NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • January 2006

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

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

31 January 2006

Greenpeace applauds Greek ban on GMO corn

Athens News Agency, 30 January 2006.

The environmental group Greenpeace on Monday applauded Greece's decision to renew a ban on the sale and cultivation of genetically-modified corn seed, in defiance of a European Union ultimatum ordering Athens to lift the ban by January 10.

The Greek agriculture ministry on Monday announced that Deputy Agriculture Minister Alexandros Kontos had signed an decree banning the sale of genetically modified hybrid corn containing the MON810 genetic modification for another 18 months.

The government decree also extends the varieties of banned hybrids from 17 to 31 and has a firmer basis in law, since it includes all the latest scientific figures and findings that formed the basis for the decision to extend the ban.

Among these, the agricultural ministry cited scientific evidence that the MON810 genetic modification caused the following adverse effects:

- Development of high resistance among the most damaging insects infesting Greek corn and cotton crops

- Disruption of biodiversity among non-harmful and beneficial insects in the Greek countryside

- Heightened danger that genetically modified pollen will be transported to cultivations far from GM crop cultivations due to the high prevalence of bee-keeping in Greece and the relatively small size of holdings.

Stressing the need to fully and effectively implement the principles of protection and prevention, the ministry noted that each EU member-state must be given adequate time to assess the danger from the cultivation of GM crops so that they neither damage the environment nor necessitate modification of pre-existing agricultural practices in order to adapt to new conditions created by genetically modified crops.

The ministry also announced that it will inform European Commission services of its decision, providing the scientific findings on which it was based.

Kontos stressed, meanwhile, that "today's decision continues the government's unswerving policy for the non-cultivation of genetically modified varieties in Greece".

According to Greenpeace, the new ban by Greek authorities affects GM corn strains developed by Monsanto and another 14 new varieties that the European Commission "secretly" added to the European list on December 30, without informing the public.

"Greenpeace applauds the decision of the Greek government to remain steadfast in its position to protect the Greek environment and agriculture and condemns the European Commission for lack of transparency regarding its decisions for mutant products. The Commission should follow Greece's example in democracy and stop doing the dirty work of the U.S. biotechnology industry," an announcement by the environmental group said.

Noting that the risk from genetically modified corn had not been fully assessed, Greenpeace also pointed out that there were currently 12 bans on GM products in seven member-states that the EU had allowed to stand and criticised the Commission for its constant attempts to cover up decisions concerning GMOs and trying to promote these products, in spite of the reaction from European public opinion.

WTO delays ruling in GMO dispute until next week

Reuters, 30 January 2006. GENEVA - The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has again delayed a ruling, due on Wednesday, in a closely watched dispute over the European Union's policy on genetically modified foods and crops (GMO), diplomats said on Monday.

They said the preliminary decision in a row pitting the EU against the United States, Canada and Argentina was now expected on February 7.

"They have told us that it will not be out on Wednesday," said one diplomat from a country involved.

In 2004, Brussels officially ended a 6-year embargo on biotech crops and foods to allow some imports. But its opponents in the case say that EU states are still restricting entry of GMOs, and in some cases banning them.

Growers in Argentina, Canada and the United States say the EU stance limits their right to trade and the policy is not scientifically based, as WTO rules demand.

Trade sources said the ruling in the complex case is going to be one of the longest ever issued by the Geneva-based trade watchdog, with the text running to several hundred pages.

30 January 2006

Growing GM potatoes 'likely to spark sabotage bids'

Irish Independent, 30 January 2006. By Aideen Sheehan.

Attempts to grow genetically-engineered potatoes in Ireland will be highly controversial and could spark sabotage attempts, opponents of the technology have warned.

There is absolutely no demand for GM food from farmers or consumers, according to Michael O'Callaghan of GM-Free Ireland.

He predicted that the plans by German chemical giant BASF to run a five-year trial of blight-resistant potatoes in Co Meath would provoke strong opposition.

"There is a lot of opposition to GM crops. I would not be surprised if someone attempted to damage them, but it is not something we would support," he said.

Research efforts should instead focus on non-GM ways of improving blight-resistance, because there was no market demand for GM crops in Europe, he said.

"Farmers do not want them, consumers do not want them, big food companies and supermarkets do not want them, so what's the point of developing them?"

With this latest development "the clock is ticking for Irish farming", said Green Party leader Trevor Sargent.

"GM crops are likely to contaminate our conventional and organic produce. The Green Party will continue to fight any predatory tactics of any GM food company to undermine the viability of Ireland as a green, clean food-producing island," he said.

People could put their views to the Environmental Protection Agency, who would decide on BASF's application. However, they also had until this Monday to put their views to the Department of Agriculture in a public consultation on how GM crops can be grown in Ireland without contaminating other crops, Mr Sargent said.

"Our organic farmers will require such a large non-GM buffer zone around their holdings that the space available to grow GM food in Ireland may well be zero," he said.

The Irish Farmers' Association said they do not take a stance either for or against GM crops.

However, the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association has taken a strong position against GM food, arguing Ireland must be a GM-free country.

Sinn Fein called on Agriculture Minister Mary Coughlan to prevent the granting of a licence to BASF to grow their GM potatoes on a farm in Summerhill, Co Meath, as Irish farming was her responsibility, it said.

28 January 2006

WTO may usher in GM

Irish Examiner, 26 January 2006. By Stephen Cadogan.

If the men in white coats can't get their genetically modified foods onto the dining tables of Europe via the World Trade Organisation, the sugar bowl is their next best bet.

European consumers, still unequivocally anti-GM, are on a collision course with the WTO, and they have only a month to wait for the impact, to the end of February.

That's when the WTO office in Geneva will announce the results of their arbitration on complaints by Canada, Argentina and the US, that EU member states are blocking GM imports.

Up to now, the WTO has been just a name in the news for most consumers. It has been a source of nightmares for farmers, as it bids to reduce the barriers in agricultural trade which protect EU farms from cheaper imports.

But the WTO will get personal with consumers next month if, as expected, it rules against the EU, and enforces the arrival of genetically modified foods here.

EU farmers already know how powerful the World Trade Organisation is. It was their ruling on complaints by Australia, Brazil and Thailand that ultimately led to last November's EU sugar industry reform, which is likely to end sugar processing in Ireland - and eventually make GM sugar the only choice for most consumers.

And a WTO brokered agreement last December to phase out all export subsidies in world agriculture by 2013 was a second blow to EU farmers, sure to squeeze thousands of them out of business. Within months, WTO negotiations will resume with an EU offer on the table to reduce by nearly half the import barriers which keep out cheaper food imports. If that is accepted, more and more will have to give up farming in Europe.

Opening Europe up to GM foods in February would complete a knockout year for the WTO, and would bring the politics of world trade right into the lives of the 54% of EU citizens in last year's European Commission opinion poll who said GM foods are dangerous.

It could also be the incident to force Europe to stand its ground against the world trade police.

Brussels sources have insisted that a WTO ruling will not change their convoluted approvals procedures for GM material.

"The bottom line for us is that nothing is put on to the market unless we have done thorough investigations and proved that there is no environmental or health risk from that product," said a Commission source.

The Brussels bluster is reassuring for member states such as Luxembourg, Greece and Austria, which consistently vote against approval of GMO products in the EU.

But if the WTO rules against the EU, and the EU is determined not to alter its approach to GM material, Brussels will have to pay Canada, Argentina and the US billions in compensation for lost trade. If Brussels appeals the WTO ruling on a point of law, the EU may only be putting off the inevitable.

Or we can bow down to Canada, Argentina and the US, and push ahead with approvals for importing GM crops for food, feed and seed.

Plan for trial of GM potatoes arouses Irish ire

Financial Times, January 27 2006. By John Murray Brown in Dublin and Fiona Harvey and Lisa Urquhart in London

A plan by BASF, the chemicals and biotechnology company, for a field trial in Ireland of genetically modified potatoes looks likely to run into trouble from protesters.

BASF has submitted an application to the country's Environmental Protection Agency to conduct field trials of potatoes that have been genetically modified to resist blight and which would avoid the need for farmers to spray the crops with large amounts of pesticides.

The field trials are set to take place on a farm in County Meath. BASF said that the first plot would cover 2.5 acres within a larger plot of five acres and that the trial sites would be rotated regularly about the farm.

It would be the first time genetically modified potatoes have been grown in Ireland, the biggest per-capita consumer of potatoes in Europe. BASF said if the application was successful it would begin trials as quickly as possible: "We expect to hear from the regulators in the next couple of weeks."

But the Irish Green party has objected to the plan. Trevor Sargent, Green party leader, said: "I hope this will be a rallying point for people who have felt the Irish government has not given the Irish people the information we need to have a full debate on this issue. The reputation Ireland has as a place for clean, green agricultural produce for export is at stake. The food industry is far too important to Ireland to allow that to happen."

In support of the trial, BASF is expected to argue that its modified potatoes would require much less pesticide than ordinary potato varieties.

The potato holds an important place in the Irish diet, having been the staple food in rural areas from the late 18th century. A famine caused by potato blight in the 1840s, during which as many as 1m people are estimated to have died and more than 1m people emigrated out of a population at the time of around 8m, still resonates in the nation's consciousness.

Martin Ferris, Sinn Féin spokesman on agriculture, said his party was also opposed to the plans. He said: "If GM crops are grown here, they will inevitably contaminate traditional and organic crops. There is no doubt about that from research that has been conducted. Given, therefore, the documented hostility of EU consumers to GM food, and given the importance of the reputation that Irish food has for being safe and of high quality, the introduction of GM here will benefit no one other than the companies which are attempting to control the food system. There is no demand from Irish farmers for GM, and no evidence that it will benefit either them or Irish consumers."

The Irish Environmental Protection Agency is expected to make a decision within a few weeks on whether to allow the trials to go ahead.

27 January 2006

Potato-loving Ireland mulls test of GMO spuds

Reuters, 27 January 2006. Dublin - Ireland, Europe's biggest per capita consumer of potatoes, is weighing a proposal by German chemicals group BASF to grow varieties that have been genetically modified to resist disease.

BASF asked the Environment Protection Agency this week to approve a field trial of several strains of GMO potato that are resistant to blight, the cause of the Irish potato famine that killed one million people and forced two million to leave the island in 1845.

Today, the Irish eat some 121 kg of potatoes per person every year, or nearly 1,000 potatoes for every man, woman and child.

Previous trials of GMO foods in Ireland have been disrupted by environmentalists who pulled up crops and damaged fields. The Green Party and Sinn Fein both called for the application to be rejected.

"Genetically modified crops are likely to contaminate our conventional and organic produce," said Green Party Leader Trevor Sargent. "But the Green Party will continue to fight any predatory tactics of any GM food company, to undermine the viability of Ireland as a green, clean food producing island."

Blight-resistant GMO potatoes were first developed in 2003 after scientists discovered a species of wild potato in Mexico that is naturally resistant to the disease, then inserted the gene into commercial strains.

The EPA plans to review submissions from the public regarding potential health and environmental risks within the next 28 days.

26 January 2006

Modified crops gained 9m hectares in 2005

Irish Examiner, 26 January 2001. Planting of GM crops worldwide is estimated to have increased by 9 million hectares (22 million acres) in 2005.

GM crops are being grown for animals in Spain, Germany, the Czech Republic, France and Portugal. GM material is already widely accepted for animal feeding in Europe, in contrast to consumer resistance to GM foods.

But anti-GM consumers in the EU are protected by laws requiring any food with more than 0.9% GM material to be labelled as such.

Meanwhile, the EU has ordered Greece to lift its ban on genetically modified (GMO) maize seeds for animal feeding. Last year, an EU court prohibited the region of Upper Austria from banning GMO crops.

The Commission has asked member states on more than 10 occasions to vote on authorising a GMO food or feed product, but in the large majority of cases there was no agreement.

Luxembourg, Greece and Austria consistently vote against, while the UK, Finland and the Netherlands almost always vote in favour.

Without a qualified majority for or against, it has been left to the European Commission to approve four GMOs for animal feed in the EU since last October.

GM potatoes to be grown here for first time
German chemical giant BASF applies to have field trials on blight-free spud

Irish Independent, 26 January 2006. by Treacy Hogan and Aideen Sheehan.

Genetically modified potatoes are to be grown in this country for the first time. Ý

They will be sown on a farm in Co Meath during pioneering field trials, the Irish Independent has learned. Ý

German chemical giant BASF has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for permission to run the trials on a farm at Arodstown, Summerhill, Co Meath over the next five years. Ý

The move is bound to cause controversy and re-ignite the debate here among those opposed to genetically modified products and the companies which claim they are safe. The plan is to grow potatoes which are resistant to blight and won't have to be sprayed with large quantities of pesticides. Ý

The last time a company, Monsanto, carried out genetically modified (GM) sugar beet trials in Wexford and Cork it sparked a wave of protests and sabotage. Ý

The EPA says it will consider any submissions made to it within the next 28 days about risks to human health and the environment by the release of the GM potatoes. Ý

Blight was the disease which affected potato crops during the 19th century leading to the Great Famine of the 1840s. Ý

BASF Plant Science, Ludwigshafen, has produced several lines of GM potatoes that are resistant to blight and is now planning to test them in the Irish environment. Ý

Potato blight costs Irish farmers more than € 10m every year in fungicides. Ý

The Co Meath trials, if they get the go ahead from the EPA, will be carried out on a 2.5 acre site. Ý

The GM crops will be rotated at different locations on the farm in trials due to run from 2006-2010. Ý

The debate on GM crops has centred on whether they can cause environmental or other problems. Ý

Its promoters argue that farmers have to use less chemicals when producing GM crops.

It is expected that the EPA will be consulting with the Department of the Environment in relation to the application. A total of 230 applications have been made to EU countries by chemical companies to carry out GM trials.

Genetically modified organisms are defined as organisms (bacteria, viruses, fungi, plant and animal cells, plants and animals) capable of replication or of transferring genetic material in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally.

25 January 2006

Taxpayer foots bill for GM maize contamination fiasco

GM-free Cymru press release, 25 January 2006.

It has been confirmed that the British taxpayer will meet the full cost of dealing with last year's GM maize contamination incident, with the company responsible (Syngenta) contributing not a penny (1). Furthermore, nobody within the Health Department or the Food Standards Agency has bothered to calculate what the full costs of the incident actually are.

This information is contained in a written answer from Caroline Flint MP (Minister for Public Health) following a PQ from Alan Simpson MP.

Syngenta was the company responsible for the large-scale Bt10 contamination incident in the spring of last year, which had repercussions across the globe and which cost European taxpayers millions of euros. Following the belated disclosure that up to 185,000 tonnes of contaminated and illegal GM maize had been sold into the world market, the EU and its member states were forced into a flurry of actions designed to prevent the contaminated maize from entering the food chain on this side of the Atlantic. It is still not known whether those actions were successful (2). Thus far, at least twelve contaminated cargoes have been stopped at Japanese ports, and two in Ireland. It is a fair assumption that other contaminated cargoes have been imported, without being identified, through ports in EC countries, and also in South Korea. Thousands of hours of UK civil service time were expended on dealing with the incident; advisory committees and Government ministers became involved; GM monitoring procedures had to be devised and implemented; and Port Authorities and local authorities were also required to test incoming shipments and to pay research laboratories for GM tests. As far as the UK is concerned, the cost certainly runs into millions of pounds.

Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: "The kindest interpretation of that fiasco is that Syngenta is incompetent; but we now know that the corporation lied, tried to cover up the full extent of the contamination, and placed endless obstructions in the way of the authorities which had to deal with contaminated human and animal food. This would be entirely in character, for the corporation has acted in this way before (3). It is a disgrace that our Government has not only connived in covering up the true scale of this GM pollution, but has allowed Syngenta to get off scot free in spite of the chaos it has caused (4). That chaos may well include health effects which have not yet been identified."

ENDS

NOTES (1) Alan Simpson MP: "To ask the Secretary of State what the gross cost has been to the British taxpayer of the recent BT10 contamination incident, and what proportion of that cost has been refunded by Syngenta." Caroline Flint MP replied: "The FSA has not estimated the total cost to public funds associated with the recent Bt10 contamination incident. No costs have been refunded by Syngenta."

(2) Although there have been no reported positive identifications of Bt10 in food or animal feed in the UK, GM Freeze has seen a leaked memo from FSA which indicates that some contaminated supplies HAVE been identified. Also, there are strong suspicions that the "test method" devised by Syngenta has been carefully fabricated so as to minimise the chances of obtaining positive test results. http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=282&iType=

(3) See http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6039 for "The Syngenta Dodgy Dossier" -- this gives full details of the lies, deceptions and obstructive behaviour in the 2005 Bt10 incident and in previous incidents. See these: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3227702a10,00.html
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5073

(4) Syngenta made an operational profit of $762 million in 2004, its last full reported year. Yet the UK Government has imposed no fine on the corporation for the Bt10 incident, and has not attempted to recover any of its incurred costs. There is no question that Bt10 is illegal, and that Syngenta has broken the law.

Statement on WTO decision on genetically modified foods

TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) statement, January 20, 2006.

News reports indicate that early in 2006, the World Trade Organization (WTO) is expected to rule in favor of the United States on a Bush Administration challenge to European delays in approving new types of genetically modified (GM) foods and various European Union member state bans on specific GM varieties.

The current U.S. case does not challenge present European Community (EC) regulations on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), which include rules on safety testing, labeling and traceability, but concerns the EU's delay in granting new approvals of GM crops while the European-wide policies were being put into effect.

The Bush Administration claims that the EU's delay in granting new GM crop approvals has resulted in lost markets for American farmers. But clearly consumers' preference for non-GM food is the true engine of the market collapse for American crops. Even before the delay in GM crop approvals began in 1998, U.S. corn sales to Europe had dropped by more than half.

"The US effort to force GM foods upon unwilling consumers is offensive and misguided," said Jim Murray of the European consumer organization BEUC. "Consumers cannot be forced to buy and eat food that they do not want."

TACD has vigorously protested the United States suit and has repeatedly urged the US and the EU to resolve disputes over consumer, public health and environmental matters outside of the WTO where public interest regulations are regularly ruled against in the name of free trade. If the WTO panel rules against the right of individual governments to regulate the use of GM products, the shock waves will be global. The number of countries that regulate GM products in the public interest is growing rapidly and today half of the world's population lives in countries that require premarket approval of these products. Even in the United States, three California counties ban growing of all GM crops. "This suit can be seen as a preemptive effort to chill the development of new policies for regulating GM crops around the globe," said Rhoda Karpatkin representing the US-based Consumers Union. "Ironically, the US may have won the battle but it is losing the war. A WTO ruling in favor of the U.S. will only increase consumer suspicion of GM crops and of a global trading system that subsumes the public interest to the interests of giant biotechnology firms."

In a similar WTO case, in 1996 the US launched a case on behalf of the US Cattlemen's Association against Europe's ban on hormone-treated beef. Yet while the U.S. "won" the beef-hormone dispute in 1999, Europe has still not opened its markets to U.S. beef, because European consumers do not want hormones in their meat. The repercussions of this case are still being felt almost ten years later as the EC continues to pay a ransom in the form of $116 million dollars worth of punitive trade sanction for the privilege of maintaining their public health policy on hormones. The EC recently counter sued in the WTO to get these sanctions lifted.

TACD, which includes all the major consumer organizations on both sides of the Atlantic, supports labeling and safety testing of GMOs, and consumer choice about consuming them.

Opposition to GMOs in Europe grows: Austria bans Monsanto's GMO oilseed rape

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

Brussels -- Friends of the Earth welcomes the Austrian Government's decision today to ban Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) oilseed rape, GT73. There are now twelve bans of GM foods or crops in the European Union (1). The decision by the current EU presidency follows November's referendum in Switzerland that banned GM crops for five years.

"Opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is growing throughout Europe," said Helen Holder, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, "This is a clear message from the country currently holding the EU presidency".

"Counties are overriding the EU commission and the number of national bans are increasing. This is on top of the large number of European regions who want to ban the growing of GM crops," she added

The Austrian decision is based on the risk of genetic contamination, and the inadequate risk assessment carried out prior to the EU Commission authorizing the oilseed rape in August 2005. This authorisation came despite a majority of EU Environment Ministers blocking the authorisation of the oilseed rape in December 2004 (2) for environmental and health reasons.

"The authorisation procedure for GM food and crops in the EU does not take risk assessment seriously," said Holder. "Austria's new ban is yet another example of the inadequate risk assessment by Europe's Food Safety Authority, and the Commission's unwillingness to listen to Member States' concerns"

GMOs are now banned in seven European countries, while the number of EU regions banning GMOs is also growing:

- 172 Regions in the European Union and 4500 local authorities and other zones have now declared themselves GMO free (3) and are calling for the right of Regions to decide whether or not to grow GMOs.

- In June 2005, the EU Commission was defeated by Member States when it tried to force them to drop national GMO bans. (4)

CONTACT:

Helen Holder, European GMO campaign coordinator, Friends of the Earth Europe
+322 542 01 82 (office), +324 74 857 638 (mobile)

NOTES:

(1) GMO bans in the European Union:

Germany
Syngenta's Bt176 maize (banned 31/03/2000) - Reason: effects on non-target insects + transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to humans and animals + insects could develop resistance to the Bt.

France
Bayer's oilseed rape Topas 19/2 (banned 16/11/1998) - Reason: impact of genetic escape and spread of herbicide tolerance.
Bayer's oilseed rape MS1xRf1 (banned 16/11/1998) - Reason: impact of genetic escape and spread of herbicide tolerance.

Austria
Syngenta's Bt176 maize (banned 13/02/1997) - Reason: effects on non-target insects such as butterflies + transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to humans and animals.
Bayer's T25 maize (banned 28/4/2000) - Reason: protection of sensitive areas, lack of monitoring plan and concerns about the herbicide used.
Monsanto's MON810 maize (banned 10/06/1999) - Reason: Effects on non-target insects.

Hungary
Monsanto's maize MON810 seeds (banned 20/01/2005)

Luxembourg
Syngenta's Bt176 maize (banned 07/02/1997) - Reason: Transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to humans and animals.

Greece
Bayer's oilseed rape Topas 19/2 (banned 08/09/1998) - Reason: impact of genetic escape.
Monsanto's maize MON810 seeds (Commission ruled to overturn ban earlier this month).

Poland
Monsanto's maize MON810 seeds.

(2) Voting Results of Environment Council on 20/12/2004:

For: SK, SE, FR, PT, FI, NL (78 votes).

Against: IT, GR, DK, PO, MT, BE, HU, LT, LV, CY, AT, EE and LU (135 votes).

Abstention: IE, SI, ES, DE, CZ and UK (108 votes).

(3) See http://www.gmofree-europe.org/ for further information.

(4) http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2005/AB_24_June_vote.htm.

Banned drug is found in 20pc of chicken meat samples tested

Irish Independent, 23 January 2006. By Aideen Sheehan, agriculture correspondent.

ONE-in-five poultry samples here tested positive for a veterinary drug that is not supposed to be found in meat destined for the human food chain. Ý

And 30pc of fruit and vegetables tested positive for pesticide residues, with one in 20 items containing more than the maximum legal limit, according to the State's official food monitoring programmes

Teagasc's new National Food Residue Database, which tracks chemical contamination of Irish produce, reveals an emerging problem in poultry with nicarbazin, an anticoccidal feed additive that was not tested for until 2004. Ý

Anticoccidal drugs are used to treat an infectious parasite which damages the gut of poultry and other animals reared under intensive farming practices, and nicarbazin also has a contraceptive effect on birds that is being developed by US authorities to control wild bird populations. Ý

Poultry are treated routinely with these drugs, which are used as additives in feed early in the birds' lives, but later feed is supposed to be free of the drug to ensure residue-free meat and eggs for consumers. Ý

Some 19 out of 101 poultry meat samples tested positive for the drug in 2004, with nicarbazin the leading offender followed by a similar drug lasalocid, the Teagasc database reveals. "Results have revealed a high incidence of nicarbazin contamination in domestic poultry liver. Lasalocid is found in some liver samples at high levels. Nicarbazin and lasalocid residues may be detected also in some egg samples," the database said. Ý

The problem with these drugs may occur because of contamination of chicken feed at feedmills or poor feed control practices on the farm, Teagasc said. Ý

Antibiotics are of particular concern because their widespread use in farming could contribute to the growth of resistant strains of bacteria such as MRSA continue to be found in Irish food at a "relatively low but persistent incidence of positive samples, particularly in pork and poultry meats", they noted. Ý

Farmers are allowed to use certain antibiotics to treat and prevent infections in animals but are supposed to ensure long withdrawal periods before slaughter to stop them entering the human food chain. Ý

Around 30pc of fruit and vegetable tested positive for pesticide residues and 3-5pc had more than the maximum residue levels permitted, Teagasc said. Ý

As well as overdoses, there were also cases of pesticides being used on types of produce for which they are not approved. Excessive levels of nitrates have also been found in leafy vegetables in Ireland, with overuse of nitrogen fertilisers the likely source. Ý

Some pesticides used on fruit and vegetables can cause cancer, birth defects and nerve damage.

22 January 2006

Eastern Europe's anti-GM Food Movement Grows

Blauen Institut Schweiz 2006. Most Polish and Russian consumers do not want to eat food made from genetically modified ingredients, says new poll, as the anti-GM movement gathers pace in Eastern Europe.

Around 76 per cent of Polish consumers said they didn't want to eat any food containing GM ingredients, according to a PBS opinion poll commissioned by Greenpeace.

The news follows an earlier study by Russia's largest public opinion research body, VCIOM, that 95 per cent of Russians aware of GM ingredients said they were either opposed to them or seriously concerned by them.

The surveys are an important sign that public opinion in Eastern Europe is moving towards the widespread GM scepticism already present in Western Europe.

Research published by the European Commission earlier this year says that only 14 per cent of the European population believes GM food is safe.

Greenpeace said that more than 450 food companies across Russia had now adopted a GM-free policy, including international giants such as Nestlé and Coca-Cola.

Consumer rejection of GM food has become more of a problem since January this year, when Russia introduced new labelling laws forcing producers to state any GM ingredients used on product labels.

The government has also spent 2005 discussing new regulations for GM ingredients. In May this year, GM soy, maize, potato, white beet and rice were still allowed in Russia.

But, Russia's Soy Union said it now supported a moratorium on growing GM soy in Russia. "There is currently no commercial production of genetically modified soy on the territory of the Russian Federation," said union president Anatoly Ustyuzhanin to Greenpeace.

The campaign group, however, said some multinational retailers were guilty of double standards, giving GM-free guarantees on food in Western Europe but not on products in the East.

A recent report commissioned by Agricultural Biotechnology Europe (ABE) said the European Union's anti-GM stance would become unsustainable as it becomes ever harder and more expensive to ensure sourcing of non-GM ingredients.

A major problem is the declining global supply of non-GM ingredients in the key soybean and derivative sector, notably now Brazil has begun planting GM soybeans. GM soybeans accounted for 23 per cent of total production in Brazil in 2004.

"To date, consumers have rarely been given the option of a choice between GM and non-GM alternatives of the same product or faced price differentials between the two," said ABE.

20 January 2006

The EU must resist U.S. pressure and protect consumer rights on GM foods

Consumers Union of the US / BEUC press release, 20 January 2006. The TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) demands that the European Union and U.S. governments listen to consumers and not attempt to force genetically modified (GM) foods on to European markets. The call comes amid reports of a WTO ruling ‚ expected in the next two weeks - in favor of the United States challenge to European delays in approving new types of genetically modified (GM) foods.

The Bush Administration claims that the EU's cautionary approach has resulted in lost markets for American farmers. Yet, consumer suspicion over the GM content in U.S. maize (corn) had already caused sales to Europe to drop by more than half, before the delay in GM crop approvals began in 1998. European consumers continue to avoid GM foods.

Jim Murray of the European consumer organization BEUC said: "The U.S. effort to force GM foods upon unwilling consumers is offensive and misguided. Consumers cannot be forced to buy and eat food that they do not want."

Rhoda Karpatkin representing the US-based Consumers Union said: "A WTO ruling in favor of the U.S. will only increase consumer suspicion of GM crops and of a global trading system that subsumes the public interest to the interests of giant biotechnology firms."

TACD, which includes all the major consumer organizations on both sides of the Atlantic, supports labeling and safety testing of GMOs, and consumer choice about consuming them.

(Full TACD Statement follows on next page)

Editors Note: TACD consists of EU and U.S. consumer organizations that develop joint consumer policy recommendations for the EU and U.S. in an effort to promote the consumer interest in transatlantic policymaking. TACD's network of 65 EU and U.S. national consumer organizations has a direct paid-up membership of some 20 million consumers. For more information, please visit www.tacd.org.

For more information contact:

Jean Halloran, Consumers Union of the US, hallje@consumer.org; +1 914-367-2457
Jim Murray, BEUC, jim.murray@beuc.org +32 2 743 1591

Terminator Threat Looms: Intergovernmental meeting to tackle suicide seeds issue
CBD's Working Group on 8(j) Meets in Granada, Spain 23-27 January

ETC Group News Release (www.etcgroup.org), 20 January 2006. Indigenous peoples, farmers' organizations and civil society representatives are bracing to defend a de facto United Nations' moratorium on seed sterilization technology - the moratorium is now under attack by the multinational seed and biotech industry. A meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity, where "suicide seeds" are on the agenda, gets underway in Spain next week. The UN moratorium - which recommends against the field-testing and commercial sale of seed sterilization technology - is under attack. Delta & Pine Land (a multinational seed company) and the US Department of Agriculture recently won new patents on Terminator in Europe and Canada.(1)

Terminator (a.k.a. "genetic use restriction technology" - GURTs) refers to plants that are genetically modified to produce sterile seeds at harvest. The technology was developed by the multinational seed/agrochemical industry and the US government. If commercialized, Terminator would prevent farmers from saving seeds from their harvest, forcing them to return to the commercial market every year and marking the end of locally-adapted agriculture through seed selection. The vast majority of the world's farmers routinely save seed from their harvest for re-planting.

Bombshell in Bangkok: Almost one year ago, the Canadian government and its seed industry allies made a scandalous bid to dismantle the United Nations' moratorium on Terminator seed technology at a February 2005 meeting of a scientific advisory body to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Bangkok. A leaked memo revealed that the Canadian government was prepared to push for language allowing for field-testing and commercialization of Terminator. Ultimately, the Canadian government was forced to publicly distance itself from Terminator in response to citizen protests back home, and due to key interventions from other governments that support the moratorium. (For more details: http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=500 )

"The promise of increased profits is simply too enticing for industry to give up on Terminator seeds," explains Lucy Sharratt, coordinator of the international Ban Terminator Campaign (www.banterminator.org). "Terminator seeds will become a commercial reality unless governments take action to prevent it," agrees Hope Shand of ETC Group.

The Ban Terminator Campaign, launched in response to attacks on the CBD moratorium, seeks to promote government bans on Terminator technology at the national and international levels. It also supports efforts of civil society, farmers, Indigenous peoples and social movements to campaign against suicide seeds.

National Bans: In March 2005 the Brazilian government passed a national law that prohibits the use, sale, registration, patenting and licensing of Terminator seeds. The Government of India has implemented a national ban on Terminator through its legislation governing plant variety registration.

One More Round in Granada: Governments will meet in Granada, Spain next week (January 23-27) to consider the social, economic and cultural impacts of Terminator seeds on indigenous and local communities, and on peasant farmers. The meeting will review an expert report on Terminator (known as the AHTEG Report
http:// www.banterminator.org/the_issues/ indigenous_peoples_traditional_knowledge_and_biodiversity/ expert_group_report_on_gurts) and make recommendations to the 8th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP8) in Curitiba, Brazil, 20-31 March 2006, where Terminator is on the agenda.

"Terminator technology is an assault on the traditional knowledge, innovation and practices of indigenous and local communities," said Debra Harry of the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, and member of the expert group that examined the potential impacts of GURTs (Terminator) on indigenous peoples, smallholder farmers and Farmers' Rights. "Field testing or commercial use of sterile seed technology is a fundamental violation of the human rights of Indigenous peoples, a breach of the right of self-determination," said Harry.

The Ban Terminator Campaign urges the Working Group on 8j to unambiguously advise that genetic seed sterility threatens biodiversity, indigenous knowledge systems and food sovereignty. The AHTEG Report on GURTs should be forwarded to COP8 for its consideration, and the report's recommendation that governments adopt national regulations to prohibit the field-testing and commercial use of GURTs should be strengthened.

For more information:

Lucy Sharratt, Ban Terminator Campaign
lucy@banterminator.org
www.banterminator.org
mobile: +1 613 252-2147

Hope Shand or Veronica Villa
hope@etcgroup.org / veronica@etcgroup.org

(1) Delta & Pine Land and USDA, EP775212B, (European Patent), issued 5 October 2005;
Delta & Pine Land and USDA, CA2196410, (Canadian Patent), issued 11 October 2005

19 January 2006

EU Prepares for Bruising WTO Ruling in Biotech Case

Reuters, 19 January 2006. By Jeremy Smith. BRUSSELS - Europe may suffer a bruising next month when a world trade panel delivers its long-awaited verdict on whether the EU's six-year blockade on biotech crops and foods was tantamount to a protectionist trade barrier.

In 2004, the European Union ended that blockade by allowing imports of a canned sweetcorn engineered by Swiss agrochemicals giant Syngenta. It was the bloc's first new approval of a genetically modified (GMO) crop product since October 1998.

Despite the move, the EU may still lose out in a landmark case filed at the World Trade Organization (WTO) by major GMO crop growers Argentina, Canada and the United States, which say its de facto ban hurt their trade and was not based on science.

The WTO verdict in the biotech case, now delayed several times, is being keenly watched by all sides in the long-running row. Due in the first week of February, the confidential ruling will comprise several hundreds of pages. It is bound to leak.

While most observers say 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: a particular annoyance for the three complainants and cited in their original 2003 complaint.

Already, rumours are flying in industry and green circles that the EU could come off worst in the ruling. "There'll be winners and losers on both sides, although some people suggest the EU will be the bigger loser," one biotech industry official said. "The market is not operating properly and the EU institutions have not implemented their own law."

"The EU is going to be bruised. It might be a moral victory for industry but that's about it," said Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth. "It's fairly obvious that they (WTO) will come out against the national bans."

Europe's shoppers are known for their wariness towards GMO products, often dubbed as "Frankenstein foods", with opposition polled at slightly more than 70 percent.

This is a stark contrast to the United States, the world's largest grower of GMO crops, where they are far more widely accepted. US farmers say the EU biotech stance cost them some $300 million a year in lost sales while the ban was in effect.

EU COMPLIANCE

A key question for the EU, if it does face an adverse WTO ruling, is what it could do to satisfy the three complainants.

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.

The trouble is, EU governments can never agree among themselves on biotech crops. So the Commission eventually uses a legal approvals process that kicks in when EU ministers are unable to reach a majority view on a GMO after three months.

"All our legislation is in place and works well. The challenge isn't against our legislation -- we will continue to deal (with applications) on a case-by-case basis on their own merits," one Commission official told Reuters.

"This (WTO) panel wasn't against the integrity of our system as such, it was against the moratorium that we had," he said. "Whatever happens, this will not affect our legislative set-up."

ON THE FENCE

The Commission processes applications from biotech companies that want to import and market their GMO products across the 25-country bloc. Approvals are given for 10 years, usually for the imported GMO to be processed into food and animal feed.

However, the idea of growing GMO crops is far more sensitive and only a handful of "live" GMOs have won EU approval for cultivation, mostly in the run-up to the 1998-2004 moratorium.

The EU has a plethora of GMO laws to regulate applications and approvals, with strict and complex requirements for scientific opinion and risk assessment of all new products.

A small group of EU countries is implacably opposed to any new GMO approvals and always vote against -- and they are offset by a hard core of countries that are always in favour. The rest sit on the fence and only occasionally vary their view.

That balance of power could change with the WTO verdict.

"If you get an adverse WTO ruling on the substance of the EU process, then you've got a major problem," one EU diplomat said.

"If it says that the way the EU is applying its process is flawed, then you put political pressure on those member states to change their voting pattern," he said. "They'd have to start producing some pretty solid evidence that GMOs were harmful."

18 January 2006

NGOs keep up pressure for EU lobbying rules

Environment Daily, 18 January 2006. A coalition of European campaign groups and trade unions has stepped up calls for a revolution in EU openness over lobbying practices.Ý In a letter to the European commission, Alter-EU proposes a lobby registration and disclosure system to ensure equal access for different interest groups to EU decision making.Ý It also demands a new independent body to act as a public guardian of lobbying transparency and ethics.Ý Alter-EU launched its campaign last summerÝÝ The commission is due to publish a green paper on transparency in March.Ý See press release http://www.foeeuropeorg/press/2006/Alter-EU_17_Jan_recommendations.htm

EEB's Ten Tests for the Austrian Presidency

European Environmental Bureau press release, 4 January 2006.

(Brussels, 04 January 2006) Today the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) launches its Ten Green Tests for the Austrian Presidency of the EU - in a bid to encourage greater priority for the environment in European policy-making. The EEB, Europe's largest federation of environmental citizens' organisations, has been setting these benchmark tests for each EU Presidency since 1998, and then following them up six months later with an 'end-of-term' performance assessment.

Top priority for the EEB in the coming six months is the development of an ambitious and effective Sustainable Development Strategy for the EU. This should include a comprehensive set of short-term measures - including environmental fiscal reforms - and a concrete set of mandates and tasks for the Commission to ensure leadership and coordination. John Hontelez, Secretary General of the EEB: "The draft Strategy the Commission produced last month failed the test of showing vision, targets and determined action to reverse the current trend of un-sustainable development. We have high hopes that the Austrian Presidency, which has an ambitious plan to involve all Council formations in a process leading to a Strategy adopted by the European Council in June, will transform the weak start into a strong end".

The EEB's second Green Test for the Austrian Presidency is on access to justice and information in environmental matters. It requests that access to justice be restored in the Regulation on the application of the Aarhus Convention by EU institutions, that negotiations finally kick off on access to justice at member state level, and that the public has access to information gathered by EU member states in the framework of the EU's INSPIRE Directive (INfrastructure for SPatial InfoRmation in Europe).

Climate change is also deemed crucial for this Presidency by the EEB. Reducing domestic emissions; ensuring environmental integrity in key new legislation; environmentally friendly policies on bio-energy and biofuels; and rejecting nuclear energy all feature on the EEB's list for climate change.

Other hot issues reflected in the EEB's Ten Green Tests include: cleaning Europe's air; developing waste and resource management; moving forward with signing the Transport Protocol of the Alpine Convention; re-launching an ambitious GMO policy; and delivering effective biodiversity and groundwater protection. The EEB also advocates prompt development of the long-awaited Thematic Strategy on Soil.

Birgit Reiner, Austrian board member of the EEB, is hopeful of a green agenda for this Presidency: "Austria is challenged by giving a strong boost to environmental policy and achieve substantial progress in key areas. We hope Austria will make a difference!".

The EEB Ten Green Tests will be complemented by the extended Memorandum to the Austrian Presidency - giving fuller details of the EEB's position on these issues - to be released next week on the EEB website: www.eeb.org.

Full text of the Ten Green Tests: http://www.eeb.org/press/pr_ten_tests_Austrian_Presidency_040106.html.

For further information please contact:

John Hontelez, EEB Secretary General, Email: hontelez@eeb.org / Tel: +32 (0)486 512 127 Birgit Reiner,Umweltdachverband/EU-Umweltbuero, Email: reiner.eu@umweltdachverband.at / Tel: +43 (0)676 910 85 29

The EEB is a federation of more than 140 environmental citizens' organisations based in all EU Member States and most Accession Countries, as well as in a few neighbouring countries. These organisations range from local and national, to European and international. The aim of the EEB is to protect and improve the environment of Europe and to enable the citizens of Europe to play their part in achieving that goal.

17 January 2006

NGOs bring out recommendations to avoid lobby scandals

Friends of the Earth media advisory, 17 January 2006.

BRUSSELS, 17 January 2006 -- The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation, ALTER-EU has written to Commissioner Siim Kallas recommending concrete and simple steps to make lobbying transparency a reality in the near future. ALTER-EU stresses that the EU needs rules on lobbying to avoid Abramoff scandals happening in Europe.

In a letter [1] signed by the interim steering committee of ALTER-EU, a coalition of over 140 NGOs and trade unions from all over Europe, ALTER-EU makes detailed recommendations for improving transparency and ethics in European lobbying. The letter comes ahead of the expected publication by the European Commission of a Green Book on the European Transparency Initiative (ETI) in March.

The ALTER-EU proposal includes specific recommendations for a lobby registration and disclosure system, for rules of conduct (e.g. regarding the "revolving door" between EU institutions and lobby firms) and for ensuring equal access for different interest groups to EU decision-making. ALTER-EU suggests establishing an independent public body with the necessary powers to act as a public guardian of lobbying transparency and ethics, e.g. a new lobbying transparency unit in the office of the European Ombudsman.

Paul de Clerck [2], campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said: "With our letter we have shown that simple practical measures can be taken by the Commission to make lobbying transparency a reality in the near future. The Commission must now drive the European Transparency Initiative forward to provide visibility around lobbying for the European public, instead of waiting for lobbyists to come up with ineffective voluntary codes."

"ALTER-EU is ready to engage in that process and any discussions based upon a commitment to boost transparency and ethics in lobbying in Brussels", explained Ulrich Mueller from LobbyControl, a German lobby watchdog. "For ALTER-EU two objectives should guide the forthcoming ETI debate: ensuring comprehensive information for the public about who is lobbying on what issues and who is financing these lobby activities as well as equal access for different stakeholders to European decision-making."

In the US the Abramoff scandal has led parties from all sides in Washington to call for a tightening of existing US lobbying disclosure and ethics rules. "In Brussels, not even basic rules presently exist for its estimated 15,000 lobbyists", says Erik Wesselius of Corporate Europe Observatory. "The Commission cannot afford for this situation to continue and should proceed quickly with the lobbying disclosure chapter of the European Transparency Initiative."

For more information, please contact:

Paul de Clerck, Friends of the Earth Europe, +32 2 542 6107, paul@milieudefensie.nl
Erik Wesselius, Corporate Europe Observatory, +31 30 2364422, erik@corporateeurope.org
Ulrich Mueller, LobbyControl, +49 221 169 6507, u.mueller@lobbycontrol.de

Notes for editors

1) Copies of the letter sent to the commission and the accompanying detailed recommendations are available at http://www.alter-eu.org/docs/letter-20060113.pdf and http://www.alter-eu.org/docs/recommendations-20060113.pdf.

More information on ALTER-EU: http://www.alter-eu.org.

2) Paul De Clerck, Erik Wesselius and Ulrich Mueller are members of the Interim Steering Committee of ALTER-EU.

3) Commissioner Kallas first announced The European Transparency Initiative (ETI) in a flagship speech on 5 March 2005. The ETI is among other things intended to correct the current lack of transparency around the over 15,000 lobbyists working to influence the EU institutions. http://europa.eu.int/comm/commission_barroso/kallas/transparency_en.htm

4) ALTER-EU and J@YS will hold a public debate on the European Transparency Initiative on January 27th International Press Centre, RÈsidence Palace, Maelbeek Room, 10am-12 with representatives from all sides to the debate over lobbying transparency, and an expert on the Abramoff case, see www.alter-eu.org for further details.

NGO urges Parliament to hold GMO applications

Creamer Media - Engineering news online (South Africa), 16 January 2006. Non governmental organisation Biowatch South Africa has urged Parliament to put all new applications for genetically modified organisms on hold until the GMO Amendment Bill is revised.

In a statement released yesterday, it said: "Parliament should urge the Department of Agriculture to undertake a new consultative process to revise the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Amendment Bill and, in the interim, put all new applications for GMOs on hold."

This request is contained in Biowatch South Africa's submission to Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs, which is considering public input on the Bill this week.

In its submission, Biowatch South Africa argues that the Bill fails to address serious deficiencies in the current regulatory system for GMOs because it limits public participation in decision-making and access to information. The NGO argues that it emphasises a scientific approach to risk assessment and decision-making and provides insufficient guidance for assessing and regulating GMO activities.

Biowatch adds the Bill entrenches self-regulation by the GMO industry and places liability for activities involving GMOs on users - producers, distributors and suppliers of GMOs are let off the hook.

Biowatch adds that the Bill is silent about compulsory labelling of GMOs and alleges it "lacks tools for imposing rehabilitation obligations on defaulting permit holders".

This is inconsistent with the polluter pays principle in the National Environmental Management Act of 1998. The Bill also fails to grant powers to the Executive Council (the decision-maker) to suspend or withdraw permits in the event of non-compliance with conditions.

It adds that the Bill "fails to provide for the incorporation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety into South Africa's regulatory system in several substantial areas".

16 January 2006

Does Africa need GMO food?

Sunday Independent [Nigeria], 15 January 2006. By Olayinka Oyegbile.

No one would ever contradict the fact that Africa is in need of improving how its food is produced and preserved. This is because the process of food production and preservation is still largely at subsistence level and except for some few countries, which you can count at your fingertips, food production, or agriculture generally, is still dominated by the system used by our forefathers.

It is no surprise therefore to hear about famine on the continent. It is not an exaggeration to say that the continent suffers from famine not because of lack of lands to till but simply due to the fact that the land is still being tilled in the old way!

In some areas, farmers have come to depend on fertilisers for good yields even if the land is by itself fertile, this is because they have been made to believe that there is no way they can get improved yields until they use it. Sometimes, these fertilisers end up spoiling their yields or even contaminating the environment or making them sick.

The first global attention to famine in Africa was in the 80s when millions of children and women died in Ethiopia. As it is usual on the continent, the political leadership denied that there was any form of famine until millions had perished. It was the effort of Bob Geldorf, a musician who galvanised world stars to rally round the country and later raised some money to help the victims.

Just last year again, Niger was also afflicted by famine but the political leadership scoffed at the incident and dismissed it as nothing. According to the leadership, it was nothing unusual; it was not a famine but "food shortage" or something to that effect. Pray, what is famine and what is food shortage?

Are the dying and starving population interested in semantics? What is the discerning line between famine and shortage of food?

Amid all the hunger in his country, President Ahmadu Tandja of Niger still hosted the Anglophone countries' games! That is Africa for you. At present, there are reports of threats of famine in East Africa and some parts of southern Africa.

Well, I have gone through all these to lay a premise for the thought of today. From all the above, we all agree that there is a need to improve the way we produce and preserve food on the continent. But the question is how do we do this?

We need to embrace technology and move with the times so as not to be left behind. And in this era of globalisation when the leaders of the continent tend to go along with their counterparts all over the world, they have continued to embrace all suggestions without examining the impact of their decisions on the majority of the populace.

It is in this light that we come to the issue of genetically modified organism (GMO) food that now seems to be the in thing now in some developed countries - which some African countries are also being wooed into the gravy train.

It is important to look critically at the issues involved before we open our doors to this idea, because as we all know Africa is always a testing ground for all ideas, viable, unviable, laudable and ludicrous.

Last week, the Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Africa (ERA), played host to a 75-year old Canadian farmer, Mr Percy Schmeiser.

According to ERA Executive Director, Nnimmo Bassey, Schmeiser was in the country as part of his tour of the continent to share his experience and enlighten the public on his battle with the big corporation Monsanto, the world giant of genetically modified crops.

In sharing his experiences and that of his country, Schemeiser warned that the continent must be careful in falling for the rosy pictures of the benefits of GMO as painted by Monsanto. He said the whole truth of the issue was never disclosed to countries or farmers before the introduction.

He spoke from a position of strength, deep experience and conviction. I watched him speak, I was impressed by his gentle demeanour. He was not forceful nor full of theatrics like most activists are wont to do. But one thing that was obvious was that he knew what he was talking about. He spoke with the conviction of a witness to the massive harm that GMO had done to his country and demonstrated a concern to see that other countries do not fall into the same pit.

As an individual, my concern was for Africa. If Canada with all its laws and development could fall for such a gimmick by a giant corporation, what hope is there for a less privileged continent like Africa? Do we have the capacity to confront and stand up to the lies of this corporate giant?

If Africa, which is always in a hurry to embrace any technology as long as it comes from the West, goes along to embrace the introduction of GMOs, what would be the fate of hapless farmers of the continent?

Schmeiser has the experience and should be listened to. He speaks from a vantage position and should not be ignored. But are African leaders ready to listen to this voice of reason? It is my strong belief, as Bassey pointed out at the dialogue he and Schemeiser held with the press and the civil society, that it is important to let the world know what it is to embrace this technology. It is not enough to copy what others are doing; we must look inward and see what it is in it for us before we embrace it.

Back to our question: Does Africa need GMO foods? The answer is No. What Africa needs is to improve on the way we practise agriculture. We have enough natural seeds to last us another lifetime. We don't need genetically modified seeds that would rather than lead to food boom kick-start a revolution of dependence on a giant corporation to supply us seeds and chemicals. This is nothing but slavery. And as Schmeiser said, whoever controls seeds supply controls food supply. Africa cannot afford to surrender its food security to some faceless giant corporation.

What we need on the continent is the knowledge to be able to produce more foods and the technology to preserve the surplus that have been produced and not some dubious GMOs.

13 January 2006

EU Commission caves in to biotech industry, Monsanto GM maize authorised

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, January 13th 2006.

Brussels, January 13th , 2006 ‚ The European Commission today ignored environmental and health concerns of Member States and approved the import and use of three Monsanto genetically modified (GM) maize (1).

This authorization comes despite studies showing that farmers in the US and elsewhere are not seeing the reduced pesticide use and higher profits promised by the Biotech industry.

Helen Holder, GMO campaign coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe, said: "In whose interests is the EU commission acting? GM crops have failed, yet the Commission continues to authorize Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the EU despite there being no EU law protecting conventional and organic farming from genetic pollution."

"The EU Commission is going against the wish of European citizens, and does not have the required majority support from Member States for GMO approvals", she added

Since August, three other GMOs have been authorized by the Commission (2). "In all six cases, Member States' concerns were ignored because of the undemocratic EU system allowing the Commission to take a decision despite there not being a qualified majority in favour of GMOs in food and animal feed", Holder said.

All GMOs commercialized in the EU and worldwide have the same two traits: insect resistance and herbicide tolerance, which have no benefits for consumers. This is a poor result for 30 years of research and public money spending. With 70% of EU citizens opposed to GMOs, and a growing number of EU Regions stating their wish to be GM-free (3), the EU Commission is caving in to the biotech industry lobby and to US pressure.

Earlier this week, a report by Friends of the Earth made public Monsanto's aim to genetically modify all of the European continent's maize production between now and 2010. However, the number of EU countries and regions banning GM products has increased over recent years (4).

Contact:

Helen Holder, +32 (0)2 542 01 82 (office) or +32 (0)4 74 857 638 (mobile)

NOTES

(1) Monsanto maize GA21 (food and food ingredients); Monsanto maize MON 863 (food and food ingredients); Monsanto maize MON863x810 (import and industrial processing)

(2) See list: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/pending/approvals_timetable_Nov05.pdf

(3) 175 Regions throughout the EU have now declared themselves GMO free. See: http://www.gmofree-europe.org

(4) http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/who_benefits_from_gm_crops_Jan_2006.pdf, page 15.

Commission statement at: http://europa.eu.int/rapid/showInformation.do?pageName=middayExpress&guiLanguage=en

12 January 2006

Monsanto's latest attempts to contaminate EU with GE Soya revealed

Greenpeace press release. Berlin, Germany, 11 January 2006 Greenpeace today, joined by a former manager of Monsanto and Limagrain in Romania, Mr Dragos Dima, at a press conference at the International Green Week in Berlin exposed how Monsanto will contaminate EU agriculture with genetically engineered (GE) Soya. U.S. biotech giant made an application in December 2005 to the European Union to grow its genetically engineered (GE) 'Roundup Ready' soybeans across the whole of Europe once its current licence - permitting the beans' import but not cultivation - expires in 2006 (1).

"Ten years after the introduction of Monsanto's GE Soya into the environment and our food, we have collected enough data from around the world to be able to say that this product should have never been approved in the first place. Recent Greenpeace research in Romania has exposed the fact that since the company has introduced GE Soya, things have gone totally out of control. European member states should avoid Romania's example, protect European agriculture and oppose Monsanto's application," says Susanne Fromwald from Greenpeace Central and Eastern Europe.

A new Greenpeace report reveals that the GE Soya crop in Romania covers more hectares than are officially registered. Due to illegal cultivation and uncontrollable contamination, conventional and organic farming is now impossible in many regions.

"Transgenic seeds are a poisoned promise. Romania did not have any scientific and public debate prior to the commercial introduction. Neither the authorities, nor the companies applied the precautionary principle in assessing the impact of these crops in agriculture. Year after year, the acreage of the herbicide resistant soybeans increased uncontrollably," stated Mr Dima, who left Monsanto in 1999, when the GE soybeans were first introduced in Romania.

Romanian Government officials, reacting to Greenpeace's findings, announced that the cultivation of GE crops should be reduced in 2006 and phased out completely by 2007, when it is due to join the EU. However, Monsanto filing an application for the whole of Europe now would effectively prevent Romania ridding itself of GE crops and GE contamination.

Experience in Argentina and the United States has showed the cultivation of Monsanto¥s GE soybeans contaminates conventional and organic agriculture. Furthermore, it has been reported that the cultivation of these crops often leads to the increased use of pesticides. Increasing rain forest destruction, especially in Argentina, is also closely related to the expansion of GE soy planting (2). Recent research also shows irregularities of the introduced genetic construct, which could cause unintended effects in these crops (3). Some alarming health signals were reported after feeding trials with mice (4).

Greenpeace opposes the release of GE Soya into the environment and the food chain and is asking the European member states to reject Monsanto's application.

Greenpeace is an independent, campaigning organisation, which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force solutions essential to a green and peaceful future.

For further information regarding the Greenpeace GE campaign and to download a copy of the report please go to www.greenpeace.org http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/GM_register

Contacts

Susanne Fromwald, Greenpeace Central and Eastern Europe (mobile) +43 664 612 6706
Gabriel Paun, Greenpeace Romania +40 744 351 977 (mobile)
Mhairi Dunlop, Greenpeace International Communications, +44 7801 212 960

Notes to editor:

(1) Application of US company Monsanto for cultivation in EU: http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gm_ff_applications/more_info/1243_en.html

(2) Benbrook report, Rust, Resistance and Rising Costs - Problems facing Soybean producers in Argentina. 20 January 2005.

(3) Rang, A et al,2005,Detection of RNA variants transcribed from the transgene in Roundup Ready soybean, Eur Food Res Technol 220:438-443 (4) Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MBL, Serafini S, Tiberi C, Gazzanellli G (2002): Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean. Cell Structural und Function 27: 173- 180.

11 January 2006

GMO crops may be marginalized - environmental group

Reuters, 10 January 2006. LONDON - Genetically modified crops could become marginalized due to consumer rejection and technical difficulties in developing new products, environmental group Friends of the Earth said on Tuesday.

"The biotech industry seems to be running out of new ideas, with the decline in the number of GM crop field trials and a return to conventional breeding for some of its most promising new crops," the report said.

The report noted the possibility that "transgenic plant technologies will fade in importance as technical difficulties in the development of multi-gene traits and consumer rejection continue to block the introduction of new GM varieties."

Friends of the Earth also said GMO crops had done little to ease hunger in the world, noting they are overwhelmingly grown in and exported to rich nations.

"By and large, the poorer farmers of the world cannot afford to purchase imported soymeal or maize (whether GM or not) to feed their livestock," the report said.

Friends of the Earth also expressed concern that small farmers in Argentina and Paraguay had been evicted from lands by large landowners to make room for a huge expansion in soybean cultivation - most of it GMO.

Gene crops no help to Africa so far - report

Reuters, 10 January 2006. By Manoah Esipisu. JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - Gene-altered crops have made little impact in ending rampant poverty and hunger in Africa or elsewhere a decade after the first significant plantings, two anti-GMO lobbyists said on Tuesday.

The Africa Centre for Biosafety and Friends of the Earth Nigeria said in a report issued in Johannesburg that promises by biotech corporations that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) would offer cheap quality food for Africa remained unfulfilled.

"Contrary to the promises made by the biotech industry, the reality of the last 10 years shows that the safety of GM crops cannot be ensured and that these crops are neither cheaper nor (of) better quality," said Nnimmo Bassey of Friends of the Earth Nigeria.

"Biotech crops are not a solution to solve hunger in Africa or elsewhere," he said in the report.

But U.S. biotech giant Monsanto rejected that conclusion, saying there were thousands of documented benefits of GMO technologies in South Africa, China, India and parts of America.

"With the exception of South Africa, which still produces a surplus of food, no other African, poverty stricken country has yet had the opportunity to plant transgenic food crops -- they are still in the process of implementing regulatory legislation," Andrew Bennett, a Johannesburg-based Monsanto official, told Reuters.

"So, clearly, these technologies have not had the opportunity to impact hunger and poverty. It is not coincidental that the only country in Africa that has approved transgenic crops is the only one with a surplus of grain and is also able to supply food to its neighbours," Bennett added.

The report said GMO crops in Africa would not solve hunger because most crops so far available were meant for animal feed and did not target hunger or poverty.

It said the GMO sweet potato in Kenya, presented by researchers as a key crop to help African agriculture, had shown little success by the end of January 2004.

It also said that after 10 years of GMO crop cultivation more than 80 percent of the area cultivated with biotech crops was still concentrated in only three countries -- the United States, Argentina and Canada.

Intensive cultivation of GMO soybeans in South America contributed to deforestation, and had been associated with a decline in soil fertility and soil erosion, the report added.

Monsanto's Bennett said his group and other biotech corporations were profit-driven but gains from their work could be traced around the world where 7 million farmers in 17 countries had planted 81 million hectares of transgenic crops.

10 January 2006

Monsanto aims for European domination
10 years of biotech crops fail to deliver benefits for consumers and environment

Friends of the Earth Europe media advisory, 10 January 2006.

Brussels (Belgium) - US-based biotech giant, Monsanto, is aiming to genetically modify all of Europe's maize over the next 4 years, reveals a new Friends of the Earth report released today. The report also concludes that in the ten years since the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods in Europe, the biotech industry has failed to deliver any benefits for consumers or the environment, and has not played any role in solving hunger and poverty.

The Friends of the Earth report highlights that over the past 10 years Monsanto and its trade bodies have consistently worked to weaken European laws to protect consumers, the environment and farmers and that despite overwhelming public rejection in Europe, Monsanto and the biotech industry have an unacceptable influence over many parts of European food, research and agriculture policy. [1]

The report reveals that in November 2005 Monsanto announced to its investors that it sees Europe as a "Next Opportunity". It highlighted that in the four years up to 2010 there is market potential to introduce 59 million hectares of its Roundup Ready maize and 32 million hectares of its YieldGard insect-resistant maize. In other words, it is targeting the whole of the European continent's maize production. In addition, it is aiming to introduce 1 million acres of its GM soybeans [2]. Monsanto has currently permission to grow only one type of insect-resistant maize in the EU

However, despite Monsanto's efforts, the Friends of the Earth report reveals that:

* There have been no new GM crops approved for cultivation in the EU since 1998, and despite 30 years of research and public money the industry has only delivered two GM traits: herbicide tolerance and insect resistance.

* Commercial growing on any scale in the EU is still limited to just Spain, and even there the number of GM events permitted has now been reduced to just one.

* The number of countries banning GM products has increased over recent years and the number of regions in Europe declaring themselves GM Free zones has grown to 165, with 4500 smaller areas declaring themselves also GM free. In November the Swiss voted in a referendum for a five year ban.

* Europeans continue to reject GM foods. European polls show that 70% of the public do not want to eat GM foods, and all major food manufacturers and retailers prohibit the use of GMOs in their products, in particular Monsanto's GM soya.

* GM crops have failed to tackle hunger and poverty. Most GM crops are destined for animal feed, and none have been introduced to address hunger and poverty issues. GM crops in developing countries have been grown mainly as export cash crops, sometimes at the expense of local food production. Other developing countries, such as Indonesia and India, have experienced substantial problems with Monsanto's GM crops, often leaving farmers heavily indebted. Monsanto continues to introduce aggressive royalty initiatives in South America to increase its profits.

Adrian Bebb, GM Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said: "Monsanto's plans to take-over and genetically modify all maize production in Europe should be ringing alarm bells for farmers and consumers. It is crucial that Europe and its national Governments thwart Monsanto's plans to control our food and countryside."

"Our report shows that in the ten years since genetically modified crops were introduced we have seen crops fail in developing countries leaving poor farmers destitute, we've seen an increase in the use of pesticides and we've seen a small number of very big corporations buy up the world's seed supply."

Paul de Clerck, Friends of the Earth Europe's corporate campaigner said: "Monsanto has been in the driver's seat as the US, Brazil and other countries developed their GM policies, and their influence has been obvious. In Paraguay and Brazil Monsanto's GM products were grown even though they were forbidden, and in Indonesia the company was reduced to bribing government officials. Governments should stop serving the interests of big companies such as Monsanto and put the interests of their citizens and the environment first."

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Adrian Bebb mobile +49 1609 490 1163
Paul de Clerck + 32-2-5426107
NOTES TO EDITORS:

[1] The executive summary of the report is available at:
www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/who_benefits_from_gm_crops_Jan_2006.pdf

The full report is available upon request from ann@foei.org

A fact sheet on GM crops is online at: www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/key_facts_Jan_2006.pdf

[2] Brett Begemann, Executive Vice President, Monsanto Bienniel US Investor Day, 10 November 2005, www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/investor/financial/presentations/2005/11-1 0-05e.pdf

European Commission overturns Greece's ban on GM maize

Friends of the Earth Europe email, 10 January 2006. The European Commission today overturned Greece's ban on Monsanto's genetically modified maize MON810. The Commission has tried not to get any media attention but fortunately a few journalists spotted it. They will also use the same procedure (called a written procedure) to approve 3 GMOs from Monsanto later this week - MON863, GA21 and the hybrid MON863/MON810.

Adrian Bebb, GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth said "The European Commission cannot continue to ignore the number of countries and regions that want to ban genetically modified foods and crops. It is time the European Commission supported these bans instead of supporting the biotech industry. After 30 years of research and public money these biotech companies have failed to deliver any consumer or environmental benefits, and have had no impact on reducing poverty or hunger."

8 January 2006

GM: New study shows unborn babies could be harmed

Mortality rate for new-born rats six times higher
when mother was fed on a diet of modified soya

The Independent (UK), 08 January 2006. By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor. Women who eat GM foods while pregnant risk endangering their unborn babies, startling new research suggests.

The study - carried out by a leading scientist at the Russian Academy of Sciences - found that more than half of the offspring of rats fed on modified soya died in the first three weeks of life, six times as many as those born to mothers with normal diets. Six times as many were also severely underweight.

The research - which is being prepared for publication - is just one of a clutch of recent studies that are reviving fears that GM food damages human health. Italian research has found that modified soya affected the liver and pancreas of mice. Australia had to abandon a decade-long attempt to develop modified peas when an official study found they caused lung damage.

And last May this newspaper revealed a secret report by the biotech giant Monsanto, which showed that rats fed a diet rich in GM corn had smaller kidneys and higher blood cell counts, suggesting possible damage to their immune systems, than those that ate a similar conventional one.

The United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation held a workshop on the safety of genetically modified foods at its Rome headquarters late last year. The workshop was addressed by scientists whose research had raised concerns about health dangers. But the World Trade Organisation is expected next month to support a bid by the Bush administration to force European countries to accept GM foods.

The Russian research threatens to have an explosive effect on already hostile public opinion. Carried out by Dr Irina Ermakova at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, it is believed to be the first to look at the effects of GM food on the unborn.

The scientist added flour from a GM soya bean - produced by Monsanto to be resistant to its pesticide, Roundup - to the food of female rats, starting two weeks before they conceived, continuing through pregnancy, birth and nursing. Others were given non-GM soyaand a third group was given no soya at all.

She found that 36 per cent of the young of the rats fed the modified soya were severely underweight, compared to 6 per cent of the offspring of the other groups. More alarmingly, a staggering 55.6 per cent of those born to mothers on the GM diet perished within three weeks of birth, compared to 9 per cent of the offspring of those fed normal soya, and 6.8 per cent of the young of those given no soya at all.

"The morphology and biochemical structures of rats are very similar to those of humans, and this makes the results very disturbing" said Dr Ermakova. "They point to a risk for mothers and their babies."

Environmentalists say that - while the results are preliminary - they are potentially so serious that they must be followed up. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has asked the US National Institute of Health to sponsor an immediate, independent follow-up. The Monsanto soya is widely eaten by Americans. There is little of it, or any GM crop, in British foods though it is imported to feed animals farmed for meat.

Tony Coombes, director of corporate affairs for Monsanto UK, said: "The overwhelming weight of evidence from published, peer-reviewed, independently conducted scientific studies demonstrates that Roundup Ready soy can be safely consumed by rats, as well as all other animal species studied."

What the experiment found

Russian scientists added flour made from a GM soya to the diet of female rats two weeks before mating them, and continued feeding it to them during pregnancy, birth and nursing. Others were give non-GM soya or none at all. Six times as many of the offspring of those fed the modified soya were severely underweight compared to those born to the rats given normal diets. Within three weeks, 55.6 per cent of the young of the mothers given the modified soya died, against 9 per cent of the offspring of those fed the conventional soya.

5 January 2006

2005 was a really good year for the biotech industry

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #836, January 5, 2006. By Peter Montague.

Felix Ballarin spent 15 years of his life developing a special organically-grown variety of red corn. It would bring a high price on the market because local chicken farmers said the red color lent a rosy hue to the meat and eggs from their corn-fed chickens. But when the corn emerged from the ground last year, yellow kernels were mixed with the red. Government officials later confirmed with DNA tests that Mr. Ballarin's crop had become contaminated with a genetically modified (GMO) strain of corn.

Because Mr. Ballarin's crop was genetically contaminated, it no longer qualified as "organically grown," so it no longer brought a premium price. Mr. Ballarin's 15-year investment was destroyed overnight by what is now commonly known as "genetic contamination." This is a new phenomenon, less then 10 years old -- but destined to be a permanent part of the brave new world that is being cobbled together as we speak by a handful of corporations whose goal is global domination of food.

Mr. Ballarin lives in Spain, but the story is the same all over the world: genetically modified crops are invading fields close by (and some that are not so close by), contaminating both the organic food industry and the "conventional" (non-GMO and non-organic) food industry.

As a result of genetically contamination of non-GMO crops in Europe, the U.S., Mexico, Australia and South America, the biotech food industry had an upbeat year in 2005 and things are definitely looking good for the future. As genetically modified pollen from their crops blows around, contaminating nearby fields, objections to genetically modified crops diminish because non-GMO alternatives become harder and harder to find. A few more years of this and there may not be many truly non-GMO crops left anywhere. At that point there won't be any debate about whether to allow GMO-crops to be grown here or there -- no one will have any choice. Most of the crops in the world will be genetically modified (except perhaps for a few grown in greenhouses on a tiny scale). At that point, GMO will have contaminated essentially the entire planet, and the companies that own the patents on the GMO seeds will be sitting in the catbird seat.

It is now widely acknowledged that GMO crops are a "leaky technology" -- that it to say, genetically modified pollen is spread naturally on the wind, by insects, and by humans. No one except perhaps some officials of the U.S. Department of Agriculture were actually surprised to learn this. GMO proponents have insisted for a decade that genetic contamination could never happen (wink, wink) and U.S. Department of Agriculture officials want along with the gag. And so of course GMO crops are now spreading everywhere by natural means, just as you would expect.

It couldn't have turned out better for the GMO crop companies if they had planned it this way.

Growers of organically-grown and conventional crops are naturally concerned that genetic contamination is hurting acceptance of their products. Three California counties have banned GM crops. Anheuser- Busch Co., the beer giant, has demanded that its home state (Missouri) keep GMO rice fields 120 miles away from rice it buys to make beer. The European Union is now trying to establish buffer zones meant to halt the unwanted spread of GM crops. However, the Wall Street Journal reported November 8 [1] that, "Such moves to restrict the spread of GM crops often are ineffective. Last month in Australia, government experts discovered biotech canola genes in two non-GM varieties despite a ban covering half the country. 'Regretfully, the GM companies appear unable to contain their product," said Kim Chance, agriculture minister for the state of Western Australia, on the agency's Web site.

For some, this seems to come as a shocking revelation -- genetically modified pollen released into the natural environment spreads long distances on the wind. Who would have thought? Actually, almost anyone could have figured this out. Dust from wind storms in China contaminates the air in the U.S. Smoke from fires in Indonesia can be measured in the air half-way around the world. Pollen is measurable in the deep ice of antarctica. No one should ever have harbored any doubt that genetically modified pollen would spread everywhere on the Earth sooner or later. (We are now exactly 10 years into the global experiment with GMO seeds. The first crops were planted in open fields in the U.S. in 1995. From this meager beginning, global genetic contamination is now well along.)

Who benefits from all this? Think of it this way: when most crops on earth are genetically contaminated, then the seed companies that own the patented seeds will be in a good position to begin enforcing their patent rights. They have already taken a test case to court and won. In 2004, Monsanto (the St. Louis, Mo. chemical giant) won a seven-year court battle against a 73-year-old Saskatchewan farmer whose canola fields had been contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified plants. The Supreme Court of Canada court ruled [2] that the farmer -- a fellow named Percy Schmeiser -- no longer owns his crops. Monsanto now owns his crops because Monsanto's patented genes made their way into his fields.

Armed with this legal precedent, after genetically modified crops have drifted far and wide, Monsanto, Dow and the other GMO seed producers will be in a position to muscle most of the world's farmers. It is for cases exactly like this that the U.S. has spent 30 years creating the WTO (world trade organization) -- to settle disputes over "intellectual property rights" (such as patents) in secret tribunals held in Geneva, Switzerland behind closed doors without any impartial observers allowed to attend. Even the results of WTO tribunals are secret, unless the parties involved choose to reveal them. Let me see -- a dirt farmer from India versus Monsanto and Dow backed by the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Treasury (with the shadow of the Pentagon always in the background). I'm struggling to predict who might win such a politico-legal dispute conducted by a secret tribunal in Geneva, Switzerland.

During 2005, it was discovered that GMO crops have not lived up to their initial promise [3] of huge profits for farmers and huge benefits for consumers. It was also discovered that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has not enforced its own strict regulations [4] that were intended to prevent experimental GMO seeds from accidentally contaminating nearby fields. GMO crops were supposed to produce important human health benefits - and then be developed under super- strict government control - but all these promises have turned out to be just so much eye wash. GMOs were supposed to reduce reliance on dangerous pesticides -- but in fact they have had the opposite effect. Monsanto's first GMO crops were designed to withstand drenching in Monsanto's most profitable product, the weed killer Round-Up -- so farmers who buy Monsanto's patented "Round-up ready" seeds apply more, not less, weed killer.

But so what? Who cares if GMO seeds don't provide any of the benefits that were promised? Certainly not the seed companies. Perhaps benefits to the people of the world were never the point. Perhaps the point was to get those first GMO crops in the ground -- promise them the moon! -- and then allow nature to take its course and contaminate the rest of the planet with patented pollen. The intellectual property lawsuits will come along in good time. Patience, dear reader, patience. Unlike people, corporations cannot die, so our children or our grandchildren may find themselves held in thrall by two or three corporations that have seized legal control of much of the world's food supply by getting courts (backed by the threat of force, as all courts ultimately are) to enforce their intellectual property rights.

The Danish government has passed a law intended to slow the pace [5] of genetic contamination. The Danes will compensate farmers whose fields have become contaminated, then the Danish government will seek recompense from the farmer whose field originated the genetic contamination, assuming the culprit can be pinpointed. This may slow the spread of genetic contamination, but the law is clearly not designed to end the problem.

Yes, it has been a good year for the GMO industry. None of the stated benefits of their products have materialized -- and the U.S. government regulatory system has been revealed as a sham -- but enormous benefits to the few GMO corporations are right on track to begin blossoming. For Monsanto, Dow and Novartis, a decent shot at gaining control over much of the world's food supply is now blowing on the wind and there's no turning back. As the Vice-President of plant genetics for Dow Agrosciences said recently [6], "There will be come continuing bumps in the road, but we are starting to see a balance of very good news and growth. The genie is way out of the bottle."

Notes:

[1] http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/biotech--a_leaky_technology.051108.htm

[2] http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/monsanto_beats_percy_schmeiser.20040522.htm

[3] http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/promise_of_biotech_unrealized.060103.htm

[4] http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/lax_gmo_oversight_by_usda.060103.htm

[5] http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/denmark_may_compensate_for_gm_contamination.051123.htm

[6] http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/promise_of_biotech_unrealized.060103.htm

6 January 2006

EU under attack over plan to ease organic labelling

The Guardian, Friday January 6, 2006. By David Adam, environment correspondent. Environmental campaigners have hit out at EU plans to allow food contaminated with genetically modified material to be sold as organic. The draft regulation would permit products accidentally contaminated with up to 0.9% GM organisms to bear the EU organic logo.

The Soil Association, which promotes organic food and farming, insisted that organic food should contain no more than 0.1% GM material. Peter Melchett, its policy director, said: "Our position is no GM in Soil Association-certified organic, which in practice means the lowest level of GM that can be reliably and consistently detected, which is 0.1%."

5 January 2006

GM foods "could end world hunger"

Irish Independent, 5 January 2006. By Aideen Sheehan, agriculture correspondent. Genetically modified food could one day play a rolee in reducing world hunger and improving nutrition in developing countries, it's been claimed.

Concern chief executive Tom Arnold said yesterday that with 850m people hungry around the world, it would be wrong to rule it out as part of the solution.

GM crops could be developed with added nutrients that would benefit health.

However the claim that GM food could end world hunger was simply an idea based of very flimsy evidence that was being used to win the hearts and minds of the public, said Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland.

There were simply too many risks associated with the technology and its ownership by big business, he said at the debate in Bewley's Cafe Theatre in Dublin.

Independent Science Panel on GM Reply to Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Institute of Science in Society press release, 4 January 2006. On 27 November 2005, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho wrote to a number of national and international agencies on behalf of the Independent Science Panel [1] regarding the powerful immune response in test animals fed genetically modified (GM) peas, demanding a ban on all GM food and feed until proper assessment on the immunogenicity of all transgenic proteins has been carried out.

Ho reported the scientific study [2] in detail, which showed that a previously harmless bean protein transferred to pea provoked a debilitating immune response on account of post-translation processing of the protein in the pea plant which differs from that in bean. As practically every transgenic protein involves a transfer of the protein to a different species, all transgenic proteins are potentially capable of provoking such immune reactions, unless proven otherwise.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) responded on 19 December, and the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) replied on 22 December.

The reply from USDA-APHIS explained that while it works in partnership with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) "to ensure that the development, testing, and use of the products of biotechnology occur in a manner that is safe for plant and animal health, human health, and the environment," it is the FDA that "is responsible for ensuring that all plant-derived foods and feeds, including those developed through biotechnology are safe and properly labeled." And while USDA-APHIS appreciate the information provided regarding the study, the issues addressed are primarily matters of food and feed safety, which "fall under the regulatory authority of FDA", and suggested that the FDA be contacted directly.

The CFIA responded with a detailed discussion on the concept of "substantial equivalence" and the procedures used by CFIA, as recommended by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) [3, 4], to evaluate toxic food impacts such as allergenicity. The current reply is mainly addressed to the CFIA.

Many commentators have exposed the concept of substantial equivalence as thoroughly unscientific, starting with Ho and Steinbrecher [5], who showed how the concept effectively allows the approval of GM crops without the necessary safeguards to human and animal health or the environment.

Similarly, the tests for allergenicity, which include amino acid sequence similarities, heat stability and digestibility (mainly under simulated gastric conditions), have already been rightly criticized as inadequate [6, 7]; and more importantly, do not include the tests carried out on the transgenic pea in the new study. Even the FAO/WHO reports [3, 4] recommended a combination of additional methods for assessing allergenicity, such as binding tests of antisera from allergic patients, and animal exposure studies.

CFIA stated: "Characterization data provided by the proponent is generated with genetically stable, modified lines that are representative of the final product." Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the transgenic lines are genetically stable. In 2003, French government scientists found that in all five transgenic lines already commercialised, the GM insert has rearranged since characterized by the company for commercial approval [8-10].

These considerations point to the inadequacy of the regulatory regime for GM crops. Indeed, the USDA has just been criticised in a report issued by its own Inspector General for failing to regulate the field trials of GM crops [11, 12]. The report found that USDA "lacks basic information about the field test sites it approves and is responsible for monitoring, including where and how the crops are being grown, and what becomes of them at the end of the field test." It also said that weaknesses in regulations and in the internal management controls at the USDA "increase the risk that genetically engineered organisms will inadvertently persist in the environment before they are deemed safe to grow without regulation."

At the end of the long letter, CFIA noted: "You cited a recent publication by Prescott et al regarding GM field peas in your message. We consider this study to be an example of how the appropriate methods are at hand to identify allergenicity concerns associated with newly expressed proteins in plants." It did not say that such methods are actually being used by the CFIA, however.

It is arguable whether the tests carried out by Precott et al are adequate for safeguarding animal and human health, but at least they succeeded in detecting the allergic/hypersensitive reactions to the transgenic protein. But, none of the transgenic proteins in commercialized food and feed has been subjected to such tests. CFIA and other regulatory authorities not only should use similar tests for assessing every new GM crop, it should retrospectively apply the tests to all already commercialized GM crops.

That is why, in the light of the new evidence, a ban on all GM food and feed must be imposed as a matter of urgency, until and unless the transgenic proteins are proven safe by adequate tests on immunogenicity.

"Immune reactions to transgenic protein serious. Independent scientists demand a ban on GM food & feed while all GM crops are tested." ISIS Report 28 November 2005 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TPTMMI.php

Prescott VE, Campbell PM, Moore A, Mattes J, Rothenberg ME, Foster PS, Higgins TJV and Hogan SP. Transgenic expression of bean a-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. J Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2005, 53, 9023-30.

Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology ‚ Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods ‚ Rome, 22 ‚ 25 January 2001. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, (2001). [http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/en/ec_jan2001.pdf]

FAO/WHO: CodexPrinciples and Guidelines on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, Rome, Italy, Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme (2003) [ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/standard/en/CodexTextsBiotechFoods.pdf].

Ho MW and Steinbrecher R. Fatal flaws in food safety assessment. Critique of the Joint FAO/WHO Biotechnology and Food Safety Report. Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Interactions 1998, 2, 1-84.

Fiers, M.W.E.J., Kleter, G.A., Nijland, H., Peijnenburg, Ad. A.C.M., Nap, J.P. and van Ham R.C.H.J. BMC Bioinformatics 2004, 5,133. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/5/133

Ho MW, Pusztai A, Bardocz S and Cummins J. Are transgenic proteins allergenic? Science in Society 2005, 25, 4-5.

Collonier C, Berthier G, Boyer F, Duplan M-N, Fernandez S, Kebdani N, Kobilinsky A, Romanuk M, Bertheau Y. Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity. Poster presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology (no.VII), Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Pr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN, www.crii-gen.org;

Ho MW. Transgenic lines proven unstable. ISIS Report, 23 October 2003 www.i-sis.org.uk; also Science in Society 2004, 20, 35. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php

Ho MW. Unstable transgenic lines illegal. ISIS Report 3 December 2003; also Science in Society 2004, 21, 23. http://www.i- sis.org.uk/isisnews.php

"Lax oversight found in tests of gene-altered crops", Andrew Pollack, New York Time 3 January 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/science/03crop.html

"Report blasts oversight of test fields. Investigators say the USDA lacks details on what happens with pharma- crops", Phlip Brasher, Register Washington Bureau. 30 December 2005. http://desmoinesregist er.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051230/BUSINESS01/512300334/1030

WTO again delays ruling in row over EU GMO policy

Reuters, 4 January 2006. GENEVA - A world trade ruling in a high-stakes row between the European Union and the United States and others over genetically modified crops has been delayed and is unlikely before February, trade diplomats said on Wednesday.

A preliminary decision by a panel of judges appointed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) had been expected in early January, but reaching a verdict will take more time, the diplomats said.

"It has been delayed a few weeks. I would not bank on anything before February," said one trade diplomat involved in the long-running dispute.

The United States, Canada and Argentina brought the case in May 2003, alleging that a five-year-old EU moratorium on approving imports of genetically modified (GMO) crops and food stuffs violated global trade rules.

The moratorium has since been lifted, but Washington and its allies say that imports are still heavily restricted, with a number of EU states refusing to accept any.

Europe's shoppers are known for their wariness toward GMO products, with some opinion polls indicating opposition of slightly over 70 percent.

But the United States, where the foods are far more widely accepted, says that EU skepticism has no basis in science and amounts to protectionism costing GMO producers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales.

The WTO panel of judges was set up in March 2004, with a ruling initially due within six months, but the deadlines have been continually extended.

Officially, the WTO judges have announced that a final ruling, which comes out some weeks after the preliminary finding, has been put back three months to the end of March, but it is the preliminary verdict that diplomats are watching, and no dates are officially announced for that.

In the 11-year life of the WTO, a final verdict has never differed from a preliminary finding.

4 January 2006

Biotech Crops Mark First Decade with Wins, Losses

www.planetark.com, 3 January 2006. By Carey Gillam.

Editor's Note: This article weighs advances and setbacks of GM crops one decade since their market release. As the acreage of biotech planted crops continues to rise, many stated benefits have yet to be proven. These days, moratoriums are overturned and approvals granted while at the same time, pockets of resistance arise anew across the globe. The direction GM crops will take remains open and much continues to hinge on regulatory decisions of some key players such as China.

KANSAS CITY - When Monsanto introduced the world to genetically modified crops a decade ago, the biotech advancement was heralded as the dawn of a new era that could reduce world hunger, help the environment and bolster struggling farmers.

Now, biotech beans, cotton, corn and canola are profit-drivers at Monsanto and are lifting the fortunes of rival companies like Swiss-based Syngenta and Dow AgroSciences LLC, a unit of Dow Chemical Co. The gains are largely due to a broad US acceptance of crops that have been genetically altered to withstand weed killers and insects, and backers say, generate higher yields.

But as the industry celebrates its 10th anniversary, the early promises of biotech crops remain largely unrealised, and many countries have banned the technology amid concerns about potential danger for human health and the environment.

"GM products have not lived up to those early exaggerated expectations," said Joel Cohen, senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute. "We now have a series of very dependable, reliable crops using this technology. But there is still a large precautionary perspective."

ONE STEP FORWARD...

Indeed, for nearly every step forward, there is a step back. Last month, cereal giant Kellogg announced it would start using a healthy low linolenic oil derived only from Monsanto's biotech soybean in its biscuits, crackers and other food products.

But less than two weeks later, rival Kraft Foods, the world's second-largest food producer, said it would stop supplying all genetically engineered food products, including additives, to China due to a lack of market acceptance. Pepsico and Coca-Cola have made similar pledges.

There have been other recent setbacks, including a decision in November by Swiss voters to ban the planting of biotech crops for five years, and the recent revelation in Australia that a biotech pea caused health problems in research mice, forcing cancellation of that project.

In 2004 Monsanto was forced to withdraw a biotech wheat it planned to sell in the United States and Canada because of strong market opposition. Other failed projects include Monsanto's delayed-ripening tomato and a healthier potato.

"Genetic engineering has not delivered on any of its promises for human health benefits," said Margaret Mellon, director of the Agriculture and Biotechnology Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "There are a lot of failures scattered at the side of the road."

Other critics say biotech crops have created more problems than they've solved, creating herbicide-resistant weeds, for instance.

Backers say biotech crops are good for the environment because they can reduce the amount of chemicals needed to grow healthy crops. Opponents say chemical use increases many times because of weed resistance and other problems.

And they say that farmer profits tied to better yields get eaten up by the higher prices they pay for biotech seeds. Critics say the technology has not eased hunger because many poor countries are unable or unwilling to adopt it.

GENIE OUT OF THE BOTTLE

Still, acreage planted with biotech crops around the world is increasing and this year topped more than 1 billion acres (404.7 million hectares) sown to soybeans, corn, cotton, canola and other crops.

In the United States, 52 percent of all corn, 79 percent of upland cotton and 87 percent of soybeans planted in 2004-05 were biotech varieties, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

An industry report is expected to show good growth not only in the United States but in many other countries. Barriers in Europe are slowly lowering and new products in the pipeline should help improve acceptance, biotech backers say.

"We're now 10 years into it, on a billion acres in 17 countries," said Dow AgroSciences vice president of plant genetics Pete Siggelko. "There will be some continuing bumps in the road, but we are starting to see a balance of very good news and growth. The genie is way out of the bottle."

Cotton, corn, soybeans and canola, all first rolled out in the 1995/1996 growing seasons, remain the top biotech crops but the future should bring new crops, biotech backers say.

Iran became the first country to commercialise biotech rice in 2004, approving a pest-resistant variety.

And Syngenta last year announced a new strain of "golden rice" that produces up to 23 times as much beta-carotene as previous varieties. The rice will be available for free to research centres across Asi