NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • July 2006

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

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

30 July 2006

You don't want GM foods? Too bad

The Sunday Telegraph, 30 July 2006. By Michael Meacher, MP.

So, according to the Government, we are to have GM crops commercially grown in Britain from 2009, and if you don't like your food being GM contaminated, too bad. That's the clear message of [the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs's] Defra's latest consultation paper proposing absurdly small separation distances between GM and other crops, a voluntary system of compensation for ruined non-GM farmers, and permission for GM crops to be grown at secret locations (rejecting a public register of sites as sanctioned by EU law).

All of this begs the question: is genetic modification of food safe? The question remains unanswered, but a pile of new scientific evidence has produced some worrying results. Within the last few months a Russian scientist, found that an astonishing 55 per cent of the offspring of rats fed on GM soya died within three weeks of birth compared with only 9 per cent in the control group.

Then an Italian researcher found that mice fed on GM soya experienced a slowdown in cellular metabolism and modifications in liver and pancreas. A third study, in Australia, showed that genes from a bean introduced into a pea created a protein that caused such serious inflammation of lung tissue in mice that the research was halted.

Enough, you might think, for the Government (or the EU, for the Commission is now in charge of GM policy) to stop the import of GM processed foods until exhaustive tests had been carried out. Not a bit of it. The EU, under pressure from the US, has pushed through the approval of seven GM foods over the past two years, despite a lack of support from member states, and has commercialised 31 varieties of Monsanto's maize for cultivation in the EU.

Yet we now know from leaked documents what the EU really believes. On human safety it says that "there is no unique, absolute, scientific cut-off threshold available to decide whether a GM product is safe or not". And, it goes on, "it is a reasonable and lawful position" that insect-resistant crops (the GM crops being grown in the EU) should not be planted till all the effects on the soil are known.

Despite its own misgivings, the Commission has previously required member states to vote twice on proposals to lift national bans on GM products in five countries, and when it was defeated in both votes, it used its powers to force through the lifting of the bans anyway.

It is a scandal that an unelected body is empowered to determine what a nation may or may not eat, and that it did this because it was leaned on by the Bush administration in support of US agrochemical interests such as Monsanto. The US was able to exert this pressure because the WTO allows trade interests to override domestic food policies.

Nor does the UK Government come out of this much better. Despite knowing how hostile public opinion was to GM, ministers voted to give approval to six of the seven GM foods when other countries voted against. And despite a public consultation on GM cultivation that showed 85 per cent of the population against, they went ahead until, unexpectedly, environmental trials blocked this option.

The strong pro-GM bias of the Government is manifest in another area too. It does not sit easily with Lord Sainsbury's position as science minister that his companies promoting GM foods have been awarded more than GBP12 million by his own Department of Trade and Industry.

The key question remains for GM: should the public interest prevail, or that of some of the biggest US companies?

Michael Meacher MP is a former UK environment minister.

28 July 2006

Fighting Secrecy Over Transgenic Crops, Greenpeace Carves a Circle

Environment News Service, 28 July 2006.

MARMANDE, France, July 27 2006 - Early this morning a group of Greenpeace activists entered a field of genetically engineered maize, or corn, in southern France and carved a giant "crop circle" with an "X" in the field.

The action, taken to mark the field as a contamination zone, was in response to a ruling by a French court yesterday. The court ordered Greenpeace France to remove from its website maps showing the location of commercial fields of genetically engineered (GE) maize in France.

"As we are now forbidden to publish these maps of GE maize on our webpage, we have gone into the fields and marked it for real," said Arnaud Apoteker of Greenpeace France.

[picture caption: A crop circle X marks location of commercial GE maize fields in France. French courts want the locations kept secret. (Photo by Pierre Gleizes courtesy Greenpeace)]

The field in Grezet Cavagnan that the activists marked today is one of the two biotech maize fields highlighted on the censored webpage.

The other maize field on the forbidden map is on highway A64 just south of the city of Toulouse, also in southern France.

Although the map showing the French genetically engineered maize fields has been removed from the website of Greenpeace France it is now available at: www.greenpeace.org

The map will also be distributed via email so that it will be available to millions of people around the world.

"We will continue to show where GE maize is grown, until the French government fulfils its responsibility and publishes an official register of GE fields that is accessible to every citizen," Apoteker said.

The EU legislation (Directive 2001/18) that deals with genetically engineered organisms shows how EU member states are obliged to maintain public registers in order to inform their citizens about the locations of genetically engineered fields.

But the French government has yet to make the EU's directive into national law. Greenpeace contends that by withholding information about the location of gene-altered crops, France is depriving its citizens of information they need to protect themselves against the risk of genetically engineered contamination of conventional and organic food.

Meanwhile, the European Commission has been ruled guilty of "maladministration" after hiding documents from Friends of the Earth Europe that reveal scientific concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods. The Commission falsely used the premise that World Trade Organization (WTO) disputes should involve the secrecy levels of court cases.

The official ruling was announced by the European Ombudsman July 17. The documents concerned related to the European Communities dispute at the WTO, in which the United States, Argentina and Canada claimed that Europe's precautionary approach on genetically engineered foods was a barrier to trade.

Adrian Bebb, transgenic foods campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said, "Genetically modified foods are a sensitive issue in Europe - most people are totally against them. Keeping papers that discuss their safety secret is a disservice to the public."

The European Commission initially refused to release papers to Friends of the Earth Europe in August 2004, citing that the dispute in the WTO had to be "assimilated" to court proceedings and that the publication of the papers would have damaged their case. The Ombudsman rejected this argument as "not well founded, and hence amounted to an instance of maladministration."

Friends of the Earth Europe argued that the WTO is not a court as disputes are ruled by trade experts not judges. Unlike a court, a WTO dispute is agreed by all 148 member countries and parties can comment on the draft final ruling.

The European Commission eventually released the documents in question to Friends of the Earth Europe in February 2005.

The papers outlined scientific concerns about the long term safety of transgenic foods and crops. Further papers, also released to Friends of the Earth Europe earlier this year, outlined these concerns in more detail, warning that cancer and allergies caused by eating genetically engineered foods cannot be ruled out and recommending that these crops should not be grown until their long-term effects are known.

The WTO has issued a final verdict in the US/European Communities dispute over genetically modified foods but it has not yet been made public.

An earlier draft leaked to Friends of the Earth Europe, showed that the WTO was critical of the method used by European countries to ban transgenic foods but ruled against most of the US's arguments.

Critics of biotech crops argue that genetic engineering uses material from organisms that have never been part of the human food supply to change the fundamental nature of foods. Without long-term testing no one knows if these foods are safe.

Genetic engineering can produce unforeseen and unknown allergens in foods, critics believe. Some scientists and many activists are now seeking better ways of identifying allergens in gene-altered foods that could affect millions of people.

Geert Ritsema, GMO campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe, said, "The European Commission's proposals are a recipe for disaster. They will lead to the widespread contamination of Europe's food, farming and environment and take away consumers ability to avoid GM. European member states must step in where the Commission has failed and ban these GM seeds."

"By publishing secret locations of fields of GE maize, Greenpeace is defending the right to know and say 'no' to the environmental and health risks associated with GE Organisms," said Geert Ritsema of Greenpeace International.

"It is absurd that the French legal system has prevented Greenpeace France from providing vital information to the public, which according to EU legislation should have been published years ago by the French government," said Ritsema.

Internationally, Ritsema says Greenpeace will continue to expose the locations of genetically engineered fields.

Greenpeace says that today's action marks the beginning of a global campaign to inform the public about the risks of genetically engineered maize cultivation for the environment and to human health.

The locations of German biotech fields are published on government websites, but France is not the only EU country where the locations of genetically engineered crops is secret.

In Spain, the government has so far refused to publish the locations of genetically engineered fields. The consequences of this policy are detailed in an April 2006 Greenpeace report, "Impossible Coexistence." The report shows that in nearly 20 percent of the investigated cases, neighboring conventional and organic maize fields in Spain are contaminated by genetically engineered organisms, without the knowlege of farmers and consumers.

The report concludes that the "co-existence" of genetically modified and non-genetically modified crops is not possible.

While the European Union has a legal system for contol, tracing and labeling genetically engineered crops, the Greenpeace report claims the system does not work. "The control and monitoring of GMOs from laboratory to plate is ineffective, and in many cases non-existent," the report states. "The system for segregation, traceability and labelling does not work"

Greenpeace says the organization advocates crop and food production free of genetically modified organisms that is "grounded in the principles of sustainability, protection of biodiversity and providing all people to have access to safe and nutritious food."

"Genetic engineering is an unnecessary and unwanted technology that contaminates the environment, threatens biodiversity and poses unacceptable risks to health," says Greenpeace.

Greenpeace and other critics say that the influence of a genetically engineered organism on the food chain may damage the local ecology. The new organism may compete successfully with wild relatives, causing unforeseen changes in the environment.

Once genetically engineered organisms are released into the environment, critics point out, it is not possible to contain or recall them, and whatever effects they have are irreversible.

27 July 2006

Farmers use as much pesticide with GM crops, US study finds

The Independent, 27 July 2006. By Steve Connor, Science Editor.

One of the major arguments in favour of growing GM crops has been undermined by a study showing that the benefits are short-lived because farmers quickly resort to spraying their fields with harmful pesticides.

Supporters of genetically modified crops claim the technique saves money and provides environmental benefits because farmers need to spray their fields fewer times with chemicals.

However, a detailed survey of 481 cotton growers in China found that, although they did use fewer pesticides in the first few years of adopting GM plants, after seven years they had to use just as much pesticide as they did with conventional crops.

The study found that after three years, the GM farmers had cut pesticide use by 70 per cent and were earning over a third more than conventional farmers.

But, by 2004, the GM cotton farmers were using just as much pesticide as their conventional counterparts and were spending far more because GM cotton seed is three times the price of conventional cotton seed.

The findings will undermine claims by the biotechnology industry that GM technology can boost food production without necessarily damaging the environment with pesticides.

Scientists from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, carried out the study which involved interviews with hundreds of Chinese farmers who had switched to cotton that had been genetically modified with a gene for a bacterial toxin.

The toxin - known as Bt - is secreted by the GM cotton plant and is highly effective at stopping the growth of bollworm, a major pest of the crop that can cause millions of pounds worth of damage.

Major cotton producers, the United States, China, India and Argentina, quickly adopted Bt cotton after it was introduced in 1996 by Monsanto, the American biotechnology company.

Today, more than a third of the global cultivation of cotton is accounted for by Bt cotton, ranging from 42.8 million hectares in the United States to 3.7 million hectares in China.

Before the introduction of the GM crop into China, farmers in the country had to spray on average 20 times each growing season to control bollworm but, with Bt cotton, the average number of treatments fell to below seven.

The amount of pesticide also fell by 43.3kg per hectare in 1999, which was a decrease of about 71 per cent on previous years.

However, Professor Per Pinstrup-Andersen and his colleagues at Cornell found that all those benefits have since been largely lost due to the rise of other pests that were not considered a problem for cotton.

"Using a household survey from 2004, seven years after the initial commercialisation of Bt cotton in China, we show that total pesticide expenditure for Bt cotton farmers in China is nearly equal to that of their conventional counterparts," the scientists say in their report.

"Bt farmers in 2004 on the average have to spray pesticide 18.22 times, which is more than three times higher compared with 1999.

"Detailed information on pesticide expenditures reveals that, though Bt farmers saved 46 per cent of bollworm pesticide relative to non-Bt farmers, they spend 40 per cent more on pesticides designed to kill an emerging secondary pest," they say.

Secondary pests, such as a type of leaf bug called mirids, are not normally a problem in cotton fields because bollworm, and sprays against bollworm, tend to keep them in check.

However, because Bt cotton is targeted mainly against bollworm, other pests are able to exploit the relatively low use of pesticide that such fields need.

"These results should send a very strong signal to researchers and governments that they need to come up with remedial actions for the Bt-cotton farmers, otherwise these farmers will stop using Bt cotton and that would be very unfortunate," Professor Pinstrup-Andersen said.

26 July 2006

Tarnishing Silver Bullets: Bt Technology Adoption, Bounded Rationality and the Outbreak of Secondary Pest Infestations in China

Excerpt from study by Cornell University, USA: "Seven years after the initial commercialization of Bt cotton in China, we show that total pesticide expenditure for Bt cotton farmers in China is nearly equal to that of their conventional counterparts, about $101 per hectare. Bt farmers in 2004 on the average, have to spray pesticide 18.22 times, which are more than 3 times higher compared with 6 times pesticide spray in 1999. Detailed information on pesticide expenditures reveals that, though Bt farmers saved 46% Bollworm pesticide relative to non-Bt farmers, they spend 40% more on pesticides designed to kill an emerging secondary pest. These secondary pests (one example is Mirid) was rarely found in the field prior to the adoption of Bt cotton, presumably kept in check by bollworm populations and regular pesticide spraying. The extra expenditure needed to control secondary pests nearly offsets the savings on primary pesticide frequently cited in the current literature."

Read the study: http://www.grain.org/research/btcotton.cfm?links

Chinese Farmers of Genetically Modified Cotton Are Losing Money
Bt cotton in China fails to reap profit after seven years
because secondary pests emerge and require lots of pesticides, three Cornell researchers find.

Newswise, 26 July 2006.

Although Chinese cotton growers were among the first farmers worldwide to plant genetically modified (GM) cotton to resist bollworms, the substantial profits they have reaped for several years by saving on pesticides have now been eroded.

The reason, as reported by Cornell University researchers at the American Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA) Annual Meeting in Long Beach, Calif., July 25, is that other pests are now attacking the GM cotton.

The GM crop is known as Bt cotton, shorthand for the Bacillus thuringiensis gene inserted into the seeds to produce toxins. But these toxins are lethal only to leaf-eating bollworms. After seven years, populations of other insects -- such as mirids -- have increased so much that farmers are now having to spray their crops up to 20 times a growing season to control them, according to the study of 481 Chinese farmers in five major cotton-producing provinces.

"These results should send a very strong signal to researchers and governments that they need to come up with remedial actions for the Bt-cotton farmers. Otherwise, these farmers will stop using Bt cotton, and that would be very unfortunate," said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, the H.E. Babcock Professor of Food, Nutrition and Public Policy at Cornell, and the 2001 Food Prize laureate. Bt cotton, he said, can help reduce poverty and undernourishment problems in developing countries if properly used.

The study -- the first to look at the longer-term economic impact of Bt cotton -- found that by year three, farmers in the survey who had planted Bt cotton cut pesticide use by more than 70 percent and had earnings 36 percent higher than farmers planting conventional cotton. By 2004, however, they had to spray just as much as conventional farmers, which resulted in a net average income of 8 percent less than conventional cotton farmers because Bt seed is triple the cost of conventional seed.

In addition to Pinstrup-Andersen, the study was conducted by Shenghui Wang, Cornell Ph.D. '06 and now an economist at the World Bank, and Cornell professor David R. Just. They stress that secondary pest problems could become a major threat in countries where Bt cotton has been widely planted.

"Because of its touted efficiency, four major cotton-growing countries were quick to adopt Bt cotton: the U.S., China, India and Argentina," said Wang. Bt cotton accounts for 35 percent of cotton production worldwide. In China, more than 5 million farmers have planted Bt cotton; it is also widely planted in Mexico and South Africa.

When U.S. farmers plant Bt crops, they, unlike farmers in China, are required by contracts with seed producers to plant a refuge, a field of non-Bt crops, to maintain a bollworm population nearby to help prevent the pest from developing resistance to the Bt cotton. The pesticides used in these refuge fields help control secondary pest populations on the nearby Bt cotton fields. Researchers do not yet know if a secondary pest problem will emerge in the United States and other countries, Pinstrup-Andersen said.

"The problem in China is not due to the bollworm developing resistance to Bt cotton -- as some researchers have feared -- but is due to secondary pests that are not targeted by the Bt cotton and which previously have been controlled by the broad-spectrum pesticides used to control bollworms," added Pinstrup-Andersen, who also is serving as president of AAEA for 2007.

Wang and her co-authors conclude, "Research is urgently needed to develop and test solutions."

These include introducing natural predators to kill the secondary pests, developing Bt cotton that resists the secondary pests or enforcing the planting of refuge areas where broad-spectrum pesticides are used.

This study was jointly conducted by the Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy, Chinese Academy of Science and Cornell.

French court orders Greenpeace to withdraw GMO map

Reuters, 26 July 2006.

Paris - A French court on Wednesday ordered Greenpeace to withdraw from its Web site information pinpointing fields of genetically modified (GMO) maize, a move the environmental group called censorship.

Ruling on a complaint filed by two farmers who feared their commercial GMO maize fields may be attacked after details were published on Greenpeace France's Web site, the Paris court said the group had violated the farmers' privacy and ordered the map to be removed.

Greenpeace said it would likely appeal the ruling. In the meantime, the maps may be moved to another Web site managed by Greenpeace International.

"We are considering other means to inform the public on where GMO fields are located," Arnaud Apoteker, head of Greenpeace France's GMO unit, told Reuters.

"So it's almost certain that we will put the map on another Greenpeace Web site," he said.

France is home to a large and vocal anti-GMO lobby and around half of all GMO test fields are destroyed each year. Greenpeace published the fields' location in June, the day after a French court sentenced an anti-GMO activist to two months jail for destroying GMO fields in 2004 and 2005.

GMO maize (corn) seeds were sown on around 5,000 hectares of French land for commercial sale this season, 10 times the area sown in 2005. Several biotech companies, including U.S. giant Monsanto, also carry out GMO experiments in open fields.

Under French law only the location of open-field experiments must be made public.

Greenpeace pointed to an EU law dating from 2001, not yet adopted into French legislation, requiring the location of all GMO fields, including commercial growing, to be made public.

25 July 2006

Call for Donegal to become GMO-free zone

Community discussion on Tory Island
The Future of Food film screening at Inishowen Summer Gathering
GM salmon would destroy native fisheries
Warning on contamination from Northern Ireland

GM-free Ireland press release, 22 July 2006.

As the most remote inhabited island 12 km off the coast of Ireland, who would think that Tory Island in Co. Donegal could be contaminated by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This could easily happen if patented genetically modified (GM) salmon - currently being developed in the USA and Canada ‚ escape into the Atlantic [1].

And if Tony Blair and Bertie have their way, GM seeds and crops will soon be released in Britain and Ireland [2]. These would inevitably cross-contaminate conventional and organic crops by seed dispersal and wind-borne pollen, and unleash a plague of GM "superweeds" that will rapidly spread across farm land, national parks, golf courses, graveyards and lawns on both sides of the border. Once released into the sea or on land, GMOs are impossible to recall [3].

Because GM fish and crops are patented, contaminated farmers lose ownership of their crops and are required to pay annual patent fees or face patent infringement lawsuits from transnational corporate patent owners like Monsanto, which are rapidly buying up and patenting the world's agricultural seed supply. Whoever controls the seeds controls the food [4].

Contaminated farmers will also lose market share, because there is no market for GM food in Europe. Food containing 0.9% of GM ingredients must carry a GM label, but GM-labelled food is banned by the 60 largest food brands and food retailers in the EU because over 70% of European consumers refuse it.

Genetically modified organisms are made by inserting genetic material from other species. Most GM crops contain DNA from a virus and a bacterium, together with DNA from an animal or plant. GMOs include potatoes with spider DNA, tomatoes with fish DNA, and pigs with human DNA. Such genetic mixtures cannot occur in nature. They are genetically unstable and lead to crop failures, reduced yields, and increased use of toxic chemicals [5].

There is now growing scientific evidence of deaths and disease attributable to GM food and animal feed in laboratory animals, livestock and the human population [6].

Community discussions in Inishowen and Tory Island

Michael O'Callaghan, who co-ordinates the GM-free Ireland Network, and John Brennan, Chair of the Western Organic Network, have invited the people of Donegal to discuss the threat of GM fish and crops at the Inishowen Summer Gathering in Caratra, near Culdaff, at 7pm this evening (Saturday) and at the Ost·n ThoraÌ hotel on Tory Island at 8pm next Tuesday, 25 July.

The discussion on Tory will be preceded by a screening of the documentary film, The Future of Food, directed by Deborah Koons Garcia (widow of the late musician Gerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead). [7]

Speaking at the Green Ireland Conference in Kilkenny Castle in June, Ms Garcia said "If people have the choice to eat a genetically engineered potato or one which they grew or their neighbour grew, they're all going to choose the one they grew or their neighbour grew. That's just a human thing: it's our instinct to want healthy food. This is something you should think about in Ireland. Now is the time, because if we don't make these decisions now, and demand that we have the kind of future that we want, in the next five or ten years we're going to find ourselves living in a very different environment ‚ and it will be too late, we will be too far down that road to change." [8]

According to Percy Schmeiser, a farmer and former Member of the Canadian Parliament who also spoke at the Green Ireland Conference, "GMO trout from an experimental fish farm in Canada have already escaped into a river that flows into Hudson Bay, which connects with the Atlantic Ocean. Nobody knows how soon escaped GM trout or salmon from our side of the Atlantic could show up in Irish waters." Mr Schmeiser faced a million dollar patent infringement lawsuit from Monsanto after his fields became contaminated by GMO rapeseed. [9]

John Brennan, who is also the Manager of the Leitrim Organic Farmers Coop, said the introduction of GM fish and crops would destroy Bord Bia's branding of Ireland ó the food island. "The threat of GMOs affects all farmers and fishermen, whether they are conventional or organic. Ireland's organic farming industry would be forced to shut down, because organic certification prohibits all GM ingredients, and conventional farmers would also face massive economic losses. The introduction of GMOs would also have a devastating impacts on food producers, restaurants, hotels and the whole ecotourism sector including the Greenbox area which includes parts of South Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Cavan and Monaghan." [10]

Michael O'Callaghan's roots are in Inishowen. His paternal grandfather of the same name was an engineer who built the railroad extension from Letterkenny to Burtonport to carry Donegal fish all the way to London. His maternal grandfather, Senator Joe O'Doherty, represented the people of Donegal in the First D·il. "That generation went through a difficult struggle for Ireland to become independent" he said, "but if we allow GM fish and crops on this island, we will face an new type of corporate colonialism that will last for ever this time, since it is impossible to recall GMOs once they have been released into the open."

Michael O'Callaghan and John Brennan will urge Donegal County Council to take pre-emptive action by declaring Donegal a GMO-free zone [11]. Counties Cavan, Clare, Fermanagh, Kerry, Meath, Monaghan, Roscommon and Westmeath now prohibit genetically modified (GM) seeds and crops, as do the local authorities of Bantry, Bray, Derry, Galway City, Navan, Newry, Mourne, and Clonakilty. Over 1,000 smaller local areas have also declared themselves to be GMO-free [12].

The campaign to keep Ireland GMO-free is supported by a growing number of Senators and TDs from all the political parties in the Republic. An online petition is available at www.gmfreeireland.org/action.

Photo opportunities

This Saturday 21 July, 7pm:
Inishowen Summer Gathering, Caratra, Culdaff, Inishowen, Co. Donegal
Call for Donegal to declare itself a GMO-free zone
Speakers: Michael O'Callaghan (GM-free Ireland) and John Brennan (Western Organic Network)

Next Tuesday 25 July, 8pm:
Ostán Thoraí, Tory Island, Co. Donegal
Community discussion and screening of the film "The Future of Food".
Speakers: Michael O'Callaghan (GM-free Ireland) and John Brennan (Western Organic Network)

Contact

Michael O'Callaghan, Coordinator, GM-free Ireland Network ï 087 799 4761

John Brennan, Chair, Western Organic Network ï 087 270 3603

Nptes

1. GM fish

Over thirty-five species of transgenic fish are currently being developed around the world. At least one company, Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc, in Massachussets, USA, is presently requesting approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market transgenic salmon which they claim can grow 10 to 30 times faster than normal salmon. Other GM fish include Arctic charr, trout, tilapia, turbot, and halibut.

According the the US Center for Food Safety, "The release of genetically engineered fish can cause potentially devastating environmental and human health impacts. A 2001 National Academy of Sciences report states that the release of genetically engineered fish into the environment may threaten the survival of wild species. Furthermore, a 2004 Purdue University research study contains new experimental data that strengthens the plausibility of the ëTrojan gene' effect first demonstrated in a 1998 study. By incorporating more biological data into a population model, researchers showed that growth-enhanced genetically engineered fish could lead to the extinction or replacement of wild fish populations.

As with the growing of non-native fish, the use and sale of genetically engineered fish in offshore and ornamental aquaculture facilities poses serious threats to the diversity and well being of native fish."

Transgenic fish are opposed worldwide by fishermen, fish retailers, chefs, leading restaurants and consumers. In the USA, a campaign called "Protect Our Waters from Genetically Engineered Fish" asked US grocery store chains, fish distributors, and restaurants to support the petitioners' call for a moratorium on the approval of GM fish and to pledge that they will not buy or sell GM fish should the FDA allow them on the market.

For more information on the threat of GM fish, visit the GM-free Ireland web site section on GM fish at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/fish.

See also the US Center for Food Safety at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/geneticall3.cfm.

2. On 20 July 2006, the UK Government published proposals to allow widespread GM contamination in the British countryside. The Daily Telegraph described the plan to grow GM crops in secret locations as "irresponsible."

In 1997 Fianna Fáil pledged never to allow GM food and crops in Ireland, but made a policy U-turn after Bertie Ahern was lobbied to do so by then US National Security Adviser Sandy Berger at the White House on St. Patrick's Day 1998. Since then, the Irish Government has never voted against the legalisation of GM food and crops in the European Council of Ministers, and is now in the final stage of developing a National Strategy "to ensure the co-existence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming".

For more information, see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/coexistence/.

3. For more information on GM food and faming, visit the GM-free Ireland web site at http://www.gmfreeireland.org.

4. See Green Ireland Conference speech by Percy Schmeiser at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/P.Schmeiser.pdf.

and speech by Vandana Shiva at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/V.shiva.pdf.

5. See http://www.gmfreeireland.org/crops/.

6. See http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/.

7. See http://www.thefutureoffood.com. "The Future of Food" is an award-winning documentary that provides an in-depth look at the genetically modified foods controversy. Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, the film examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world's food system through patented GM crops which invade conventional and organic crops and require contaminated farmers to pay annual patent royalties or face patent-infringement lawsuits. The film explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agribusiness, placing organic and sustainable agriculture as solutions to the global farm crisis. Produced by Deborah Koons Garcia. 90 minutes. You can order the DVD for € 25 from GM-free Ireland on (0404) 43 885.

8. See http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/D.KoonsGarcia.pdf

9. See Green Ireland Conference speech by Percy Schmeiser at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/P.Schmeiser.pdf. 10. For information on the Greenbox integrated eccotourism scheme see http://www.greenbox.ie.

11. The Irish and UK governments still do not recognise the democratic legal right of local authorities to prohibit GM seeds and crops. But eight European countries have total or near total bans on GMOs, as do 175 regional governments, 3,500 local authorities and 1,000 smaller areas across 22 EU member states. For details visit the GMO-free Europe web site at http://www.gmofree-europe.org

Irish and Northern Irish Local Authorities wishing to declare themselves a GMO-free zone should pass a Motion to:

(a) prohibit the cultivation of GMO seeds, crops, trees, insects, crustaceans, fish, poultry and livestock in its area;

(b) exclude Local Authority funding for the procurement of food containing GM ingredients in schools, hospitals, nursing homes, canteens etc.; and

(c) prohibit the transportation, storage, or use of live GMO seeds (including rape seed approved for animal feed), as well as any GM crops, trees, insects, crustaceans, fish, poultry and livestock on its land, water, and airspace.

12. See map of Irish GMO free zones at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/map.

21 July 2006

Anti-environment double whammy - David Miliband's 'green' credentials exposed

Soil association press release, 20 July 2006.

In an anti-environment double whammy, the Government has today (20 July) published proposals to allow widespread GM contamination in the British countryside, as well as failing to protect the public against the dangers of pesticides spraying.

The Government's latest proposals are in effect denying all consumers, organic or non-organic, the right to choose non-GM food. In addition, the Government has rejected key recommendations by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP), designed to protect the public from unnecessary risks of pesticides spraying. These two decisions combined give a first indication of just how 'green' Secretary of State for the Environment, David Miliband, really is.

Commenting on the Government's proposals for GM contamination, Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director said:

"If the Government sticks to this policy, part of the Prime Minister's legacy will be to leave a GM-contaminated country behind him. The Prime Minister is promoting a technology that is well past its sell-by date."

"Back in 1999, The Soil Association had a meeting with Tony Blair to discuss GM. He said that, because he was sure that GM food would become a major part of the British economy in a few years time, he had to be in favour of it, even if the British people were against. Since then, GM crops have contributed nothing to the UK economy. More and more scientific evidence of the risk to human health posed by genetic engineering has emerged. The British people have overwhelmingly rejected GM food. It is clear that GMOs have no part to play in the future of British food and farming."

Commenting on the Government's latest failure to protect the public from pesticide spraying, Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director said:

"It is a scandal that the Government has ignored the clear advice of the RCEP to take a 'more precautionary approach' to pesticide use, as well as the very modest recommendation for the introduction of no-spray 'buffer zones alongside residential property and other buildings such as schools, hospitals and retirement homes where people may be adversely affected by crop spray'."

"If the Government won't look after people's health by acting on the best scientific advice they have, the answer has to be a large-scale move to organic farming, and the end of all pesticide sprays in the British countryside."

A GM disaster for the UK?

In the United States, where GM crops are widely grown, the agricultural industry has lost almost all of its $300 million annual maize export market to Europe due to widespread GM contamination. It would be reckless to repeat this economic disaster here in the UK. The Government should listen to the British public and adopt a strong non-GM policy, including the strictest controls possible on GM contamination.

The Government and the National Farmers' Union are saying that the market will determine whether GM crops are actually grown. However, the reality is that only a few farmers around the country need to grow GM crops, such as for feeding to their own animals, for farmers and consumers everywhere to suffer from this new and unnecessary burden of contamination.

Organic food at risk of contamination

The Government recognises that the "introduction of GM crops should take due account of the needs of the organic sector." However, we are appalled that Defra is clearly not committed to protecting organic food from all GM contamination. Their strong preference is for the higher 0.9% limit - if they have their way, nearly 1 in a 100 mouthfuls of organic food could actually be GM. We therefore urge the public to respond to this consultation in support of a lower limit, and asserting their right to choose GM-free organic food by demanding that the GM contamination limit for organic food should be 0.1%.

It is outrageous that the market for organic food - which has strong public support and is growing at 30% a year - is being threatened by the Government's proposals to allow GM contamination. The Soil Association believes that there should be no GM in organic food and we will work to ensure that Soil Association certified organic food remains GM-free.

The Soil Association welcomes the fact that Defra recognises that the costs of GM contamination should be "funded by the GM sector itself". Even with the strictest of controls, cases of contamination are inevitable and these will have economic impacts on organic and other non-GM farmers. The Soil Association believes that the economic cost for GM contamination should fall squarely with the GM industry and not on the shoulders of non-GM farmers and consumers and that a new statutory system will be needed to ensure that this happens.

ENDS

Notes to editors

Defra's Consultation on proposals for managing the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops in England, was published on 20 July 2006. Go to www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/gmnongm-coexist/index.htm

Also published today by Defra was The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report on crop spraying and the health of residents and bystanders - Government response. Go to www.defra.gov.uk/environment/rcep/index.htm

The original RCEP report, Crop Spraying and the Health of Residents and Bystanders, was published on 22 September 2005. Go to www.rcep.org.uk/cropspraying.htm

For media enquiries contact:

Gundula Azeez, Soil Association policy manager 07810 058 645 / gazeez@soilassociation.org

Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director 0117 987 4561 / pmelchett@soilassociation.org

Michael Green, Soil Association policy officer 0117 914 2433 / 07905 258 768 / mgreen@soilassociation.org

Plans to allow GM farming in secret 'are irresponsible'

The Daily Telegraph, 21 July 2006. By Charles Clover, Environment Editor.

GM crops could be grown in secret under Government plans announced yesterday.

The move was denounced as "irresponsible" by surveyors, who gave warning that it could blight land and property prices. Environmentalists said the proposed rules for "co-existence" between genetically modified and other crops would lead to widespread contamination of the countryside.

Government has rejected a GM land register

Farmers would only have to notify neighbouring farmers if they were growing GM crops within a separation distance that could be as little as 35 metres (38yd) for GM oil seed rape.

Farmers would be under no obligation to notify the owners of nearby gardens, allotments or beehives that they were growing GM varieties.

However, their neighbours could still find their produce contaminated by GM pollen, the effects of which can be measured over a kilometre (0.6 mile) away.

The Government said it had decided against a public register for the growers of GM crops because of the cost and burden it would place on farmers.

The rules it proposes will allow the contamination of neighbouring crops and honey up to the EU's legal threshold of 0.9 per cent of the crop - without any form of compensation. Environmentalists say that in Brazil non-GM crops have to conform to a threshold of 0.1 per cent, which farmers are able to do without difficulty.

The Government has made a number of proposals for compensating farmers who find they had been contaminated at more than 0.9 per cent by GM pollination. These do not go beyond the cost of the individual crop.

No GM crops suitable for UK conditions have been approved by the EU and it would take until 2009 for any to receive approval under its long-winded procedures. Ian Pearson, the environment minister, insisted yesterday that the Government was not for or against GM, and that proposals were "not a green light for GM crops".

The Royal Institution for Chartered Surveyors said it was "disappointed" that the Government did not support the introduction of a GM land register.

Damian Cleghorn, a RICS spokesman, said: "It is irresponsible of the Government not to introduce a land registry that would allow prospective purchasers of land and property to be warned about any possible issues relating to their transactions.

"A GM land register is in the public interest and it is the Government's responsibility to act in the public's interest." Lord Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, said: "The Government's latest proposals are, in effect, denying all consumers, organic or non-organic, the right to choose non-GM food."

Scientists at FDA tell of outside pressures

Bloomberg News, Fri, Jul. 21, By Justin Blum.

Scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration say they feel pressure to alter their work for nonscientific reasons and to provide misleading information, according to a survey released yesterday.

The FDA employees raised the concerns in an anonymous written survey conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The Cambridge, Mass.-based nonprofit group seeks to draw attention to what it sees as misuse of science and technology.

"There are big problems at the FDA, particularly regarding independent science," Francesca Grifo, director of the group's Scientific Integrity Program, said in a telephone interview.

The survey results echo public complaints from FDA scientists who say their findings were dismissed on drugs including Merck & Co.'s Vioxx painkiller and Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s morning-after contraceptive Plan B.

Merck pulled Vioxx from the market after a study linked the drug to a doubling of heart risks, and the FDA's former head of women's health resigned over an indefinite delay in a decision on making Plan B available without a prescription.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, which focuses on issues including the environment and the risks of genetically engineered crops, mailed surveys with 37 questions and an essay section to 5,918 FDA workers the group identified as scientists. Of those, 997 submitted responses, the organization said.

Agency spokeswoman Julie Zawisza said the survey was "highly unscientific, with a number of leading questions and innuendo."

"FDA would expect more rigor to support such far-reaching allegations and conclusions," Zawisza said.

Of the respondents, 15 percent said they had been asked, for nonscientific reasons, "to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or my conclusions in a FDA scientific document." The question did not specify who had asked.

In another question, 17 percent of respondents said they had been asked by FDA officials to "provide incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information to the public, regulated industry, media, or elected/senior government officials."

A statement that "FDA leadership is as committed to product safety as it is to bringing products to the market" prompted 37 percent to say they disagreed.

20 July 2006

UK Government GM consultation slammed
Government's GM 'coexistence' plans are a sham

Friends of the Earth UK Press Release, 20 July 2006

A Government consultation launched today, on how GM and non-GM crops can 'co-exist' in Britain, is a thinly disguised attempt to allow GM crops in through the back door, warned Friends of the Earth.

The public consultation [1] seeks views on what practical measures are needed to allow GM crops to 'coexist' with conventional and organic crops and who should pay when farmers suffer economic damage caused by GM contamination. But the crucial issue of how to ensure that non-GM crops are protected from GM contamination will not be asked, because the Government's consultation assumes that significant levels of GM contamination are acceptable.

The consultation is being carried out under EU rules whereby member states can put in place measures to prevent GM contamination of non-GM crops. But under European food labelling rules, accidental GM contamination of up to 0.9 per cent is allowed before foods have to be labelled as GM. The UK Government has taken this to mean that 0.9 per cent GM contamination in conventional, and potentially even in organic, crops is acceptable. [2] This approach has been criticised in a legal opinion from an expert in European law, as being "fundamentally flawed" and "wrong in law".

The consultation also questions whether public registers of GM crop locations will be necessary. Friends of the Earth believes that the public has a right to know full details of where GM crops are being grown, and public registers must be made mandatory.

Friends of the Earth's GM campaigner, Clare Oxborrow said: "This consultation is a complete sham. It highlights the lengths the Government will go to back the biotech industry and pave the way for GM crops to be grown in Britain. The only way biotech companies will be able to grow their crops on a large scale is to allow widespread GM contamination of conventional and organic crops. And this is exactly what the UK Government is preparing to do.

"The Government is cynically disregarding the millions of British consumers who have clearly said they want their food, farming and environment to stay GM-free. We urge the public to take part in this consultation and make it clear that GM-free should mean GM-free, and that Government plans to allow GM in through the back door are completely unacceptable."

Friends of the Earth says the Government should:

• Put in place strict rules aimed at preventing GM contamination of all non-GM crops, down to the limit of detection, currently 0.1 per cent;
• Introduce legislation to ensure that biotech companies are strictly liable for any damage to the environment and to farmers' livelihoods;
• Support the growing demand for local decision-making on GM crops. In the UK 60 local authorities have passed resolutions opposing GM crops in their areas, covering a population of 18.5 million people [3].

Although there are no GM crops being grown in the UK, either commercially or in outdoor trials, biotech companies have lodged 12 applications to grow GM crops in Europe, which, if approved, could be grown in the UK.

The deadline for responses to the consultation is 20 October 2006.

Notes

[1] http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/gmnongm-coexist/consultdoc.pdf.

[2] Page 10 of the consultation document (above) says:

"...any statutory coexistence measures must aim to minimise unwanted GM transfer into non-GM crops so that they do not exceed the EU 0.9% threshold."

"...The 0.9% figure is a level that food and feed supply chains should in general be able to observe with measures that do not impose an excessive burden. Coexistence can only work on the basis of a pragmatic threshold"

[3] The Government is consulting on:

• Options for practical measures which aim to keep GM contamination below the 0.9 per cent labelling threshold set by the EU.
• Whether a threshold below 0.9% should apply to organic production.
• Options for compensation to farmers if their crops are contaminated.
• Advice to farmers on setting up voluntary GM free zones.

DEFRA GM growing proposals condemned as charter for contamination

GM Freeze press release, 20 July 2006.

[The UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] DEFRA's long awaited proposals on the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops and economic liability [1] have been published today and have been condemned by GM Freeze because they would lead to GM contamination of every part of the food chain.

The consultation was first promised in 2004 following the GM-policy statement by Margaret Beckett [2].

GM Freeze director, Pete Riley, said

"The Government have failed to listen to the concerns of people and slavishly followed the guidelines set down by the pro-GM European Commission. They are based on a false premise that pollen movement is predictable and human errors won't occur. DEFRA's suggestion that a 35 metres separation distances GM oilseed rape is adequate beggars belief. In addition key issues like volunteer control are left to voluntary agreements with industry. The people to benefit from these proposals will be the biotech corporations - once again the Government prefers to listen to them rather than the people who buy and eat food".

DEFRA's consultation process begins today and lasts until 20th October 2006. GM Freeze and Friends of the Earth will be publishing a guide on how to respond shortly.

The choices offered by DEFRA do not include a GM-free option and assume that allowing a routine GM-contamination of crops up to 0.9% will not harm health or the environment or damage the markets for organic and non-GM products which are strong across the whole of Europe. At present food and feed with any ingredients above 0.9% GM has to be labelled. Below this level, labeling can only be avoided if companies can prove the GM presence is "adventitious or technically unavoidable".

An independent legal opinion released in 2004 [3] suggested that the EC's coexistence guidelines [4], on which the DEFRA proposals are based, were "'fundamentally flawed' (para. 55) and that the approaches of the Commission (and the UK Government in following the Recommendation) have 'no basis in Community legislation and are wrong in law' (para. 20).

DEFRA's proposals include:

• Proposals to deal with the issue either by voluntary agreements or through Statutory Instruments thus avoiding the requirement for full parliamentary scrutiny.
• Supports measures for non-GM crops to contain up to 0.9% as a result of cross pollination and still be not be labelled GM.
• Supports for a 0.9% GM contamination threshold for organic crops.
• Separation distances between GM and non-GM crops of a maximum 110 metres for maize when field data and evidence suggest significant pollination takes place at far greater distances [5]. For oilseed rape the distance proposed is a mere 35 metres.
• No clear proposal for handling liability claims for contamination.

GM Freeze analysis highlights the key omissions:

• Fails to prevent contamination of growing crops including organic.
• Fails to allow for contamination from other sources such as seeds and post harvest contamination meaning that retailers and manufacturers will find it difficult to meet 0.9% labelling threshold.
• Ignores key evidence on pollination distances.
• Fails to present coherent proposals on establishing GM-free areas.
• No commitment to make biotech companies strictly liable for economic harm caused by GM contamination.
• Fails to protect the environment from the impacts of low level GM contamination.
• Fails to protect seed purity by supporting EC 0.3-0.5% thresholds.
• Fails to deal with the impact of GM crops on beekeepers and honey quality.
• Voluntary approaches to dealing with key issues such as crop volunteers and cleaning equipment.
• No protection for honey or beekeepers.
• No protection for farm saved seeds.
• No protection for gardeners or allotment holders.
• No clear proposals for dealing with liability for crop contamination and loss of income or sales.
• Suggests a possible voluntary approach to deal with liability for contamination.
• Damage to reputation caused by contaminated crops is dismissed.
• No register of GM growing sites in advance of planting.

Summing up the reaction of GM Freeze, Pete Riley said:

"The UK has the power to make the rules governing GM crop growing tough enough to prevent contamination. The proposals issued today clearly show that they do not have the stomach to do so despite public support for such a move. They use claims of "sound science" to justify their policy and then ignore evidence which doesn't back it up. If these proposals are adopted then GM contamination will creep ever upwards and permeate all parts of the food chain in a short period of time. We urge any one who cares about the countryside and the integrity of their food to pick up their pens and tell DEFRA and their MPs exactly what they think about this charter for GM contamination".

ENDS

Calls: Carrie Stebbings 0207 837 0642 Pete Riley 07903 341 065.

NOTES

1. DEFRA's consultation paper and press release http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/gmnongm-coexist/consultdoc.pdf and http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2006/060720a.htm.

2. GM policy statement by Margaret Beckett March 2004 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/crops/index.htm#Policy

3. Summary of Advice of Paul Lasok in relation to Coexistence, Traceability and Labelling March 2005 for Friends of the Earth (EWNI), The Soil Association, Greenpeace, Which?, GeneWatch UK and GM Freeze

Co-existence

European legislation gives Member States the power to introduce co-existence measures1. The power is very broadly described, allowing member states to take "appropriate measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products".

In July 2003 the European Commission issued a RecommendationÇ2 which gave the Commission's views on how member states should use that power. Although not having force of law the Recommendation is important because it sets out the Commission's thinking and because it is being relied on by Member States throughout Europe, including the UK, in drawing up their co-existence strategies. The Recommendation tried significantly to narrow the power given to Member States. In particular, the Commission stated that:

1. Member States are not allowed to take into account environmental and human health matters in preparing their co-existence measures. The only issues allowed to be dealt with in coexistence measures are economic issuesÇ. This is because the Commission believes that environmental and health matters are already fully addressed during the consent process for each crop;

2. Member States are not allowed to make their co-existence measures stricter than is necessary to keep contamination below 0.9%. This is because 0.9% is the level of contamination at which products must be labelled as containing GMOs.

Paul Lasok QC looked at the arguments and concluded that:

The Recommendation is fundamentally flawedÇ (para. 55) and that the approaches of the Commission (and the UK Government in following the Recommendation) have no basis in Community legislation and are wrong in lawÇ (para. 20). In particular:

a. The labelling thresholds (0.9%) are legally irrelevantÇ to deciding how to implement co-existence measures (para. 25, 26).

b. The objectives of coexistence must not be restricted to economic issuesÇ only. Member States must have regard to the aims of protecting human health and the environment in adopting any coexistence measures. (para. 38)

c. Any co-existence measures that were based on the labelling threshold of 0.9% would make it extremely difficult for operators to avoid labelling their products as containing GMOs even where their products contained GMOs at less than 0.9%. (para. 42-45)

d. The Organic Regulation provides that, in order to be labelled or referred to as organic, a product must not contain GMOs in any quantity. If co-existence measures were to operate to a "baseline norm" (such as the 0.9% labelling thresholds) there is a very real risk that the "organic" label could become defunct" (para 52).

Full opinion at http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/legal_opinion_in_the_matte.pdf.

1 Art. 26a of Directive 2001/18.

2 2003/556/EC dated 23 July 2003, Commission Recommendation on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.

4. 2003/556/EC dated 23 July 2003, Commission Recommendation on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming

5. See http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/gm_contamination.pdf and http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/impossible-coexistence.pdf.

FDA Scientists Pressured to Exclude, Alter Findings;
Scientists Fear Retaliation for Voicing Safety Concerns.
Public Health and Safety Will Suffer without Leadership from FDA and Congress

Union of Concerned Scientists press release, 20 July 2006.

WASHINGTON, DC - The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today released survey results that demonstrate pervasive and dangerous political influence of science at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Of the 997 FDA scientists who responded to the survey, nearly one-fifth (18.4 percent) said that they "have been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or their conclusions in a FDA scientific document." This is the third survey UCS has conducted to examine inappropriate interference with science at federal agencies.

"Science must be the driving force for decisions made at the FDA. These disturbing survey results make it clear that inappropriate interference is putting people in harm's way," said Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Director of UCS's Scientific Integrity Program. "FDA leaders should act now to improve transparency and accountability and renew respect for independent science at the agency."

The UCS survey, which was co-sponsored by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, was sent to 5,918 FDA scientists. Forty percent of respondents fear retaliation for voicing safety concerns in public. This fear, scientists say, combines with other pressures to compromise the agency's ability to protect public health and safety. More than a third of the respondents did not feel they could express safety concerns even inside the agency.

"This is more than just a bureaucratic problem within the agency," said Kim Witczak, WoodyMatters.com, who lost her husband due to side effects of a dangerous anti-depressant.

"It has real human impacts which can be devastating. My husband paid the ultimate price for FDA's lack of accountability."

The survey also revealed other compelling points of concern:

61 percent of the respondents knew of cases where "Department of Health and Human Services or FDA political appointees have inappropriately injected themselves into FDA determinations or actions."

Only 47 percent think the "FDA routinely provides complete and accurate information to the public."

81 percent agreed that the "public would be better served if the independence and authority of FDA post-market safety systems were strengthened."

70 percent disagree with the statement that FDA has sufficient resources to perform effectively its mission of "protecting public healthðand helping to get accurate science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health."

"The FDA regulates products vital to the well-being of all Americans, including food, drugs, vaccines, and medical devices," said Dr. Grifo. "To fully protect public health and safety, the FDA must have the best available independent scientific data."

To address the concerns raised by FDA scientists, UCS recommends:

• Accountability: FDA leadership must face consequences if they side with commercial or political interests and not with the American people.

• Transparency: Scientific research and reviews should be open so any undue manipulation is immediately apparent.

• Protection: Safeguards must be put in place for all government scientists who speak out.

"What we see at the FDA, while dramatic and frightening, is all too common at many federal agencies," said Dr. Grifo. "All federal scientists need protections so they can speak out when their science is manipulated, and all federal agencies need fully functioning independent advisory committees. FDA leadership must understand and support independent science and it is up to Congress to hold them accountable."

18 July 2006

European Commission guilty of wrongly concealing GMO documents says Ombudsman.
Friends of the Earth Europe win their argument that WTO disputes are not court cases.

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 18th July 2006.

Brussels, 18 July 2006 - The European Commission has been ruled guilty of "maladministration" after hiding documents from Friends of the Earth Europe that reveal scientific concerns about the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods. The Commission falsely used the premise that World Trade Organisation (WTO) disputes should involve the secrecy levels of court cases.

The official ruling, of "maladministration" was announced by the European Ombudsman on their website last night.[1] The documents concerned related to the European Communities dispute at the WTO, in which the US, Argentina and Canada claimed that Europe's precautionary approach on GM foods was a barrier to trade.[2]

Adrian Bebb, GMO foods campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said, "Genetically modified foods are a sensitive issue in Europe - most people are totally against them. Keeping papers that discuss their safety secret is a disservice to the public."

"What we now know is that whilst the European Commission has been telling us for years that biotech foods are safe, they were arguing behind closed doors that there are legitimate scientific concerns that warrant a more precautionary approach," Mr Bebbb added.

The European Commission initially refused to release papers to Friends of the Earth Europe in August 2004, citing that the dispute in the WTO had to be "assimilated" to court proceedings and that the publication of the papers would have damaged their case. The Ombudsman rejected this argument as "not well founded, and hence amounted to an instance of maladministration." Friends of the Earth Europe argued that the WTO is not a court as disputes are ruled by trade experts who are usually chosen by the parties involved, and not judges. Unlike a court, a WTO dispute is agreed by all 148 member countries and parties can comment on the draft final ruling.

Sonja Meister, Trade Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said, "This is a welcome ruling by the European Ombudsman. There is a culture of secrecy running through the European Commission and the public and groups like Friends of the Earth must fight for every piece of paper to be made public. The Commission can no longer hide behind organisations like the World Trade Organisation but needs to become an open and more transparent body."

The European Commission eventually released the documents in question in February 2005. The papers outlined scientific concerns about the long term safety of GM foods and crops. Further papers, also released to Friends of the Earth Europe earlier this year, outlined these concerns in more detail, warning that cancer and allergies caused by eating GM foods cannot be ruled out and recommending that GM crops should not be grown until their long-term effects are known. [3]

The WTO has issued a final verdict in the US/European Communities dispute over GM foods but it has not yet been made public. An earlier draft leaked to Friends of the Earth Europe, showed that the WTO was critical of the method used by European countries to ban GM foods but ruled against most of the US's arguments.

For more information, please contact:

Adrian Bebb, GMO Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe: Tel: +49 80 25 99 19 51, Mobile: +49 1609 490 1163, Email: adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org

Sonja Meister, Trade Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe: Tel: +32 25 42 6100, Mobile: +32 484 975 107, Email: sonja.meister@foeeurope.org

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

Notes

[1] http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/decision/en/050582.htm

[2] In May 2003 the United States, together with Canada and Argentina, made a formal complaint to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) about Europe's stance on GM foods.

[3] See Hidden Uncertaintieshttp://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/joint_18_April_GMOs.htm

[4] Friends of the Earth coordinates an international campaign against the WTO dispute called "Bite-back - WTO: Hands off our food!" - which is supported by 750 organisations representing some 60 million people (see www.bite-back.org).

17 July 2006

GM foods pose threat to health, environment
Speakers tell dialogue

Daily Star (Bangladesh), July 17 2006.

A group of environmentalists and NGO activists yesterday expressed concern over gradual introduction of Genetically Modified (GM) foods in the country, saying that such foods are harmful to human health and environment and a means to marginalise the small farmers.

Some companies and NGOs are trying to promote GM foods, which pose a threat to biosafety, but the government has no policy in this regard, they said at a dialogue on 'Genetic Engineering in Food and Agriculture: Threat to Farmers and Human Health'.

Jagrata Juba Shangha (JJS) and ActionAid Bangladesh in association with Food Security Network and the European Commission organised the dialogue at Civic Inn in the city.

Farida Akter, executive director of Ubinig, said the USAID-supported Biotech Activities is trying to promote fruit and shoot borer-resistant eggplant, late blight-resistant potato and drought- and salinity-tolerant rice, while GM papaya is also on the list of import.

"This is very alarming both for the agriculture and human health," she said in her presentation citing a number of examples where such foods have negative impacts.

Biotech industry claims that GM crops have higher yields, but in reality they have a lower yield or at best the same yield as non-GM crops, she said.

The industry's claim that GM crops need less pesticides has also been proved false, Farida Akhter said, adding that intensification of such crops increases possibility of monocultures, which is true for Argentina. The country used to be a granary of the world, but now it has soy monocultures and has become the exporter of oil feed for cattle in Europe and Asia, she said.

Quoting from a publication, GM Contamination Report, she said 39 countries are known to have been affected by an incident of GM contamination, illegal planting or adverse agricultural side-affects since 1996.

Centre for Sustainable Development (CFSD) Secretary General Mahfuzullah said the claim that GM crops will meet the increasing demand for food worldwide is not true. "There will always be hunger, because it is not related to food production but to politics. Bangladesh has become self-reliant on food production, but 40 percent of people still could not afford more than two square meals a day."

The farmers and the traditional cultivation system will be destroyed due to the dominance of profit-driven multinational companies trying to promote GM foods, he noted.

Pieter Jansen of Both Ends, a Netherlands-based environment organisation, said that there can be co-existence of GM, traditional and organic crops as is there in the European Union, but that requires national legislation if it is to be applied in any other countries.

JJS Executive Director ATM Zakir Hossain and ActionAid's interim Country Director Shoyeb Siddique also spoke at the dialogue moderated by Syeda Rizwana Hasan, director of Bangladesh Environment Lawyers' Association.

Use of altered rice to grow two proteins stirs uproar

The Mercury News, Monday, July 17, 2006, By Rick Vecchio

LIMA, Peru - It should have been a triumphant moment for Dr. Nelly Zavaleta when many of the diarrhea-stricken babies she treated with an experimental U.S. drug got better more quickly than expected.

Instead, one of Peru's top scientists finds herself a target of a criminal investigation, a professional ethics complaint and at the center of a global debate over food crops genetically engineered with human genes to produce drugs.

Zavaleta gave the babies an anti-diarrheal derived from rice genetically engineered to produce two key proteins in mother's milk. Last month, the International Academy of Life Sciences, a Germany-based biopharming advocate, hailed her research as a "revolutionary development."

Zavaleta's yearlong study at the Institute of Nutritional Investigation found that out of 140 babies hospitalized with serious diarrhea attacks, those given the proteins added to a standard rehydration solution recovered quicker -- 3.67 days vs. 5.21 days.

The outcome is impressive, especially considering that diarrhea kills about 2 million children under age 5 every year. In Peru, it claims the lives of more than 7,000 children annually.

The experimental medicine administered by Zavaleta is made by Sacramento biotechnology company Ventria Biosciences, which has amassed a large number of critics who complain it is recklessly developing a technology that threatens the safety of conventional food crops.

Many U.S. opponents, including conventional rice farmers, fear genetically engineered rice will inadvertently mix with their crops and cause them economic harm.

"It's not even just real contamination," said Rebecca Spector of the Center for Food Safety, which opposes biotechnology in agriculture. "It's also the threat of the contamination that could cause farmers to lose their markets."

Rice interests in California drove Ventria's experimental work out of the state in 2004, after Japanese customers said they wouldn't buy the rice if Ventria were allowed to set up shop.

To date, not one biopharmed drug has come close to market approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

That hasn't stopped U.S. biopharming companies from conducting clinical human trials of treatments grown in tobacco, corn and duckweed to fight everything from cancer and hepatitis C to cavities.

Ventria has defied the intense opposition, plowing ahead in North Carolina with cultivation of genetically altered rice, spliced to produce the human mother's milk proteins.

Those proteins -- lactoferrin and lysozyme -- help people hydrate and lessen the severity and duration of diarrhea attacks, Peru's second-biggest killer of children under 5 and a scourge throughout the developing world.

Zavaleta's troubles don't stem from the controversy over whether food crops should be used to make medicines. They are the result, instead, of accusations she endangered her young patients' health.

The accuser is Dr. Herberth Cuba. A gynecologist, Cuba runs the small but vocal non-profit Peruvian Medical Association, which claims without foundation to represent all Peru's licensed physicians.

Cuba complained to prosecutors that Zavaleta's experiments, in two public hospitals, were dangerous because they used ``transgenetic products that haven't been approved in any nation, not even in the country of origin, the United States.''

Peru was chosen for the study, he said, because it is a poor developing nation with lax enforcement of laws that Cuba insists strictly prohibit any medical experiments on children, with violations punishable by up to four years in prison.

Dr. Luis Bromley, chief of forensic investigations in Peru's attorney general's office, called Cuba's interpretation of the law wrong. Clinical trials involving children are permitted with informed parental consent and a lengthy approval process, he said.

Zavaleta maintains she adhered to all the requirements.

"All steps were followed with the ethics committees, with the approvals, with the parental consent," she said.

Dr. Justo Padilla, director of investigation at Peru's state-run Specialized Institute of Children's Health, which oversaw Zavaleta's research, said three independent scientific groups validated the research's safety before the trial began in August 2004. Among them were the Investigational Review Board at the University of California-Davis and a nine-member Peruvian ethics committee.

Zavaleta's supporters lament how Cuba's complaint has hurt what they consider important, judicious research.

The treatment she administered could potentially put a huge dent in a chronic cycle of health problems associated with diarrhea, they believe, including malnutrition, infection, pneumonia and anemia, suffered by millions of children.

"It makes great political grist that foreigners are coming in and using genetically engineered materials on Peruvian children. That sounds pretty scary,'' said Dr. William Greenough III, a Johns Hopkins University professor and expert in pediatric and geriatric diarrhea.

"The fact of the matter is that we're taking purified, normal human breast milk proteins that have been exhaustively tested as to whether you could or could not even develop an allergy from them -- which you can't,'' he said.

Greenough said he is using one of Ventria's breast milk proteins in a U.S. study to try to halt a common diarrhea that afflicts hospitalized elderly patients when they receive large doses of antibiotics.

"So we're not testing it in Peru because we can't test it in the United States,'' he said. "We're testing it in both arenas.''

Neither Greenough nor Ventria would provide details on the study's sample or where it was taking place. Dr. Delia Bethell, Ventria's vice president of clinical development, said results would be published next year.

15 July 2006

Agriculture experts endorse sustainable agriculture over GMOs

Infoshop News, The Phillipines, 14 July 2006.

Representatives from 12 Provincial Agriculture Offices in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, NGOs, and people's organisations unanimously endorsed sustainable agricultureónot genetic engineeringóas the only way toward real food security in the Philippines. This consensus was reached yesterday by participants to the National Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and GMO (genetically-modified organism) Free Zones organized by Greenpeace and held 13 and 14 July 2006 at the Ateneo de Manila University in Quezon City.

Conference participants also declared that the government should re-examine the current regulations on GMO crops which favor multinational biotech companies at the expense of local sustainable and organic farming initiatives.

"The Philippines has a wealth of experience in sustainable and organic agriculture farming, most of which are local community initiatives," said Benedicto Sanchez, one of the conference speakers and Program Coordinator of Broad Initiatives for Negros Development, Inc. "The entry of commercial GMO crops will only serve to undermine their significant efforts toward genuine sustainability."

The government first approved the commercialization of genetically-engineered crops in 2002 with the introduction of Bt corn, amid pressure from US GMO lobby groups and large biotech companies like Monsanto. To this day, the government's agricultural policies reflect an alarming predilection toward biotech commercialization. Just last week, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo proclaimed the first week of July as National Biotechnology Week, following the launch of a major government program to promote biotech, including transgenics, in agriculture. Biotech groups from the US, where agribiotech company Monsanto is based, expect massive government approval of GMO crops in the next few years(1).

Several local provincial efforts however recognize the dangers of GMO crops. The province of Bohol passed a resolution banning the entry of GMOs in 2003, becoming the first GMO Free Island in the Philippines. The provinces of Mindoro Oriental and Marinduque (as part of the "Organic Haven Islands of Mindoro, Marinduque, Romblon and Palawan or MIMAROPA) both have a Provincial Environmental Code and Administrative Order also banning the entry of GMOs in their areas. Last year, the provinces of Negros Occidental and Negros Oriental signed a memorandum of agreement in pursuit of their shared vision to become the ëOrganic Island of the Philippines' and are expected to pass a similar ban on GMOs in the island. Similar legislations are pending in several provinces in Mindanao.

The government's pro-active GMO commercialization policy, however, can only spell disaster for Philippine agriculture. GMOs cause massive genetic contamination, threaten the livelihood of farmers and undermine agricultural biodiversity and consumer choice. Experiences with GE crops in other countries, such as GE papaya in Hawaii and GE cotton in India, as well as the local experience with Bt corn, indicates that GE crops are more of a burden rather than a boon(2).

"Greenpeace urges local governments in other parts of the country to make their provinces GE free," said Greenpeace Southeast Asia Genetic Engineering Campaigner Daniel Ocampo. "GMO-free agriculture is the only way toward true sustainable agriculture."

"For its part, the national government should prioritize local efforts toward GMO-free sustainable agriculture and work for the interest of local farmers instead of willfully killing sustainable agriculture with its obvious bias toward GMO crops developed, patented, and marketed commercially by multinational bio-tech companies."

Notes:

Among the provinces represented during the conference were: Abra, Isabela, Camarines Norte, Mindoro, Palawan, Marinduque, Misamis Occidental, Agusan Del Norte, Cebu, Bukidnon, Lanao Del Norte, Bohol and Negros Occidental

(1) Philippines may become major biotech crop producer:
www.freshplaza.com/2006/06jul/2_ph_biotech.htm

First week of July is national biotech week:
www.pia.gov.ph/news.asp?fi=p060706.htm&no=39

DOST launches program to promote biotech:
www.pia.gov.ph/news.asp?fi=p060628.htm&no=42

(2) The Failure of GE Papaya in Hawaii, Greenpeace, 2006:
www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/seasia/en/press/reports/copy-of-papaya-the-failure-o.pdf

The Economics of Bt Corn: Whose interest does it really serve?, Greenpeace, 2005:
www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/seasia/en/press/reports/rpt-ge-bteconomics.pdf
www.greenpeace.org.ph

9 July 2006

How the flood of GM goods was driven off the shelves

Independent on Sunday, 9 July 2006. By Geoffrey Lean.

Seven short years ago, when The Independent on Sunday began its campaign on GM foods and crops, 60 per cent of the products on our supermarket shelves contained modified ingredients.

Now only two GM products are left on sale: Schwartz's Bacon Flavour Bits Salad Topping, and Betty Crocker Bac-Os - neither exactly household names.

Then, too, widespread cultivation of GM crops throughout Britain was thought to be only a year away. No less than 53 of them were confidently awaiting approval. Now not a single GM plant is growing anywhere in any British field, and no one expects any to be sown any time in the foreseeable future.

At the time ours appeared a hopeless cause. The giant biotech companies seemed unstoppable: Monsanto, which led their charge, was poised to make a merger that would have turned it into the world's largest corporation. It had the full backing of the Government, fired by the messianistic determination of Tony Blair to make the country "the European hub" of biotechnology. Both the US administration and the British scientific establishment were urging him on.

The Prime Minister privately dismissed public opposition as "a flash in the pan", and so it appeared. Ranged against the Goliaths of the boardrooms and the cabinet rooms were a motley band of Davids, ranging from Prince Charles to pressure groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Soil Association.

But we reckoned without the most powerful force of all, the superwomen (and supermen) of the shopping aisles who, informed of the presence of GM products in their foods and the arguments for and against, simply refused to buy them. Thus the public achieved what parliament has repeatedly failed to do - stopping one of Tony Blair's dodgier crusades in its tracks.

We started our campaign in February 1999 by calling for a pause in the rush to a GM future, demanding a three-year moratorium in cultivating modified crops while more research was carried out. By the end of the year we had our wish: Michael Meacher, the then Environment minister, skilfully persuaded the biotech industry to agree to a three-year halt, pending official field trials.

The trials, in true Whitehall fashion, were designed to clear the crops. Everyone knew that the main danger that the crops posed was that they would cross-pollinate with nearby plants, creating superweeds, So the tests avoided this issue altogether, focusing on the relatively minor issue of the effects of weedkiller on them.

Everyone expected this jiggery-pokery to succeed - including the environmental campaigners who repeatedly pulled up the GM crops, in an attempt to scupper the trails (after one protest Lord Melchett, the then head of Greenpeace, was arrested with 20 supporters - only to be acquitted by a jury). But when the results were published modified crops were still generally found to be more damaging to wildlife than conventional ones, even on these limited grounds.

Even worse for Monsanto and Mr Blair, public opinion had by then decisively turned against GM. Both ministers and the industry had fondly believed that the pause would allow the controversy to die down, but they were sorely disappointed.

By the time the tests ended, 84 per cent of Britain's had decided they would not touch the stuff. The supermarket chains fell over themselves to clear it from their shelves - and the big food manufacturers rushed to abjure its use.

Monsanto closed its seed cereal business in Britain and Europe, and the industry withdrew the last of the 53 applications it had once assumed would be granted. Anyone for Betty Crocker Bac-Os?

The GM 99: Genetically modified ice cream could be coming to Britain

A fish from the Atlantic depths has lent its survival secret to a food giant searching for improved product 'texture'.

Independent on Sunday, 9 July 2006. By Geoffrey Lean and Jonathan Owen.

New designer ice cream, made possible by genetic modification, threatens to set off a "time bomb" in the health of British children, scientists are warning. The scientists, from Britain and Canada, have alerted an official committee which this month will rule on the safety of the ice cream, being sold increasingly worldwide by the food giant Unilever. It contains an artificial protein copied, through a GM process, from a fish living in the frigid waters of the bottom of the North-west Atlantic.

An "anti-freeze" protein allows the fish - the ocean pout - to survive extreme cold. Unilever, the world's biggest ice cream maker, says using its artificial equivalent allows it "to produce products with more intense flavour delivery, a wider range of novel textures and more intricate shapes".

Unilever also says it can improve the "healthiness" of the ice cream by cutting its fat and sugar content - a claim that particularly angers its critics.

The scientists - Professor Malcolm Hooper, Emeritus Professor of Medical Chemistry at Sunderland University, Professor Joe Cummins, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario, and geneticist Dr Mae-Wan Ho, director of the Institute of Science in Society - retort that it risks "letting off an immunological time bomb".

The company, which has been making ice cream for more than 70 years under such brands as Wall's, Magnum and Carte d'Or, and now owns Ben and Jerry's, has sold it with the protein in the United States for three years, and has approval to do so in Chile, Indonesia, Mexico and the Philippines.

It has also had the go-ahead in Australia and New Zealand despite objections by the health departments of the states of Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority.

Now it has applied to the Food Standards Agency to be allowed to use it in "edible ices" sold in Britain, including sorbets, water ice, fruit ice, frozen desserts, iced smoothies - and ice cream. The agency's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes is due to consider the plea at its next meeting, on 20 July.

If the committee gives it the green light, as is likely, it will then have to go to the European Union for approval, a lengthy process but one also expected to give it the go-ahead. The new products could go on sale in Britain in two years' time.

The key step in making the ice cream is getting hold of the ocean pout's secret, called an ice-structuring protein because rather than preventing freezing altogether, it lowers the temperature at which ice crystals grow, and changes their shape and structure so that they do less damage to living tissues.

In theory, Unilever could go out and catch loads of the fish - an eel-like species that lives on the ocean floor - extract the protein and add it to the ice cream like any other ingredient. But this would be expensive and, as the company, which has a good record in combating overfishing, points out, would cut the population of the fish, whose stocks are already declining.

So it has resorted to a GM process already widely used to produce vitamins and enzymes for food, including vegetarian cheese. A synthetic gene for the protein is added by genetic modification to bakers' yeast, which is fermented to manufacture more. The protein is then extracted so that the final product does not contain any modified yeast cells. This has led to a semantic battle over whether the final product is "GM ice cream". Unilever says that it is not; the scientists maintain it is. "This is about as genetically modified a product as you can get," says Professor Cummins.

The more important debate is whether the end result is safe, particularly for children. Unilever accepts that the main danger is that people may prove allergic to the protein. But it points out that people have eaten its natural form in ocean pout for decades, and says that the artificial version is identical. It adds that extensive tests on the artificial protein for allergic effects gave it the all clear.

Unexpectedly perhaps, many of the most prominent anti-GM pressure groups, including Friends of the Earth, GM Freeze, and Genewatch, say, in effect, that they are not too bothered, and that it is well down their priority list. But the scientists, who have a record of GM scepticism, are deeply disturbed, as is The Soil Association.

The scientists insist that the protein is changed in the processing, and may pose a danger. Professor Hooper told The Independent on Sunday yesterday: "This is a novel protein manufactured by genetically modified organisms and its characteristics have never been fully evaluated. It needs to be checked out before it is widely introduced into the human diet."

He and his colleagues also dispute the adequacy of Unilever's safety checks, not least because it checked the protein against the blood of people allergic to cod, not the pout fish,

The Soil Association calls the ice cream "a frivolous application of a dangerous and unwanted technology". It adds: "Just because there won't be any traces of the GM material in the ice cream does not mean that the product is safe. It certainly should not be marketed as a 'healthier alternative' simply on the grounds that it is low fat."

The Soil Association says research shows that "genetic engineering produces a range of unpredictable biological side-effects". This includes, it is believed, "new toxins and allergens even if the original GM material is absent".

It points to a GM food supplement, L-tryptophan, which "killed over 37 people and disabled over 1,500 others" in the US in 1989 even though it also "did not contain any GM material in the final product".

Unilever responded yesterday: "This is an exciting new technology that has potential benefits for ice cream, including the possibility of increased fruit content and lower fat content. The process itself is widely used within the food industry, but the Food Standards Agency process is designed to solicit opinion from others and we would not want to influence that process whilst it is still running its course."

The row comes as the biotech industry is attempting a comeback with the help of the European Commission. Modified products were swept from the shelves in the face of public refusal to buy them, and the EU instituted a six-year moratorium on approving new ones.

But this came to an end two years ago and biotech firms have jumped in. Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth says: "Their latest tactic is to swamp committees with dozens of applications for new GM foods. It is hard to imagine that the scientists working for these committees will be able to pay as much attention to their safety as they merit."

EU governments are deadlocked on the applications but, under the rules, the pro-GM European Commission then nods them through. Seven different types of GM maize have been approved for food in the past two years: applications for GM rice, sugar beet and potato are in the pipeline. But there is no sign of them appearing on British supermarket shelves - because most still refuse to buy GM food.

Additional research by Julia Belgutay.

8 July 2006

Georgia cotton growers fight pigweed

Associated Press, July 8 2006

A variety of pigweed resistant to the herbicide Roundup is spre