Monitor, Aug 31 2006. By Gregory M. Lamb.

In rice-growing states, traces of an unapproved genetically modified (GM) rice have been found mixed in with conventional rice meant for human consumption.

In Oregon, genetically engineered creeping bentgrass, being tested for possible use on golf courses, has been found miles outside its test beds, making it the first GM plant known to have escaped into the wild.

In Hawaii, a federal judge has admonished the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) for displaying "utter disregard" for the state's endangered native plant species. The judge says the USDA failed to conduct research on the environmental effects of fields of experimental corn and sugarcane that had been genetically modified to produce pharmaceuticals. Environmental and food-safety groups have asked for a moratorium on all field tests of experimental drug-producing plants until their safety precautions can be reviewed.

Early indications are that in each case little substantial harm has been done. The experimental rice, for example, is similar to two other GM strains already approved for general use.

But many who closely watch how biotechnology is changing agriculture, including those who see a valuable role for GM crops, are disturbed by what appears to be a series of recent incidents showing lax supervision of experimental plantings by the government and agribusinesses.

"You absolutely should be in compliance with regulations," says Martina Newell-McGloughlin, an internationally recognized advocate for the uses of biotechnology based in Davis, Calif. She directs the University of California's systemwide biotechnology program. The three incidents "aren't health concerns, but they are regulatory concerns," she says. "It's incumbent on the companies, on the USDA ... to ensure that everybody complies with these regulations."

The three incidents convey a message that "the US government has been somewhat lax in its oversight of the biotechnology industry and in some instances has not taken its responsibility to regulate as strongly as it should," says Gregory Jaffe, director of the biotechnology project for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group in Washington that has expressed qualified support for the use of genetic modification in agriculture.

"Clearly this shows that the companies and the government don't have as much control over experimental crops as they need to have," Mr. Jaffe says. "I think there's a sloppiness out there. Industry doesn't take the rules of conduct as seriously as it should."

Government agencies, he says, have adopted what almost amounts to a "don't look, don't find" policy. "We have a fairly passive regulatory system," he says, that does "a little spot checking" but mostly relies on businesses to step forward and report their own problems.

The cases of the escaped GM grass and the mysterious appearance of experimental rice in the food supply raise important questions, says Michael Fernandez, executive director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, a nonprofit group in Washington that seeks to be an independent and objective source of information on agricultural biotechnology. "How do you know that [GM crops] are staying where you want them to stay?" he asks. "As there are more kinds of genetically-engineered crops out there, it continues to pose challenges for companies and for regulators."

Some amount of movement of GM crops outside their containment areas "is virtually inevitable," Mr. Fernandez says. "The question is, how do we feel about that? How important is that? Does it matter what the crop is?" The bentgrass may pose no significant danger, he says, but "would we feel differently" if it were a plant that produced pharmaceuticals?

Last December, a report from the USDA's own Office of the Inspector General urged the department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) division "to strengthen its accountability for field tests of [genetically enhanced] crops." The report added that "weaknesses in APHIS regulations and internal management controls increase the risk that regulated genetically engineered organisms (GEO) will inadvertently persist in the environment...."

The report also criticized APHIS for lacking "basic information about the field test sites it approves and is responsible for monitoring, including where and how the crops are being grown, and what becomes of them at the end of the field test."

In a response, APHIS agreed to implement 23 of the inspector general's 28 recommendations. Among those it rejected was a request to develop guidelines to physically restrict public access to unapproved edible GM crops.

US corn and cotton are mostly GM

America is awash in genetically modified crops that already have been approved for use both as animal feed and for human consumption. This year, 61 percent of all corn and 89 percent of all soybeans planted in the United States were GM varieties, the USDA estimates. More than 80 percent of the US cotton crop is also GM.

But despite that wide usage, the development of other applications and other crops has largely stalled. Plans to introduce a GM wheat to the market have yet to go forward. Nearly all widespread applications of GM to agriculture have been limited to two functions: enhancing resistance to insects or to herbicides. Plans to alter plants through genetic modification to improve such qualities as their flavor, growth rates, or size have yet to blossom.

Suspicion of GM foods in Europe, and to some extent in Asia, is limiting the world market for GM crops. China had been expected to OK the use of GM rice by now, but appears to be dragging its feet. After the news spread that unapproved GM long-grain rice had been found in US consumer supplies, the European Union announced it would require imports of long-grain rice from the US to be certified as free from the GM strain. Japan has suspended its imports of American long-grain rice pending further review.

Farmers sue over 'contaminated' rice

Earlier this month, the USDA reported that a long-grain GM rice strain produced by Bayer CropScience had been found in bins of conventional commercial rice. It marked the first instance in which an unapproved GM rice had been found in the rice supply. The GM rice poses no health or environmental threat, the USDA said. But rice farmers in Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas filed a lawsuit against Bayer this week alleging its genetically modified rice contaminated the crop, according to the Associated Press.

The USDA is conducting an investigation to determine how the contamination occurred, and Bayer now is petitioning to have the strain approved for general use, a spokesman for APHIS says.

In Oregon, APHIS is continuing to monitor the escaped creeping bentgrass, an APHIS spokeswoman says.

The ruling in Hawaii by a federal judge was the first to involve drug-producing GM plants. A coalition of consumer and environmental groups is asking that the government suspend all field tests of drug-producing plants until its process for issuing permits can be reviewed.

In addition, says Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, a consumer group in Washington that is among those seeking a moratorium, the USDA should follow all the recommendations in its inspector general's report. It should also take additional measures, such as regularly testing fields neighboring GM test beds for potential contamination, he says.

But Dr. Newell-McGloughlin hopes that this summer's outbreak of GM fiascos won't be taken out of context.

"The few missteps that have occurred, in my opinion, are tiny in the context of the large amount of good that has been done with this [GM] technology," she says. Genetic manipulation has much more promise for good that has yet to be tapped. By overreacting, we could miss out." The risks, she says, always must be weighed against the benefits. "There is the cost of not doing something," she says.

Bedroom biotech
Like information technology before it, biotech is starting to spawn hackers

The Economist, 31 August 2006.

MANY a computer business has started in a garage or a teenager's bedroom. So, though, has many a computer virus. And where computing led, biotechnology may follow. As genetic information multiplies and the cost of hardware falls, biohackers are emerging.

Biohacking is not quite yet within the range of a teenager with a Saturday job and a parental allowance, but prices are falling. Using second-hand equipment a basic home-biotechnology laboratory could probably be put together for less than $50,000. Understandably, therefore, those biotechnology hobbyists who now exist are few in number. But that looks set to change.

The hordes of biology graduates leaving university hoping to become biotechnology start-up millionaires are the most likely to be tempted by homebrewed biotechnology. They are trained scientists who, for the most part, take the same precautions at home as they would in a university or industrial laboratory. And some have had success. Agribiotics, an agricultural biotechnology firm recently sold for §20m (then $24m), grew from a business run in the basement of a family home.

Encouraged in part by such stories, biotechnology is now becoming a hobby for all sorts of people. Websites such as DNAhack.com and magazines such as Biotech Hobbyist serve as guides to basic biotech procedures. One biotech hobbyist claims to have created a weed resistant to Roundup, America's most popular herbicide. Others have created skin-tissue cultures that glow colourfully under ultraviolet light by splicing in a gene from a species of coral. Some just clone trees.

The science is hard, but the computer revolution showed the tendency for people to jump on the bandwagon of a new technology, no matter the intellectual difficulties. Even toymakers have noticed the trend-the Discovery DNA Explorer, suitable for those over ten years old, helps children extract and map DNA.

If the trend persists, ethical issues and definite penalties for wrongdoing will probably be taught alongside practical techniques. The excitement of playing with the latest technology is hard to tame-but like any dangerous beast, it is best approached not with fear but with caution and a plan.

Sythetic biology: Life 2.0
The new science of synthetic biology is poised between hype and hope. But its time will soon come

The Economist, 31 August 2006.

IN 1965 few people outside Silicon Valley had heard of Gordon Moore. For that matter, no one at all had heard of Silicon Valley. The name did not exist and the orchards of Santa Clara county still brought forth apples, not Macintoshes. But Mr Moore could already discern the outlines. For 1965 was the year when he published the paper that gave birth to his famous "law" that the power of computers, as measured by the number of transistors that could be fitted on a silicon chip, would double every 18 months or so.

Four decades later, equally few people have heard of Rob Carlson. Dr Carlson is a researcher at the University of Washington, and some graphs of the growing efficiency of DNA synthesis that he drew a few years ago look suspiciously like the biological equivalent of Moore's law. By the end of the decade their practical upshot will, if they continue to hold true, be the power to synthesise a string of DNA the size of a human genome in a day.

At the moment, what passes for genetic engineering is mere pottering. It means moving genes one at a time from species to species so that bacteria can produce human proteins that are useful as drugs, and crops can produce bacterial proteins that are useful as insecticides. True engineering would involve more radical redesigns. But the Carlson curve (Dr Carlson disavows the name, but that may not stop it from sticking) is making that possible.

In the short run such engineering means assembling genes from different organisms to create new metabolic pathways or even new organisms. In the long run it might involve re-writing the genetic code altogether, to create things that are beyond the range of existing biology. These are enterprises far more worthy of the name of genetic engineering than today's tinkering. But since that name is taken, the field's pioneers have had to come up with a new one. They have dubbed their fledgling discipline "synthetic biology".

Truly intelligent design

One of synthetic biology's most radical spirits is Drew Endy. Dr Endy, who works at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, came to the subject from engineering, not biology. As an engineer, he can recognise a kludge when he sees one. And life, in his opinion, is a kludge.

No intelligent designer would have put the genomes of living organisms together in the way that evolution has. Some parts overlap, meaning that they cannot change jobs independently of one another. Others have lost their function but have not been removed, so they simply clutter things up. And there is no sense of organisation or hierarchy. That is because, unlike an engineer, evolution cannot go back to the drawing board, it can merely play with what already exists. Biologists, who seek merely to understand how life works, accept this. Engineers such as Dr Endy, who wish to change the way it works, do not. They want to start again.

So Dr Endy has developed an idea invented by Tom Knight, one of his colleagues at MIT. Dr Knight calls the idea "BioBricks". His inspiration was a children's toy called Lego. What makes Lego successful is that any part can attach to any other via a universal connector. A BioBrick is a strand of DNA that has universal connectors at each end. BioBricks can thus be linked together to form higher-level components and also joined into the DNA of a cell so that they can control its activity.

Dr Endy likes BioBricks because they promise the synthetic biologist the standardised set of parts that has been one of the advantages enjoyed by the electronic engineers behind Moore's law. If an engineer wants a particular component for a job, he can go to a catalogue, find a widget with the right parameters and order it from a supplier. He does not have to design it himself. He does not even have to know how it works. Dr Endy thinks BioBricks can put biologists in the same position.

The DNA of a BioBrick contains a combination of genes that acts as a standardised component. When translated into protein in a cell, it makes that cell do something-and that something is often more than just "make more of protein X". In particular, Dr Endy is interested in switches and control systems that regulate other genes. Such switches are the basis of electronics and he hopes they may one day become the basis of an industrialised synthetic biology.

At the moment, BioBricks, like Lego, are still a toy. They have been used for proof-of-principle studies such as taking photographs with films made of modified bacteria, but not yet for serious applications. But there are a lot of them around-many in the public domain at MIT's Registry of Standard Biological Parts. Such "open wetware" is one reason for the emergence of biohacking (see article).

Whether BioBricks will come to dominate the field remains to be seen. One difficulty they face is the cussed tendency of biological things to evolve. An electronic component, once designed, can be turned out reliably in a factory. BioBricks are bred, rather than made, and that introduces scope for error. Meanwhile, other researchers are content to work with things that more closely resemble natural components, although they still assemble them in unconventional ways.

A new synthesis

One of the leading proponents of this method is Jay Keasling, of the University of California, Berkeley, who also believes that synthetic biology will ultimately need standard, well-characterised parts if it is to thrive. But he is trying to get there via a practical project, rather than by generating lots of components and waiting for others to think of what to do with them.

Dr Keasling's project is to do biologically what no chemist has yet managed to accomplish-to synthesise an antimalarial drug called artemisinin cheaply. At the moment, artemisinin is a herbal remedy. It is extracted from Artemisia annua, a type of wormwood, and the best source is in China. Making artemisinin by standard chemistry requires so many steps that it is impractical. So Dr Keasling persuaded the Gates Foundation to back his idea for doing the job using synthetic biology.

For this, he has built a metabolic pathway in yeast cells that synthesises a chemical called artemisinic acid which chemists can easily convert into artemisinin. Some of the genes to do this have come from Artemisia, but others have been created from other sources.

Dr Keasling's project is not the only one to lay down artificial metabolic pathways. One goal of synthetic biology is to make what is known as cellulosic ethanol. At the moment, ethanol-whether for wine, beer or fuel-is made by fermenting sugar or starch. But even in crops such as sugar cane and maize, which have been bred for their high yields, a lot of the plant is wasted. Although yeast cannot digest cellulose or lignin, the molecules that form a plant's skeleton, some bacteria and other species of fungi are able to do the job. Identifying the genes for the enzymes that do this, modifying them and assembling them into new pathways would produce systems that could digest the whole plant and turn it into ethanol. Nancy Ho, of Purdue University, in Indiana, has already worked out a way to enable yeast cells to ferment the sugars produced by breaking down cellulose-which natural yeast cannot do.

This is important stuff. Cellulosic ethanol is the great hope of many environmentalists since its carbon, unlike that in fossil fuels, comes from the atmosphere and thus cannot make a net contribution to global warming when it returns there.

The ultimate proof of the success of synthetic biology, though, would be not merely an artificial metabolic pathway, but an artificial organism. That is the goal of Craig Venter. Dr Venter, the man who first sequenced the entire genome of a living creature (a bacterium) and then went on to run a private-enterprise rival to the publicly funded Human Genome Project, has re-invented himself again. This time he is synthesising genomes, rather than analysing them. Three years ago he made the first viable synthetic virus from off-the-shelf chemicals. (It is a parasite of bacteria, not humans.) Now he has a bacterial genome in his sights.

To make the task easier, Dr Venter is first creating what he and Hamilton Smith, his collaborator at the Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland, call the minimal genome. This is a stripped-down bacterial genome that contains the smallest set of genes consistent with life in the cushy environment of a laboratory. Such a genome would have several advantages for synthetic biologists. First, being small, it would be easier to make. Second, it would not survive in the big, bad world outside the laboratory, should it chance to escape. Third, it would not dissipate its biochemical effort on non-essential tasks. That means it could be used as a platform on which to bolt commercially useful pathways.

According to Dr Venter, the raw materials for those pathways are abundant. As he observes, half the mass of living organisms on the planet is made of bacteria and these bacteria are divided into zillions of species with countless unidentified genes. For the past couple of years he has been sampling the oceans and collecting bacterial genes. He has identified about 6m.

Among them are, for example, 20,000 genes for hydrogen-metabolising proteins. That is of particular interest, since Dr Venter sees synthetic biology as a source of new energy-generating technologies-and he has the backing of America's Department of Energy to prove the point. He has also found numerous genes for versions of rhodopsin. In vertebrates this protein is found in retinal cells, where it transduces the energy of light into a nerve signal to the brain. What it is doing in so many bacteria is not known, though one possibility is signalling how deep they are in the ocean as a consequence of how dark it is. Whatever the cause, the energy conversion that rhodopsin brings about is also of interest.

It's life, Jim, but not as we know it

Dr Venter reckons he will be able to synthesise a working bacterial genome from scratch within two years. More complex genomes, of the sort that make plants, animals and fungi, will take longer. But they, he thinks, should be possible within a decade. Even this definitive erasure of the distinction between the living and non-living worlds is not, however, the most radical idea in synthetic biology. Some people want to go beyond the toolkit that evolution has provided and create biological systems that work with a chemistry that is not found in natural living things.

Biology's operating system relies on two sorts of molecule: nucleic acids and amino acids. Nucleic acids (DNA and its cousin, RNA) act as information stores. The information they store is how to assemble amino acids into proteins, which are chains of linked amino acids. Proteins then go on to do the work of sustaining life. They manufacture other sorts of biological molecules, such as fats and sugars. They process energy. They provide structural support for cells.

One of the recurrent principles of evolution is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". That is why the kludges Dr Endy is trying to eliminate have endured across the millennia. Once the nucleic acid-amino acid operating system came into existence it could never be "fixed" into anything else by evolution, because the immediate consequences would have been so serious. But that does not mean it cannot be changed by an intelligent designer, and a number of such people are looking into how this might be done.

One obvious improvement would be to increase the number of amino acids that can be assembled into proteins. At the moment only 20 are used routinely in biology, but chemists can make thousands of others. Proteins containing those "non-biological" amino acids would have novel properties, and some of those properties might be useful. That, at least, is the thinking behind the attempt by Lei Wang, of the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California, to extend the amino-acid parts set. Dr Wang's starting point is the redundancy of the genetic code used by nucleic acids. This code is spelled out in the genetic "letters" A, C, G and T, which correspond to chemical sub-units of nucleic acids. The letters are grouped into three-letter "words" known as codons, meaning that there are 64 of them. All but three of the codons correspond to particular amino acids, and the order of the codons in the nucleic acid corresponds to the order of the amino acids in the protein. The remaining three are signals that the protein is complete.

But, with more codons than amino acids, many amino acids have more than one codon to describe them. There is also a superfluity of stop signals. Dr Wang has managed to reassign one of the stop codons in E. coli, the bacterial workhorse of geneticists, to recognise an unnatural amino acid. This can now be incorporated into proteins made by the bacterium.

Peter Carr of MIT and Farren Isaacs of Harvard Medical School have an even more ambitious plan. They intend to recode E. coli completely, eliminating the redundant codons. They have settled on one codon for each natural amino acid and one for the stop signal and plan to go through the bacterium's entire genome replacing alternative codons with their chosen ones. The idea is that the cleaned up bacterium will be more efficient. That remains to be seen; natural selection has been working on E. coli for a long time, so whether two intelligent designers can do a better job is questionable. But if their new bacterium is at least viable, it will have 43 codons that can be re-assigned to other tasks.

The debate evolves

Where all this will lead is anybody's guess. But synthetic biologists themselves are aware of the risks. The most obvious is that somebody, whether a malicious biohacker or a political terrorist, will do something deliberately nasty. The other risk is that something will escape accidentally.

No technology is risk free, but synthetic biology has the twist that its mistakes can breed. Today the risks are not great. As David Baltimore, the president of the California Institute of Technology, observes, "nature is a very tough critic". Any organism modified in a laboratory is unlikely to make it in the outside world in competition with creatures toughened up by natural selection. Nevertheless, as knowledge increases, so will the risk that something truly nasty might be unleashed.

To avoid that and the opposite problem of hasty legislation to curb their activities, researchers are trying to get their retaliations in first by promoting public debate. Their historical model is the Asilomar conference of 1975, when the first biotechnologists met to agree on self-denying ordinances that went a long way towards establishing their credentials as responsible and trustworthy people. Despite initial fears, biotechnology has not, up to now, caused any serious problems.

A recent meeting of biosynthesists in Berkeley issued a discussion document; the Sloan Foundation has paid for a report, coming out soon, on the risks and social implications of synthetic biology. So far, perhaps surprisingly, the wider public has shown little interest. Perhaps it should.

Synthetic biology: Playing demigods
Synthetic biology needs to be monitored, but not stifled

The Economist, 31 August 2006.

THERE will be no thunderstorm, no bolts of lightning channelled through giant switchgear, and definitely no hunchbacks called Igor. But sometime soon a line will be crossed in a laboratory somewhere and the first unarguably living thing created from scratch by the hand of man will divide itself in two and begin to reproduce. When it does so, it will abolish, once and for all, a distinction as old as human thought: that between animate and inanimate matter.

It is not considered polite, in the circles of synthetic biology as the subject is known, to mention the "F" word. Yet behind almost every discussion of the ethics of modern biology lurks the grinning spectre of Mary Shelley's novel, "Frankenstein", a parable on the unintended consequences of creating life. In truth, there is not much that is ethically dubious about making a bacterium from scratch. Making life is less worrying than modifying life-and modifying it in ways that are accidentally or deliberately harmful to mankind.

Synthetic biology is more than the mere tinkering of biotechnology. That just moves single genes around. Synthetic biologists plan to move lots of genes and to industrialise the process in a way that will let people order biological parts as routinely as they order electrical components. If this vision is realised (and there is still a long way to go) biotechnology will become a true branch of engineering, with benefits for industry, medicine and agriculture (see article and article). But biotechnology will also become a game that almost anyone can play-for fun or profit; recklessly or responsibly; for good or ill.

Just as computing created a generation of bedroom and garage hackers in the 1980s, so synthetic biology will attract its hackers, too. That is already starting to happen and will happen more as the technology for synthesising DNA becomes cheaper. Generally, that is a good thing. The world has much to gain from an explosion of creativity similar to the computer boom sparked by those hackers when they reached working age. But as the benign hobby of computer hacking generated a small coterie of malicious hackers (or crackers, as they are known in the trade), so biological hacking risks generating biological crackers. To say nothing of the threat of political terrorism or the accidental release of experimental organisms.

Unbinding Prometheus

Synthetic biologists, still a small group, are aware of these risks and are already thinking about how to counter them. They know that if their field is to be accepted by a suspicious public they must invite scrutiny, rather than merely tolerating it. Some self-regulation is in place. Many firms that make DNA to order screen the requests they receive to see if they match known pathogens. A report on the ethical issues, commissioned by scientists and paid for by the Sloan Foundation, should be released soon. Nevertheless, considering the brouhaha that surrounds genetic engineering, synthetic biology has stirred up surprisingly little wider debate. What the scientists are afraid of is an unforeseen accident and its sudden regulatory consequences amid confusion and half-truths.

The risks this new field brings are real, but they should neither be exaggerated nor obscure its huge promise. At the moment a bioterrorist would be better advised to use an existing "weaponised" pathogen (there are plenty) than to make a new one from scratch. For a laboratory organism to survive in the harsh Darwinian outside world, it would have to be very carefully crafted indeed. That may change, and the world may well one day need a system of rules and controls. But "Frankenstein" was only a novel. Though it may have frightened people at the time, it has not come true. With a little forethought and oversight, fears about synthetic biology should turn out to be equally unfounded.

LibertyLink 601 found in LSU AgCenter foundation seed rice

LSU AcCenter Aug 31, 2006. By Bruce Schultz

Independent lab tests have confirmed a sample of 2003 foundation seed rice of the variety Cheniere grown by the LSU AgCenter contained a trace amount of genetic material from LL601 - a LibertyLink genetically modified rice.

The test results received Wednesday (Aug. 30), however, indicated Cheniere foundation seed grown in 2005 appeared to be free of Liberty Link 601.

Those tests, validated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, also indicated lots from 13 other varieties currently in the LSU AgCenter's foundation seed program also appeared to be free of LL601. The other varieties involved in the initial testing included Cocodrie, Cypress, Trenasse, Pirogue, Bengal, Jupiter, Clearfield 131 and Clearfield 161.

'We are conducting a thorough inquiry to determine how this happened,' said David Boethel, LSU AgCenter vice chancellor for research. 'We also are cooperating closely with officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in their investigation of the circumstances.'

The LSU AgCenter submitted samples to a testing lab soon after it was reported on Aug. 18 that trace amounts of LL601 were detected in samples of rice taken from Riceland Foods. The long-grain rice from Riceland came from the 2005 crop held in storage facilities in Arkansas and Missouri, according to the USDA, but the agency said it didn't know where the rice was grown.

LibertyLink lines of rice were developed by Bayer CropScience - to allow the Liberty herbicide to be sprayed on weeds without killing the rice plants. The USDA and the Food and Drug Administration have approved two LibertyLink lines similar to LL601, although those are not in commercial production, and federal authorities have concluded that LibertyLink rice poses no threat to food safety, human health or the environment.

Field research on LibertyLink was conducted in collaboration with Bayer CropScience at the LSU AgCenter's Rice Research Station near Crowley, La., from 1999 through 2001.

At the time, LibertyLink technology was in the developmental stages. The research was focused on addressing control of a perennial problem for farmers known as red rice, which is the major weed problem facing rice producers in the southern United States.

'Weed control is one of our biggest problems, and we saw LibertyLink as one of several solutions,' said Ernest Girouard, a rice grower from Kaplan, La., who also is chairman of the Louisiana Rice Research Board. 'Weeds can make a significant impact on yields and can make the difference between profitability and loss.

'Similar weed control technologies have had a significant positive impact on production of other crops.'

According to Steve Linscombe, a rice breeder who also serves as director of the LSU AgCenter Rice Research Station, standards set by the USDA were followed strictly in the research with LL601, and the field plots of LibertyLink rice were isolated from other rice plants.

'In fact, we made sure the distance between the LibertyLink plots and other conventional rice plots was further apart than what the research protocols required,' Linscombe said. 'When there was a minimum requirement, we exceeded it.'

Further safeguards in the foundation seed protocols may also be what accounted for finding LL601 material in just one of the rice lots tested this month.

'The test results we received this week demonstrated that LL601 was found in the 2003 sample of Cheniere seed but not in 2005 seed,' Linscombe said. ' That is probably a result of the rigorous screening and selection employed in our foundation seed program.

'It may mean it has been eliminated from the variety, but further tests are needed, including those being conducted by APHIS.'

Commercial production of genetically modified crops has become common. The USDA estimates that more than 60 percent of corn, 83 percent of cotton and almost 89 percent of soybeans grown in the United States this year were genetically modified for various traits, including herbicide tolerance and insect resistance.

'The LSU AgCenter's foundation seed program has been extremely important to the U.S. rice industry. Over the years, the LSU AgCenter rice variety development program has released varieties that are among the most widely planted throughout the southern U.S. rice-growing area,' Boethel said.

Suspected unauthorised GMO rice in Netherlands

Reuters, 31 August 2006.

BRUSSELS, Aug 31 (Reuters) - A rice shipment suspected of containing an unauthorised GMO strain from the United States arrived in the Netherlands on Saturday but has not entered the market, the European Commission said.

"We do have a suspected positive case in Rotterdam," Commission spokesman Philip Tod told a news conference on Thursday, adding that Dutch authorities were testing the consignment.

"We also have been told by industry of another suspected positive case in New Orleans, but that has not left the U.S."

The shipment in Rotterdam also came from New Orleans and was partly destined for Britain and partly for Germany, he said.

Last week, the EU tightened requirements on U.S. long-grain rice imports to prove the absence of a genetically modified (GMO) strain known as LL Rice 601 marketed by Germany's Bayer AG (BAYG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) and produced in the United States.

The EU decision followed the discovery by U.S. authorities of trace amounts of LL Rice 601, engineered to resist a herbicide, in long-grain samples that were targeted for commercial use -- the first time this had happened.

"To my knowledge, the ship in Rotterdam is the only one which has arrived since adoption of the measure," Tod said.

"We have asked them to urgently conduct the necessary tests using the validated methods which they now have to give us a more accurate picture of this shipment."

The Commission, the executive arm of the 25-country European Union, hopes to have the test results within the next week.

More worrying for Brussels, the presence of the unauthorised strain in the U.S. commercial rice market may date back to early 2006, Tod said.

Last year, EU member states imported 300,000 tonnes of U.S. rice, with 85 percent being long grain.

"We can't rule out the possibility that contaminated rice has been imported into the EU," Tod said.

The EU's executive arm has already complained to Washington about its information policy that caused a near three-week delay in telling Brussels that traces of the unauthorised GMO had been found in the commercial rice.

GMO rice: Lawsuits, legislation, markets and frustrations

Delta Farm Press, 31 August 2006. By David Bennett, Farm Press Editorial Staff.


As president of the Arkansas Rice Growers Association, John Alter has had a busy couple of weeks. The Aug. 18 USDA announcement that tiny amounts of a Bayer genetically modified organism had been found in the U.S. rice supply sent rice prices down. Soon after, Alter's phone began ringing and it hasn't stopped since.

"The calls have flooded in. Mostly, (fellow farmers) are just trolling for information," says the Dewitt, Ark., producer whose own rice crop is nearing harvest. "Everyone is scrambling to find out something ó anything ó about this. They're angry and confused and no one knows what to do. For some reason, there's a lot of mystery surrounding this."

Although Delta Farm Press has been unable to confirm it, ARGA has reported Cocodrie and Cheniere are varieties harboring Bayer's LibertyLink trait. (Editor's note: to view that information, see www.arkansasricegrowers.com/archive_news.htm.)

On Aug. 29, Alter ó who also sits on the Arkansas Rice Research and Promotion Board ó spoke about the current swirl of farmer worries, lawsuits, Bayer's response and proposed legislation. Among his comments:

Anything new going on?

"First thing: regardless of how this mess happened, this (LibertyLink) protein is a food-grade product. It's safe and hasn't caused an absolute tragedy like what would happen if pharma-rice outcrossed with the commercial crop.

"As for what's new, it's my understanding (industry leaders)Ö may try to use farmers' money like they did in 2000-2001 in the Mexican dumping case. To remind everyone, that's when approximately $700,000 of farmers' money was spent defending a single rice company. Those funds were spent for so-called 'market protection.'

"I hope they're not planning to go down the same road. No more money brought to the table by farmers needs to be spent for such thingsÖ Anyone thinking along those lines should know we're ahead of them this time, not behindÖ

"Also, comments have been made that this problem is widespread and throughout rice-producing areas. What science has been used (to make such conclusions)? I'm not disputing that may be the case. But if the research tests have been done, let us know what they were and when they occurred."

What about the information released by your organization stating that Cocodrie and Cheniere hold (the offending GMO traces)? How solid is that information?

"Respected researchers have told us they believe (the problem) isÖ in those two varieties. We have no way of knowing that (independently)... If a farmer (has those varieties), we were told it would be a good idea to try and keep them separate.

"If true, no one knows the end result of this information price-wise. Will there be premiums and/or discounts? One would imagine there would be, in light of the EU stance on thisÖ"

Can you characterize these researchers further?

"I've spoken with (them) off the record, so I have to be careful. But this comes from several (sources)Ö There's no way to (independently) confirm that without adequate testing.

"However, I understand the various research universities in the six rice-producing states have been asked to submit samples of their seed stock for testing. I don't know how far along that process is."

On common questions in the farming communityÖ

"Farmers continue to wonder why it took so long for the information to reach the (field). As an organization, we're standing back and waiting for the investigations to prove what they will.

"However, we hope any investigation looks at not only how this happened but if anyone ó any company, or companies ó profited from having knowledge farmers (weren't provided)Ö

"Farmers need a voice ó someone who speaks for them alone. It would be great if all rice industry segments were holding hands and skipping down the path together. But it's foolish to think that's always the case.

"If this LibertyLink situation isn't evidence of that, then there ain't a cow in Texas."

Is ARGA in contact with the USDA and APHIS?

"Yes. But let's put this in perspective.

"APHIS is the department within the USDA responsible for monitoring test plots and outdoor development, growing and transportation of GMOs. I have a copy of a GAO audit (of APHIS) from last year that wasn't very flattering about APHIS' ability to monitor (GMOs).

"It's scary to read the audit andÖ understand the lack of real oversight in place. We all assume someone is watching (GMO research) and protecting us. But this audit says APHIS doesn't have sufficient resources to do so."

On ARGA and its umbrella organization (US Rice Producers Association) being involved in recent Missouri and Arkansas GMO legislationÖ

"This (LibertyLink) situation doesn't surprise me at all.

"It will be two years in January that the ARGA was the sole organization that introduced legislation to regulate the transportation, outdoor growth of GMO rices. We told the Arkansas legislature then that this wasn't a matter of 'if' but 'when.'

"We weren't using scare tactics. But we know the practicality of growing any (GMO rice) outdoors in close proximity to a valuable, commercial rice crop is a serious danger. And now we've seen a fraction of what that danger can be.

"Thank God this GMO is a food-grade grain. It's safe (for consumption) and I believe the market with calm down. Of course, that's cold comfort. We can measure how far the market has fallen, but we can't measure the upside potential that's been lost. Who knows how much we really lost?

"But I know this: once again, the real loser is the farmer. No one in the rice business has lost any money except the farmer.

"The (GMO-related) bill that finally passed the Arkansas legislatureÖ hasn't been implemented. There have been no regulations written, no board appointed to oversee it.

"Right now, we're hardly better off than we were when the bill was passed almost two years ago."

"Let me be clear: the bill we introduced during the last Arkansas legislative session would not have prevented this LibertyLink event. There's no doubt about that. This LibertyLink situation was in the works well before that.

"The thing is, we don't know what's in the hopper right now. We don't know what's growing right now that's a risk to our crops next year and in coming years.

"Regardless, we all know Joe Farmer is the one who will really pay. That's why he needs be at any table when policy decisions (regarding GM rice) are made."

What about the lawsuits being filed? Is your organization considering a suit?

"ARGA hasn't entertained any legal action. It was our hope Bayer, by being a good corporate citizen, would short out the need for (such) suits.

"There have been plenty of rumblings of lawsuits for days. The fact that they've been filed isn't a surprise. And I expect a bunch more to be filed.

"I've been contacted by lawyers wanting to file. I've told them, 'At this time, I have no interest and neither does ARGA.'

"ARGA is in every rice-growing county in Arkansas. We have a good representation of rice growers and our membership continues to increase. We're gaining new members every day ó a lot through our newsletter. We've certainly seen an up-tick in memberships since this broke.

"We're here to protect farmers' interests in issues just like this. I expect we'll be very involved in how our check-off money is spent as it relates to this situation.

"Most farmers are angry because this hit them directly in the pocketbook. In the pastÖ most farmers just considered check-off money to be an automatic ó like walking into Wal-Mart and paying a tax for goods. You just pay it and don't question where it goes.

"Most didn't know they really can control those funds. It's very important when your money has something to do with influence over policy and laws."

Anything else?

"If farmers will be a little patient, it's our hope we'll all recoverÖ Things have a way of working out. We hope they will and that the market recovers.

"The financial strain on most farmers today is incredible. Hopefully, the market will offer us enough to reduce the pressure."

Efforts to take GMO control blocked

The Mendocino Beacon (California), 31 August 2006

Local food safety activists have apparently successfully led efforts to defeat a proposed new state law that would prevent other counties from following the lead of Mendocino County on genetically-modified (GM) farm crop regulation.

Mendocino County was specifically exempt from the effects of Senate Bill 1056. The bill was approved last week on a 46-19 vote in the California Assembly and sent back to the Senate, where it was approved previously. While the bill needed only a simple concurrence vote in the Senate, it was apparently blocked there. State Sen. Wes Chesbro's office told pleased local activists that the bill would not get a Senate vote this week, ending its chances this year, said Els Cooperrider, a leading proponent of the controversial Mendocino county ordinance restricting GMOs. The legislative session ended Thursday, the same day this newspaper was going to press. Local activists helped lead a statewide effort to lobby Sen. Don Perata, the Senate Pro Tem. Some reports credited Perata with killing the bill.

"What I know is that a bunch of us lobbied everyone we could think of. I called Mike Thompson to call Perata as well. I figured it couldn't hurt," said Cooperrider. "We are keeping our fingers crossed and hoping Chesbro was right."

If signed into law by the governor as all sides had expected, the bill would have prevented individual counties or cities from banning the use of GM crops.

Mendocino became the first county in the United States to restrict the growing of genetically-modified organisms. Currently, there are three additional California counties and nearly 100 towns in New England which restrict the growing of GMOs, said Britt Bailey, director of Environmental Commons in Gualala.

"SB1056 strips local communities of their rights to shape their food systems [so that they] reflect the unique characteristics and features of their region," Bailey said.

The effect of moratoriums like the one passed in Mendocino County is precautionary in nature, Bailey explained.

"These communities have s?in essence pro-actively protected their local food supplies from possible genetic contamination which occurs when an engineered gene enters another species of crop or wild plant through cross-pollination," she said.

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is a man-made plant or animal created in a laboratory using genes from other species and patented for use in agriculture. The bill would prevent local regulation of GM seed and nursery stock.

Trinity and Marin counties have also passed ordinances restricting GMOs and would also have been exempt from the bill. Twelve other counties, mostly in the San Joaquin Valley, have passed ordinances in support of GMOs. Santa Cruz Count yhas backpedaled on a plan passed earlier. Media reports said most of the opposition was coming from Mendocino and other areas that have already banned GMOs and would not be affected.

Supporters of SB1056 say the goal is to create guidelines for consistent statewide legislation on genetically-engineered crops.

"Agribusiness lobbyists such as Dow and Monsanto claim that this statewide preemption is necessary to create uniformity and consistent statewide regulation," Bailey said.

"However, the bill puts the state in the nonsensical position of preempting local authority and declaring that it occupies the entire field' on an issue - genetically modified crops - for which there is not one law or regulation on the books. SB1056 preempts to a statutory void," Bailey said.

After Mendocino County banned GMOs, conservative think tanks in the U.S. such as the Hoover Institution launched a large-scale effort to debunk the notion that there is any threat from so-called "Frankenfoods."

At the same time, Asian and European nations have been perplexed by the American enthusiasm for freshly created life forms and have restricted imports from the United States.

"The agricultural industry has been pushing state bills like this across the country to preempt local municipalities from having local control over food safety," said Toni Rizzo of Fort Bragg, a s?supporter of the Mendocino County GMO ban.

"It's another way that corporate money is used to stifle the democratic process and take away our right to control the quality of the food and environment in our communities."

The Assembly passage of SB1056 was a bi-partisan effort, which included Central Valley Democrats, who normally support environmental efforts, the publication Capitol Weekly News reported. Most of the Central Valley now grows genetically-modified foods, such as tomatoes bolstered by genes from cattle. Weeds have evolved resistance to nearly all pesticides and herbicides but when combined with animal genes, more toxic sprays can be used on weeds which then don't kill the farmed crops such as rice.

Genetically-modified crops can have significant impacts on the environment, the economy, and public health, Bailey claims.

Several recent incidents highlight risks associated with inadequate control of genetically modified crops, she said. On Aug. 5, it was reported that genetically-engineered herbicide-resistant bentgras swere discovered in the wild in Oregon.

Norman Ellstrand, University of California plant geneticist, said, "Such resistance could force land managers and government agencies ... to switch to nastier herbicides to control grasses and weeds."

In another blow for GMOs, USDA Secretary Mike Johanns announced that U.S. supplies of long-grain rice have been contaminated with a genetically engineered variety not approved for human consumption, leading Japan, South Korea, and Europe to reject all U.S. long-grain rice, according to the Washington Post.

Assemblywoman Patty Berg, D-Eureka, whose district includes the coast, said she was disappointed that her colleagues approved SB1056 by Central Valley lawmaker Dean Florez.

Berg spoke against the bill, which passed despite opposition from environmental and local government interests.

"When counties in my district voted to restrict the use of GMO crops, I supported those efforts. I still support those efforts. I believe that people have a right to say what goes on in their counties, in their fields and near their homes. I oppose this bill, and I will oppose any bill that would strip from counties the right to restrict this technology," Berg said on the Assembly floor.

Florez said that some of the demands made by environmentalists in negotiations have been unreasonable ó most notably the suggestion that all fields with GM crops be covered in heavy plastic to prevent pollen from escaping. Much of Florez' district is already planted in genetically engineered crops, Capitol Weekly News reported.

"This bill may come back next year in a new suit. I'm sure it will," said Cooperrider.

For more information, see http://environmentalcommons.org/food-democracy-CA.html.

Experimental GE rice should be stopped at border

Press Release: New Zealand Green Party, 31 August 2006

New Zealand Food Safety Authority's refusal to take any precautionary action in response to the importation of an illegal, untested, experimental GE rice is leaving consumers vulnerable, the Green Party says.

"The Authority should have immediately moved to suspended imports of long grain rice from the United States and launched a programme to test the level of contamination in the product already here," Safe Food Spokesperson Sue Kedgley says.

Liberty Link Rice 601 (LL601) is experimental, genetically engineered rice. It has not been approved for consumption or cultivation anywhere in the world. Earlier this month the United States Department of Agriculture announced that commercial rice was contaminated with Liberty Link grains.

The New Zealand Food Safety Authority has confirmed that 'indications are that low levels' of the contaminated rice have been imported into New Zealand.

"Japan immediately suspended all imports of long-grain rice from the USA, and the European Union has announced it will not permit any shipments into Europe unless they carry a clearance certificate assuring that it is not contaminated," Ms Kedgley says.

"In New Zealand, however, the NZSFA is doing nothing except issue bland assurances that this rice 'poses no public health or food safety risk'. Given that this experimental rice has never undergone any safety tests, I want to know how the Authority can claim that it poses no public health or food safety risk?"

"The Food Safety Authority is mandated to protect consumers and ensure that illegal, unapproved food does not enter the food supply. It has failed abysmally in this case.

"This is a classic public relations response by the Food Safety Authority - downplay the risk and reassure consumers that there are no concerns. In this case it seems the Authority is more interested in not upsetting a trading partner than in protecting New Zealand consumers," Ms Kedgley says.

30 August 2006

EU still anxious for details on U.S. biotech rice

Reuters, Aug 30, 2006. By Jeremy Smith

BRUSSELS, Aug 30 (Reuters) - EU food safety authorities are still waiting for Washington to provide more details about an unauthorised biotech rice strain that may have crept into exports and fear the problem may be bigger than first feared.

Last week, the EU tightened requirements on U.S. long grain rice imports to prove the absence of a genetically modified (GMO) strain known as LL Rice 601 marketed by Germany's Bayer AG (BAYG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) and produced in the United States.

The EU decision followed the discovery by U.S. authorities of trace amounts of LL Rice 601, engineered to resist a herbicide, in long grain samples that were targeted for commercial use -- the first time this had happened.

EU food safety experts are still waiting for the United States to offer more details of how much GMO rice -- at the moment, no biotech rice strains may be imported or sold in the bloc -- may have entered European ports within other cargoes.

"We still have no formal information about the extent of the contamination, origin or timeframe for when this happened," one EU official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"But we have heard informally from the rice industry that their preliminary testing indicates that the contamination may be much more widespread than first thought," he said.

At present, the EU allows only imports of U.S. long grain rice tested by an accredited laboratory using a validated detection method. Shipments must be accompanied by a certificate assuring the absence of LL 601.

More worrying for Brussels, the presence of the unauthorised rice strain in the U.S. commercial rice market may have been known for some time, maybe since early 2006.

The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, has already complained to Washington about its information policy that caused a near three-week delay in telling Brussels that traces of the unauthorised GMO were found in the commercial rice.

"We also understand, again informally, that this may have been known since January," the EU official said.

On July 31, U.S. agriculture and food safety authorities were notified that testing by Bayer CropScience, a Bayer unit, showed LL Rice 601 in rice bins in Arkansas and Missouri. The U.S. notified the European Commission on Aug. 18.

The same day, U.S. farmer cooperative Riceland Foods Inc. -- a major miller and exporter of U.S. rice and also a major soybean processor -- issued a statement saying that one of its rice customers had discovered GMO material back in January.

Bayer was contacted in early June and confirmed positive results for its herbicide-resistant trait in late July, it said.

The 25-country European Union imported 300,000 tonnes of U.S. rice last year, with 85 percent being long grain.

Questions abound as rice industry faces GMO concerns

Delta Farm Press, August 30 2006. By David Bennett

According to Dwight Roberts, on the afternoon of Aug. 18, "all hell broke loose" when USDA head Mike Johanns announced that trace amounts of GM rice had been found in the U.S supply.

"It will take some time to sort this out," said the U.S. Rice Producers Association (USRPA) president at the Missouri Rice Research and Demonstration Farm field day outside Glennonville, Mo. "This whole process is generating many rumors and stories. There are a bunch of unanswered questions that we've been trying to get answers toð The situation is extremely unfair to farmers. They were finally looking at a good rice price for the first time in many years."

According to Riceland Foods, the GMO material was discovered by an overseas customer.

"They contacted Riceland wanting an explanation. Riceland retained a portion of the sample and sent some of it to a lab. The lab found the samples tested positive for Bayer's (LibertyLink) herbicide resistance trait."

Since there's no known commercial production of GMO rice, "Riceland says they suspected the material would be identified as residual fragments."

In May, "Riceland then decided to collect samples from several grain storage locations. I'm told this happened in Missouri, Arkansas and elsewhere. A significant portion of those samples tested positive for the Bayer trait. The positive results, according to Riceland, were geographically dispersed and random throughout the U.S. rice-growing areas."

In early June, Bayer was contacted about the possible contamination. In late July, the company confirmed the positive results for their trait at .06 percent (about six kernels per 10,000). By law, Bayer was required to report its findings to the USDA within 24 hours.

Following USDA's announcement, the market reacted negatively.

"On (Aug. 21) the futures market fell 28 cents. (On Aug. 22), it fell the limit. Overnight trading was up a few cents but has since fallen. As of 15 minutes ago (on Aug. 23), November rice was down 7 cents, January was down 3 cents, November 2007 was down 9 cents and May 2007 was down 1 cent. This is not what we wanted to hear."

For losses on (Aug. 21 and Aug. 22) alone "we calculate farmers lost about $150 million. We feel farmers shouldnÇt take the brunt of this."

On Aug. 22, USRPA representatives met with USDA officials.

"We pushed them, saying, 'You must get to the bottom of this. It's fine to say you're looking out for the consumer and the rice is safe. But we've got some important issues from a price standpoint.'

"We told the USDA in a strong tone that they need to answer farmers' questions. How did it get started? What is the trail? How widespread is it?

"We need those answers so we can put an end to some of the rumors. This must be very clear and transparent."

There is some good news. Rice remains eligible for the USDA loan program and the Chicago Board of Trade has taken a position that even rice testing positive for the LibertyLink trait is deliverable against futures contracts.

In large measure, USDA wants to treat this as a commercial issue between buyers and sellers, said Roberts.

"We disagree with that. We want nothing that could be seen as self-serving. We must show the public and foreign buyers that we're dealing properly with this."

The European Union says it will allow U.S. rice imports (270,000 tons to 300,000 tons annually) to continue as long as a rigorous testing mechanism is in place. While tests have now been approved for finding the offending trait, Roberts says farmers shouldn't be saddled with the cost.

"Not just anyone can test for this. DNA testing is sophisticated and expensive. Farmers shouldn't be hit with a test that costs $200, or more."

And there are many other questions.

"We have a harvest coming. Will every truck be tested? Will loads be segregated? Will this blow over now and then explode later on? Why wasn't the material destroyed way back?"

Bayer, said Roberts, "must accept responsibility for this. They need to work with farmers to make it right. Congress and policymakers should think the same way. This must be corrected quickly. It can't be allowed to (fester).

"There is no good news with this. The mere mention of this last Friday launched a negative perception. And, in the rice markets, perception is everything."

e-mail: dbennett@farmpress.com

GE Rice Accidentally Allowed In New Zealand

GE free NZ in Food Environment Inc Press Release, 30 August 2006.

The Food Safety Authority admits unapproved genetically modified rice from the United States has been allowed to enter New Zealand, but says it is not thought to pose any risk.

It says small amounts of a variety called "liberty link" have been found in long grain rice imported from the US.

The rice has not been tested by the Food Safety Authority, but a spokesperson says it has been approved by other regulators, such as Food Standards Australia New Zealand.

The campaign group GE-Free New Zealand says the rice can produce toxins which are potentially dangerous to people's health, and it wants the rice recalled.

But the Food Safety Authority says it does not have any concerns for the safety of public health.

Food authority bans import of US GM rice

Irish Times, 30 August 2006.

A ban is to be placed on certain rice products imported into Ireland from the United States unless it can be proved they are free of genetically modified (GM) ingredients.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) said today it would impose the ban on some long grain rice products unless they are accompanied by certificates to say they are GM free.

The body said it was part of an EU-wide move in response to notification by US authorities to the European Commission of the presence of "unauthorised GM rice" in commercial varieties on the US market.

It said that while there are no "immediate food safety issues" associated with the rice in the food chain, but that the GM line had not been authorised either in the US or the EU and should not be on the market.

So-called 'LL Rice 601' is one of a number of GM rice lines developed by the biotech company, Bayer that were engineered to tolerate the herbicide, glufosinate ammonium.

GM rice is not authorised in the EU, but the safety of one particular line in the US is currently being assessed by the European Food Safety Authority.

Dr. Pat O'Mahony, chief specialist, biotechnology, with the FSAI said: "Consumers can be assured that this is not a food safety issue but is related to the presence of an unauthorised line of GM rice in the food chain which is not tolerated under EU law.

"The FSAI has been in contact with Customs and Excise to determine the level of long grain rice product imports from the US, and to ensure that only long grain rice products with the proper clearance certificates are allowed into Ireland."

An anti-GM campaign group claimed, however, that the Bayer GM rice "may have contaminated the Irish and UK food chain for the past eight years".

Michael O'Callaghan, who co-ordinates the GM-free Ireland Network, representing 124 farm and food groups on the island, said: "This latest contamination scandal shows how easily European and Irish food are being contaminated by imports of both illegal and legal GM food and animal feed from the USA and other countries in North and South America.

"The fact that such contamination may have occurred for years without being discovered should be the final nail in the coffin of the unworkable EC and Irish Government plans to allow the so-called 'co-existence' of GM crops with conventional and organic farming.

"It makes a farce of the government's claim that one can keep GM and conventional foods separate from farm to fork. He also said Ireland should follow the lead of the EU's largest agricultural producer, Poland, and implement a blanket ban on GM seeds and crops with immediate effect."

In March, the Polish government said it was opposed to the cultivation of GM crops, but declared it was in favour of importing GM produce "on condition it is clearly marked, and providing there is no possibility it is transformed" into other products.

29 August 2006

US Oversight of Biotech Crops Seen Lacking

Reuters, 29 August 2006. By Carey GIllam.


KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Criticism is mounting over the US government's efforts to control experimental genetically modified crops in the wake of admissions that a discarded biotech rice has contaminated US commercial supplies.

The disclosure of the contamination of experimental biotech rice owned by Bayer CropScience, a unit of Bayer AG, coupled with statements by USDA officials that they have no idea how the contamination occurred or how extensive it may be, has outraged players up and down the food chain.

Farmers, food and beverage makers and exporters all are positioning themselves for a long, and likely costly, ordeal.

Already, Japan has suspended imports of US long grain rice because of the contamination, and Europe, a major export market for US rice, has insisted rice imports be tested and any contaminated rice excluded from shipments to the 25-member European Union.

Other US rice customers are also reportedly reviewing their planned purchases even as US rice prices have dropped sharply.

Meanwhile, with much of the US rice industry in turmoil because the extent of the contamination is unknown, an official with the USDA's Animal Health and Plant Health Inspection Service said it would likely take two to three months before the agency had many answers.

"This is real money that farmers are losing," said Arkansas Rice Growers Association executive director Greg Yielding, who said he has fielded dozens of calls from frantic rice farmers. "It is a big deal. We do not feel that USDA and APHIS have adequate funds or staff to do this job. They can't tell you where anything is even though they get permits for it."

Holes in oversight

Over the last decade, the USDA has approved applications for more than 49,000 field site tests of GMO crops and APHIS has deregulated more than 70 GMO crop lines, many of which have been embraced by farmers because they are easier and/or more profitable to grow.

USDA and APHIS have touted the government's ability to oversee the growth of biotechnology in agriculture and repeatedly assured consumer groups and foreign governments that safety was a foremost concern for regulators.

But an Office of Inspector General audit of APHIS' and its biotechnology regulatory services unit found numerous holes in oversight efforts and issued a stern warning in its December 2005 report.

It said APHIS lacks "basic information about the field test sites it approves and is responsible for monitoring, including where and how the crops are being grown and what becomes of them at the end of the field test."

The OIG said that even though APHIS was supposed to inspect experimental fields, it was not even requiring companies to provide site location information. The government did not require companies to document efforts to make sure GMO crops were segregated, and it didn't test neighboring fields to look for contamination during or after field trials.

The OIG also said it found widespread violations of a rule requiring experimental crops to be shipped in metal containers, instead allowing them to be shipped in boxes or bags.

Overall, the OIG audit found the APHIS regulatory system so weak that it increased the risk that experimental GMO crops would "persist in the environment."

The contaminated rice is only one example of unapproved GMO's slipping into the mainstream. Last year, Swiss agrochemicals firm Syngenta revealed that its unapproved, experimental strain of corn known as Bt10, was found to have contaminated corn supplies from 2001-2004.

Also, a biotech grass resistant to weedkiller developed in part by Monsanto Co. has been found growing in the wild, while ProdiGene Inc. had to buy back and destroy millions of dollars of grain after tainting crops with an experimental corn plant used to produce medicine.

And earlier this month, a US district judge ruled that APHIS broke environmental rules when it allowed the planting of certain biotech corn and sugarcane between 2001 and 2003 in Hawaii.

Moratorium sought

Because of the government oversight concerns, Greenpeace International has called for a ban on US GMO rice and the Center for Food Safety has said it wants a moratorium on all field tests of genetically modified crops until government oversight improves.

"There is all this stuff in writing to give you a sense of security but when you look at what they're actually doing, it's nothing," said Center for Food Safety scientist policy analyst Bill Freese.

Cindy Smith, deputy administrator for APHIS' biotechnology regulatory services acknowledged in an interview some issues with oversight, but said those problems were largely in the past and had been corrected or would be soon.

"You will likely continue to see the program evolve in different ways. As long as we're regulating this technology, we're going to have to continue to grow and expand and respond based on the nature of the technology," Smith said.

Illegal GMO rice on sale for years
EC bans imports of US rice
Contaminated US farmers sue Bayer CropScience
FSAI urged to recall suspect rice from supermarket shelves

GM free Ireland press release, 29 August 2006.

An illegal variety of genetically modified (GM) long-grain rice from experiments carried out by Bayer CropScience in the USA from 1998 to 2001 may have contaminated the Irish and UK food chain without detection for the past eight years. The contamination could also affect rice and processed rice products currently served in hotels and restaurants or sold by retailers, including rice flour and baby food recommended for infants in the weaning process.

The illegal GM rice, called Liberty Link (LL Rice 601) was developed by Bayer CropScience, a subsidiary of the world's largest chemicals company BASF which cancelled a proposed experiment with 450,000 GMO potatoes in Co. Meath earlier this year [1]. The patented rice is genetically modified with genes from viruses and bacteria that make it resistant to a weed killer called Liberty, which contains glufosinate ammonium, applications of which can leave toxic traces on the harvested crop. It is a neurotoxin which has been observed to cause defects in unborn mammals [2]. LL Rice 601 has not been approved for human consumption anywhere in the world

Although no GM rice of any kind is authorised for import, cultivation, or sale as food or animal feed in the European Union, member states did import 300,000 tonnes of U.S. rice in 2005, 85 percent of which is long grain husked, semi-milled and wholly-milled rice. The Irish Central Statistics Office (CSO) said yesterday that U.S. rice imports enter the country through 34 different types of products from raw rice to processed foods, but neither the CSO nor the Department of Agriculture and Food could provide a ready figure for the quantities imported from the USA, but it appears that 939 tonnes of US rice has been imported since January 2005. As of this morning, no test is yet available to identify contamination.

Bayer released the GM rice for experiments on US farms in Arkansas and Missouri between 1998 and 2001 [3]. But the company decided not to market it and never submitted it for official approval. The reasons for the decision are not known, but independent scientists suspect it could be due to the fact that many GM crops are not uniform and are genetically unstable. [4]

The GM rice contamination was first discovered in January of this year [5]. Last week, the Arkansas government said it suspects the crisis began when pollen from the rice tested on US farms spread to contaminate conventional crops. This would mean that it has been present - and presumably been exported - since 1998, when the experiments began.

Bayer waited until 31 July before reporting the problem to the US authorities. But the Bush administration then waited a further three weeks before announcing the contamination on 18 August. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) secretary Mike Johanns said his agency withheld the information while trying to validate a test that producers, shippers and customers could use to detect the illegal GMO. According to the USDA, "each test could cost as much as $300, but it is uncertain who would pay for the testing."

Bayer's response has been to apply to the USDA for a speedy retroactive legalisation of the banned GM rice, thereby transforming it from a contaminant to an administrative oversight [6]. This is a cynical action, since LL601 is a failed variety which has never been demonstrated to be either uniform or genetically stable. That means that the novel proteins contained within it might, between 1998 and 2006, have become scrambled in quite unpredictable ways. If the USDA connives in this retrospective deregulation, it will further discredit the US regulatory authorities which are known to have close ties with the biotech industry they are entrusted to regulate. [7]

Last week, tests revealed the contamination has spread from the original field tests in Arkansas and Missouri all the way to Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. There are now fears that it will also be found in California, since the GM variety was tested there in 1997 and 1998 and may have contaminated short-grain rice as well as the long-grain varieties identified so far. US rice farmers, who are currently harvesting their crop, are extremely worried by the economic impact of the contamination on the estimated $1.9 billion value of this year's US rice crop.

On Monday, rice farmers in Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and California filed two class action lawsuits against Bayer CropScience for failing to prevent its illegal GMO rice from entering the food chain. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an injunction requiring Bayer to clean up the contamination from Bayer's genetically modified rice. Yesterday Bayer was hit by a further lawsuit seeking $275,000 per plaintiff plus punitive damages. [8]

EC bans GM rice imports from USA

The EC was formally informed about the contamination incident on 18th August, and it responded four days later on 24 August by placing a ban on all future imports of American long-grain rice unless they are accompanied by export-point certification confirming that they are free of LL601 contaminants [9].

The EC said that Member States authorities are responsible for controlling the imports at their borders and for preventing any contaminated consignments from being placed on the market. In addition, they should carry out controls on products already on the market, to ensure that they are free from LL Rice 601. The EC also said that business operators importing rice from the USA also have responsibility for ensuring that LL Rice 601 does not enter the EU food chain and that imports are certified as free from this unauthorised GMO, in accordance with the EU food law principle that operators are responsible for the safety of the food or feed that they place on the market.

In contrast, the Japanese government immediately banned all US long-grain rice imports, whether or not accompanied by certification. It also instructed Japanese companies not to process or sell any U.S. long-grain rice imported in recent months. Japan is the the second largest importer of rice from the US. South Korea was also said to be considering a ban last week.

This latest case of GM contamination follows a similar incident in March last year in which the biotech company Syngenta admitted to selling an experimental and illegal GM maize variety to US farmers for four years. [10]

But this time, and despite the international outcry, the European Commission said it would only impose testing and certification requirements on imports of U.S. long grain rice. The feeble EC response has infuriated NGOs and consumer groups, since it is inevitable that rice containing LL601 is already on supermarket shelves (11).

Can the regulatory authorities be trusted?

Today, eleven days after the EC was notified and five days after it issued the ban, there has still been no official reaction to the scandal from the Irish Department of Agriculture and Food or from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI). As of last night, the latter has issued no warning or product recall notice to the Irish food industry or to the public.

In a telephone interview on Monday, FSAI Chief Biotechnology Specialist Dr. Pat O'Mahony said that if a validation test becomes available later this week, FSAI would then require random tests of US rice at border points. He said FSAI has no plans to require comprehensive testing of rice products already on supermarket shelves, and does not plan to recall long-grain US rice products unless there is more evidence that the illegal rice does pose a health risk. Dr O'Mahony added that the illegal GM rice "has zero health risks as far as I can see".

This echoes the repeated claim by U.S. authorities and the biotech industry that GM foods pose no risk to public health or the environment, despite no long-term health studies, and growing scientific evidence of deaths and disease attributable to GM food in laboratory animals, livestock and the human population [12]. The CEO of the FSAI, Dr. John O'Brien, is a former director of a biotech industry lobby group which claims GM food is safe [13].

Speaking about Bayer's illegal GM rice last week, a European Commission official said "We do not share the view of the U.S. that there is no risk. We are still missing substantial amounts of information. The Commission is not satisfied with the information policy and this was transmitted to the Americans," he said. A secret EC document submitted to the WTO and leaked earlier this year clearly states "there is no unique, absolute, scientific cut-off threshold available to decide whether a GM product is safe or not".

Bayer claims that it has now developed a test which will identify traces of LL601 in rice samples, and that their test method has been verified by the US Agriculture Department [14]. The test method will also have to be verified at the EU's Joint Research Centre (JRC) before it is accepted for certification purposes by the EC. But according to Dr. Brian John of GM-free Wales, "That could be a very protracted process, and even when it is complete we need to bear in mind that the test method may well have been carefully designed to provide false negatives. The JRC is still not certain that the test method developed last year during the Bt10 scandal is not fraudulent, and we expect the same thing to happen this time around. We need to remember that the testing of rice samples for GM contamination is not designed to get after the truth, but to provide official reassurance. Even if the test method is sound, you can conveniently ëmiss' widespread GM contamination simply by adjusting your sampling methods." [15]

It is not clear that the JRC can be trusted, since its former CEO, "Dr." Barry McSweeney, attempted to suppress the publication of the official 2005 EC report on the so-called "co-existence" of GM crops with conventional and organic farming, which found that GM food has no benefits to consumers and that GM crops would cause up to 40% higher costs for EU farmers. [16]

Even if and the JRC approves a validation test as it may do this week, it begs the question of how much illegal and/or unlabelled GM rice and other GM crops has contaminated our food chain since 1998. Most US soya, maize, oilseed rape, cotton and rice are now contaminated. But since no one is able to look into the past, nobody will ever know.

Inside sources said yesterday that the Department of Agriculture will attempt to trace recent shipments of rice for animal feed to see if they are clean. We know of no response from the Department of Health and Children.

The scandal has been reported world wide since last week [17], with the notable exception of the Irish Times, Irish Independent, and the Irish Farmers Journal, which all have close ties to the GM industry [18].

Irish response

Michael O'Callaghan, who co-ordinates the GM-free Ireland Network [19] representing 124 farm and food groups North and South of the border [20], said "This latest contamination scandal shows how easily European and Irish food are being contaminated by imports of both illegal and legal GM food and animal feed from the USA and other countries in North and South America. The fact that such contamination may have occurred for years without being discovered should be the final nail in the coffin of the unworkable EC and Irish Government plans to allow the so-called ëco-existence' of GM crops with conventional and organic farming [21]. It makes a farce of the government's claim that one can keep GM and conventional foods separate from farm to fork. He also said Ireland should follow the lead of the EU's largest agricultural producer, Poland, and implement a blanket ban on GM seeds and crops with immediate effect.

This morning, the General Secretary of the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association (22), Eddie Punch, said "Ireland cannot afford to import any of Bayer's illegal GM rice or any other GM food that could contaminate the Irish food chain and then find its way into processed food that is later exported as Irish produce. The future of Ireland's farm and food industries depends on utilising the clean green image of this island to export to the discerning consumers of Europe who clearly demand safe GM-free food." He added, "If the world's biggest chemicals company is unable to keep its GM seeds separate from conventional varieties, how can ordinary farmers be expected to do so?"

Speaking on behalf of the 200 members of Euro-Toques Ireland / the European Community of Chefs [23], Evan Doyle (co-owner of the BrookLodge Hotel & Spa and the Strawberry Tree restaurant in Macreddin, Co. Wicklow), made the following statement today: "Our members are committed to a GM-free food policy, and can not afford to sell anything contaminated with a GMO, particularly if it is illegal. GM rice is illegal in the EU. I call on the FSAI to recall all food products containing or derived from US long-grain rice from Irish wholesalers and retailers, until such time as reliable tests prove beyond doubt they are not contaminated by any GMOs." He added "Our restaurant turns over §10m a year, but will lose its organic certification if our food supply becomes contaminated with any GM ingredients, legal or illegal. Keeping GM-free makes business sense!"

Michael O'Callaghan added "The ongoing saga elected representatives who collude with the biotech industry [24] to contaminate Irish agricultural seeds, crops and food is a clear violation of our Government's constitutional obligation to protect the health, property and food security of Irish citizens. I call on the Irish government, and on all farm, food and consumer groups to demand an immediate ban on all imports of US long grain rice, to support the recall of all US long-grain rice products from supermarket shelves, and to reject any future applications for experiments and commercial release of GM seeds and crops on the island of Ireland".

In June of this year, international participants at the Green Ireland Conference warned that our governments' collusion with the WTO and the agbiotech industry will cause massive economic losses to our food, farm and tourism sectors, and that Bord Bia's failure to address the issue has already tarnished our clean green image as Ireland ‚ the food island. [25]

Richard S. Lewis, a partner and environmental legal expert with the Cohen, Milstein firm, said "Our clients feel that Bayer should have taken stricter steps when growing this genetically modified rice to prevent it from contaminating the commercial rice market. Bayer's actions have resulted in an unprecedented price drop financially impacting all rice farmers." According to the USDA, rice production in the U.S. is valued at about $1.9 billion. The market price of U.S. rice has dropped approximately ten percent (including a 60 cent drop in US rice futures) since Bayer first announced the contamination.

Contact

Michael O'Callaghan, Coordinator, GM-free Ireland Network
tel + 353 (0)404 43 885
email: mail@gmfreeireland.org
www.gmfreeireland.org

Notes

1. BASF Plant Science GmbH gave up its plans for a controversial patented GMO potato experiment in Co. Meath in April this year, and may cancel it altogether. Bayer said it made the decision because of the conditions imposed in the provisional consent given by the Environmental Protection Agency on 8 May. These included obligations for the company to reduce the risk of cross-contamination of neighbouring farmers and wildlife, and to pay the costs of an independent monitoring of health and environmental impacts. BASF complained that such conditions had not been imposed for similar experiments in Sweden. The cancellation may also have been influenced by nationwide opposition from more than 100 farm and food industry groups, resistance by TDs from all the parties, two motions passed unanimously by Meath Co. Council, and the threat of further legal action on planning and constitutional grounds. Days later, BASF CEO Hans Kast (who also chairs the biotech lobby Europa-Bio), said that all the European countries which oppose GM food and crops should "get out of the EU"! For details see linkhttp://www.gmfreeireland.org/potato .

2. For effects of glufosinate ammonium see http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/impacts_glufosinate_ammon.pdf
#search=%22glufosinate%20ammonium%22.

3. Since 1996, the USDA has granted at least 48 permits authorising Bayer or companies it has acquired, such as Aventis and AgrEvo, to plant over 4,000 acres of experimental GM rice in the USA. This may also have been released in Puerto Rico. According to Dr. Brian John of GM-free Wales, "Since most of the development work on Bayer's GM rice appears to have been done in California, it is highly likely that Californian medium grain rice is now contaminated with LL601 and with various other abandoned GM lines. Nobody knows how extensive this contamination is, because there is no testing. Furthermore, since no reference materials or genetic characterisations have yet been provided by Bayer for LL601 and the other redundant varieties, nobody knows what to look for or how to do the tests."

4. Genetic instability of GM plants, see http://www.indsp.org and http://www.genewatch.uk.

5. In January of this year, an export customer of Riceland Foods (a farmer-owned cooperative which is the largest marketer of rice in the USA) discovered that the illegal GM rice had contaminated food supplies in Arkansas and Missouri. Riceland said that because GM rice is not grown commercially in the US, it first assumed that some other GM crop such as maize had been mixed with the rice during storage or transportation. In May, Riceland said the company collected rice samples from several grain storage sites and found positive results for the GM contamination. Riceland said it informed Bayer, which confirmed the findings but claimed the modified rice was present at levels equivalent to 6 of every 10,000 grains.

Bayer then waited over two months until 31 July before reporting to the US authorities that the illegal GMO rice has contaminated food supplies.

US Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns waited for a further three weeks before announcing the contamination on 18 August. He claimed the GM rice poses no risk to health or the environment. US Agriculture Department officials later said the contamination was found in bins in Arkansas and Missouri that held rice from the 2005 crop, although the rice in those bins might have come from other states.

Days later, Riceland said that recent tests proved the contamination has been discovered in Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. It is still unclear how the rice, which was last field-tested at experimental sites in the USA between 1998 and 2001, entered the 2005 crop. Riceland Vice President for Public Affairs Bill Reed said "We don't know where it is or isn't. We do know it's scattered and random throughout the South. But we don't know if it's limited to varieties. The USDA will determine that and we've told them they must find that out as quickly as possible and let everyone know. That's for them to discover." He said the USDA said, ëWe can't tell you how long it'll take.' It depends on how they go through the discovery process.' He also said "There was input from the Securities Exchange CommissionÖ because this was significant. They told us, ëYou're not to talk about this.' In fact, we weren't even able to tell our salesmen. This is impacting every segment of the rice industry."

6. Bayer applied to the USDA to deregulate the illegal GMO rice on 22 August 2006. The application may be downloaded at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/98_32901p.pdf.

According to a statement issued on 28 August by Richard Bell, the Arkansas Secretary of Agriculture "The USDA is in the process of deregulating it, which makes it eligible for commercialization. I guess the thinking is that will designate it safe for consumption. I thought that was odd. There are two other Liberty Link varieties that have been deregulated but not commercialized. And by ëcommercialized' we mean going into trade. That hasn't happened because the rice industry objected to it. The question I hear most is, ëWhen will this end?' The other problem is not knowing what variety (the Liberty Link trait) is in. I've told farmers that if they have storage space to try and keep varieties separated. But everyone knows that by next week, we'll be in harvest in a big way. And as we don't have enough storage space, through necessity, varieties will be mixed. Almost all the tests are showing up positive. I've been through this before. A decade ago, we had a dioxin situation in soybean meal. The testing bill was certainly expensive. The people who will gain the most will be the testing laboratories and attorneys. (Farmers should) keep varieties separated as long as (they) can. That's the best advice for farmers, right now. And I know that's not much. But I just don't know what else to say."

This week, Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the U.S. Centre for Food Safety (http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org target=winshow) said "the USDA is out of control; its continuing failure to adequately regulate and monitor field testing of genetically engineered crops clearly puts the environment and public health at risk. The extent to which pollen or grains from these field trials have contaminated commercial rice or related weedy species such as red rice is unknown. USDA policies do not provide for the testing of fields adjacent to field test sites to detect possible contamination with the experimental genetically engineered crop" .

7. Prior to being the US Supreme Court Judge who put George W. Bush in office, Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation. The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals. The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor. The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Attorney General John Ashcroft. For more information see http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/11/30/fda_monsanto_dangerous_relations.htm.

8. Reuters, 28 August 2006: US rice farmers sue Bayer CropScience over GM rice. Reuters, 29 August 2006: Bayer faces more lawsuits over GMO rice, http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=ousiv
&storyID=2006-08-29T184418Z_01_N29437472_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-FOOD-BAYER-RICE-DC.XML&from=business.

A copy of the first complaint is available upon request from James Pizzirusso at Cohen, Milstein on tel + 1 202 589-2257 or jpizzirusso@cmht.com .

9. On 22 August, EC spokeswoman Antonia Mochan said it was still unclear how EU customs officials will detect whether rice imports are contaminated or not, but that experts are working on detection methods with U.S. officials and representatives of Bayer. "We have to do what we can to make sure the rice doesn't come onto our market," she said.

On 23 August, a senior European Commission official said "The U.S. authorities were notified on July 31 ó we were notified on August 18th. We are not happy with this". The EC said it still has no idea about possible volumes of LL Rice 601 that may have entered Europe, nor the countries that may have received cargoes with the strain. It said a validation test for the illegal GMO rice "would be distributed in Europe in a few days". A week later, the test is still not available.

On 24 August, the European Commission adopted an emergency decision requiring all imports of long grain rice from the USA to be certified as free from the unauthorised GMO. Only consignments of US long grain rice that have been tested by an accredited laboratory using a validated testing method and accompanied by a certificate assuring the absence of LL Rice 601, can enter the EU. The measures entered into effect immediately, and are expected to be reviewed after 6 months.

The EC said the extent to which the US supply chain has been contaminated is still unknown, which is why the Commission though it was appropriate to proceed immediately with the adoption of emergency measures. These were approved unanimously by 22 of the 25 member states who were present at an emergency meeting in Brussels on Friday. The Commission said it will continue actively monitoring the situation and adapt the measures if necessary.

The EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, Markos Kyprianou, said "We have strict legislation in place in the EU to ensure that any GM product put on the European market has undergone a thorough authorisation procedure based on scientific assessment. There is no flexibility for unauthorised GMOs - these cannot enter the EU food and feed chain under any circumstances. The measures we have taken today will ensure that unauthorised GM rice is not inadvertently imported. EU consumers can rely on the high level of protection that our GM rules afford them."

The reality, however, is that we have probably been eating the unauthorised GM rice for years. The EC's supposedly "high level of protection" from GM contamination relies on testing and information provided by Bayer, makes no commitment to its own assessment of the extent of the contamination problem, and also imposes no penalties and costs against Bayer.

10. An illegal shipment of 2,546 tonnes of genetically modified Bt10 maize was unloaded at Greenore, Co. Louth on 26 May 2005. The Bt10 maize, manufactured by Syngenta, had been mislabelled since 2001 as a legal variety called Bt11. Bt10 maize produces its own pesticide and is prohibited world-wide because it contains an antibiotic resistance gene with threatens the health of animals and humans. The illegal product was only intercepted because the EU forced the US authorities to carry out tests at the port of departure. The fact that so many tonnes arrived in a single shipment long after the EU required the USA to terminate the practice, raises the question of how many hundred thousand tonnes of mislabelled Bt10 GM feed may have been fraudulently sold to Irish cattle and sheep farmers - and consumed by Irish livestock and people - over the previous 4 years or more. Nobody knows how much Irish dairy, beef and lamb produce contaminated by Bt10 has been consumed, or exported under Ireland's clean green food island image between 2001 and 2005. In an attempt to cover-up the scandal, the Irish Department of Agriculture and Food issued a press release which referred to the illegal Bt10 shipment as a "sample", failing to disclose the quantity of 2,546 tonnes - enough to fill over 85 lorries, and contaminate over six million cattle and sheep. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/scandal/index.php.

11. Commenting on the EC response, Greenpeace International spokesperson Jeremy Tager said "this is inadequate as rice is the world's most important staple food and is contained in many food products currently on EU shelves. It is time to move beyond case-by-case procedures as the GE industry has shown time and time again that it is unwilling or unable to prevent GE contamination." Greenpeace International calls on the EC to stop reacting to contamination 'accidents' and start preventing them instead. The EC should identify countries and products that are at high risk of contaminating our food supply with illegal or dangerous GE organisms and implement screening, preventative testing and, where there is no demonstrated capacity to prevent contamination, total bans.

12. No long-term health studies justify industry claims that GM food is safe. Scientific investigations of death and disease attributable to GM food in laboratory animals, livestock and the human population have led to accusations of criminal negligence and corruption of the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Food Safety Authority, the UK Food Standards Agency, and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) - which are infiltrated by agbiotech lobbyists and routinely accept biased and pseudo-scientific risk assessments submitted by the corporations they are supposed to regulate. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health.

13. FSAI CEO Dr. John O'Brien is also a former member of the Board of Directors of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a biotech industry lobby group based in Washington, and of its European branch based in Paris. ILSI is funded by the biotech industry. Its objectives include promoting GM crops, GM food, and GM tobacco.

The ILSI has been widely criticised for posing as a Non Governmental Organisation in order to infiltrate and shape the food safety policies of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). It positioned its experts and advice across the whole spectrum of these agencies' food and tobacco policy committees and international conferences. The ILSI was founded in Washington in 1978 by the Heinz Foundation, Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, General Foods, Kraft (owned by Philip Morris) and Procter & Gamble. Until 1991 it was led by Alex Malaspina, vice-president of Coca-Cola. Dr Malaspina established ILSI as a non-governmental organisation "in official relations" with the WHO and secured it "specialised consultative status" with the FAO. Eileen Kennedy, global executive director of ILSI, said that the funding of its regional groups came exclusively from industry. According to The Guardian (9 January 2003), some of the strongest criticism of transnational corporate co-optation of international and governmental policy has been levelled against the ILSI for its efforts to get the WHO to downplay the links between sugar-rich junk food and childhood obesity and diabetes.

Entrusting a Director of the ILSI with Ireland's food safety is unacceptable. Until Dr. O'Brien is removed from his position as CEO of the FSAI, all the latter's past and future opinions on GM food safety must be regarded as suspect.

14. See http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2357926.

15. GM-free Cymru press statement by Dr. Brian John, 26 August 2006.

16. You can download the EC's Joint Research Centre's report on "Scenarios for co-existence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops in European Agriculture" at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/gmcrops_coexistence.pdf.

17. For current media coverage through 31 August 2006, see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/index.php#rice. After 1 September 2006, see also http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2006/aug/index.php.

18. The Irish TV and print media provide only very limited and often biased coverage of the GM controversy. There are obvious conflicts of interest.

The Chairman of the Irish times Trust (which owns the Irish Times) is Prof. David McConnell who not only set up the Smurfit Institute of Genetics at Trinity College Dublin (which receives biotech industry funding), but is also Co-Chair of EAGLES - the European Action on Global Life Sciences lobby group). His astonishing public denial of the existence of any evidence of GM food health risks, if often reflected in his newspaper's lack of coverage and pro-GM bias on the subject.

Ireland's former Attorney General, Dermot Gleeson, who sits on the Board of Directors of the Independent Newspaper Group, is also Chairman of the Irish Institute for Bioethics whose report "Genetically Modified Crops and Food: Threat or Opportunity for Ireland?" (published on 28 November 2005) reads like a Monsanto press release.

The Irish Farmers Journal has utterly failed in its responsibility to inform Irish farmers about the agronomic, economic and legal risks of GM farming, and has supported the myth that the Irish Farmers Association has had until recently "no position" on GM farming. The Journal operates from the Irish Farmers Organisation (IFA) headquarters in Dublin. It claims to be "the unbiased voice for progress and development on Irish farms" and "the voice of Ireland's farming industry", with a stated aim "to be the best source of Irish agricultural and rural information" and "to provide the focus for open debate on agricultural development as the best source of information for the Irish agricultural industry and the families dependent on it." The IFA is a member of COPA-COGECA (Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations in the EU + General Confederation of Agricultural Co-operatives in the EU), the largest and most influential farming organisation in Europe. COPA-COGECA regularly lobbies the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions for EC legislation to approve GM seeds and crops and to prohibit the member states from establishing GMO-free zones. Donal Cashman (the former IFA President and Board member of the Agricultural Trust which owns the Irish Farmers Journal) is the current President of COGECA and a former Vice-President of COPA.

19. GM-free Ireland web site: http://www.gmfreeireland.org.

20. For organisational members of the GM free Ireland Network see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/network/members.php.

21. Re Irish government plans "to ensure the co-existence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming" see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/coexistence.

For data on GM contamination incidents in 39 countries, see http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org.

In June 2006, Greenpeace published Impossible co-existence: Seven years of GMOs have contaminated organic and conventional maize: an examination of the cases in Catalonia and Aragon. The report shows that the EC's strategy for "co-existence" is a recipe for widespread contamination. Download: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/coexistence/Greenpeace/impossible-coexistence.pdf.

22. ICSA web site: http://www.icsaireland.com.

23. Euro-Toques Ireland web site: http://www.eurotoquesirl.org.

24. In 1997 the Fianna Fáil agriculture spokesman Joe Walsh TD issued a FF position paper which clearly stated the agricultural, environmental and health risks of GM food and crops and also promised that FF would never allow them to be grown in Ireland. He then became Agriculture Minister.

But only months later, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern caved in to pressure from US biotech industry lobbyists. In his bestselling book Seeds of Deception: exposing corporate and government lies about the safety of genetically engineered food (ISBN 1-903998-41-7), author Jeffrey M. Smith quotes journalist Bill Lambrecht describing how Washington's biotech connections came into play during a carefully orchestrated reception for Bertie Ahern at the White House on St. Patrick's Day 1998:

"His vote was needed to carry the EU's acceptance of Monsanto's GM maize. When Ahern had lunch with National Security Advisor Council Director Sandy Berger, the topic that Berger chose to focus on was on the need to get that maize vote. Again, when Ahern met Senator Bond from Missouri and several members of Congress, the issue was GM maize. According to Toby Moffett, a former congressman turned Monsanto man, ëEverywhere he went, before people said Happy St. Patrick's Day, they asked him, What about that corn vote?' The amazed Moffett said, ëI'm fifty-four years old, and I've been in a lot of coalitions in my life, but this is one of the most breathtaking I've seen.' The next day, Ireland cast its vote in favour of Monsanto's GM maize, the first time Ireland acted in favour of a GMO release. When revelations of the events in Washington were made public by Lambrecht in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Genetic Concern charged in a press release, ëUS multinationals have more influence than the Irish electorate.'"

Following Bertie Ahern's St. Patrick's day visit to Washington, Fianna Fáil issued a new press release stating that "the area of biotechnology which holds the greatest potential for Ireland is in agriculture"! Ireland's EU voting record since then leaves no doubt about this Government's hardline pro-GM policy.

David Byrne used his political influence as EU Health and Consumer Affairs Commissioner to lift the EU's de facto embargo on GM food and crops prior to leaving office in 2004, to the fury of the majority of EU member states. He also attempted to establish a 0.5% threshold for the labelling of 17 varieties of GM-contaminated seeds, whereas EU Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fishler and EU Environment Commissioner wanted 0.3%, and the European Parliament, NGOs, consumer groups, farmers organisations and trade unions have appealed to the Commission to set the seeds labelling contamination threshold at the reliable detection level of 0.1%.

T·naiste Mary Harney appointed "Dr." Barry McSweeney to the newly-created post of Ireland's first Chief Scientific Officer in July 2004. But in his previous position as Director General of the EU Joint Research Centre (www.jrc.cec.eu.int), he was accused by Greenpeace of trying to suppress the EU report on coexistence of GM and conventional crops which found that GM varieties will inevitably contaminate conventional and organic crops and cause higher production for EU farmers.

Minister of State Tim O'Malley TD at the Department of Health and Children with responsibility for Food Safety, claimed in 2004 that the scientific evidence of GM health risks does not exist!

Whilst President of the European Parliament in 2004, Pat Cox repeatedly denied the existence of any scientific evidence of GM risks to health and the environment.

25. Proceedings of the Green Ireland Conference held at Kilkenny Castle, June 2006: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference.

American GM rice contaminated our supplies for months

Western Mail, 29 August 2006

GRAIN from experimental field trials of GM rice in the United States has been contaminating European food supplies, including baby food, for months.

All shipments of rice from the United States was banned by the European Union last week after the US Government admitted that the banned long-grain rice, developed by Bayer CropScience, was widespread in exports to Europe.

US rice will only be allowed into Europe after tests to prove it is GM-free.

The contamination was discovered in January but Bayer only informed the US Government on July 31, and the Bush administration waited another 18 days before making the information public.

Britain has imported large quantities of long-grain rice from the US since the problem was first discovered and no one knows how much of this was contaminated, but the Food Standards Agency is planning tests on unsold rice.

A spokeswoman for FSA Wales said, "The agency will act to implement the necessary controls required of EC member states. "These involve requesting local authority enforcement authorities to step up border-control checks on US long-grain rice consignments for the required GMO-free certification, as well as carrying out sample testing on products already on the market."

It appears that American long-grain rice has been contaminated with the banned GM organism for years.

Bayer decided not to market the grain after field tests on US farms between 1998 and 2001. The reasons for the decision are not known.

In Arkansas, one of several areas of the US involved in the crisis, the state government believes that the problem originated when pollen spread from GM rice to conventional crops. Richard Bell, the Arkansas agriculture secretary, admitted that the contamination is "widespread" and predicted that it would show up again in this year's crop.

The campaign group GM Free Cymru yesterday called on supermarkets to remove all products containing long-grain rice from the southern United States off their shelves until they have proof that they are free from contamination. Spokesman Dr Brian John said the contamination was much more serious than the Bt10 incident which made the headlines last year.

"American long-grain rice is a primary food consumed in a virtually unprocessed form by millions of consumers across the EU," said Dr John."

It is also widely used in baby food as a cereal, recommended for use early in the weaning process."

Dr John said the contamination was "hushed up" by Bayer and by the American government and long-grain rice from the southern Unites States continued to be shipped to the EU at a rate of more than 20,000 tonnes a month.

"That adds up to 140,000 tonnes and it is absolutely certain that rice containing LL601 is already in the food supply chain," he said.

"In our book that amounts to criminal negligence by Bayer and the US administration." Wales Euro-MP Jill Evans described the contamination as "very serious" and said it undermined any confidence the EU had left in the US regulatory system.

"The fact that Bayer knew about it months before disclosing this means we can't rely on the information and tests that they give us," she said. Ms Evans said current EU restrictions were "inadequate".

"There must be an immediate ban on all long-grain rice imports from the USA and shops should be advised to withdraw stock that contains recent unprocessed US long-grain rice," she said. Ý

"But a longer-term solution is needed. We can't keep on reacting to these contamination 'accidents'.

"I am writing to the European Commission urging them to identify countries and products that have high risk of contaminating our food with GMOs and to implement strict screening and testing on these products before they can enter our food market."

28 August 2006

US rice farmers sue Bayer CropScience over GM rice

Reuters, 28 Aug 2006

LOS ANGELES, Aug 28 (Reuters) - Rice farmers in Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and California have sued Bayer CropScience, alleging its genetically modified rice has contaminated the crop, attorneys for the farmers said on Monday.

The lawsuit was filed on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas in Little Rock, law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll said in a statement.

The farmers alleged that the unit of Germany's Bayer AG failed to prevent its genetically modified rice, which has not been approved for human consumption, from entering the food chain.

As a result, they said, Japan and the European Union have placed strict limits on U.S. rice imports and U.S. rice prices have dropped dramatically.

A Bayer representative could not be immediately reached for comment.

U.S. agriculture and food safety authorities learned on July 31 that Bayer's unapproved rice had been found in commercial bins in Arkansas and Missouri. While the United States is a small rice grower, it is one of the world's largest exporters, sending half of its crop to foreign buyers.

The genetically engineered long grain rice has a protein known as Liberty Link, which allows the crop to withstand applications of an herbicide used to kill weeds.

The European Commission said on Wednesday the EU would require U.S. long grain rice imports to be certified as free from the unauthorized strain. The commission said validated tests must be done by an accredited laboratory and be accompanied by a certificate.

Japan, the largest importer of U.S. rice, suspended imports of U.S. long-grain rice a week ago.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration have said there are no public health or environmental risks associated with the genetically engineered rice.

The United States is expected to produce a rice crop valued at $1.88 billion in 2006. U.S. rice growers are responsible for about 12 percent of world rice trade. Three-fourths of the crop is long grain, grown almost entirely in the lower Mississippi Valley. California, the No. 2 rice state, grows short grain rice. (Additional reporting by Christopher Doering in Washington)

Fall-out from GMO rice in U.S. supply continues

Delta Farm Express, 28 August 2006. By David Bennett.

When cool weather arrives and harvest season is done, Southern farmers will remember 2006 as exceedingly difficult. Mother Nature has played no cropping favorites - drought, oppressive heat and high energy costs have pummeled all. But after a USDA announcement on Aug. 18, rice farmers can surely claim the cruelest blow.

On that day, USDA head Mike Johanns announced that trace amounts of unapproved, genetically modified Liberty Link rice had been found in the U.S. rice supply. Despite FDA assurances that the contamination - equivalent to six kernels per 10,000 - was safe for consumption, the markets dipped quickly.

Farmers who had seen the rising price of rice as a salve for drained bank accounts and hard days in the field immediately began asking questions. And, although every facet of the rice industry has been hit with the unwelcome news, most questions were directed at Stuttgart, Ark.-based Riceland Foods.

Claiming 9,000 members, the Riceland co-op handles a third of the nation's rice crop. It was a Riceland customer who first alerted the company to a potential problem last January. According to Bill Reed, Riceland vice president of public affairs, the months between that initial inquiry and Johann's statement have often felt like "looking in a haystack and not even knowing you're looking for a needle."

Reed spoke at length with Delta Farm Press on Aug. 25. Among his comments:

On current developmentsÖ

"There are some positives - although this is a situation where you have to look hard to find any. But the market was up 2 cents today. That shows a little stabilityÖ

"There's a lot of work being done by agencies within USDA. I know the Foreign Agricultural Service is working very hard with customers around the world that import U.S. rice. APHIS is investigating how this situation came to be.

"The rice industry has (told APHIS), 'You need to speed this as quickly as you can. We must have more information than we have now.' (APHIS is) showing every indication they understand that.

"As they do their investigation, they've told us any (discoveries)Ö will be shared. They won't hold onto information until a final report is written.

"Frankly, all the (federal) agenciesÖ have shown much concern as we've gone through this. They're all focused because we keep telling them, 'This is so important to rice farmers. We're in a situation where it's been another expensive crop to produce due to fuel and fertilizer prices. It's been hot for a long time. There are always concerns when (the crop faces) high temperatures like we've had. Farmers are physically worn out from trying to keep water on rice and beans. They're weary. And then we had good market prospects and this hits.'

"On the domestic front, the market hates uncertainty. Obviously there's uncertainty surrounding this.

"But as we've been talking with our domestic customers this week, they understand the message FDA and (Johanns) have put out: there are no safety concerns with this very small presence. Commerce continues. People continue to buy rice and consume it. That's a very positive sign."

On farmers and harvestingÖ

"We're on the verge of harvesting a crop. Actually, it's already begun but, depending on the weather, it'll be going in earnest next week.

"As one might expect, we've spoken with many farmers. They want to know what to do.

"For our farmer members, it's business as usual. Cut your crop, deliver your crop and bring it to the dryer. We're going to dump trucks as fast as we can just like we always haveÖWe're going to find a way through this situation."

Is the trait in specific varieties? Farmers want to know so they can segregate them, clean out their combines and go back to harvest. Is there any indication one way or the other?

"That's what APHIS has to tell us. We don't know where it is or isn't. We do know it's scattered and random throughout the South.

"But we don't know if it's limited to varieties. APHIS will determine that and we've told them they must find that out as quickly as possible and let everyone know. That's for APHIS to discover."

Has APHIS given a timeframe other than 'as quickly as possible?' Have they said they'll try to get that data within a month? A couple of weeks?

"I've asked that. They've said, 'We can't tell you how long it'll take.' It depends on how they go through the discovery process. But they know how important it is to (expedite) their investigation."

When your customer came to you after finding this trait, how did you see it? Was this viewed as a minor issue that snowballed?

"(The customer came to Riceland with concerns during) the second half of JanuaryÖ and indicated they'd found GM material and wanted an explanation.

"Anytime your customer has an issue, you pay close attention. Our response was the same one we've had for some time: there is no GM rice in commercial production. But they were confident (GM) material was there. And as it unfolded, their rice did test positive forÖ Bayer's Liberty Link herbicide resistant trait."

So this was over a course of weeks that you were talking with this customer?

"Yes, because we didn't know what to look for. When I say, 'herbicide resistant trait,' it's the same one that's in Liberty Link corn, soybeans, canola, and cottonÖ

"Since there was no known commercial production of GM rice, we thought it would be shown as fragments of soybeans or grain dust left in transportation systems. It's in such minute quantities they couldn't determine the material's origin.

"We kept wondering what it could be. I compare it to looking in a haystack and not even knowing you're looking for a needle. We didn't know what to look for.

"The last thing we expected is this was caused by GM rice. There was none being grown. We even looked at cotton bags - thinking maybe it was in the Liberty Link cotton fibers."

So it simply took that long to get it narrowed down to GM rice? Farmers are asking why they weren't told about this before they planted their crop.

"Yeah, there's a good reason: no one knew. In June, we were finally thinking, 'This looks like it could be Bayer's product.' So we talked with Bayer, sent them a sample and they began looking.

"It was July 31 when Bayer called us and told us what they'd found. They told us they were legally required to report their findings to USDA. They did that before (the 24 hour requirement) was up.

"There was input from the Securities Exchange CommissionÖ because this was significant. They told us, 'You're not to talk about this.' In fact, we weren't even able to tell our salesmen.

"We worked with APHIS as they asked their initial questions. They had lots and we spent hours with them going through this. We've cooperated fully - and continue to - because this is impacting every segment of the rice industry. Of course, we're especially concerned about the 9,000 (Riceland) farmers and stockholders of the co-op."

On charges and rumorsÖ

"I've heard charges made about (Riceland) - that we knew what this was in January. That's just not true.

"Some have said, 'They're not telling us anything.' The thing is, there are parts of this that are APHIS' jobÖ They're the only ones that can do it. The investigation is APHIS' (alone).

"Riceland is a rice marketer. We're not genetic scientists."

Take-awaysÖ

"There are two things to take away.

"First, FDA and USDA say this is trace and there are no health or safety concerns. That's a message the farmers really need to hang on to. We're known as a country with a good food-safety structure.

"Second, commerce continues - business as usual."

27 August 2006

EU restricts rice imports from the US

Euractiv.Com, 27 August 2006.

Fears that US rice has been contaminated with an unauthorised GMO have led the EU to impose drastic controls on US imports of long-grain rice.

US exports of long-grain rice will be systematically checked at EU borders following fears that they may be contaminated with a GMO called LL Rice 601 (see EurActiv 22 August 2006), the Commission announced on 23 August 2006.

With immediate effect and for a six-month period, only shipments of US rice "that have been tested by an accredited laboratory using a validated detection method, and are accompanied by a certificate assuring the absence of LL Rice 601, can enter the EU".

Ed Loyd, spokesman for the US Agriculture Department, says the US is close to making a validated test available and described the EU reaction as "very measured and reasonable".

But US rice farmers say the screening procedures will increase costs and the price of rice has already fallen sharply following decisions by the US' largest rice-export markets, Japan, the EU and South Korea, to restrict imports.

EU Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner Markos Kyprianou defended the emergency measures saying: "There is no flexibility for unauthorised GMOs - these cannot enter the EU food and feed chain under any circumstances."

Green campaigners hailed the Commission's rapid reaction but said it must "stop reacting to contamination 'accidents' and start preventing them instead".

Biotech foods: A cat that won't stay bagged
Another unapproved product finds its way into marketplace

Star Tribune, August 27 2006

WHO BUYS THE RICE

The U.S. rice crop is valued at nearly $1.9 billion. About half is exported. Of exports, about 80 percent is long-grain rice. Mexico is the largest single importer.

Last year, U.S. sales of long-grain rice to EU countries totaled about 198,000 metric tons, worth $67 million. Japan hasn't bought long-grain raw rice from the United States since 1998, but last year bought 235,000 tons of short- and medium-grain rice, as well as 17,000 tons of processed products that may be made with long-grain rice.

In a global marketplace that dislikes genetically modified (GM) foods, America's agricultural exports must rely on trust above all -- trust that GM varieties are safe to eat, preferable to grow and strictly regulated.

On the first point, the scientific support is pretty strong. On the second, which is about philosophy as much as science, it looks to be an uphill fight. And on the third, well. . . can't we go back to talking about safety?

That seems to be the approach at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, whose response to the latest regulatory breakdown -- inexplicable mixing of biotech rice into regular stocks -- can only make matters worse, trustwise, with skeptical export customers.

Friday before last, Secretary Mike Johanns announced that Bayer CropScience had found "trace amounts" of its engineered long-grain variety in U.S. bins holding rice from the 2005 crop. Although this GM rice was "regulated" -- fedspeak meaning "unapproved for market release" -- Johanns stressed that both his department and the Food and Drug Administration had found it to pose no threat to human or environmental health.

The announcement didn't mention that Bayer had notified USDA of its discovery on July 31, three workweeks earlier. Johanns acknowledged the timing at a press conference, explaining that USDA had withheld the information while trying to validate a test that producers, shippers and customers could use to detect the Bayer rice, an herbicide-resistant variety known as Liberty Link 601. Oh, and they were reviewing safety data, too -- not a time-consuming task, since the basis for declaring the 601 variety safe is only that its special protein is the same inserted into two earlier Bayer strains that were "deregulated" years ago.

Anyway, the testing is all about protecting sales, not safety. It was a sure bet that Japan and the EU countries would ban raw rice or processed foods contaminated, in their view, with the Bayer strain. Saving this billion-dollar export market required a way to certify shipments as GM-free.

Alas, three workweeks wasn't enough time for USDA to prepare answers to such questions as how the Bayer rice, field-tested between 1998 and 2001, could turn up in the 2005 harvest. Or how many rice bins, in how many states, contained the modified strain. Or whether any of the GM rice had reached U.S. supermarket shelves.

Some of this information has surfaced subsequently. According to Riceland Foods, the nation's largest rice marketer, the 601 strain was detected "across the rice belt" in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas. Moreover, Riceland also said it had been investigating the matter since January, when a customer discovered GM rice in an export shipment. How it got there remains a mystery, but a solution has emerged: Bayer will now seek retroactive USDA approval to sell Liberty Link 601.

That may be of some help to American rice producers, who have seen prices plummet since Johanns' announcement. But it won't do much to boost their credibility, or the USDA's, with foreign customers. That will require a regulatory system that can be trusted to do what it claims -- under leadership that treats its customers' concerns with respect and candor, and discloses screwups without rationalization and delay.

To comment on this editorial, go here http://online.startribune.com/forum/index.php?t=threadt&frm_id=86&

Rice contaminated by GM has been on sale for months
US has been knowingly shipping banned food here all year. But only now do they tell us

The Independent on Sunday, 27 August 2006. By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor.

Britons have unwittingly been eating banned GM rice imported from the United States for months, if not years, food safety experts fear.

Imports of the rice were stopped by the European Commission (EC) on Thursday. But investigations in the US show that it has long been "wide-spread" in grain destined to be shipped overseas.

It was first discovered in January that the banned crop, which has never received safety clearance, was contaminating export stocks of long-grain rice. But it was not until nine days ago that the US government informed importing countries.

European governments are furious that the Bush administration delayed warning them. And the row threatens ministers' plans for growing GM crops in Britain.

The unauthorised rice, codenamed LLRICE601, was developed by Bayer CropScience to tolerate weedkiller. It was tested on US farms between 1998 and 2001, but the company decided not to market it and never submitted it for official approval.

In January, it was found to have contaminated rice from Arkansas-based Riceland, the world's largest miller and marketer, which is responsible for one-third of the entire US crop.

In May, Riceland tested samples from "several storage locations", finding the contamination in a "significant" number. It concluded, in an official statement, that it was "geographically dispersed and random" throughout its rice-growing area.

Bayer officially notified the US government on 31 July. But it was a further 18 days before the Bush administration told importers, informing EU countries such as Britain just an hour before holding a press conference to make details of the contamination public.

On Thursday, the EC prohibited any shipments from the US unless they could be proved to be free of the banned rice. But it remains concerned that Britons and other Europeans may have been eating it for months, possibly years.

Britain has imported more than 42,000 tons of long-grain rice from the US since January, when the problem was first discovered. No one knows how much of this was contaminated, but the Food Standards Agency is planning to carry out tests on rice that has yet to be sold to the public.

The Arkansas government suspects that the crisis began when pollen from the rice tested on US farms spread to contaminate conventional crops. This would mean that it has been present - and presumably been exported - at least since 2001, when the trials stopped.

Richard Bell, the state's agriculture secretary, admits that the contamination is "widespread" and predicts it will show up again in this year's crop when it is harvested.

The Bush administration says that "there are no human health, food safety or environmental concerns associated with this rice". But the EC's Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner, Markos Kyprianou, says it must not be allowed to enter the food chain.

Bayer, which had no part in exporting the contaminated rice, says it is "co-operating closely" with the US authorities. But it says that while the matter is being investigated, it cannot say when it first knew of the problem .

26 August 2006

Request to suspermarket chiefs: please take all U.S. long grain rice off your shelves

GM Free Cymru press statement, 26th August 2006.

An urgent request has been sent to the Chief Executives of all the UK supermarket chains to protect the public by taking all products containing long-grain rice from the southern United States off their shelves, pending unequivocal evidence that these products are free from unauthorised GM contamination.

Last week it was revealed that samples of long-grain rice from Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and other states had proved positive when tested for the unauthorised GM rice variety known as LL601, originally developed by Bayer CropScience in 1997. The variety was then abandoned in 2001, for unknown reasons. And yet it has appeared again, as a contaminant in the southern states in 2006, causing huge concern within the American rice industry (1). The market price of long grain rice has already fallen, and the industry is mounting a desperate reassurance campaign; but according to Bill Reed, a spokesman for the Riceland growers cooperative "The positive results were geographically dispersed and random throughout the southern rice-growing area." (2) There are now fears that LL601 will also be found in California as well, since the GM variety was tested there in 1997 and 1998 (3).

The EC was formally informed about the contamination incident on 18th August, and it responded four days later by placing a ban on all future imports of American long-grain rice unless they are accompanied by export-point certification confirming that they are free of LL601 contaminants. In contrast, Japan immediately banned all US long-grain rice imports, whether or not accompanied by certification. The feeble EC response has infuriated NGOs and consumer groups, since it is inevitable that rice containing LL601 is already on supermarket shelves (4). In the UK, there has been no reaction to the latest scandal from either the Food Standards Agency of from DEFRA, since Ministers and officials appear to have gone to sleep for the summer.

Speaking for the GM watchdog group GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: "This latest GM contamination scandal is much more serious than the Bt10 incident which made the headlines last year. For a start, American long-grain rice is a primary food consumed in a virtually unprocessed form by millions of consumers across the EU. It is also widely used in baby food as a cereal, recommended for use early in the weaning process. The samples which tested positive for LL601 were from export bins and from bulk supplies intended for human consumption. The contaminated rice was harvested last year, and the first positive test results were given to Riceland and Bayer CropScience in January 2006. Since then, the scandal has been hushed up by Bayer and by the American Agriculture Department. During that time, American long-grain rice from the southern Unites States has continued to be shipped to the EU at the rate of over 20,000 tonnes per month. That adds up to 140,000 tonnes. It is absolutely certain that rice containing LL601 is already in the food supply chain, and it is outrageous that nobody is doing anything about it. In our book that amounts to criminal negligence initially by Bayer and the US Administration, and now by the EC and the UK Government as well."

GM Free Cymru has reminded supermarket chiefs that LL601 has never been authorised for commercial growing either in the USA or in the EU. It has never been safety tested, in spite of assurances from the US Secretary of Agriculture that it is "completely safe". Since it was abandoned in 2001 as a failed experimental GM variety, some experts think that it is genetically unstable and non-uniform. That means that the novel proteins contained within it might, between 2001 and 2006, have become "scrambled" in quite unpredictable ways. It is also a "Liberty Link" variety designed to resist applications of the herbicide glufosinate ammonium, applications of which can leave toxic traces on the harvested crop. It is a neurotoxin which has been observed to cause defects in unborn mammals (5).

Bayer claims that it has now developed a test which will identify traces of LL601 in rice samples, and that their test method has been verified by the US Agriculture Department (6). The test method will also have to be verified at the EU's Joint Research Centre before it is accepted for certification purposes by the EC. "That could be a very protracted process," says Dr John, "and even when it is complete we need to bear in mind that the test method may well have been carefully designed to provide false negatives. The JRC is still not certain that the test method developed last year during the Bt10 scandal is not fraudulent, and we expect the same thing to happen this time round. We need to remember that the testing of rice samples for GM contamination is not designed to get after the truth, but to provide official reassurance. Even if the test method is sound, you can conveniently "miss" widespread GM contamination simply by adjusting your sampling methods."

The NGO is now asking the supermarkets to specify what action they propose to take. "If they say they will do nothing, or that product recalls are deemed to be unnecessary, we want to know -- in detail -- what their reasons are. This whole episode already stinks of cover-up, evasion and damage limitation; if we are not careful, we could also have a major health crisis on our hands."

ENDS

Contact:

Brian John, GM Free Cymru
Tel: + 44 (0)1239-820470

NOTES

(1) http://westernfarmpress.com/news/08-25-rice-nervous-GMO/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1855528,00.html

(2) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/business/22rice.html?_r=1

(3) http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/98_32901p.pdf

(4) http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEX/06/0404.....
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/eu-restrictions-on-illegal-us

(5) http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/impacts_glufosinate_ammon.pdf.......

(6) http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2357926

Genetic crop bill OK'd by Assembly Blocks further bans by counties

San Francisco Chronicle, 26 August 2006

SACRAMENTO - California Republicans and moderate Democrats joined forces this week to approve a bill that would prevent local governments from banning genetically modified crops.

The bill, SB1056, by Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, passed the Assembly with a 46-19 bipartisan majority.

The legislation, backed by the California Farm Bureau Federation and large agribusiness concerns such as Monsanto, comes in response to moves by Marin, Mendocino, Santa Cruz and Trinity counties to ban bioengineered crops.

Opponents of genetically engineered foods say they are potentially unsafe and pose a business threat to organic farmers who could lose organic certification if their crops were contaminated by biotech seeds.

The bans prompted Florez to introduce legislation that would give the state exclusive control over the regulation of field crops.

While the four counties that already have bans in place would be exempt from the bill, California's remaining 54 counties would be required to look to the state for regulation of the industry, even though the state does not have any regulation on the books.

Supporters say state regulation is unnecessary because the industry is already highly scrutinized by the federal government, but opponents say recent bans on genetically engineered crops should signal the state that better regulation is necessary.

''If there's strong state regulation that adequately protects farmers, the environment and consumers, there should be no need for local initiatives,'' said Rebecca Spector, a spokeswoman for the Center for Food Safety. Florez told The Chronicle in July that he planned to add to the bill statewide regulations on genetically engineered seeds, to give local governments the assurance that the industry is being regulated.

He said Thursday that he has been negotiating with opponents for a two-year moratorium on laws affecting bioengineered crops -- which he called ''a pause until we could get that state policy in place'' -- but negotiators were unable to come to an agreement.

''Everyone was clear -- we were either going to compromise or move the bill,'' said Florez. ''The enviro folks made a bad bet.''

25 August 2006

GMO-Free Certification Needed for Long-Grain Rice Exports Headed to Europe
Rice futures plummet on biotech rice find in commercial grain bins.

Farm Futures, 25 August 2006. By Jacqui Fatka.

Wednesday the European Union said it will require all long grain rice imports from the United States be certified as free from the unauthorized biotech rice LL 601 - Bayer CropSciences biotech rice line found in commercial grain bins.

Rice futures plummeted after USDA's news last week, dropping more than 60 cents. The United States exports over 40% of its long-grain rice, including the biotech sensitive areas of Europe and the Middle East. On average the EU imports approximately 20.000 tons of long grain husked, semi-milled and wholly-milled rice from the United States per month.

Although the same modified protein in LL 601 is approved in other crops in North America, Japan and the EU, there is currently no biotech rice commercially sold today. Currently no GM rice is authorized in the EU for food and feed use or for cultivation or import. The European Food Safety Authority is currently examining one application for authorization which concerns a genetically modified rice. This is Bayer's LL Rice 62, which contains the same modified protein as the unauthorized LL Rice 601 in question. This same gene is approved for commercialization in the United States, but has not been marketed commercially.

According to a Bayer spokesman, the company is working with a five labs to certify DNA-based tests that can detect 1 biotech grain out of 3,000 pieces of grain. The spokesman could not specify how long it would take for the tests to be available "very soon," the spokesman says.

The following commercial labs are working on validating the tests:

• Biogenetic Services Inc., Brookings, S.D.
• GeneScan Incorporated, Metairie, La.
• BioDiagnostics Inc., Riverfalls Wis.
• Mid-West Seed Inc. Brookings S.D.
• SGS North America Inc., Memphis, Tenn.

The European Union will require the testing for at least the next six months, and will determine if additional testing is needed at that time, according to a European Commission press release.

Japan and South Korea expressed concern with the find, and some press reports indicated the governments would ban U.S. long grain rice. However, Japan and South Korea do not currently import any long grain rice from the United States.

California rice industry nervous about GMO contamination 1,600 miles awa

Western Farm Press (USA), 25 August 2006. By Harry Cline

The California rice industry has twice staved off major controversies over genetically modified (GM) rice on its own turf only to find itself justifiably nervous today with the discovery of GMO long grain rice contaminating commercial conventional, stored rice more than 1,600 miles away.

The discovery of the long grain GMO rice in bins of commercial rice storage in Missouri and Arkansas drew a swift response from Japan, a major California rice customer. Japan banned long grain rice imports from the U.S. immediately after USDA announced the discovery. The discovery also sent rice futures plummeting.

However, the California rice industry exhaled a big sigh of relief when Japan's announcement banning U.S. long grain rice imports excluded medium and short grain rice, the exclusive rice types grown in California's 500,000 acres of rice paddies.

Tim Johnson, president of the California Rice Commission, said California grows a very small percentage of long grain rice, but it is all sold domestically.

"Ninety-five percent of California's production is medium and short grain rice," said Johnson. About 50 percent of California's rice crop is exported annually. The same percentage holds for all U.S. rice.

While the ban on U.S. long grain imports does not impact the sale of California rice to Japan, it did have a major, immediate impact on the futures market for rice. That has California rice growers and marketers nervous.

According to Mike Zarembski of Xpresstrade, the recent price surge in rice futures came to an abrupt halt when USDA and Bayer CropScience announced that traces of unapproved genetically rice were found in bins of commercial rice grown in 2005 in Arkansas and Missouri. The Bayer variety, LL (Liberty Link) 601, had not been grown since 2001.

Although it was not approved, the gene in it was in other Bayer rice varieties deemed safe by the federal government. This did not stop Japan from banning U.S. long grain imports.

However, a quick response by Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, may have precluded Japan from halting shipments of California-grown rice as well as minimizing additional damage elsewhere in the world. The Middle East, Europe, Mexico, South American and African nations, all major importers of U.S. rice, did not follow Japan's lead.

Rather than banning imports, the UK demanded a test be developed to detect LL 601 rice in commercial shipments. USDA is rushing to certify a test that would identify unsanctioned, genetically modified LL601. Bayer is supporting this effort with information about how it distinguishes the suspect strain.

By Tuesday after the Friday announcement of the GMO rice discovery, rice futures plunged to a two-week low. However, on Wednesday figures staged a modest comeback. Some believe this recovery may be in reaction to the swift response from USDA and Bayer to the crisis in quickly developing the UK-requested text to preclude GMO rice from being imported into Europe.

Johnson had high praise for the U.S. secretary of agriculture's response to the GMO find. Johnson said Johanns statement that the gene used in the unapproved variety was identical to the one used in two other Bayer deregulated GMO varieties evaluated by USDA and the Food and Drug Administration and deemed safe drew a "measured response from the export market, and that was encouraging."

"The protein found in LLRice 601 has been repeatedly and thoroughly, scientifically reviewed and used safety in food and feed, cultivation, import and breeding in the U.S. as well as nearly a dozen countries around the world," said Johanns.

USDA jumped high when the UK hollered frog. The 25-country EU UK is significant because it bought about 300,000 tons of U.S. rice last year with 85 percent of it long grain. The EU bans GMO rice imports.

However, the crisis may not subside soon. One reason, according to a "New York Times" article, is that the Riceland Food bins from which the GMO rice came may have come from states other than Arkansas and Missouri.

According to the Times, Riceland Foods is a cooperative that markets rice from Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas as well as Arkansas and Missouri.

Also according to the Times, Riceland was quoted as saying "The positive results were geographically dispersed and random throughout the rice-growing area."

The futures market is already skittish and any more bad news could send prices back down.

"Further selling pressure may be forthcoming," said Zarembski. "as commodity funds are controlling in a heavy net-long position of nearly 4,500 contracts." These "momentum players" said the market analysis did not like the two-day price nose dive and "liquidation selling may come at any time, triggering speculative sell-stops along the way." He said the market will be looking for further word from U.S. officials on the extent of the contamination.

Johnson does not expect any negative word from California. He said LL 601 has never been tested on the state's rice experiment station at Biggs, Calif.

However, USDA is asking for station officials to provide samples of more than a dozen rice varieties that are grown on the station.

California is the second largest rice producing state in the U.S. behind Arkansas.

Japan is one of California's primary customers. To appease its GMO-skittish trading partner the California Rice Certification Act of 2000 was passed to establish regulations to avoid mixing of different rice types. An advisory board was created by the law to approve and create protocols for any new rice introduce into California. As a result, Johnson said no genetically modified rice is grown commercially in California.

However, the new law did not make the issue go away in the state. Two years ago a pharmaceutical company wanted to grow GMO rice to harvest proteins for medicine. The regulations imposed on the company eventually forced it to leave the state and created a headline-grabbing controversy.

The GMO issue surfaced again when anti-biotechnology activists managed to get a proposed ordinance banning GMO crops on several county election ballots, including one in Butte County, the heart of Sacramento Valley rice production.

California rice growers found themselves in a dilemma in the wake of the pharmaceutical controversy, but the majority of county rice growers opposed the anti-GMO initiative because they thought it was too restrictive and would inhibit research on the experiment station at Biggs, which is in Butte County. Rice growers played a key role in defeating the anti-biotech initiative in Butte, which many believed would prohibit other GMO crops like herbicide-resistant alfalfa from being grown in the county.

The California industry will be watching this GMO long grain rice controversy unfold halfway across the nation. One of the biggest unanswered questions is how rice presumably last grown five years ago wound up in rice produced in 2005.

One of the fears growers have in seeing GMO food crops grown next to conventional crops is contamination in the hauling and processing of the two crops. LL 601 rice left in trucks in '01 contaminating crops grown four years later is one explanation being offered for the mid-South crisis.

However, that is a long spread between harvests for contaminated rice and clean grain to cause co-mingling.

Test to detect Bayer GMO rice could cost $300: USDA

Reuters, Aug 25, 2006 - By Christopher Doering

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Each test to determine whether commercial rice has traces of an unapproved biotech strain could cost as much as $300, but it is uncertain who will pay for the testing, U.S. Agriculture Department said on Friday.

USDA on Thursday certified tests from Bayer CropScience, a unit of Bayer AG, that detects when an unapproved genetically modified rice known as LLRICE 601 is present in commercial rice.

The department moved to quickly validate the test after traces of the unapproved rice were found in commercial bins in Arkansas and Missouri last week, prompting concern from some importers of U.S. rice.

David Shipman, deputy administrator with USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration, said Bayer has not told USDA how much of the testing it will cover. He said the tests will cost between $200 and $300 and will be sensitive enough to detect the genetically modified rice.

"There certainly are folks that are interested in what Bayer is going to offer to cover in terms of the testing, but I have not heard them come out with any sort of statement yet," said Shipman.

The USA Rice Federation said it believed Bayer, which created a gene to give herbicide tolerance to long-grain rice, would pay for tests of major shipments to sensitive markets.

The European Commission has said the EU will require imports of U.S. long grain rice to be certified as free from the unauthorized strain. The commission said validated tests must be done by an accredited laboratory and be accompanied by a certificate.

Japan, the largest importer of U.S. rice, has suspended imports of U.S. long-grain rice.

"We're working with USDA and the U.S. rice industry and are focused on providing technical and scientific support where needed," said a Bayer official who spoke on condition of anonymity. He declined to say if Bayer would pay for testing.

Bayer has said it is working to get six U.S. labs ready to begin testing commercial rice for any signs of the genetically modified crop. Testing is expected to begin during the next few days.

GE Rice Scare Shows Vulnerability of Food Supply

Inter Press Service News Agency, August 25 2006. By Emad Mekay.

WASHINGTON, Aug 25 (IPS) - The revelation that commercial rice in the United States was found to be contaminated with an unlicensed genetically engineered strain shows how easily the food supply in the United States and in countries importing U.S. food can be tainted, watchdog groups say.

The long grain rice that was found to contain trace amounts of genetically engineered (GE) Liberty Link Rice 601, produced by the agro-chemical giant Bayer CropScience and never intended for commercial release, was immediately banned in Japan.

The United States is responsible for 12 percent of the global rice trade and many countries rely on U.S. rice to feed their people.

The main importers of U.S. rice are Mexico, Central America, Saudi Arabia, Canada and South Africa. Long grain rice, the type that was contaminated, comprises 80 percent of U.S. rice exports.

"Clearly there are a lot of countries that could be impacted here," said Bill Freese, a science policy analyst with the Centre for Food Safety in Washington. "I think quite a lot of these countries are in Latin America and they should be concerned about this."

"With genetically engineered crops, you can have unintended, unpredictable effects that can have impacts on human health or the environment," Freese added.

The 601 strain is one of several products designed to resist certain types of herbicides but is not yet approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for consumption or cultivation anywhere in the world.

A Bayer spokesperson was not immediately available on Thursday but the company said in a statement it was cooperating with the USDA and said the protein used in the 601 strain was safe.

"The protein is well known to regulators and has been confirmed safe for food and feed use in a number of crops by regulators in many countries, including the EU, Japan, Mexico, U.S. and Canada," the statement said.

Washington has strongly defended the Bayer product. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns said this week the contamination posed no risk to human health, food safety or the environment.

"The protein found in LL RICE 601 is approved for use in other products," Johanns said.

The United States says that GE crops have been developed with the benefit of the consumer in mind. But the Centre for Food Safety accused the USDA of complacency in regulating the powerful biotech industry.

"The USDA is an agency out of control," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Centre for Food Safety. "USDA's continuing failure to adequately regulate and monitor field testing of genetically engineered crops clearly puts the environment and public health at risk."

Since 1996, the USDA has granted at least 48 permits authorising Bayer or companies it has acquired, such as Aventis and AgrEvo, to plant over 4,000 acres of experimental GE rice.

"The extent to which pollen or grains from these field trials have contaminated commercial rice or related weedy species such as red rice is unknown. USDA policies do not provide for the testing of fields adjacent to field test sites to detect possible contamination with the experimental genetically engineered crop," said the Centre for Food Safety.

Last year, Japan and the European Union banned U.S. maize imports following a GE contamination scandal in which Washington had relied on similar self-reporting by the agro-business giants.

But this time, and despite the international outcry, the European Commission said it would only impose testing and certification requirements on imports of U.S. long grain rice.

International environmentalists and green groups who fear contamination of the global food chain, in part because of the low cost of GE rice compared to GE-free brands, argue that the EC should have banned the rice.

"It is time to move beyond case-by-case procedures as the GE industry has shown time and time again that it is unwilling or unable to prevent GE contamination," said Jeremy Tager of Greenpeace International, which has called for a ban on U.S. GE rice.

The group criticised the EC for its response and said that rice is the world's most important staple food and further contamination could have catastrophic results. It wants the EC to identify countries and products that are at high risk of contaminating food supplies with illegal or dangerous GE organisms.

There were also calls for major importing regions such as the Americas, Africa and the Middle East to take similar steps immediately until the U.S. can guarantee that its rice supply is no longer contaminated.

"A message needs to be sent to the U.S. and to agro-chemical giant Bayer that genetic contamination and 'accidents' with our food are not acceptable, and ultimately they must be held liable for cleaning it up," said Tager.

"Countries that import U.S. rice, such as the EU, Mexico, Brazil and Canada, must become serious about preventing this kind of threat to our food supplies by banning any imports of GE rice, removing all contaminated food from supermarket shelves and rejecting applications for the commercial cultivation of rice," he said.

GE products can tolerate drought conditions and herbicides, resist insects and viruses, and provide enhanced quality and nutrition for consumers, the industry says. But those assertions are hotly contested by food safety and consumer groups.

The United States produces more than 100 commercial varieties of rice valued at almost 1.9 billion dollars, according to the USDA. About half of all U.S. production is exported.

The USDA estimates that in 2006, 61 percent of the corn, 83 percent of the cotton and 89 percent of the soybeans planted in the United States were biotech varieties.

Over 70 percent of processed foods on grocery store shelves in the U.S. contain ingredients and oils from biotech crops.

A straw in the wind

Register Guard editorial, August 25, 2006

Don't be alarmed, say the people at Monsanto and Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. They're developing a genetically modified type of grass that is resistant to the herbicide glyphosphate, better known as Roundup. The fact that the grass has been found miles away from a test plot in central Oregon is nothing to worry about, company spokesmen say. Yet it is difficult to feel reassured.

Roundup-resistant grass would be used on golf courses, where groundskeepers could spray the herbicide to kill weeds without hurting the grass. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is conducting an environmental assessment before deciding whether to approve the grass. The USDA would be well-advised to take into account some factors the developers seem to have overlooked.

Monsanto and Scotts planted a crop two years ago on a test plot surrounded by a wide buffer. Scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency laboratory in Corvallis found that pollen from the grass had drifted as far as 13 miles. When the test was complete, the grass was destroyed. Now the EPA has found nine grass plants containing the Roundup-resistant gene outside the test plot - some of which had grown from drifting seed, and others that had hybridized with wild grass species.

No big deal, say the companies' spokesmen. A majority of many of the United States' major crops, such as soybeans, corn and cotton, are genetically modified varieties, including some that have been given genes for herbicide resistance. They're not spreading uncontrollably. But these crops do not have wild relatives nearby, and they have to be replanted every year. Grasses have many relatives, and do not need replanting.

Even so, Monsanto and Scotts claim, the kind of grass used on golf courses is not a weed, so its spread would not be a problem. And it's unlikely to spread in any case, because golf course groundskeepers keep their grass short, so it never has a chance to scatter seed or pollen. Yet the genetically modified grass has already shown itself able to hybridize with other varieties, some of which might be undesirable. And even the most careful groundskeeper's mower can miss a few blades or patches of grass.

Finally, the companies say the seed and pollen was spread by an unexpected windstorm that came after the grass had been cut and was drying. Such conditions are so rare that spreading should not recur. Yet if Monsanto and Scotts are counting on predictable weather to keep their crop where it belongs, they may also have overlooked a thousand other ways, from birds to boots, that pollen and seed can be spread by accident or by chance.

The escape and proliferation of an herbicide-resistant grass would not be the end of the world, but it could cause serious problems. One result could be that farmers and groundskeepers would be forced to use herbicides other than Roundup - including some that cost more or persist longer in the environment - to control unwanted grasses. Another is that Oregon's $370-million grass seed crop could be closed out of markets in countries that have strict rules against genetically modified organisms.

Those effects are unlikely, the companies say. Maybe so. Still, it's hard not to feel a twinge of concern. As the USDA reviews the genetically modified grass, it should bear in mind some facts that have already been demonstrated on the Oregon test plot: Life is tenacious, biological processes are hard to control, the risk of the unforeseen is ever-present and hubris has the power to make people blind.

24 August 2006

Japan mulls testing U.S. rice for unapproved GMO

Reuters, 24 August 2006.

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan is considering testing rice shipments from the United States to prevent supplies tainted with an unapproved genetically modified (GMO) variety from entering the domestic market, government officials said on Thursday.

Japan has a zero-tolerance policy on imports of unapproved GMO crops, and importers of crops tainted with unapproved GMO must destroy them or ship them back to exporting countries.

The U.S. Agriculture Department disclosed last week that unapproved GMO rice strain LLRice 601 owned by Bayer CropScience, a division of Bayer AG, was detected in long grain rice targeted for commercial use.

It was the first time that unmarketed genetically engineered rice had been found in rice used in the U.S. commercial market. Bayer has refused to discuss how extensive the contamination could be.

Although Japan imports only short- and medium-grain rice from the United States, the largest rice exporter to the country, it cannot rule out the possibility that U.S. rice cargoes arriving in Japan might contain LLRice 601, officials said.

"We are considering whether to test U.S. rice and rice products upon arrival," said an official at Japan's Health Ministry.

In an effort to ease fears of U.S. rice customers, U.S. government scientists are rushing to certify a test that would identify LLRice 601. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said on Wednesday that a valid certified testing protocol should be available by the end of the week.

Japan will make a decision on U.S. rice testing after getting certified testing protocol from the United States, the Health Ministry official said.

Japan has already suspended imports of U.S. long-grain rice. But after obtaining U.S. testing protocol, the government will allow imports of U.S. long-grain rice to restart, except for shipments tested positive for traces of LLRice 601, he said.

Japan has put rice imports under the state trading system as the grain is the nation's staple food, with the Agriculture Ministry acting as a rice importer.

The ministry is obliged to buy about 770,000 tonnes of foreign rice on a brown rice basis under the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) minimum access program.

Between January 1 and August 18, Japan imported about 235,000 tonnes of short- and medium-grain rice from the United States. It also imported about 17,000 tonnes of processed rice from the United States during that period.

USDA says validated Bayer test for GMO rice

Reuters, 24 August 2006.

WASHINGTON, Aug 24 (Reuters) - U.S. government scientists on Thursday certified a test by Bayer CropScience that would identify when an unapproved genetically modified rice has been mixed into commercial rice, the U.S. Agriculture Department said.

"They have validated the test," said Ed Loyd, a USDA spokesman.

USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration began working with Bayer CropScience, a unit of Bayer AG (BAYG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research), about two weeks ago after U.S. agriculture and food safety authorities learned on July 31 that Bayer's unapproved, experimental LL Rice 601 had been found in rice bins in Arkansas and Missouri.

GIPSA used reference material and methodology provided by Bayer CropScience to verify the company's own work.

"We verified a 601 method back to Bayer," said Steven Tanner, director of GIPSA's Kansas City laboratory where the test verification work was conducted.

Tanner said the lab was doing "some additional confirmations on components" but Bayer was now able to take its test to commercial laboratories.

Bayer officials have said they are working to get six labs ready to begin commercial testing.

The European Commission on Wednesday said the EU would require imports of U.S. long grain rice to be certified as free from the unauthorized strain. The commission said validated tests must be done by an accredited laboratory and be accompanied by a certificate.

Unapproved Rice Strain Found in Wide Area

New York Times, August 22, 2006. By Andrew Pollack

An unapproved genetically engineered strain of rice has been found in trace amounts in commercial supplies over a wide area in the nation's southern rice-growing region, the country's largest marketer of rice said yesterday.

The marketer, Riceland Foods, a farmer-owned cooperative, said samples from its five-state growing region - Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas - had tested positive for the genetically engineered trait.

"The positive results were geographically dispersed and random throughout the rice-growing area," Riceland said.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns announced late Friday that unapproved rice had been found in supplies destined for human consumption. He and other federal officials said the rice posed no risk to health or the environment.

Because some countries will not accept genetically modified crops they have not approved themselves, the finding could hurt American exports or require them to undergo extra testing. About half the nation's $1.9 billion rice crop is exported.

In a telephone news conference on Friday, Mr. Johanns declined to discuss how far the unapproved rice had spread. Agriculture Department officials later said it had been found in bins in Arkansas and Missouri that held rice from the 2005 crop, though the rice in those bins might have come from other states.

Bill J. Reed, a spokesman for Riceland, said in an interview yesterday that the rice was "not limited to Arkansas and Missouri'' but had been found "throughout the southern rice-growing area.''

The unapproved rice, a long-grain variety developed by Bayer CropScience, part of the Bayer Group, contains a gene that makes it resistant to the herbicide Liberty, also known as glufosinate. While this type of rice never received approval, two very similar types did - though they have not been marketed.

The European Commission said yesterday that it would ask Washington for more information and then decide what action to take on the unapproved rice. A Japanese newspaper, Asahi Shimbun, reported that Japan had suspended imports of long-grain rice from the United States, The Associated Press said.

American rice industry executives said Japan's imports consisted mainly of short- and medium-grain rice from California, and hardly any long-grain rice. The California Rice Commission said yesterday that it did not expect that the state's rice would be affected.

Riceland, which is based in Stuttgart, Ark., said the existence of a genetically engineered product in its rice was discovered in January by one of its export customers.

Riceland said that because genetically engineered rice was not grown commercially in the United States, it initially thought that a small amount of genetically engineered corn or another crop had been mixed in with rice, perhaps through the use of a common means of transportation.

But in May, Riceland said, the company collected rice samples from several grain storage sites and found positive results for the Bayer trait. Riceland said it then told Bayer, which confirmed the findings and said the modified rice was present at levels equivalent to 6 of every 10,000 grains. Bayer reported this to the government on July 31. Since then, Mr. Johanns said, the government has been working on the situation.

It is still unclear how the rice, which was last field-tested in 2001, entered the 2005 crop.

Rice growers said yesterday that the finding could be damaging as it came just as the harvest was beginning, and as prices for rice seemed set to rise because of demand. They called for more information.

"We need to know where it got started, how it got started, is it an isolated incident, how widespread it is," said Dwight Roberts, president of the United States Rice Producers Association. He said the Agriculture Department "has to move clearly and quickly and announce some policy on certification and testing."

23 August 2006

EU unhappy with delay in GMO case info from US

ABC News, 23 August 2006.

Aug 23, 2006 - BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Commission is unhappy with the U.S. information policy that led to a near 3-week delay in notifying the bloc that an unauthorised GMO trace was found in U.S. commercial long grain rice.

"The U.S. authorities were notified on July 31 - we were notified on August 18th. We are not happy with this," a senior Commission official told reporters on Wednesday.

"The Commission is not satisfied with the information policy and this was transmitted to the Americans," he said.

He was speaking after the European Union tightened document requirements on U.S. long grain rice imports to prove they are free of the unauthorised genetically modified organism (GMO).

Commission requires certification of US rice exports to stop unauthorised GMO entering the EU

EU press release, Brussels, 23 August 2006

The European Commission has today adopted a decision requiring imports of long grain rice from the USA to be certified as free from the unauthorised GMO LL Rice 601. The decision has been taken in light of the recent announcement by the US authorities that this unauthorised GMO had been found in samples of commercial rice on the US market (see MEX/06/0821). The emergency measures adopted by the Commission today mean that, with immediate effect, only consignments of US long grain rice that have been tested by an accredited laboratory using a validated testing method and accompanied by a certificate assuring the absence of LL Rice 601, can enter the EU.

Markos Kyprianou, Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, said "We have strict legislation in place in the EU to ensure that any GM product put on the European market has undergone a thorough authorisation procedure based on scientific assessment. There is no flexibility for unauthorised GMOs - these cannot enter the EU food and feed chain under any circumstances. The measures we have taken today will ensure that unauthorised GM rice is not inadvertently imported. EU consumers can rely on the high level of protection that our GM rules afford them."

Under EU food safety legislation, only GMOs which have undergone a thorough scientific assessment and authorisation procedure may be put on the EU market. The decision adopted today therefore aims to prevent the unauthorised LL Rice 601 from reaching EU consumers, by ensuring that only rice certified as free from this GMO enters the EU. The measures will enter into effect immediately, and are expected to be reviewed after 6 months.

Member States authorities are responsible for controlling the imports at their borders and for preventing any contaminated consignments from being placed on the market. In addition, they should carry out controls on products already on the market, to ensure that they are free from LL Rice 601. Business operators importing rice from the USA also have responsibility for ensuring that LL Rice 601 does not enter the EU food chain and that imports are certified as free from this unauthorised GMO, in accordance with the EU food law principle that operators are responsible for the safety of the food or feed that they place on the market.

The presence of the unauthorised LL Rice 601 was first notified to the European Commission by the US authorities on 18 August. The Commission immediately requested further information from the USA and from Bayer, the company responsible for producing LL Rice 601. The extent to which the US supply chain has been contaminated is still unknown, which is why the Commission though it was appropriate to proceed immediately with the adoption of emergency measures. The Commission will continue actively monitoring the situation and adapt the measures if necessary.

As is the case with all such emergency measures, the Commission will submit the decision to the Member State experts for review within 10 days. To this effect, the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health will meet urgently on Friday 25 August.

EU clamps down on GM rice
EU must take urgent action to prevent future contamination incidents

Friends of the Earth Europe Press Release, August 23 2006.

Brussels, Wednesday 23 August 2006 - Friends of the Earth Europe has welcomed today's announcement by the European Commission that all consignments of US long grain rice must be tested to ensure that they do not contain an unauthorised genetically modified rice strain. But the environmental campaign group has stressed that this incident highlights the need for new, tighter EU measures to prevent future contamination incidents from occurring.

Friends of the Earth Europe's GM campaigner, Adrian Bebb said: "We are pleased that the European Commission has taken action to stop imports of this contaminated rice, but it must go further and prevent similar incidents happening again. The EU must put robust measures in place, including comprehensive and routine testing, to ensure that food illegally contaminated with GM material is kept out of the European food chain. Our right to choose GM-free food must be protected."

"This incident highlights once again that the biotech industry is out of control. In Europe, we should learn a lesson from this and should be extremely cautious about growing genetically modified crops ourselves," Mr Bebb added.

The emergency measures announced today by the European Commission will mean that - with immediate effect - consignments of US long grain rice will not be allowed into the EU unless they have been tested by an accredited laboratory using a validated testing method and are accompanied by a certificate assuring the absence of LL Rice 601. The Commission also declared that Member States should carry out controls on products already on the EU market, to ensure that they are free from the unauthorised GM rice. (1)

This latest case of GM contamination follows a similar incident in March last year in which the biotech company Syngenta admitted to selling an experimental and illegal GM maize variety to US farmers for four years.This led to maize exports to Europe being contaminated.

For more information, please contact:

Adrian Bebb, GM Food Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe: Tel: +49 80 25 99 1951; Mobile: +49 160 949 01163; email: adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org

Rosemary Hall, Communications Officer for Friends of the Earth Europe: Tel: +32 25 42 61 05; Mobile: +32 485 930 515; rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org

NOTES:

(1) Commission Question and Answers

Commission Press Release

EU tightens rules to block tainted U.S. biotech rice

Reuters, 23 August 2006. By Jeremy Smith.

BRUSSELS, Aug 23 (Reuters) - The European Union has tightened requirements on U.S. long grain rice imports to prove there are no signs of an unauthorised genetically modified organism (GMO), the European Commission said on Wednesday.

The decision follows the discovery by U.S. authorities of trace amounts of the unauthorised GMO rice strain in long grain samples that were targeted for commercial use.

The rice, called LL Rice 601, is marketed by Germany's Bayer AG (BAYG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) to withstand a weed-killing pesticide and grown in the United States.

"The European Commission has today adopted a decision requiring imports of long grain rice from the USA to be certified as free of the unauthorised GMO LL Rice 601," Commission spokesman Philip Tod told a news briefing.

With immediate effect, only shipments of U.S. long grain rice tested by an accredited laboratory using a validated detection method will be able to enter EU markets. Shipments must be accompanied certificate assuring the absence of LL 601.

The EU measure will be reviewed on Friday by a committee of EU-25 food safety experts, and again in six months' time.

At present, no GMO rice is authorised for import or sale within the 25-country European Union, which imported 300,000 tonnes of U.S. rice last year, with 85 percent being long grain.

Biotech foods have run into strong resistance in Europe, where many consumers view them as "Frankenstein" foods. The biotech industry insists that its products are perfectly safe.

Green groups, which had called for the EU to suspend all its U.S. rice imports, complained that the Commission's restrictions were a "minimal response to a serious contamination problem".

"While the Commission should be congratulated for a quick response to this genetic contamination, this response is inadequate as rice is the world's most important staple food," Jeremy Tager at Greenpeace International said in a statement.

EU UNHAPPY WITH DELAY

U.S. authorities insist that the GMO strain poses no risk to public health or the environment. But the Commission, which says it needs much more data about the case, was not so sure.

"We are still missing substantial amounts of information," a senior Commission official said. "For the moment, we do not share the view of the U.S. that there is no risk."

The EU executive says it still has no idea about possible volumes of LL Rice 601 that may have entered Europe, nor the countries that may have received cargoes with the strain.

They are also unhappy about U.S. information policy that caused a near 3-week delay in telling Brussels that traces of the unauthorised GMO were found in the commercial rice.

On July 31, U.S. agriculture and food safety authorities were notified that testing by Bayer CropScience, a Bayer unit, showed LL Rice 601 in rice bins in Arkansas and Missouri: the first time that unmarketed biotech rice had been found in rice used in the U.S. commercial market.

Japan, for which the United States is the largest rice exporter, banned imports of U.S. long grain rice on Aug. 19.

For LL Rice 601, the validation test was now available and would be distributed in Europe in a few days, officials said.

EU restrictions on illegal US rice imports inadequate

Greenpeace International press release, 23 August 2006.

Brussels, International 23 August 2006 - Greenpeace International criticized the announcement by the European Commission (EC) today as a minimal response to a serious contamination problem.

The EC stated that it would only impose testing and certification requirements on imports of long grain rice from the United States which does not address contamination from genetically engineered (GE) rice that may already be in food in the EU. The EC also relies on testing and information provided by Bayer, makes no commitment to its own assessment of the extent of the contamination problem and also imposes no penalties and costs against Bayer.

The EC made this move after Commercial rice in the United States was found contaminated with genetically engineered (GE) Liberty Link (LL) rice 601, produced by agro-chemical giant Bayer and never intended for commercial release. Imports were, as a result, immediately banned in Japan. (1)

"While the Commission should be congratulated for a quick response to this genetic contamination, this response is inadequate as rice is the world's most important staple food and is contained in many food products currently on EU shelves," said Jeremy Tager, Greenpeace International GE campaigner. "It is time to move beyond case-by-case procedures as the GE industry has shown time and time again that it is unwilling or unable to prevent GE contamination."

Greenpeace International calls on the EC to stop reacting to contamination 'accidents' and start preventing them instead. The EC should identify countries and products that are at high risk of contaminating our food supply with illegal or dangerous GE organisms and implement screening, preventative testing and, where there is no demonstrated capacity to prevent contamination, total bans.

Greenpeace International calls on other major importing regions such as the Americas, Africa and the Middle East to take similar steps immediately until the US can guarantee that their rice supply - and other foods - are no longer contaminated.

"A message needs to be sent to the US and to agro-chemical giant Bayer that genetic contamination and 'accidents' with our food are not acceptable, and ultimately they must be held liable for cleaning it up."

Greenpeace campaigns for GE-free crop and food production grounded on the principles of sustainability, protection of biodiversity and providing all people to have access to safe and nutritious food. Genetic engineering is an unnecessary and unwanted technology that contaminates the environment, threatens biodiversity and poses unacceptable risks to health.

For more information and interviews

Jeremy Tager, Greenpeace International GE campaigner mob +31 (0) 6 4622 1185 office +31 (0) 20 718 2177
Suzette Jackson, Greenpeace International communications +31 (0) 6 4619 7324

Notes to editors

(1) http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=44088&lang=fra&NewsRubrique=2

Government must reject plans to grow GM potatoes

Friends of the Earth Press Release, 23 August 2006.

The Government should reject plans to grow experimental trials of GM potatoes at two locations in England, Friends of the Earth said today. The environmental campaign group warned that if the trials went ahead they could contaminate the food chain.

Genetically modified (GM) potatoes could be grown experimentally in the UK as early as 2007. Biotech company BASF has announced today (Wednesday) that it is applying to conduct two field trials of the GM potatoes in Derbyshire and Cambridge.

BASF was granted permission to trial the GM blight-resistant potatoes in Ireland earlier this year, but after strong public opposition and strict conditions were imposed by Ireland's Environmental Protection Agency, BASF abandoned the trials [1].

It has recently been disclosed that experimental field trials of GM rice in the USA have contaminated food supplies, which could have been exported all over the world [2].

Friends of the Earth is concerned that any GM potatoes left in the ground after the experiment could contaminate future crops, and strict rules would be needed to ensure that the GM potatoes cannot enter the food chain.

The UK Government is currently holding a public consultation to determine what rules will be needed to grow GM crops commercially in England [3]. It is not proposing any separation distances for potatoes and any measures to prevent GM contamination will be left to a voluntary code of practice. Friends of the Earth is urging people to respond to the Government's consultation at www.stopgmcontamination.org

Friends of the Earth's GM Campaigner Liz Wright said:

"Consumers in the UK and Europe have made it clear that they do not want to eat GM food. Rather than wasting money on GM crops that will have no market in Europe, the industry should be looking for more sustainable ways to solve problems in farming."

"The US rice contamination scandal, where an experimental crop not approved for human consumption was able to contaminate food supplies, shows that the biotech industry cannot be trusted to keep their experimental GM crops out of our food. The Government must reject this application and prevent any GM crops from being grown in the UK until it can guarantee that they won't contaminate our food, farming and environment."

There will be an opportunity for public comment when the application is considered by the Government.

Notes

[1] http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI26.pdf.
[2] http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/call_for_ban_on_us_imports_21082006.html.
[3] www.stopgmcontamination.org

GM firm plans potato trials in Britain
First planting next spring if Defra approves scheme
Crops will be modified to resist blight fungus

The Guardian, 23 August 2006. By Ian Sample.

Fields of genetically modified potatoes could be planted in Britain as early as next spring under controversial plans being considered by officials.

The plant science company BASF has applied to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to conduct two field trials of GM potatoes, modified with genes to resist late blight, the fungus that devastated Ireland's potato crop in the famine of the 1840s.

If permission is granted by the environment secretary, David Miliband, the trials will become the first in Britain since the government's field scale trials, which were conducted to assess the environmental implications of GM crop farming and completed in 2003. The prospect of GM crop trials alarmed anti-GM campaigners who fear they could lead to contamination of non-GM food supplies.

The application represents a testing of the water by multinational biotechnology companies since GM crop research was shifted out of Britain en masse in response to the negative public opinion and the widespread trashing of GM crop trials by anti-GM activists.

If the plans are approved, BASF will plant two hectares of GM potatoes in April next year, one in Derbyshire and another at the National Institute for Agricultural Botany in Cambridge. After three to four years of trials the company will seek permission to market, grow and sell the potatoes in Britain.

All of the potatoes grown in the trials must be dug up and transported to laboratories in secure vehicles for testing before being destroyed. Researchers must then observe the field the following season and uproot any remaining potatoes that appear.

The trials would follow ongoing tests of the GM potatoes in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands. "This would be our first GM trial in the UK and we need to conduct these to see how the crop grows in different conditions," said Barry Stickings of BASF. "I hope that society, including the NGOs, realise that all we are doing is increasing choice."

Late blight (Phytophthora infestans) causes devastating losses to the farming industry, amounting to about £50m each year, despite regular spraying of fungicides. To genetically modify potatoes to resist the blight, researchers at BASF extracted genes from wild relatives of the potato found in Mexico and inserted them into crop potatoes. The genes respond to the fungus by killing off cells around the site of infection, a sacrificial defence that saves the plant from destruction.

If the trials are approved, scientists will infect some GM potatoes with the fungus and wait for natural infection to strike others. They will then assess the effectiveness of the protection.

Andy Beadle, an expert in fungal resistance at BASF, said the risks of contamination from GM crops are minimal because potatoes reproduce through the production of tubers, unlike other crops such as oil seed rape which produces pollen that can be carried for miles on the wind.

Julian Little, spokesman for the GM industry group, the Agricultural Biotechnology Commission, said: "This is a big deal. There have been no trials in this country since the government's field scale trials and the industry is going to be very interested to see how these go."

A Defra spokesman said: "This application will be assessed thoroughly for safety to human health and the environment and considered by the independent experts on the advisory commitee for releases to the environment (Acre)."

Liz Wright, a GM campaigner at Friends of the Earth said: "We have a problem with field trials and with potatoes. The main problem is ensuring you get every scrap of the crop out of the ground afterwards. If you don't manage that, you can get them growing again the next year."

Gains and risks

How are GM crops produced?

Beneficial genes are snipped out of organisms, often other plants, and inserted into the genome of the crop. One way to do this is to use a harmless virus that has been modified to carry the beneficial genes

Are GM crops grown in Britain?

Not yet, but last year six European countries farmed GM crops

What are the risks?

Some GM crops, such as oilseed rape, produce pollen that can potentially fertilise non-GM varieties. To minimise the risks, farmers would have to plant these away from other crops. GM potatoes produce a minimal amount of pollen

How big is the potato market?

Potatoes are the fourth-largest staple food crop in the world. Farmers spend about £20m on fungicides to protect against late blight

What is the benefit of GM potatoes?

Potatoes are sprayed about 15 times a season to protect them against late blight. GM potatoes would need spraying only a couple of times

Special reports

GM food debate http://environment.guardian.co.uk/Guardian/gmdebate/0,,178400,00.html.
Special report: what's wrong with our food? http://environment.guardian.co.uk/Guardian/foodissues/0,,178225,00.html.

Explained 03.06.2003: GM crops http://environment.guardian.co.uk/Guardian/theissues/article/0,,969438,00.ht ml.

May 2003 investigation
Food: the way we eat now http://environment.guardian.co.uk/Guardian/food/focus/0,,951051,00.html.

Useful links

Monsanto http://www.monsanto.co.uk.
Agriculture & environment biotechnology commission (government advisory body) http://www.aebc.gov.uk/. Agricultural Biotechnology Council http://www.abcinformation.org/.

Official reports

Royal Society report on GM plants (pdf) http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/02/04/document-165.pdf.


Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology report on GM food labelling (pdf) http://www.parliament.uk/post/nfr/pn172.pdf.

22 August 2006

EU May Stop Unauthorized US GMO Rice Imports Wednesday

EasyBourse.com, 22 August 2006

BRUSSELS -(Dow Jones)- The European Union may launch measures Wednesday to stop shipments of U.S. long-grain rice contaminated with an unauthorized genetically modified strain.

It is still unclear how customs officials will detect whether rice imports are contaminated or not, a European Commission spokeswoman said Tuesday. Experts are working on detection methods with U.S. officials and representatives of German biotech firm Bayer AG (BAY). "We have to do what we can to make sure the rice doesn't come onto our market," said spokeswoman Antonia Mochan.

U.S. rice dives as GMO issue stirs export fears

Reuters, 22 August 2006. By Christine Stebbins.

CHICAGO, Aug 22 (Reuters) - Rice prices on Tuesday tumbled 5 percent to the lowest level in nearly two months, amid fears that exports could suffer after the discovery of U.S. rice supplies tainted with unapproved genetically modified rice.

Japan has already banned imports of U.S. long grain rice after U.S. government officials announced on Friday that GMO rice was found in commercial supplies.

Europe, a major market for U.S. rice, was set to block unauthorized biotech rice from reaching its shores even as American farmers harvest this year's crop.

"The saga continues, and it's still the psychological fear element that is driving the market," said Neauman Coleman, analyst and rice broker from Brinkley, Arkansas.

Rice futures at the Chicago Board of Trade fell by the daily trading limit of 50 cents per hundredweight, or more than 5 percent, the sharpest one-day decline in years.

Tuesday's drop came on top of declines chalked up on Monday, the first dayside trading session after news of the commingling was announced late on Friday by the U.S. Agriculture Department.

U.S. officials said it was the first time unmarketed genetically modified rice has been found in rice used in the commercial market.

The Food and Drug Administration and USDA were notified on July 31 that testing by Bayer CropScience, a division of Bayer AG (BAYG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research), reported the biotech sample, called LLRICE 601, in rice bins in Arkansas and Missouri.

There were no plans to recall or destroy the commercial rice that was contaminated with the unapproved variety.

CBOT traders were most concerned that the European Union, a big buyer of long grain rice as traded at the exchange, will stop importing U.S. long grain rice following Japan's move.

The 25-nation European Union bloc imported 300,000 tonnes of U.S. rice last year, with 85 percent being long grain. No GMO rice is authorized for import or sale in the EU.

CBOT rice futures for November delivery fell the 50-cent trading limit before closing 49 cents lower at $9.35 per hundredweight -- its lowest close since June 29.

CBOT September futures closed 50 cents lower.

Since the USDA's announcement late Friday, the price of CBOT November rice has fallen 75 cents.

"There are going to be trade tensions. That is basically your knee-jerk reaction," said grain analyst Shawn McCambridge with Prudential Financial.

"Where it goes from here really depends on the political environment within the importing countries, and whether or not this whole GMO issue is as big as they think it is," McCambridge added.

U.S. government scientists, meanwhile, were scrambling to certify a test that would identify the unapproved rice gene to ease fears of U.S. rice customers who don't want the experimental strain mixed in their supplies.

A valid test could be ready for the market within a few days, possibly as early as Wednesday, to ensure that the unauthorized rice does not enter consumer markets there, said an official with the Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration.

Traders were also watching for any possible reaction from buyers in Central America. "Where rice is really important is into Central America," said analyst Roy Huckabay with The Linn Group, a Chicago trade house.

Central America imported roughly 765,000 tonnes of U.S. rice in 2005. Only a small percentage is long grain rice.

That area of the world also tends to be less restrictive in importing GMO crops, he added. (Additional reporting by Carey Gillam and Lisa Haarlander) .

Japan rice ban worries some California farmers

Associated press, 22 August 2006. By Robin Hindery.

SACRAMENTO - A recent Japanese ban of long-grain rice from the United States has set off alarm among California farmers and added fuel to a debate over genetically modified rice.

On one side, some farmers and industry groups say the ban does not pose a direct threat to California's crop, which is almost entirely short- and medium-grain rice. They add that the state's tightly regulated system for the introduction of any new rice variety has protected its products from the sort of contamination that prompted Japan's decision.

But others worry that restrictions on the biotech industry are insufficient, and that contamination is a near certainty in a state where hundreds of crops are grown in close proximity.

"Biotech does not recognize a fence line where one farmer's property ends and another begins," said Bryce Lundberg, a rice grower with Lundberg Family Farms.

The farm, based near Chico in the northern Sacramento Valley, supports keeping California free of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Lundberg said the situation surrounding the Japanese rice ban "points at the heart of the reason the farm opposes them."

Japan on Saturday suspended U.S. long-grain rice imports after supplies were found to contain trace amounts of a genetically engineered variety that is not approved for sale.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture said Friday that the contamination had been found in samples from storage bins in Arkansas and Missouri, but that the exact source had not been identified because the bins held rice from several Southern states.

Japan is the biggest foreign market for California rice - a $500 million industry that relies on exports for 50 percent of annual sales.

Japanese consumers have a long-standing aversion to biotechnology and any changes to their food supply. A ban on U.S. beef over fears of mad cow disease was lifted just a few weeks ago.

"Three of our top markets - Japan, Taiwan and North Korea - are very clear on their position on genetically engineered crops," said Renata Brillinger of Californians for GE-Free Agriculture, a coalition of environmental groups and family and organic farms. "And Japan is very influential over decisions that Taiwan and North Korean markets make."

Brillinger and others say that although it is business as usual right now for the California rice industry, any future contamination of the crop by GMOs could have an immediate and severe economic impact.

The state's farmers produce nearly 2 million tons of rice annually, making California the second largest rice-growing state in the nation behind Arkansas. Rice is produced on about 500,000 acres, primarily in the Sacramento Valley.

The crop is primarily self-pollinated, so the likelihood of cross-pollination is small, Brillinger said. But every stage from harvesting to stocking supermarket shelves is highly consolidated, she said, and therefore risky.

"Contamination is inevitable," she said. "It's just a matter of when and how."

Kent McKenzie, director of the Rice Experiment Station, sees much less cause for alarm.

"This material has never been grown in the fields of California," he said of the aberrant rice found in the South.

The experiment station, in a small town south of Chico, is a nonprofit research foundation owned by the state's rice growers. On Monday, it sent material from its seed stocks to be tested for contamination at independent testing labs after a request from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. McKenzie said he expected results within a week.

McKenzie and Tim Johnson, president of the California Rice Commission, credited a landmark state law with maintaining a separation between normal rice and genetically modified rice in recent years.

The California Rice Certification Act of 2000 helped establish rice industry regulations to avoid mixing different varieties. It also formed an advisory board that approves and creates protocols for any new rice introduced into California. It is the only such regulation for any crop in any state.

As a result, "we know of no commercially grown genetically modified rice produced in California today," said Johnson, whose commission operates under the supervision of the state agriculture secretary.

Opponents of genetically modified organisms say that could change quickly and that certain stringent conditions must be put in place.

Interest groups such as the Rice Producers of California and California Certified Organic Farmers have established a set of standards they say must be met in order for GMOs to enter the rice market safely. Those include labeling standards to identify products containing GMOs; legal recourse for farmers if their crops are contaminated; and rigorous precautions throughout the harvesting, processing and distribution phases to maintain total isolation of genetically engineered materials.

Both sides in the debate over bio-engineered rice acknowledge that it is not a black-and-white issue. Ultimately, they share the same overall goal: to ensure that whatever the future of California rice looks like, farmers are protected.

"We recognize the potential future benefits of biotech for both consumers and rice farmers," said Greg Massa, a rice grower in Glenn and Colusa counties and the co-chairman of the Rice Producers of California. "What we want is to make sure farmers' interests are taken care of first."

Massa said incidents such as the contamination found in the southern rice show there still is a long way to go before farmers can feel secure.

"We just want to make sure biotech is done right," he said. "Stuff like this, this is not doing it right."

India May Move In On Japanese Rice Market

AHN, 22 August 2006. By Matthew Borghese - All Headline News Staff Writer

New Delhi, India (AHN) - The U.S. will no longer export rice to Japan as lawmakers overseas fight the importation of genetically modified food.

According to the Financial Express, unapproved, gene-modified rice made by Bayer CropScience AG, was found in commercial U.S. rice supplies last week following which Japan, the second largest importer of rice from the US, announced a ban.

Now, India is positioned to sell 300,000 to 400,000 tons of non-basmati rice to Japan. Japan is slowly opening up to Indian trade, recently it began allowing mangoes.

Now, after previously buying 291,000 tons of rice from the U.S. last year, Japan will have to quickly find a new supply.

Anil Monga, managing director, Emmsons International, a star trading house tells the newspaper, "There is a huge opportunity for India to tap and export non-basmati rice to Japan. India has never exported rice to Japan before, so the quality parameters will have to be checked."

GM contamination warning triggers call for ban on US rice

The Guardian, August 22 2006. By John Vidal, environment editor.

Environment groups yesterday urged the European commission to follow Japan and restrict imports of American rice after the US government admitted that an illegal and untested genetically modified strain had contaminated the food chain.

The announcement said conventional long-grain rice had been contaminated by a GM rice that was grown at experimental sites between 1998 and 2001. However, there was no indication as to how widespread the contamination had been, how it occurred or why it had taken until now for the disclosure to be made. The UK imported 82,625 tonnes of US rice in 2004.

Adrian Bebb, GM food campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe, said: "This is a complete scandal. The EU must immediately suspend US rice imports until consumers can be guaranteed protection from untested and illegal foods."

The contamination source is apparently a trial GM rice called LLRICE601, produced by the German-based biotechnology company Bayer. The rice is engineered to withstand the herbicide glufosinate, but it has not been approved for human consumption anywhere in the world.

According to Bayer the GM rice is "present in some samples of commercial rice seed at low levels" even though field testing ended five years ago. Bayer informed the US Department of Agriculture of the contamination on July 31. The company said: "The protein found in LLRICE 601 is approved for use in other products. It has been repeatedly and thoroughly scientifically reviewed and used safely in food and feed, cultivation, import and breeding in the US, as well as nearly a dozen other countries."

The EU last night said it needed more information. Its executive commission was "dealing with this as a matter of the utmost urgency," said a spokeswoman, Antonia Mochan. "Measures will depend on the answers we get from the company and the US authorities." The US agriculture secretary, Mike Johanns, said: "There are no human health, food safety or environmental concerns associated with this genetically engineered rice."

US rushes test for GMO rice amid skittish market

REUTERS, August 22 2006. By Carey Gillam.

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - U.S. government scientists are rushing to certify a test that would identify an unapproved genetically modified rice that has slipped into commercial supplies, an inspection official said on Tuesday.

Work is being done quickly in an effort to ease fears of U.S. rice customers who don't want the experimental strain mixed into their supplies.

"We're very close. Very shortly we should be able to provide the marketplace with the analysis they need," Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration Deputy Administrator David Shipman said in an interview.

Shipman said a valid test could be ready for the market within a few days, possibly as early as Wednesday, the day the European Union is expected to launch measures to ensure that the unauthorized rice, known as LLRICE 601, does not enter consumer markets there.

The 25-country European Union is a large importer of U.S. long grain rice, buying about 300,000 tonnes of U.S. rice last year, with 85 percent of that long grain rice. No genetically modified (GMO) rice is authorized for import or sale within the EU.

"There are countries that are interested in knowing whether rice being shipped to them contains this 601," said Shipman. "Having this methodology will allow an exporter to ... verify for the buyer it doesn't contain, or does contain, that particular event."

In terms of the time frame for making such a test available, Shipman said: "We're looking at days and maybe not even plural."

GIPSA began working with Bayer CropScience, a unit of Bayer AG, about two weeks ago after U.S. agriculture and food safety authorities learned on July 31 that Bayer's unapproved, experimental GMO rice had been found in rice bins in Arkansas and Missouri.

Bayer supplied GIPSA with reference material and methodology it uses to distinguish the 601 strain and GIPSA's goal is to validate the company's specific testing methods for commercial use, said Shipman.

Bayer spokesman Greg Coffey had no comment on the status of GIPSA's work. But he said Bayer was also "supporting several commercial laboratories in setting up a testing method for industry use if requested."

The 601 contamination marks the first time that unmarketed genetically unauthorized biotech rice had been detected in long-grain samples targeted for commercial use. And Bayer has not disclosed specifically how it became aware of the contamination.

Japan, for which the United States is the largest rice exporter, has already suspended imports of U.S. long-grain rice.

Rice futures slid to a two-week low on the Chicago Board of Trade on Tuesday on concerns about the U.S.'s rice export business.

U.S. authorities say the GMO strain poses no risk to public health or the environment. But anti-biotech activists say this is but the latest in a long list of examples of flawed government oversight of potentially harmful transgendered crops.

GM contamination: ERA seeks ban on importation of US rice

Environmental Rights Action / Friends of the Earth Nigeria Press Release, August 21, 2006 [shortened]

The Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoE N) has urged the Federal Government to immediately ban the importation of rice from the United States.

ERA/FoEN in a statement issued yesterday said the ban has become imperative following revelation that rice supplies from the US have been contaminated with an illegal and untested genetically modified (GM) strain. The Japanese Government has already announced on Saturday August 19, 2006 that Japan was suspending US long-grain rice imports due to the contamination.

ERA/FoEN Executive Director and International GMO Campaigner, Nnimmo Bassey said: "This is a complete scandal. The biotech industry has once again failed to control its products and lax regulations in the USA have led to consumers being put at considerable risk."

Bassey noted that Ghana is among the top 10 importers of rice from the USA and that this may have spread across the West African sub-region and beyond. Ghana's rice imports from the USA stood at 78.9 tonnes in 2001/2002, 117.6 tonnes in 2002/2003 and 166.4 tonnes in 2004/2006.

"Rice importation from America must immediately suspend such imports until it can be guaranteed that its citizens are protected from untested and illegal foods," Bassey added.

The GM rice, produced by German-based biotechnology company Bayer, was field tested between 1998 and 2001 but the contamination of commercial long grain rice has only just come to light. The US exported more than 3 million tonnes of rice in 2005.

ERA is worried that this contaminated rice may already be present in the food chain in Nigeria. The group has consistently urged precaution in the introduction of novel crops and has campaigned against GMOs because of safety issues and other risks to the environment.

Nigeria is yet to have a national biosafety law and has not authorised the introduction of GMOs in the country.

Maryam Bassey, Project officer, GMO Campaign

ERA/FoE N, Postal: P.O.Box 10577, Ugbowo, Benin City, Nigeria Tel: +234 52 600 165 Mobile: +234 803 727 4395 Fax: + +234 52 602 680 eFAX: +1-520-844-8482 & + 1-309-416-1666. Website: www.eraction.org

US Rice Prices Are Stunted By Concerns of Biotech Controls

Wall Street Journal, 22 August 2006

Trading partners abroad began tightening their controls on American-grown rice after the discovery of an accidental release of a genetically modified variety unapproved for sale by U.S. regulators.

Prices of rice futures contracts sank yesterday as countries such as Japan and South Korea moved to prevent the genetically modified rice from coming into their markets from the U.S., which counts on foreign customers to buy roughly half of its annual production.

European Union officials said they are requesting more information from the U.S. and Bayer AG of Germany, the maker of the accidentally released long-grain variety, before deciding ...

Read the article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115620474016941660.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Tainted Southern rice threatens U.S. market
Japan halts shipments

Commercial Appeal, August 22 2006. By Jane Roberts [excerpts only]

Monday the price of September rice closed down 28 cents -- a three-week low -- as the market teetered on news of widespread contamination in the crop largely grown in the MidSouth.

Japan, the largest importer of U.S. rice, Saturday suspended shipments of long-grain rice. Monday, the European Union faced pressure to do the same.

"We're seeing the typical kneejerk reaction in the market you'd expect from any news of this type," said Darin Newsom, senior analyst at DTN in Omaha. "If something else comes out on this and there's a more widespread problem, we could see the domestic market come down."

The samples came from storage bins in Arkansas and Missouri. But trace amounts of the contaminant have been found across the rice belt, according to Bill Reed, spokesman for Riceland Foods in Stuttgart, Ark.

"This is a situation not limited to a state or a farmer or a producer or a handler. It's a situation for Southern long-grain rice."

Read the article: http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/business/article/0,1426,MCA_440_4933927,00.html

EC slammed for "complacency and connivance" over GM rice fiasco

GM Free Cymru Press Briefing, 22 August 2006.

The European Commission has been slammed for its feeble and belated response to the latest fiasco involving the GM contamination of essential food supplies by an unauthorised and untested variety of rice.

More GM Lies

On 31st July Bayer CropScience informed USDA that a rice merchandiser had found traces of an unauthorised variety called LL601 in his rice silos in the states of Arkansas and Missouri (1). After eighteen days of private discussions the FDA and APHIS put out a joint "reassurance statement", designed to imply that the contamination was of very limited extent, that it was only present in "trace amounts", and that other LL rice varieties have been approved as safe (2). They also declared that the contaminated rice would not be destroyed, but simply stored for the time being. Then, to cap it all, they said that they intend to cooperate with Bayer in the deregulation (ie approval) of LL601 as speedily as possible. That would, in true American fashion, make everything perfectly all right again, as well as reducing or even eliminating any liability which Bayer might otherwise have to face relating to health, environmental or financial damage.

Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johans concluded that there were "no human health, food safety, or environmental concerns associated with this GE rice." However, he also admitted that he did not know how much rice was contaminated, which rice products were involved, or where the contaminated rice was found (3). Other people seem to know a great deal more than he does (4), and perhaps they should tell him. In South Korea the Ministry of Agriculture and USDA both initially lied to the media, claiming that no LL601 rice had been included in long-grain rice shipments from the US to South Korea in 2005, and that "all rice imports from the U.S. are screened by the USDA-run Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration before they are shipped abroad" (5). In reality, shipments are not all GM-tested, and in any case there is no testing protocol for unauthorised varieties like LL601 since there are no reference samples available. Contamination from scores of other unauthorised, experimental or failed GM varieties could also be present in substantial quantities -- completely unidentified and with unknown health impacts (6).

LL601 -- what is it?

In spite of the pretence from the authorities in the United States and the EU that LL601 is a mysterious variety that can be assumed to be acceptable until somebody proves otherwise, we actually know quite a lot about it. The variety is a "Liberty Link" variety, genetically altered to survive application of the powerful herbicide glufosinate ammonium, manufactured as Liberty by Bayer. It was field-tested under permits granted by the USDA from 1998 to 2001. Bayer then reportedly stopped development of LL601 for unknown reasons five years ago. Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: "It was a failed variety, and we can make an intelligent guess that it failed because it was non-uniform and unstable. Another failed "Liberty Link" variety was Chardon LL (T25), a maize variety which was the focus of world attention in 2003 and 2004 before Bayer suddenly abandoned it. Many scientists thought that that variety was dangerous to animals, as they still do with respect to other LL varieties (7). Two "related" LL varieties developed by Bayer (LLRICE06 and LLRICE62) appear to have undergone no animal feeding studies designed to investigate physiological / health effects (8). In spite of the assurances of the UK Competent Authority, there are no grounds for claiming that LL rice is safe for consumption either by farm animals or humans, although the varieties do have approvals in the United States (9)."

The EC -- fast asleep as usual

Since the US Secretary of Agriculture was unable to give assurances to Japan and South Korea that the contaminated rice had not found its way into the long-grain rice export market both countries have now apparently banned all imports of US long-grained rice. In Japan, companies have been instructed by the Government not to process or sell any U.S. long-grain rice they may already have imported in recent months. That sounds like decisive action, demonstrating a commendable commitment to the Precautionary Principle.

In Europe, in contrast, the EC and the national authorities appear determined to take no action against the US or Bayer CropScience if they can possibly avoid it. More than three weeks have now elapsed since the contamination incident. During that time, contaminated rice shipments will almost certainly have come into European ports, as they have probably done throughout the last five years. The EC was notified of the incident on 18 August. After a relaxing weekend, on 22 August, the EC said that it had contacted Bayer and the U.S. authorities for more information about the unauthorized rice variety, with a view to establishing whether it might have found its way into any shipments destined for European markets. There was no great sign of urgency. "We have to do what we can to make sure the rice doesn't come onto our market," said spokeswoman Antonia Mochan. She did not specify how customs officials would detect contaminated rice imports, but it is reasonable to assume that the Commission's Joint Research laboratory is trying to define accurate detection methods -- and to obtain valid reference samples -- with the dubious assistance of U.S. officials and Bayer representatives (10).

Bt10 all over again

GM Free Cymru is furious that no lessons appear to have been learned from the Bt10 incident which made world headlines last year (11). On that occasion Syngenta, the US authorities and the EC were all involved in lies, deception and media manipulation on a truly sickening scale. They misled the public and the media as to the real scale of the incident, sought to bury away information that should have been in the public domain, and consistently connived to underplay the significance of the regulatory breakdown which had allowed the export of maize crops contaminated with Bt10 to spread far and wide across the globe. The US regulators did impose a pathetically small fine on Syngenta, but the EC effectively did nothing other than indicating a slight irritation and issuing a few plaintive requests for more information. Syngenta responded by treating the EC with contempt (12). The "official" testing method designed by Syngenta and its chosen laboratory, GeneScan, was probably designed to ensure false negatives. The company has still not provided adequate Bt10 reference material to the JRC after the passage of 18 months or more, and the characteristics of Bt10 have still not been adequately described for independent scientists although there are no grounds for commercial confidentiality. In Britain there was so much buck-passing between DEFRA, FSA and the regulatory authorities (ACRE and ACNFP) that members of the public could not work out what had happened to it. The level of inactivity was so serious that GM Free Cymru made a formal complaint about the negligence of the FSA to the Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt (13). The Bt10 episode was characterised by corruption, fraudulent science and an abject refusal by the EC to take any effective action against Syngenta in spite of the millions of euros which the incident cost the taxpayer.

Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Brian John says: "What lessons has the EC learned from the Bt10 fiasco? Probably none at all -- but we hope we will be pleasantly surprised. At the very least, we want the Commission to immediately ban all rice imports from the USA, to stop the processing and marketing of all US rice stocks held by importers and processors, and to insist on the full disclosure of the genetic makeup of LL601 as it was and is. Adequate reference materials must be provided by Bayer. Almost certainly the GM rice variety will not have the same structure today as it did in 2001. The EC must also obtain full information on any safety testing done on the variety, and it must make that information public. And above all else it must stop behaving in the venal and despicable manner which we saw last year in the Bt10 fiasco. It is high time that the EC started to get tough with the GM corporations whose intention is initially to contaminate the whole of the world's food supply with GM components and then to take total control of the farming industry."

ENDS

Contact:

Brian John, Tel + 44 (0)1239-820470

NOTES

(1) http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6911

(2) U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Statement on Report of Bioengineered Rice in the Food Supply CFSAN/Office of Food Additive Safety August 18 2006 http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biorice.html The USDA complacency should come as no surprise. In a recent case in Hawaii, a US district judge called USDA's regulatory heedlessness "arbitrary and capricious" and "an unequivocal violation of a clear congressional mandate." That echoes similar conclusions reached by the USDA's own auditors last year. After reviewing two years of records, the auditors concluded that the agency's biotechnology regulators overlooked violations of their own rules, failed to inspect sites and did not assure that genetically engineered crops were destroyed after field trials. In some cases, regulators did not even know the locations of trials.

(3) Statement by Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns Regarding Genetically Engineered Rice, USDA, August 18 2006, Release No. 0307.06 http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome? contentidonly=true&contentid=2006/08/0307.xml.

(4) The samples came from storage bins in Arkansas and Missouri. But trace amounts of the contaminant have been found across the rice belt, according to Bill Reed, spokesman for Riceland Foods in Stuttgart, Ark. "This is a situation not limited to a state or a farmer or a producer or a handler. It's a situation for Southern long- grain rice." http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/business/article/ 0,1426,MCA_440_4933927,00.html.

(5) Lies in South Korea as part of the reassurance campaign: http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/biz/200608/kt2006082020574511910.htm.

(6) http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6914.

(7) http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/ FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1079420034866. Beckett is blamed as Bayer bins GM plan, March 30, 2004. Bayer Cropscience is giving up attempts to commercialise GM maize - the only transgenic plant to have approval for widespread cultivation. Bayer said that the seed variety Chardon LL has been left "economically non-viable" because of conditions Margaret Beckett, environment secretary, imposed when she gave it limited approval.

(8) http://www.agbios.com/dbase.php?action=Submit&evidx=63.

(9) http://gmoinfo.jrc.it/csnifs/C-GB-03-M5-3_%20AssessmentReport.pdf.

(10) http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php? NewsID=44783&lang=fra&NewsRubrique=2.

(11) Syngenta's Corporate Crimes -- including a summary of the Bt10 incident and the appalling negligence of the EC: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6567.

(12) Having failed to obtain assurances as to the validity of the GeneScan test for the unauthorised presence of Bt10 in maize shipments, GM Free Cymru wrote this on 30th July 2006 to Dr Guy Van den Eede of the Joint Research Laboratory:

"... as we suspected, the GeneScan test for Bt10 is inadequate for testing for the presence of Bt10 contamination in the bulk of European shipments of maize and maize products 2001-2004, and (through the use of very recent reference material) was probably carefully designed by Syngenta and GeneScan to provide "false negatives" as a part of their reassurance campaign. It also confirms that you have no grounds for assuming that Bt10 was uniform and stable; we suspect that Syngenta knows perfectly well that Bt10 was non-uniform and unstable, which may be why the Bt10 lines were discontinued. There is a final and more worrying comment which we wish to make. This sorry business shows that Syngenta (and Monsanto and the other GM corporations) can play fast and loose with the JRC and the EC through the partial and selective provision of information, and can indulge in scientific fraud where it suits them, with complete confidence that no action will be taken against them. This is an appalling state of affairs, given that there have been massive breaches of Directive 2001/18 by Syngenta which should have been massively punished by the EC."

(13) http://www.gmfreecymru.org/open_letters/Open_letter30Jan2006.htm

Traces of GM rice in US food chain a huge cause for concern - Mary Lou McDonald

Sinn Féin press release, 22 August, 2006

Sinn Féin National Chairperson Mary Lou McDonald MEP has today expressed her concerns after it emerged that small amounts of unapproved GM rice had found its way into the US feed and food chain. Ms McDonald said that "such contamination was reflective of the unpredictability and instability of GM products".

Speaking today Ms McDonald said:

"The revelation that traces of unapproved genetically modified rice were detected in both Missouri and Arkansas is a worrying development. It remains unclear as to how it developed in the 2005 harvest and how widely it has spread but clearly there are warning signs emerging as to the unpredictability and instability of GM products.

"The European Commission must monitor this situation closely, however it is difficult to have faith in an EU Commission which is unashamedly pro-GM and in fact has given the go ahead for the American company Monsanto to sell GM maize in the 26 counties for use in animal feed.

"Sinn Féin has long warned of the potential dangers associated with GM products. Research released in Britain last year showed that some GM crops can cause harm to other life forms. Results of a trial on a herbicide resistant oilseed rape had confirmed that the herbicide used had harmful effects on other plants, birds and insects.

"Sinn Féin favours a GM free Europe. It is my belief that the majority of Irish consumers are also opposed to the introduction of GMOs to Ireland. Farmers are genuinely concerned about the introduction of GM seed, food and animal foodstuffs into this country, thus shattering Ireland's international image as a clean green society. Environmental groups have consistently warned that GM foods have not been adequately tested to ascertain their long-term effects on human health."

EU must act quickly to prevent contaminated GM rice entering Europe
Friends of the Earth pushes for an immediate suspension of US rice imports and a full investigation

Friends of the Earth Europe Press Release, Tuesday 22 August 2006.

Brussels, Tuesday 22 August 2006 - Friends of the Earth Europe has welcomed the announcement today by the EU Commission that it plans to prevent unapproved genetically modified rice from the US from entering the European food chain (1). However, the environmental campaign group warns that the measures taken (due to be announced tomorrow) must be rapid and must involve an immediate suspension of US rice imports.

Adrian Bebb, GM Food Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said:

"North American rice has been contaminated with a genetically modified variety that has not been properly tested and has not been authorised for human consumption. The EU rightly plans to take action to prevent it from entering the European food chain, but it must move faster. Imports of rice from the US must be suspended immediately and contaminated products must be removed from the shelves."

"This disturbing incident is yet another warning of the dangers of genetically modified crops, and shows that consumer opposition to this technology is completely justified. There must be a full investigation to find out how this contamination has occurred and to ensure that it never happens again," Mr Bebb added.

Japan has already put a halt on imports on rice from the US.

The environmental campaign group is also calling on the Commission to set out its response to the incident, to clarify what steps are being taken, and to provide answers to the following specific questions:

* When was the European Commission officially notified of the contamination by the US authorities?
* Does the European Commission have the relevant reference materials to allow detection of LL601 rice in foodstuffs?
* Has a system for testing rice imports been established?
* Will the Commission make details of their plans for testing publicly available?
* Does the European Commission have any further information regarding the extent, location(s) and level of contamination of US rice, and when it occurred?
* Has the EFSA made any assessment of the safety of LL601 rice?
* Have the safety assessments from Bayer or the US authorities been made available to the European Commission?
* Will the Commission make any safety data publicly available?

*** For more information, please contact:

Adrian Bebb, GM Food Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe: Tel: +49 80 25 99 1951; Mobile: +49 160 949 01163; email: adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org

Rosemary Hall, Communications Officer for Friends of the Earth Europe: Tel: +32 25 42 61 05; Mobile: +32 485 930 515; rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org

Notes

(1) Reuters artcicle.

EU May Stop Unauthorized US GMO Rice Imports Wednesday

Dow Jones, Tuesday August 22nd, 2006

BRUSSELS -(Dow Jones)- The European Union may launch measures Wednesday to stop shipments of U.S. long-grain rice contaminated with an unauthorized genetically modified strain.

It is still unclear how customs officials will detect whether rice imports are contaminated or not, a European Commission spokeswoman said Tuesday. Experts are working on detection methods with U.S. officials and representatives of German biotech firm Bayer AG (BAY).

"We have to do what we can to make sure the rice doesn't come onto our market," said spokeswoman Antonia Mochan.

EU to act Wednesday on tainted US biotech rice

REUTERS, August 22 2006. By Jeremy Smith

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - EU authorities plan to act this week to ensure that an unauthorized biotech rice detected in the United States does not enter the bloc's food chain, an official at the European Commission said on Tuesday.

"We are hoping to adopt tomorrow measures that will ensure that this GM (genetically modified) rice will not reach consumers," the official told Reuters, declining to elaborate.

The biotech rice case recalls a similar transatlantic clash over GMO foods last year, when EU experts blocked imports of U.S. maize animal feed and grains unless there was proof they were untainted by an unauthorized GMO.

The European Commission was notified late on August 18 by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns of trace amounts of unauthorized biotech rice detected in long-grain samples that were targeted for commercial use.

On July 31, U.S. agriculture and food safety authorities were notified that testing by Bayer CropScience, a division of Bayer AG, showed the genetically engineered rice -- called LLRICE 601 -- in rice bins in Arkansas and Missouri.

It was the first time that unmarketed genetically engineered rice had been found in rice used in the U.S. commercial market.

Japan, for which the United States is the largest rice exporter, has already suspended imports of U.S. long-grain rice.

EU Commission experts have contacted Bayer and the U.S. authorities for more information about the unauthorized rice strain, with a view to establishing whether it might have found its way into any shipments destined for European markets.

21 August 2006

S. Korea Demands Pledge Of No GMOs In US Rice - USDA

21 August 21, 2006

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--South Korea has demanded that its importers be promised there is no genetically modified contents in U.S. rice shipments, a move that may effectively shut down U.S. exports, U.S. and South Korean government officials said Monday.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Friday that traces of unapproved genetically modified long grain rice, grown in field trials by Bayer CropScience, were discovered in commercial stocks.

South Korea has not announced a ban on U.S. rice, USDA spokesman Ed Loyd said Monday, but he also confirmed that it is not yet possible to promise importers that there is no genetically modified rice in U.S. shipments.

USDA officials are trying to validate testing procedures to detect Bayer's biotech rice, but work on that is not yet complete, USDA spokeswoman Amanda Taylor said Monday. She said officials hope to complete the validation soon.

The USDA's Federal Grain Inspection Service has stopped issuing certifications that U.S. rice shipments contain no genetically modified organisms, Taylor said. USDA began issueing the letterhead certifications, upon request, in March 2005 to assure foreign buyers but stopped doing so because of the GMO detection in the commercial market.

South Korea's rice imports this year have been strong, according to USDA data. The country bought about 43,000 metric tons of U.S. rice in the first six months, compared to just 16,000 tons for the entire year of 2005.

The GM rice detected in grain bins in Arkansas and Missouri was an unapproved variety field tested by Bayer, but the USDA has approved two other varieties created by the company. Bayer has never sold the approved GM rice on the commercial market, USDA Secretary Mike Johanns said Friday.

All three varieties of the Bayer GM rice were engineered to be "herbicide-tolerant," according to the USDA, and all three are safe for human consumption even though only two were approved. The USDA said Bayer did not apply for government approval of the third because the company had no plans to commercialize it.

Bayer CropScience spokespersons in the U.S. and Europe were unavailable for immediate comment.

Meanwhile, Japan's initial reaction to the GMO discovery in U.S. rice is not expected to have any effect on trade with the U.S., USDA spokesman Ed Loyd said. Japan banned U.S. long grain rice, but the U.S. only exports short- and medium grain rice to Japan, he said.

The European Union is requesting information formation" from the U.S. and Bayer CropScience.

Loyd said Monday that, so far, international reaction has been "measured."

-By Bill Tomson, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-646-0088; bill.tomson@dowjones.com

Greenpeace demands global ban on imports of US rice

Dominican Today, August 21 2006

Amsterdam - Greenpeace International today called for a global ban on imports of US rice in order to protect the public from eating illegal, untested and unapproved varieties of genetically engineered (GE) rice.

GE Liberty Link (LL) rice 602, produced by agro-chemical giant Bayer and never intended for commercial release, has been found in commercial rice in the United States and rice imports were, as a result, immediately banned in Japan. It is not approved for consumption or cultivation anywhere in the world.

"Rice is the world's most important staple food and contamination of rice supplies by Bayer, a company pushing its GE rice around the world, must be stopped," said Jeremy Tager, Greenpeace International GE campaigner.

Japan has already announced a ban on long grain rice imports from the US as a result of this latest contamination scandal. Last year, Japan and the EU banned US maize imports as a result of yet another GE contamination scandal.

"This latest contamination scandal once again shows the GE industry is utterly incapable of controlling GE organisms. Countries that import US rice, such as the EU, Mexico, Brasil and Canada must become serious about preventing this kind of threat to our food supplies by banning any imports of GE rice, removing all contaminated food from supermarket shelves and rejecting applications for the commercial cultivation of rice," said Tager.

"Relevant authorities in importing countries must also conduct an investigation into the contamination caused by Bayer and also determine whether any other GE rice varieties being tested by Bayer have contaminated the world's food chain," Tager concluded.

Facts & figures on US rice crop & source of contamination

Around 50 percent of the US rice crop is exported, and 80 percent of that is long grain rice, said Johanns, adding that the USDA is engaging trading partners "very, very directly" on the issue.

The US currently provides about 12 percent of world rice trade. According to estimates for the 2006 crop year, rice production in the US is valued at $1.88 billion, approximately half of which is expected to be exported.

More than 100 varieties of rice are currently produced commercially in the US, primarily in six states: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and California.

The majority (58 percent) of domestic utilization of US rice is direct food use, while 16 percent is used in processed foods and beer respectively. The remaining 10 percent is found in pet food. [GM rice contaminates US food supply] http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=69991-bayer-cropscience-ge-rice-contamination-rice.

"I can tell you very candidly, I didn't ask where this sample came from. I know it's long grain rice. I can't tell you if that came from this state or that state" - The US Agriculture Secretary in response to a question at the news briefing. http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=69991-bayer-cropscience-ge-rice-contamination-rice.

"Officials at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) said the GM variety had been found in samples from storage bins in Arkansas and Missouri. The bins hold rice from several states, making it difficult to know what state the rice came from." - BBC News report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5271384.stm?ls.

EU urged to ban North American rice
US rice contaminated by illegal GM strain

Friends of the Earth Europe Press Release, 21 August 2006

Brussels, August 21, 2006 - Friends of the Earth Europe has today called on the European Commission to immediately restrict imports of American rice after the US Department for Agriculture (USDA) revealed that the US food chain has been contaminated with an illegal and untested genetically modified (GM) strain [1].

The US announcement states that conventional long-grain rice on the market has been contaminated by a GM rice that was grown at experimental test sites between 1998 and 2001. The statement does not reveal how widespread the contamination is or how the contamination occurred. Friends of the Earth Europe is calling on the European Union to follow the example of Japan, which suspended US rice imports on Saturday. [2]

Adrian Bebb, GM Food Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said, "This is a complete scandal. The biotech industry has failed once again to control its experiments and lax regulations in the US have allowed consumers worldwide to be put at risk. The European Union must immediately suspend US rice imports until consumers can be guaranteed protection from untested and illegal foods."

Europe imports approximately 70 million Euros worth of US rice every year [3]. The source of the contamination is apparently an experimental GM rice called LLRICE601, produced by German-based biotechnology company Bayer. This experimental rice is engineered to withstand application of the herbicide glufosinate, but it has not been approved for human consumption anywhere in the world and has not undergone any official assessments to determine its health or environmental impact. According to Bayer the GM rice "is present in some samples of commercial rice seed at low levels" even though field-testing ended five years ago. Bayer informed the USDA of the contamination on 31 July 2006.

As well as calling for an immediate import ban, Friends of the Earth Europe has called for an investigation by authorities in the US and Europe into the full extent of the contamination and for Bayer to release all the necessary information into the public domain on the safety testing and detection methods for LLRICE601.

"It is vital that Bayer is forced to reveal all information about how this contamination has occurred over such a long time scale. Contamination of the food chain is totally unacceptable and must be prevented in the future," Mr Bebb added.

This latest case of GM contamination echoes a GM maize scandal in March last year, in which the biotech company Syngenta admitted to selling an experimental and illegal GM maize variety to US farmers for four years. Maize exports to Europe were contaminated with the illegal maize, and the European Commission put in place emergency measures to prevent the import of contaminated maize into the EU. These measures are still in place [4].

For more information, please contact:

Adrian Bebb, GM Food Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe: Tel: +49 80 25 99 1951; Mobile: +49 160 949 01163; email: adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org

Rosemary Hall, Communications Officer for Friends of the Earth Europe: Tel: +32 25 42 61 05; Mobile: +32 485 930 515; rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org

Notes

[1] The announcement was made late on Friday 18 August in the US. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2006/08/0307.xml

[2] http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/business/4128520.html

[3] UNCTAD http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/rice/market.htm#cce

[4] http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2005/AB_15_April_maize_import.htm

20 August 2006

Japan Suspends US Long-Grain Rice Imports

Associated Press, Sunday August 20th, 2006.

TOKYO (AP)--Japan has suspended imports of U.S. long-grain rice following a positive test for trace amounts of a genetically modified strain not approved for human consumption, a news report said Sunday.

Japan's Health Ministry imposed the suspension on Saturday after being informed by U.S. federal officials that trace amounts of the unapproved strain had been discovered in commercially available long-grain rice, the Asahi newspaper said.

The genetically engineered rice was detected by Bayer CropScience AG. The German company then notified U.S. officials. The strain is not approved for sale in the U.S., but two other strains of rice with the same genetically engineered protein are. The ministry will instruct companies not to process or sell any U.S. long-grain rice they may already have imported, though it has so far not received any report this year that any company has imported or plans to import such rice, the Asahi said.

The ministry has requested the U.S. government to enact strict controls, the Asahi said, adding that the suspension does not affect short- and medium-grain rice imports.

The Health Ministry does not include any strain of rice on its list of genetically modified foods approved for sale in Japan.

Health Ministry officials were unavailable for comment Sunday.

19 August 2006

Japan ends U.S. long-grain rice imports

Associated Press, August 19, 2006

TOKYO -- Japan has suspended imports of U.S. long-grain rice following a positive test for trace amounts of a genetically modified strain not approved for human consumption, a news report said Sunday.

Japan's Health Ministry imposed the suspension on Saturday after being informed by U.S. federal officials that trace amounts of the unapproved strain had been discovered in commercially available long-grain rice, the Asahi newspaper said.

The genetically engineered rice was detected by Bayer CropScience AG. The German company then notified U.S. officials. The strain is not approved for sale in the United States, but two other strains of rice with the same genetically engineered protein are.

Health Ministry officials were unavailable for comment Sunday.

Genetically Altered Variety Is Found in Long-Grain Rice

Washington Post, Saturday, August 19, 2006. By Rick Weiss.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns announced late yesterday that U.S. commercial supplies of long-grain rice had become inadvertently contaminated with a genetically engineered variety not approved for human consumption. Johanns said the company that made the experimental rice, Bayer CropScience of Monheim, Germany, had provided information to the Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration indicating that the rice poses no threats to human health or the environment.

"Based upon the information we have seen, this product is safe," he said in telephone news conference.

Johanns said he did not know where the contaminated rice was found or how widespread it may be in the U.S. food chain. The agency first learned about it from the company, he said, after it discovered "trace amounts" during testing of commercial supplies.

The variety, known as LLRICE 601, is endowed with bacterial DNA that makes rice plants resistant to a weedkiller made by the agricultural giant Aventis.

Johanns said Bayer had not finished the process of getting LLRICE 601 approved for marketing before dropping the project years ago. But the company did complete the process for two other varieties of rice with the same gene. And although neither of those two were ever marketed, he said, that approval offers reassurance that 601 is probably safe, too. Johanns acknowledged, however, that the discovery could have a significant impact on rice sales -- especially exports, which are worth close to $1 billion a year. Many U.S. trading partners have strict policies forbidding importation of certain genetically engineered foods, even if they are approved in the United States and especially if they are not, as is the current case.

Those restrictions reflect a mix of science-based fears that some gene-altered foods or seeds may pose health or environmental hazards; cultural beliefs about food purity; and political wrangling over trade disparities.

If other countries cut off imports, as they have done in past contamination instances, the political and economic impact could rival or exceed that of the last such major event -- the discovery in 2000 that the U.S. corn supply had become contaminated with StarLink corn. StarLink, which was engineered to be insect-resistant, was approved for use in animal feed but not for humans because of its potential to trigger allergic reactions.

The StarLink episode led to the recall of hundreds of products and the destruction of corn crops on hundreds of thousands of acres. There have been several smaller incidents requiring similar actions since.

Yesterday's announcement quickly prompted a new round of accusations that the government is failing in its efforts to regulate and contain the burgeoning field of agricultural biotechnology, in which genes from various organisms are being added to crops and other plants -- usually to confer resistance to weedkillers or to make the plants produce their own insecticides.

"How many incidents will it take before the government takes their oversight of the biotech industry seriously?" asked Gregory Jaffe, director of the biotechnology project at the District-based Center for Science in the Public Interest. "It's reassuring that in this instance there is no safety risk, but I don't think that justifies the industry's blatant violation of government regulations."

Johanns said Bayer contacted USDA about the problem on July 31, but the agency delayed announcing the finding until it had developed a test it could share with trading partners and others who might want to check for contamination. That test is now available.

Although Bayer stopped field tests of LLRICE 601 in 2001, the contamination appeared in the 2005 harvest, Johanns said -- a detail that Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, found "alarming."

"It's more evidence to me that all of these things that have been getting tested ultimately have a route to the food supply," Mellon said.

Although agency investigations are underway, both Johanns and Robert Brackett of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition said they do not anticipate recalls, crop destruction or other regulatory action.

"If we become aware of any new information to suggest that food or feed is unsafe, we will take action," Johanns said.

Instead, Johanns said, Bayer now plans to resurrect its effort to get the product approved -- or in government parlance, "deregulated" -- a move that would make the contamination issue moot in the domestic market.

Researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

USFDA statement: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/%7Elrd/biorice.html

Field trial of Bt brinjal hangs in balance
GEAC yet to resolve issue of sheep mortality in Bt cotton fields in Andhra Pradesh

Financial Express (India), August 19 2006. By Ashok B. Sharma

NEW DELHI, AUG 18: The fate of proposed largescale field trials of Bt brinjal hangs in balance as the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) is yet to resolve the issue of the reported cases of sheep mortality on account of grazing over Bt cotton fields in Warangal district in Andhra Pradesh.

The GEAC met on Thursday and a senior official said, "We could not resolve the issue as factual reports and post-mortem studies from the state government are awaited. We have also asked the department of biotechnology to conduct animal toxicity study for Bt cotton leaves and seeds."

The Andhra Pradesh-based Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) had brought to the notice of GEAC reported cases of sheep mortality.

Speaking from Hyderabad, Kavitha Kuruganthi of CSA said, "The shepherds and the shepherds' union leaders have recorded their testimony which shows that sheep mortality was due to grazing over Bt cotton fields. The local veterinary surgeon has found that 11 out of 45 mortality cases between January and April were linked to grazing over Bt cotton fields and Bt poisoning."

Kuruganti said the Hyderabad-based Veterinary Biological Research Institute found that Bt plants samples brought for tests contained high nitrate content, which showed that Bt cotton needed higher doses of chemical fertilisers.

The GEAC has also asked three leading institutes like Central Food Research and Technology Institute, Mysore, National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad and Sri Ram Institute, Delhi, to test a byproduct of soyabean used in preparation of ice creams and find out whether it contains GM traces. This action of GEAC flows the recent sensational relevation that Unilever's ice cream sold in UK contained protiens from genetically modified (GM) fish. GEAC apprehends that there may be chances of imported GM soyabean being used in ice creams.

Regarding permission to ICRISAT to export its GM groundnut seeds to South Africa for research purposes, the GEAC said that final clearance from NPGRB was necessary.

18 August 2006

Unapproved, Genetically Engineered Rice Found in Food Supply
USDA and FDA Unaware of Identity, Location or Number of Contaminated Products

Citing Past Contamination and USDA's Illegal Activities, Center for Food Safety Calls for Moratorium on Genetically Engineered Crop Field Trials

Center for Food Safety press release, 18 August 2006.

Late today in a webcast, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that an unapproved, genetically engineered rice known as LL601 was found contaminating commercial long-grain rice supplies, according to information supplied by the developer of the rice, Bayer CropScience. The presence of LL601 in the food supply is illegal, as it has not undergone USDA review for potential environmental impacts required prior to marketing, nor review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for possible harm to human health. LL601 is genetically altered to survive application of the powerful herbicide glufosinate, and was field-tested under permits granted by the USDA from 1998 to 2001.

In the webcast, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns professed ignorance as to how much rice was contaminated, which rice products were involved, or where the contaminated rice was found. Bayer informed USDA of the contamination on July 31st, 2006, based on test results reported to the company by a rice merchandiser. USDA officials stated that rice contaminated with LL601 will not be destroyed. Though Bayer does not intend to market the rice, the company will apply to USDA for marketing approval of LL601, apparently in an effort to limit its liability for the episode. Bayer reportedly stopped development of LL601 for unknown reasons in 2001.

"Once again, USDA has demonstrated its inability to keep experimental and potentially hazardous genetically engineered crops out of the food supply," said Bill Freese, science policy analyst at Center for Food Safety. "Until USDA gets its act together, we recommend a moratorium on all new permits for open-air field testing of genetically engineered crops not permitted in the food supply."

"The USDA is an agency out of control," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety. "USDA's continuing failure to adequately regulate and monitor field testing of genetically engineered crops clearly puts the environment and public health at risk."

Kimbrell points to an August 10th decision by a federal district judge in Hawai'i, who ruled that USDA violated two federal laws in granting permits to grow drug-producing, genetically engineered crops in Hawai'i. The judge said the USDA acted "arbitrarily and capriciously," and in "utter disregard" of the Endangered Species Act.

In late 2005, the USDA's own Inspector General issued a scathing report detailing numerous violations of agency rules in regulating genetically engineered crop field trials. USDA officials did not know the locations of many field trials it was charged with regulating, and did not conduct required inspections of others. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences also criticized serious deficiencies in USDA's regulation of genetically engineered crops.

Since 1996, the USDA has granted at least 48 permits authorizing Bayer or companies it has since acquired (Aventis, AgrEvo) to plant over 4,000 acres of experimental, genetically engineered (GE) rice. The extent to which pollen or grains from these field trials have contaminated commercial rice or related weedy species such as red rice is unknown. USDA policies do not provide for the testing of fields adjacent to field test sites to detect possible contamination with the experimental genetically engineered crop.

Overall, USDA has issued permits authorizing field tests of over 100 genetically engineered crops on roughly 50,000 sites on more than half a million acres since 1987.

Contact: Bill Freese + 1 202 547-9359 x14 Rebecca Spector +1 415 826 2770 x301 Center for Food Safety
660 Pennsylvania Ave., SE , Suite 302, Washington, DC 20003
(202) 547-9359 Š fax (202) 547-9429
1009 General Kennedy Ave., #2 San Francisco, CA 94129
(415) 561-2524 Š FAX (415) 561-7651
www.centerforfoodsafety.org

17 August 2006

Debate over biocrops heats up
Environmentalists, organic farmers in duel with growers over bill

Fresno Bee (California), August 17, 2006. By E.J. Schultz / Bee Capitol Bureau.

SACRAMENTO - Negotiations are heating up over legislation that would prevent local governments from banning genetically modified seeds. One of the most closely watched agriculture bills of the year, the legislation pits large-scale growers against environmentalists and organic farmers.

Senate Bill 1056, by Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, was introduced last year in response to moves by several counties to prohibit biotech farming. The counties with bans - Marin, Mendocino, Santa Cruz and Trinity - would be exempt from the legislation.

The bill passed the Assembly Agricultural Committee in June and will likely be taken up by the Senate and Assembly before the session ends Aug. 31.

California growers use genetically modified seeds to grow crops that are resistent to weed-killing sprays. In the Central Valley, the technique is mostly used to grow cotton.

Opponents say biotech farming is a potential environmental and health hazard. Organic growers, meanwhile, fear that traits from genetically modified crops can spread to their crops, rendering them unmarketable as organic crops.

Until lawmakers enact statewide protections, such as labeling laws, "we think it's the right and responsibility of local governments to protect their citizens and environments," said Renata Brillinger of Californians for GE-Free Agriculture, a coalition of environmental groups and family and organic farms.

Florez said parties on both sides of the debate are trying to broker a last-minute deal more palatable to bill opponents. But he is prepared to move the bill forward if no changes are made, he said.

"We have the votes to get it off [the Assembly floor]," he said.

The bill's aim is to create a level playing field for California growers. Supporters include the California Farm Bureau Federation as well as several cities and counties in the agricultural-rich San Joaquin Valley.

County-by-county ordinances pose "serious financial and practical problems concerning the orderly marketing and sale of agricultural commodities within the state," supporters say in the Assembly bill analysis.

There is a mixed view among counties on biotech crops. Voters in some counties have rejected proposed bans. Some Valley governments have gone a step further, passing resolutions in support of biotechnology.

Fresno County passed its resolution in 2004 in response to a request by the Fresno County Farm Bureau.

"We are the biggest ag county in the United States, and there's been a tremendous advantage to the ag industry" from growing genetically modified crops, said Fresno County Supervisor Judy Case, who grew up on a family farm in Sanger.

About half of all cotton grown in California is genetically modified, said Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner Jerry Prieto Jr. Because the cotton is resistent to herbicides, growers don't have to use hoods or shields to protect the crop when spraying.

"It's a huge cost savings from them," Prieto said. "Farmers here in California and in the United States should have the same tools the rest of the world is using, and the rest of the world is using biotechnology."

But Brillinger, of the GE-Free coalition, said there is not enough research on biotech farming and because of that "we can't even know if there are health risks."

The California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities fear the legislation is written too broadly.

The bill prohibits local governments from regulating "any matter relating to the registration, labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, notification of use, or use of seeds or nursery stock," according to the latest bill analysis.

That would prevent cities and counties from doing things such as prohibiting seed trucks from parking in residential areas, according to a letter the two government groups sent to Assembly members last week.

The provisions are "so sweeping that they would restrict the ability of cities and counties to engage in basic local government regulation," the groups said.

The reporter can be reached at eschultz@fresnobee.com or (916) 326-5541.

16 August 2006

Gene-Altered Crops Denounced
Environmental Groups Seek Moratorium on Open-Air Tests

Washington Post, August 16 2006. By Rick Weiss.

Environmental groups yesterday called for a moratorium on open-air tests of crops genetically engineered to produce medicines and vaccines, citing a federal court's conclusion last week that the Agriculture Department repeatedly broke the law by allowing companies to plant such crops on hundreds of acres in Hawaii.

In a toughly worded 52-page decision released without fanfare late last week, a U.S. District judge in Hawaii concluded that USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which grants permits for the planting of genetically engineered crops, should have first investigated whether the plants posed a threat to any of that state's hundreds of endangered species.

The corn and sugar cane plants, already harvested because the experiments involving them were completed before the case was decided, had been modified to produce human hormones, drugs and ingredients for vaccines against AIDS and hepatitis B.

"APHIS's utter disregard for this simple investigation requirement, especially given the extraordinary number of endangered and threatened plants and animals in Hawaii, constitutes an unequivocal violation of a clear congressional mandate," wrote Judge J. Michael Seabright in his Aug. 10 decision.

The ruling is the first by a federal court on the controversial practice of "bio-pharming," in which crops are engineered to produce potentially therapeutic human proteins. But it is not the first damning federal critique of APHIS's oversight. A December 2005 audit by the Agriculture Department's Office of Inspector General found multiple failings in the agency's enforcement of research rules for gene-altered plants.

APHIS spokeswoman Rachel Iadicicco said yesterday that the agency had already corrected the major problems cited in the 2005 report and had recently made policy changes to satisfy the court's concerns, as well. In addition, she said, APHIS is crafting a sweeping "programmatic" environmental impact statement addressing larger, long-standing concerns about its oversight of biotech crops.

But opponents said they have heard such assurances before.

"We are asking the judge to enjoin the issuance of any biopharma permits anywhere in the country unless and until APHIS completes a programmatic analysis of their regulatory program," said Paul H. Achitoff, managing attorney for Earthjustice in Honolulu, which litigated the case with the Washington-based Center for Food Safety.

The judge has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday to decide what remedies to impose.

The court ruling is the latest in a decade-long struggle that has pitted biotech companies against an uneasy coalition of environmentalists and conventional food producers and distributors.

Advocates believe that some drugs and vaccines may be produced more economically in crops than in the laboratory cultures that are commonly used today. Some even envision "edible vaccines," such as bananas laden with proteins that would boost blood levels of protective antibodies -- an attractive strategy for developing countries, where the refrigeration needed for many conventional vaccines is often not available.

But opponents fear that ordinary crops may become contaminated with drug-spiked versions grown in open fields, and that unwanted drug exposures from foods could trigger allergic reactions or other problems in people or animals.

Monsanto Announces Takeover of Delta & Pine Land and Terminator Seed Technology

ETC Group News Release, 16 August 2006.

In a quest to expand its corporate seed empire - Monsanto, the world's largest seed enterprise - announced yesterday that it will buy the world's leading cotton seed company, Mississippi-based (USA) Delta & Pine Land, for US$1.5 billion. Monsanto and Delta & Pine Land (D&PL) together account for over 57% of the US cotton seed market. With D&PL subsidiaries in 13 countries - including major markets such as China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey and Pakistan - the takeover means that Monsanto will command a dominant position in one of the world's most important agricultural trade commodities and that millions of cotton farmers will be under increased pressure to accept genetically modified (GM) cottonseed.

"This merger," says Ibrahim Coulibaly, President of the National Coordination of Peasants' Organizations of Mali, "guarantees an intensification of the already immense political pressure on West African governments to accept genetically modified seeds. Delta & Pine Land couldn't exercise the kind of clout Monsanto can. This deal is a major threat to our farmers and food sovereignty. African farmers' groups and civil society organizations need international support to resist the pressure of multinational corporations and USAID on African governments to adopt GMOs."

Sterile Cotton Bolls: Delta & Pine Land is notorious for its early development, with the US Department of Agriculture, of Terminator technology - plants that are genetically modified to produce sterile seeds at harvest. Despite massive opposition from farmers, civil society and many governments, Delta & Pine Land has repeatedly vowed to commercialize the technology and declared that their primary market would be in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The company claims that it is already growing genetically modified cotton and tobacco containing Terminator genes in greenhouses.

Over 500 organizations worldwide have called for a global ban on Terminator Technology, asserting that sterile seeds will destroy the livelihoods and cultures of the 1.4 billion people who depend on farm-saved seed. In March 2006, governments at the biennial meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity unanimously re-affirmed and strengthened the international moratorium on field testing and commercialization of Terminator seeds.

"With the takeover of Delta & Pine Land, Monsanto acquires a research program devoted to commercializing Terminator seeds, as well as US, European and Canadian patents on genetic seed sterilization technology," said Hope Shand of ETC Group. "We demand that Monsanto make a public commitment to shut down the Terminator research program it will acquire from D&PL and abandon its Terminator patents once and for all," said Shand.

Monsanto's Boll Weasel: Monsanto's 1998 bid to buy Delta & Pine Land for $1.8 billion collapsed in 1999 amid global controversy over Terminator technology. In response to massive opposition, Monsanto's former CEO, Robert Shapiro, publicly pledged in 1999 that his company would not commercialize sterile-seed technology. But the company's revised 2005 pledge states that the company will not "commercialise sterile-seed technologies in food crops" - suggesting that it would use Terminator seeds in non-food crops (e.g. cotton?) and does not rule out other uses of Terminator in the future.

In an email communication to ETC Group today, Monsanto spokesperson, Lori Fisher wrote that Monsanto does not intend to use technologies that render seeds sterile, and stands by its 2005 pledge "not to commercialize sterile-seed technologies in food crops." [available here] The pledge also states that "Monsanto people constantly reevaluate this stance as technology develops."

ETC Group notes that the company's pledge leaves the door open and does not rule out future development of the technology. (1) Monsanto's pledge allows the company to change its position on any aspect of its pledge at any time. Cotton is one of the world's most lucrative non-food commercial crops. Will it become Monsanto's first target crop for Terminator genes?

Feeding Frenzy: Monsanto's acquisition of D&PL is just the latest in a decade-long series of seed company takeovers. Monsanto became the world's largest vegetable seed company with its January 2005 takeover of Seminis. In April 2005 Monsanto acquired Emergent Genetics (including Stoneville) - the 3rd largest US cotton seed company. Over the past year Monsanto took control of more than a dozen US-based corn and soybean seed companies. Just three months ago, D&PL acquired Syngenta's global cotton seed business - including operations in India, Brazil, Europe and some cotton germplasm in the US.

Global Cotton King: With the takeover of Delta & Pine Land, Monsanto aims to insert biotech traits into cotton germplasm worldwide. Despite growing resistance in West Africa, D&PL initiated tests on GM cotton in Burkina Faso, Mali and Egypt in 2004. (2) Monsanto and D&PL already control an estimated one-third of the Indian hybrid cotton seed market. According to Monsanto, D&PL now controls one-third of the Brazilian cotton seed market, and almost one-fourth of the Australian market.

Monsanto's bid for D&PL comes on the heels of the collapse of the Doha Round in Geneva on July 24. West African cotton exporting states, in particular, were banking on the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations to rollback cotton subsidies in the USA and on increased market access in the EU for finished cotton goods. With the WTO failure, the $4 billion US cotton subsidy remains in place and prospects for African and Asian cotton growers look dim. This is bad news for D&PL which lacks Monsanto's deep pockets and long-term market opportunities. Monsanto is buying its major cotton competitor for $1.5 billion - one third less than it offered in 1998(3) before the WTO trade talks began. From Monsanto's perspective, it's inevitable that the US will have to drop its subsidy to large US cotton operations and, when it does, the cotton seed business in the US will all but disappear with the market shifting to Africa and Asia. Monsanto can afford to wait - as long as it is the cotton seed provider and all the seed available uses the company's genetically modified traits.

Monopoly challenge: With control of almost 60% of the US cotton seed market after the buyout, Monsanto anticipates anti-trust scrutiny in the US, and the company's president says it will divest its US cotton seed company Stoneville, which controls about 14% of the US market. "If the EU is serious about helping Africa's cotton farmers and improving Africa's cotton export earnings, it can begin by rejecting the Monsanto/D&PL merger in Brussels as an attack on anti-competition policy," said Pat Mooney of ETC Group. "The merger of these two US companies will make the removal of cotton subsidies much more difficult and will keep cotton and cotton clothing prices unnaturally high for European consumers. A barrier thrown up in Brussels will even be seen inside the Beltway in Washington, DC. The boll is in the EU's court!" said Mooney.

US Cotton Seed Market -- % Market Share 2005
Delta & Pine Land (to be acquired by Monsanto) 43.37
Stoneville (Monsanto) 13.93
Bayer Cropscience 25.32
Phytogen (Dow AgroSciences) 2.64
Others 14.74

Source: USDA; figures are for upland cotton.

If the buyout is approved, Monsanto's Stoneville and Delta & Pine Land will together account for more than 57% of the total US cotton market. According to the USDA 83% of the cotton acreage planted in the US in 2005 was transgenic.

Delta & Pine Land has subsidiaries in 13 countries, including companies in North, South and Central America, Europe, China, South Africa, Turkey and India.

Delta & Pine Land Subsidiaries (as of November 2005):

ATLED
D&M INTERNATIONAL, LLC
D&M PARTNERS
D&PL ARGENTINA, INC.
D&PL CHINA, INC.
D&PL CHINA PTE, LTD.
D&PL INVESTING CORP.
D&PL INVESTMENTS, INC.
DELTAPINE PARAGUAY, INC.
D&PL SOUTH AFRICA, INC.
D&PL INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CORP.
DELTA PINE DE MEXICO S. DE R.L. DE C.V.
DELTAPINE AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED
GREENFIELD SEED COMPANY, LLC
HEBEI JI DAI COTTONSEED TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, LTD. (CHINA)
PAYMASTER TECHNOLOGY CORP.
TURK DELTAPINE, INC. (TURKEY)
D&PL SEMILLAS LTDA. (COSTA RICA)
CDM MANDIYU S.R.L. (ARGENTINA)
DELTA AND PINE LAND HELLAS MONOPROSOPI, E.P.E. (GREECE)
D&PL BRASIL, LTDA.
ANHUI AN DAI COTTONSEED TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, LTD. (CHINA)
D&PL TECHNOLOGY HOLDING COMPANY LLC.
D&M BRASIL ALGODAO, LTDA
MDM SEMENTES DE ALGODAO LTDA (BRAZIL)
SURE GROW, LLC
D&PL INDIA, LLC
DELTAPINE INDIA SEED PRIVATE LTD. (INDIA)
D&PL MAURITIUS LIMITED


Source: Delta & Pine Land, SEC Filing 10-K, November 14, 2005

For more information, please contact:

Hope Shand, ETC Group (USA) email: hope@etcgroup.org tel: +1 919 960-5767
Pat Mooney, ETC Group (Canada) email: mooney@etcgroup.org tel: +1 613 241-2267
Kathy Jo Wetter, ETC Group (USA) email: kjo@etcgroup.org tel: +1 919 960-5223
Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group (Mexico) email: silvia@etcgroup.org tel: +52 5555 632664
Jim Thomas, ETC Group (Canada) email: jim@etcgroup.org
Ibrahim Coulibaly
PrÈsident de la coordination nationale des organisations paysannes du MALI CNOP /MALI
tel: +223-228-6781 mobile: +223-676-1126
email: i_ibracoul@yahoo.fr


Notes:

(1) In February 2006 the international Ban Terminator Campaign (www.banterminator.org) revealed that Monsanto's revised pledge no longer rejected commercialization of Terminator technology in all food crops. [see correspondence here] In response, Monsanto's Director of Public Policy, Diane Herndon, wrote: "We apologize for any confusion caused by the added language 'in food crops' that appeared in the discussion of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) in our last Pledge Report. We stand by our commitment to not use genetic engineering methods that result in sterile seeds. Period."

Monsanto's Herndon also wrote: "we are in the process of reworking our Web site and will be able to remove the confusing language as part of the redesign." But a half-year later, Monsanto has not corrected or removed the confusing language.

(2) Monsanto, "Delta and Pine Land Acquisition: Investor Conference Call," August 15, 2006. www.monsanto.com

(3) Accounting for inflation, Monsanto's 1998 offer of $1.8 billion converts to $2.25 billion in 2006. Monsanto's current offer of $1.5 billion for DPL is, therefore, in 2006 terms, $750 million below its 1998 offer. (US Bureau of Labor Statistics: www.BLS.GO/CPI .)

14 August 2006

Federal Court Rules Biopharm Permits Issued Illegally in Hawai'i
Ruling first ever on controversial drug-producing GE crops manufactured by Monsanto and others

Center for Food Safety press release, 14 August 2006.

Honolulu, HI -- Citing possible harm to Hawai'i's 329 endangered and threatened species, a federal district judge has ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in permitting the cultivation of drug-producing, genetically engineered crops throughout Hawai'i. The court found that USDA acted in "utter disregard" of the ESA, and also violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), by failing to conduct even preliminary investigations prior to its approval of the plantings.

The August 10 decision represents the first federal court ruling ever on "biopharming," the controversial practice of genetically altering food crops to produce experimental drugs and industrial compounds. Biopharming has provoked the ire of the food industry, public interest groups, and farmers concerned about contamination of foods and the environment with potent drugs, and potential economic losses from adulterated food. The four USDA-issued permits primarily at issue in the case authorized Monsanto, ProdiGene, Garst Seed Company, and the Hawai'i Agriculture Research Center to plant over 800 acres (1.25 square miles) of drug-producing corn and sugarcane at various sites in Kaua'i, O'ahu, Moloka'i, and Maui from 2001 to 2003.

The plaintiffs in the case -- Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, Pesticide Action Network North America, and KAHEA (the Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance) -- sued the USDA in November 2003. Plaintiffs were represented by Earthjustice and Center for Food Safety.

"This decision shows that regulatory oversight of this out-of-control industry has been woefully inadequate. The agency entrusted with protecting human health and the environment from the impacts of genetic engineering experiments has been asleep at the wheel," said Paul Achitoff, attorney with Earthjustice.

"The ruling is a clear victory for Hawai'i's environment," said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety. "It will help protect the islands from the illegal field-testing of genetically engineered, drug-producing crops."

Plaintiffs point to a scathing critique of USDA's regulation of biopharm and other genetically altered crops issued by the agency's Inspector General in December 2005 as evidence that USDA continues to neglect its regulatory duties. That report documented numerous violations, including USDA's failure to record locations of field trial sites and conduct required inspections. In two instances, USDA regulators were unaware that a total of more than two tons of harvested biopharm crop material was stored at uninspected facilities for over a year.

Hawai'i is the nation's leading state for plantings of experimental, genetically engineered crops, having hosted more than 5,000 such tests from 1987 through 2004, including several dozen biopharm crop trials. Biopharm crops produce substances such as experimental vaccines, growth hormones, blood-clotting and -thinning agents, antibodies, and industrial enzymes. Two high-profile contamination incidents in 2002, in which biopharm corn produced by ProdiGene contaminated soybeans and corn in Nebraska and Iowa, provoked widespread criticism of the practice, which nevertheless continues.

Plaintiffs have also challenged USDA's practice of concealing the locations of trials from the public, and in most cases not disclosing the substances being grown in the plants.

Judge J. Michael Seabright ordered the parties to appear in court on August 22, 2006, to discuss remedies for the government's violations.

"We will not rest until the federal government prohibits the irresponsible and hazardous field-testing of drug-producing, genetically engineered crops," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety.

Read a copy of the court's ruling (pdf file): http://www.earthjustice.org/library/legal_docs/hawaii-biopharm-order-81096.pdf

Read the USDA Inspector General's report (pdf file): http://www.thecampaign.org/USDA_IG_1205.pdf

More background on biopharming: http://www.foe.org/camps/comm/safefood/biopharm/index.html

Contact:

Paul Achitoff, Earthjustice, (808) 599-2436 x12
Bill Freese, Center for Food Safety, (202) 547-9359 x14

[image caption: Inside a genetic engineering laboratory / Photo by University of Michigan]

13 August 2006

India Drowning in Pesticides
The Organic Imperative for a Pesticide and GMO Free India

ZNet, August 13, 2006. By Vandana Shiva

The issue of toxics and poisons in our food system has once again moved to the centre of national concern. CSE's study on pesticides in Coke and Pepsi shows that three years after the Joint Parliamentary Committee, no action has been taken by the cola giants. Pesticide content continues to be 25 times higher than norms in Pepsi brands and 22 times higher than norms in Coke brands. And the toxics like phosphoric acid and ethyl glycol continue to be added for which the Supreme Court has served notice on the cola companies.

Meantime, in spite of India being self-sufficient in wheat with 73 million tonnes of production, under US pressure India is importing pesticide laden wheat. On 4th of August 2006, the Supreme Court of India admitted a Public Interest Litigation filed by our organization, Navdanya, related to toxic wheat imports.

The Indian Supreme Court admitted Navdanya's petition challenging the Government's decision to import wheat. The Indian Government, under US pressure after the signing of the US - India Knowledge Initiative decided to allow wheat imports even though imports were not necessary and consignments fail to meet health and phyto-sanitary norms.

The Government has significantly relaxed quality specifications for the import of wheat. This comes out clearly through a comparison of the standards laid down in the State Trading Corporation of India's (STC) latest tender of May 8 with those in its previous tender floated on February 20.

The wheat that arrived from Australia in April 2006 at Chennai Port was unfit for consumption as the pesticide content was 0.25 ppm (parts per million) which was 500% over the permissible level of 0.05 ppm.

While succumbing to pressure, the State Trading Corporation's tender of May 8 does not mention its earlier specification that imported wheat be "free from moulds", and similarly, against the earlier stringent specification that the wheat "shall be completely free from Argemone mexicana, Lathyrus sativus, dwarf bunt (Tilletia contraversa) and ergot (Cleviceps purpurea)", it stops at the first two. It permits presence of the other two fungal pathogens - dwarf bunt and ergot fungi - to the extent of 0.005 per cent and 0.01 per cent respectively. There are also a couple of other relaxations, including Bromus rigidus, an exotic weed seed, which is missing from the tender.

While the international quality parameters are being tightened the world over to ensure that invasive alien species do not use the vehicle of commodity trade to enter into a country, India is busy relaxing the quality norms thereby opening the floodgates to noxious weeds, deadly insect pests and dreaded plant diseases and pesticides

Violating the norms of the Codex Alimentarius and the International Plant Protection Convention, to both of which India is a signatory, no scientific sampling was done to ascertain the percentage of alien matter, dust particles and pesticides residues.

Past experiences shows that several of the minor weeds that came along with PL-480 wheat shipments into India during sixties have turned into biological nuisances, often becoming a national menance. The noxious Pathenium weed came with American wheat and now occupies 15 per cent of the country's geographical area.

So far 35 lakh tonne of wheat import has been finalized. Recently, eight companies have submitted bids for supplying four lakh tonne of wheat to the State Trade Corporation. Cargill is the biggest bidder for maximum quantity at 3.4 lakh tonne and AWB has offered to supply about 2.2 lakh tonne. However, none has offered to supply the entire four lakh tonne.

India is the second largest producer and consumer of wheat. If India's wheat production is undermined by imports, there will be global scarcity and increase in wheat prices. This case is critical for the defense of food sovereignty of India's farmers and people everywhere.

While wheat imports bring pesticides, domestically too the pesticide industry is spreading pesticides in our food system. Corporations selling toxic pesticides are stating that India will lose Rupees (Rs.) 550,000 million in the current summer season if adequate doses of pesticides are not applied. They estimate an annual crop less of Rs. 900,000 due to incidence of pests in both summer and winder seasons (Financial Express, August 1, 2006).

There is a false assumption prevalent in society that without pesticides we cannot grow enough food, and hence food safety has to be sacrificed for food security.

However our two decades of practice and promotion of organic farming show that biodiverse organic farming increases productivity while reducing pesticide and fertilizer use. Food safety and food security go hand in hand.

Our experience and studies show that organic farming based on principles of diversity and agro ecology is the only sustainable method of controlling pests. Pesticides in fact do not control pests through creating resistance and resurgence, they create pests. Pests are a symptom of an unstable, non-sustainable agriculture. Ecologically balanced agriculture has not pest damage. The most effective pest control mechanism is built into the ecology of crops, partly by ensuring balanced pest-predator relationships through crop diversity and partly by building up resistance in plants. Organic manuring is now being shown to be critical to such a building up of resistance.

The Green Revolution strategy fails to see the ecology of pests as well as that of pesticides because it is based on subtle balances within the plant and invisible relationships of the plant to its environment. It therefore simplistically reduces the management of pests to the violent use of poisons which are in reality were chemicals. It also fails to recognize that pests have natural enemies with the unique property of regulating pest populations.

In de Bach's view, "The philosophy of pest control by chemicals has been to achieve the highest kill possible, and per cent mortality has been the main yardstick in the early screening of new chemicals in the lab. Such an objective, the highest kill possible, combined with ignorance of or disregard for, nontarget insects and mites is guaranteed to be the quickest road to upset resurgence and the development of resistance to pesticide."

De Bach's research on DDT induced pest increase showed that these increases could be anywhere from thirty-six fold to over twelve hundred fold. The aggravation of the problem is directly related to the violence unleashed on the natural enemies of pests. Reductionist science, which fails to perceive the natural balance, also fails to anticipate and predict what happen when that balance is disturbed.

Thus Bt. Cotton was introduced to control the bollworm. However, as a recent study by the Chinese Academy of Science and Cornell University shows, Bt. Cotton farmers have to spray 18.22 times, which are more than 3 times higher than sprays on conventional cotton. The study further reveals that farmers spend 40% more on pesticides designed to kill an emerging secondary pest. Secondary pests like Mirid are rarely found in cotton prior to adoption of Bt. Cotton. In the Indian trials of Bt. Cotton, showed that non-target species like Aphids and Jassids are 300-400% higher on Bt. Cotton than in non Bt. Cotton.

Farmers suicides are concentrated in Bt. Cotton areas because of high costs of seeds and pesticides. In spite of Bt. Cotton failing, the Government is preparing to commercialise Bt. Brinjal. This will increase pesticide use, not decease it. And in addition it will introduce new health risks from the toxic Cry1Ac gene, and genes for antibiotic resistance such as npt11.

India stands at a watershed in our food economy and food culture.

On the one hand we have corporations like Coke and Pepsi pushing hazardous cold drinks, corporations like Monsanto selling toxic genetically engineered seeds, and corporations like Cargill and AWB importing toxic contaminated wheat. We also have government coming to the aid of corporations through liberalized imports and deregulation of the food industry through the recently introduced Food Safety and Standards Act 2006.

On the other hand we have movements like Navdanya promoting safe, healthy, nutritious food and drinks, protecting our biological diversity and cultural diversity. Only the future will tell if corporations selling toxics and poisons will rule our lives or as free and democratic citizens we will live in a toxic free, pesticide free, GMO free India.

Ruling hailed by opponents of genetically altered crops

Star Bulletin (Hawaii), August 13 2006. By Tom Finnegan

A Honolulu federal court ruling will make it harder to win permits to grow genetically engineered crops across the country, environmental watchdogs said yesterday.

The ruling, by Judge J. Michael Seabright in a 2003 case pitting three environmental groups against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, found that permits filed in 2001 by four Hawaii seed companies violated federal law.

Seabright said in last week's decision that the USDA should have at least considered the impact on endangered species and the human environment, as required by federal law, before issuing the four permits.

The permits to field-test corn and sugar cane engineered to produce experimental vaccines, proteins, hormones or drugs for diseases such as HIV, hepatitis B and cancer expired in 2003. The permits gave the companies the ability to plant more than 800 acres on controlled sites on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai and Maui. This type of farming is generally known as biopharming.

Currently, no one is biopharming or growing crops to produce drugs in Hawaii. Companies produce seeds here only for human and animal consumption.

Still, last week's decision will be far-reaching, said Honolulu Earthjustice Managing Attorney Paul Achitoff, whose office is handling the case for the environmental nonprofits.

"The days of rubber-stamping these (genetically engineered crop permits) are over," Achitoff said yesterday. "Whenever (the USDA) proposes to issue permits, they're going to have to examine their impact."

Achitoff said he believes the decision will force the USDA to hold public hearings on each permit as part of the National Environmental Policy Act, one of the federal laws the USDA violated.

That would be a huge win for opponents of genetic engineering, since more than 6,000 negative comments were received when the USDA asked the public to comment on field-testing these biopharming products in 2003, according to Seabright's ruling.

Seabright reserved judgment on the permitting process. A separate hearing on that issue is scheduled for next Tuesday.

Hawaii biotech advocates say they are not worried by the decision and that their products are safe.

Before biotech products are marketed, they undergo seven to 10 years of safety testing, said Rick Klemm, executive director of Hawaii Alliance for Responsible Technology, an agricultural trade alliance.

Some 31 regulatory agencies in 17 countries, as well as prominent international scientific authorities, have stated that biotech crops are as safe as conventional crops, he said.

Besides, Klemm said, the violations outlined in the decision "were procedural" and did not involve "any harm to human health and safety or the environment."

The USDA still issues permits to biopharm across the country, he said, and in his view Seabright said it was "quite reasonable" to do so.

According to the Web site for the USDA Animal Health and Inspection Service -- the branch entrusted to regulate genetically engineered crops -- there is a rigorous process to regulate biopharming, including inspections, audits and oversight, and its task is to make sure the products do not contaminate surrounding areas.

Between 1991 and July 2005, more than 90 permits for biopharming, or "pharmaceutical and industrial crops," have been issued across the country, according to the USDA site.

11 August 2006

Escaped GM grass could spread bad news
Rogue golf course strain may harm wild habitats, ecologists warn.

Nature magazine, 11 August 2006. By Michael Hopkin.

An escaped strain of transgenic grass bred for golf courses could wreak havoc on native grassland species in the northwestern United States, ecologists are warning.

The strain, which was growing in a test plot in Oregon and hadn't yet been approved for use by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), has now been detected in the wild, up to 3.8 kilometres outside the test area. While the transgenic component of the plant might not in itself pose a problem, the hardy strain could replace many other native grasses if it gains a foothold, ecologists say.

Scientists working for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Corvallis, Oregon, have been monitoring the region surrounding the experimental plots where the plants, called creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) were being grown.

The EPA team studied areas of grass within almost 5 kilometres of the experimental plot. As they report in a forthcoming issue of Molecular Ecology, of 55 sites examined, six contained descendants of the transgenic test plants. The researchers believe that seeds and pollen from the test site were dispersed by the wind.

EPA officials stress that the scale of the problem is not yet known. "It could persist in the wild, but we wouldn't necessarily expect it to have an advantage," says Jay Reichman, one of the scientists who tracked down the grass in the wild. "Its impact remains to be seen."

It could potentially hit rare species or national parks. – Tom Stohlgren, National Institute of Invasive Species Science

The USDA has started a full environmental impact assessment of the plant.

Roundup resistant

It is not clear what advantage, if any, the grass's transgenic status will give it in the wild. The strain, bred by The Scotts Company, based in Marysville, Ohio, was engineered to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, also known as Roundup. This means that it would be difficult to eradicate from areas where other grasses are grown and managed with herbicides.

More pressing is the effect that the grasses might have on other local grass species, says Tom Stohlgren, an ecologist at the US Geological Survey's National Institute of Invasive Species Science in Fort Collins, Colorado. Plants of this type, called 'sod-forming' grasses, can spread rapidly because they can reproduce sexually, through widely dispersing pollen and seeds, and also asexually, by forming a dense mat of roots from which more shoots emerge.

Although bentgrass would be unlikely to encounter herbicide in the wild, so its transgenic status wouldn't necessarily be an issue, it might still plough down native grasses. "Sod-forming grasses can tend to outcompete other species," he explains. "It doesn't need to sexually reproduce - it's like The Blob. It could potentially hit rare species or national parks."

Long-distance travel

Distances of a few dozen kilometres won't be enough to stop a tenacious grass, Stohlgren adds. Grasses, unlike food crop plants, are perennial, meaning that they survive from one year to the next. And their seeds are so fine that they can easily be transferred from place to place by the wind or by sticking to animals, people or vehicles.

Oregon's grass-seed industry, which produces some 70% of seed for US gardeners and groundskeepers, is based in Willamette Valley, about 90 kilometres away from the test site. If the bentgrass reaches here, it would be very hard to eliminate.

Grasses have mounted widespread invasions before, Stohlgren says. In 1998, he showed how Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) had swept through Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota, tearing through habitats that previously contained a diverse range of grasses. Kentucky bluegrass can now be found in every state in the country.

The rampant spreading ability of bentgrass could also pass on the transgene for Roundup resistance to other grass species through hybridization, Stohlgren adds. "We've broken down the barriers - things happen so fast," he says. "It's like Darwin on steroids."

10 August 2006

Argentina: EU Agrees With Government Vs Monsanto In Soy Dispute

Dow Jones Newswires, August 10th 2006. By Shane Romig.

BUENOS AIRES -(Dow Jones)- The European Union has agreed with Argentina regarding complaints filed by U.S. biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. (MON) over roundup ready soybean products shipped from Argentina to Europe, Argentina's Economy Ministry said late Wednesday.

Monsanto has sought to show that soybean exports to the E.U. are derived from a Monsanto-made seed, whose patent is recognized in Europe but not in Argentina. The company has therefore claimed that Argentine soy exporters should pay royalties to Monsanto.

"The Internal Market and Services Directorate-General of the European Commission confirmed the interpretation of the Argentine government which asserts that the soy meal derived from genetically modified seeds imported into Europe does not infringe on Monsanto's patent," Argentina's Economy Ministry said in a release.

Monsanto has filed a number of cases in E.U. member countries over this issue, which have led to delays in shipments of Argentine soymeal at European ports.

Teagasc Crops Bioscience Facility to provide future benefits

Teagasc press release, 10 August 2006.

Developments in biotechnology have the potential to benefit Irish farmers by up to € 250 million annually within the next 20 years, according to Professor Jimmy Burke, Head of Teagasc Crops Research Centre in Oak Park.

Professor Burke was speaking at the official opening of the new Crops Bioscience facility by the Minister for Agriculture and Food Mary Coughlan T.D, today Thursday 10 August. This new state-of-the-art facility includes a computer controlled, sealed laboratory and glass house complex, equipped with the most up to date research equipment.

Professor Burke predicted that using new technology scientists can significantly improve yield, disease resistance, nutritional content and many other attributes of food crops.

He said "The strategy for crop improvement through breeding new varieties in Ireland will be pursued using new tools of biotechnology such as marker assisted selection. These techniques are coming on stream as a result of the genome mapping research carried out worldwide."

In the new Crop Bioscience building, Teagasc scientists are leading research to sequence the potato genome. Oak Park is the home of Ireland's potato breeding programme and has developed successful new varieties such as Rooster, which accounts for 50% of the total Irish potato acreage, and Cara.

Professor Burke said "In recent years a new plant biotechnology programme was initiated in order to build on the excellent track record in research such as plant breeding. The initiative was kick started by a € 4 million investment in state-of-the-art facilities, and through the hiring of researchers with experience in the area." >

Minister Coughlan outlines commitment to research

"Investment in research is key to the future of farming and the food industry" - Coughlan

Department of Agriculture and Food press release, 10 August 2006.

The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Mary Coughlan TD, today outlined her commitment to research in the Agriculture and Food sector and stressed its importance to the future of farming and the food industry in Ireland. Minister Coughlan was announcing details of the Sectoral Programme for Agriculture and Food, which is part of the overall Government Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation 2006-2013.

Speaking at the Teagasc Headquarters in Oakpark, Carlow, where she also formally opened the new Teagasc Plant Biosciences Facility, the Minister highlighted the importance of the Strategy explicitly recognising that the development of a profitable and sustainable Food and Agriculture sector is vital to Ireland's economic well being. This commitment will result in a major investment for Agriculture and Food research and development in the new National Development Plan.

Minister Coughlan said that a record € 97m had been provided in research funding for Teagasc, Third Level institutions competing in the Agri-Food Research programmes and her own Department programmes in 2006. This is an increase from the € 85m provided for such research in 2005.

Teagasc is central to the implementation of the Strategy for Agriculture and Food and the Minister intends that the organisation will continue to develop and be well placed to meet the challenges ahead, particularly with the development of its Centres of Excellence. Minister Coughlan confirmed that a fund of € 27m, arising from the sale of some Teagasc assets, would be retained by Teagasc and reinvested in upgrading its research resources and capability.

Further emphasising her commitment to research and innovation, Minister Coughlan said that new awards totalling € 30m in the FIRM Food Research Programme, € 18m in the Stimulus Production Research Programme and € 7m in the COFORD Research Programme are being made, details of which she will be announcing in the near future.

The Minister said she was speaking at a time when the agriculture sector faces many challenges and is in a period of unprecedented change. "If we want to be successful in the years ahead, investment in research is not optional, it is a necessity. This was spelt out very clearly in our Agri-Vision 2015 Action Plan, and we are proceeding fast with delivery. The priority is to ensure that the industry will operate to the highest standards, built on a strong foundation of modern scientific knowledge, skills and innovative practices so that it remains competitive in the global marketplace."

Turning to diversification in agriculture, the Minister said she was pleased that development of non-food land use is also part of the Strategy. "Ireland will need to reduce its dependency on imported fossil fuels and to develop sustainable energy alternatives. This provides opportunities for the agriculture sector, and it is an area I am very committed to. Opportunities exist in growing biomass for heat and electricity generation, and in growing other field crops for bio-diesel and bio-ethanol. In the longer term, crops and technologies for the production of fibre, bio-degradable plastics and other chemicals will become feasible. In this regard, I have already provided funding under the Research Stimulus Fund to examine the potential to diversify into non-food crop production."

Concluding, the Minister said that taking all these initiatives together, it is clear that the Strategy on Science Technology and Innovation represents an historic opportunity for this country and for the whole Agriculture and Food industry. "I believe it will invigorate the agriculture and food research community. It will encourage young researchers and provide sufficient commitment to spark the ideas and technologies that will fuel our economy into the future. More particularly, I have no doubt that it will help farmers and agri-food businesses to compete in the modern marketplace. Farmers and those involved in the food industry are well used to overcoming challenges through embracing innovation and I can assure all involved in the sector that we are committed to working with them in partnership to build a successful and viable future."

Teagasc welcomes € 97m for agri-food research

The Irish Times, 10 August 2006. By Michael Parsons in Carlow.

Irish cereal farmers have the highest yields in the world, according to new research from Teagasc, the Agriculture and Food Development Authority.

Prof Jimmy Burke, head of the crops research centre, said further developments in biotechnology "have the potential to benefit Irish farmers by up to € 250 million annually".

He welcomed yesterday's announcement by Minister for Agriculture and Food Mary Coughlan that the Government would spend "a record € 97 million" this year on "agri-food research programmes", compared to € 85 million last year.

Ms Coughlan yesterday opened a crops bioscience facility at Oak Park in Carlow which includes "a computer controlled, sealed laboratory and glasshouse complex, equipped with the most up-to-date research equipment". The new world-class facility is claimed to be suitable for the safe testing of genetically-modified crops in a "contained environment".

Teagasc scientists plan to use the new research facility to help farmers further enhance crop yields, disease resistance and nutritional content. They are already leading an international research project to map the potato genome and hope to develop new varieties following their previous success in creating the rooster crop, which now accounts for 50 per cent of the potato acreage.

She said the Government was "fully committed to research in the agriculture and food sector" as part of the overall Government strategy for science, technology and innovation 2006-13.

Noting that agriculture faced many challenges and was going through unprecedented change, Ms Coughlan said: "The priority is to ensure that the industry will operate to the highest standards, built on a strong foundation of modern scientific knowledge, skills and innovative practices so that it remains competitive in the global marketplace".

She said some of the research funding would be used to encourage the development of field crops for use in bio-diesel and bio-ethanol because "Ireland will need to reduce its dependency on imported fossil fuels and to develop sustainable energy alternatives".

She confirmed that a separate fund of € 27 million, arising from the sale of some Teagasc assets, would be retained by Teagasc and reinvested in further upgrading of its research resources.

Teagasc chairman Dr Tom O'Dwyer described the Minister as "a star" and said her commitment to science, innovation, research and training in agriculture during "an age of uncertainty" was "fantastic". He had the rare pleasure, as the head of a State body, of "not looking for more money today".

"We have the money," he said, welcoming "the recognition in the [ Government] strategy that the development of a profitable and sustainable food and agriculture sector is vital to the well-being of the economy".

Regulatory red light fuels GM-research debate

Engineering News, South Africa, 10 August 2006

An application by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to conduct greenhouse experiments on transgenic sorghum in South Africa has been denied by the South African genetically-modified organisms (GMO) regulatory body.

According to NGO African Centre for Biosafety directorMariam Mayet, the South African GM regulatory body's executive council, established in terms of the South African GMO Act refused the application on biosafety grounds, fearing that GM sorghum will lead to thedestruction of sorghum varieties prevalent throughout Africa.

According to the national Department of Agriculture, the application for contained use, namely, experimentation with transgenic sorghum in greenhouse experiments, was refused because of the potential environmental impacts related to the species.

"Our interpretation is that a national policy decision musthave been taken by the decision-making body, called the Executive Council, in charge of decisions regarding genetic modification and genetic engineering, not to allow any genetic experimentation with crop plants or livestock for that matter, where any African country is either the centre of origin or diversity of such plants or animals, because of the inevitability of genetic contamination," adds Mayet.

CSIR Biosciences executive director Dr Gatsha Mazithulela says the organisation is under obligation from its mandate to do multidisciplinary research that is in the national interest and which contributes to the improvement of the quality of life of the people of the country.

All of its research is undertaken in support of national strategies.

Guided by these principles,the organisation has chosen to conduct biotechnology research, within the ambits established by government to oversee andregulate activities related to GM crops.

"The CSIR support these mechanisms and trusts that this process will strengthen andimprove South Africa's regulatorycapacity. The CSIR is working with the relevant authorities toaddress concerns related to the sorghum application," he says.

According to Mayet, the decision not to allow genetic experimentation with transgenic sorghum under contained-use conditions sends a very clear political message - that the South African government does not emphatically support the genetic modification of sorghum.

"This is extremely significant and we view this as a victory. The South African government's policy has been decidedly biased in favour of genetic modification of crop plants in food and agri-culture; allowing open field trials and commercial releases of several food crops, including maize, soya and potatoes. However, it has drawn the line with sorghum. This is unprecedented," says Mayet.

The R450-million African Biotechnology Sorghum (ABS) project, funded by Bill and Melinda Gates, is aimed at improving nutrition to promote health as part of its Grand Challenge No 9, which focuses on improving nutrition levels of bananas, cassava, and rice and sorghum crops.

"The goal of these challenges is to create a full range of optimal, bioavailable nutrients in a single staple plant species," clarifies Mazithulela, who explains that all experimentation will beconducted in a controlled greenhouse that has the necessary measures to minimise any potential hazards to the environment.

Sorghum is consumed as astaple food in areas of Africa and, according to Mazithulela, the crop has certain inherent deficiencies.

"Consequently, the purpose of the project is to increase the levels of vitamins and the bio-availability of key nutrients by introducing the relevant genetic signals into sorghum, he explains.

Current sorghum varieties contain inadequate amounts of vital nutritional components of food and, when used as a staple food, the person is unlikely to receive the correct daily nutri-tional requirements.

Sorghum is also difficult to digest, thus it is difficult to absorb the nutritional components.

However, Mayet adds that despite years of research and the availability of GM crops in the world's markets and fields in countries such as the US, Canada and Argentina, there are currently no GMOs on the market that supplement people's diets or provide better nutrition.

"Indeed, despite all the hype, the GM industry has only been able to put on the market GM crops exhibiting two traits: insect resistance and herbicide tolerance, the latter being dependant on the use of herbicides," she comments.

Mayet believes that it is "scandalous" for such a large injection of resources to be allocated to genetically engineer a traditionalfood crop originating in Africa, where there are much more pressing agricultural priorities on the continent.

Mazithulela explains that the CSIR's aim is to make a contribution to the multitude of agricultural and health problems faced by the continent.

"Surely the inadequate delivery of vitamins and some elements to 300-million people in Africa who use sorghum as a staple foodqualifies as a pressing healthconcern that can be addressedagriculturally," he points out.

According to him, this project is also an endeavour to build the continent's own capabilities as it involves African public research institutions.

Mayet, however, is unconvinced that GM crops are the panaceato the agricultural and health problems experienced by thecontinent.

Equitable access to land andresources such as water, access to markets, infrastructure support, investment in organic farming based on traditional crops, pro-tection of domestic markets from the onslaught of cheap globalised low-quality cereals comingespecially from the US, and the end of food-aid programmes are the first steps toward food security on the continent, she believes

"We need the political commitment of our governments to put in place, long-term sustainable food-security plans and strategies, that prioritise farmers and theenvironment. When a nation is food secure, it is secure," she emphasises, explaining that "techno-fixes" cannot address the problems of food security and malnutrition stemming from a deficient diet - after all it is rooted in more systemic problems, such as civil war, inequality and poor food-security policies.

As part of the project's aim to build capacity for GM in Africa, American money is used to bring African scientists to PioneerHi-Bred's laboratories in the US for training.

"As with the GM sweet potato project, which was developed by Monsanto, brought to Africa in collaboration with Dr Wambugu, and was a spectacular failure in its objective of achieving virus-resistance, Wambugu is taking every opportunity to tout this new "Super Sorghum" project as Africa-driven, and to use it to convince the world that GM will solve hunger in Africa," continues Mayet, who explains that, even if the project comes to nothing, Wambugu and partners may still consider it to be a public-relations success.

Mazithulela, however, clarifies the differences between the projects. The GM sweet potato carried an agronomic trait to enhance virus resistance whereas the sorghum project is aimed at developing a nutritionallyenhanced crop with humanhealth benefits.

"Obviously, in any scientificexperiment, there is a chance of failure. That is the reason for research - to find out what works and what does not," he stresses.

In addition, Mayet is concerned about the impact GM sorghum may have on traditional farming practices.

Not only have the natural varieties of sorghum been selected and bred by farmers in Africa for generations, but they also hold symbolic significance to culture, tradition and ways of life on the continent.

Genetically-engineered sorghum will, she believes, represent a serious threat to these systems.

However, Mazithulela explains that GM sorghum will not replace traditional varieties.

Instead, the application ofgenetically modified sorghum will be reserved for situations where limitations in conventional breeding are encountered.

"Generally speaking, conventional breeding will continue to play a significant role in cropimprovement. We do not believethat this transgenic sorghum will present a threat to traditionalfarmers and will not result in changes to traditional farming practices," he states.

To the CSIR and Mazithulela, biotechnology remains a powerful tool for addressing many of the continent's health and economic problems and this research project is part of their mandate to contribute to the improvement of the quality of life of the people of the republic of South Africa.

Regardless, a solution to the continent's issues of food security must be found, as millions of people in sub-Saharan Africasuffer from health problems associated with vitamin and mineral deficiency; however, arid climates with poor soils cannot supportthe food needed to supply these nutrients.

Poor nutrition is a significant global health problem, contri-buting to more than half of the nearly 11-million deaths that occur each year in children less than five years old.

It is estimated that half of the population of sub-Saharan Africa suffers from iron deficiency, a third from zinc deficiency and 90% of children in the regionreceive inadequate amounts of vitamin A.

Inadequate intake of these and other essential micronutrients can cause impaired immune systems, blindness, low birth weight, impaired neuropsychological development and stunting. Sorghum remains one of the few crops that grow well in arid climates, but it is deficient in most essential nutrients, as well as having poor protein digestibility when cooked.

Choice? GM Freeze is concerned that crops will be contaminated

News & Star, 10 August 2006. By Peter Riley, Campaign Director, GM freeze.

LAST month Defra [the UK Government's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] issued a public consultation on "Proposals for managing genetically modified (GM), conventional and organic crops."

The most startling thing about this consultation is that the Government proposes to "facilitate choice between conventional, organic and GM crops" by aiming "to minimise any unwanted GM presence in non-GM crops so that it is below 0.9 per cent."

In other words, crops cross pollinated with a neighbouring GM crop will still be classed as non-GM or organic even though they may have nearly one per cent GM present.

Defra claims its approach is "pragmatic". The consultation specifically excludes gardeners, allotment holders, beekeepers and farmers, who save their home grown seed each year, from protection and, hence, compensation if they suffer contamination.

Indeed, Defra fails to come up with a firm proposal as to who should be liable if non-GM crops are contaminated with GM.

The insects and wind that transport pollen around our countryside will have little respect for Defra's pragmatism and we can look forward to the erosion of our rights to GM-free food as GM contamination creeps in if these proposals go ahead.

But they can be rejected.

If you share our concerns about Defra's proposals you can respond to the consultation which can be found at www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/gmnongm-coexist/consultdoc.pdf.

The deadline is October 20. For a guide on how to respond to Defra visit www.stopgmcontamination.org.

GM grass takes a walk on the wild side

TimesOnline, 10 August 2006. By Lewis Smith.

An experimental plant, designed for golf courses, has been found three miles from its test site

A GENETICALLY modified grass designed to improve golf courses and lawns has caused alarm in the US after escaping into the wild.

Creeping bentgrass, Agrostis stolonifera, has spread up to three miles outside a test site in Oregon with nine different plants being identified.

It had been modified to make it impervious to the herbicide glysophate and was designed to appeal to golf course managers who would be able to spray large areas to kill off weeds without damaging the grass.

Homeowners were considered another lucrative market because it could help them to create perfect lawns in front of their houses.

The US Department of Agriculture has ordered a full environmental audit of its impact and spread to determine the threat to wildlife. Unlike GM crops such as maize and soybeans, which are annuals and unable to reproduce, the perennial grass was able to produce seeds during outdoor tests.

Some of the plants found outside the test site, reports New Scientist, had grown from seeds produced by the GM parent. Others were hybrids derived from a non-GM plant being pollinated by one of the modified specimens.

Jay Reichman, of the US Environmental Protection Agency, which identifed the escaped grasses, said: "It's a cautionary tale of what could happen with other GM plants that could be of greater concern."

GM bentgrass has yet to be given official approval by the USDA for commercial use but environmentalists are concerned that widespread take-up will quickly see it spread into ecologically sensitive wilderness areas.

A spokeswoman for the USDA said: "This is a perennial and has wild and weedy relatives and it's something we think we need to know the environmental impact of before it's deregulated." She added: "Some of the seeds were dispersed and some of the pollen. We are following up on this to make sure all the plants outside the test area are dug up and recovered.

"We have a lot of measures in place to try to prevent this type of thing. However, there is human error that can occur."

Eric Baack, of Indiana University, told the journal Current Biology: "It's definitely a new set of variables we've not had to deal with in previous GM crops." He doubted, however, that the escape would cause alarm beyond scientific and environmental circles: "I don't think people will worry about lawns and golf courses if they have not shown any worries already about GM food."

It is uncertain how much the genetic modification would help the plant in the wild where the herbicide would not be expected to be used.

The modification is not believed to have conferred any other advantage on the grass and it is possible that it has evolutionary weaknesses that are not shared by non-GM plants.

Among the factors that the USDA will take into account while carrying out an environmental assessment are the level of resistance to herbicide, the ability to hybridise and the damage to the environment.

In deciding whether the grass should be deregulated for the commercial market, officials will consider how widespread the grass could become.

Terrorism, Agriculture and U.S India Cooperation

ZMag.org, August 10 2005. By Vandana Shiva

Terrorism and Agriculture are among the issues raised in the Joint India - U.S statement issued on 18th July 200 5 during Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh's meeting with President Bush. As the statement declares, the two leaders resolved -

• to create an international environment conductive to promotion of democratic values, and to strengthen democratic practices in societies which wish to become open and pluralistic.

• To combat terrorism relentlessly.

The leaders also agreed to -

• launch a U.S - India knowledge initiative on agriculture focused on promoting teaching, research, service and commercial linkages.

The MOU on Science and Technology signed between U.S and India on 20th July, 2005 has made it clear that teaching and research would focus on Biotechnology or genetic engineering, also often referred to as the second green revolution. The Science Technology Agreement cites the green revolution in the 1960s as the beginning of U.S - India cooperation in India. To assess the impact of the new agreement we need to do an honest appraisal of the impact of the green revolution.

This is not the first time a U.S driven agriculture agenda is being imposed on India. The so-called green revolution was introduced forty years ago. And it fuelled terrorism and extremism in the 1980's in Punjab.

While the two leaders resolv e, "to combat terrorism relentlessly" they are promoting the technologies, and trade models, which serve the US corporate interests and destroy farmers' livelihood security thus becoming the breeding ground for terrorism as I have shown in my book "The Violence of the Green Revolution" (Zed Books).

When we became independent, our agriculture was in crisis due to neglect and exploitation. The Agriculture Minister, K.M. Munshi put priority to repairing natures hydrological cycle and nutritional cycle. These are the principles followed in sustainable, ecological farming.

However, while Indian scientists and policy makers were working out self-reliant and ecological alternatives for the regeneration of agriculture in India, another vision of agricu ltural development was taking shape in American foundations and aid agencies. This vision was based not on cooperation with nature, but on its conquest.

It was based not on the intensification of nature's processes, but on the intensification of cred it and purchased inputs like chemical fertilizers and pesticides. It was based not on self-reliance, but dependence. It was based not on diversity but uniformity. Advisors and experts came from America to shift India's agricultural research and agricultur al policy from an indigenous and ecological model to an exogenous, and high input one, finding, of course, partners in sections of the elite, because the new model suited their political priorities and interests.

There were three groups of international agencies involved in transferring the American model of agriculture to India - the private American Foundations, the American Government and the World Bank. The Ford Foundation had been involved in training and agricultural extension since 1952. The Rockefeller Foundation had been involved in remodeling the agricultural research system in India since 1953. In 1958, the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, which had been set up in 1905, was reorganized, and Ralph Cummings, the field director of the Rockefeller Foundation, became its first dean. In 1960, he was succeeded by A.B. Joshi, and in 1965 by M.S. Swaminathan.

Besides reorganizing Indian research institutes on American lines, the Rockefeller Foundation also financed the trips of Indian s to American institutions. Between 1956 and 1970, 90 short-term travel grants were awarded to Indian leaders to see the American agricultural institutes and experimental stations. One hundred and fifteen trainees finished studies under the Foundation. Another 2000 Indians were financed by USAID to visit the US for agricultural education during the period.

The work of the Rokefeller and Ford Foundations was facilitated by agencies like the World Bank, which provided the credit to introduce a capital-intensive agricultural model in a poor country. In the mid 1960s India was forced to devalue its currency to the extent of 37.5%. The World Bank and USAID also exerted pressure for favourable conditions for foreign investment in India's fertilizer industr y, import liberalization, and elimination of domestic controls.

The World Bank provided credit for the foreign exchange needed to implement these policies. The foreign exchange component of the Green Revolution strategy, over the five year plan period (1966 - 71) was projected to be Rs. 1114 crores, which converted to about $ 2.8 billion at the then official rate. This was a little over six times the total amount allocated to agriculture during the preceding third plan (Rs. 191 crores). Most of the foreign exchange was needed for the import of fertilizers, seeds and pesticides, the new input in a chemically intensive strategy.

The World Bank and USAID stepped in to provide the financial input for a technology package that the Ford ad Rockefell er Foundations had evolved and transferred.

The occurrence of drought in 1966 caused a severe drop in food production in India, and an unprecedented increase in food grain supply from the US. Food dependency was used to set new policy conditions on I ndia. The US President, Lyndon Johnson, put wheat supplies on a short tether. He refused to commit food aid beyond one month in advance until an agreement to adopt the green revolution package was signed between the Indian agriculture minister, C.S. Subramanian and the US Secretary of agriculture, Orville Freeman.

The combination of science and politics in creating the green revolution goes back to the period in the 1940s when Daniels, the US Ambassador to the Government of Mexico, and Henry Wallace, Vice President of the United States set up a scientific mission to assist in the development of agricultural technology in Mexico. The office of the Special Studies was set up in Mexico in 1943 within the agricultural ministry as a cooperation venture between the Rockefeller Foundation and the Mexican Government.

In 1944, Dr. J. George Harrar, head of the new Mexican research programme and Dr. Frank Hanson, an official of the Rockefeller Foundation in New York invited Norman Borlaug to shift from his classified wartime laboratory job in Dupont to the plant breeding programme in Mexico. By 1954, Borlaug's 'miracle seeds' of dwarf varieties of wheat had been bred. In 1970, Borlaug had been awarded the 'Nobel Peace Prize' for his 'great contributions tow ards creating a new world situation with regard to nutrition'.

However, the green revolution did not bring peace to Punjab, it brought terrorism.

The Green Revolution, awarded a Nobel Prize for Peace in 1970, has contributed to two social and en vironmental disasters in India. One was the extremist movement and terrorism in Punjab, which led to the military assault on the Golden Temple and finally the assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1984. The other was the gas leak from the Union Carbide pesticides plant in Bhopal, which killed 3,000 people on that tragic night of December 1984. In the two decades since that tragedy, 30,000 people have died in Bhopal due to the leak of these toxic gases. The Punjab violence also took the lives of 30,000 people in the years following 1984.

Why did a 'Revolution' awarded a Nobel Peace Prize lead to so much violence? The Green Revolution came with a promise of peace. But its crude linearity - Technology -> Prosperity -> Peace - failed. The reason for this f ailure was because the technologies of the Green Revolution, like technologies of war, leave nature and society impoverished. To expect prosperity to grow out of violent technologies that destroy the earth, erode biodiversity, deplete and pollute water an d leave peasants indebted and in ruins was a false assumption made during the launch of Green Revolution. This false assumption is being repeated in the launch of the Second Green Revolution based on biotechnology and genetic engineering, which are at the core of the US - India agreement.

The 'terrorism' and 'extremism' in Punjab was born out of the experience of injustice of the Green Revolution as a development model, which centralized power and appropriated resources and earth from the people. In the words of Gurmata from the All Sikh Convention (quoted in my book, The Violence of the Green Revolution), on 13th April 1986,

"If the hard-earned income of the people or the natural resources of any nation or the region are forcibly plundered; if the goods produced by them are paid for at arbitrarily determined prices while the goods bought are sold at higher prices and if, in order to carry this process of economic exploitation to its logical conclusion, the human rights of a nation, region or people are lost then the people will be like the Sikhs today - shackled by the chains of slavery."

The peasants and people of Punjab were clearly not experiencing the Green Revolution as a source of prosperity and freedom. For them it was slavery. The Green Revolution, the social and ecological impacts it had, and the responses it created among an angry and disillusioned peasantry, has many lessons for our times, both for understanding the roots of terrorism and searching for solutions to violence.

These are connections our leaders fail to make. The more they fight terrorism, the more they create it with their policies that create economic insecurity. The more they talk democracy, the more they destroy freedom by imposing trade rules and policies that deny people freedom and work against farmers and citizens. The Agreement on Agriculture of the WTO was drafted by a Cargill official. TheTrade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement was drafted by a group of US corporations including Monsanto. Monsanto's seed monopolies have already pushed thousands of farmers in India to suicide. Promoting commerce for Monsanto and Cargill through the US India Agreement on Agriculture will kill more farmers, and ultimately destroy India's food security, sovere ignty and democracy, fuelling more terrorism and extremism.

The Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement between US and India establishes intellectual property protocols of research by passing consultation with Indian scientists and the Indian public which has been resisting the US style IPR regimes which force countries to patent life, and create monopolies on seeds, medicine and software. For us, these agreements are instruments of corporate dictatorship; they are not instruments of democracy. And as dictatorship, they will fuel more anger, more discontent, more frustration.

Terrorism is a child of economically unjust and anti-democratic policies, as became clear in Punjab in India and Oklahoma in the US. As Joel Dyer says in the Harvest of Rage, an investigation on the Oklahoma bombing and its roots in the US farm crisis, farmers losing their farms and livelihoods are victims of long-term stress. If they are not helped, they get violent. If they blame themselves, they direct violence in wards and commit suicide. If they blame others, they turn their violence outwards.

This is the violence of terrorism and extremism. The only lasting solution to dealing with terror is to increase people's freedom and security by protecting their livelihoods, their cultures, their rights to resources, and their democratic choices in how their society and lives are organized.

The India - US Agreement on Agriculture and Science and Technology will do the opposite. It will breed more insecurity and erode people's capacity to make choices. It will therefore fail in its two prime objectives of promoting democracy and ending terrorism.

9 August 2006

Escaped golf-course grass frees gene genie in the U.S.

New Scientist magazine, 9 August 2006. By Andy Coghlan.

A nondescript grass discovered in the Oregon countryside is hardly an alien invasion. Yet the plant - a genetically modified form of a grass commonly grown on golf courses - is worrying the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) enough that it is running its first full environmental impact assessment of a GM plant.

It is the first time a GM plant has escaped into the wild in the US, and it has managed it before securing USDA approval. The plant, creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), carries a bacterial gene that makes it immune to the potent herbicide glyphosate, better known as Roundup. The manufacturer, The Scotts Company, Marysville, Ohio, is hoping the grass will provide a turf that makes it easier for golf course owners to manage their fairways and greens by letting them kill competing weedy grasses with glyphosate.

Jay Reichman and colleagues at the US Environmental Protection Agency's labs in Corvallis, Oregon, identified nine escapees out of 20,400 plants of various grass varieties sampled within a 4.8-kilometre radius of the site where the bentgrass is being cultivated, the most distant 3.8 kilometres away. The team showed that the GM grass has spread both by pollinating non-GM plants to form hybrids, and by seed movement.

Bentgrass is a perennial, so once out there it regrows year after year, whereas most GM crops - mainly soybeans, maize and canola (oilseed rape) - are annuals, unable to reproduce, harvested each year and replaced with an entirely new crop the next. Another worry is that unlike the other GM crops, bentgrass has many relatives in the US with which it can cross-breed or hybridise, potentially passing on the glyphosate-resistance gene to other species - with unpredictable results.

"It's a cautionary tale of what could happen with other GM plants that could be of greater concern," says Reichman. "I suspect that more examples of this will show up." His report will appear in the October issue of Molecular Ecology.

If bentgrass is approved by the USDA, it could prove a hit with the thousands of golf course managers throughout the US, making it easy for the crop to spread far and wide. If it reaches environmentally sensitive wildernesses or establishes itself by waterways, removing it could require weedkillers far more harmful than the relatively benign glyphosate.

"It's definitely a new set of variables we've not had to deal with in previous GM crops," says Eric Baack of Indiana University in Bloomington, who comments on Reichman's findings in Current Biology (vol 16, p R1). Still, it isn't clear whether the gene would have much impact in the wild. "You wouldn't expect the weedkiller-resistance gene to be a particular advantage in the wild," says Baack. Also, the USDA doesn't class conventional bentgrass as a "noxious" weed.

There is however the possibility of litigation if the GM grass contaminates other elite grass strains under cultivation. Some 70 per cent of the US's commercial grass seed is grown in Oregon, so there is the potential for accidental adulteration.

The USDA is not taking any chances. "This is a perennial, and has wild and weedy relatives, and it's something we think we need to know the environmental impact of before it's deregulated," says a spokeswoman for the USDA's Biotechnology Regulatory Services in Riverdale, Maryland. "There's no current set date for when [the environmental impact assessment] will be finished," she says.

Whether the US public takes any notice of the furore is another question entirely. "I don't think people will worry about lawns and golf courses if they've not shown any worries already about GM food," says Baack.

Canada: The WTO Rules on Genetically Modified Organisms

Mondaq - European Union and International Law, 9 August 2006. Excerpt of article by John W. Boscariol, Riyaz Dattu, Simon V. Potter, Orlando E. Silva, Brenda C. Swick and Alastair McNish.

The Panel took a firm and arguably inconsistent approach to the effect of other international treaties on its interpretation of WTO rules. The Panel ruled that it only had to rely on other treaties if it found them useful, and that it was under no circumstances obliged to do so. Despite the fact that the Cartagena Protocol, ratified by 132 countries (although, as noted above, not by the Complaining Parties), is a comprehensive agreement specifically addressing genetically modified organisms, the Panel found that it did not need to consider it in interpreting the SPS Agreement. As part of its reasoning, the Panel found that, because the Complaining Parties were not parties to the Cartagena Protocol, the treaty was not applicable in their relations as WTO members.

A significant international legal debate exists regarding the relationship between the WTO and multilateral environmental agreements, such as the Cartagena Protocol. In previous WTO case law, such international agreements have been considered as part of the WTO-compliance analysis. The EC - Biotech ruling may signal that other treaties are only relevant when all parties to the dispute, or even possibly all WTO members, are parties to the other treaties. One strategy to minimize exposure to other countries' trade restrictions would therefore be to withdraw from, or not sign on to, treaties which contemplate trade-limiting obligations or powers.

FULL ARTICLE at www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=41950&searchresults=1

Sinn Féin urge discussion on single all-Ireland body to negotiate with EU

Sinn Féin press release, 9 August, 2006

Sinn Féin Agriculture Spokesperson, Michelle Gildernew MP has called for a debate on setting up a single all-Ireland body to negotiate with the EU.

Ms Gildernew said:

"I believe that there is a strong case for the establishment of a single all-Ireland body that can negotiate with the EU. We already have the SEUPB that was set up to allocate EU funds but across a broad range of areas I believe that our hand would be strengthened in negotiations with the EU by having a single body that can fight for the best deal for people across the island.

"In the north it is clear that the British negotiation position has let us down, that it is driven by the needs of Britain and not by the needs of people living in this part of Ireland. The situation is compounded by British direct rule Ministers whose priority is always to please Whitehall to the detriment of people in the Six Counties.

"I believe that this initiative would receive a positive hearing if London and Dublin made a joint case to Brussels to have Ireland considered as a single entity when negotiating matters relevant to the island.

"This could initially cover areas such as agriculture, fisheries, environment, waste management and infrastructural funding with provision for expansion as further areas are identified. It may also necessitate the creation of a joint body to oversee the rationalisation of regulation and legislation in both parts of the island.

"The border has had a negative impact on the border counties. Both governments claim to be committed to redressing the neglect that this region has suffered since partition. The interests of many in Ireland would clearly benefit from the capacity of a single all-Ireland Negotiating Body that could also centralise consultation of EU matters with the many sectors that are directly affected by the EU.

"Agriculture and Fisheries are prime examples of a sector that warrants a single policy and its effective articulation in Brussels. There are, of course, many other important issues, such as Food Safety and the importation of Genetically Modified seeds and hormone treated animals. These controversies, coupled with environmental, human and animal health concerns surrounding the incineration of waste, will certainly affect both jurisdictions."

8 August 2006

Natural food stores in anti-GMO campaign

The Bridge (USA). 8 August 2006. By Corey Nicholl, The Non-GMO Project.

"We are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences." -Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicologist

July 25- The Non-GMO Project, a collaboration of North American grocery stores and co-ops urging natural food and supplement companies to go Non-GMO, now has 50 members.

Retailers from San Diego to White River Junction have joined this effort to assure "a Non-GMO food supply, our customers' confidence in the foods and supplements we offer, and the general health and well-being of ourselves, our customers and the world in general."

The Certificate of Membership that each store receives upon joining describes the Project as:

• A groundbreaking effort to identify GMOs in the food supply and to influence natural food and supplement companies to go non-GMO.

• The first comprehensive non-GMO compliance review system started by independent natural foods & supplements retailers and their customers.

• The most rigorous standard for non-GMO verification, developed with the technical assistance of Global ID Consulting.

The Non-GMO Project was founded by two natural grocery stores, The Natural Grocery Company in Berkeley, California, and The Big Carrot Natural Food Market in Toronto, Canada. The Project seeks to enlist as many member grocery stores as possible across the United States and Canada. They also plan to formally invite all natural foods and supplements manufacturers to participate.

To see the list of the Non-GMO Project member stores: www.nongmoproject.org/stores.html

To join The Non-GMO Project as a member store, or for more information: www.nongmoproject.org

1. S. Contact: Corey Nicholl, + 1 510 526-2456 ext.154, info@nongmoproject.org

Local watchdog expresses concern over GMO bill

Creamer Media's Mining Weekly (South Africa), 8 August 2006.

Local biological resources watchdog, Biowatch South Africa, has expressed its concern over Parliament's Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs having passed the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) bill, as its key concerns had not been addressed, Biowatch said on Tuesday.

However, the bill was passed on Tuesday, despite the Select Committee not having addressed the key concerns that it said it would before passing the bill, the Biowatch statement said.

Department of Agriculture deputy director-general Shadrak Moephuli assured the Committee that most of its concerns would be addressed in regulations to the bill, but gave no indication of when these would be published for comment, or what the process would be for finalising them.

The concerns that the committee raised included that the bill did not oblige the regulator to take public objections and input into account when it considered permit applications for GM crops.

It also failed to adequately specify who would be liable, should damage arise from GM crop use.

Currently, the bill made any person who conducted an activity with a GM crop liable, which meant that farmers who used the seed could be held liable, instead of the multinational seed companies that produced the GM seed, and own the patents to them.

In addition, the bill did not adequately specify how costs for the harmful impacts of GM crops would be recovered, particularly if their impacts only became apparent some years later.

Finally, the bill failed to adequately deal with cross-pollination from GM crops, and the resultant contamination of non-GM crops.

Bush Nominates Anti-Regulatory Zealot to Head Regulatory Policy

OMB Watch, 8 August 2006.

The White House has nominated Susan Dudley, an anti-regulatory extremist from the industry-funded Mercatus Center, to an obscure but powerful office where she would have the power to gut the federal government's very ability to protect the public.

Dudley would become the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an office in the White House Office of Management and Budget with enormous authority over environmental, health, and safety regulations.

Dudley would replace John Graham, who left the office in February to become dean of the RAND Graduate School. During Graham's time in office, regulatory agencies ranging from the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) to the Food and Drug Administration have seen their policies weakened and their ability to develop new safety and health standards diminished.

Nominating Dudley to this office is a signal that the White House is not interested in reversing course. Through numerous comments on regulations and articles on regulatory policy, Dudley has displayed hostility to environmental, health and safety protections. She has opposed important health and safety standards such as limiting arsenic in drinking water and installing advanced air bag technology in automobiles.

In her own words: (...)

On arsenic in the drinking water: The Clinton standards were "an unwelcome distraction from the task of protecting the water supply. . . . While [EPA] should share information about arsenic levels and hazards, it should not impose its judgment, based on national average costs and benefits, on individual communities as to how best to invest in their own public health."

On food safety: "Unscientific fears, fanned by activists and short-sighted government policies, have led to a regulatory framework that singles out genetically modified crops for greater scrutiny and even prohibition. . . . Policymakers regulating agricultural biotechnology face pressure from well-organized activists to constrain the new technology. Large biotech companies do not speak out aggressively against unscientific policies, either because they don't dare offend the regulators on whom their livelihood depends, or because regulations give them a competitive advantage."

Again on GM crops: "In spite of hundreds of thousands of field tests as well as peer-reviewed research papers, no evidence indicates the presence of any unique environmental or health risks from the products of gene-splicing."

Full article available at: http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3550/1/308?TopicID=1

Economic benefits from GMO Crops? Not for Farmers

The Dominion (Canada), 8 August 2006

Squeezed by falling incomes, farmers look to technologies that claim higher returns or reduced costs. Over the past decades, however, farmers have embraced a wide range of technologies, only to watch net farm incomes fall. Between 1974 and 2000, gross farm income tripled. Net farm income, however, fell. Input suppliers were able to capture 100% of farmers' increased gross returns. Because fertilizers, chemicals, and other technologies failed to fulfill their promises of farm profitability, many farmers rightly question the economic benefits of genetically modifying crops and livestock.

- From the Canadian National Farmer's Union Policy on Genetically Modified Foods: http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=477

Pharma crop field trials in Germany

Munich Environmental Institute press release, 8 August 2006.

The first field trial involving pharma crops in Germany is being conducted this year. The Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) authorized an application by the University of Rostock on June 14th.

In the trial, three different GM potato lines are used, which contain genes for different pharmaceutical or industrial compounds:

• vp60 (viral protein 60 of rabbit haemorraghic disease virus, RHDV);,

• ctxB (B subunit cholera toxin of Vibrio cholerae);

• PsbY-cyel (cyanophycin synthetase) of Thermosynechococus elongates (with chloroplast transit peptide from A. thaliana).

All transgenic lines contain the antibiotic resistance gene nptII (neomycin phosphotransferase II gene of E.coli) and the 35S promoter from Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV).

The Federal Agency for Nature Conservation and environmental organizations like the NABU and the Munich Environmental Institute had rejected the trial and raised severe objections.

The trial is taking place in Groþ L¸sewitz near Rostock (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) and will last until 2008. The maximum size of the trial is 2176 m2 in 2007.

The Munich Environmental Institute demands a halt to field trials and the commercialization of pharma crops in Europe.

More informations in German:

http://www.umweltinstitut.org/frames/allg/press/20060227.htm
http://www.umweltinstitut.org/frames/allg/press/20060428.htm
http://www.umweltinstitut.org/frames/allg/press/20060621.htm
http://www.nabu.de/m06/m06_11/05052.html

Contact

Andreas Bauer
Dipl.-Agr.-Ing. (FH)
Abteilung Gentechnik
Telefon: 089 / 30 77 49 - 14
Umweltinstitut M¸nchen e.V.
Landwehrstr.64 a
80336 München
Telefon 089 / 30 77 49 - 0
Fax 089 / 30 77 49 - 20
www.umweltinstitut.org

No need to blind me with science about GM crops - but I'd like some hard facts

Irish Independent, 8 August 1006. By Joe Barry.

GM CROPS are easier to grow because of their resistance to specific sprays that control weeds and they can also be engineered to resist pests that would otherwise destroy them. From what I have heard and read, this seems to be the case and trials are continuing to test their suitability in different conditions.

I do not, of course, have a deep and scientifically based knowledge on their possible long-term effects, beneficial or otherwise, so I must reserve judgement until the matter is proven, one way or the other.

I often privately wish that someone would produce a genetically modified oak or ash with perhaps the genetic traits of Sitka spruce that would enable it to grow straight and true without endless shaping and management. But in saying this I accept that I am not sufficiently informed about the science and real facts to make a balanced decision.

The bit that worries me about the entire debate is how real, provable facts appear to play a very small part in the anti-GM propaganda that is continually being churned out to the media by activist groups and protestors.

Some time ago I attended a meeting in Summerhill, Co Meath, to discuss the whole topic of growing GM foods and the proposed trial plots of GM potatoes that are planned nearby. I have no doubt that the speakers were sincere in their opposition to GM technology and its planned introduction to Irish farmland, but I do wish they and their fellow protestors would not keep repeating the same old litany of hints and insinuations. You do not convince anyone by using words such as "it is believed that" or "we have heard" or "some recent trials suggest". Irish farmers want hard provable facts, not vague inferences and prejudice. There were about 30 people present, which surprised me as I thought the meeting would be better attended, but there were a few concerned farmers there and one man I spoke to said he was disappointed with the lack of real information.

It was a pity that someone in favour of GM technology was not present to speak and provide balance to the discussion. I have not heard anyone from Teagasc or our other research organisations speak out against GM foods and it would be helpful to hear their views. No one, myself included, wants to be faced with a possible 'contamination' of adjoining crops by genetically modified ones but it seems almost impossible to find out the real truth among the storm of warnings and accusations.

Only one speaker at the Summerhill meeting impressed me and that was John Brennan from the Leitrim Organic Farmers Co-op. He had travelled quite a distance to air his views and he spoke with great conviction when he stated that we knew too little about GM technology to risk introducing it to the Irish countryside. His fears and those of other organic growers are real and I would imagine that they have a genuine concern for the future market value of the crops they produce.

Crackpot assertions: read on

Irish Independent, 8 August 1006. By Joe Barry.

Recently I read an article that linked GM foods with chlorine gas and a few other well-known nasties. World War I and even the Vietnam war also got a mention, as did just about everything that we perceive as being potentially harmful to humans.

As far as I can recall, this article even claimed that if pollen from a GM crop reached a conventional crop of corn, that crop became the property of the firm that grew the GM crop originally. This assertion was also made at the Summerhill meeting.

Right now, someone, somewhere is probably blaming the crisis in the Lebanon on GMOs. I find it difficult to believe that any of this is true and I do wish that the more radical opponents of GM technology would stop scaremongering and stick with facts.

The same applies to the campaigns against waste incineration, windmills for electricity generation and just about anything that represents change. Windmills are not "mincing machines for birds," as was written some time ago, nor do properly managed incinerators create deformed infants.

For an another viewpoint check out www.gmoireland.blogspot.com where at least you will be able to enjoy an alternative opinion to that of the anti-everything lobby.

Maybe the customer is right after all

Irish Independent, 8 August 1006. By Joe Barry.

Maybe the protestors are right - but not for the reasons they put forward.

We still happily burn rubbish in our back yards and in doing so produce a stream of dioxins that cause serious harm to the atmosphere.

At the same time we scream in protest at the possibility of dioxins being produced from an incinerator.

Surely as a society we are now mature enough to debate these serious issues in an informed and ethical manner and ignore the obvious untruths that are pedalled as fact.

I do not believe that incinerators are harmful, but of course we would have to stipulate the proviso that they are properly managed and supervised. And I must definitely believe that exporting our waste to be incinerated in another country is morally wrong and indefensible.

I also believe that there may well be a place for genetically modified crops in agriculture and horticulture.

But here's a thought - if the public believe that GM foods are harmful, what is the point of producing them in Ireland?

A surprising number of people purchase food items in supermarkets only if they are GM-free.

The old saying that the customer is always right still holds true and perhaps it would be a better marketing ploy to make the island of Ireland a GM-free zone. Not because of the nonsense pedalled by some elements within the anti-GM lobby groups but simply as a good and sensisble way of ensuring a premium price for our meat, dairy produce and crops.

7 August 2006

Planned Environmental Release in Gatersleben:
Gene Wheat Threatens the Inheritance of Mankind

Linke Zeitung, August 7, 2006 (Translated by Andy Apel).

For the first time since 2004, there is in Germany once again an application for open-air field trials of genetically manipulated wheat. A formal request has been filed by the Institute for Plant Genetics and Crop Research [Institut f¸r Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung (IPK)] in Gatersleben with the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety [Bundesamt f¸r Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit]. The location of the field trial is in close proximity to fields used by the Gatersleben gene bank in Sachsen-Anhalt. There, hundreds of old wheat varieties are stored, which for preservation must be replanted again and again in the open.

Genetic pollution of this inheritance of mankind, either by the flight of pollen, or carried by animals, would result in an irreplaceable loss for future breeding efforts. That is because old varieties, so-called "heirloom" varieties, contain many resistances against different diseases and growing conditions such as drought or salt. For these reasons, experts call it the "life insurance of mankind". Andreas Bauer, a genetic engineering expert and agrarian scientist with Umweltinstitut Munich, has this criticism: "So far, all field trials of gene wheat in the Federal Republic of Germany failed because of the resistance of environmental organizations. Wheat is one of the main food plants for the world's population. Because of widespread oppostion by the people, it is impossible to sell gene-wheat anywhere in the world."

The wheat plants, which are to be set free in Gatersleben, were manipulated genetically in such a way that they exhibit, among other things, an increased protein content. Allegedly, this is to improve their value as animal feed. Harald Nestler, a member of the executive committee of the Munich Environmental Institute [Umweltinstitut Mfürnchen], believes that the attempt for a field trial is merely to open the door: "If that is allowed, it is only a matter of time before gene-manipulated wheat shows up in our bakeries. Federal and state funding supports the IPK, and others look to the IPK for crop development, but taxpayers should not subsidize a risky technology like genetic engineering," Nestler asserts.

There is strong criticism of other features that have been engineered into gene-wheat. The plants were made resistant to Basta(r), a broad-spectrum herbicide produced by a Bavarian company. Herbicide-resistant gene plants have a negative influence on biodiversity. In addition, they quickly increase the use of pesticides in farm fields, since they promote the development of herbicide-resistant weeds.

In addition, the genetically altered wheat plants contain genes that encode antibiotic resistance to ampicillin and streptomycin, which are used in human health. This is done in order to select among modified plants in the laboratory. Even the genetic-engineering-friendly European Food Security Authority (EFSA) has demanded that these antibiotic resistance genes not be used after 2009. This is because the antibiotics might become ineffective as a result of consuming the genetically altered plants.

According to the application filed by IPK, which the Munich Environmental Institute has received, the application for environmental release has a starting date in the autumn of 2006 and will continue through 2008. The Munich Environmental Institute is calling for a widespread protest against the cultivation of gene-wheat. Citizens can download sample objections from http://www.umweltinstitut.org/genweizen

Anyone and everyone can object, and being a resident of Gatersleben is not required. On September 13, the Munich Environmental Institute will collect the signatures, which will be handed over to the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety.

NZ - Biotech Firm Seeks Official Approval to Contaminate Food Crops

GE Free New Zealand press release, 4 August 2006.

Concern is mounting that Food Standards Australia New Zealand are being pressured by international biotech companies to officially approve contamination of food with GE crops designed for industrial and pharmaceutical production.

Syngenta have applied to FSANZ to allow a bio-fuel GM corn into the human food chain because of expectations that it will contaminate food anyway.

"The biotech companies are admitting that they have inadequate systems to segregate GE crops not intended for consumption." says Jon Carapiet from GE Free NZ (in food and environment).

"But it seems instead of preventing contamination by containing their production, they want government approval to contaminate food so they are not held responsible."

The application to FSANZ (ref 1) says that there are fears corn derived from the genetically engineered corn Line 3272 will mix with corn intended for the food chain and could enter the Australian and New Zealand food supply as imported and processed foods.

There are also warnings from scientists and medical professionals that such applications may be just the start of many aimed at officially sanctioning food contamination by pharmaceutical-producing crops.

Professor Joe Cummins from the UK-based Institute of Science in Society (ref 2) says French authorities have already allowed the growing of transgenic maize with monoclonal antibodies known to cause severe and even fatal side-effects in people.

If such allowances are made there is a fundamental threat to public health. The very idea of allowing contamination of food by industrial and pharmaceutical crops presages a spiral down into a degraded food supply where few if any foods will remain clean of contaminants.

It is vital no allowances are made for this contamination, and that food authorities ensure segregation, including banning GM production outside a contained lab.

ENDS Contact: Jon Carapiet 0210 507 681

FSANZ food regulator criticised over new GM corn

ABC Science Online - Australian Broadcasting Corporation, August 4 2006
By Anna Salleh

Australia and New Zealand's food regulator is failing to apply its own safety standards, or those of international guidelines, in assessing a new-generation GM corn for human consumption, critics say.

But Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) defends its so-far favourable assessment of the high-lysine corn, which it says is intended for animal feed and is unlikely to enter the human food chain.

The Centre for Integrated Research on Biosafety at the University of Canterbury has twice formally notified FSANZ of its concerns about the GM corn, LY038, which has been engineered to contain a bacterial gene that allows the accumulation of high levels of lysine.

"Among the types of potential hazards that this food poses are the creation of compounds that are known to be associated with important diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, heart disease and cancer," says centre director Associate Professor Jack Heinemann.

Heinemann says while the compounds, advanced glycoxidation endproducts (AGEs), are also produced when cooking conventional foods, he is concerned about potential levels in LY038 corn.

He says corn is normally extremely low in the compounds that combine to create AGEs.

But he says higher-than-normal levels of lysine in the LY038 and high sugar levels, combining under heat, have the potential to raise AGE levels.

"[LY038] has the potential to produce 100 times more [AGEs] than normal corn," says Heinemann.

Draft approval by FSANZ

In March this year FSANZ recommended LY038 be approved as safe for human consumption in a report to its board.

"Food derived from corn line LY038 is as safe and wholesome as food derived from other corn varieties," the report says.

But the necessary tests to prove the corn is safe for humans have not been done, says Heinemann, a geneticist and former US National Institutes of Health scientist.

He says LY038 is the first of a new-generation of GM foods being specifically designed to be nutritionally different from their conventional counterpart. And FSANZ's decision could set a precedent on how such foods are assessed.

Tests of cooked corn?

Heinemann says FSANZ only considered safety tests that looked at raw and not cooked corn.

But the international standards-setting body Codex Alimentarius recommends heating, cooking and processing conditions be applied to GM material in an assessment of their safety for human food, says Heinemann.

He also says FSANZ only considered 21-day animal studies and not longer ones, which might have picked up diseases like cancer. Heinemann says FSANZ should also look into human feeding studies.

Lastly, Heinemann criticises FSANZ's decision to compare the composition of the corn to another GM corn rather than its non-GM parent variety, as recommended by its own advice, and by Codex.

Safety assessment defended

FSANZ says testing was adequate.

"We are satisfied that we have all the scientific information necessary to make a sound decision on the safety and nutritional adequacy of high lysine corn LY308," it says.

"We have considered the potential for production of AGEs, but have no concerns."

FSANZ says Codex only asks regulators to consider testing heated or processed GM foods. But as the raw corn has much lower levels of lysine compared to other foods regularly consumed, FSANZ did not consider the tests necessary.

It also says the GM corn used for comparison was a "better comparator than the non-GM parental line".

FSANZ says it assessed the corn as if it was any other GM food.

"The safety assessment conducted on LY038 is as rigorous and thorough as for any GM food product, and assumes that if approved, corn from line LY038 could be routinely entering the food supply and not present just as an occasional inadvertent ingredient," states FSANZ's report.

Will it enter the human food supply?

FSANZ also says the corn is "unlikely" to end up in human food and is only being assessed as a precaution in case of an accidental mix-up.

One such mix-up occurred in 2000, when Starlink GM corn, also intended for animal feed, became mixed in the US food chain.

Because it was not registered for human consumption the contamination affected exports and cost the manufacturer a $100 million in lost sales.

Canada approved the use of LY038 in the human food supply last month.

The FSANZ board is due to consider the corn in late September.

Paraguay, Militarism and Social Movements

La Jornada, Argenpress 28 July 2006

The Pentagon seems to have understood the risks posed to the continuity of United States dominance by social movements in Latin America. The option of militarizing societies serves two aims: it guarantees control of natural resources and protects governments so as to block social movements' progress. In some countries like Colombia and Paraguay, both processes merge into a strategy using them as solid platforms from which to expand imperial control.

A visit in mid-July by the International Observer Mission of the Campaign for the De-militarization of the Americas (CADA) composed of 15 people from 8 countriesÝ was able to confirm both aspects in the field. The presence of troops from the US Southern Command carrying out 13 designated missions since July 1st 2005 thanks to immunity conceded to them by the Paraguayan parliament, has been widely reported by numerous media throughout the continent. Although the permanent, direct military presence hovers around 50 or so military personnel, the influence the Southern Command is gaining in Paraguay is much more important than the figures suggest.

In effect, US-Paraguay relations go much further and run from the possibility that the South American country might withdraw from Mercosur to sign a bilateral free trade treaty with Washington to the installation of a military base near the Triple Frontier, following the training of thousands of Paraguayan military personnel in anti-terrorist, anti-drugs operations.

However, the militarization of Paraguayan society is a much less visible process but with long term repercussions. 2004Ýwas the tipping point. President Nicanor Duarte Frutos decreed the use of the armed forces in the streets to carry out internal security tasks in rural areas and at the same time promoted the creation of Citizen Security Councils, paramilitary organizations armed by the Ministry of the Interior. If the use of the military for police tasks is a grave development, the creation of the Security Councils marks an unprecedented move in the continent. It is true that the Colombian paramilitaries, formed forty years ago at the behest of US advisers, control a large part of the country and State apparatus; and that in Guatemala the paramilitaries played a significant role in the fight against the guerrillas and that in Peru the "rondas" civilian patrols armed by the army played a similar role. But in those three countries one might argue - from a "scorched earth" logic - that their wars led to the arming of genocidal paramilitary groups.

Paraguay's case is different. Here, the paramilitaries have grown out of social conflict, from the struggle of the campesino movements for land and agrarian reform. And it has been the Paraguyan State that has created them. The big landowners took the first step ten years ago by creating the Committee for the Defence of Private Property. Now it is the very government, via the Interior Ministry, that has created the Citizen Security Councils, a parallel structure, armed by the State and protected by soya planters and big landowners. In the last decade, the area sown with genetically manipulated soya went from 800,000 hectares to 2 million hectares, taking up 64% of the country's agricultural area. The soya frontier advances over communal lands and those of small farmers and has led to a dramatic clearance of rural working families from the land. When Alfredo Stroessner's dictatorship fell in 1989, 67% of Paraguayans lived in rural areas , now barely 47% remain on the land. Around a million and a half Paraguayans live in Argentina, 50,000 in Spain. (1)

Soya's advance was accompanied by the rise of the rural workers movement, gathered in two large organizations : the national Coordinating Table of Campesino Organizations (MCNOC), linked to Via Campesina and the National Rural workers Federation (FNC). Marches, roadblocks, land occupations and sit-ins in public buildings turned the rural workers movement into the most important in the country. The movements' power was such that they managed, in 2002, to hold up neoliberal privatization policies and were able to settle thousands of families. But the Duarte Frutos government that took office in 2003 took a severe anti-popular and above all anti-rural workers line. With the police and the governing Colorado Party's client networks of control overrun, hardline policies were imposed. One eloquent statistic :

the Citizen Security Councils today have 22,000 members, many of them recruited from the Colorado Party or from criminals, compared to just 9,000 police.

The rural worker's movements have not given way despite the harrassment, persecution and abuses. Around 100 rural workers have been murdered by the paramilitary groups and the state security services, more than 2000 are on trial and have to present themselves weekly to the authorities, nor can they take part in public demonstrations. Meanwhile, the soya business continues to strangle the subsistence economy of rural working families, killing children with pesticide induced poisoning. The plans of the elites mean to continue clearing people from the land until the rural population drops to little more than 10%.

A hard battle for continental dominance is taking place in Paraguay. Stopping the installation of US military bases and reversing the presence of foreign military in that country will be an important step. But it will not happen without the effective demilitarization of a society that refuses to be turned into a platform for the US Southern Command and for agricultural big business.

Trnaslator's note 1. Paraguay's population in 2005 was estimated at just under 6.5 million people

Translated from Spanish into English by toni solo, a member of Tlaxcala (www.tlaxcala.es), the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation is Copyleft.

4 August 2006

Soy barons threaten Amazon rainforests and indigenous people

The Irish Times, 4 August 2006. By Kieran Cooke

Amazon Letter: This city of nearly two million people in the heart of the Amazon rain forest ranks among the strangest urban centres on the planet.

One thousand miles up the mighty Amazon river from Brazil's Atlantic coast, it has no roads in or out, yet factories in the city's special duty-free area produce hundreds of thousands of motorbikes for export each year.

An elaborate cream and pink opera house in the city centre, its interior fittings shipped from far away Portugal in the mid-19th century, bears testimony to an exotic past when Manaus was the centre of a rubber boom - a period which abruptly ended when the British stole the seeds, cultivated them at Kew and shipped them out for planting in Ceylon and Malaya.

Temperatures rarely drop below 30 degrees - and in the hottest months early in the year the barometer often goes over the mid-40s. The weather is a subject of constant debate.

"There's no doubt it is getting hotter and hotter," says Dr Carlos Rittl, a Brazilian ecologist living in Manaus. "The continuing deforestation of the Amazon, together with the wider impact of climate change, is severely affecting the whole situation in the Amazon basin."

The world's rainforests, of which the Amazon is a major part, are often referred to as the lungs of the planet. Scientists say any disruption to the climate in this region can have far-reaching consequences for the earth's weather systems. Dr Rittl says there is growing evidence that the increasing force of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico are linked to recent severe droughts in the Amazon.

"The warming of waters in the west Atlantic has the effect of sucking the humidity out of the Amazon. More than 50 per cent of the rainfall in the Amazon is actually generated within the rainforest itself. If the humidity isn't there, then rainfall drops and there's a drought. It happened last year and all the signs point to it happening again this year.

"That creates a terrible cycle - the drier the land, the more fires spread and the more forest is destroyed. It could be devastating - not only for the Amazon and Brazil, but the whole world."

Last year's drought, centred on the southwestern province of Acre close to Brazil's border with Peru and Bolivia, was unprecedented. The drying out of this normally wet region caused forest fires over a large area - an estimated 250,000 hectares were burned.

"What we call the dance of the winds round the earth is not happening in the normal way," says Actino Machado, an Acre resident. "There have been 30 days without rain in the last month. It shouldn't be happening and the fires have already started. The whole thing is an ecological time bomb."

Climate change and drought are not the only problems facing the Amazon. The government of President Lula da Silva, facing elections later this year, has pledged to curtail deforestation, yet an area larger than the size of Wales was slashed and burned last year alone.

Multi-millionaire cattle ranchers moving into pristine rainforest areas have traditionally been blamed for setting fire to the forest and evicting indigenous people from their lands.

The new enemy of the Amazon is the soy bean. Brazil is now the world's leading soy bean exporter - last year alone, more than 50 million tonnes of soy was produced on lands stretching across nearly 23 million hectares, an area approximately the size of Britain. While these exports have contributed to a spurt in Brazil's economy, the country's "soy barons" have destroyed enormous tracts of rainforest. Until recently, soy was grown mainly in Brazil's southern states, but now the monoculture is encroaching on to lands further north.

Ironically, this is in part due to Europe's insistence on non-genetically modified (GM) foods. GM crops are mainly grown in the south - now, to cater to the needs of Europe, soy farmers are planting large tracts of land with non-GM soy in the Amazon, clearing the forest along the way.

The American food giant Cargill has built a new loading facility at Santarem, halfway between the Atlantic coast and Manaus. Locals say the construction happened without proper permission. All the exports are destined for Europe, going through the ports of Liverpool and Rotterdam.

"The soy going to feed cattle, pigs and poultry, for food for the people of Europe, is grown on lands cleared from the Amazon rainforest," says Edilberto Sena, a priest who runs a radio station called Radio Rural in Santarem. "People in Europe should be aware of what's happening. The rich and powerful are destroying the land and robbing people of their homes. There is growing unrest and violence."

Assassinations and violence have become part of life in the Amazon region as local people confront the soy growers and processors.

In the most famous recent case, an American nun, Dorothy Stang, who campaigned on behalf of local peoples rights, was assassinated east of Santarem last year by a gang trying to evict people from their lands.

"I have received death threats," says Fr Edilberto Sena. "We are little people fighting giants. The outside world must help us - not only in the fight for justice but also to preserve the forest, for Brazilians and for the good of the whole world."

3 August 2006

Why genetic engineering is dangerous

Common Ground (Canada), August 2006. By Pat Howard and Arne Hansen.

"The Canadian GM risk assessment process is so simplistic that not a single submission has ever been rejected in Canada. Everything submitted, almost wholly by industry, has been accepted," according to Ann Clark PhD, one of this country's leading experts on the dangers of genetically modified organisms.

"The Canadian GM regulatory process is a ruse, claiming to safeguard human and environmental health, but actually intended to facilitate commercialization of GM crops," according to Dr. Clark.

In a 2005 brief to Parliament regarding its controversial Bill C-27, Clark warned that if the federal government passes the pending Canadian Food Inspection Agency Enforcement Act, it will have voted to, "Facilitate international trade primarily by streamlining inspections, replacing Canadian assessment with those by foreign powers, and harmonizing regulations with the US and other countries, all of which challenge, rather than safeguard, the health and safety of Canadians."

Clark is an outspoken critic of Canada's regulatory policies and the processes related to field trials and commercial production of genetically modified crops, whether modified to produce pesticides in every cell of the plant, to resist spraying by soil-sterilizing herbicides, or to produce proteins for medicinal or industrial uses.

She provided expert advice to the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on Food Biotechnology in 2001. The panel, the most influential and respected group of scientists in the country, concluded that the "regulatory process was severely flawed," despite the government's claim that ours is the best regulatory system in the world.

Beth Burrows, president and director of the Edmonds Institute, a public interest organization working on ecology, technology and social justice, tells us that "Genetic engineering increasingly means agribusiness and pharmaceuticals, two industries already important as sources of funding for science, higher education and those who run for office. Talking biosafety can mean putting one's job and financial security at risk."

"Even diplomats charged by their governments to discuss biosafety balk at doing so, perhaps because they are also charged to protect their countries' industrial interests. The discussions that took place during the biosafety protocol negotiations begun in 1995 under the aegis of the UN Convention on Biodiversity were almost surreal in their avoidance of the topic [of bio-safety]," she stated recently.

Burrows ought to know. She has spent more than a decade attending UN biodiversity meetings and continues to provide vital background information on biosafety issues to Third World delegates negotiating these international agreements. Beth Burrows is founder of the non-profit public interest think tank, the Edmonds Institute, a "group of smart, passionate people working flat-out for environmental and social justice."

These critical remarks should be read in light of growing evidence of extremely serious impacts on health, environment and the livelihoods of Third World farmers. A European regulatory requirement for genetic safety testing, which is not required in Canada or the US, has revealed genetic instability in many GM crop varieties.

Scientists are finding harmful impacts on soil micro-organisms, beneficial insects and laboratory animals exposed to genetically modified crops and GE food. Farmers in India are committing suicide by the hundreds in Andra Pradesh and other states because of GM crop failures (www.navdanya.org/articles/seeds_suicide.htm).

People and animals have become ill and even died after consumption or exposure to products containing genetically modified organisms. Unlike traditional plant breeding, in genetic engineering of crops, unrelated organisms, such as bacteria, are snipped apart and sections of their genes inserted into plants with unpredictable results (www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5705).

Ann Clark and Beth Burrows are outspoken citizens of Canada and the US respectively who are not afraid to speak truth to power. Join them for a public forum: Watchdogs or Lapdogs? Is the Regulation of Genetic Engineering Adequate? SFU [Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada] Harbour Centre, Fletcher Challenge Theatre, September 5, 7:30 - 9:30pm. The event is sponsored by the SFU faculty of applied sciences, the schools of communication and kinesiology, the Institute for the Humanities at SFU and by Common Ground.

Pat Howard is a professor of communications at SFU. phoward@popserver.sfu.ca/

Arne Hansen is a Vancouver writer and can be contacted at abhansen@journalist.com/.

Frankenstein fuels

New Statesman, 7th August 2006. By Mark Lynas.

Pioneered by bearded hippies running clapped-out vans on recycled chip fat, biofuels now mean big business, sold to us as a solution to global warming. We must not be fooled, argues Mark Lynas

Late every summer, large areas of central Borneo become invisible. There's no magic involved - most of the densely forested island simply gets covered with a pall of thick smoke. Huge areas of forest burn, while beneath the ground peat many metres thick smoulders on for months. These trees are burning in a good cause, however. They are burning to help save the world from global warming.

Here is how the logic goes. As the natural forest is cleared, land opens up for lucrative palm-oil plantations. Palm oil is a feedstock for biodiesel, the "carbon-neutral" fuel that the European Union is trying to encourage by converting its vehicle fleet. By reducing use of fossil fuels for its cars and trucks, the EU believes it can reduce its carbon emissions and thereby help mitigate global warming. Everyone is happy. (Except the orang-utan. It gets to go extinct.)

It's a con, of course. In 1997, the single worst year of Indonesian forest- and peat-burning, 2.67 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide were released by the fires, equivalent to 40 per cent of the year's entire emissions from burning fossil fuels. That was a particularly bad year: most summers, the emissions are only a billion or so tonnes, or about 15 per cent of total human emissions. The biggest Indonesian fires, in 1997 and 1998, took place on plantation company land, while in neighbouring Malaysia 87 per cent of recent deforestation has occurred to make way for palm-oil plantations. It is stretching credulity to argue that biofuels produced through this destructive process are helping combat climate change.

The EU is undaunted (though it has undertaken a public consultation), and persists with a target that 5.75 per cent of its vehicle fuels should be "renewable" by the year 2010. Not all of this will come from tropical sources such as palm oil - but nor can their importation be restricted on environmental grounds. The campaigning journalist George Monbiot has discovered that world trade rules would prevent the EU taking any measures to restrict imports of palm oil produced on deforested lands. Free trade comes first.

Some of this "deforestation diesel" will be processed and refined in the UK. A company called Biofuels Corporation has just finished building a biodiesel plant at Seal Sands, near Middlesbrough, and supplies fuel throughout the UK. With an annual production capacity of 284 million litres of biodiesel, it is strategically located next to a deep-water port to ease its access to imports of palm and other vegetable oils. A spokesman confirmed that imported palm oil from Malaysia is being used as feedstock, and that the source cannot at present be guaranteed as "rainforest-free". A second company, Greenergy Biofuels, is putting up a GBP13.5m plant at Immingham on Humberside, and plans another. Palm oil is again expected to be one of the main feedstocks imported.

As the promise of profits increases, the big players are beginning to get involved. The two largest external stakes in Greenergy Biofuels are held by Tesco and Cargill. Tesco will shift the product on its petrol forecourts, while Cargill - one of two giants that dominate the world food market - will supply the feedstock. Gone are the days when biofuels meant bearded hippies running their clapped-out vans on recycled chip fat.

Even the oil majors are sniffing around this new market. BP has teamed up with DuPont to develop a liquid fuel called biobutanol, derived from sugar cane or corn starch, which they aim to launch in the UK next year as an additive to petrol. In the meantime, the oil giant is ploughing half a billion dollars into biofuels research at a new academic laboratory called the Energy Biosciences Institute. Indeed, "biosciences" are what it's all about. Speak to anyone in the corporate energy or agricultural sectors and they will probably go dewy-eyed about the technological "convergence" of energy, food, genetics - in fact, just about everything. In the biotechnology industry the atmosphere is reminiscent of the heady days of genetic modification, before the companies realised that consumers didn't want to eat "Frankenstein foods". Frankenstein fuels, however, might prove an easier sell.

The GM industry now plans to reinvent itself, following the example of the nuclear industry, on the back of climate change. "Producing genetically modified crops for non-food purposes, as a renewable source of alternative fuels, may provide the basis for a more rational and balanced consideration of the technology and its potential benefits, away from the disproportionate hysteria which has so often accompanied the debate over GM foods," suggests the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, an umbrella organisation for the biggest biotech companies.

The Swiss corporation Syngenta is already marketing a variety of GM corn - one not approved for human consumption or animal feed - specifically intended for ethanol biofuels. It has just applied, with support from the UK, for an EU import licence - even though it admits it "cannot exclude" the possibility that some of this corn will find its way into the normal supply chain. The European biotech association EuropaBio is delighted with the EU's biofuels initiative. "Biotechnology will help to meet Europe's carbon-dioxide emission reduction targets, reduce our dependence on oil imports and provide another useful income stream for our farmers," enthuses its secretary general, Johan Vanhemelrijck.

In the United States, biofuels are welcomed as a way to help wean the country off its dependence on oil produced by shady, Allah-obsessed Arabs. "Every gallon of renewable, domestically produced fuel we use is a gallon we don't have to get from other countries," beams Congressman Kenny Hulshof, a Republican sponsor of the Renewable Fuels and Energy Independence Promotion Act being considered by Congress. Not surprisingly, the American Soybean Association is also a supporter. "ASA is urging all soybean growers to contact their members of Congress and ask them to co-sponsor this legislation," says its president, Bob Metz, in a press release. "The toll-free number for the Congress operator is 1-888-355-3588."

In America, biofuels combine patriotism with economic self-interest in a seamless match. Farmers love it because biodiesel and ethanol are brewed from agricultural commodities, helping drive up farm-gate prices. Red-state senators love it because federal tax subsidies keep Republican-voting farmers happy. Even George W Bush loves it: "I like the idea of a policy that combines agriculture and modern science with the energy needs of the American people," the president told the Renewable Fuels Association in April.

Democrats and Republicans are united in touting ethanol. "All incumbents and challengers in Midwestern farm country are by definition ethanolics," the agricultural policy adviser Ken Cook told the New York Times. There are 40 ethanol plants under construction, and the US is poised to overtake Brazil (which uses sugar cane on a large scale to make the fuel) as the world's largest producer within a year. Cargill's CEO compares the transformation to "a gold rush".

But not everybody loves biofuels. David Pimentel, professor of insect ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, hates them. "There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," he complains. Pimentel's own studies have concluded that making ethanol from corn uses 30 per cent more energy than the finished fuel produces, because fossil fuels are used at every stage in the production process, from cultivation (in fertilisers) to transportation. "Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidised food burning," he fumes.

Pimentel is not alone in thinking that burning food in cars while global harvests decline is not necessarily a good idea. China, with its enormous population, is already having second thoughts about going down the biofuels path. "Basically this country has such a large population that the top priority for land use is food crops," says Dr Sergio Trindade, an expert on biofuels. The same problem will doubtless hamper the biofuels revolution in Europe. According to one study, meeting the EU's 5.75 per cent target for its vehicles will require about a quarter of Europe's agricultural land. For the even more car-dependent US, it would take 1.8 billion acres of farmland - four times the country's total arable area - to produce enough soya biodiesel to cover annual petrol consumption.

So which gets priority: cars or people? A very simple answer to this land/fuel conundrum would be for people to use their cars less, and to cycle and walk more. But discouraging car use is not at the top of any politician's agenda, either in Europe or the US. Meanwhile, our leaders must be seen to be doing something about the rising greenhouse-gas emissions from road tran sport, so biofuels are the perfect technofix.

The dilemma might bring to mind Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where the alien Ford Prefect took the name of a car because - looking down from above at all the busy roads and motorways - he had mistaken them for the dominant life form. If cars chug happily around between massed ranks of starving people in our biofuelled future, then perhaps Ford Prefect won't have got it so wrong after all.

For more about biofuels, log on to www.biofuelwatch.org.uk

The basics of biofuels

The term biofuels covers a wide range of products, some of which are already commercially available, some of which are still in the research and development stage.

A biofuel is made from biomass - organic material with stored chemical energy. Agricultural products specifically grown for use as biofuels include corn and soybeans, flaxseed and rapeseed, and hemp.

Biofuels are renewable, and can be stored indefinitely and safely, though their "feedstocks" can require vast areas of land and their generation produces pollution.

The two main types of biofuel currently in use are biodiesel, made from new or used vegetable oils and animal fats, and ethanol, produced by fermenting grain, sugar cane, grass, straw and wood.

2 August 2006

French Farmers Protest Against GMO Maize Destruction

Reuters, August 02, 2006

Around 300 maize growers protested on Tuesday in southwest France in defence of a local farmer whose field of genetically modified (GMO) maize was destroyed at the weekend by activists linked to Jose Bove.

The maize growers' group AGPM called the destruction of the maize intolerable and said in a statement that extremism and loutish behaviour should not be tolerated.

On Sunday, around 200 protesters destroyed six hectares of maize at a farm near the city of Toulouse, the first time a commercial operation had been targeted. Previous attacks by anti-GMO protesters had been on test fields of new varieties.

The GMO maize was due to be shipped to Spain, where it is incorporated into animal feed.

"This was a first attack on commercially grown maize. Six hectares were destroyed," Bove told Reuters.

Bove, who has long campaigned against GMO crops, globalisation and fast food spent six weeks in jail in 2003 for smashing up a McDonald's restaurant. He was sentenced to four months in prison in November for destroying a GMO maize field.

In June, he announced his intention to run as a candidate in France's presidential elections in 2007.

The latest attack followed a Paris court ruling last week, ordering environmental group Greenpeace to remove the locations of commercial GMO fields in France from its website.

There were also two other attacks on test fields in the same area at the weekend. Five protesters have been detained.

Farm minister Dominique Bussereau strongly condemned what he termed "these acts of vandalism".

Commercial GMO maize growing is slowly spreading in France with some 5,000 hectares sown this year against 493 in 2005.

There are more than 1.5 million hectares sown to traditional maize varieties.

The French government has this year authorised 17 new open field trials of GMO crops, mostly maize. The farm ministry said the weekend attacks meant that 40 percent of test fields had been destroyed in the last two months.

Pharmaceutical companies use Third World populations for experiments not permitted in their own countries

The Faithless Gardener, by Silvia Ribeiro
ALAI-AMLatina, Published in Rebelion, 2 August 2006
Translated By Tlaxcala

Fabrizio and Jordano, two of the 140 Peruvian babies used in an experiment with substances derived from genetically manipulated rice by the company Ventria Biosciences have presented allergic symptoms from that time according to statements made to Peru's La Republica newspaper of July 20th.

According to the testimony of Diana Canessa Garaya, a 24 year old mother, she took her 8 month old baby to the Children's Hospital in Lima last year with symptoms of severe diarrhoea. A doctor offered to administer a "rice based rehydration fluid" which the young woman agreed to, since she had no reason to mistrust "medical authority" and she wanted a prompt recovery for her only child. So, without really understanding the consequences it might have, she signed the authorization that they asked from her to be able to give the medicine.

Diana did not then know that her son, who is now two years old, had become the object of an experiment, not permitted in the United States, by a US biotechnology company with substances unapproved for consumption in any part of the world.

After being given the fluid, according to the mother, the baby started to show allergic symptoms and currently is "delicate, constantly unwell and allergic to everything". She adds, "they tricked me, they just wanted to experiment with my baby."

Condemned now by various Peruvian and international human rights, environmental and consumer organizations as well as by the Peruvian Medical Association, the experiment consisted of administering to a group of babies with diarrhoea a rice-based rehydration fluid with the recombinant proteins (1) lactoferrin and lisozyme produced in the United States in rice genetically modified with synthetic human genes. (For more details see the article "Babies as guineapigs" published July 1st in Mexico's La Jornada).

The possibility of recombinant drugs produced in genetically modified plants provoking allergies is exactly one of the risks of which various US organizations, including the Center for Food Safety, had alerted their country's authorities when Ventria sought approval to grow this type of rice in California.

According to the report of this and other organizations, supported in numerous scientific references, recombinant proteins - derived from genetically modified organisms - are not identical to those produced naturally. The differences can be so subtle as to be difficult to detect even in a laboratory. However, the human immune system is indeed sensitive to these differences and can generate anti-bodies which in some cases lead to a chronic reaction to many other foods and substances to which previously the patient was not allergic.

In his reply to questions from Peru's Human Rights Association, the Director of the Specialist Children's Health Institute, Dr. Dante Figueroa Quintanilla, one of the people responsible for the experiment, argued, among other things, that "in modern medicine recombinant proteins are used legitimately to improve people's health, for example insulin, growth hormone, clotting factor and hematopoyetics."

Precisely in all the cases cited by Figueroa Quintanilla there have been problems of one kind or another, but as is already common in the case of genetically modified organisms, the powerful biotechnology industry has worked to suppress them and keep them little known. It is inexcusable that a hospital director who gave his agreement to expose babies to an experiment with recombinant proteins was unaware of them or, worse still, failed to take them into account.

For example, recombinant insulin, one of the examples most used by promoters of genetically modified organisms to show the alleged benefits of these products, come with a history of concealment and distortion about its damaging effects. In 1999 the British Diabetics Association made known an extensive report - which it had kept hidden for several years thanks to the "donations" it received from pharmaceutical companies and producers of sweeteners that also contain genetically modified products - according to which it had received complaints from almost 10% of its members (about 15,000 people) directly related to the change from animal insulin to genetically modified insulin.

The damage reported ranged from light discomfort to the absence of symptoms signalling diabetic coma, which is very serious because it can cause the patient's death if no measures are taken to prevent it. Also documented are the generation of antibodies in the case of the use of clotting factors and growth hormones. In one particular case (MGDF) a product was withdrawn from clinical trials because the formation of antibodies caused haemorrhaging. In other cases products continue in circulation despite known damaging effects, in part because the companies hide them or minimize them, in part because alternatives are taken off the market or else because the products count with a powerful lobby to prevent the truth being known and appropriate measures being taken.

Just as with genetically manipulated agricultural products, genetically modified products for pharmaceutical use have a bulging hidden record which, if it were fully disclosed, would justify their removal from the market.

In the case of Ventria in Peru, it seems furthermore that they are prepared to follow the sadly well-worn path of many pharmaceutical companies and use Third World populations to carry out experiments not permitted in their own country.

Translator's note

1. Recombinant DNA (sometimes rDNA) is an artificial DNA sequence resulting from the combining of two other DNA sequences in a plasmid. Recombinant proteins are proteins that are produced by different genetically modified organisms following insertion of the relevant DNA into their genome. As this recombines the DNA of two different organisms, the word recombinant is used to refer to this process. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombinant).

Translated from Spanish into English by toni solo, a member of Tlaxcala (www.tlaxcala.eshe) network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation is Copyleft.

EC guilty of hiding 'GM safety' documents

Western Mail (Wales, UK). By Steve Dube.

THE European Commission has been found guilty of maladministration for hiding documents revealing scientific concern about the safety of genetically modified food. The European Ombudsman said the EC was wrong to refuse to release papers relating to the World Trade Organisation GM dispute when requested by Friends of the Earth Europe in August 2004.

The environmental campaigners wanted to see evidence submitted by the EC in response to claims by the United States, Canada and Argentina that Europe's precautionary approach to GM foods was a barrier to trade. The EC argued that the documents were effectively subjudice and publication could damage the case. The Ombudsman, who has no binding powers over the EC, said the argument was "not well-founded" and amounted to maladministration. The papers were eventually released in February last year and revealed the concerns of scientists over the long-term safety of GM food and crops.

Adrian Bebb, GM foods campaigner for FoE Europe, said it was a disservice to the public to keep secret papers that discussed the safety of genetic modification. "GM foods are a sensitive issue in Europe, where most people are totally against them," he said. "What we now know is that while the EC has been telling us for years that biotech foods are safe, they were arguing behind closed doors that there are legitimate concerns that warrant a more precautionary approach."

Further papers released to Friends of the Earth Europe earlier this year outlined these concerns in more detail. Scientists warned that they could not rule out the possibility that cancer and allergies could be caused by eating GM foods and recommended that GM crops should not be grown until their long-term effects are known.

The WTO has issued a final verdict in the dispute over GM foods but the decision has not yet been made public.

FoE Europe says an earlier draft was leaked to them, showing that the WTO was critical of the method used by European countries to ban GM foods - but ruled against most of the arguments put forward by the US, Canada and Argentina.

WTO is dead, long live free trade: globalisation and its new avatars

ZNet, July 30, 2006. By Vandana Shiva

The Doha round negotiations collapsed once again at the Mini Ministerial in Geneva on 23rd July 2006. Martin Khor of Third World Network reports from Geneva that when asked of the Doha Round is dead or in intensive care, Mr. Kamal Nath, India's Commerce Minister, said it is somewhere between intensive care in hospital and the crematorium. Peter Mandelson, the EU Trade Commissioner told the press following suspension of WTO negotiations, "we have missed the last exit on the motorway."

The U.S. is being identified by all as responsible for the collapse of talks, by its refusal to reduce its agricultural subsidies. The US and its corporations were the driving force behind two agreements of the Uruguay Round, which have the highest impact on the poor of the Third World. The Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement has increased the cost of seeds and medicine by promoting monopolies. Thousands of Indian farmers have committed suicides due to debts resulting from a new dependence on costly yet unreliable hybrid and Bt cotton sold by Monsanto and its Indian partners. The Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) has destroyed agricultural livelihoods of millions of peasants and food security of the world's poor.

The willingness of the US to allow the Doha Round negotiations to grind to a halt by showing inflexibility in offering to reduce distorting farm subsidies in exchange for increased market access is not because agricultural market access is no longer of interest to the US. The US does not have to give up anything multilaterally because it is getting market access bilaterally, often with "non-agreements" like the US - India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture, which is promoting GMOs, agricultural imports and the entry of US grant Walmart in Indian retail. Monsanto, Walmart and ADM are on the board of the US India Agriculture Initiative.

US Aid is interfering directly in India's GM policies and has financed the push to commercialise Bt Brinjal, which would be the first GM food crop approved for large scale commercial trials and seed production in India. While India's biosafety assessment framework has no reference to the unscientific "substantial equivalence" principle, (a principle promoted in the US to avoid looking for the unique biological impacts of GM foods), the "substantial equivalence" is the basis of Bt Brinjal data submitted by Monsanto-Mahyco to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the statutory body for granting approvals for GMOs. The virus of biosafety deregulation is thus being subtly introduced into India. GMOs are spreading bilaterally without the WTO, which had to be used against Europe in the US - EU GMO dispute.

The US biotech agenda is also being internalized into India's agricultural policy. The Planning Commission, India's highest planning body, headed by Montek Singh Ahluwalia is appointing a non-resident, the US based Dr. Deshpal Verma, Professor of Genetics and Biotechnology at Ohio, to head a cell to promote GMOs in agriculture and increase the role of global corporations like Monsanto in the farm sector. Bilateral deals are thus mutilating into unilateral policies referred to an "autonomous liberalisation."

US Agribusinesses like Cargill and ADM do not need WTO's market access rules anymore to capture India's markets. As part of the Bush-Singh agreement, India has been influenced to import wheat, even though there was enough wheat produced in India. And domestic markets too have been captured by MNC's like Cargill, Canagra, Lever, and ITC. India's food security is being systematically dismantled. Food prices have increased dramatically, and with it, hunger and malnutrition. While being presented as an economic power and the new poster child of globalisation, India now is the home of one third of the world's malnourished children. And the problem of hunger will grow as peasants as pushed off the land and food prices increase.

Meantime, corporations like Walmart are trying to grab India's retail market, which consists of the small-scale informal sector employing more than 200 million people. Walmart is trying to get in to capturing this large market and has succeeded in getting FDI pushed through in retail. It is also trying to partner with Reliance Industry Ltd (RIL), which is planning to build new super stores in 784 Indian towns, 1600 farm supply hubs, and move the produce with a 40-plane air cargo fleet. The Reliance group has also become the largest land grabber in India, using governments to forcefully acquire hundreds of thousands of acres of fertile farmland at 1/1000th the market price. These are the subsidies Walmart is seeking through partnerships. And Walmart does not need a GATS to take over retail services in India. Bilateral and unilateral policies are opening up India's markets for Walmart.

WTO might be on life support, but "free trade" is alive and kicking.

Bilateral and unilateral, initiatives are the new avatars of globalisation and free trade. And it is these avatars we must challenge to stop corporate rule, while WTO hangs between intensive care and the crematorium.

Elephant Man drug victims told to expect early death

The Sunday Times (Britain), July 30 2006. By David Leppard

VICTIMS of the disastrous "Elephant Man" drugs trial have been told they face contracting cancer and other fatal diseases as a result of being poisoned in the bungled tests. [Note: the drugs were produced from experimental GMO bacteria].

One of the six victims was told last week he is already showing "definite early signs" of lymphatic cancer.

He and three others have also been warned that they are "highly likely" to develop incurable auto-immune diseases.

The men were paid £2,000 each to volunteer as human "guinea pigs" in the trial at Northwick Park hospital, northwest London, last March. They suffered heart, liver and kidney failure and were left seriously ill after being given TGN1412. The drug was made by TeGenero, a German firm.

The men had been told by doctors they would not suffer any life-threatening illnesses.

Nav Modi, 24, whose bloated face and swollen chest led to the nickname "Elephant Man", said he did not know how long he would live.

"It's a really bizarre feeling when you discover you might be dead in a couple of years or even in a couple of months," he said. "I feel like I've given away my life for £2,000."

Modi's lawyer, Martyn Day, of Leigh Day solicitors, said the four victims he was representing were considering legal action against Parexel, the firm that ran the trial. He believes they are eligible for up to £5m in damages. The company denies responsibility for the outcome of the trial.

The Sunday Times has seen the medical assessment of four of the victims, completed last week by immunologist Professor Richard Powell.

According to Powell, one man, known simply as Patient A, "has definite early signs that a lymphoid malignancy is developing".

Renewed ordeal of the Elephant Men

The Sunday Times (Britain), July 30 2006. By David Leppard

NAV MODI fears he may have only two more years to live. The 24-year-old from Forest Gate, east London, has just graduated from university and was looking forward to a career in his family's electrical business.

Now his future is uncertain. "It's a really bizarre feeling when you discover you might be dead in a couple of years or even in a couple of months," he said.

Modi is one of the "Elephant Men" who nearly died last March when he and five others took part in a drugs trial at Northwick Park hospital in northwest London. [Note: the drugs were produced from experimental GMO bacteria]

Modi and his fellow patients were left seriously ill during the trial of the TGN1412 drug. His head swelled up like a balloon and he suffered multiple organ failure.

Ryan Wilson, 21, another guinea pig, suffered gangrene that made his toes and fingers go black. All his toes and three of his fingers will have to be amputated; he had heart failure, kidney failure, pneumonia, septicaemia and liver failure.

Mohamed Abdelhady, 29, a bar manager, suffered severe head and chest swelling. He was so bloated that his girlfriend Myfanwy Marshall said he was unrecognisable.

The patients had volunteered for the trial after being lured with the offer of £2,000 each to test the drug made by TeGenero, a newly formed German drug firm. Parexel, the American firm that administered the tests, told them there would be no serious side effects.

On March 13 this year, Modi and the other five patients were injected with TGN1412 while in the Parexel drug testing suite at Northwick Park.

At first, Modi recalled last week, he did not notice anything. But then a horrifying sequence of events began to unfold: "It started about 40 minutes later with a headache. A couple of minutes later that turned into a severe headache.

"It was like a huge, heavy foot was being pressed down on my head. I started moaning and crying, but the doctor just told me to calm down. He said it would go away. I begged him to do something. I told him the pain was killing me."

Modi then developed a back pain so severe that he was unable to lie down. "I was in such agony, I was jumping up and down on the bed and screaming." All around the other patients were going through similar agony.

Modi began retching, fainted, then stopped breathing; he was in and out of consciousness. Nurses tried to put an oxygen mask over his mouth but he kept pulling it off to be sick. The doctor gave him a paracetamol tablet. "I vomited that out in a couple of minutes." Soon afterwards staff administered pain-killing sedatives.

Modi woke up in the intensive care unit later that day. The next day he was visited by his girlfriend Divya Vegda, 22. Horrified by the sight of his swollen head, she later described him as looking like an "Elephant Man".

"My whole body was swollen up, puffed up like a huge balloon," said Modi. "It was like they had pumped gas into me."

Four months later he still suffers from occasional lapses of memory, severe headaches, back pain and diarrhoea.

He and the others had been led to believe that while their symptoms might persist for a while, their long-term future was not at risk.

However, a study by Professor Richard Powell, an expert in immunology at Nottingham University, has changed all that. Last week Modi received the results of Powell's medical tests, commissioned by his lawyers to establish the extent of the damage the drug has done to him. The assessment has left him in a state of shock.

"The doctors told us we would be all right. They said they thought that in six months' time we would be normal," he said.

Martyn Day, the lawyer representing Modi and three of the other patients, showed them Powell's findings last week. "They face a lifetime of contracting cancers and all the various auto-immune diseases from lupus to MS, from rheumatoid arthritis to ME," he said.

With auto-immune diseases, the body attacks itself by mistake. Ironically, this is the type of condition the drug was being developed to treat.

Modi was the only patient last week willing to speak about Powell's study, which was based on detailed tests on their blood samples.

According to Powell, Patient A has developed signs of cancer: "It is highly likely (more than 50% chance) that A will develop auto-immune diseases and has definite early signs that a lymphoid malignancy is developing." This is a cancer of the lymphatic system that grows aggressively and will lead to death if left untreated.

Powell said Patient B had more than a 75% chance of developing auto-immune diseases. A split in his cells could possibly indicate an early sign of a lymphoid malignancy.

Modi's prognosis is equally worrying. Summarising the medical report, Day said: "It is highly likely that Nav will develop auto-immune diseases. His (cell analysis) may be an early sign that a lymphomatous process (tumour growth) is developing." Powell said Patient C was in the same situation.

The problem for all four, according to the report, is the depletion of T cells. A shortage or dysfunction in T cells can lead to destruction of the immune system, meaning the body cannot fight diseases.

Having studied Powell's results with his clients Day said: "They were devastated, particularly the client who faces the prospect of an early cancer."

Last Friday Powell produced further results that confirmed T cells could not be detected in the four patients.

When news of the disaster broke, TeGenero admitted liability. But it has since gone into liquidation and its insurance cover is worth only £2m, payable if court proceedings are not pursued. The company, set up for the purpose of making the drug, is not worth suing.

Modi reserves his greatest anger for Parexel, the American pharmaceutical services company. Its revenues are expected to be nearly £400m next year.

"They are supposed to be experts, but on the day of the trial they didn't seem to have the expertise. They gave me paracetamol when they should have given us steroids. That would have made a lot of difference. I would not have suffered so much. Parexel should be banned from further clinical trials. They nearly lost the lives of the six of us and could still do so."

Modi alleges that the company is trying to avoid responsibility for the fiasco. He and the others have received £10,000 in interim payments from TeGenero's insurer.

In a report two months ago, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency highlighted procedural errors, accusing Parexel of keeping incomplete records. But it cleared the firm of causing the disaster, saying the reactions to the drug could not have been predicted.

Lawyers said the report was unsatisfactory. They have written to Parexel saying they hold it liable for damages as a result of its negligence and breach of contract. According to Day, Modi and the others may be entitled to between £2m and £5m to compensate for loss of future earnings and the cost of future medical care. Even if the case proceeds, Modi knows he may not live long enough to benefit from any payout.

"I have made the biggest mistake of my life," he said last week. "I feel like I've given away my life for £2,000. None of us is sure about the future. It could be that in six months' time we are dead."

Parexel did not respond when asked to comment.

Additional reporting: Anna Mikhailova

Modified Crops Vandalized

Associated Press, July 31 2006

TOULOUSE, France (AP) - France's agriculture minister on Monday condemned the destruction of two fields of genetically modified corn by activists in southwestern France.

Agriculture Minister Dominique Bussereau called Sunday's slashing of the crops "vandalism contrary to the rule of law and the respect of private property," a statement from his office said.

More than 200 activists tore up 18 acres of the corn in two fields near the southern city of Toulouse. Five suspects were detained by police and held for questioning on Monday.

Jose Bove, a well-known anti-globalization activist who led the group, urged more "civil disobedience" if the government rejects its call for a national referendum on whether genetically modified crops should be permitted in France.

One of the fields belongs to U.S. seed company Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a Dupont company. A private farmer owns the other.

Bussereau said the crops are legal. The activists advocate traditional farming methods, and insist the modified strains could affect other crops.

Join the Monsanto Boycott!

Food First, "We are fighting back" issue no. 74

Speak out against Monsanto's intimidation of small farmers with lawsuits, and the company's opposition to labeling of genetically modified foods.

Monsanto has brought small farmers to court over crops that have been contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified organisms.

Monsanto claims these farmers owe a technology fee - despite the fact that these farmers took no part in the contamination of their fields by Monsanto's genetically modified seeds.

Monsanto has also sued Oakhurst Dairy over labeling of milk. This suit contends that Oakhurst does not have the right to properly inform consumers that its products do not contain rBGH, a Monsanto-produced steroid, even though many consumers are concerned about the potential health risks of the rBGH steroid.

Take Action - Boycott the following products produced by Monsanto:

*NutraSweet, Equal, and Aspartame, and
*the garden herbicide Roundup.

The Family Farm Defenders Monsanto Boycott says: "Be alert for dozens of new Monsanto genetically engineered plants including corn, potatoes and soybeans."

No human studies of the long-term health effects of consuming genetically engineered food are currently required. The US Department of Agricluture assumes that gene insertion into plant foods is safe for people to consume, and that migration of these genes into another plant species will have no undesirable affect on the environment. We are all part of a giant experiment. But we can choose to boycott genetically engineered food and advocate for labeling. http://www.familyfarmdefenders.org/Main/HomePage http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ http://www.organicconsumers.org/

GMOs equals jobs myth unmasked

From Biotech Mailout, 6 July 2006

Less than 500 Jobs in Plant Genetic Engineering in Germany

According to a new study, commissioned by Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND), no more than 500 people are employed in the plant genetic engineering sector in Germany. The study, carried out by Thorsten Helmerichs and Daniel Grundke of the Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Corporate Chair of Management, further stated that an increase is highly unlikely. This finding is in sharp contrast to assertions by politicians, agro-biotech companies, scientists and biotech lobby groups, that plant genetic engineering creates thousands of jobs.

The study focussed on jobs in the research and development of genetically modified (GM) plants in the private sector. State sponsored research in universities and institutes was excluded on the grounds that massive investment of public money invalidates the 'job machine' claim.

One of the most surprising findings was that reliable data was hard to obtain. The few existing studies in the field do not distinguish between biotechnology in general and the different sectors within (green, white, red biotechnology) and hence are worthless.

To gain a reliable dataset, the authors asked 70 companies from the sector for comments on their actual employees as well as future prospects. Although anonymity was granted, only 20 per cent replied. It is particularly significant that global players, like KWS and BASF, were not willing to present concrete data.

The authors can confirm only 40 jobs - far less than the '500 jobs' cited - in a study that is a well-informed projection, based on existing studies of the total number of jobs within German seed companies, as well as on expert interviews. Due to the ongoing concentration process it does not seem likely that the number of jobs in the field will increase in the foreseeable future.

For details see: http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/Biotech_July06.pdf

GMO risks covered up

The Deccan Herald (India), 31 July 2006. By Devinder Sharma.

It is now official. A report by the Planning Commission has accepted that Bt cotton shouldn't have been approved for the rainfed regions of the country. The "astronomical" seed price, the need for more water and pesticides has aggravated the crisis for cotton farmers who are already reeling under a terrible agrarian emergency.

The Bt cotton debacle was on the cards. If the latest reports of Bt cotton farming in China, the global case study for promotion of the silver-bullet GM crops, are any indication, cutting-edge technology is being promoted at the cost of gullible farmers. A study by the Cornell University and the Centre for Chinese Agricultural Policy has found that Bt cotton farmers have to spray as much as the conventional farmers are, besides incurring net losses. There is also no GM crop that increases productivity. Many of these crops - for instance, GM soyabean - reduce crop yields.

The prime minister visited Vidharba but neither have the cotton farmers growing Bt cotton been compensated nor has the industry been blacklisted. No uncomfortable questions are likely to be asked, no heads will roll, and no one will be accountable for the biggest scientific fraud to have hit Indian science. Such is the callous apathy towards the farming community that the apex committee - the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) - has, instead of persecuting erring firms and officials, further allowed the seed companies to incorporate the Bt gene into any cotton variety. It is now getting ready with a green signal for Bt brinjal. It is a tragic reflection of the way science has been made subservient to corporate interests.

Scientific research is rigged, alarming evidence of health dangers are covered up, and intense political pressure silences the sane voice of dissidents. Distortions, omissions, cover-ups and bribes are used to promote an unhealthy and risky technology, and that too with the "pious" intention of increasing productivity and thereby, eradicating hunger.

The overt and covert machinations to push unhealthy and risky GM foods began a decade ago. The US found a simple way out to first force the African countries into submission. The US Senate passed a Bill, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, (HR 1298), which, in a diplomatic way, links financial aid to combating HIV AIDS with GM food acceptance. Ministers, judges, bureaucrats, scientists and journalists are routinely taken to the US to learn about the "virtues" of GM technology.

Bt brinjal is the world's first genetically altered food crop ready to be released in its centre of origin. It is also a field test to ascertain the impact on human health. So far, the industry has been, ad nauseum, repeating that GM crops have brought no ill-effects on Americans who have been eating it unknowingly for a decade or so. This is, however, not true. Average, middle-aged, white Americans are much more sick than their counterparts in England, startling new research shows. This is despite US healthcare spending per person being more than double what Britain spends. The inference is clear. Americans are also more prone to diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, lung disease and cancer. In the 1980s, nearly 100 Americans were killed and more than 5000 fell sick from a disease called Eosinophillia-Myalgia Syndrome (EMS), which was traced to a genetically engineered brand of GM soya (L-tryptophan) produced by the Japanese company Showa Denko.

A UK study found that soya allergies skyrocketed by 50 per cent after GM soyabean was imported. Public awareness about the harmful effects of GM food is now becoming global. The risks include unexpected food allergies, toxins in food or hastening the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease.

Even the seed giant Monsanto's own studies have shown that some rats fed on GM maize had smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood, while the rats fed on normal maize were healthy.

Bt brinjal is not the only food GM crop on the horizon. Scientists are getting ready with a list of 20-odd crops that have been genetically altered - rice, mustard, cabbage, cauliflower, tomato, potato and soyabean to name a few. The GM food industry is getting ready to treat the nation as a testing laboratory.

(A plant geneticist by training, the writer is a researcher and policy analyst specialising in global food and agriculture.)

Archives 2006: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • Sept



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

Archives 2004 • 2003

Sponsored by Global Vision Corporation

© 2003 - 2006 Global Vision Consulting Ltd • updated 4 September 2006
Privacy policy
For enquiries contact mail@gmfreeireland.org
URL of this page: www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2006/Aug.php