_______________________
20 February 2006
Sensitive GM crop data may remain restricted
Department seeking to keep details secret
Irish Independent, 20 February 2006.
IRISH consumers may never know the biological make-up of genetically modified (GM) crops grown here because the Department of the Environment wants to keep the details secret.
It has sought to have them excluded from the Freedom of Information Act (FOI).
This means that anyone seeking information on the science behind developing new crop strains can be refused, on the basis that it is commercially sensitive.
This Wednesday is the closing date for submissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on a licence application from German biotech firm BASF Plant Science, which is seeking permission to grow GM potatoes at Summerhill, Co Meath, from next April.
Permission
If granted permission, they will be the first field trials conducted in Ireland since 2003, and are expected to run until 2010.
But under the department's guidelines, a "notifier of information" - or company seeking a licence from the EPA to grow GM crops - can request that certain information be treated as confidential and not subject to FOI.
Among the reasons as to why the information should not be disclosed are commercial sensitivity or where "the disclosure of the information would make it more likely that the environment to which such information relates will be damaged".
Information Commissioner Emily O'Reilly has criticised the exclusion, saying there was sufficient provision in the act to protect the commercial nature of information without excluding it.
In a report to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service, she also noted the "obligation" on the EPA to consider the public interest in any request for confidentiality.
Yesterday, Green Party leader Trevor Sargent said the decision to exclude information was consistent with the mindset of companies rushing to patent genetically modified organisms.
Logic
"They base their logic on the basis that although it's an naturally-occuring lifeform, they have worked on it and want to patent it," he said.
"We wouldn't accept that elements of a lifeform can be patented . . . we're now seeing a manifestation of what the GM companies have succeeded in doing - they are organising their business by patenting naturally-occuring lifeforms," he added.
Fr Sean McDonagh, from GM-Free Ireland, said the EPA should have the resources to fully and independently confirm the scientific data from GM companies, and that requests to grow crops should be subject to the same rigorous licensing process as applies to human medicines.
"The very minute we start growing GM foods here we'll blow the lovely green Ireland image out the window," he said.
"Across the board they're playing fast and loose. The awful thing with biology is if it goes wrong, it reproduces. The risk may be small, but the consequences of risk are enormous.
"On the one hand we're scared of a bird flu epidemic, but on the other hand we're behaving like teenagers. If one mistake gets out, we're in trouble," he added.
_______________________
19 February 2006
Catastrophic consequences of GM foods
Sunday Independent, 19 February 2006.
Letter to the editor:
Sir - On the issue of genetically modified (GM) foods which are soon to be grown in Ireland: this technology is to biology what nuclear is to physics. There are many questions which need to be answered before technology as potent as this is released into the general environment.
Ireland has developed a high reputation for the foods we produce. However, once we embrace this form of food production the option to go back to traditional methods of agriculture will be difficult in the extreme.
Opposition to GM foods has been expressed by organisations ranging from doctors to chefs. This is an issue which must be brought to the forefront of public debate; not to do so may have catastrophic consequences for food production in this country.
Michael O'Meara,
Merlot Enterprises, Upr Dominick Street, Galway
_______________________
Sunday Independent, 19 February 2006.
Letter to the editor:
Sir - As many of your readers may be aware, an application was made to the EPA in mid-January by the biotech company BASF Plant Science Gmbh. This German company proposes to begin experiments over a five-year period on the release of patented and genetically modified potatoes in Co Meath.
As a socio-environmentally concerned citizen, I believe that the deliberate release of genetically modified potatoes poses a threat not only to the Irish environment but to the wider society, affecting the human food chain, consumer choice, and organic and non-organic agriculture. As well as the numerous studies which have proven the harmful effects of GM organisms on human health, we are faced with the onslaught of patent laws as contaminated crops become the property of multinational companies such as BASF.
In response to the above proposal, the EPA accepts objections from the public up to Feb 22.
Catherine Devitt,
Glendalough, Co Wicklow
_______________________
18 February 2006
They Blinded Us With Science
Inter Press Service News Agency, 18 February 2006, By Stephen Leahy.
BROOKLIN, Canada, Feb 17 (IPS) - Evidence is mounting that U.S. scientists have been prevented by the George W. Bush administration from telling the truth about global warming and other environmental and health issues.
In January, one of the United States' leading scientists, James Hansen, accused the administration of keeping scientific information about climate change from reaching the public.
Hansen, director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said scientists researching climate change at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are being gagged.
"It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States," Hansen was reported as saying at a public panel about science and the environment Feb. 10 in New York City.
Last fall, administration officials ordered Hansen to remove data from the Internet that suggested 2005 could be the warmest year on record. A few months later, 2005 was confirmed as the warmest ever by several scientific institutions. Officials have also prevented journalists from interviewing the scientist about his research.
"Things are even worse at NOAA and the Environmental Protection Agency," Hansen said in a television interview.
NOAA has consistently discounted any connection to global warming in its scientific summaries about the record number and destructiveness of hurricanes in 2005, despite ample evidence of a likely connection from other leading climate scientists. On Wednesday, NOAA announced that several of its scientists disagreed with that official position.
"The Bush administration rejects the scientific method," said Lewis Lapham, the editor of Harper's Magazine and author of the recent book "Gag Rule", which looks at how the U.S. government suppresses dissent and stifles democracy.
"Global warming doesn't fit into their current belief structure," Lapham told IPS.
The United States is entering into an era where faith is more important than fact and dissent is considered betrayal, he said. When it comes to research, the current administration has gone well beyond the traditional practice of politicians fudging the numbers to get the results they want, Lapham noted.
"If science doesn't prove what it's been told to prove, then they (the Bush administration) believe it has been tampered with by Satan or the Democratic Party," he said.
Two years ago, 60 prominent scientists signed a petition stating that unless their views or evidence complied with the ideology of the Bush administration, their testimony was ignored or dismissed. Since then more than 8,500 scientists have also signed that petition.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a U.S.-based alliance of scientists and citizens, has said that Pres. Bush has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community on climate change.
The UCS has compiled a compelling list of instances of political interference in research, including the removal of highly qualified scientists from advisory committees dealing with childhood lead poisoning, environmental and reproductive health, and drug abuse. Those scientists were then replaced by individuals associated with or working for industries subject to regulation.
Funding has also been withheld from scientists who have been outspoken or pursue research that may contradict White House policy.
Scientists investigating the environmental impact of hydrogen fuel cells lost their funding from NASA after their preliminary research indicated a potential to cause serious environmental damage. The Bush administration has heavily promoted and financed research into hydrogen fuel cells as a future replacement for gasoline-powered vehicles.
Early this month, the Bureau of Land Management, a federal agency, refused to continue to fund an Oregon State University study that suggested that logging was not the best way to restore national forests burned by wildfires. The Bush administration has strongly supported the logging industry's contention that this so-called "salvage logging" was good for forest ecology and to prevent future fires.
"Science has always been influenced by the politics of the day," noted Stephen Bocking, an associate professor of Environmental Studies at Canada's Trent University.
In the 1950s and 1960s, chemical companies persuaded governments to fund research into the use of chemicals in agriculture. In the 1980s and 1990s, many of the same companies used their influence to get public monies to do research on genetically engineered (GE) crops, Bocking said in an interview.
Corporate influence over government has always been present, but Bocking acknowledges that influence is stronger than ever. For example, much of the public research carried out in areas like agriculture only meets the needs of large corporations.
Although it would serve the public good, neither the Canadian nor the U.S. governments have spent adequate research dollars on the environmental impacts of GE organisms, critics say.
Outright attempts by governments to muzzle scientists doing public research is not that common, Bocking said. "There are much more subtle ways to direct research."
Decisions about what projects are funded, for how long, the methodology used, and the assumptions made all influence the eventual outcome, he says: "Research results tends to reflect who's paying for it."
This has nothing to do with scientists' personal integrity, he insists. The ample proof is that credible scientists financed by pharmaceutical companies have produced results that were later overturned by publicly-funded scientists.
Publicly-funded research is critical to counterbalance corporate-financed research, he said. And much more of the former is needed.
"Decisions about publicly-funded research should also be made in collaboration with scientists and the public," Bocking concluded.
_______________________
17 February 2006
Sargent accuses Govt of jeopardising Irish seed potato industry worth € 5.8 million a year by being neutral on BASF GM potato trials
Green Party press release, 17 February 2006.
Statement by Trevor Sargent
Spokesperson on Taoiseach & Northern Ireland, Gaeltacht, Agriculture and Food.
Green Party Leader Trevor Sargent TD has told Mary Coughlan Minister for Agriculture in the Dáil that both farmers and consumers stand to lose from the damage to marketability of Irish potato seeds if BASF trials of GM potatoes are allowed to proceed in Ireland.
"Despite Government reassurances about non-contamination of non-GM crops, an incidence of cross contamination would not be manifest until after a 'non-GM' crop had been harvested and sold. The only beneficiary in these trials is the company BASF itself. Their GM crop is not to be developed for the unique and small Irish market but is part of a global strategy. Irish consumers buy Rooster and Kerr's Pink mainly with Rush Queens being an important crop in Dublin North."
Deputy Sargent told Minister Coughlan that Irish farmers are telling him that any GM variety will ultimately be unwanted by consumers.
"And even if less chemicals are required, the GM company will increase their price to reap any would-be saving for the farmer. Consumers and farmers already have a diversity of favourite varieties suitable for Irish conditions. The Government has a duty to respect the wish of consumers and farmers alike to meet their food needs in a GM free way," concluded the Green Party Leader.
_______________________
18 February 2006
ICSA criticism of WTO and Nitrates Directive
The Guardian, Nenagh, Co. Tipperary. 18 February 2006.
The Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association (ICSA) has slammed the decision by the WTO to uphold the complaint against the EU policy on GMOs up to 2003. This complaint was brought by the USA, Canada and Argentina, who are opposed to GM restrictions employed in various EU member states.
"This decision will increase the pressure on the EU commission to fast ótrack its GM approval process which is already underway anyway," explained ICSA general secretary Eddie Punch. "This is a retrograde step which risks undermining consumer confidence in the superior quality of naturally produced European foods. Furthermore, individual regions and member state must be entitled to declare themselves GM ó free zones in order to meet market demands for GM- free products. "This is another example of WTO being very narrow minded and flawed in terms of its objectives," continued Eddie Punch, "and the decision adds to the suspicion that WTO is unduly influenced by big multinationals to the detriment of family farming, the consumer and the environment."
Meanwhile ICSA president Malcolm Thompson has said that the Nitrates Directive is now so complex and bureaucratic that it seems unworkable. He explained that while nobody is against strict environmental rules, a regulation can only be successful if it is workable, practical and fair.
"The problem with the Nitrates Directive is the unreasonable bureaucratic loading it puts on farmers and which will apply to even the most environmentally conscious farmers," said Malcolm Thompson. He added that "a further complication is the reluctance of the EU to ratify the 60% farmyard improvement grant."
_______________________
17 February 2006
Listowel joins in GM food debate
The Kingdom, 16 February 2006.
The Seanchaí Literary Centre in Listowel looked closely at the future of food in Kerry at the weekend when it hosted the GM Free Kerry organisation.
The event, held on Sunday, featured guest speakers Kathy Sinnott, Pat Brosnan and Padraig Dennehy as well as a showing a film on the future of food.
Local musician Tom Donovan will performed his new song "Organic Ireland" which was specially written for the occasion.
_______________________
Farmers, Others Sue USDA Over Monsanto GMO Alfalfa
Reuters, 17 February 2006. By Carey Gillam.
KANSAS CITY - A coalition of farmers, consumers and environmental activists on Thursday sued the US government over its approval of a biotech alfalfa that critics say will spell havoc for farmers and the environment."
Opening another front in the battle over genetically modified crops, the lawsuit contends that the US Department of Agriculture improperly is allowing Monsanto Co to sell an herbicide-resistant alfalfa seed while failing to analyse the public health, environmental, and economic consequences of that action.
"The USDA failed to do a full environmental review when they deregulated this genetically engineered alfalfa," said Will Rastov, an attorney for Center for Food Safety, one of the plaintiffs. "They're going to wreak untold dangers into the environment."
The lawsuit asks the federal court in San Francisco to rescind the USDA's decision until a full environmental review has been completed.
The suit asserts that the genetically modified alfalfa will probably contaminate conventionally grown alfalfa at a fast pace, ultimately forcing farmers to pay for Monsanto's patented gene technology whether they want the technology or not.
The group says biotech alfalfa would also hurt production of organic dairy and beef products as alfalfa is a key cattle feed. And the suit claims farmers could lose export business, valued at an estimated $480 million per year, because buyers in Japan and South Korea, major importers of US alfalfa, have indicated they would avoid buying US alfalfa once the genetically engineered variety is released.
Plaintiffs also said Monsanto is marketing the herbicide-tolerant crop in a way that encourages far greater applications of chemicals than alfalfa typically requires.
Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the United States, behind corn, soybeans, and wheat.
South Dakota alfalfa farmer Pat Trask, one of the plaintiffs, said Monsanto's biotech alfalfa would ruin his conventional alfalfa seed business because it was certain his 9,000 acres would be contaminated by the biotech genes.
Alfalfa is very easily cross-pollinated by bees and by wind. The plant is also perennial, m
eaning GMO plants could live on for years.
"The way this spreads so far and wide, it will eliminate the conventional alfalfa industry," said Trask. "Monsanto will own the entire alfalfa industry."
Monsanto has a policy of filing lawsuits or taking other legal actions against farmers who harvest crops that show the presence of the company's patented gene technology. It has sued farmers even when they have tried to keep their own fields free from contamination by biotech plants on neighbouring farms.
"It's the desire of Monsanto to pursue global control and total control over the American alfalfa seed industry," said Trask.
Monsanto spokeswoman Mica DeLong said the company had no comment on the issue and referred inquires to USDA. Monsanto received regulatory clearance to begin selling the biotech alfalfa last summer.
The suit names Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service Administrator Ron Dehaven and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Steve Johnson as defendants.
APHIS spokeswoman Karen Eggert said the agency had no immediate comment. EPA also declined to comment and a spokeswoman for USDA could not be reached immediately.
In addition to the Center for Food Safety and the Trask family, the plaintiffs include the National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Dakota Resources Council, and other farm, environmental and consumer groups.
_______________________
GM Food Goes on Trial
The global jury is still out on whether GMOs are a boon or a bust.
AlterNet. 16 February 2006. By John Feffer.
The fundamental rule of retail is: The consumer is always right. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has once again disregarded this rule by declaring the majority of European consumers wrong.
In poll after poll, Europeans have voiced their skepticism of food that's been altered at the genetic level. Their governments initially responded with a moratorium on new GM products and subsequently adopted a Europe-wide policy on product labeling. But in its latest ruling, the WTO did some labeling of its own, declaring Europe's cautious policy on genetically modified organisms (GMO) an unfair barrier to trade.
The 800-page report, the longest decision in the WTO's short history, has not yet been released to the public. But the U.S. government and its co-plaintiffs, Canada and Argentina, are already treating it as a historic ruling. The European Union, on the other hand, has dismissed the report as simply a ruling about history, since it lifted its moratorium against GMOs in 2004. Still unclear is how the ruling will affect different regions within Europe that continue to declare themselves GM-free.
The Europeans will likely appeal the ruling. If it still goes against them, they may well steal a page from their other longstanding dispute with the United States over hormones in beef: Pay the penalty and maintain the cautious policy.
What's the big deal? you might ask. They say tomato and we say GM tomato, so let's forget about the whole thing. But the United States has been downright pushy in its approach to biotech. The Agency for International Development (AID) is a big booster of GM, and some offending grain has found its way into shipments of food aid to GM-wary countries. The Trade Representative's office pushes GM through bilateral and multilateral treaties. The State Department tries to twist arms through rather undiplomatic letters of protest, like the one it sent to Nicosia in July when new EU member Cyprus proposed to put GM food on separate shelves at grocery stores.
This pushiness is not simply a byproduct of the usual missionary arrogance of Americans. The underlying story is that biotech has hit a few roadblocks.
In 2005, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, the rate of growth of GM crops was 11 percent. That might seem like a lot. But it's the slowest growth rate since GM was introduced in the mid-1990s. The rate is down from 20 percent in 2004 and 15 percent in 2003. Even taking into account the saturation of certain markets -- GM soy, for instance, now accounts for 85 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States -- such a slowdown translates into lost revenue for biotech firms and less buzz for the movement as a whole.
Governments around the world remain circumspect. Even China, which has moved quickly on some GM crops like cotton, recently stepped back from commercializing GM rice in November, citing safety concerns.
Responding to pressures from the Japanese and others, Monsanto pulled back from bringing GM wheat to market in 2004. The Europeans, meanwhile, point out that 131 countries back their cautious approach, for that is the number of signatories to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. This international treaty, attached to the Convention on Biological Diversity, underscores the right of each country to make a sovereign decision on how to handle the cross-border trade in GM products and technology.
Even here in the United States, where the largest amount of GM food is grown, biotech is showing a certain failure to thrive. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) released a report last year pointing out that the industry is not pushing new products through the U.S. regulatory system. Meanwhile, the biotech industry still opposes relatively simple reforms that would boost consumer confidence here in the United States.
"We do not have a mandatory pre-market approval process for GM crops at the Food and Drug Administration," CSPI's Gregory Jaffe points out. "We only have a voluntary consultation process. We're the only country in the world with such a process."
If governments are wary, the public is even more so. Contrast the WTO process with a very different trial that took place in Mali last month. Facilitated by the International Institute for Environment and Development, 43 Malian farmers grilled 14 international experts and then debated among themselves the merits of biotech. After five days of deliberations, they decided that GM was not for them. Citizen juries held elsewhere in the world -- in Brazil and in Karnataka and Andra Pradesh in India -- have produced similar verdicts.
A case can certainly be made for GMOs. GM crops are popularly used in South America along with no-till agriculture, a technique that both prevents soil erosion and reduces the amount of fuel used in farming. By cutting down energy inputs in farming, according to one recent report, GM crops may have contributed to a reduction in greenhouse gas production equivalent to removing nearly 5 million cars from the road annually. Scientists are developing GM crops that can desalinate fields and even turn color in the presence of landmines. New techniques, such as RNA interference technology, rely on the cell's own underutilized capacities rather than introducing foreign genes.
The global jury is still out on whether GMOs are a boon or a bust. The farmers of Mali and the legal experts of the WTO have both spoken. Ultimately, consumers might have the final word. Inspired by the Europeans, labeling laws are spreading around the world. No matter how hard the United States lobbies or the WTO deliberates, if a GMO label translates into a skull and crossbones in the public mind, then supermarkets won't be able to give the stuff away.
_______________________
EU Gets Fed Up With France, Germany on Biotech Law
Reuters, February 16, 2006.
BRUSSELS - France and Germany may win only a small amount of leeway if they fail to update national laws on genetically modified (GMO) foods and crops on time next month, or risk legal action and hefty fines at Europe's highest court.
After years of warnings to both countries to comply with EU law and integrate an EU directive on the environmental release of GMO's into their national statute books, Brussels has started to lose patience at the lack of action in Paris and Berlin.
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.
In December, France and Germany got a final order from the European Commission, charged with administering EU law, to fall into line with GMO policy in the rest of the European Union.
They are the last countries to do so, after Greece received a warning last July that it had also failed to put the law, known as the Deliberate Release directive, into its national statute book. All this should have been done by October 2002.
"Since the case is so advanced, I think we'd probably give them a little more time - and if they indicate that they are very close to adopting this necessary law," one Commission official told Reuters.
After the Commission sends its final written warning, known as a reasoned opinion, a period of two months begins for the member state concerned to comply with EU law. France and Germany received reasoned opinions in mid-December.
But given the Commission's holiday break over Europe's Christmas and New Year period, that deadline has been pushed back to early March, officials say.
"They would normally be required to come back to us, probably in early March," the official said. "And if nothing happened, we would take the next step and take them to court."
The warnings are the final chance for both countries to update their legislation before the Commission becomes entitled to ask the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the EU's highest court based in Luxembourg, to impose financial penalties.
Germany had failed to adopt an additional law needed to integrate the EU directive into its national statute book. France has only partially integrated it and not specified when it will do the rest, despite reminders, the Commission says.
Not only had the two countries failed to comply with an ECJ judgement from 2004, they then proceeded to ignore warnings from Brussels, it said in December.
_______________________
Tweaking plants for better health using tilling techniques
Lycos, 16 February 2006. By Tracy Powell.
Genetically modified crops have received an official thumbs-down internationally, promises of feeding the world notwithstanding. But a new technology could get the same results without actual genetic modification.
It's called Tilling, or targeting induced local lesions in genomes, and it uses reverse genetics to pinpoint mutations that might enhance nutritional value or eliminate allergens. The technology thus far has not raised the hackles of environmental groups the way genetic modification has.
The controversy surrounding biotech foods often focuses on transgenics, the controversial technique that involves inserting genes from one species into another.
"The issue with transgenics is the capacity to bring in new genes that haven't been in that genome before," says Jane Rissler, a senior scientist at the Washington, D.C., Union of Concerned Scientists. "It's this power to combine genes from very different organisms that's causing concern."
Tilling, on the other hand, avoids these concerns because it relies solely on genes already in the plant.
Scientists at the USDA Agricultural Research Service's Crop Production and Pest Control research unit on the campus of Purdue University, have launched a Tilling project with the goal of making hypoallergenic soybeans. The researchers are creating as many mutations as they can in soybeans, then mining that information.
"It may be possible to identify mutants in the Tilling population that do not produce specific allergens," said Niels Nielsen, a geneticist working on the soybean project. Soybeans are one of the top eight allergenic foods, along with peanuts. Food allergies affect 6 to 8 percent of children and 1 to 2 percent of adults. The U.S. government has mandated that all products with soy should be labeled as containing potential allergens in 2006.
Nielsen and his colleagues are also using Tilling to develop healthier soybean oil and higher-protein soybeans. They estimate that trans-fat-free nonhydrogenated soybean oil will be available in one year, while soybean oil that will rival olive oil for its monounsaturated fats is three years away.
Steven Henikoff and his colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle first developed Tilling, a process that begins with soaking seeds in chemicals to induce mutations. Researchers then plant the seeds, and analyze genes from the mutated plant. They collect and store DNA samples containing mutations on a given gene.
Tilling can be used in a variety of plants. Researchers at Arcadia Biosciences in Davis, California, recently showed it could help develop an improved line of bread wheat.
The technology can also help scientists find previously unidentified mutations.
"By identifying mutants of genes whose function is unknown and studying them," Nielsen said, "it may be possible to deduce what they do."
_______________________
New Suspicions about GMOs
Le Monde, 9 February 2006. By Hervé Kempf. Translated by Leslie Thatcher.
Do transgenic plants have a negative effect on health? Ever since their commercialization in 1996, the question has agitated circles of experts and ecologists, without any indisputable proof allowing an affirmative response. Now, several recent studies effected by credible researchers and published in scientific reviews tally with one another to throw doubt on GMOs' complete harmlessness. They don't assert that GMOs generate health problems. But at the very least they suggest that GMOs provoke biological impacts that must be more widely studied. This new questioning arises just as the Council of Ministers adopted a proposed law on GMO Wednesday, February 8, and as the World Trade Organization (WTO) handed over an interim report February 7 to the parties in a conflict that opposes the United States, Canada, and Argentina to the European Union on the issue of transgenic plants.
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/020806HB.shtml#1"
In November 2005, Australian researchers published an article in a scientific review (Vanessa Prescott et al., Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 2005, p. 9023) explaining that the transfer of a gene that expresses an insecticide protein from a bean to a pea had provoked unexpected problems: among the mice fed the transgenic peas, CSIRO (the Australian equivalent of the French National Center for Scientific Research, CNRS) researchers observed antibody production, markers of an allergic reaction. The affair, which made headlines in the Australian and English press, led Csiro to stop development of that transgenic pea, while West Australia Minister of Agriculture Kim Chance announced that his government would finance an independent study on feeding animals with GMO: "The state government is aware of the anxiety concerning GMO safety, while most of the research in this domain is conducted or financed by the very companies promoting GMO," Mr. Chance explained in a November 2005 communique.
During the summer of 2005, it was an Italian team led by Manuela Malatesta, cellular biologist at the Histological Institute of the University of Urbino, that published intriguing results (European Journal of Histochemistry, 2005, p. 237). In prior studies, that team had already demonstrated that absorption of transgenic soy by mice induces modifications in the nuclei of their liver cells. This summer's publication proved that a return to non-transgenic food made the observed differences disappear. It also showed that several of these changes could be "induced in adult organisms in a very short time."
In Norway, Terje Traavik, scientific director of the University of Tromsso's Institute of Genetic Ecology, just published a study in European Food Research and Technology (January 2006, p. 185): he demonstrates that an element of the genetic structures used to modify a plant, the catalyst 35S CaMV, can provoke gene expression in cultured human cells. Now, according to GMO promoters, that catalyst normally only operates that way in plants.
The increase in these experiments led the FAO (the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization) to organize a seminar on the safety of transgenic food in October 2005, bringing together the best specialists on the question. "What came out of it was that we have to pay attention to this type of study," said FAO seminar coordinator Ezzedine Boutrif. "In several cases, GMOs have been put on the market when the safety issues were not very clear."
The researchers involved in these recent studies declare their neutrality. "I had no preconceived idea about GMOs when I began my research in 2000," says Manuela Malatesta. "I thought they weren't dangerous because we had been eating them for a long time. But there was virtually no scientific literature on the subject. Consequently, we thought it was useful to undertake some studies." For Terje Traavik, the initial motivation was different: "I was doing cancer research using transgenesis. My colleagues and I knew that it would pose a problem if it left the laboratory. That concern convinced us that we needed to study this type of risk."
This work attracts all the more attention in that, in the United States as well as in Europe, research on the impacts of GMO has not been encouraged by governments. Toxicological studies were effected by the companies promoting GMOs, the impartiality of which is debatable, and subsequently examined by commissions. But the latter never reproduced the experiments, which remain secret. Yet those studies sometimes also show notable biological impacts.
On April 23 2004, Le Monde revealed that experts from the Commission on Biomolecular Genetics (CGB) were divided over the effects of a Monsanto corn, MON 863. In the toxicological study that had been communicated to them, it seemed that rats fed with the GMO presented several anomalies: an increase in white blood cell count, blood sugar changes, reduction of red blood cell count, etc. A debate followed between the agencies concerned that led to a favorable CGB opinion. Although the experts re-examined the file, they did not, however, take a new look at the statistical analysis presented by Monsanto.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121504H.shtml
Associations including Greenpeace demanded publication of the toxicological file so that they can submit it to a second opinion. On June 9, 2005, the Munster, Germany, Court of Appeal ordered its publication. Greenpeace then consigned two French researchers, Gilles-Eric Séralini, of the University of Caen, and Dominique Cellier, of the University of Rouen, to prepare a statistical second opinion of the case. They are supposed to publish the results of their study in February. "Monsanto's statistical analysis of the differences observed in the rats was very superficial," observes Dominique Cellier, who is a biocomputer specialist. "They isolate the variables instead of using so-called multi-variable analysis methods, which consist of looking at the observed anomalies in a coherent way. If one uses those methods, one observes coherence between the weight, urinary tract, and hematological anomalies in the animals fed GMOs."
This study should provoke new debates. But already, official experts recognize that the toxicological evaluation procedures for GMOs are not perfect. "The discussion about MON 863 was very positive," says Jean-Michel Wal, a member of the European Authority on Food Security's GMO group. "It has allowed us to deepen our evaluation methods. In fact, 90 day toxicological studies on rats are very difficult to execute and interpret. We don't know how to study a food overall, whether it's a GMO or not; there's no norm." And the increase in questions about the biological impacts of GMOs, at the very least, calls for more open scientific debate and public research, which, at the moment, is very rare.
_______________________
Biotech's Sparse Harvest
New York Times, 14 February 2006. By Andrew Pollack
At the dawn of the era of genetically engineered
crops, scientists were envisioning all sorts of
healthier and tastier foods, including cancer-fighting
tomatoes, rot-resistant fruits, potatoes that would
produce healthier French fries and even beans that
would not cause flatulence.
But so far, most of the genetically modified crops
have provided benefits mainly to farmers, by making it
easier for them to control weeds and insects.
Now, millions of dollars later, the next generation of
biotech crops - the first with direct benefits for
consumers - is finally on the horizon. But the list
does not include many of the products once envisioned.
Developing such crops has proved to be far from easy.
Resistance to genetically modified foods, technical
difficulties, legal and business obstacles and the
ability to develop improved foods without genetic
engineering have winnowed the pipeline.
"A lot of companies went into shell shock, I would
say, in the past three, four years," said C. S.
Prakash, director of plant biotechnology research at
Tuskegee University. "Because of so much opposition,
they've had to put a lot of projects on the shelf."
Developing nonallergenic products and other healthful
crops has also proved to be difficult technically.
"Changing the food composition is going to be far
trickier than just introducing one gene to provide
insect resistance," said Mr. Prakash, who has promoted
agricultural biotechnology on behalf of the industry
and the United States government.
In 2002, Eliot Herman and his colleagues got some
attention when they engineered a soybean to make it
less likely to cause an allergic reaction. But the
soybean project was put aside because baby food
companies, which he thought would want the soybeans
for infant formula, instead are avoiding biotech
crops, said Mr. Herman, a scientist with the
Department of Agriculture.
In addition, he said, food companies feared lawsuits
if some consumers developed allergic reactions to a
product labeled as nonallergenic.
The next generation of these crops - particularly
those that provide healthier or tastier food - could
be important for gaining consumer acceptance of
genetic engineering. The industry won a victory last
week when a panel of the World Trade Organization
ruled that the European Union had violated trade rules
by halting approvals of new biotech crops. But the
ruling is not expected to overcome the wariness of
European consumers over biotech foods.
New crops are also important for the industry, which
has been peddling the same two advantages - herbicide
tolerance and insect resistance - for 10 years. "We
haven't seen any fundamentally new traits in a while,"
said Michael Fernandez, executive director of the Pew
Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, a nonprofit
group.
Now, some new types of crops are appearing. Monsanto
just won federal approval for a type of genetically
engineered corn promoted as having greater nutritional
value - albeit only for pigs and poultry. The corn,
possessing a bacterial gene, contains increased levels
of lysine, an amino acid that is often provided to
farm animals as a supplement.
Coming next, industry executives say, are soybean oils
intended to yield healthier baked goods and fried
foods. To keep soybean oil from turning rancid, the
oil typically undergoes a process called
hydrogenation. The process produces trans fatty acids,
which are harmful and must be disclosed in food labels
under new regulations.
Both Monsanto and DuPont, which owns the Pioneer
Hi-Bred seed company, have developed soybeans with
altered oil composition that, in some cases, do not
require hydrogenation. Kellogg said in December that
it would use the products, particularly Monsanto's, to
remove trans fats from some of its products.
Monsanto's product, Vistive, and DuPont's, which is
called Nutrium, were developed by conventional
breeding. They are genetically engineered only in the
sense that they have the gene that allows them to grow
even when sprayed with the widely used herbicide
Roundup.
But Monsanto and DuPont say the next generation of
soybean, which would be able to eliminate trans fats
in more foods, would probably require genetic
engineering. Those products are expected in three to
six years.
Beyond that, both companies said, would be soybeans
high in omega-3 fatty acids, which are good for the
heart and the brain. These are now derived largely
from eating fish, which in turn get them by eating
algae. Putting algae genes into soybeans could allow
for soy oil that is rich in the fatty acids.
"Our hope is it is easier to formulate into food
without it smelling or tasting fishy," said David M.
Stark, vice president for consumer traits at Monsanto.
Other second-generation crops are also on the way.
DuPont is trying to develop better tasting soy for use
in products like protein bars.
Some efforts are under way to develop more nutritious
crops for the world's least developed countries, led
by what is termed golden rice, which contains the
precursor of vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency is a
leading cause of blindness in certain poor countries.
There has been progress in crops able to withstand
drought. While those would mainly benefit farmers, it
would also help consumers in regions like Africa,
where droughts bring famine.
Mr. Stark said Monsanto had not anticipated that use
of genetic engineering would discourage food companies
from using the company's soybeans. "I don't get many
requests for 'Is this a G.M.O. or not?' " he said,
using the abbreviation for genetically modified
organism. "It's more 'Does the oil work?' "
Still, opposition by consumers and food companies has
clearly forced big companies like Monsanto and DuPont
to choose their projects carefully. It has also made
it difficult for academic scientists and small
start-ups, which typically provide much of the
innovation in other fields, to obtain financing.
Avtar K. Handa, a professor at Purdue, said he had
stopped work on a tomato he helped develop a few years
ago that was rich in lycopene, a cancer-fighting
substance. Genetically modified crops are not being
brought to market and research funds have diminished,
he said.
Still, opposition is not the only problem. Alan
McHughen, a professor at the University of California,
Riverside, said that for small companies and
university researchers, the main obstacles were patent
rights held by the big companies and the cost of
taking a biotech crop through regulatory review. That
has made it particularly difficult to apply genetic
engineering to crops like fruits and vegetables, which
have smaller sales than the major grain and oil crops.
Technical issues are another obstacle. While a single
bacterial gene can provide herbicide resistance or
insect resistance, changing the nutritional
composition of crops sometimes requires several genes
to alter the metabolism within a cell. That raises a
greater risk of unintended effects, some experts say.
Enhanced crops must also meet the demands of farmers
for high yields and of food companies for good taste
and handling properties.
DuPont won approval for a soybean high in oleic acid,
which could produce healthier oils, back in 1997. But
instead of becoming a showcase of the consumer health
benefits of genetic engineering, the crop is now used
only to make industrial lubricants.
Erik Fyrwald, group vice president of DuPont's
agriculture and nutrition division, said one reason
the crop was not sold for use in food was that demand
for healthier oils was not as great then as it is now.
But other experts say there was another problem -
foods made with the oil did not taste good.
"The high-oleic oils are not very well received by the
consumer," said Pamela White, a professor of food
science and human nutrition at Iowa State University.
Further, she predicted that soy oils containing the
omega-3 fatty acids would be unstable, making them
hard to use in fried foods.
William Freese, a research analyst at Friends of the
Earth, which opposes genetically engineered crops,
said genetic engineering had been oversold. "The facts
show that conventional breeding is more successful at
delivering crops with 'healthy traits' than genetic
manipulation, despite all the hype from Monsanto and
other biotech companies," he wrote in an e-mail
message.
Scientists at the International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center in Mexico have already used
conventional breeding to develop corn rich in lysine,
similar to the new Monsanto product, he said.
The biotech companies concede that if improvements can
be made conventionally, results would come quicker
because such crops do not face regulatory scrutiny.
Mr. Stark of Monsanto said that if his company could
develop high-oleic soybeans using breeding, the
product could reach the market in three years, rather
than six for the genetically engineered version.
But in some cases, scientists and executives say, it
is not possible to get a trait, like the omega-3 fatty
acids, without using genes from another species. "With
genetic engineering you can go further," said Mr.
Fyrwald of DuPont.
Mr. Fernandez of the Pew Initiative said polls have
shown that consumers seem to be receptive to
genetically modified products that have direct
benefits for them. But whether that would be enough to
win wide acceptance of genetically engineered foods
remains to be seen.
One issue is whether consumers would even know what
they are eating. Right now, in the United States,
genetically modified and conventional crops are
typically mixed together, and food made from biotech
crops is not labeled.
But it is likely that crops with consumer benefits
would be segregated so farmers could charge more for
them. And food companies are probably going to want to
label them. But the labeling is likely to proclaim
that the food has healthier oil or is better for the
heart, rather than mention it was the product of
genetic engineering.
In Europe, food containing genetically modified
ingredients has to be labeled to that effect, but it
is not clear whether the health aspects would be
linked to genetic engineering on the label.
Chris Somerville, chief executive of Mendel
Biotechnology, a small company developing
drought-resistant crops, said acceptance would depend
more on big food companies than consumers. Companies,
he said, would not want to risk their brands by using
biotech crops if they thought there was even a slight
chance of consumer rejection.
"Really, they're the gatekeepers," said Mr.
Somerville, who is also head of the plant biology
department at the Carnegie Institution. "The consumers
aren't going to have any choice before the brand
companies think it's safe to go out."
_______________________
16 February 2006
Campaigners slam proposed GM potato trial in Co Meath
Irish Independent, 16 February 2006.
Environmental campaigners have expressed concern about the possibility that genetically modified potatoes being grown in Ireland.
The German company BASF has applied for a licence to conduct field trials with a blight-resistant crop in Co Meath this April.
Opponents of the move have until next Wednesday to submit their views to the Environmental Protection Agency, which will then decide whether to grant the licence.
Speaking about the matter yesterday, Michael O'Halloran from the campaign group GM-Free Ireland claimed research had found that there was a high risk of the GM crop contaminating Irish potatoes.
He also claimed health risks associated with GM potatoes had not been adequately addressed, including the risk of alergies and toxic effects in humans and animals.
_______________________
US, EU claim WTO victory
Irish Examiner, 16 February 2006. By Stephen Cadogan.
THE US and the EU each claimed they were favoured by last week's World Trade Organisation report on the EU's controls over imports of genetically modified foods.
The 1,050 page preliminary WTO ruling concluded the EU effectively banned biotech foods between June 1999 and August 2003. But this ban has since been lifted, and the WTO made no recommendations for action against the EU - although their report largely sided with the US, Canada and Argentina's legal complaint over EU controls on approval of new biotech foods, and ruled that individual bans in Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg violated international trade rules.
The report concluded that the EU had breached its commitments with respect to 21 products. But it rejected several contentions that the EU had broken trade rules on several other products.
The US has argued that a ban on American corn exports to Europe, originally imposed by Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg, is still in place.
Austria's health minister Maria Rauch-Kallat said protection of people and the environment have absolute priority, and she defiantly asserted that Austria will exhaust all possibilities to keep its agriculture GM-free and ensure consumers' safety.
_______________________
14 February 2006
America's masterplan is to force GM food on the world
The reason the US took Europe to the WTO court was to prise open lucrative markets elsewhere
The Guardian, 13 February 2006. By John Vidal.
Just a few years ago, World Trade Organisation officials used to act hurt when described by social activists as irresponsible, secretive bureaucrats who trampled over national sovereignty and placed free trade over the environment or human rights. But that was when the global-trade policeman ruled on disputes that had little bearing on Europeans.
The WTO court's latest ruling will greatly increase the number of people who believe the organisation needs radical reform, if not burial. This week three judges emerged after years of secret deliberation to rule that Europe had imposed a de facto ban on GM food imports between 1999 and 2003, violating WTO rules. The court also ruled that Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg had no legal grounds to impose their own unilateral import bans. "Europe guilty!" shouted the US press. "This is glorious news for the Bush administration," said one blogger.
Actually, the judges said much more, but in true WTO style no one has been allowed to know what. A few bureaucrats in the US, EU, Argentina and Canada have reportedly seen the full 1,045-page report, and an edited summary of some of its conclusions has been leaked. But no one, it seems, will take responsibility for the ruling, which may force the EU to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to compensate some of the world's most heavily subsidised farmers, and could change the laws of at least six countries that have imposed GM bans.
In fact the US has mostly won a lot of new enemies. Rather than going away, as the biotech companies and Washington fervently hoped, the opposition to GM foods seems to have been growing since 2004 when the case was brought to the WTO. Europe, its member states and its consumers all rejected the ruling last week, making the WTO look even more out of touch and incompetent to rule on issues about the environment, health and consumer choice.
The European commission, which has been trying to force GM crops into Europe over the heads of its member states, says the ruling is "irrelevant" because its laws have already been changed. Meanwhile, individual countries who dislike being told what to eat or grow by the EC as much as the WTO say they will resist any attempts to make them accept GM.
In the past few days Hungary has declared that it is in its economic interests to remain GM-free, and Greece and Austria have affirmed their total opposition to the crops. Italy has called the WTO ruling "unbalanced" and Poland's prime minister has pledged to keep the country GM-free. Local government is even more opposed: more than 3,500 elected councils in 170 regions of Europe have declared themselves GM-free.
There is little the WTO, the EC or the US can do in face of this coalition of the unwilling. If the US again tries to impose its GM products on Europe - as it did in the 90s, sparking the whole debacle - the attempt will backfire. Europe's biotech industry may now try to force the EC to use the WTO judgment to get the six countries with import bans to repeal anti-GM laws, but it will meet an even broader, more determined movement.
In fact, Washington and the US companies are not that bothered by Europe's predictable reaction. Europe has all but dropped off the world's GM map. The companies and the supermarkets know there is little or no demand for GM crops, and that Europe's subsidised farmers are reluctant to alienate the public further by growing them.
It is now clear that the real reason the US took Europe to the WTO court was was to make it easier for its companies to prise open regulatory doors in China, India, south-east Asia, Latin America and Africa, where most US exports now go. This is where millions of tonnes of US food aid heads, and where US GM companies are desperate to have access, buying up seed companies and schmoozing presidents and prime ministers.
More than two-thirds of exported US corn now goes to Asia and Africa, where once it went to Europe. As the Monsanto man said this week about the WTO ruling: "Our feeling is that it's important for countries other than the EU to have science-based regulatory frameworks."
Like the tobacco industry, GM companies are now focusing almost exclusively on developing countries. But here the industry is meeting stiff opposition from powerful unions and farming groups. Brazil has caved in, but Bolivia may shortly become the first Latin American country to fully reject GM. Some Indian states are deeply opposed, and there have been major demonstrations in the Philippines, Korea, Indonesia and elsewhere. India's largest farmers' organisation this week said the result of the WTO verdict would be that the US would become more aggressive in dumping GM food on to developing countries.
The US maintains that through the WTO it has won a great victory for free trade, and passed a significant milestone in US attempts "to have GM crops accepted throughout the world". Perhaps, but the battle is far from won, and in the meantime anyone opposing the crops is being reclassed as an enemy of America.
Within hours of the WTO decision, JosÈ BovÈ, the French farmer who has led European protests, arrived in New York to give an invited talk to Cornell students about GM food - and was immediately sent back to France by the US government.
_______________________
Romania Bans Gene-Spliced Soy to Harmonise With EU
Reuters, 13 February 2006.
BUCHAREST - Romania will ban the cultivation of genetically modified soy from next year to harmonise with European Union norms as it gears up for EU entry, the Agriculture Ministry said on Friday.
The Black Sea state which hopes to join the EU in 2007 was Europe's biggest soy grower until 1989 and remains the continent's sole producer of gene-spliced soybeans, brought a decade ago by US biotech giants Monsanto Co and Pioneer.
Environmentalists have accused firms pioneering GMO's of using poor east European states as a back door to a reluctant EU which effectively had a moratorium on new gene crops and products between 1998 and 2004.
"The ministry decided to ban the cultivation of genetically modified soy from next year to comply with the European regulatory norms," Constantin Sin, the agriculture ministry's GMO expert told Reuters.
Monsanto officials in Bucharest were not immediately available to comment.
Biotech firms say their technology helps fight hunger and poverty but environmental groups and many Europeans oppose GMO's, which they fear might be unsafe for humans.
Romania, where there is almost no reluctance to embrace biotech foods among its 22 million population, put 61,000 ha under soy in 2004. The acreage had risen to 88,000 ha last year, or 0.6 percent of the country's total farmland.
Gene-spliced soy, which is used by Romanian farmers as animal feed, is the only GMO crop cultivated in Romania and accounts for two thirds of its overall soy output.
Sin said the ministry is also drafting legislation to ban sowing genetically modified seeds from previous years' crops in 2006. The bill will come into force later this year, he added.
"The bill aims to discourage farmers from planting (genetically modified) soy. There will be fines worth thousands of euros for those who don't comply with it," Sin said.
He said a switch to traditional soy crops would help farmers - who started growing GMO's tempted by the higher profit margins - to benefit from badly needed EU aid once the country joins the wealthy bloc.
_______________________
French law passes GMO costs on to farmers, Greens protest
Reuters, 13 February 2006.
PARIS - France is proposing a new law that would effectively absolve the government of financial responsibility for contamination caused by genetically modified (GMO) crops, a move condemned by environmental groups.
In legislation put forward this week, France's research ministry suggested that farmers growing GMO crops would have to contribute to a fund to compensate for any contamination claims from neighbouring growers of traditional varieties.
"It is intolerable that the research ministry...is preparing to legalise environmental pollution, putting citizens' health at risk and sentencing French people, who are massively opposed to GMO's, to genetic contamination," Arnaud Apoteker, spokesman of Greenpeace France, said.
France's main farm unions welcomed the new laws, which are part of a larger set of proposals presented on Wednesday aimed at implementing a key 2001 European directive allowing GMO growing under certain conditions.
The World Trade Organization also ruled earlier this week that the European Union and six member states broke trade rules by barring entry to GMO foods and crops. France permits GMO maize to be grown.
Concern that GMO strains of wheat or maize could cross pollinate with traditional seeds has been one of the main focuses of environmental and anti-biotech groups who oppose foods they think may pose a health danger.
Biotech firms, such as the big seedmakers like Monsanto of the US and Swiss chemicals group Syngenta maintain their seeds are safe and can increase yields while using less pesticide.
Paris has come under pressure to further open its farms to GMO after the European Commission referred France to the EU's highest court last week over its failure to adopt biotech laws and requested a daily fine of 168,800 euros ($202,100).
But France, home to anti-globalisation campaigner Jose Bove, convicted several times for destroying test fields of GMO maize, was not obliged to immediately tackle the highly sensitive issue of cross-contamination between crops.
The current EU law states farmers finding more than 0.9 percent of GM materials in conventional crops must label the products as containing GMO's, which can lead to lower prices, but does not speak of any compensation fund or law.
Farmers Held Responsible
Environment campaigners and some growers groups protested that the proposal, which forces farmers to pay up to 100 euros per hectares of GM crops for a maximum of five years, also puts the whole responsibility of contamination on farmers' shoulders.
"The proposed legislation is planning to force farmers to carry the can. It thereby organises a total impunity for the food industry, seed makers and transporters," Greenpeace said.
But the country's main farm unions said the proposal, finally lays out a set of rules for growing GMO crops.
"It seemed indispensable to define at last a clear framework for producers, which would respect their choice and those of consumers," they said in a joint press release.
Opponents say GMO's should be banned altogether because cross-pollination is inevitable and makes it impossible for consumers to have a real choice over the food they purchase.
A large majority of French people agree.
A French poll published on Tuesday by a coalition of environmental and farming groups showed 78 percent of those questioned would like a temporary ban on GMO's to evaluate their health and environmental impact.
_______________________
13 February 2006
Most Irish consumers would turn down GM foods
Irish Independent, 13 February 2006. By Aideen Sheehan, Food Correspondent.
THE majority of Irish consumers would reject genetically modified foods even if they offered specific health benefits.
A new survey shows strong hostility to GM foods, even though a sizable minority would buy GM products under certain conditions.
Around 40pc of consumers might accept certain GM foods if they offered health benefits such as protection against cancer or lowering of cholesterol, but half this group had reservations that would have to be addressed first.
Teagasc asked 300 consumers for their reaction to two hypothetical new GM foods - a yogurt and a dairy spread - to gauge public attitudes to the types of GM foods that might come on stream in the near future.
The anti-GM group tended to be better educated, more health-conscious and keener on natural ingredients, while Dubliners were more likely to accept GM food than Munster people.
Teagasc said the survey showed that GM foods were not widely accepted by Irish consumers, although a detailed analysis showed that clearly labelled GM dairy products with proven health benefits could get a share of the Irish food market.
_______________________
11 February 2006
GM: Too much at stake
Irish Farmers Journal, Letter to the editor, 11 February 2006.
Dear Sir,
Your short editorial last week was certainly not a prime example of responsible journalism, actually more a contribution of an editor whose paper is largely dependent on advertising revenue.
I would strongly suggest that you and anyone else seriously interested in the topic should read the report by Prof. Joe Cummins on the release of genetically modified potatoes, expecially the serious questions raised about human and animal health, not to mention the implications to biodiversity.
Prof. Cummmin's report can be found at:
www.gmfreeireland.org/potato/info/JoeCummins.pdf.
There is too much at stake for farmers and farming in Ireland in the question of growing GM crops, we deserve better than sloppy journalism.
Richard Auler, Ballybrado, Cahir, Co. Tipperary.
_______________________
Activists: U.S. violated freedoms by barring French farmer at JFK
Associated Press, 9 February 2006. By Verena Dobnik.
NEW YORK - Activists criticized the U.S. government on Thursday for stopping a French farmer - a key figure in the anti-globalization movement - from entering the country to voice his opposition to genetically engineered food.
Jose Bove, best known for ransacking a McDonald's restaurant in France, was detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport upon arrival for an international conference on globalization and labor organized by Cornell University. His supporters were furious.
"Evidently, the Bush administration is behind this decision," said George Naylor, president of the Washington-based National Family Farm Coalition. "No one would think of fearing Jose's presence in this country except multinational corporations with a profit motive."
Bove arrived in the United States under a visa waiver program that allows citizens of certain countries, including France, to travel here for tourism or business for up to 90 days without a visa.
Janet Rapaport, a New York spokeswoman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said Bove was refused admission on Wednesday for reasons she said she could not discuss.
In a telephone interview from his farm in southern France, Bove told The Associated Press that when he arrived at the airport U.S. officials "knew exactly who I was. And they told me, 'You have to get out.'"
He said he had visited the United States last year, speaking at Yale University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"The fact that they don't want me to come in now is a new way for the Bush administration to build coalitions against us," the 52-year-old farmer said.
He noted that his trip on Wednesday coincided with a World Trade Organization ruling against European Union curbs on imports of genetically modified foods.
A key topic of the New York conference was "how people can fight (U.S. agriculture giant) Monsanto. This is an international struggle," Bove said. "The American government is fed up with this fight because such companies are losing a lot of money."
Monsanto, a St. Louis-based agriculture giant, produces genetically engineered corn, soybean and cotton seed for sale to farmers. The United States accounts for more than half of all biotech crops grown worldwide - mostly soybeans and corn.
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said recently that agricultural biotechnology "provides tremendous benefits to farmers and rural communities."
Monsanto spokesman Chris Horner said farmers buy the company's seeds because "they provide real, tangible benefits - reduced costs, reduced pesticide use with insect-protected crops and more yield."
Bove had planned to attend the New York gathering of farmers, labor advocates and academics from around the world on Thursday and Friday, participating in forums titled "Fighting the Commodification of Food" and "The Struggle Against Monsanto in Europe." The conference was sponsored by Cornell's School of Labor and Industrial Relations in upstate Ithaca, N.Y., where Bove planned to address students and visit farmers.
He said he would speak to the gathering from France via speaker phone on Friday.
"I'm going to talk about the struggle of farmers all over the world for seeds," he told the AP. "Big companies like Monsanto have patents on genetically modified seeds, and you have to buy those seeds each year - you can't keep the ones you have. That's how they control food in the world, by controlling what farmers put in the soil."
Bove, who raises sheep and produces cheese, shot to fame in 1999 after leading protesters who dismantled a McDonald's restaurant under construction in Millau, near his farm in southern France.
He also participated in protests during the World Trade Organization meetings held in December in Hong Kong, where he was briefly detained but eventually allowed to enter.
A month earlier, he was sentenced to four months in prison for destroying a field of genetically modified corn planted by an American seed company in southern France.
Associated Press Writer Tim McCahill contributed to this report.t
_______________________
10 February 2006
French law puts GMO costs on farmers
Reuters, 10 February 2006. By Sybille de La Hamaide.
PARIS (Reuters) - France is proposing a new law that would effectively absolve the government of financial responsibility for contamination caused by genetically modified (GMO) crops, a move condemned by environmental groups.
In legislation put forward this week, France's research ministry suggested that farmers growing GMO crops would have to contribute to a fund to compensate for any contamination claims from neighboring growers of traditional varieties.
"It is intolerable that the research ministry...is preparing to legalize environmental pollution, putting citizens' health at risk and sentencing French people, who are massively opposed to GMOs, to genetic contamination," Arnaud Apoteker, spokesman of Greenpeace France, said.
France's main farm unions welcomed the new laws, which are part of a larger set of proposals presented on Wednesday aimed at implementing a key 2001 European directive allowing GMO growing under certain conditions.
The World Trade Organization also ruled earlier this week that the European Union and six member states broke trade rules by barring entry to GMO foods and crops. France permits GMO maize to be grown.
Concern that GMO strains of wheat or maize could cross pollinate with traditional seeds has been one of the main focuses of environmental and anti-biotech groups who oppose foods they think may pose a health danger.
Biotech firms, such as the big seedmakers like Monsanto of the U.S. and Swiss chemicals group Syngenta maintain their seeds are safe and can increase yields while using less pesticide.
Paris has come under pressure to further open its farms to GMO after the European Commission referred France to the EU's highest court last week over its failure to adopt biotech laws and requested a daily fine of 168,800 euros ($202,100).
But France, home to anti-globalization campaigner Jose Bove, convicted several times for destroying test fields of GMO maize, was not obliged to immediately tackle the highly sensitive issue of cross-contamination between crops.
The current EU law states farmers finding more than 0.9 percent of GM materials in conventional crops must label the products as containing GMOs, which can lead to lower prices, but does not speak of any compensation fund or law.
FARMERS HELD RESPONSIBLE
Environment campaigners and some growers groups protested that the proposal, which forces farmers to pay up to 100 euros per hectares of GM crops for a maximum of five years, also puts the whole responsibility of contamination on farmers' shoulders.
"The proposed legislation is planning to force farmers to carry the can. It thereby organizes a total impunity for the food industry, seed makers and transporters," Greenpeace said.
But the country's main farm unions said the proposal, finally lays out a set of rules for growing GMO crops.
"It seemed indispensable to define at last a clear framework for producers, which would respect their choice and those of consumers," they said in a joint press release.
Opponents say GMOs should be banned altogether because cross-pollination is inevitable and makes it impossible for consumers to have a real choice over the food they purchase.
A large majority of French people agree.
A French poll published on Tuesday by a coalition of environmental and farming groups showed 78 percent of those questioned would like a temporary ban on GMOs to evaluate their health and environmental impact.
_______________________
ICSA concerned over proposed GM trials
Nenagh Guardian, 10 February 2006.
ICSA's new rural development chairman, John Flynn, has expressed deep concern over german chemical giant BASF's proposal to the EPA to run GM potato trials in Co. Meath this year.
"Ireland has a very marketable clean, green image, and it is essential to maintain and develop that. Trials like this are totally counterproductive, and very damaging to that image," John Flynn stated. "We will be making a submission to the EPA, arguing the case for rejecting the proposal, in the strongest possible terms. The ICSA will never allow huge commercial interests like BASF to come into Ireland and ruin the agricultural sector."
_______________________
9 February 2006
Hungary to extend GMO ban
Budapest, February 9 (MTI) - Hungary will extend its ban on growing genetically modified maize, gov't officials told the press on Thursday.
Hungarian researchers have recently found evidence that maize types freely traded in the European Union represent environmental and health risks, said Environment Ministry state secretary Andras Gombos.
According to the researchers, the toxic content of these types of maize in wet weather conditions can become thousands of times higher than traditional pesticides, he added.
The ban was introduced in January last year.
Farm minister Jozsef Graf said it was in Hungary's economic interest to keep the country GMO-free. Hungary is one of Europe's biggest grain producers.
He said Hungary would try to get European ministers to uphold the ban at a meeting in the summer.
_______________________
EU denies it had GMO moratorium
Reuters, Thursday, February 09, 2006 .
BRUSSELS: The European Union contests it had a moratorium on imports of genetically modified crops and foods but it is too early to say whether it will appeal against a world trade ruling on its stance, an EU official said.
The World Trade Organization ruled on Tuesday that the EU and six member states broke trade rules by barring entry to so-called GMO products between 1999 and 2003, diplomats who saw the report said.
"We dispute that a moratorium existed and contest the claim that delays (in approving imports of GMOs) were excessive," the official told reporters on Wednesday on condition of anonymity. "The system is working, the science is sound. GMO imports to the EU are rising," he said.
"Our experts will now look into the findings. We are not even talking about an appeal at this time. It is only an interim report," another EU official said. "We may or may not decide to appeal.
_______________________
France adopts EU regulations on GM crop trials
PARIS, Feb. 8 (Xinhuanet) -- The French government on Wednesday adopted a bill in line with EU rules on crop trials and genetically modified organisms (GMO) cultivation, despite opposition from ecologists.
"We decided not to close the door (to GMO technologies), while keeping a close watch on what is done," French junior research minister Francois Goulard said.
Under the bill, French farmers would have to officially register any plantation of modified crops, filling a legal void that allowed 1,000 hectares of GMO maize to be grown undeclared last year, out of 90 million hectares grown worldwide.
The French government hoped the law bill could be passed by the end of the year by the French parliament, which is to start debating the bill by next month.
Polls showed that sixty percent of the French are hostile to GMO crops and that 78 percent would back a temporary moratorium until their impact on health and the environment is fully explained.
Environmentalists though say that not enough time has elapsed to assess the long-term impacts of GM crops. Scientists worry that the inserted genes in GM crops contaminate other species through wind-borne pollen.
_______________________
GM debate could be worse than Nitrates
Irish Farmers Monthly, February 2006. Editorial by Margaret Donnelly.
The Nitrates Directive turned into an unimaginable farce. No one would have thought all those years ago, when we were supposed to have implemented it, that relations between Teagasc and the IFA would deteriorate to the point where the IFA called on farmers across the country to withdraw their support of Teagasc.
Surely it couldn't happen again? Well, it looks like it could over GM, and on a potentially more damaging level for farmers.
In this issue we look at the inter-departmental report on co-existence of GM and non-GM crops in Ireland. Every country in Europe must devise its own set of guidelines on how GM and non-GM crops can best co-exist in their country and an inter-departmental working group published Ireland's report in December.
The IFA, ICMSA and Macra na Feirme were all approached by the working group to make a submission when the report was being compiled. However, the three largest farmers organisations in the country decided to sit on the fence.
The only farming lobby group to make a submission for the report was the ICSA, which stated that it is in favour or a GM-free island policy.
And GM is likely to become an even more contentious issue than the Nitrates Directive ever was, because the general public will have a strong interest.
Yet the three farming organisations that claim to represent the vast majority of farmers between then are opting out of laying their cards on the table now.
While the Minister for Agriculture, Mary Coughlan, has said she will take on board any considerations she receives on the report, each of these farming organisations should have made a submission to the working group. It's even more worrying to hear that the biggest farming lobby group in the country (the IFA) doesn't even have a policy on GM crops.
European consumers, rightly or wrongly, are extremely wary of GM foods. A huge part of Ireland's success as an exporting food country is the image Bord Bia has built to make Ireland a clean, green country. It's slogan is 'Ireland ‚ the Food Island'. Our food export trade is founded on natural production methods, stringent food controls at farm and processing level and a committed customer service. Our beef is marketed on the principles of being grass-fed and coming from a clean, green unspoiled landscape with a history of traditional farming.
The biggest danger with going down the GM route, in my opinion, is that there is no going back. So if we go down the GM route will Bord Bia have to consider changing its name to 'Ireland ‚ the GM Food island?'.
_______________________
Ferris warns against GM crops
Irish Examimner, 9 Feburary 2006. By Ray Ryan
ANY genetically modified crop grown here will affect conventional crops of the same species, Sinn FÈin's agriculture spokesman, Martin Ferris, has claimed.
He said scientific research clearly shows that cross contamination is impossible to prevent. Given the clear opposition of consumers to GM, this will have serious and damaging consequences for the sale of Irish food.
Meanwhile, the World Trade Organisation has ruled that the European Union illegally stopped imports of genetically modified organisms from the United States. It followed a complaint from the US, Canada and Argentina that an EU moratorium on GM food crops, in place from 1998 to 2004, was about protectionism, not science.
_______________________
8 February 2006
EU says WTO ruling won't change its GMO approach
Reuters, Wednesday, February 8, 2006
The European Commission said on Wednesday a WTO ruling that it broke trade rules by barring entry to genetically modified (GMO) crops and foods between 1999 and 2003 will not change how it deals with GMOs in the future.
"This interim report is largely of historical interest, as this panel will not alter the system or framework within which the EU takes decisions on GMOs," Commission trade spokesman Peter Power said in a statement.
_______________________
EU shrugs off modified foods censure
Financial Times, February 8 2006. By Raphael Minder in Brussels and Edward Alden in Washington
A ruling by the World Trade Organisation against European restrictions on genetically modified foods will not force the European Union to amend its legislation, EU officials insisted on Wednesday.
Yet the WTO's interim report, released late on Tuesday, could have a profound impact on developing countries that have started or are considering switching to GM technology. This is because it will reinforce claims championed by the US that GM foods are not only safe but also enable farmers considerably to cut their production costs.
In Brussels on Wednesday, Susan Schwab, deputy US trade representative, welcomed the WTO's decision, adding: "When we are talking about biotech food, we are talking about an incredible opportunity for farmers throughout the world, particularly in the developing world.'' The complaint was filed against Europe in 2003 by the US, Canada and Argentina.
EU officials stressed the WTO's criticism was about former EU regulatory safeguards but not the Union's existing rules, which came into force after the tabling of the complaint.
A spokesman for Peter Mandelson, the European Union's trade commissioner, said: "This interim report is largely of historical interest, as this panel will not alter the system or framework within which the EU takes decisions on GMOs."
Still, the report could influence what has been a heated European debate about GMOs because of its condemnation of national curbs that have remained in place after 2004, when Brussels resumed approvals ‚ albeit on a limited scale ‚ of GM products.
Later this month the European Food Safety Authority is due to give its scientific assessment on eight national bans, which could encourage the European Commission to take another stab at lifting them.
The WTO ruling said that the trade panel reached no conclusion on whether biotech products were safe or not.
But it found that the European-wide restrictions in place until August 2003 constituted a "de facto moratorium" that violated WTO rules.
More specifically, the panel examined 27 cases in which approvals were sought for new biotech strains of cotton, maize, sugar beet and other crops and found that in 24 cases there had been "undue delay" in considering the applications.
Sarah Thorn, of the US Grocery Manufacturers Association, said: "The WTO's decision makes it clear that biotech regulations must be based on sound science and that the EU's approach to biotech crop approvals is unwarranted."
_______________________
WTO ruling should benefit farmers
The Washington Post, Wednesday, February 8, 2006. By Sam Cage.
A World Trade Organization ruling against EU curbs on imports of genetically modified foods should bring great benefits to farmers and rural areas worldwide, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
"The continuing adoption of agricultural biotechnology worldwide is evidence it provides tremendous benefits to farmers and rural communities," said U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns.
But the European Union countered that the WTO panel vindicated its current regulations on biotech products, saying that there was never a European moratorium on the imports of genetically altered crops from the United States or elsewhere.
A preliminary judgment Tuesday by a WTO panel concluded that the European Union had an effective ban on biotech foods for six years beginning in 1998, according to trade officials.
The report largely sided with a legal complaint brought by the United States, Canada and Argentina over an EU moratorium on approval of new biotech foods, ruling that individual bans in six EU member states _ Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg _ violated international trade rules.
The ruling - which runs to about 1,000 pages and is said to be one of the most complex the commerce body has issued - had been delayed several times. A final ruling is expected next month and can be appealed.
U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman said agricultural biotech improves food security and helps reduce poverty worldwide.
"It's a significant and positive development," added Susan Schwab, a deputy U.S. trade representative. "The proof will be in trade flows and the transparency and ease of the approval process."
U.S. farm groups hailed the decision, as did members of the U.S. Congress from farm states. The farm groups had contended they were losing hundreds of millions of dollars annually in export sales of genetically modified crops to the EU. Types of corn, cotton and soybeans had all been blocked by the EU.
"This decision is an important step toward opening the European markets to American farmers," said Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat.
Sean Darragh, of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group for producers of genetically modified crops, said the ruling would be important to farmers in the United States and in 20 other countries that grow biotech crops.
"The European Union's inaction has effectively blocked up to $300 million of U.S. agricultural exports annually to the detriment of American farmers," he said.
The complainants claim there is no scientific evidence for the EU's actions and the moratorium has been an unfair barrier to producers of biotech foods who want to export to the EU.
The EU ended its moratorium in 2004 when it allowed onto the market a modified strain of sweet corn, grown mainly in the United States. Brussels says the 25-nation bloc has approved the import of nine biotech crops since 2004, but Washington has said it will continue with its WTO case until it is convinced that all applications for approval are being decided on scientific rather than political grounds.
"The panel found that there were delays in approving the products, which might be said to constitute a de facto moratorium during that period," said an EU official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because it was a confidential report.
"We dispute that a moratorium existed and we contest the claim that delays in the past were excessive. The panel clearly said that no moratorium currently exists," the official added.
The ruling will open the door to more European customers for U.S. businesses but also will set an example for other world markets, said Leon Corzine, chairman of the National Corn Grower's Association, based in suburban St. Louis.
But environmental group Friends of the Earth says the case undermines the right of governments to decide what is safe for their citizens, and pressures other countries - especially developing nations - to accept genetically modified foods against their will.
The panel "has ruled that free trade should take precedence over the precautionary principle and the democratic right to regulate for the protection of either health or the environment," said Caroline Lucas, a European lawmaker representing the British Green Party.
_______________________
EU loses global trade dispute over gene crops
The EU breached global trade rules when it failed to grant market approval for a string of genetically modified crops for almost six years between 1998 and 2004, the World trade organisation has declared.Ý In a confidential interim ruling expected to be confirmed in the spring, the global trade body backs complaints levelled by the USA, Canada and Argentina in 2003.
Ý
The ruling imposes no sanctions and will have little practical impact since the EU has overhauled its GM licensing rules, and ended its de facto moratorium almost two years ago.Ý It has since approved nine crop varieties for the EU market.
Ý
"It is clear beyond any doubt that the EU will not have to modify its GMO legislation and authorisation procedures" as a result of the verdict, an EU official said.Ý "It never was clear why the complaining parties brought this case forward."
Ý
The three complainants were "pleased with the outcome" of the case, an American trade official told Reuters.Ý The WTO ruling was a "significant milestone" in their continuing battle with the EU over GMOs the official said.
Ý
The decision will put pressure on the determined group of anti-GM member states that have refused to endorse the applications.Ý Their opposition has forced the European commission to push through approvals unilaterally.
Ý
The ruling also apparently criticises as scientifically unfounded the national "safeguard" bans subsequently adopted by some of this group on EU-approved crops.Ý This part of the ruling will help the commission, which has repeatedly challenged the bans and is currently seeking further scientific advice on them.
Ý
Environmentalists reacted angrily to the WTO ruling:Ý Greenpeace called it "irrelevant" while Friends of the Earth urged a "deep-rooted reform of the international trade system".Ý EU biotech trade lobby EuropaBio said it was too early to comment on the interim ruling, which has not been made public.
Ý
Follow-up: WTO http://www.wto.org/index.htm,
Ý
European Commission
http://europa.eu.int/comm/index_en.htm,
and briefing on EU GMO rules
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/06/58
and the WTO case
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/06/61;
ÝUS trade department
http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Sectors/Agriculture/Biotechnology/Section_Index.html
and briefing
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Sectors/Agriculture/Biotechnology/asset_upload_file962_8903.pdf.
_______________________
Groups publish conclusions of WTO dispute
IATP, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace: WTO secrecy an outrage
Geneva/Brussels - 8th February 2006
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Friends of the Earth Europe
and Greenpeace have made the conclusions of the WTO dispute on genetically
modified organisms public [1] in order to allow the whole world to engage in
the debate on the future of our food.
The groups condemned the secrecy of the WTO and called on governments to
ensure that complex health and environmental decisions are taken in a
transparent manner by bodies qualified to do so.
"This verdict only proves that the WTO is unqualified to deal with
complex scientific and environmental issues. They even say so
themselves, claiming that "the panel did not examine ... whether biotech
products in general are safe or not". The US administration and
agro-chemical companies brought the case in a desperate attempt to
force-feed markets with GMOs. But consumers, citizens and farmers around
the world do not want GMOs and this ruling will change none of that,"
said Daniel Mittler, Trade Policy Advisor at Greenpeace International.
"The WTO is keeping its draft ruling secret. This sums up everything
that is wrong with the WTO. It is secretive, undemocratic and biased
towards business interests. The WTO should be the last institution to
decide what people eat and grow in the fields," said Alexandra Wandel,
Trade Coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe.
"The WTO dispute panel is set up to view regulations strictly in a
framework designed to facilitate trade, not to realize public or
environmental health objectives," said Steve Suppan, Senior Trade
Associate at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. "The U.S.
government and the biotech companies may claim that the ruling proves
that GE crops are safe for human consumption and the use of GE seeds is
an environmentally beneficial agricultural practice. But the case covers
no such thing: much less does it support the profoundly flawed U.S.
regulation of GE crops." said Steve Suppan, IATP Research Director and
author of a backgrounder on the case.
Notes:
[1] The conclusions and recommendations of the WTO panel report are
available
at: http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=78475
Backgrounders are available at:
IATP: http://www.tradeobservatory.org
FoE:
www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/GMO_and_WTO_interim_briefing_Feb2006.pdf
Greenpeace: http://eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/gmo/WTObriefing0602.pdf
For further comment contact:
IATP: Ben Lilliston, IATP, +1 612-870-3416
Greenpeace: Daniel Mittler, +49 171 876 5345
Alexandra Wandel, Friends of the Earth WTO expert, +49 172 748 3953
Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth GMO expert, +49 1609 490 1163
_______________________
Europe bridles at WTO view on national biotech bans
Reuters, 8 February 2006. By Jeremy Smith.
BRUSSELS, Feb 8 (Reuters) - European countries bristled on Wednesday at a world trade ruling that touches on national sovereignty over genetically modified (GMO) foods, with some saying they would do their level best to keep farming GMO-free.
Europe's consumers are well known for their scepticism, if not hostility, to GMO crops, often dubbed as "Frankenstein foods". The biotech industry insists its products are perfectly safe, however, and no different to conventional foods.
Late on Tuesday, a World Trade Organisation panel ruled that various EU countries -- Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg -- had broken international trade rules by imposing national bans on marketing and growing specific GMOs.
Some of those countries reacted angrily to the WTO ruling, saying they would defend their legal right to block EU-approved products if they wanted, since this was the will of consumers. EU law dictates that such bans must be scientifically justified.
Austria, one of the EU's staunchest biotech sceptics, has banned imports of three GMO maize types and is considering a ban on growing a GMO rapeseed. Government officials say they will continue to be as restrictive as possible for the time being.
"The protection of people and the environment have absolute priority, and the most recent scientific research vindicates our cautious approach in this matter," said Austrian Health Minister Maria Rauch-Kallat, responsible for national GMO policy.
"We will exhaust all possibilities to keep Austria's agriculture GM-free and ensure consumers' safety."
Greece, also traditionally opposed to biotech foods, agreed.
"Greece is against genetically modified foods. All prefectures have declared their area GMO-free. We need to discuss with Brussels and scientists safeguards before we lift the ban," a Greek agriculture ministry source told Reuters.
Last June, EU governments rebuffed attempts by the European Commission to order the five countries to lift their national GMO bans -- the first time that the bloc has managed to agree anything on biotech policy since 1998.
The Commission did not think the bans were justified, and nor did the WTO in its ruling on the case filed by Argentina, Canada and the United States. It also said the EU's de facto GMO moratorium between 1999 and 2003 broke world trade rules.
FRANCE STILL SCEPTICAL
France, home to anti-GMO and free trade firebrand Jose Bove, has a long-standing consumer opposition to biotech food. Europe's agricultural powerhouse, France bans two types of GMO rapeseed but has allowed some small-scale growing of GMO maize.
French consumer and farming groups deplored the WTO ruling, insisting that a large majority of consumers firmly opposed GMOs and that the EU's temporary approvals ban was correct.
A poll published in France this week showed that 78 percent of those questioned would like a temporary ban on GMO products in order to evaluate their health and environmental impact.
In Italy, Agriculture Minister Giovanni Alemanno said it was very serious for the WTO to take an "unbalanced stance" against European norms on GMO products.
"We would not want this verdict to represent an attempt to undermine the legislative sovereignty of the European Union," he said in a statement.
"In the past few months, there are many products that have been authorised by the European Commission and no country has maintained a protectionist moratorium on these products."
Green groups said consumer resistance to GMOs has increased in Europe since the three major GMO growers filed their WTO complaint in 2003. The ruling will not encourage consumers to buy more GMOs, they say, and maybe make the opposition stronger.
"The WTO has bluntly ruled that European safeguards (bans) should be sacrificed to benefit biotech corporations," said Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe.
"This will backfire and lead to even greater opposition to genetically modified food and crops. Consumers worldwide will not be bullied into eating GM foods."
U.S. officials regretted there was a level of misinformation in Europe about the benefits of biotech crops but hoped that the WTO ruling would let the EU open its doors more to GMO imports.
"It is unfortunate the extent to which certain groups have decided to demagogue the issue and mischaracterise the quality ... and environmental implications of biotechnology," Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab told reporters.
"The proof will be in trade flows and transparency and ease of approval processes. Time will tell," she said in Brussels. (Additional reporting by Boris Groendahl in Vienna, Silvia Aloisi in Rome, William Schomberg in Brussels, Foo Yun Chee in Athens, Sybille de La Hamaide and David Evans in Paris)
_______________________
Minister Cannot Evade Responsibility Over GM - Ferris
Sinn Féin press release, 8 February, 2006
Sinn Féin Spokesperson on Agriculture, Martin Ferris TD has said that the Minister for Agriculture Mary Coughlan cannot be allowed to evade responsibility over the consequences for Irish farming of introducing genetically modified crops. Deputy Ferris was speaking in response to a reply from the Minister to a question he tabled regarding the decision to allow the growing of genetically modified potatoes in County Meath.
Deputy Ferris said: "In her reply, the Minister states that she has 'no function' in the decision-making process with regard to genetically modified crops. While this is technically true, it does not obviate her patent responsibility for the reputation and safety of Irish farming which will be undermined if GM crops are permitted here. I specifically asked the Minister to make a statement on the dangers which GM potatoes will present to conventional crops, and she refused to answer."
"Scientific research from other countries clearly shows that cross-contamination is impossible to prevent. Therefore, any GM crop grown here will be certain to affect conventional crops of the same species. Given the clear opposition of consumers to GM this will have serious and damaging consequences for the sale of Irish food. If the Minister feels that this is not her responsibility it raises serious questions regarding what her role is."
_______________________
WTO trade war on GMOs: Europe must fight ruling
Friends of the Earth calls for a new world trade system
Friends of the Earth media advisory, Brussels/Geneva, 8 February 2006
Friends of the Earth Europe today urged
the European Union to take the global lead and work for a new international
system that, in contrast to World Trade Organisation (WTO), prioritises
human health and environmental safety over free trade rules.
The call comes following yesterdays draft ruling by the WTO in Geneva that
Europe's precautionary stance on genetically modified (GM) foods and crops
"violates" trade rules. The WTO believes that national safety bans on GM
products and Europe's de facto moratorium on new GM foods between 1999 and
2004 were barriers to trade. The ruling on the transatlantic trade dispute
over GM foods was sent to the EU on one side, and to the United States,
Canada and Argentina on the other.
Alexandra Wandel, Friends of the Earth Europe's Trade Co-ordinator in
Brussels, said: "Europe should fight this decision and lead the calls for a
new global trading system that protects people and the environment from the
worst excesses of industry. The WTO undermines democracy and puts business
interests before the welfare of the public. It should not be allowed to rule
on what we eat or what our farmers grow."
Adrian Bebb, GM Food Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe, said: "The
WTO has bluntly ruled that European safeguards should be sacrificed to
benefit biotech corporations. This will backfire and lead to even greater
opposition to genetically modified food and crops. Consumers worldwide will
not be bullied into eating GM foods."
Wandel noted: "The WTO is keeping its draft ruling secret. This sums up
everything that is wrong with the WTO. It is secretive, undemocratic and
biased towards business interests. The WTO should be the last institution to
decide what people eat and grow in the fields."
In its defence during the WTO dispute the EU Commission had questioned
whether the WTO was the right place to solve such disputes. "There is a
serious question as to whether the WTO is the appropriate international
forum for resolving all the GMO issues that the Complainants have raised in
these case," it said. (1)
Friends of the Earth believes that an alternative dispute settlement
procedure is needed to solve trade and environmental conflicts and that
international environment agreements need to be strengthened. This could be
the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
Additionally, the UN Biosafety Protocol is an international agreement
already in place that deals with trade in GMOs. (2)
Two new opinion polls highlighted again Europeans' opposition to GM foods. A
French poll by BVA reports that 78% of French people want a temporary ban on
GM crops. Similarly a Europe-wide poll published yesterday by the European
Food Safety Authority states that 62% of Europeans are worried about GM
products in food. (3)
An international campaign against the WTO dispute called "Bite-back - WTO:
Hands off our food!" - is supported by 750 organisations representing some
60 million people (see www.bite-back.org). The coalition states that the
industry-friendly WTO is not the right place to decide what food Europeans
should eat. (2)
The "Bite Back" citizens' objection was initiated by Friends of the Earth
International with the support of consumer, development and farmers' groups,
trade unions, research institutes and citizens from over 100 countries.
NOTES TO EDITORS
(1) EU first written submission:
http://www.foeeurope.org/biteback/download/Second_EU_Submission_to_WTO.pdf
(2) Is the WTO the only way? Safeguarding Multilateral Environmental
Agreements from international trade rules and settling trade and environment
disputes outside the WTO. A briefing paper by Adelphi Consult, Friends of
the Earth Europe and Greenpeace. Available at
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2005/alternatives_wto.pdf
(3) See http://www.efsa.eu.int and
http://www.agirpourlenvironnement.org
A special media briefing on the GM trade dispute is available at :
www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/GMO_and_WTO_interim_briefing_Feb2006.pdf
as well as a fact sheet on GMOs and the WTO, see
www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/GMO_and_WTO_QA_Feb2006.pdf
En FranÁais:
Briefing pour la presse sur le conflit commercial transatlantique sur les
aliments modifiÈs gÈnÈtiquement:
www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/GMO_et_WTO_briefing_intermediaire_Feb200
6_FR.pdf
Les OGM en Europe et l'OMC - Questions rÈponses
www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/GMO_et_WTO_QR_Feb2006_FR.pdf
FOE report: Who benefits from GM crops, January 2006-02-07
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/who_benefits_from_gm_crops_Jan_20
06.pdf
CONTACT:
Alexandra Wandel, Friends of the Earth WTO expert, +49 172 748 3953
Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth GMO expert, +49 1609 490 1163
_______________________
Greenpeace dismisses WTO ruling and predicts Europe will stay closed to GMOs
Greenpeace Press Release, Brussels, 7 February 2006 - Greenpeace tonight dismissed as irrelevant a
WTO ruling that reportedly backs the US, Canada and Argentina in their
efforts to force Europe to accept genetically modified organisms (GMOs);
according to first press reports, the WTO decided that EU national bans
contravened trade rules. The environmental organisation considers that
just as the WTO case did not challenge EU laws designed to protect the
environment, it could not be used to undermine existing international
agreements on biosafety.
"U.S agro-chemical giants will not sell a bushel more of their GM grain
as a result of the WTO ruling. European consumers, farmers and a growing
number of governments remain opposed to GMOs, and this will not change -
in Europe or globally," said Daniel Mittler, Greenpeace International
trade advisor. "The $300 million lost exports for US GM maize growers
per year (1) will continue, and remain a warning to exporting countries
that GMOs are not wanted in Europe."
"This verdict only proves that the WTO puts trade interests above all
others and is unqualified to deal with complex scientific and
environmental issues. The US administration and agro-chemical companies
brought the case in a desperate attempt to force-feed markets with GMOs,
but will continue to be frustrated," said Daniel Mittler.
In August 2003, the US, Canada and Argentina took the EU to the WTO for
suspending approvals for biotech products, and for six member states'
national bans on EU-approved GMOs.
Despite the ongoing case in Geneva, European governments voted with a
clear majority in 2005 to retain existing national bans on GMOs (2) and
individual countries continue to reject GMOs. Greece last week announced
an extension of its ban on seeds from a type of GM maize produced by
Monsanto. Austria also recently announced its intention to ban the
import of a GM oilseed rape. These bans, in addition to those imposed
last year by Hungary and Poland, 172 regions in Europe which have
declared themselves GMO-free zones, and a Swiss moratorium decided by
public referendum, show that Europe is steadfast in rejecting GMOs.
EU legislation on the approval and labelling of GMOs is not at stake and
will remain unaffected by the outcome of the WTO case.
Contacts: Daniel Mittler, Greenpeace International WTO expert +49 171
876 5345
Eric Gall, Greenpeace EU Unit, GE expert, +32 496 161 582
Notes
1. The US claims $200 million lost sales for corn products alone, $300
million for corn and soy products. See "European Commission Opts Not To
Push For End of GMO Moratorium," INSIDE U.S. TRADE, January 25, 2002 ;
or http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs984/wrs984e.pdf
2. The EU Commission tried to use the WTO case to force five European
countries (Greece, France, Austria, Luxembourg and Germany) attacked by
the US to lift their national bans (Italy, the sixth, lifted its ban two
years ago). When the EU Commission put its proposals aimed at the
lifting of bans to a vote at the EU Council of Environment ministers on
24 June 2005, 22 countries out of 25 voted against the Commission's
proposals and decided that the bans were justified and should remain in
place. This forced the EU Commission to withdraw its proposals.
Greenpeace briefing on national safeguard clauses ('bans'):
http://eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/gmo/NationalBans0507.pdfk
3. A Greenpeace briefing on the WTO dispute on GMOs is available at
http://eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/gmo/WTObriefing0602.pdf
Michael Kessler
International Communications
Greenpeace International
Ottho Heldingstaraat 5, 1066 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 718 2000
Fax: +31 20 514 8151
Mobile: +34 660 637 053
Email: michael.kessler@int.greenpeace.org - www.greenpeace.org
_______________________
Biotech industry hails WTO ruling
Reuters, 8 February 2006. By Jeremy Smith
US biotech industry groups have hailed a world trade ruling condemning the European Union over its policy on genetically modified (GMO) crops and foods.
Green groups have blasted it as a direct attack on democracy.
In a keenly awaited confidential judgment, the World Trade Organisation said the EU applied an effective moratorium on GMO imports for six years from 1998 - illegal under WTO rules.
Six EU countries also broke trade rules by slapping their own bans on marketing and importing GMO products that had already won EU-wide approval, according to diplomats who had seen the finding issued by the Geneva-based trade body.
"If confirmed, the verdict seems to be pretty unambiguous," said Christian Verschueren, director-general of CropLife International, representing the global plant science industry.
"It seems to send a clear signal that any measures to protect animal, human and plant health have to be based on sound science," he told Reuters.
"We hope that ... we gradually gain more political clarity within the EU, and get the regulatory machine working more effectively than it has done."
The complaint was filed against the EU in 2003 by Argentina, Canada and the United States - all major growers of GMO crops such as soy and maize.
US farmers say the EU ban cost them $US300 million ($A404.8 million) a year in lost sales while it was in effect since many US agricultural products, including most US corn, were effectively barred from entering EU markets.
Europe's shoppers are known for their wariness towards GMO products, often dubbed as "Frankenstein foods" or "Frankenfoods".
But the biotech industry insists that its products are perfectly safe and say Europe's hostility is unfounded.
Green groups were disappointed by the findings, saying the months of waiting, and many delays, in the WTO biotech case had already made Europe take a much more proactive stance on approving GMOs than warranted by the poor consumer demand for modified foods.
"US agro-chemical giants will not sell a bushel more of their GM grain as a result of the WTO ruling," said Daniel Mittler, trade adviser at Greenpeace International.
"European consumers, farmers and a growing number of governments remain opposed to GMOs, and this will not change in Europe or globally," he said in a statement.
_______________________
7 February 2006
Syngenta Not Seen Impacted By WTO Ruling
Dow Jones Newswires, Tuesday, February 07, 2006. ]--Syngenta's (SYT) business is not expected to be impacted by the World Trade Organization's ruling on whether the EU's ban on genetically-modified crops is illegal or not, says Bank Sarasin analyst Bernd Pomrehn. Even if the WTO's ruling lifts the moratorium on GMO-based food products in the EU, the European consumer won't easily change its aversion toward GMO food, says Pomrehn, which is the real reason that holds back further spread of GMO in Europe.
_______________________
7 February 2006
Europe's rules on GMOs and the WTO
There is a need for strong regulatory oversight of GM technology
There is a general consensus between scientists that GMOs are not inherently unsafe, but that their safety for the environment, human health and animal health needs to be assessed on a case by case basis before marketing. This approach is supported by international organisations such as the World Health Organisation, the Codex Alimentarius, the FAO or the OECD. The EU legislation follows strictly the internationally recommended approach and reflects the requirements of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, to which the EU is a signatory.
The EU regulatory framework also provides for strict monitoring of GM products after their initial release to market through the implementation of mandatory labelling and traceability rules. The EU believes that such regulatory oversight is of utmost importance to address any potential failure of the regulatory system, such as those that have been experienced in the US in the recent past when non-approved GMOs such as Starlink GM maize, or Bt 10 GM maize entered the US food chain.
The EU has no ban on safe GM products
In the EU, GMOs can only be placed on the market after having undergone a stringent science-based risk assessment on a case by case basis. This approach is fully in line with international standards, in particular with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety as well as with the relevant Guidelines adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 2003 and by the International Conventional on Plant Protection.
So far, more than 30 GMOs or derived food and feed products have been approved for marketing in the EU. As an example, in early January 2006, the EU granted approvals to three new GM maize products after a rigorous safety assessment.
Contrary to US claims, the EU is one of the largest importers of GMOs and derived food and feed. The EU is the largest soybean and soy meal importer and the fact is that soy imports consist largely of Monsanto "Round-Up Ready" soybean, which is cultivated in all the main soybean global producers, i.e. the US, Brazil and Argentina. The claim that the there is a moratorium on approval of GM products in Europe is self-evidently untrue.
The EU approval process may appear to be lengthy for some countries which adopt a more lenient approach towards food and environmental safety issues. The longer times to assess the safety of GMOs in the EU are due to the complexity of the science involved as well as to delays incurred by biotech companies to provide suitable data demonstrating the safety of the products.
The WTO challenge on GMOs is unhelpful and unfounded
In May 2003, the US, supported by Canada and Argentina, launched a WTO case against the EU concerning the EU authorisation regime for GMOs. Whilst the three complainants publicly argue that the WTO case is straightforward and clear, the panel has taken a number of years to reach final conclusions on the dispute. This shows that the matters at stake are far more complex than claimed by the US, Argentina and Canada.
Indeed, against the arguments of all three complainants, the WTO panel agreed with the EU that it would be unwise to rule on such a complex topic without hearing the views of scientists. The panel eventually decided to gather the views of independent and highly reputable scientists from different parts of the world, including Europe and America. That consultation process confirmed the legitimacy of the health and environmental issues addressed in EU regulations and procedures. The US has explicitly said that it does not challenge the EU's legal framework for clearing GMOs for import and distribution.
10 years after the first commercial release, 90% of GMOs remain cultivated in 4 countries : USA (55%), Argentina (19%), Brazil (10%), Canada (6%).
The EU remains confident that its regulatory regime over GMOs and GM food and feed is fully compatible with its international commitments including those under the WTO. The US has not at any stage challenged the EU's legal framework.
What are the US's real concerns with the EU system?
The US appears not to like the EU authorisation regime, which it considers to be too stringent, simply because it takes longer to approve a GMO in Europe than in the US. The US appears to believe that GMOs that are considered to be safe in the US should be de facto deemed to be safe for the rest of the world. The EU has argued that a sovereign body like the EU and its Member States, or indeed any country in the world, has the right to enact its own regulations on the food that its citizens would eat, providing that the measures are compatible with existing international rules and based on clear scientific evidence.
The US also opposes GMO traceability rules because it considers that they constitute an obstacle to US commodity exports, despite the fact that US traders can in fact meet those requirements without difficulties.
The US is also adamantly opposed to labelling rules for food products produced from GMOs, even though these rules are designed to help ensure that customers are well-informed about what they are buying.
US soybean and soy meal exports have steadily declined over the last ten years because of a decline of competitiveness of US agriculture on the global market. The trends in EU maize imports further confirm that US farmers are no longer low-cost producers and are less and less able to compete with emerging countries such as Brazil or Argentina on global commodity markets. EU trade data show clearly that EU rules on GM are not affecting the imports of more competitive GMO exporters.
Getting the rules on GMOs right.
The EU has always acknowledged that biotechnology offers promising avenues to develop agricultural production, in particular for developing countries, and it can contribute to the fight against food insecurity.
The EU has always made it clear that every country has the sovereign right to make its own decisions on GMOs in accordance with the values prevailing in its society. This principle obviously applies to both developed and developing countries. It is the legitimate right of developing countries' governments to fix their own level of protection and to take the decisions they deem appropriate to prevent unintentional dissemination of GM seeds. This right is fully recognised in international agreements such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety which the EU considers to be the key international agreement governing the transboundary movements of GMOs.
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety provides an international forum for the international governance of GMOs. So far more than 130 countries actively participate to it. However, the US, Canada and Argentina have refused to ratify it.
The EU considers that major GMO producers such as the US should adopt a co-operative approach to the development of a sound international legal framework for these products, instead of taking hostile steps at the WTO.
For more information on the EU regulatory framework covering GMOs, GM food and feed is available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm
_______________________
WTO condemns EU over GMO moratorium : diplomats
Reuters, Tue Feb 7, 2006. By Richard Waddington.
GENEVA (Reuters) - The World Trade Organization, in a closely watched ruling, decreed on Tuesday that the European Union and six member states had broken trade rules by barring entry to genetically modified crops and foods, diplomats said.
The preliminary finding, contained in a confidential verdict sent to the parties to the dispute, addressed a complaint brought against the EU by the United States, Argentina and Canada.
In a 1,000-page report, which diplomats said that they were still seeking to digest, WTO trade judges found that the EU had applied an effective moratorium on GMO imports for six years from 1998. Moratoriums are barred under WTO rules.
"The panel confirmed that there was a moratorium, and that is not allowed," said one diplomat who had seen the verdict.
"Members' safeguard measures have also been condemned," he said in reference to the complaint against individual market and import bans imposed by France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Luxembourg and Greece.
Diplomats said that other parts of the WTO ruling, which also covered individual crops and foods, were more mixed, although they were still wading through the detail.
The decision, which still needs to be confirmed in a final ruling in a month's time, and can be appealed, came as little surprise to diplomats and industry watchers who had forecast that the EU could come off worst in the long-running case.
"NOT BASED ON SCIENCE"
The EU's opponents asserted that the moratorium, which Brussels argued was never officially declared, hurt their exports and was not based on science.
The ruling had been keenly awaited by the world's biotech industry, which would like to ship far more GMOs to Europe.
Although Brussels began once again authorizing imports of GMOs in May 2004, only seven crops and foods have been given the green light, and a number of member states have maintained individual bans.
Europe's shoppers are known for their wariness toward GMO products, often dubbed "Frankenstein foods" by European media.
Opposition is estimated at more than 70 percent, a stark contrast to the United States where the products are far more widely accepted.
But trade sources said the ruling would send a message to other WTO members, including some in Africa, which have been taking, or are considering taking, a similar line to that of the EU, that they could face legal action.
U.S. farmers say the EU ban cost them some $300 million a year in lost sales while it was in effect since many U.S. agricultural products, including most U.S. corn, were effectively barred from entering EU markets.
"Biotechnology produces safe food ... we believe it will help reduce poverty in poor countries. We believe it enhances development and it provides important environmental benefits," said United States Trade Representative Rob Portman before the ruling's release.
The EU says its cautious approach to GMOs is in line with scientific opinion which, it says, has concluded that GMOs must be assessed on a case-by-case basis even if they are not intrinsically unsafe.
_______________________
WTO draft ruling on EU-US biotech food war expected shortly
Friends of the Earth calls for a new world trade system
Brussels/Geneva, 7 February 2006 - Friends of the Earth Europe today called
for a deep-rooted reform of the international trade system if the World
Trade Organisation (WTO) over-rules European Union attempts to protect its
people and environment from genetically modified (GM) foods and crops.
In a draft ruling expected shortly on the transatlantic trade dispute over
GM foods, the WTO will inform the countries involved whether national bans
on GM products are a barrier to free trade and should be lifted. It is also
likely to show whether Europe's de facto moratorium between 1998 and 2004 on
new GM foods was also a barrier to trade.
The European Commission has already today issued a memo which clearly
exposes what is at stake. Should the world follow the de-regulation,
business-driven approach of the US or should it follow the regulatory,
safety-first approach of the European Union? The number of GM accidents in
the US strongly suggests that the EU model is better to protect people and
their environment. (1)
Alexandra Wandel, Friends of the Earth Europe's Trade Co-ordinator, said:
"Protecting wildlife, farmers and consumers from the threat of genetically
modified crops is far more important than enforcing free trade rules. The
World Trade Organisation with its secretive decision-making processes is
unfit to decide what we should eat or what farmers should grow. The WTO is
undemocratic, and unfairly favours big business. A new global trading system
is needed that protects people and the environment from the worst excesses
of industry."
Adrian Bebb, GM Food Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe, said:
"Opposition to genetically modified foods is likely to increase if the WTO
decides that European safeguards should be sacrificed to benefit biotech
corporations. Consumers worldwide will not be bullied into eating GM foods.
European governments must stand up to the WTO and protect the food chain and
the environment from the threat of genetically modified crops."
Friends of the Earth points out that:
* Opposition to GM foods and crops in Europe has increased since the
beginning of the trade dispute. There are now over 170 regions and 4,500
smaller areas that want to be GM-free.
* An alternative dispute settlement procedure is needed to solve trade and
environmental conflicts. This could be the International Court of Justice or
the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Additionally, the UN Biosafety Protocol
is an international agreement already in place that deals with trade in
GMOs.
* The first ten years of GM crops have failed to deliver the benefits
promised by the biotech industry and have played no role in tackling poverty
and hunger (2).
An international campaign against the WTO dispute called "Bite-back - WTO:
Hands off our food!" - is supported by 750 organisations representing some
60 million people (see www.bite-back.org). The coalition states that the
industry-friendly WTO is not the right place to decide what food Europeans
should eat. (3)
The "Bite Back" citizens' objection was initiated by Friends of the Earth
International with the support of consumer, development and farmers' groups,
trade unions, research institutes and citizens from over 100 countries.
[1] European Commission Press Release:
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/06/61&type=
HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
[2] A special media briefing on the GM trade dispute is available at :
www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/GMO_and_WTO_interim_briefing_Feb2006.pdf
as well as a fact sheet on GMOs and the WTO, see
www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/GMO_and_WTO_QA_Feb2006.pdf
En FranÁais:
Briefing pour la presse sur le conflit commercial transatlantique sur les
aliments modifiÈs gÈnÈtiquement:
www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/GMO_et_WTO_briefing_intermediaire_Feb200
6_FR.pdf
Les OGM en Europe et l'OMC - Questions rÈponses
www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/GMO_et_WTO_QR_Feb2006_FR.pdf
FOE report: Who benefits from GM crops, January 2006-02-07
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/who_benefits_from_gm_crops_Jan_20
06.pdf
[3] Is the WTO the only way? Safeguarding Multilateral Environmental
Agreements from international trade rules and settling trade and environment
disputes outside the WTO. A briefing paper by Adelphi Consult, Friends of
the Earth Europe and Greenpeace. Available at
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2005/alternatives_wto.pdf
CONTACT:
Alexandra Wandel, Friends of the Earth WTO expert, +49 172 748 3953
Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth GMO expert, +49 1609 490 1163
_______________________
Nasz Dziennik on gov't plans on GMO products
EuroPAP, 7 February 2006.
Warsaw- On Tuesday the government will discuss a draft law introducing a ban on the production of GMO food in Poland, wrote the Nasz Dziennik daily on Monday.
According to the draft, GMO food would not be produced in Poland, Environment Minister Jan Szyszko said. "After it is passed, the law will be sent to the European Commission to decide if it is compatible with the European Union law. We are still seeking allies who will support us," he added.
The daily said Poland had already found one ally and added it was Austria which was holding the EU rotating presidency now.
_______________________
Organic produce, animal welfare
Irish Independent, 7 January 2006.
MAIN proposals under the general heading of animal welfare centred around calf weaning guidelines, minimum stocking rate density and extra grants for cow mats.
Organic production attracted a number of proposals which on the day were met with enthusiasm from Department Assistant Secretary John Fox who said we should not be importing all our organic foods from abroad.
Proposals included:
* Review of the area allowed for payment.
* General increase in overall payments for those involved in organics.
* Public access to organic farms.
* GMO ban on all REPS farms.
* REPS measure that would cover small-scale horticulture.
* Expansion of the definition of organics to cover Christmas trees, wreaths and bouquets.
_______________________
WTO GMO descision expected tomorrow
Polilics.co.uk: GeneWatch UK press release, 7 February 2006.
Evidence shows the US's desperate efforts unlikely to succeed in forcing GM food acceptance
Today, GeneWatch UK is publishing a summary of public attitudes research from around the world that has been collected since the WTO GMO dispute began in 2003. It shows public hostility to GM crops remains widespread and
indicates that the tactics of the US and biotechnology industry are unlikely to succeed in opening markets for GM [1]. The opinion poll and research findings come from a wide spread of countries, including South Africa,
China, Japan, Mali, Canada and Europe. They demonstrate that people remain unconvinced about GM crops and foods and, even in the US, the great majority want the choice through mandatory labelling.
In 2003, the USA, Argentina and Canada made a complaint to the WTO that Europe's handling of GM crops was a barrier to free trade [2]. This followed the 1998 decision by Europe, arising from public concern, to take a more
precautionary approach to GM food, revising and tightening its legislation so no new approvals for GM crops were made for a period of six years. This angered the GM crop exporting countries who, in desperation and unable to
win the public debate, turned to the secretive and undemocratic processes of the WTO's trade dispute process in an effort to force acceptance both in Europe and the rest of the world.
Tomorrow, it is expected that the parties will hear the WTO's Dispute Panel's interim findings. The publication of the interim decision is a year behind schedule and, despite the importance of the case, the public will only see
the decision if it is leaked. Rather than allowing for an informed view to emerge, a scramble to 'spin' the story will start.
Everyone is likely to claim to have won, even though the outcome will inevitably be mixed. The USA in particular will want to spin the decision as a victory to 'persuade' other countries not to place restrictions on GM
foods.
However, will the biotech industry inspired tactic of a WTO dispute to drive GM foods around the world prove successful? The evidence from public attitudes research suggests that scepticism about GM has extended globally
and the market will continue to reject GM foods when given the choice. There is also a danger that the tactics will back fire and opposition intensify.
"The US and biotech industry hoped that by bringing a WTO dispute they would be able to bully countries into accepting GM food. The public around the world continues to show they are not convinced and any US 'victory' is
likely to be hollow,' said Dr Sue Mayer GeneWatch UK's Director. "The USA and the biotech industry has shown itself unable to judge this issue well from the very beginning when it first exported GM soya mixed with non-GM
soya in 1996 and started the whole controversy. Falling back on the WTO when faced with a desperate situation, seems similarly misjudged."
GeneWatch UK was one of fourteen international organisations that submitted an amicus curiae (friend of the court) submission to the WTO dispute panel arguing that countries should be able to establish rules for GM crops and
foods according to their public wishes.
GeneWatch web site: http://www.genewatch.org
_______________________
EU braces for landmark WTO ruling on biotech ban
Reuters, 6 February 2006. By Jeremy Smith.
BRUSSELS - The European Union could be forced to open itself to more genetically modified products this week when a world trade panel rules whether its strict policy on biotech foods and crops amounts to protectionism.
Diplomats and industry watchers say the EU may come off worst in the case brought by Argentina, Canada and the United States, where they claim its unofficial 1998-2004 moratorium on GMO approvals hurt their exports and was not based on science.
The World Trade Organization verdict, keenly awaited on Tuesday by the world's biotech industry which would like to ship far more GMOs to Europe, is expected to run to some 800 pages.
Already delayed several times, the ruling may be the WTO's longest and certainly one of the most complex to decipher.
Europe's shoppers are known for their wariness towards GMO products, often dubbed as "Frankenstein foods". Opposition is estimated at more than 70 percent, a stark contrast to the United States where they are far more widely accepted.
U.S. farmers say the EU ban cost them some $300 million a year in lost sales while it was in effect since many U.S. agricultural products, including most U.S. corn, were effectively barred from entering EU markets.
Despite the moratorium ending in May 2004 with a rubberstamp EU approval of a canned modified sweetcorn, plus a trickle of authorisations since then, the three complainants say Europe's biotech approvals process is still not working properly.
EUROPE SCEPTICAL
While the WTO is unlikely to issue a clear-cut condemnation of EU policy, it may well criticise areas like the string of national bans on specific GMO products in several EU countries.
These products had already won EU-wide approval but several governments used a legal exemption clause to enact national bans -- a particular annoyance for the three complainants and specifically cited in their original WTO complaint in 2003.
Most observers believe the EU will come in for criticism.
"It's unlikely the WTO would tell the EU that it should be more restrictive on GMOs," one EU diplomat said. "Irrespective of the way the WTO rules, it will be a reminder that the EU has to make its decisions on the basis of evidence."
Green groups said the pressure of the WTO case was making Europe take a much more pro-active stance on GMOs than warranted by its poor consumer demand for the foods. A ruling against Europe would merely increase that scepticism, they say.
"Opposition to genetically modified foods is likely to increase if the WTO decides that European safeguards (national bans) should be sacrificed to benefit biotech corporations," said Adrian Bebb, GMO Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe.
"The WTO, the U.S. administration and biotech firms should stop their bullying and let Europeans decide what food we eat."
TOUGH LAWS
The European Commission, which administers and instigates legislation for the EU-25, says the EU has put in place tough but fair laws since 1998 to ensure a smooth approvals process, so there is no reason to change them -- whatever the WTO says.
It insists that the case is not about Europe's GMO policy as such but what happened between 1998 and 2004. All applications for GMO approvals will continue to be processed and approved on a case-by-case basis using scientific criteria, it says.
"Whatever happens in the panel, our system aims to guarantee the unity of the internal market and complete safety for human health and the environment," a Commission official said.
_______________________
Italy's Greens Hope Italians Vote 'No' in April
Reuters, 6 February 2006. By Robin Pomeroy.
ROME - No nuclear! No GM food! No to an alpine high-speed rail link and no to plans for the world's longest bridge! In the run-up to an April election, Italy's Greens have earned a reputation as the 'no' party.
The party's leader, who is in line for a cabinet post if the opposition wins in April, resents the negative image, but is happy to receive protest votes from Italians disillusioned with five years of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
"It is a caricature, but there is a value in 'no' - no to corruption, no to war, no to swindles - it's a healthy 'no'," Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio told Reuters in an interview.
"We also defend saying 'no' to the disastrous things that some people want to do to this country."
The Greens, like other parties in the centre-left coalition headed by Romano Prodi, oppose Berlusconi's plan for a 4-billion-euro ($4.83 billion) bridge between Sicily and the mainland. The longest suspension bridge in the world would be a waste of money and an environmental hazard, they say.
But the environmentalists also oppose many plans on which others parties in Prodi's "Union" group are either unsure - such as nuclear power - or heartily in favour - such as a high-speed rail link through the Alps.
How much sway the 46-year-old will have on these issues in a future Prodi government will depend on how many votes he can bring to the coalition and which ministries will go to the Greens.
GREEN CUISINE
Pecoraro Scanio has set his sights high. "If the Greens do very well we would ask for the Economy Ministry," he says.
Opinion polls suggest the Greens will maintain the 2 percent they polled in 2001, making it unlikely the party would take such an important seat.
Transport, environment or agriculture - the latter of which Pecoraro Scanio headed in 2000-2001 - are more likely candidates for a Green minister, he said.
Pecoraro Scanio admits the Greens in Italy have nothing like the voter appeal they do in countries like Germany, as Italians tend to vote along more traditional lines of left or right wing.
But high profile issues, such as the debate over whether energy-poor Italy should lift its ban on nuclear power or the struggle against genetically modified organisms (GMO's), have raised awareness of environmental issues, he said.
"There's a need to fuse environmental issues with Italian traditions, for example defending quality agriculture and traditional food against GMO's. If you leverage the fact that Italy has a great culinary tradition people understand the argument better.
"So there is a growth in (environmental) awareness but that doesn't always get translated into votes," he said, acknowledging that April's election will be won or lost largely on the economy.
But as many Italians voting for the Union will do so because they do not accept Berlusconi's claim that he has improved the economy, Pecoraro Scanio believes some of those votes will go to the 'no' party.
"If we were to put on our logo 'no to swindles' we would win more votes. Italians are tired of saying yes to the idiocies of the government of the right."
_______________________
6 February 2006
Trade Ruling Is Expected to Favor Biotech Food
New York Times, 6 February 2006. By Andrew Pollack.
The battle over agricultural biotechnology could reach a tipping point this week, when the World Trade Organization is expected to render its verdict on charges by the United States that Europe is illegally restricting imports of genetically modified crops.
Even if the United States wins ó that is the prevailing rumor ó genetically modified foods would not flood Europe because citizens there remain wary of them. But the American government and the biotechnology industry hope a ruling in their favor would sound a warning to other nations not to follow Europe's lead in restricting farm biotechnology.
"It's pretty clear the U.S. had to draw the line so it didn't get worse around the world," said Craig Thorn, an agricultural trade consultant in Washington whose clients have included the biotechnology industry.
An American victory could help developers of genetically modified crops, including Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical, as well as the European companies Syngenta and Bayer. American farmers growing genetically modified crops might also benefit from increased exports. Trade officials in Washington say they expect a preliminary decision from the three-person panel tomorrow. But the decision has been put off numerous times since the complaint was first filed in 2003, so another delay is possible.
In its complaint, the United States, joined by Canada and Argentina, said that European officials placed a moratorium on approving new biotech varieties in 1998. That violated a global treaty on standards for food, which requires governments to act without "undue delay" and to base decisions on scientific risk assessments, not political expediency.
Europe counters that there was no moratorium. Decisions just took time, it said, because it needed data from the biotech companies and because it was revising its regulations.
Europe said the crops posed legitimate risks to health and the environment that had to be weighed with "a prudent and precautionary approach."
Since biotech crops were first planted widely 10 years ago, their use has increased steadily. Last year, 8.5 million farmers in 21 countries grew the crops on 222 million acres, although the United States accounted for more than half the total acreage, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. The crops are mainly soybeans, corn or cotton containing bacterial genes that provide resistance to either herbicides or insects.
But consumer opposition and restrictions by various governments have clearly slowed the adoption of the technology and its application to other crops like wheat, rice and potatoes. In the United States, where most soy and half the corn crop is genetically engineered, most processed food, from corn flakes to salad dressing, has an ingredient in it from a biotech crop. But in Europe, genetically engineered foods are hardly found.
The direct economic impact of the halt in approvals has been fairly small. American farm interests say that about $300 million a year in corn exports to Europe have dried up since 1998. In contrast, W.T.O. cases involving American steel tariffs and tax subsidies to exporters, both of which the United States lost, involved billions of dollars a year.
Even before approvals stopped, Europe accounted for only 4 percent of American corn exports. Soybeans are still exported to Europe because the only genetically engineered bean was approved before 1998.
Even if Europe loses, it will argue that the findings are moot because it resumed approving biotech crops in 2004.
American officials say those recent approvals are a grudging response to the trade complaint and that decisions are still not coming fast enough. Even if approvals do accelerate, specialists do not expect large exports to Europe of either genetically modified corn or food containing biotech ingredients.
Europe approved new rules in 2003 that require foods with genetically modified ingredients to be labeled and the ingredients to be traceable to the farm on which they were grown. Food companies in Europe and America, worried that such a label will turn away consumers, avoid biotech ingredients.
"The traceability and labeling scheme puts a black mark on any biotech product," said Stephanie Childs, spokeswoman for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, which represents big food companies like Kraft and Kellogg. The grocery manufacturers and other American industry groups are urging the government to file a new W.T.O. complaint against the labeling and traceability rules. United States officials say that is under consideration.
Opponents of biotech food say that a ruling in favor of the United States need not dissuade other countries from regulating genetically modified crops, because the American complaint was not against Europe's regulations per se, but rather about delays in applying the regulations.
Still, Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at the Consumers Union, based in Yonkers, said such a ruling would set a bad precedent. "Safety and health regulations should not be second-guessed by trade officials," she said.
_______________________
5 February 2006
Beef bid to save local farming
Sunday Business Post, 5 February 2006.
Developing a unique brand of beef meat in the Burren region in Co Clare could save the future of farming in the area, it emerged today.
Livestock herds that have traditionally grazed the vegetation are dwindling in the face of profit-driven, intensive agriculture.
Now a local EU-funded initiative aims to produce and market a high-quality brand of beef to conserve the natural habitat and make farming more viable.
The BurrenLIFE Project was established last year to develop a new model for sustainable agriculture in the limestone region known for its rich diversity of plants and flowers.
Project leader Dr Brendan Dunford said: "In terms of delivering a branded product from the region, beef looks like the best bet, as other sectors like sheep or dairy are not sufficiently strong.
"Livestock feeding on vegetation rich in nutrients and minerals and drinking from natural springs will create conditions even more unique than organic farming," he said.
"If enough farmers are involved, a steady stream of quality product can be delivered."
Like other organic meat products, the Burren beef will be juicy and full-flavoured with less fat and cholesterol.
There will be no chemical fertilisers, pesticides or hormones used along the production chain.
It is envisaged that the beef will be stocked in local restaurants, guest houses and shops as well as exported to national and international markets.
There are about 400 farmers in the Burren region who struggle to run small beef and dairy herds of Shorthorn, Angus and Hereford breeds.
But less herds are grazing the uplands where they traditionally kept down vegetation so that delicate species of flora could survive.
BurrenLIFE is also exploring the potential for developing and marketing other branded products from the region like milk and cheese.
The Burren's limestone landscape spans 160 square kilometres and nurtures plants and flowers only found in Arctic, Mediterranean and Alpine regions.
"It contains 70% of Ireland's native flora such as orchids, foxgloves, rock roses and several herbs," noted Dr Dunford.
Environmentalists have called for the area to be designated a Unesco World Heritage Site like Newgrange and the Giant's Causeway.
It is a designated area under the EU Habitats Directive and contains five Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) covering 47,000 hectares.
The BurrenLIFE project is supported by the National Parks and Wildlife Service in partnership with Teagasc and Burren IFA.
_______________________
4 February 2006
GM-foods are a hot potato
Irish Independent, letter to the Editor, 4 February 2005.
If he is right that there is no demand in Ireland for GM-potatoes (January 28), then Mr O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland has nothing to fear.
Farmers are not looking for losses on their businesses. if nobody is willing to buy their produce, they will not grow it.
More to the point, Mr Callaghan may well be wrong and there will be a market.
In that case, he "would not be surprised if someone attempted to damage them" although that it is not something he would support.
Who are the people who, in a democratic country, take upon themselves the right to determine the conduct of others within the law? Does not that same democratic country have at least as great a right to protect its population from such actions?
Biotechnology raises a number of very pressing issues, not all of them scientific and technical.
Prof. V. Moses, Chairman, CropGen, London SW1A 1WE
[Note: CropGen is a biotech industry-funded lobby group led by a scientific panel whose aim is to 'make a case for GM crops' worldwide. Cropgen describes itself as, 'An education and information initiative for consumers and the media on the subject of crop biotechnology'. Until the end of 2003CropGen was run by PR company Countrywide Porter Novelli. Since then it has been run by Lexington Communications which also represents the UK biotechnology industry funded lobby group the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), as well as Monsanto, BASF, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Syngenta, and the Crop Protection Association.]
_______________________
Commission admits: GM foods bring no benefits to consumers
Press Notice from GM Free Cymru, 3rd February 2006.
In a dramatic new development that could have lethal consequences for the GM industry worldwide, the European Commission has admitted that GM foods bring no benefits whatsoever to those who buy them and eat them (1).
Watchdog organization GM Free Cymru has been pressing the Commission for many months for answers to a simple series of questions, including the following: "How will GM foods enhance food safety? How will they enhance the quality, taste and nutritional character of food? How will they enhance public health? How will they hold food prices down? How will they help to create a "healthy living environment"?
Since these matters are the responsibility of Markos Kyprianou (Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection) GM Free Cymru has been pressing him for answers to these questions. After much prompting in the autumn of 2005, it has now received his carefully considered reply, which fails to produce a positive response to any of the questions posed (2). This is a tacit admission that no benefits have been identified.
GM Free Cymru spokesman Dr Brian John says: "This is dynamite. It means that the Commissioner who has access to all of the Commission research on GM crops and foods, having been given the opportunity to itemise the benefits that they might bring to the consumer, cannot find a single reason why we should buy them or eat them. So after ten years or more of pro-GM marketing by the Commission and the GM industry, after a prolonged and acrimonious debate about GM food within Europe, and after the expenditure of many millions of euros on GM research and GM legislation, the Commission cannot find a single positive attribute which might encourage us to put GM food on our plates. The incompetence and waste of public funds is mind-boggling."
The EC justifies its support for GM crops and foods on the grounds that it is "facilitating customer choice". However, in correspondence with other Commissioners, including trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, GM Free Cymru has also asked for evidence that there is an identifiable demand for GM foods among consumers (3). No such evidence has been forthcoming, and the best the Commission can do is to cite evidence from opinion polls and public attitude surveys to demonstrate that a minority of consumers are apathetic about GM foods or might consume them if they are convinced that they are safe (4). "That is a long way from demonstrating that some people actually want GM foods," says Dr John.
GM Free Cymru alleges that the Commission is involved in a conspiracy with the GM industry to force-feed European consumers with GM foods and food components, in spite of the fact that nobody wants to eat them and in spite of the fact that they bring absolutely no benefits in terms of cost, nutrition, taste, or health. "On the contrary," says Dr John, "evidence is already in the public domain which shows that some, if not all, GM foods are unsafe (5), and that their production involves measurable environmental damage (6). Labelling legislation will not protect consumers. GM crops and foods cannot be contained or controlled, and the GM industry is determined to contaminate the whole of the food supply in pursuit of its commercial aspirations (7). This has already happened in the USA. The Commission knows this, and yet it still connives with the multinationals, wilfully and systematically seeking to suppress "uncomfortable" evidence, and directly placing at risk the health of EU consumers (8).
"We therefore charge the EC with a failure to recognize the human rights of EU consumers, with a failure to recognize its own duty of care with respect to public health, and with the abandonment of the precautionary principle which is enshrined in its own GM legislation. This adds up to criminal negligence, and it is high time that the Commission was called to account by the EU Parliament."
ENDS
(1) Letter from Commissioner Kyprianu to GM Free Cymru, undated, in response to communications from GM Free Cymru on 3rd October 2005 and 3rd November 2005.
(2) Since the Commissioner refused to answer the questions posed, GM Free Cymru wrote to him and posed the questions again, on 21st January. The letter has not even been acknowledged, and the matter has now been placed with the European Ombudsman.
(3) Correspondence with Commissioner Mandelson on 3rd October and 18th October has also failed to elicit replies to questions posed, and in view of the breach of Commission rules a complaint has now been entered with the European Ombudsman.
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/who_benefits_from_gm_crops_Jan_2006.pdf
To quote from the FoE publication "Who benefits from GM Crops?":
"The European feed industry stated in 2005 that there is "no direct advantage from the presence of residues of herbicide resistant genes in the products they buy. The industry is therefore not prepared to pay for the use of this technology." GM products also do not offer advantages to consumers, as they are neither cheaper nor better quality. Even the French biotech industry has stated that the GM crops currently available in the market do not benefit consumers." (p 12)
(4) See, for example, the following:
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4286
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/gm-food/dn4191
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/PublicSayNo.php
http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n23/v3n23a04-gaskell.htm
http://www.mori.com/polls/2003/gmfood.shtml
http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=newsletter&topic_id=3&subtopic_id=15&doc_id=10223
(5) According to a letter received 24.11.05 from Arpad Pusztai, "A consistent feature of all the studies done, published or unpublished, including MON863, indicates major problems with changes in the immune status of animals fed on various GM crops/foods, the latest example of this coming from the GM pea research in Australia."
See also:
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5989
http://www.foodconsumer.org/777/8/Genetically_Modified_Peas_Caused_Dangerous_Immune_Response_in_Mice.shtml
Genetically Modified Peas Caused Dangerous Immune Response in Mice
Other GM Foods are Not Tested for This and May Be Harmful, By Jeffrey M. Smith, Dec 22, 2005, 14:16
(6) The UK Farm-scale trials showed without a doubt that GM crops are harmful to the environment and damage biodiversity. See these:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmenvaud/90/9002.htm
Report by the Environmental Audit Committee