NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • December 2006

Archives 2006: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December
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.

NOTE: Previous news re. Bayer's illegal GMO rice contamination scandal may be found in our August, September, October and November 2006 archives

29 December 2006

Chinese boffins make pigs that glow in dark

Independent Online (South Africa), December 29 2006

Beijing - Chinese scientists have successfully bred partially green fluorescent pigs which they hope will boost stem cell research, Xinhua news agency said.

A research team at the Northeast Agricultural University in Harbin managed to breed three transgenic pigs by injecting fluorescent green protein into embryonic pigs, Xinhua quoted Professor Liu Zhonghua as saying.

"The mouth, trotters and tongue of the pigs are green under ultraviolet light," said Liu.

Genetic material from jellyfish was injected into the womb of a sow which gave birth to the three pigs 114 days later in Harbin, he said.

China celebrates the start of the Year of the Pig in February.

26 December 2006

Avoid eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

Institute for Responsible Technology press release, 26 December 2006.

Iowa, Dec. 26 -- Consumers of any age can improve their health with one New Year's resolution. "Avoid eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs)," says expert Jeffrey M. Smith, who points to evidence of mounting health risks associated with gene-spliced foods.

Smith urges consumers to cross off brands that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients, which are in 60-70% of foods sold in the U.S. The principle offenders are non-organic soy and corn derivatives and canola and cottonseed oils. Thus, Ragu tomato sauce would be off limits, since it contains corn syrup and soybean oil, but Light Ragu or Barilla brand sauces, which contain olive oil and no corn sweetener, are non-GMO.

"Consumers in theÝU.S. are being used as human guinea pigs by biotech companies, which rushed their GMOs to market without adequate studies and before the science was ready," says Smith. "Once Americans learn they are feeding these high-risk foods to their children, they will demand non-GMO alternatives." In Europe, where consumer knowledge about GMOs is considerably higher, shoppers' concerns prompted food manufacturers there to remove all GM ingredients. Smith sees this trend building in the US, with more and more healthy brands declaring ingredients "Non-GMO" on the label.

Smith's new book, Genetic Roulette: The documented health risks of genetically engineered foods, due out in the spring, links GMOs to risks such as allergies, immune system dysfunction, potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, stunted organs and death. "Many of the beliefs about DNA that were popular when GM foods were introduced ten years ago," he says, "have been proven wrong. Swapping genes between species turns out to have far more unpredicted dangerous side effects than we thought."

Animals choose non-GMO

Smith also documents how several animals, when given the option, choose non-GM food over GMOs. These include cows, pigs, elk, deer, raccoons, squirrels, mice, rats and geese. He says a non-GMO New Year's resolution will help people elevate their choices to match the wisdom of the animals.

Cloned food may be FDA deja vu

"The FDA's recent announcement declaring milk and meat from cloned animals as safe," says Smith, "reminds us of their 1992 approval of GM crops. When the agency's internal files were made public years later, they revealed that the FDA's GMO policy was dictated by corporate manipulation, not sound science. Warnings by government scientists were ignored by political appointees from the biotech industry." Smith adds, "And like GMOs, the FDA does not want labels on cloned food, thereby forcing the entire population into their dangerous uncontrolled experiment."

Jeffrey Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception, the world's bestselling book on GMOs. He is the founder and executive director of The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) and a leading spokesperson on the risks of GM foods. Go to www.responsibletechnology.orgÝfor eater-friendly tips for avoiding GMOs at home and in restaurants. Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception, the world's bestselling book on GM foods.ÝHisÝforthcoming book, Genetic Roulette, documents more than 60 health risks of GM foods in easy-to-read two-page spreads, and demonstrates how current safety assessments are not competent to protect consumers from the dangers. He is available for media at media@responsibletechnology.org.

Ý Click here to watch or download a preview of the video Hidden Dangers in Kids' Meals.

Top 10 2006: Genetically Modified Rice Disrupts Market

ArkansasBusiness.com, 25 December 2006. By John Henry.

In August, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that genetically altered rice had contaminated the commercial long-grain rice crop. That touched off a situation Little Rock lawyer Paul Byrd called "a local problem with global ramifications."

Rice farmers in Arkansas and five other states quickly filed lawsuits against Bayer CropScience, which developed the rice strain, and Riceland Foods Inc. of Stuttgart. The farmers had never planted the GMO strain because at the time it was an illegal crop and because there was no market for it, either overseas or in the United States.

When Liberty Link Rice 601 contaminated the 2005 rice harvest, it created a costly mess for the rice industry, a $900 million business in Arkansas.

After the USDA disclosed the contamination, experts predicted market losses could reach $150 million. That estimate was based on the price of rice before the announcement and the consequent freefall of rice prices immediately afterward, but intervening factors have lessened the financial impact on Arkansas' rice farmers.

The lawsuit against Bayer alleges negligence, which, the farmers say, lies in Bayer's failure to design a system to prevent altered rice from escaping from test plots and contaminating rice supplies.

Riceland, plaintiffs allege, failed to inform its member-farmers that the then-illegal rice variety had entered their fields in "wanton and in conscious disregard to its consequences." Riceland, a 9,000-member cooperative, handles a third of the U.S. rice crop. In 2005, Arkansas produced more than 48 percent of the rice grown in the United States.

The fallout for Riceland could be far-reaching because much of the case against the co-op centers on trust. Some of the farmers think Riceland officials knew when the GMO contamination was discovered in January that it had to be trace amounts of LL601 and could have warned its members in time to not plant the affected Cheniere variety for their 2006 crop.

Riceland, which won't comment while the litigation is pending, said when the news broke that it thought the GMO contamination was a grain of biotech corn or a biotech soybean that had accidentally been mixed in with the rice and that finding the exact source took time.

As the year ended, the USDA's Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service was still investigating how the LL601 variety escaped from test plots into farmers' fields. Bayer could face criminal penalties, civil penalties and remediation costs if it violated APHIS regulations. Bayer has said in court documents that it was not notified of the problem by Riceland until June.

In November, LL601 was retroactively approved by APHIS, signifying that it is safe for human consumption. Safety was never an issue, however. The issues were trade ó the European Union, in particular, does not want genetically modified rice ó and trust between the rice farmers and their co-op.

On Dec. 11, U.S. District Judge George Howard issued a stay in one of the class-action lawsuits until a panel of federal judges rules on whether to combine the lawsuits and decides where it might be heard. The federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled on Dec. 19 to consolidate more than a dozen lawsuits, creating a single legal action that will be heard at St. Louis, but Byrd has asked his case be remanded to the circuit court in Lonoke County. Howard has yet to rule on that motion.

24 December 2006

Ban entry of GM seeds, Centre told

New India Press, Sunday December 24 2006

THANJAVUR: The farmers urged the Central Government to ban the entry of genetically modified (GM) seeds, experiments to raise GM crops and import of GM foodstuffs in the larger interests of inland farmers and ensure poison-free, chemical-free nutritious food to all.

A resolution to this effect was adopted at the seminar on the 'National Farmers Day;' here on Saturday.

The seminar was jointly organised by the Tamil Nadu Organic Agriculturist Movement, Federation of Consumer Organisations of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry (FEDCOT), Tamil Nadu Traders Federation and Centre for Sustainable Agriculture.

The farmers also urged the government to prevent the multi-national companies from claiming patent rights on the hereditary seed production methods and medical systems.

Tamil Nadu Organic Agriculturist Movement president G Nammalwar presided. Tamil Nadu Traders Federation president T Vellaiyan inaugurated the seminar.

23 December 2006

National Farmers Day Declaration on GM crops

23 December 2006

Thanjavur, India: In order to safeguard our land, people, food security and food sovereignty, representatives of different farmers' organisations, trade unions, consumer fora, self-help groups and non-government organizations belonging to South India declare the following on National Farmers' Day on December 23rd 2006:

Our country, after 60 years of freedom and development is today facing a serious crisis related to food security and national sovereignty. The Prime Minister has officially acknowledged that India is faced with a terrible agrarian crisis. Further, the report of the Chairman of National Farmers' Commission, Dr M S Swaminathan, describes the bleak national situation related to farming communities in the country.

65% of our population consists of farmers whose livelihood base is being systematically destroyed. The regions which were considered the heartland of Green Revolution have been subjected to severe environmental degradation and exploitation of natural resources. The Green Revolution has collapsed. The lack of vision and unmindful implementation of the first Green Revolution has destroyed the ecological balance, made farming unsustainable and contaminated the food, air and the drinking water of all Indians. Now, the country faces the threat of a second Green Revolution designed by America. In this context, Multi-National Companies like Monsanto, supported by the Government of India, are taking control over our seed and food in the name of Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture, which would ostensibly usher in the Second Green Revolution. Gene robbery by agri-corporations will further be legitimized through this bilateral deal between India and the US, though public-private partnerships with our agriculture research & education establishment.

In this context, introduction of Genetically Engineered crops poses a serious threat to our environment, farm economy, health of Indians and to our national food sovereignty.

Consider this: Trials conducted in UK reveal that the cultivation of GE organisms has been found to damage the wildlife. Reports are available from different countries on the threat of contamination of indigenous varieties. Throughout the world, consumer preferences are against GE in food - only 21 countries across the world have approved the planting of GM crops, almost 15 years of their initial development. Even this consists of only traits of insect and herbicide resistance in four main crops - cotton, soybean, maize and canola. 94% of the World GE crops are grown in just four countries (USA, Argentina, Canada and China). 91% of GE seed is made and owned by one company called Monsanto. 27 of 30 EU top retailers have a non-GE policy throughout the EU. What is important to note that there is no GM crop in the world which has contributed to increase in crop productivity. Evidence is in fact to the contrary, showing that yields of GM crops are actually lower than conventional crops. There is also growing evidence of serious health hazards for both animals and human beings.

GE crops also come with a threat on the Intellectual Property Rights front. These crops are PATENTED - this means that saving, re-sowing and exchanging seeds will be illegal. This is an unacceptable violation of farmersÇ rights. The technology along with the IPR regime and strong corporate control jeopardizes the primary livelihood of millions of Indians. It also seriously threatens the national food security and sovereignty. GE has potential hazards for everybody except the companies who own and sell the seeds.

On the other hand, the efforts taken by farmers and NGOs towards ecological and sustainable farming methods have proved to be farmer-centric, viable and sustainable. This has been acknowledged by the Central and State Governments of India.

On behalf of farmers, consumers and traders of this country, this forum reiterates the right of all Indians to a GM-Free India. It demands that the State and Central Governments declare India as a GM-Free country to retain our food security, food sovereignty, bio-diversity and trade security. We demand immediate stoppage of all experimentation on GM crops and animals. Governments should promote and support adoption of ecological & sustainable ways of farming as the only way forward.

South India seminar on agrarian crisis & GM crops

National Farmers' Day - December 23rd 2006, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India.

National Farmers' Day was celebrated as a 'Farmers' Re-awakening day' by a South India seminar on Agrarian Crisis & GM Crops. Farmers' organizations and activist groups from Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Pondicherry, Maharashtra and Chattisgarh participated in a seminar, rally and public meeting organized to mark the occasion. Farmers' organizations affiliated to all major political parties, Federation of the Consumer Organizations of Tamilnadu and Pondicherry (FEDCOT), Tamilnadu Organic Agriculturists' Movement, (TNOAM), CREATE Trust, SEVA Trust, Tamilnadu Vanihar Sangangalin Peravai, Federation of Rice Traders Association, Thanal (Kerala), Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (Andhra Pradesh), Nagarika Seva Trust (Karnataka), Karnataka Rajya Rytha Sangha (KRRS) and ICRA (Karnataka) supported these events.

Thiru G Nammalvar, President, Tamilnadu Organic Agriculturists Movement, presided over the meeting. Dr Devinder Sharma, Food & Trade Expert from New Delhi and Prof. Duraisingham, Chairman, Consumer Council of India delivered special lectures. Thiru T Vellayan, President, Tamilnadu Vanihar Sangangalin Peravai delivered the inaugural address. Ms Kavitha Kuruganti from CSA in Andhra Pradesh, Mr Vijay Jawandhia from Shetkari Sanghatan in Maharastra, Ms S Usha from Thanal in Kerala and Sri Ranjan Rao Yeradur from NST in Karnataka took part in the seminar. Mrs S Bakya Lakshmi, General Secretary, FEDCOT, Mr S Peer Mohammed, Chairman, FEDCOT, Mr S Susai Michael, Executive Secretary of SEVA Trust, Mr R Jayaram, Training Director of CREATE, Mr G Thirunavukkarasu, Vice-President, TNOAM also participated. Mr K Chellamuthu, Tamizhaga Uzhavar Uzhaipalar Sangam spoke about why farmers had to destroy a Bt Rice trial field in Tamil Nadu.

The seminar welcomed the decision of Tamil Nadu state government to bring in a legislation to ban all GM crop trials. This heartening move by a state government should be emulated by all other states in India.

In the evening, leaders belonging to various farmers' movements, tradersÇ organisations, consumer organisations and political organizations addressed the public meeting.

The following resolutions were passed in the seminar:

Demand for a GM-Free India

1. The forum demands that the government declare India GM-Free.

2. Keeping in mind various issues including food sovereignty and trade security, the forum demands immediate stoppage of all research and trials of GM crops in India.

3. No GM seeds and foods should be allowed to be imported into the country.

4. The forum demands that the approach for the future of Indian agriculture be based on ecological and sustainable farming.

Save Farmers - Save India

1. Farmers' incomes should be fixed and ensured by including them in the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations.

2. The forum demands that the State and Central Governments write off all debts of farmers across the country.

3. The forum recognizes that Hunger is a direct outcome of globalization and liberalization policies that are fast eroding food entitlements at three levels:

• The food security system (Minimum Support Price & Public Distribution Systems) is being dismantled.
• Food entitlements have been undermined by reducing purchasing power due to collapse of rural incomes (which are an outcome of depressed farm prices due to deregulation of trade).
• Food production is declining with trade liberalization shifting India's agriculture policies from 'food first to export first'.

In this context, this Forum demands that Agriculture should be excluded from WTO and other Free Trade Agreements.

4. The forum demands that cultivable land should not be allotted to industries, special economic zones and other commercial purposes.

5. The minimum support price fixed for agricultural products should be revised based on cost of living index.

6. All factories that are polluting land and water resources should be closed down.

7. All encroachments on water bodies, common lands and forest areas should be identified and removed.

8. It is clear beyond doubt that chemical pesticides are not needed for sustaining and increasing agriculture production and for crop protection. Therefore, State and Central Governments should stop promoting and recommending chemical pesticides to farmers and that such recommending officers should be subjected to public enquiry for risking the lives of farmers and contaminating the environment.

Specific Demands to Tamil Nadu state government

9. As suggested by the National FarmersÇ Commission, Tamil Nadu State Government should provide bank loan at 4% interest to all farming households (The forum demands that this should include Self Help Groups).

10. Renovation of tanks should be taken up on a large scale and the Tamil Nadu State Government should form a monitoring committee consisting of all farmersÇ organizations to monitor such renovation.

11. The Tamil Nadu State Government is asked to permit tapping of toddy from coconut and palmyra trees to protect the coconut growers and workers associated with this profession.

12. Tamil Nadu state government should set precedence to the rest of the country by banning pesticide usage in agriculture.

21 December 2006

EPA Fines Syngenta $1.5 Million for Distributing Unregistered Genetically Engineered Pesticide

Grain Net, 21 December 2006

Washington, DC - Syngenta Seeds, Inc. Golden Valley, MN has agreed to pay a $1.5 million penalty to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for selling and distributing seed corn that contained an unregistered genetically engineered pesticide called Bt 10.

While the federal government has concluded that there are no human health or environmental concerns with Bt 10 corn, it is still illegal to distribute any pesticide not registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

"This action shows that when a company violates the law by distributing unapproved pesticides, EPA vigorously enforces the law," said Granta Y. Nakayama, EPA's assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance.

Late in 2004, Syngenta disclosed to EPA that it may have distributed the seed corn to the United States, Europe, Japan, and South America.

Immediately following the disclosure, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and EPA began an investigation and evaluation that confirmed the distribution of unregistered seed corn on over 1,000 occasions.

A penalty was assessed by USDA, and the company destroyed all the affected seed under USDA supervision.

EPA filed today's settlement with its Environmental Appeals Board (EAB).

The EAB is the final EPA decision maker on permit, enforcement, and other administrative appeals under all major environmental statutes that the agency administers.

If approved by the board, Syngenta will pay a penalty of $1.5 million.

See related website of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://www.epa.gov/

GE seed, crops eradicated in Hawke's Bay, New Zealand

Hawke's Bay Today, 21 December 2006

All but about 50ha of the sweetcorn crops grown with seed contaminated with genetically engineered seeds in the Gisborne and Hawke's Bay regions has been destroyed.

Biosecurity officials last week ordered 258.4ha of Hawke's Bay and Gisborne sweetcorn crops planted with 1807kg of contaminated seed to be harrowed.

All growing plants were chopped and buried.

Replanting on the cleared paddocks was suspended earlier in the week after a small patch of seed that had only just germinated was found among three-week-old plants 300mm high.

Growers have said Christmas would be the latest that affected fields could be economically re-planted with sweetcorn for the processing sector.

Mr Sangster said most growers did want to re-plant with sweetcorn but some would plant a different crop.

Rain had caused delays with work in some areas.

About 80 percent of the 57ha of affected land in Gisborne was to be replanted while about 20 percent of 201ha in Hawke's Bay would be replanted.

Syngenta, the American seed company that supplied the seed, has agreed to compensate farmers for any costs involved in the GE contaminated seed.

Author discusses health risks of genetically modified foods during lecture

The Prairie Star, December 21 2006. By Shannon Burkdoll, Editor.

GREAT FALLS, Mont. - Genetically modified ingredients in foods may cause life-threatening health risks, according to author Jeffery Smith.

Smith discussed different cases where genetically modified crops had affected humans either during consumption, harvest or processing and research conducted on these crops during a lecture featuring his book, Seeds of Deception, on Tuesday, Nov. 28, in Great Falls, Mont. The meeting was the first of a five-day marathon in which Smith was to address the issues in his book while traveling through Montana.

The first case Smith discussed was the bovine growth hormone and its effects on the dairy milk production. A Minnesota dairy was sued by a multinational chemical company because it was labeling its milk as being hormone-free. The chemical company settled the case by forcing the dairy to include a label in its milk that indicated there is no difference between milk from cows given growth hormones as opposed to milk from cows given no growth hormones even though research proved the opposite.

The research, said Smith, found there was more pus, antibiotics, residue growth hormones and IGF-1 present in the milk. "IGF-1 may promote cancer," he noted. "The milk had a 26 percent increase of growth hormones compared to the hormone-free milk, and when pasteurized 120 times more than normal only 19 percent of the hormones were destroyed in the milk. Since they didn't get the results they wanted, they added highly concentrated powdered hormone to the milk, then heated it and then the pasteurization process destroyed 99 percent of the hormones - that is what the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) quoted. That is completely rigged research."

Furthermore, the same multinational chemical company allegedly got two-star television reporters fired in Florida because they were about to release a story showing the research done on the milk containing RBGH hormones was rigged. The reporters sued the company for injustice, but lost because the Florida courts determined it is not illegal to lie on television, said Smith.

"The GM companies determine the safety of the food they produce," he continued. "The FDA doesn't investigate these claims of safety. The FDA was instructed by the White House to promote biotechnology, and as a result there are no regulations on biotech crops."

Smith is mistaken on the process of claiming safety of biotech foods, according to Dr. Mike Phillips, vice president of food and agriculture for Biotechnology Industry Organization in Washington, D.C.

"Biotech crops and foods have to go through safety reviews and environmental reviews that are very strenuous in the United States before they will be put in the marketplace," he said. "The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) and FDA have to all concur the biotech foods pose no health effects or they are not allowed in the marketplace."

The first genetically modified food produced was the FlavrSavr tomato, modified with a gene to delay ripening. This tomato was tested for health affects by scientists who found the research rats refused to eat it, and of those that did seven out of 40 died in two weeks and seven of 20 developed stomach lesions.

"Animals when given a choice will typically avoid genetically modified foods," said Smith. "There was a question of safety with the FlavrSavr tomato, but they approved it anyway."

There are health risks to introducing antibiotic resistant genes into crops and foods because these genes could transfer to the gut bacteria of a body and cause problems because it is engineered not to die in the presence of specific antibiotics, leading to the development of super diseases, said Smith. A Nature Biotechnology 2004 study of a group of people fed soymeal in burgers and milkshakes proved the genes do transfer to the body's gut bacteria and survived digestion, Smith noted. "The concern of the scientists was validated," he said.

A United Kingdom scientist found the process of genetically modifying foods poses more safety hazards than the actual genes used in the modification, continued Smith. "It disrupts the natural function of the DNA and creates mutation and deletion of genes, and altered gene expression system-wide," he explained. "The gene could also produce a protein that could be harmful to us if ingested."

Phillips disagrees with Smith again, suggesting there have been studies done based on the genetic makeup of the product and compared to the differences of the conventional product, finding "they are the exact same as the conventional product," he said.

Genetically modifying food crops poses health risks because they could contain properties of known allergens, damage the DNA, increase metabolic activity, alter the gene expression, create a different protein than intended, lead to more herbicide residue than in non-GM crops and transfer promoters, virus-resistant genes or antibiotic resistance into the body's gut bacteria.

"It is difficult to know if they are causing problems because no one is monitoring them and they could cause symptoms similar to other diseases," said Smith.

"That is a ridiculous point of view," countered Phillips. "This is an example of the huge myths being spread about genetically modified foods. We have been manipulating genes since the beginning of agriculture. Biotechnology is another revolution of genetic manipulation to have more food supply to feed the world."

Smith is promoting biotech food awareness as he travels across Montana and the nation. "Awareness is very low," he said, but he has devised a word-of-mouth strategy to increase awareness of the potential health risks of eating genetically modified foods.

"The health conscious shoppers don't avoid GMOs when buying non-organic purchases," said Smith. "We need to help educate them to help them choose non-genetically modified foods."

Smith's awareness plan includes targeting parents, health conscious shoppers and schools, as well as telling his story to talk show hosts such as Oprah Winfrey, getting the marketplace to label the non-GMO foods and discourage consumption of genetically modified foods through his books, CDs, DVDs and videos documenting cases of health risks posed by genetically modified foods.

"The solution is for the entire industry to demand no open-air trials of genetically engineered crops in their commodity groups," he said. "In two days, genetically engineered crops could do to wheat what it did to rice in Japan."

Genetically modified foods are limited to four crops: corn, soybeans, canola and cotton, in five countries carrying two traits. "It is really a question of education," concluded Smith. "You need to choose not to feel like a victim, but choose to feel like a victor. Don't worry but make choices that will feed you emotionally, spiritually and help you reach your goals."

Those interested can learn more about Smith's philosophy at http://www.ResponsibleTechnology.org or http://www.seedsofdeception.com. To learn more about the third-party evaluation of biotech foods, go to http://www.bio.org.

Farmer: Cloned cows may be sold for meat

Associated Press, December 21 2006, by Libby Quaid.

For nearly four years, dairy farmer Greg Wiles has poured milk from his cloned cows down the drain in compliance with a voluntary ban on food from cloned livestock.

Now in financial straits, Wiles says he may be forced to sell his cloned cows for hamburger.

The Food and Drug Administration says that's probably safe, but pressure from the food industry has kept the agency from actually approving it. Milk and meat marketers worry that consumers won't accept food from cloned animals.

Wiles says he can't wait any longer. Facing eviction in a bitter family business dispute, he says he may be forced to violate the ban and sell his two clones for hamburger meat.

"If I don't find a new home for these animals for them to live out their lifetime, I could be forced by a court of law to introduce them into the food chain," Wiles says.

The failure, so far, to approve cloned animals for the food supply raises a quandary for consumers. The federal government has no way to stop a farmer such as Wiles from selling meat or milk from cloned animals. That means no one can be sure the food supply is free of them.

The dairy industry says there are at least 150 livestock clones living in the United States. A single dairy cow makes about 128 glasses of milk every day. Cows that stop producing milk are often sold to ground beef plants, where a single dairy cow can be turned into more than 3,000 hamburger patties.

Consumer advocates say the government should never have let cloned animals live on commercial farms in the first place.

"Who knows whether people adhere to the voluntary moratorium or not?" says Joseph Mendelson of the Center for Food Safety, an environmental and public health group. "That's the problem with a system that relies on the good graces of everyone."

Resistance in the industry is a big reason why the government has taken so long to decide. FDA officials have repeatedly said that food from cloned animals appears to be as safe as conventional food. They say they are close to making a decision and could act by the end of the year.

But they have been under pressure from big food companies, which worry that consumers' concerns about animal cloning will prompt them to reject meat and milk.

Surveys have shown that people are wary of food from cloned animals; 64 percent said they were uncomfortable with animal cloning in a September poll by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, says Michael Fernandez, executive director of the nonpartisan research group.

When he got into the business of breeding dairy cows, Wiles never imagined that cloning would be so controversial or that government approval would take so long.

His father was running a commercial dairy farm when Wiles returned home in 1996 from the University of Maryland, full of ideas for breeding champion dairy cows.

In just a few years, Wiles hit the big time with Zita, a Holstein that won top ratings for her high level of milk production and the superior butterfat content of her milk. Zita and her offspring drew visitors and customers from all over the world.

But eventually, Zita grew too old to have more calves. That's when a cloning company approached Wiles about making genetic copies of Zita. Wiles was enthusiastic, and in 2001, Genesis and another clone, Cyagra, were born.

Around the same time, FDA asked farmers and cloning companies to hold off on using clones or their offspring for food while officials finished a "risk assessment" to determine whether they were safe.

Since then, Wiles has been able to sell milk from other cows on his farm, but not from Genesis and Cyagra. One customer told him it was unwise to invest in animals from the herd, because they mingled with the clones on the farm. Genesis has had six offspring, all sired by a cloned bull in Canada.

"Business basically completely dried up, and we have not sold an embryo or bull in the last three years," Wiles says.

Wiles took over the farm operation three years ago from his father, who still owns the 20-acre property in northwest Maryland. But Wiles hasn't paid rent in several months, and his father is seeking to evict him. The men don't speak, not even when the father drives onto the farm to check on his crops.

Father Charles Wiles says the cows should be euthanized and buried, not sold for meat, because the FDA has not ruled meat and milk from livestock clones to be safe for people to eat.

"If you can't milk them, and you can't eat them, and you can't sell them, what are you supposed to do with them? Keep them until they die of old age?" Charles Wiles asks. "This is the dairy industry, not a hobby. It's got to be a moneymaking, profitable enterprise."

Wiles says he doesn't want the animals killed - he says one of the clones, Cyagra, has had health problems and should be studied. Cyagra has never grown to full size, aborted her first calf and had another that died a month after it was born. Wiles has offered her to the government for research. The government has declined.

An industry group, the International Dairy Foods Association, hopes that Wiles will abide by the voluntary moratorium and keep his clones out of the food supply. The association, which represents brands such as Kraft, Dannon and Borden, says it believes all farmers have complied with the ban.

The FDA urges Wiles to comply as well, spokesman Doug Arbesfeld said. "FDA has asked farmers voluntarily to refrain from putting meat or milk from cloned animals into the food supply until the agency's risk assessment is complete," Arbesfeld said.

Wiles has a few weeks more to try to find a solution; a judge delayed the eviction proceeding on Dec. 13.

"I have figured up hundreds of thousands of dollars of losses at a minimum because of these clones," Wiles said. "If I can't recoup my investment, and they're no longer productive at all, their only choice is that they go into the food supply."

20 December 2006

EU countries should decide on gmo imports autonomously

FreshPlaza.com, 20 December 2006. By Jahir Lombana.

Tholen ‚ The Council of Ministers of environment decided with 20 votes in favor that EU countries should be autonomous to decide on the imports of transgenic products. The United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Sweden voted against the autonomy. Finland abstained. The decision is contrary to the EU Commission which formulated a regulation to accept the import of specific transgenic products to the EU. According to the Commission, transgenic products represent risk neither for the human health nor for the environment. Austria, as promoter of the Council's decision, banned two kinds of GM maize (T25 and MON810). Spain cultivates the MON810 variety and is considered to be Europe's "transgenic granary" with approximately 60.000 hectares.

The Council was based on the current regulation on food safety that is stricter than in 1990 when these products were allowed. The decision is the second of this kind at the EU. The first was in 2005 and more are expected for the following months. However, there is already a precedent at Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) at the WTO. Argentina, Canada and the U.S. claimed that transgenic prohibition at the EU was not based on scientific research but protectionist policies. The DSB supported the plaintiffs.

Frankenwine? Wines made with GMO yeast hit the market this

NewsTarget.com, 20 December 2006. By Jessica Parker.

(NewsTarget) -- The United States' first wines made using a genetically modified wine yeast will be released this year, but critics say the GM yeast has not been properly safety tested and could contaminate non-GM wine crops.

According to Napa Valley, Calif., resident Erica Martenson, an opinion writer for the Napa Valley Register, a few winemakers' decision to use GM yeast -- ML01 -- could affect American wine consumers and the U.S. wine economy.

"This yeast is available only in North America where GMOs are unregulated," Martenson wrote. "A few wineries' decision to use this yeast could affect the entire North American market. Since these wines are unlabeled, the only way people can avoid them is to avoid all wines from North America, except those labeled organic."

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently designated ML01 as GRAS -- Generally Recognized as Safe -- following a review of data supplied by the GM yeast's supplier. Because the agency failed to conduct its own study of the yeast or have independent research conducted, it may not be entirely safe, Martenson wrote.

"[The yeast's] developer has an interest in getting its product to the market as soon as possible, whether it has been proven safe or not," she wrote.

According to Joseph Cummings, emeritus genetics professor at the University of Western Ontario, the FDA's assessment of the yeast did not include animal toxicity experiments. "The FDA review seemed to be based on faith rather than on science," Cummings wrote in Sustainable Agriculture.

Because yeast can travel great distances through the air like pollen, and is made of hardy spores, experts say the GM yeast could easily find its way into neighboring wineries' products.

"...this GM wine yeast could contaminate native and traditional wine yeasts through the air, surface waste and water runoff," Martenson wrote.

Though the GM yeast -- engineered to conduct two separate fermentation processes simultaneously -- could be appealing to high-volume wineries, most vineyards Martenson contacted said they were not using ML01, and did not plan to.

Martenson created a list of non-GM yeast wineries available online at www.preservenapasag.org on the FAQs page. Interested consumers can download the "Shopper's Guide to Buying Non-GMO" to view products -- including wines -- that do not use GM ingredients.

19 December 2006

GM Soy to Be Banned

Inter Press Service, December 19 2006. By Vesna Peric Zimonjic. BELGRADE, Dec. 19 (IPS) - Environmentalists in Romania have secured a victory in getting genetically modified (GM) soy finally banned.

"Romania was the biggest producer of GM (genetically modified) soy in Europe after it began growing it without any control a decade ago," Greenpeace coordinator Gabriel Paun told IPS on phone from Bucharest. "This is to be stopped by January, which is another victory for us."

Romania, together with neighbouring Bulgaria, is joining the European Union (EU) Jan. 1. It had therefore to comply with strict regulation dealing with GM organisms, unwelcome by most environmentally conscious nations.

GM crops crept into the country a decade ago, bringing at least 130,000 hectares under modified soybean cultivation. Environmentalists rank Romania 11th among producers of GM crops.

Unrestrained production of GM crops has endangered prospects of agriculture exports. Such agricultural produce, often described as "contaminated", cannot reach strictly regulated markets.

"This victory (on ban on GM soy planting) represents a great challenge for us," Paun said. "We plan to broaden the action to other EU countries such as Austria, Greece and Poland."

Cultivation of GM soy in Romania included 25,000 hectares in the area of the Danube Delta, one of the largest wetlands on the planet. This area is home to at least 1,689 plant species and 3,448 species of fauna, in a unique "natural museum" of biodiversity.

GM crops, or "genetically modified organisms (GMOs)" as many experts like to call them, went into mass cultivation about ten years ago. They were at first regarded as a salvation to feed the poor. Due to laboratory-implanted characteristics at the genetic level, they gave unexpectedly high yields, were immune to the usual plant diseases, and needed little care in general.

What was little known at first was that GMOs tend to make land infertile, and cannot reproduce.

"It's unclear if GM crops are a danger by themselves, but they release certain substances that stimulate growth of undesired micro-organisms," expert on GM crops Mirjana Nikolic told IPS. "Due to the presence of those micro-organisms, the land can become infertile after one season in some cases."

Nikolic took part in a large operation two years ago to discover fields in Serbia where smuggled GM soybeans had been planted.

The operation involved police action and led to the burning down of plants on 1,000 hectares in the northern province Vojvodina. It was established then that the GM seeds had been smuggled from neighbouring Romania.

Romanian environmentalists say the most popular GM crops in the region for some time have been soybeans and maize, and also genetically modified plum trees. In August this year Greenpeace uncovered illegal experiments in plantation of such plum trees at a research and development centre in Bistriţa in Romania.

"These new findings once more revealed that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are totally out of control in Romania and that the research stations in Romania are playing grounds for the industry," Paun said.

The plantations were destroyed, and no licence for further work was approved to project leaders, he said.

GM plum trees pose a serious risk to human health because they contain a gene that is resistant to antibiotics.

Romania began some action against GM soy in February this year. It ordered cuts in the production of GM herbicide resistant soybeans, of which the EU does not approve, and introduced a monitoring and control system for GM crops.

But many farmers prefer genetically engineered crops, because they mean no more fighting with weeds or bugs. Cultivation of resistant crops eases the job of combating pests of all kinds.

A black market in GM seeds was flourishing in Romania for years "but things are to be improved now," Paun said.

Environmentalist Dragos Dima [note: he is the former CEO of Monsanto Romania who resigned after discovering that his company had been selling unlabelled GM soybeans] recently told Romanian media that it will take many years to "put the agricultural house in order." Dima said "the country will have to decontaminate itself from unapproved GM varieties and put in place working systems on the release of GM organisms and on food labelling."

Romania, he said, may become a test case "whether GM crop-plant decontamination is possible at all."

The complete ban now on production of GM crops is a victory for campaigners. This decision follows the victory of Romanian environmentalists, local Greenpeace among them, in securing suspension of construction of the controversial Road 66a earlier this month. The road would gravely endanger the untouched nature reserves of Retezat and Domogled parks. (END/2006)

Herbicide-Resistant Weed Worries Farmers

Associated Press, December 19, 2006 ó By Elliott Minor.

TIFTON, Ga. ó The cotton industry is concerned about the discovery of a herbicide-resistant weed that spreads easily, can grow an inch a day even during droughts and could force farmers to return to older growing methods that were harsher on the environment.

"It is potentially the worse threat since the boll weevil," said Alan York, weed scientist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, referring to the voracious beetle that devastated Southern cotton crops in the early 1900s and forced farmers to switch to alternatives such as peanuts.

The boll weevil was eradicated in some states in the late 1970s and early 1980s, paving the way for the return of cotton as one of the nation's major crops, worth $4.7 billion. It is grown in 16 states from coast to coast.

The weed that is causing concern is Palmer amaranth, a type of pig weed that grows 6 to 10 feet tall. Amaranth that resists the most common herbicide used in cotton, glyphostate, has been confirmed in 10 of North Carolina's 100 counties, four of Georgia's 159 counties and is suspected in Tennessee, South Carolina and Arkansas, scientists say.

If someone were trying to design a particularly nasty weed, Palmer amaranth could be the model, York said.

"It's an extremely competitive weed," he said. "It's extremely prolific. It's an efficient ... bad weed."

In Georgia, where the weed has been confirmed in 48 fields, amaranth took over some fields and the cotton had to be cut down, rather than harvested, said University of Georgia weed scientist Stanley Culpepper. The weed can damage cotton pickers, the huge machines that pluck the world's leading natural fiber from the cotton bolls.

Glyphostate is sold under several brand names, but the leading product is Roundup, made by Monsanto.

The company revolutionized cotton growing in the 1990s when it introduced BT cotton -- cotton that was genetically engineered with its own built-in pest defenses. Monsanto also introduced Roundup Ready cotton -- plants that wouldn't perish with the weeds when a field was sprayed with a glyphostate herbicide.

Those two developments enabled cotton growers to drastically reduce the amount of chemicals used in their fields and to switch to conservation tillage, which reduces soil erosion and helps to retain moisture in the soil. The improved efficiency also lowered costs for such things as labor, equipment and fuel.

"That technology I think is the most valuable agronomic tool there is and sustaining it is essential to the viability of the family farm," Culpepper said.

He said Roundup has been "so good, so economical and such a benign herbicide, that we became dependent on it."

It had everything everyone would need," he said. "But when you rely too heavily on one technology, resistance will eventually develop."

Before Roundup Ready cotton, farmers often had to plow the field to bury weeds and their seeds and then protect the crops from pests with heavy chemical applications. Now many use conservation tillage, which barely disturbs the soil.

"If we lost conservation tillage in the Southeast, the financial and environmental consequences would be nothing short of catastrophic," said Eddie Green, who grew 1,750 acres of cotton on a family farm near Unadilla and suspects he may have some of the resistant Palmer amaranth.

He farms in Dooly County, where the resistant weed has been confirmed. It has also been confirmed in nearby Macon, Taylor and Lee counties.

Monsanto, which posted a letter in April alerting growers to the problem, has worked with the Memphis-based National Cotton Council to develop an online course on weed control and is assisting Culpepper, York and others with the resistance problem.

"This is something we do look at very seriously," said Monsanto representative Michelle Starke. "We want growers to be successful with our products."

Monsanto has suggested using Roundup in combination with other herbicides known to kill the resistant weed. Culpepper and others also recommend alternative herbicides.

"We can for sure say it's going to cost more money," said York. "You're going to have more herbicides to try to beat it back. Is it going to put us out of the cotton business? I hope not, but it's going to make it more challenging."

Andy Jordan, the Cotton Council's vice president for technical services, predicted the threat from glyphostate-resistant amaranth will spur farmers to re-examine their weed-management practices.

"The glyphostate-resistant technology in the cotton plant has been a real boon to weed control and efficient cotton production," he said. "If we don't respond ... it could be very serious."

Austria finds backing for GMO bans

EurActiv.com, 19 December 2006.

Environment ministers swept away a proposal by the Commission to force Austria to lift its ban on two GMO-maize varieties - environmental groups have applauded the decision.

A ruling by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) stated that Austria's ban on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), broke international trade laws. The ruling did not specifically forbid GMO bans, but judged that Austria had not undertaken the obligatory risk assessments according to WTO law.

The UN Biosafety Protocol, ratified by all EU member states allows countries to ban GMOs if there is no certainty about their risk. But the WTO does not respect this Protocol, as the complainants in the trade dispute, namely the US, Canada and Argentina, have not ratified it.

The Commission wanted to force Austria to lift its ban on two types of genetically modified maize, MON 810 and T 25, in order to conform to WTO rules. This is the second attempt by the Commission to force member states to drop their national GMO bans since June 2005. Issues:

The Council was largely united in voting down the Commission's proposal by qualified majority on 18 December 2006, with only the UK, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Sweden opposed.

Austrian Environment Minister Josef Pr–ll said: "This is a very strong signal by the Council for the Commission to reassess its policy [on GMOs]."

But the Council argued that, due to different agricultural and regional ecological characteristics, a temporary ban of the two GMOs was justified.

Positions:

The Commission says it is now "weighing the options" after the vote in the Council. It further states it will "carefully consider the legal and scientific bases that would underpin any further proposals."

Green MEP Hiltrud Breyer welcomed the Council decision. She said it was absurd of the Commission to act like this in face of problems with coexistence and unexplained health and environmental damage. She added that due to the current findings it was negligent to admit the genetically modified maize MON810 into the EU at all.

GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, Helen Holder said: "This is a major defeat for the biotech industry and their friends in the Commission. Every country must have the democratic right to protect its citizens and environment. Neither the Commission nor the WTO should be allowed to force Europeans to eat genetically modified foods."

Martina Holbach, policy adviser on GMOs at Greenpeace stated: "EU environment ministers should be congratulated for defending the environment and consumer protection against US trade interests and commercial pressures." She added: "The Commission should drop plans to pursue similar action against Greece and Hungary unless it wants further humiliation."

Latest & next steps

The Commission can now either withdraw its proposal and redraft it or appeal the Council's decision at the European Court of Justice, a process that would take several years.

Links

EU official documents

• Council: Environment Council Meeting press release (18 December 2006)

• Council: Environment Council Conclusions (18 December 2006)

• Council: Environment Council background note (13 December 2006)

EU Actors positions

• Friends of the Earth Europe: : EU votes to defy WTO ruling on GM foods (press release 18 December 2006)

• Greenpeace European Unit:: Five Reasons to support Austria's GMO bans (18 December 2006)

Press articles

• Reuters: : EU upholds Austria's sovereign right to ban GMOs (18 December 2006)

• New York Law Journal: EU Rejects Appeal on Biotech Crops (19 December 2006)

• Die Presse: Österreich "rettet" Verbot (19 December 2006)

• Manager Magazin: EU-Minister unterstützen Wiens Importverbot für Gen-Mais (18 December 2006)

• EurActiv.sk: Rada sa zastala Rakúska ohl'adne GMO kukuric (19 December 2006)

EFSA adopts opinion on Bayer GM crop

FoodNavigator.com, 19 December 2006.

Europe's Food Safety Authority has ruled that a genetically-modified cotton plant, which can be used for food applications, presents no cause for concern.

EFSA's GMO panel has now adopted an opinion on the application for the commercialisation of glufosinate-tolerant genetically modified LLCotton25.

Developed by Bayer CropScience, the product is designed to provide tolerance to glufosinate-containing herbicides.

The issue of GM approval within the EU is one of the most contentious in agriculture. The recent announcement that US authorities had traced amounts of unapproved genetically modified (GM) food in samples of rice prompted the EU to clamp down on all imports from the US.

However, many biotech firms believe that the European market has a potentially lucrative future. The WTO ruled earlier this year that the EU and six member states had broken trade rules by barring entry to GM crops and foods.

In delivering its opinion, EFSA's GMO Panel considered additional information provided by Bayer CropScience and the scientific comments submitted by the Member States.

The application, EFSA-GMO-NL-2005-13, covers the import and processing of LLCotton25 seeds and its derived products for use as food (e.g. oil, linters) and/or feed (e.g. meal, hulls, oil).

The GMO Panel assessed LLCotton25 with reference to the intended uses and the appropriate principles described in the guidance document of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms for the Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants and Derived Food and Feed. The scientific assessment included molecular characterization of the inserted DNA and expression of the target protein.

A comparative analysis of agronomic traits and composition was undertaken and the safety of the new protein and the whole food/feed was evaluated with respect to potential toxicity and allergenicity. Both, a nutritional and an environmental assessment, including a monitoring plan, were undertaken.

LLCotton25 is derived from the cotton variety Coker312, which was transformed by Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer technology. LLCotton25 expresses the bar gene leading to the production of the enzyme, phosphinothricin acetyl-transferase (PAT) that acetylates L-glufosinate-ammonium.

The PAT enzyme confers tolerance to glufosinate-containing herbicides.

Molecular analysis shows that LLCotton25 contains a single insert and does not retain backbone sequences from the vector. The GMO Panel is of the opinion that bioinformatic analysis of the DNA insert and flanking regions indicates no cause for concern, and that sufficient evidence for the stability of the insert structure was provided.

Compositional and agronomic analyses indicate that the LLCotton25 was compositionally and agronomically equivalent to other tested conventional cotton lines, except for the introduced transgenic trait. The comparative analysis of LLCotton25 therefore provides no indication for unintended effects resulting from the genetic modification.

The GMO Panel is therefore of the opinion that the LLCotton25 is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterparts. The panel also agreed that unintended environmental effects due to the establishment and spread of LLCotton25 will not be different from that of conventionally bred cotton.

The panel concluded by saying that LLCotton25 is unlikely to have any adverse effect on human and animal health or on the environment in the context of its intended uses.

18 December 2006

EFSA Launches Public Consultation on GMO Feeding Trials

FooodIngredientsFirst.com, 18 December 2006.

This work aims at providing further guidance on risk assessment approaches for GM food and feed, which may also be relevant for other areas of food and feed safety assessment.

EFSA [the European Food Safety Authority] has launched a public consultation on the use of animal feeding trials to assess the safety and nutritional value of GM food or feed. EFSA's GMO Panel discussed the different types of scientific tests available including the use of animal feeding trials and made a number of recommendations. This work aims at providing further guidance on risk assessment approaches for GM food and feed, which may also be relevant for other areas of food and feed safety assessment. Views of all stakeholders and interested parties are now being sought before final recommendations are agreed.

The risk assessment of GM plants and derived food/feed is based on comparison with non-GM counterparts. The GMO Panel considers that a comparative approach following international risk assessment standards using molecular, compositional and other analyse remains an appropriate basis for determining whether animal feeding studies are needed.

The Panel recommends that any risk assessment of GM food/feed should first consider whether initial studies using in silico and in vitro approaches may answer some of the safety questions and indicate whether there is a need for subsequent in vivo studies, such as animal feeding trials. This report discusses in depth the strengths and weaknesses of repeated dose animal feeding trials for the risk assessment of whole GM food or feed. Such feeding trials on the whole food or feed should be considered in cases of substantial differences between the GM plant and its conventional counterpart or where there are indications for the potential occurrence of unintended effects. In addition, the Panel considered when livestock feeding studies are needed for the safety and nutritional evaluation of feed derived from GM plants.

The Panel made a number of recommendations to help improve the scientific basis for assessing the safety and nutritional aspects of whole foods, such as further development of in silico and in vitro tests as well as recommendations for appropriate design of in vivo tests.

Comments are invited by 31 January 2007 on the consultation paper on animal feeding trials, which is available on the EFSA website at:
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/gmo/gmo_consultations/gmo_AnimalFeedingTrials.html

EU votes to defy WTO ruling on GM foods
Member States support the right to ban GMOs

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 18 December 2006.

Brussels, 18 December - Friends of the Earth Europe has welcomed today's rejection by EU Environment Ministers of a proposal to force Austria to lift its bans on genetically modified (GM) foods and crops. [1] The proposal was tabled by the European Commission in response to a ruling by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) earlier this year, which stated that the bans broke international trade laws.

Helen Holder, GMO Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said:

"Today's vote was a complete rejection of the WTO's ruling on GM foods. This is a major defeat for the biotech industry and their friends in the European Commission. Every country must have the democratic right to protect its citizens and environment. Neither the European Commission nor the WTO should be allowed to force Europeans to eat genetically modified foods."

"The biotech industry's tactics have backfired. It's now time for the European Commission to put the interests of the public and the environment before those of the biotech industry."

The WTO ruling did not rule against GMO bans per se but judged that Austria had not followed the risk assessments needed under the trade-friendly WTO rules. Austria, together with all EU member states, has ratified the UN's Biosafety Protocol which allows countries to ban genetically modified crops if there is a lack of scientific certainty over their safety. The WTO disregarded the Biosafety Protocol because the complainants in the trade dispute (the US, Canada and Argentina) had not ratified it.

For more information, please contact:

Helen Holder, GM Campainger at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel : +32 2 542 0182, Mobile +32 474 857 638, Email: helen.holder@foeeurope.org

Adrian Bebb, GM Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Mobile : +49 1609 4901163, Email: adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org

Rosemary Hall, Communications Officer at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel:+32 25 42 61 05, Mobile: +32 485 930515, Email: rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org

Notes:

[1] Today (18th December), Environment Ministers met at an Environment Council meeting in Brussels and discussed a proposal from the European Commission to force Austria to drop its ban on two genetically modified (GM) maizes. The Austrian ban on the two maizes - one by Bayer and one by Monsanto - has been in place since June 1999.

All countries rejected the proposal apart from the UK, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Sweden.

Rosemary Hall
Communications Officer
Friends of the Earth Europe
Rue Blanche 15
B-1050 Bruxelles
Belgium
Tel.: +32 2 542 6105
Mobile: +32 485 930515
Fax:Ý +32 2 537 5596
rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org
http://www.foeeurope.org

Ministers vote on GMO bans
Friends of the Earth Europe calls on member states to stand up to WTO ruling

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 18 December 2006.

Brussels - Friends of the Earth Europe has urged EU Environment Ministers to support Austria regarding its bans on genetically modified foods and crops (known as GM or GMOs). The ministers will vote today on a European Commission proposal to force Austria to lift the bans, tabled in response to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruling earlier this year that the bans broke international trade laws.

Helen Holder, GM Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said:

"Every country must have the democratic right to protect its citizens and environment. Neither the European Commission or the World Trade Organisation should be allowed to force Europeans to eat genetically modified foods."

The WTO ruling did not rule against GMO bans per se but judged that Austria had not followed the risk assessments needed under the trade-friendly WTO rules. Austria, together with all EU member states, has ratified the UNÇs Biosafety Protocol which allows countries to ban genetically modified crops (known as GM or GMOs) if there is a lack of scientific certainty over their safety. The WTO disregarded the Biosafety Protocol because the complainants in the trade dispute (the US, Canada and Argentina) had not ratified it.

Helen Holder continued:

"The WTO should not be deciding what we eat or what our farmers grow. The organisation is pro-free trade and pro-industry and is not suited to rule on disputes over the environment or public health. Environment Ministers must vote today in line with their commitments to protect the environment."

This is the second time since June 2005 that the European Commission has attempted to force member states to overturn national GMO safeguard clauses.

Friends of the Earth Europe will issue a press statement later today in reaction to the result of the Environment Council vote.

Contact

Helen Holder, GM Campaingner at Friends of the Earth Europe :
Tel : +32 2 542 0182, Mobile +32 474 857 638, Email : helen.holder@foeeurope.org

Adrian Bebb, GM Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Mobile : +49 1609 4901163, Email: adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org

Rosemary Hall, Communications Officer at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel:+32 25 42 61 05, Mobile: +32 485 930515, Email: rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org

Notes to editors

The WTO ruling was published on 29th September 2006 following the longest trade dispute in the WTO's history. The ruling rejected most of the US-led complaints against Europe's stance on genetically modified (GM) foods:

• It refused to rule against the EU's strict regulations to control the use of GM food and crops;

• It refused to rule on whether GM foods are safe or different to conventional foods;

• It rejected US claims that moratoria are illegal and did not question the right of countries to ban GM foods or crops.

However, the WTO draft ruling did rule that Europe's four year GM moratorium, which ended in 2004, broke trade rules by causing "undue delays", but stated that moratoria were acceptable under certain circumstances. The WTO said national GM bans also broke trade rules, because the risk assessments did not comply with the WTO requirements.

Most of the GMO bans at the centre of the dispute are now irrelevant as most of the products banned are no longer on the market. Austria however upholds it bans on Monsanto's MON810 maize and Bayer T25 maize which are still marketed today.

16 December 2006

Impact of field trials on GM-mustard sought by court

Indo-Asian News Service, December 16 2006

(IANS) New Delhi, Dec 15 - The Supreme Court Friday asked a committee to examine the impact of field trials being conducted by Delhi University on a genetically modified mustard variety following expert opinion that such trials were toxic and harmful.

On Sep 22, the apex court had restrained the committee - Genetic Engineering Approval Committee - - from giving fresh approvals to genetically modified products, particularly for commercial purposes. Subsequently, Delhi University was allowed to carry out field trials of DMH-11 Mustard for research.

On Friday, a three-Judge bench comprising Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice C.K. Thakker and Justice R.V. Raveendran asked the GEAC to examine the matter after counsel Prashant Bhushan opposed continuance of the field trials saying that the release of genetically modified organism/seeds even for research would have the potential of causing major health hazards once they were released into the environment.

Bhushan produced opinions given by three eminent professors saying the field trials on GM-Mustard would result in release of toxic elements in the environment. They said that even at low levels the release of these organisms could prove toxic to the environment and the main areas required fuller study prior to the exposure of millions of people and millions of animals to the toxins.

Counsel for Delhi University said that the university had modified its research and no harm would be caused to the environment due to the field trials. The bench therefore directed the GEAC to give its opinion before proceeding further in the matter and adjourned the proceedings to January 2007.

Genetic panel to examine Delhi University field trials

The Hindu, Dec 16 2006 (front page)

Court order on expert opinion that the exercise involving genetically modified crop is a health hazard

• GEAC approval not obtained for test; opinion sought
• Release of toxic elements hazardous, says petitioner

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has asked the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) to examine the impact of ongoing Delhi University field trials on genetically modified DMH-11 mustard variety in the light of expert opinion that such exercises are toxic and harmful.

Academic research

The Court, which restrained field trials of genetically modified products with commercial implications, later permitted the University to sow seeds of the newly developed DMH-11 for academic research.

On September 22, the Court, acting on a petition from Aruna Rodrigues and three others, had restrained the GEAC from according fresh approvals for genetically modified products, particularly for commercial purposes.

The public interest litigation had sought a ban on release of genetically modified organism/seeds having the potential of causing major public health hazards.

On Friday a Bench comprising Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Justices C.K. Thakker and R.V. Raveendran directed the GEAC to examine the matter after it was brought to the Court's notice that GEAC approval was not obtained for this field trial.

It asked the GEAC to give its opinion by the first week of January and directed that the case be listed for January.

Toxic elements

Petitioner's counsel Prashant Bhushan said genetically modified organism/seeds would pose major health hazards once they were released into the environment even for research.

He cited opinions given by three eminent professors that the field trials on GM-Mustard would result in release of toxic elements that, even at low levels, could prove harmful to the environment.

The main areas (relating to field trials) required a fuller study before exposing millions of people and millions of animals to the toxins.

Research modified

Appearing for the University, senior counsel P.P. Rao said it had modified its research and no harm would be caused to the environment by the field trials.

SC concerned over risks of open field trials of GM seeds

Times of India, 16 December 2006

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Friday shared the public concern over the largescale ongoing field trials of genetically modified (GM) seeds in India and their potential to corrupt traditional crops like rice, cotton, brinjal, tomato, cauliflower, wheat and okra.

However, it was cautious not to accede to petitioner Aruna Rodrigues' plea for a total ban on field trials till the statutory Genetic Engineering Advisory Committee (GEAC) gave the green signal to the outcome of laboratory safety tests on the GM seeds.

The issue on debate before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justices C K Thakker and R V Raveendran was the field trials of GM mustard seed ò DMH-11 ò being carried out by Delhi University. The court, while allowing continuance of the trial, had warned the university that it could be asked to uproot the plants if they were found to be ecologically dangerous.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan, questioned the credentials of the independent members appointed by the government to the GEAC and alleged that one of them was a partner to the commercial interests of a multinational GM seed firm.

This allegation soon turned into a finger-pointing exercise, with Additional Solicitor General Amarendra Saran questioning the credentials of the experts suggested by the petitioner for inclusion in GEAC. Not getting drawn into the seemingly unending trading of accusations, the Bench took note of the petitionerÇs argument that DMH-11 seed contained genetic use restriction technology (GURT) and asked GEAC to submit a report on the safety aspect of the field trials being carried out by Delhi University.

It also asked GEAC to respond to the expert opinions cited by the petitioner, which unequivocally cautioned against use of GURT seeds in field trials. Saran contended that the green revolution which made India self-sufficient in foodgrains, was due to the genetically modified seeds and that GEAC has not allowed any GM seed for field trial which could have an adverse impact on ecology or traditional crops

December 2006

Mexican Farmers Fight Transgenic Foods

Latin American news Agency, December 15 2006

Mexico, Dec 15 (Prensa Latina) Farmers from 19 Mexican states began a campaign Friday to protect natural corn and beans from their transgenic counterparts.

The National Farmers' Association (ANEC) says the goal is to recover arable land now neglected or given over to a different use.

Their strategy includes assembling a network of companies that exclusively produce beans to seek commercial and industrial alternatives.

Another goal is to start negotiations with Congress and the Government to pass a law to protect bean and corn production, achieve food sovereignty and defend their condition as farmers.

The ninth ANEC general assembly also discussed financing, sustainable agricultural production and the 2007 rural budget.

There was skepticism over a proposal by Agriculture Secretary Alberto Cardenas to discuss the agribusiness section of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The ANC pointed out that the Mexican Commission for Sustainable Rural Development does not represent the majority and other groups should be included in these long-promised negotiations.

In addition, ANEC is demanding the presence of scientists and academicians linked to the rural sector, who have evidence of the disaster caused by the implementation of such unfair trade terms.

Huge concerns were also raised over the planned elimination of tariffs in 2008 on corn, beans and powder milk under NAFTA.

14 December 2006

Austria likely to escape EU order to lift GMO bans

Reuters, 14 December 2006. By Jeremy Smith.

BRUSSELS, Dec 14 (Reuters) - Austria may escape another order to lift its two bans on genetically modified (GMO) maize varieties as EU ministers prepare to deliver a second rebuff to the European Commission, officials said on Thursday.

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

Last June the Commission, the EU's executive arm, tried to get all the bans scrapped. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has also attacked these so-called national safeguards for breaking international trade rules.

But EU environment ministers rejected proposals for the five states -- Austria, France, Germany, Greece and Luxembourg -- to remove their restrictions.

Austria is the only country whose GMO bans refer to products still actively marketed. In the other cases, the companies manufacturing the particular GMO products that were the subject of the original bans have withdawn them from the market.

Austria has banned two GMO maize varieties, one in 1997 and the other in 1999. The first ban was against MON 810 maize made by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto (MON.N: Quote, Profile , Research) and the second against T25 maize made by German drugs and chemicals group Bayer (BAYG.DE: Quote, Profile , Research).

On Monday EU environment ministers will debate a draft Commission order for Austria to lift the bans.

Observers say the order is meant to demonstrate to the complainants in the WTO case -- Argentina, Canada and the United States -- that the Commission is taking action to facilitate more GMO authorisations.

Rejection expected

The Commission's problem is that the EU-25 is unlikely to endorse that draft order next week. Privately, Commission officials say a rejection is more likely.

To force Austria to lift its bans, the Commission will need to secure a weighted majority of EU ministers in favour of its draft orders. There can also be a weighted majority against, when the Commission would withdraw the orders and reconsider.

While the positions of nearly all the 25 countries are already known, three states are wavering -- Germany, Portugal and Spain. Under the EU's complex weighted voting system, Germany and Spain carry a lot of influence.

But they are still not expected to vote in favour, so the vote's outcome is almost certain to amount to a rejection of the Commission order.

"It's a question of how close it comes to a rejection," one Commission official said.

U.S. rice industry tackles export problem

Seed Quest, 14 December 2006. By Blair Fannin.

TEXAS - Texas rice producers are encouraged to implement voluntary measures in 2007 in an attempt to regain valuable export markets, according to experts.

Earlier this year, samples of Cheniere variety rice contained trace amounts of genetic material from LL601, a Liberty Link genetically-modified rice that had not been approved for release. Markets reacted negatively to the discovery and led to an embargo of U.S. rice sold to the European Union and some other countries.

"This is a voluntary effort the industry is putting forth," said Dr. Garry McCauley, a research scientist with the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. "Not planting or marketing the Cheniere variety is a very feasible way to get our rice back into those export markets again."

At the USA Rice Federation meeting recently in Las Vegas, an outline of recommendations was formulated as part of a strategy to prevent unapproved genetically modified rice from entering the marketplace. For example, seed dealers have agreed not to sell the Cheniere rice variety for planting in 2007.

Texas growers are advised to implement the following practices for the 2007 growing season:

Purchased rice planting seed must be dealer certified as LL601-trait free.

Upon first entry to the marketplace at a rice dryer/elevator, the grower must present dealer seed certification and documentation of rice acreage certified to the Farm Service Agency (including the farm serial number).

"All of these documents will be reviewed for completeness at the first place the rice enters the marketing chain," said McCauley, noting major Texas rice mills have agreed to participate in the effort by not purchasing rice that cannot be documented as being planted with LL-trait-free seed.

Growers are advised to carefully clean all planting, harvesting and storage equipment prior to starting the 2007 season, McCauley said.

"If the problem is going to go away, we need to make a good stewardship effort to clean this up," he said.

For more detailed information, rice growers should contact the Texas Cooperative Extension agent in their county, McCauley said

Farmer quits GM potato experiment

BBC News, 14 December 2006.

Plans to grow genetically modified potatoes in Derbyshire have been abandoned because a farmer fears for his own safety.

At the beginning of December the government gave BASF Plant Science permission to grow potatoes in a field near Draycott and in Cambridgeshire.

But the Derbyshire farmer has pulled out, as he said he feared protests by environmental campaigners.

BASF said it was confident of finding an alternative site.

The farmer whose land was to be used for the trial has not been identified.

The GM potato crops are to be planted next spring. The trial will last several years.

A BASF spokesman said: "BASF is committed to the UK trials of GM potatoes and while it is disappointing that one of the sites is no longer available to take part in this important scientific programme, we are pleased to confirm that we are reviewing a number of suitable locations."

Dodgy EU lobbying in spotlight

EUobserver.com, 14 December 2006. By Honor Mahony.

The European Commission cropped up three times yesterday (13 December) in an awards ceremony that highlighted the practice of giving lobbyists too much access to EU-law making.

In the "worst privileged access" category, the internal market department of the commission, run by commissioner Charlie McCreevy, came out top with "manipulating a consultation on EU patent policies" given as the reason.

Trade commissioner Peter Mandelson came in second place "for opening the door wide to business lobbyists" while his industry colleague G¸nter Verheugen scooped third prize for "installing unbalanced high level working groups serving big business interests."

In the second category, for "worst EU lobbying" it was oil company ExxonMobil that picked up the honours.

According to the initiators of the project, including Corporate Europe Observatory, Friends of the Earth Europe and LobbyControl, the US company continues to fund climate change sceptics.

PR firm Weber Shandwick got second prize for heading the office of a group that is pushing for equal access to cancer care in the EU, but not making clear the group was financed by pharmaceutical giant Roche.

Meanwhile a "misinformation" campaign over the recently approved EU chemicals legislation REACH got the European Chemical Industry Council third place, according to organisers.

The winners were announced in Brussels after over 9,000 people voted online in what is the second year of the annual award.

Around 15,000 lobbyists are thought to work in Brussels with LobbyControl's Ulrich M¸ller, quoted in German daily FT Deutschland, as saying "at least two thirds of all lobbyists represent business interests and are involved in virtually all law-making processes."

Green MEP Hiltrud Breyer said "there are indications that whole reports and voting lists are worked out by lobbyists [and] that MEPs' assistants are paid by industry."

For its part the European Commission has set up a voluntary register for lobbyists. However, critics say that only a mandatory register with full financial disclosure is the way to keep the sector clean.

13 December 2006

GM soya: two ex- directors of a former Monsanto affiliate sentenced to € 30,000 fine by court in Carcassone.

Associated Press, published by Nouvel Observateur online (France), 13 December 2006.

[English translation provided by Michael O'Callaghan]

The high court of Carcassone (Aude) sentenced two ex-directors of the American seed company Monsanto's former subsidiary Asgrow, Jean-Bernard Bonastre et Serge Reymond, to pay fines of € 15,000 each on Wednesday afternoon. According to Michel Dupont, trade union organiser in charge of GMOs with the farm organisation Confédération Paysanne, the defendants were found guilty on four counts of (a) having placed a genetically modified organism on the market without authorisation, (b) sale and storage of a falsified, corrupt or toxic agricultural product, (c ) fraudulent advertising, and (e) deception on the nature and quality of merchandise in 1999 and 2000.

In April 2000, the General Directorate for Fair Trading, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF) discovered low level but illegal traces of GMOs in soya during a routine inspection of the Groupe Cooperative Occitan (Tarn),

The farmers organisation was a plaintiff along with UFC-Que Choisir [a consumer group], France Nature Environnement [a non-governmental organisation], and the DGCCRF.

Commenting on Wednesday's verdict, Michel Dupont said "The fine is certainly less than the € 30,000 which was requested against each of the two former directors on 20 September. But we are very satisfied at this first guilty verdict for Monsanto before the courts. Moreover, it is very significant that the court recognised all of the four legal breaches."

The Confédération Paysanne intends to make full use of this ruling. "We will ask the French Government to act with greater transparency and communicate the results of follow-up tests on foreign seed imports. This has not been done in 2006. The biovigilance committee has not yet held a meeting", it said.

In a press release issued on Wednesday, Monsanto "takes note of and regrets" the Carcassone court ruling. "The company has always made it a priority to maintain a relationship of absolute trust with French farmers. Monsanto's faith in its quality assurance remains firm" said the seed company, which indicated is it currently considering the option to appeal the ruling.

Background information (not included in the article):

The illegal GM soya was imported from the USA. The lawsuit was initiated, at the request of a number of contaminated farmers, by the Confédération Paysanne, which was later joined by France Nature Environnement and UFC-Que Choisir. No individual farmers appear to have been directly involved as plaintiffs.

This was the first law case of its kind in France. The court found the Monsanto affiliate's former directors guilty, but not the company itself, because no laws foresaw the responsibility of "moral persons" for such acts at the time they were commited. According to France Nature Environnement, the judge was obliged to make the ruling in the absence of definitive European or national laws concerning seed purety.

The Prosecutor requested fines of € 30,0000. The maximum fine which could have been applied according to various legal texts ranged from € 75,000 to € 100,000 (i.e. combined total of fines for breach of separate laws: € 75,000 for placing on the market, € 5,000 for fraudulent advertising, etc.).

Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to pay costs and damages of € 8,000 to France Nature Environnement, € 4,000 to the Confédération Paysanne, and € 4,000 to the consumers organisation UFC Que Choisir.

According to a Greenpeace poll published in the newspaper Le Parisien on 15 September, 66% of French people are worried by the idea of eating food involving GMOs in any stage of its production process. 58% support a total moratorium on GM food and farming until their health and environmental risks can be evaluated. 28% would like a total ban on GM farming and GM food. Only 11% believe GM food and farming are no more risky than their conventional counterparts.

For more information contact:

Michel Dupont
Confédération Paysanne
104 Rue Robespierre
93170 Bagnolet
France
tel + 33 1 43 62 04 04
fax: +33 1 43 62 80 03
email: contact@confederationpaysanne.fr
www.confederationpaysanne.fr

Yann Barthelemy
Press officer
France Nature Environnement
tel : + 33 1 47 07 46 34
tel : + 33 1 43 36 84 67
email: information@fne.asso.fr
www.fne.asso.fr

Anne Furet
Inf'OGM
tel +33 1 48 51 65 40
email: anne@infogm.org
www.infogm.org

French Monsanto subsidiary found guilty of GMO contamination

France Nature Environnement press release, 14 December 2006.

Carcassone, France -- In a judgment issued on 13 December, the Correctional Tribunal of Carcassone sentenced the directors of Monsanto subsidiary Asgrow, Serge Reymond and Jean-Bernard Bonastre, to a € 15,000 fine for the placing on the market of non-authorised GMOs.

Tests carried out by France's General Directorate for Fair Trading, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control detected the presence of unauthorised GMOs in bags of seeds immported by Asgrow on 13 April 2000. The follow-up investigation proved the company's executives knew about the contamination in their products since at least December 1999.

The defendants' principal line of defence rested on the fact that there would not be a zero contamination threshold, and that a threshold for "adventitious" contamination would be allowed. But the judge ruled that "a zero contamination threshold is required, beyond which a prior authorisation is mandatory".

The France Nature Environment federation celebrates this exeplary verdict which guarantees the protection of the common good and food consumers' freedom of choice. The organisation notes, however, that even the agribusiness seed companies no longer hide that fact that zero contamination is a thing of the past, and is worried that the lack of responsible policy-making by the public authorites can only encourage such problems.

Contact

The above was submitted by Anne Furet of Inf'OGM, tel: +33 1 48 51 65 40.

EU court asked to fine France over national GMO law

Reuters, 13 December 2006.

BRUSSELS - France may face a fine of more than 38 million euros (US$50.3 million) from Europe's top court for its failure to update national laws on genetically modified (GMO) crops and foods, the European Commission said on Tuesday.

The Commission, the EU executive, has often warned France to comply with EU law and integrate into its national statute book an EU directive on the environmental release of GMOs.

Apart from the lump sum fine, the Commission also asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to order Paris to pay 366,744 euros a day until French law adequately reflected the EU directive, it said in a statement.

France was ordered by the ECJ to comply with European law in 2004. It then received two written warnings from the Commission.

"European legislation on GMOs seeks to ensure the highest protection of health and the environment," EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said.

"It is therefore difficult to understand why France has not complied with the judgment of the court. The failure to transpose the EU directive on the deliberate release of GMOs may now result in fines," he said.

The directive, agreed by EU governments in 2001, regulates how GMO crops may be grown and approved across the bloc and ranks as the EU's main law, of around five, on biotech crops.

It covers the cultivation of GMO seeds for crop or seed production and also includes imports of GMOs from other countries and their processing for industrial purposes.

EU governments had a deadline of October 2002 to revise their national legislation to include the law, known as the Deliberate Release directive.

12 December 2006

First GM-Free schools declared in Borjomi, Samtskhe-Javakheti Region, Georgia

GM0-free Caucasus Net, 12-13 December, 2006

On 12-13 December 2006 the Greens Movement of Georgia / Friends of the Earth - Georgia organized series of eco-seminars for schools of Borjomi town, Samtskhe-Javakheti Region on the issues of genetically modified organisms. After the eco-seminars the improvised action was arranged with the participation of pupils from all 6 schools of Borjomi town, which resulted with declaration of Borjomi schools GM-Free.

The events were organized in the ranges of project: Strengthening GMO-Free Campaigns in Georgia and EECCA Region, which is being implemented in coordination with FoEI GMO Programme and financially supported by the HIVOS Foundation.

In the ranges of the event there were organized series of eco-seminars in all six schools of Borjomi town. The pupils were introduced to the issues of GMOs and the problems they pose for the environment, health and socio-economic development. For this purpose newly developed special methodical material was used. After the eco-seminars, on 13 December there was organized the improvised action.

The idea of improvised action was that the pupils of all six schools have brought out of their schools some imitations of GM products and thus have said their NO to GMOs! After this, these pupils have collected in second school of Borjomi, where there was arranged question-and-answer session about GMOs. Children and teachers had the possibility to get answers from the representatives of the Greens Movement of Georgia. After this, pupils have put all the imitations of GMOs in one big box and throw away to trash can. Representatives of the Greens Movement of Georgia delivered special banners to the schools which indicate that these schools are GM-Free. These banners will be hanged in visible places within the schools.

It is worth to mention that this is the first case in Georgia and Caucasus when the school is declared GM-Free and hopefully this initiative will continue and other schools and institutions will follow this positive example. It is also memorable that this fact took place in Borjomi, which is famous region with its unique biodiversity.

The event had enormous resonance in society. We received requests from the schools of surrounding villages and towns to organize similar activities in their schools as well. The event was actively covered by media sources. Local TV Company Borjomi dedicated news program to it. Articles have been published in printed media as well, in newspapers Borjomi and Tsisartkela.

For further information about the project and planed activities contact the Greens Movement of Georgia / FoE-Georgia at: gmo@greens.ge

George Magradze Project Coordinator

Africa in the middle of U.S.-European biotech trade war

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 12 December 2006. By Eric Hand.

The story is the stuff of legend.

Drought leads to famine across southern Africa. The U.S. ships aid across the Atlantic: millions of tons of corn, some of it genetically modified.

European environmental groups warn about the dire effects of allowing the corn in. The Zambian president calls the corn "poison." Food is locked in warehouses while people go hungry.

Four years ago, these events were a prism through which both sides of the biotech debate saw their worldview refracted. Supporters said: Here is the human cost of European irrationality and the missed opportunities of biotech. Skeptics said: Here is a deliberate provocation by the U.S., which could buy grain in Africa but instead works to secure a foothold to market its own biotech products.

The biotech conflict between Europe and the U.S. is a trade war that's being fought by proxy in Africa in a way that recalls an African proverb: When two elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled.

"It's not about science, really. It's about trade," says Wisdom Changadaya, a pro-biotech scientist in

Malawi, which today mills donated biotech corn into flour to prevent it from being planted as seed. "These big nations are fighting. We happen to lose."

Scientists at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in Creve Coeur say the suspicions aroused by the trade war have hampered their efforts to field-test a biotech cassava, one of the most important food crops in Africa. Seven years ago, they genetically engineered the cassava to resist a virus that is ravaging the crop. The nonprofit biotech center wants to give the plant away.

But Lawrence Kent, the center's director of international programs, has been unable to get field tests approved. While the cassava virus continues to advance on farmers' fields, the biotech debate continues in government offices. Several African nations have banned biotech, several have embraced it, while many remain on the fence. Last summer, Kent went to Kenya, Uganda and Malawi to push yet again for the technology that could double cassava yields in the virus-affected areas.

"You want to do something with your life before you die," he says. "When I don't see (results) coming, I feel sad and lost. I need someone to sometimes say, 'Keep going. Keep going.'"

A 'Trojan horse'

Zachary Makanya wishes Kent and other biotech pushers would stop. He is the country coordinator for an anti-biotech nongovernmental organization near Nairobi that coordinates the efforts of groups throughout Africa. Makanya levels a barrage of criticisms against biotech, but they are political and economic criticisms, not scientific.

He says U.S. food aid is a "Trojan horse" that would put African markets in jeopardy. Crops like corn pollinate via the wind. When genetically modified corn arrives in a new location, genes can flow and mix with existing corn crops. In the eyes of European regulators, African corn exports therefore would be tainted.

"By bringing (genetically modified food) into Africa we are actually killing our only market - for organics," he says.

But it's a potential market, not an existing one, so Michael Hall, a U.S. Agency for International Development biotechnology adviser, doesn't buy Makanya's argument. The biotech crops that African nations are worrying about - corn, rice - are staple cereals for which Africa is a net importer.

"Africa is not going to be a (corn) exporter to Europe," he says. "They're dreaming they will be an Iowa."

But even the presence of biotechnology in a country in Africa has caused some European importers to ask for expensive genetic testing or segregation of crops. "It's a big problem," Hall says. "It scares the daylights out of African traders."

In Malawi, for example, tobacco growers worry about biotech tobacco seeds slipping into the country, for fear its organic European export market would be threatened.

The politics of biotech have influenced trade decisions in other parts of the world. China has grown biotech cotton for a decade. But it does not grow biotech soybeans, even though it imports some for feed. That's because it can export homegrown, nonbiotech soybeans at a premium to Japan and Korea.

In the U.S., Monsanto withdrew a planned commercial release of biotech wheat partly because of industry concerns that Canadian growers would resist growing the biotech wheat and would capture export markets to Europe, which was likely to balk at taking U.S.-grown biotech wheat.

Europe's de facto freeze on biotech imports, though it ended in 2003, has raised African suspicions, Makanya says.

"Europe has more knowledge, education. So why are they refusing (genetically modified foods)? That is the question everybody is asking," he says.

Precaution and risk

The U.S.-European divide on biotech has much to do with competing cultural approaches to food and risk.

Europeans are intimate with their food. They want to know where their wine and cheese hail from. Food safety scandals such as a mad-cow disease outbreak in Britain left consumers shaky. Some risk experts say the scandals spurred European fears of biotech.

The "precautionary principle" now forms the official basis for European Union environmental policy. One definition of the principle is: Lack of knowledge or certainty about a risk means that steps should be taken to limit that risk.

The precautionary principle led Norway to ban Kellogg's Corn Flakes because of the uncertain risk of added vitamins and minerals, while Denmark banned cranberry drinks because of the uncertain risk of extra vitamin C. The bans were later overturned.

In contrast, the U.S. tends to celebrate risk-taking. The burden of regulation is on government agencies to show evidence that a company's product is risky before steps are taken to stop the company.

The U.S. is the No. 1 grower of biotech crops, representing 55 percent of the global biotech area planted last year.

The World Trade Organization ruled this year that the European Union was wrong to ban biotech imports between 1999 and 2003. Since then, a few European nations, including Germany and France, have allowed small test plots to go forward, though it is unclear whether consumers will accept biotech products. Activists last summer continued to burn biotech test fields in France.

Africa is caught in the middle. In the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union pitted African nations against one another and supported like-minded regimes. A similarly checkered map has now emerged with biotech. For example, South Africa grows genetically engineered crops, while Zambia and Benin have banned biotech. Most countries remain undecided.

The debate is occurring in the ministerial hallways of African capitals. In the dry, red fields of southeastern Uganda, biotech still is a mystery.

In Kadimukoli, a loose federation of shade and shacks down a dirt track teeming with pink-frocked schoolchildren, a handful of farmers didn't have an opinion about biotech. They didn't have an opinion because they didn't know what genetically modified crops are. They just knew that their cassava was sick.

One of the farmers, Jane Wattaba, says it has been hard to support her 10 surviving children since her husband, a member of Parliament, was murdered in the early 1980s. Her small cassava grinder is broken, the repair money sacrificed to pay school fees for her children.

Over a lunch of boiled cassava, she says that farmers have weathered the damage caused by the cassava virus by obtaining varieties that show better resistance - one is called "Red Cross" after the aid organization that brought it to Kadimukoli. She says she would like to test a cassava called "St. Louis."

Deadlines to meet

When Kent returned from Africa last summer, he was more optimistic that this could happen. In Kenya, field tests of conventional cassava plants have begun. These plants will be compared to biotech cassava in future field tests that Kent said could happen next year. He said Ugandan officials were so enthusiastic that they approached him. Malawi was a bit more skeptical but still interested in the cassava project, he says.

Even if Kent gets permission for field tests, biotech cassava is still years away from farmers' fields.

And deadlines must be met. "Donors put pressure on us. You have to deliver," Kent says.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Monsanto Fund have given the Danforth Center millions of dollars to genetically modify the cassava so that it is virus-resistant, fortified with vitamins and minerals and lacking in cyanide-producing chemicals. The grants are for five years and specify more than 100 mileposts in the coming years, from rounding up intellectual property rights to performing human trials of the zinc and iron fortification.

Kent says a significant milestone will occur early next year, when field tests for the first genetically modified cassava - for the reduction of cyanide-producing chemicals - begin in Puerto Rico. Danforth Center scientists won't be able to test their virus-resistant cassava in Puerto Rico because the disease doesn't exist there. But Kent hopes that a test of genetically modified cassava on U.S. soil will allay African officials' fears that they are guinea pigs.

Flirtatious governments have disappointed him before, but he doesn't indulge in cynicism. Kent credits his local priest with giving him some newfound perspective.

Before he left for Africa, the priest gave him a poem from Archbishop Oscar Romero, an activist Salvadoran priest assassinated in 1980.

The poem begins: "It helps now and then to step back and take the long view / The Kingdom is not only beyond our efforts / It is even beyond our vision

"We plant the seeds that one day will grow / We water seeds already planted, knowing that they hold future promise

"It may be incomplete, but it is a beginning, a step along the way."

Poor regulators do not a rich country make

Central Chronicle (India), December 12 2006

In this past month, farmer associations in Haryana and Tamil Nadu have located and burnt field trials for genetically modified Bt rice. In Chhattisgarh the state government has stopped similar trials happening under its nose. It is all too easy to deride these actions as the handiwork of some misinformed eco-fundamentalists or miscreants out to seek 'cheap' publicity. It can also be argued that these actions will impede scientific progress designed to find answers to malnutrition and food insecurity in the country. It can then be logically concluded that these actions give the country a 'bad' name and dissuade foreign investment.

But if critics of such civil action pause and ask what is it that forces people to take such extreme steps, they will invariably find that the blame lies elsewhere. This happens because our regulatory institutions are compromised and weak. Because popular confidence in their ability to work in public interest is low. The fact also is that industry systematically undermines these processes. On being caught out, it cries foul.

Take the instance of pesticide regulations, which I know well. A few years ago, we started testing for pesticide residues in our food and water. As we detected toxins and brought it to public attention, the pesticide industry started its blame game. It first accused us of bad science. When we defended our work, the attack shifted to intimidation with a steady bombardment of legal notices (which continue till date).

After this too failed, their offensive has become personal. The owner of a leading pesticide company is now circulating obscene cartoons drawn by him on me. Being a woman, they consider me easy game.

The issue for us is different. We have found to our horror that industry is hardly regulated for environmental or food safety in India. That pesticides were registered without the mandatory setting of maximum residue levels or legal limits of what would be allowed in our food. The rest of the world regulates these economic toxins using a trade-off of nutrition versus poison. In other words, it decides first on how much pesticide can be ingested over a lifetime and then carefully stipulates how much is allowed in different items of our diet. We did not even have the concept of the safety threshold in our regulations. Whatever little research is done is not available to public.

This commonsense regulation of modern toxins requires credible scientific institutions that work in public interest. But institutions designed to monitor pesticide residues in India have been increasingly compromised because of their forced alliances with industry. The pesticide industry provides money for research and trials, sponsors its conferences, and it also gives jobs. Like it or not, it has become the benefactor in this private-public partnership. This market formula creates conflicts of interest when research has to be credible and, more importantly, publicly acceptable.

In any case, all the data for registration of a new molecule is provided by the company that has discovered the chemical. When it has spent millions of dollars in developing the molecule, it has an obvious interest in its release.

Regulation of pesticide residues requires state of the art public research: laboratories, inspectors and scientists. When registering a new pesticide in India, we never stop to check if we have the wherewithal to monitor its use, and if whether new equipment (and hence more money) is required. We never consider a mandatory cess on each new registration to pay for its management.

The case of genetically modified (gm) organisms is similar. Some people are ideologically opposed to gm crops. But there are others - like me - who want these crops introduced, but with all precaution to ensure our safety. In other words, we want a credible and effective (kicking) public regulatory policy and framework for the use of gm products in the country.

But it seems that is too much to ask. We have no real policy to decide which gm crops should be allowed. Several parts of the world fear this technology and have disallowed any food products which contain gm organisms - accidentally or intentionally. us rice exports are in deep trouble because of this. gm rice has not been permitted anywhere in the world. Should we allow it?

If yes, how are we to minimise economic, ecological and health damage? Should we allow field trials in states like Chhattisgarh, which is a centre of rice diversity? And what about states like Uttar Pradesh, which produce the prized basmati rice?

If we are to allow trials, how will our regulatory system ensure compliance? For instance, all the farmers who were questioned after their field was uprooted or burnt said that they did not know what was being planted. The field was leased out to the seed company Mahyco. The information about field trials was secret, till activists got it by using the Right To Information Act. The rules require that state- and district-level monitoring committees oversee the trials. In this case, even the state governments had no clue.

If we assume compliance on all these counts, how will we test that our farm produce does not contain gm traces? Do we have the laboratories, or an effective monitoring and enforcement system to tell us if our rice or brinjal is gm? If we are to have a right to choose, it requires funds and facilities for ensuring effective regulations. Can we afford all this? We have no labelling requirements even; much of the food imported into India is likely to be gm.

We can't assume that we are rich and powerful enough to use modern substances, but too poor to regulate their use in the larger interest of health and the environment. That would be wrong. No, it would be criminal. And it is.

- The writer is Director, Centre for Science & Environment

11 December 2006

Enviro-Ag Battle Heats Up Over Regulatory Hurtles

Axcessnews.com, 11 December 2006. By Armando Duke.

(AXcess News) Houston, TX - Whether large or small, agricultural companies face similar hurtles when it comes to regulatory approvals for their products. Just ask Monsanto or Itronics, who are both wading through environmental issues in bringing new products to market.

Monsanto Corp. (NYSE: MON) has been facing regulatory hurdles of its genetically modified crops (GMO) as it wades through consumer worries over how safe they may be, while Itronics, INc. (OTCBB: ITRO) faces a myriad of EPA registration requirements for its new biopesticide. A David and Goliath story if there ever was one, only in this case, the battle is with regulators and the companies are on opposite spectrums of the Enviro-Ag industry - genetically altered crops and environmentally friendly pesticides.

Monsanto just lost one round of its battle in Europe after Hungary said it was set to impose strict rules on genetically modified crops that would mostly block their cultivation even if the EU overturns the country's GMO ban.

The law, supported by the opposition as well as government parties, was proposed in case the European Union forces Hungary to abandon its complete ban.

The recent announcement that US authorities had traced amounts of unapproved genetically modified food in samples of rice prompted the EU to clamp down on all imports from the US.

Speaking at an investor meeting in London last week, Monsanto chairman Hugh Grant said the company would win over regulators and consumers "farm-by-farm and field-by-field".

Last week Itronics announced that it had overcome a number of technological challenges in the formulation of a biopesticide that when applied to plants both repel the deer while fertilizing the plants. While a deer repellent doesn't sound like much, Reno-based Itronics will be filling orders in about a year in a $50 million market where competition is almost non-existent.

The enviro-ag company hopes to sell its GOLD'n GRO Guardian deer repellent in the Northeast in the first quarter of 2008 where damage from deer is most prevalent, Itronics said.

According to a report by Cornell Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, N.Y., the deer population has grown from 500,000 nationwide in the early 1900's to more than 15 million today and the damage to crops and ornamental plants is estimated to exceed $2 billion annually.

Itronics President, Dr. John Whitney says "Field trials have shown the product to be effective as both a fertilizer and a repellent, lasting up to three months after being applied."

Whitney's company already manufactures an environmentally friendly liquid fertilizer manufactured from waste photochemicals which it sells mostly in bulk form to farmers on the West coast after years of EPA registrations on a state-by-state basis.

GM paddy runs into rough weather in TN

DNA India, 11 December 2006. By Arun Ram.

CHENNAI: Field trials of genetically modified (GM) rice in Tamil Nadu may be nipped in the bud. While the Centre has done virtually nothing to dispel the Frankenstein theories about the anti-GM crop groups, the state is mulling a legislation to ban such trials altogether.

"The government may issue a law banning GM crop trials. We hope the Centre will support us," said Tamil Nadu agriculture minister Veerapandi Arumugam. The minister's reply came in the wake of severe concerns raised by legislators across party lines. While Congress leader, Peter Alphonse, said: "GM crops will wipe out traditional crops", PMK legislator Velmurugan, said: "GM crops are being dumped in India to harm the farming sector."

The volley of political rallies began soon after a farmer's group uprooted BT paddy in a plot in Ramanathapuram village of Coimbatore last month. Mahyco-Monsanto had taken on lease the 20-acre field to try a variety of rice that has a larger yield and resists some common paddy diseases. The group under the banner of the Tamil Nadu Farmers' Association put up notices around the plot, calling it a bio-hazard element.

It alleged the company was doing field trials in the land of Rangaraju, a farmer, without informing him that the crop is genetically engineered.

"Some 37 people have died and 1,500 others have been crippled in the country after consuming GM crops," said Tamil Nadu Green Movement president Jeevanandam.

The only effort to dispel fears came from the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU). "Our scientists have visited the fields and have found the trials to conform to the bio-safety guidelines set by the Union government," a TNAU official said. While the commercial release of GM crops in the country is regulated by the review committee on genetic manipulation under the department of biotechnology, experts feel that there is no convincing monitoring agency for safety standards during the trials.

"We can quell all doubts if we succeed in establishing an autonomous and professionally eminent National Biotechnology Authority that can assess risks and benefits in a manner which inspires public, political, professional, farmers and media confidence.

The bottom line for any biotechnology regulatory policy should be the safety of the environment, the well being of farming families, the ecological and economic sustainability of farming systems, the health and nutrition security of consumers, safeguarding of home and external trade, and the biosecurity of our nation," said agriculture scientist MS Swaminathan.

10 December 2006

Monsanto foes challenge seed company buy

Market Watch, 10 December 2006.

SAN FRANCISCO -- Monsanto Co.'s opponents in the crop-biotechnology industry are trying to build Farm Belt opposition to the $1.5 billion acquisition to the $1.5 billion purchase of seed giant Delta & Pine Land Co., according to a media report Sunday.

St. Louis-based Monsanto's second attempt in seven years to buy Delta and Pine Land Company, the last publicly traded pure seed company in the U.S., could be running into trouble, The Wall Street Journal reported in its online edition.

As the U.S. Department of Justice continues its antitrust review, Monsanto competitor DuPont Co., the Swiss biotech company, is telling farmers the deal isn't in their best interest, The Journal reported.

Delta & Pine Land's seeds produce half of America's cotton, the nation's fifth-biggest crop, according to The Journal report.

Wall Street analysts have applauded the proposed combination because it would allow Monsanto to speed penetration of the cottonseed market with new genetically modified traits while ending several years of costly litigation between the two firms over their first breakup, The Journal said.

"We are disappointed that competitors are using extreme tactics to try to gin up opposition to a deal that would benefit U.S. cotton growers and the cotton industry," The Journal said it was told by Carl M. Casale, by executive vice president of Monsanto. "The regulators should be allowed to do their job and review this transaction without the background noise" Delta & Pine Land Chief Executive and President Tom Jagodinski didn't return phone calls seeking comment, The Journal said.

For Delta shareholders, it is the latest chapter in an ill-starred romance between the Scott, Miss., company and Monsanto, The Journal said.

Monsanto offered to buy Delta in 1998 for stock then valued at $1.8 billion, according to the report.

Monsanto backed out in December 1999 after antitrust regulators had reviewed the case for 19 months without making a decision, The Journal said.

To get Delta & Pine Land executives to shelve a lawsuit seeking $2 billion in damages over the breakup and consider a new offer, Monsanto promised to hand over $600 million if the new deal doesn't pass antitrust review by August 2007, a deadline that can be extended, The Journal reported.

The opposition of DuPont and other firms reflects Delta's role in their plans to challenge Monsanto's decade-long dominance of crop biotechnology, according to The Journal report, which noted that Monsanto owns brands that sell about 25% of the seed used to grow the two biggest U.S. crops, corn and soybeans, and has licensed independent seed companies to use its genes.

The majority of genetically modified crops, including corn, soybeans and cotton, contain Monsanto genes, which equip plants to make their own insecticide and to tolerate exposure to weed killers, the Journal said, adding that such traits make plants so much easier to tend that farmers are willing to pay far more for genetically modified seed than conventional seed.

DuPont and others are developing new genes with the aim of replacing Monsanto technology over the next decade, The Journal said. DuPont and Syngenta, which own brands of corn and soybean seed, don't control any cottonseed, according to the report.

Delta, the last publicly traded pure seed company in the U.S., had been making moves to break its dependence on Monsanto genes, The Journal said, adding that in July, a month before the proposed acquisition was announced, Delta struck a deal to use genes, under development at DuPont's Pioneer seeds unit, designed to give plants the same sort of immunity to weed killers as Monsanto genes. had licensed Delta to use genes it is developing that instruct a plant how to make its own bug killer, The Journal said.

To make the deal more palatable to regulators, Monsanto is promising to divest its Stoneville cottonseed business, which controls 12% of the market, according to the report, and Monsanto executives said they would be interested in being able to offer Syngenta and DuPont genes in Delta & Pine Land cottonseed. They stopped short of promising to use competitors' genes.

9 December 2006

MRTPC issues notice to Monsanto

Financial Express (India), 9 December 2006. By Ashok B. Sharma

NEW DELHI, DEC 8: The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) has asked Monsanto, US seed multinational to respond within four weeks to the Andhra Pradesh government's contention that it was liable to pay compensation to the farmers for sell