NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • March 2006
Archives 2006:
January • February
Archives 2005:
Jan/Feb/Mar • Apr/May/Jun/Jul • Aug/Sept/Oct • Nov/Dec
Archives
2004 • 2003
31 March 2006
WTO, GMO and total spectrum dominance
FreeMarketNews.com, 31 March 2006, by William Engdahl.
On February 7, a private organization with unique powers over world industry, trade and agriculture, issued a Preliminary Draft Ruling on a three-year-old case. The case was brought by the Bush Administration in May 2003 against European Union rules hindering the spread of genetically-engineered plants and foods. The WTO ruling, which is to be final in December, will have more influence over life and death on this planet than most imagine.
The ruling was issued by a special three-man tribunal of the World Trade Organization, in Geneva Switzerland. The WTO decision will open the floodgates to the forced introduction of genetically-manipulated plants and food products -- GMO, or genetically-modified organisms as they are technically known -- into the world's most important agriculture production region, the European Union.
The WTO case arose from a formal complaint filed by the governments of the United States, Canada and Argentina - three of the world's most GMO-polluted areas.
The WTO three-judge panel, chaired by Christian Haberli, a mid-level Swiss Agriculture Office bureaucrat, ruled that the EU had applied a 'de facto' moratorium on approvals of GMO products between June 1999 and August 2003, contradicting Brussels' claim that no such moratorium existed. The WTO judges argued the EU was 'guilty' of not following EU rules, causing 'undue delay' in following WTO obligations.
The secretive WTO tribunal also ruled, according to the leaked document, that in terms of product-specific measures, the completion of formal EU government approval to plant specific GMO plants had also been unduly delayed in the cases of 24 of 27 specific GMO products that the European Commission in Brussels had before it.
The WTO tribunal recommended that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), the world trade policeman, call on the EU to bring its practices 'into conformity with its obligations under the (WTO's) SPS Agreement.' Failure to comply with WTO demands can result in hundreds of millions dollars in annual fines.
Trade Über Alles
SPS stands for Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. On the surface it sounds as if health concerns were part of the WTO considerations. The reality is the opposite. Only minimal health standards are to be allowed to be enforced under WTO free trade rules, and any nation attempting anything more strict, such as the EU ban on import of US hormone-fed beef, can be found guilty by WTO of an 'unfair restraint of trade.'
Today the EU must pay a fine of $150 million yearly to maintain its ban on the US hormone-fed beef. WTO rules in effect put free-trade interests of agribusiness above national health concerns. That means, de facto, that the EU Commission must complete its approval process for the 24 outstanding applications to plant GMO crops in Europe once the final ruling is made later this year.
That will mean a flood of new GMO products in EU agriculture. Monsanto, Syngenta and other GMO multinationals have already taken advantage of lax national rules in new EU member countries such as Poland to get the GMO 'foot-in-the door.' Now it will be far easier for them. Pro-GMO governments such as that of Angela Merkel in Germany can claim they are only following WTO 'orders.'
What is the significance of this WTO ruling, assuming it remains as is in final form by December? It represents a major, dangerous wedge into largely GMO-free EU agriculture, permitting powerful agribusiness multinationals such as Monsanto, Dow Chemicals or DuPont to overrun national or regional efforts to halt the march of GMO. For this reason, it is potentially the most damaging decision in the history of world trade agreements.
A strategic Washington matter
The case first came before the World Trade Organization in a filing made by the Bush Administration in May 2003, just as the military occupation of Iraq was entering a new phase. The US President held a rare press conference to tell the world that the US was formally charging the EU, accusing the EU 'moratorium' on GMO approval of being a cause of starvation in Africa. Their twisted logic argued that so long as a major industrialized region such as the EU resisted planting GMO crops domestically, it caused sceptical African governments to harden their resistance to US food aid in the form of GMO crops. That, Bush charged, was causing unnecessary 'starvation' in Africa because some countries refused USDA food aid in form of GMO crop surpluses.
The issue of breaking resistance barriers in the European Union to the proliferation of GMO crops has been a matter of the highest strategic priority for those controlling policy in Washington since 1992 when then-President George H.W. Bush, the father of the current President, issued an Executive Order proclaiming GMO plants such as soybeans or GMO corn to be 'substantially equivalent' to ordinary corn or soybeans, and, therefore, not needing any special health safety study or testing.
That 'substantial equivalence' ruling by President Bush in 1992 opened the floodgates to the unregulated spread of GMO across the American agriculture landscape. As basis for its 2003 WTO filing against the EU, Washington, on behalf of agribusiness interests including Monsanto, Dow, DuPont and others, charged the EU with violation of the American 'substantial equivalence' doctrine!
So long as the world's second most powerful agriculture trade region, the EU, firmly resisted the introduction of untested GM plants, the global spread of the GMO revolution would remain strategically crippled. For the past decades, breaking up the system of domestic agriculture protection of the EU, centered around its Common Agriculture Program, has been a strategic political and trade goal of the US Government and US-based agribusiness. The creation of the WTO in 1995, a result of the GATT Uruguay Round trade talks during the 1980's, opened the possibility for the first time of forcing the EU to drop its defenses on US threat of sanctions.
The secret process behind WTO
When the final WTO Panel ruling is published and official this coming December, assuming no major changes take place in the 1,050 page preliminary ruling of February 7, a major barrier to the global spread of largely untested and highly unstable genetically modified foods will be gone. This will become unstoppable, as it was in the USA, unless political pressure from a sceptical European population forces the EU Commission to pay a WTO fine or penalty, in lieu of acceding to the demands of the WTO.
It's relevant to ask what is this body, WTO which exercises such enormous power over laws of nations? What is its mandate and who controls its policies?
The negotiations of world trade since the establishment of the Bretton Woods postwar monetary system at the end of World War II, had been made through a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a series of trade rounds on specific issues between specific member countries. In September 1986, on US-led pressure, the Uruguay Round of GATT was launched in Punta del Este Uruguay. The result was creation of a new, powerful private international agency, the WTO.
In late 1994 the US Congress voted to join the WTO, the new permanent trade body established by the GATT Uruguay Round. There was almost no debate. It was clear in Washington who would dominate the new body. Unlike GATT which had no enforcement power, and which required unanimous member vote for sanctions, the WTO would be given tough sanction and enforcement powers. More important, how it reached decisions was to remain secret, with no democratic oversight. The most vital issues of economic life on the planet were to be decided behind closed doors in Geneva WTO headquarters or in Washington and Brussels. It could choose its 'experts' as it saw fit and ignore what evidence it saw fit. In the EU GMO dispute, three of four initial scientific experts chosen were from either US or UK institutions, two countries most in favour of GMO. (1)
Two years earlier, in 1992, at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Rio, 175 UN governments signed a convention to on the safe handling and treatment of GMOs, a major vote of the world community to examine the health and economic impacts of GMO agriculture before it could be allowed in a country. The US Government of President George Bush Sr. aggressively opposed the CBD, arguing that a Biosafety Protocol was unnecessary. Under the CBD agreement, a country could prohibit GMO imports.
The GMO industry, led by Monsanto, DuPont and Dow of the US, sabotaged this agreement. A group of six countries controlling the world Biotech or GMO marketòCanada, Argentina, Uruguay, Australia Chile and USA-- forced a clause into the CBD text which would subordinate the Biosafety Protocol to the WTO. They argued that limiting trade based on 'unproven' biosafety concerns should be considered a 'barrier to trade' under WTO rules!
Traditional liability law holds that a new product must first be proven safe before being allowed on market. This WTO rule placing the burden of proof not on the producer of a new GMO product, but on the potential victims, turned prudence and health safety issues on its head. In the end the US destroyed the Biosafety Protocol by refusing to include soybeans and corn, 99% of all GMO products, making the Protocol near worthless regarding GMO health issues.
The WTO serves as the weapon for the powerful coalition of Washington and the powerful private GMO giants, led by Monsanto. Earlier in 1992, Bush, on advice of Monsanto and the emerging US GM giant companies, ruled that GM organisms were "substantially equivalent" to ordinary seeds for soybeans or corn and such. As "substantially equivalent"Ç GM seeds required no special testing or health controls before being put on the market. This was crucial to the future of Monsanto and the GMO lobby.
By Presidential Executive Order, the US had defined GMO seeds as harmless and hence not needing to be regulated for health and safety. It made sure this principle was carried over into the new WTO in the form of the WTOÇs Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS), which stated, 'Food standards and measures aimed at protecting people from pests or animals can potentially be used as a deliberate barrier to trade.' The US charge against the EU in the present GMO dispute charged the EU with violation of the SPS agreement of WTO.
Other WTO rules in the Agreement to Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) forbid member countries from using domestic standards or testing, food safety laws, product standards, calling them an 'unfair barrier to trade.'
The impact of those two US-mandated WTO rulings meant that Washington could threaten that any government restricting import of GM plants on grounds they might pose threats to health and safety of their population, could be found to be in violation of WTO free trade rules!
This is what the US Government, on behalf of its agribusiness private corporations has done against the EU restrictions on GMO.
Under the WTO's Technical Barriers to Trade, the US has argued that no labelling of GMO plants was required, as the plants have not been 'substantially transformed' from normal or non-GM soya, corn or other plants. This conveniently ignored the fact that Washington simultaneously insisted that GMOs, due to the genetic engineering process, are sufficiently transformed, i.e. NOT equivalent, to be patented as 'original', and protected under WTO TRIPS intellectual property patent rights. (2).
The Agreement on Agriculture
The heart of the WTO machinery is the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), which under the sheep's wool of 'free trade,' hides the wolf of private agri-business GMO monopoly power. Under AoA rules, since 1995 poorer developing countries have been forced to eliminate quotas and slash protective tariffs, at the same time the Bush Administration voted to increase its subsidies to US agribusiness farming by $80 billions.
The net effect has been to allow the powerful monopoly of five grain trading giants - Cargill, ADM, Bunge, Andre (formerly) and Louis Dreyfus - to dramatically increase the dumping of food commodities globally, ruining millions of family farmers worldwide in the process, while maximizing their private corporate profits.
The AoA of WTO ignores the reality of agriculture markets which are qualitatively different from, say, the market for cars or CD's. Agriculture and national food safety and security are at the heart of a nation's sovereignty, and its obligation to its own citizens to support the basics of life. Agriculture is unique in this respect, along with water rights.
The AoA was written by the US-dominated agribusiness giants such as Cargill, ADM, Monsanto and DuPont, to serve the agenda of these global supranational private companies, whose sole aim is to maximize profits and market monopoly, regardless of human consequences. Their focus is the domination of the $1 trillion global agriculture trade. The actual author of the AoA of WTO was Daniel Amstutz, a former Vice President of Cargill Grain, who was at the time in the Washington US Trade RepresentativeÇs Office, before going back to the grain trade.(3).
Who controls WTO?
The essential control of WTO decisions, decisions which have the full power of international law and can force governments to repeal local laws for health, safety and such is held by private interests, by a global US-centered agribusiness cartel. There are no public or democratic checks on the power of WTO.
On paper, WTO rules are made by a consensus of all 134 member countries. In reality, four countries, led by the United States, decide all important agriculture and other trade issues. As in the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, Washington exercises decisive control behind the scenes. And it does so in the interest of the private agribusiness cartel.
The four WTO controlling countries, known as the QUAD countries, are USA, Canada, Japan and the EU. In the QUAD, in turn, the giant agri-business multinationals exercise controlling influence, most clearly in Washington.
The WTO is designed to impose the wishes of giant private companies over the legitimate democratic will of entire nations and duly-elected governments. WTO has one mission: enforce rules of a "free trade"Ç an agenda which is in no way genuinely "free"Ç but rather suits the needs of agribusiness giants.
Under the secretive WTO rules, countries can challenge another's laws for restricting their trade. The case is then heard by a tribunal or court of three trade bureaucrats. They are usually influential corporate lawyers with pro-free trade bias. The lawyers have no conflict of interest rules binding them, such that a Monsanto lawyer can rule on a case of material interest to Monsanto.
Further, there is no rule that the judges of WTO respect any national laws of any country. The three judges meet in secret without revealing the time or location. All court documents are confidential and are not published unless one party releases it. It is a modern version of the Spanish Inquisition, but with far more power.
The EU banned the import of US beef treated with growth and other hormones, and the US lodged a formal WTO complaint. There was a long report from independent scientists showing that the hormones added to US beef were cancer-causing. The WTO three judge panel ruled that the EU did not present a validÇ scientific case to refuse import, and the EU was forced to pay $150 million annually for lost US profits. (4).
The powerful private interests who control WTO agriculture policy prefer to remain in the background as little-publicized NGO's. One of the most influential in creating the WTO is a little-publicized organization called the IPC -- the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council, shortened to International Policy Council.
The IPC was created in 1987 to lobby for the GATT agriculture rules of WTO at the Uruguay GATT talks. The IPC demanded removal of "high tariff" barriers in developing countries, remaining silent on the massive government subsidy to agribusiness in the USA.
A look at the IPC membership explains what interests it represents. The IPC Chairman is Robert Thompson, former Assistant Secretary US Department of Agriculture and former Presidential economic adviser. Also included in the IPC are Bernard Auxenfans, Chief Operating Officer, Monsanto Global Agricultural Company and Past Chairman of Monsanto Europe S.A.; Allen Andreas of ADM/Toepfer; Andrew Burke of Bunge (US); Dale Hathaway former USDA official and head IFPRI (US).
Other IPC members include Heinz Imhof, chairman of Syngenta (CH); Rob Johnson of Cargill and USDA Agriculture Policy Advisory Council; Franz Fischler Former Commissioner for Agriculture, European Commission; Guy Legras (France) former EU Director General Agriculture; Donald Nelson of Kraft Foods (US); Joe O'Mara of USDA, Hiroshi Shiraiwa of Mitsui & Co Japan; Jim Starkey former Assistant US Trade Representative; Hans Joehr, Nestlé's head of agriculture; Jerry Steiner of Monsanto (US). Members Emeritus include Ann Veneman, herself a board member of a Monsanto subsidiary company before she became US Secretary of Agriculture for George W. Bush in 2001.
The IPC is controlled by US-based agribusiness giants which benefit from the rules they drafted for WTO trade. In Washington itself, the USDA no longer represents interests of small family farmers. It is the lobby of giant global agribusiness. The USDA is a revolving door for these private agribusiness giants to shape friendly policies. GMO policy is the most blatant example.
Brussels also dominated by GMO lobby
The power of the giant GMO companies and US-centered agribusiness companies extends to control of key policies in Brussels at the European Commission. Typical is the fact that former EU Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler is a member of the powerful pro-GMO IPC.
For years it has been common knowledge among EU farm experts that grain policy was not set by national governments but by the Big Five private grain traders led by Cargill and ADM. Now the powerful weight of Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and the GMO lobby has been added. This is clear in the recent announcement of a new EU program, SAFEFOODS, a successor to the controversial pro-GMO ENTRANSFOOD project. ENTRANSFOOD was set up to "facilitate market introduction of GMO's in Europe, and therefore to bring the European (sic) industry into a competitive position."
ENTRANSFOOD, now called the more innocuous SAFEFOODS, claims to combine different views on GMO food. In reality, its key Working Group 1, responsible for "Safety Testing of Transgenic Foods" consists of representatives not from independent consumer organizations, but from Monsanto, Unilever, Bayer Corp., Syngenta and BIBRA International, a consultancy close to agribusiness and the pharmaceutical industry.
As well, Dr. Harry Kuiper, a Dutch scientist member of the food safety GMO group of SAFEFOODS in Brussels, is Coordinator of SAFEFOODS. Kuiper chairs the EU European Food Safety Authority GMO Panel. He has also been leading the vicious slander attack campaign to discredit scientist Dr Arpad Pusztai who dared to go public with alarming evidence of organ damage from rats fed GMO potatoes and was fired on the intervention of Monsanto in 1999.(5).
The WTO today is nothing more than the global policeman for the powerful GMO lobby and the agribusiness firms tied to it.
With the new German coalition government under Chancellor Angela Merkel and Agriculture Minister Horst Seehofer now officially on record supporting the role of Germany as a future leader in biotech crops and GMO, the impact of the latest WTO ruling on food safety in the EU and beyond has put European and hence world food safety in danger.
Footnotes:
1.Abreu, Marcelo de Paiva, "Brazil, the GATT and the WTO: History and Prospects", September 1998, Department of Economics, PUC, Rio de Janeiro, No. 392.
2. 'GMOs and the WTO: Overruling the Right to say No,' By World Development Movement, November 1999, www.wdm.org.uk.
3. Murphy, Sophia, 'WTO Agreement on Agriculture: Suitable Model for a Global Food System?' Foreign Policy in Focus, v.7, no. 8, June 2002.
4. Montague, Peter, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO, The WTO and Free Trade, Environmental Research Foundation in www.garynull.com.
5. 'PR Operation on GM Foods again exposes EFSA industry-bias,' Press release, 29.12.2004. www.gmwatch.org.
William Engdahl
F. William Engdahl, an economist and writer, is author of the best-selling book on oil and geopolitics, 'A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order,' which has been translated into Arabic, Korean, German, Croatian and Turkish. He has just completed the soon-to-be released 'Seeds of Destruction: the hidden agenda of GMO'.
He has written on issues of political economy, geopolitics, energy, agriculture, WTO, IMF, politics and economics for more than 30 years, beginning the first oil shock and world grain crisis in the early 1970's. After a degree in politics from Princeton University and graduate study in comparative economics at the University of Stockholm, he worked as an economist and free-lance journalist in New York and in Europe, covering subjects including the collapse of the USSR, the 1997-98 Asia Crisis, GATT Uruguay Round trade talks, EU food policies, the grain cartel, IMF policy, Third World debt issues, hedge funds and the political role of derivatives trade.
Mr. Engdahl contributes regularly to a number of publications including Asia Times Online, Asia, Inc, Japan's Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Foresight magazine; Freitag and ZeitFragen newspapers in Germany and Switzerland respectively; Grant'sInvestor.com, European Banker and Business Banker International. He is a frequent Contributor to FinancialSense.com and 321Gold.com among other online sites. He has spoken at numerous international conferences on geopolitical, economic, GMO, economic and energy subjects, including a keynote address to the Montreaux Global Investors' Forum, the Centre for Energy Policy Studies in London, Bank Negara Indonesia in Jakarta, the International Chamber of Commerce in Zagreb and the International Institute of Strategic Studies in Moscow. He currently lives in Germany and in addition to writing regularly on issues of economics, energy and international affairs, is active as a consulting geopolitical risk economist.
Greenpeace calls the Summit for Life on Earth a failure
WTO trade liberalization and lack of funding hijacked biodiversity
Curitiba, Brazil, March 31st 2006: As the two-week long world summit on
biodiversity drew to a close, Greenpeace described the outcome as major
failure - a missed opportunity to stop the global loss of life in the
world's forests and oceans.
"The Convention on Biological Diversity is like a ship drifting without
a captain to steer it," said Martin Kaiser, Greenpeace Political Advisor
on Forests. "The negotiations have failed to chart a course to stop
biopiracy, provide additional financing for protected areas, establish
marine reserves on the high seas and to ban illegal logging and trade."
Although the president of the COP8, Brazil's environment minister Marina
Silva, opened the conference calling for legislation against biopiracy,
Australia, New Zealand and Canada have argued against strict deadlines
for the negotiations. "This simply buys time for pharmaceutical and
biotechnology companies to secure patents on life under the regime of
the World Trade Organisation," said Kaiser.
At their last conference, the CBD member States agreed to establish a
global network of protected areas, in order to safeguard life on earth
and prevent the industrial exploitation of the world's biodiversity at
the expense of future generations. Money was promised by the rich
countries to help make this happen.
"Both rich and developing countries have not delivered on their
promises, and the proposed global network of protected areas has not
become a reality." said Paulo Adario, Greenpeace Amazon Campaign
Coordinator. "Instead, governments have put nature at risk and allowed
it to become a private commodity."
At the beginning of the conference, Greenpeace presented a roadmap to
recovery, a global map of the last intact forests, and a network of
marine reserves on the high seas (1), calling governments to take
action. This challenge has been ignored.
The conference has not been able to address a core business of every
government, eradicating illegal and unsustainable logging and
fisheries." The need for a moratorium on high seas bottom trawling, the
most destructive form of fishing, is now being blocked by a few key
countries, who are prioritising their industry interests over the
protection of marine biodiversity" said Karen Sack, Greenpeace Political
Advisor on Oceans.
Despite the exploitation of the Amazon by illegal and destructive
logging providing timber products to internal and external markets, the
Brazilian government has blocked any meaningful collaboration at a
regional and international level.
"This conference has been overshadowed by the announcement of the United
States, the largest contributor to the funding body for biodiversity,
that it will halve its financial contribution," concluded Kaiser. "Four
years ago, world leaders committed themselves to rescue life on earth by
2010. Many plans and programmes are in place, but the financial support
for developing countries is not provided yet."
Greenpeace is an independent, campaigning organisation that uses
non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental
problems, and to force solutions essential to a green and peaceful future.
Contacts:
Martin Kaiser, Greenpeace International forests political advisor +55 41
96821411
Paulo Adario, Amazon Campaign Coordinator, +55 92 81158928
Karen Sack, Greenpeace International Oceans Political Advisor, +1 202
4155403
Natalia Truchi, Greenpeace International Communications, +55 41 96771859
Notes to editors
(1) For more information on the oceans maps see:
http://oceans.greenpeace.org/highseas-report
http://oceans.greenpeace.org/highseas-map
For more information on the forest maps see
http://www.intactforests.org
http://www.greenpeace.org/forestmaps
Matilda Bradshaw
Greenpeace International
W: +31 (0) 20 718 2068
M: +31 (0) 6535 04701
Press Hot line +31 (0) 6 290 01141
Press Desk Fax +31 (0) 20 5148156
http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/press/
30 March 2006
Councillors back motion to have Co. Cavan a GM free zone
The Anglo-Celt, 30 March 2006. By Tom Carron.
There was wide support for a motion from Councillor Pauline McCauley at the March monthly meeting of Cavan County Council, calling on County Cavan to be declared a Genetically Modified Free Zone.
Councillor McCauley stated that she put forward the motion because a company had applied to use genetically modified potatoes on a farm outside Summerhill. The health status of GM foods wasn't clear and she urged people to err on the side of caution. Human consumption should be prevented as tests carried out on rats fed with GM foods revealed abnormalities to internal organs and to their blood. Female rats were born smaller and weaker and died at birth.
Stating that Summerhill was not a hundred miles from Cavan, Councillor McCauley said theat the growing of GM foods could have consequences in Cavan. There was a clear risk to cross contamination of other crops from GM crops and she called on the Council to have County Cavan declared a GM free zone.
Supporting the motion, Shane P. O'Reilly said that Summerhill was only 21 miles from where he lived. Ireland had a very high reputation in the world for the quality of its food and what was taking place in Summerhill was sending the wrong message. He urged Irish MEPs to consistently vote against the licensing of any area of this country for the growing of GM crops.
There was widespread support for Councillor McCauley's motion. Cllr. Michael McCarey said that while they were not totally against genetically modified crops it had to be proven beyond doubt that they were not a threat to human health.
Stressing the importance of protecting the reputation of the Irish food industry, Cllr. Andrew Boylan said theat scientists were now tinkering with food in the same manner as they tinkered with with the human person in relation to the modification of genes.
Cllr. Paddy O'Reilly, Virginia, asked if planning permission was required for this type of activity and he was informed by Francis McDermott that the company in question obtained a permit issued by the EPA.
Swedish Consumers do not want to eat meat produced with GM feed
‚ new
opinion poll released today
Greenpeace Press Release, Thursday, March 30, 2006
Swedish Consumers do not want to eat meat produced with GM feed ‚ new
opinion poll released today
The representative opinion poll was conducted by Exquiro Market Research and
commissioned by Greenpeace. It surveyed the person in each household
responsible for food shopping. Questions were asked concerning genetically
modified organisms (GMOs), their use in animal feed, labeling of products
and the policy of Swedish Meats.
93% of those asked said that meat products coming from animals fed with GM
feed should be labeled. Furthermore, 68% answered that they would not buy
meat products if they knew GM feed was used.
"The survey results are clear and should send a strong message to the food
industry and the government: consumers don't want their food to be produced
with GMOs," says Kathleen McCaughey, GMO spokesperson for Greenpeace.
Swedish Meats, owner of Scan brand products, allows GM feed to be used since
January of this year. When asked, 74% of the respondents viewed as negative
Swedish Meats' decision to allow the use of GM feed, while only 3% supported
the decision.
"Swedish Meats cannot afford to ignore such clearly expressed consumer
opinion. Greenpeace and Swedish consumers demand that Swedish Meats
reintroduce its earlier GMO free policy", says Kathleen McCaughey.
"The survey greatly supports our work to get new labeling legislation
adopted in the EU. Consumers have the right to make informed choices. It is
high time for meat and dairy products made from GM feed to be labeled",
concludes Kathleen McCaughey.
Contacts:
Kathleen McCaughey, GMO campaign +46 702 350 886
Alfred Skogberg, press officer +46 703 405 414
Box 151 64, 104 65 Stockholm, Sweden
www.greenpeace.se
29 March 2006
Bt Cotton - No Respite for Andhra Pradesh Farmers
More than $80 million losses for Bt Cotton farmers in Kharif 2005
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture press release, 29 March 2006.
Hyderabad, India - March 29, 2006: Even as companies like Mahyco-Monsanto are lobbying with the state government of Andhra Pradesh to come back into the state with their Bt Cotton hybrids, a study done by Centre for Sustainable Agriculture and partner organizations like CEAD, MARI, Navajyothi, SECURE, Krushi and SYO has shown that even in Kharif 2005, there has been no respite for Bt Cotton farmers in the state and the collective losses incurred by the farmers are estimated to be around 400 crores of rupees.
The study, based on season-long fortnightly monitoring of 120 Bt Cotton fields from five districts of Andhra Pradesh, used a comparative design to compare the results from these fields with those of 123 NPM/Organic cotton farmers from four districts. The findings showed that the cost of cultivation per acre on Bt Cotton was around 67% higher than NPM/Organic Cotton, while the net incomes were lower in Bt Cotton by at least 37% compared to NPM/Organic Cotton.
Reflecting on the findings of this intense monitoring effort, Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu, Executive Director, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture said, "Our fact finding visits throughout the season as well as this scientific study point out that Bt Cotton not only does not deliver the promises made by the companies in their marketing propaganda - it also fares badly compared to non-Bt Cotton, especially NPM/Organic approaches to cotton cultivation. On the other hand, the risks involved in cultivating Bt Cotton are high and often times, unknown and unpredictable. In this context, it is incomprehensible why the government is promoting a technology that asks poor, unsupported cotton farmers to take more and more risks and land themselves in big losses".
The study found that the pest incidence in Bt Cotton was higher than in NPM/Organic Cotton and that the pesticide cost on Bt Cotton was 378% more than on NPM/Organic Cotton. The study was taken up as part of the efforts of the MEC [Monitoring & Evaluation Committee] on Bt Cotton, set up by 20 civil society organizations across the country.
"It is interesting to note that even the government's assessment of Bt Cotton for Kharif 2005 points out that the pest and disease incidence on Bt Cotton was higher than on non-Bt Cotton, reiterating some of our findings. Information obtained from the agriculture department by CSA also shows that the yields with Bt Cotton ranged from 4-6 quintals per acre, far below the yields and yield increases promised by the Bt Cotton companies. The stress intolerance of Bt Cotton was also acknowledged in the governmental assessment. Further, Bt CottonÇs high susceptibility to sucking pests was also recognized. The government feels that Bt Cotton is suitable only under fertile soils, with good INM and with assured irrigation. If the government knows all of this, why is it allowing hyped-up propaganda on Bt Cotton? Why is it not making the companies liable for the promises that they are not keeping? Why is it not taking appropriate decisions on the technology itself and its desirability, rather than taking a hybrid-by-hybrid approach to decision-making related Bt Cotton?â, asked Ms Kavitha Kuruganti of Centre for Sustainable Agriculture.
In Andhra Pradesh, the government is yet to acknowledge that there has been failure of the Bt Cotton crop in Kharif 2005 and it is busy trying to resolve pending liability and pricing issues from the earlier years. Meanwhile, the Bt Cotton companies, in blatant violation of existing laws, are going ahead and publicizing their products without clearance. Some companies are also taking up åadvance bookingsÇ with farmers.
In this context, CSA demands:
1.that the government present a comprehensive white paper on the performance of Bt Cotton (against intended benefits and promises made as well as the other results observed and recorded) in the past four years and decide whether it is a sound and sustainable pest management option for the cotton farmers in the state
2.that the government put into place accountability mechanisms right at the time of providing marketing licenses and address pending liability issues immediately
3.that the government put strong curbs on aggressive and false marketing being indulged in by the companies and fix liability for violations of the Environment Protection Act
The full study report, including annexures containing reports of various fact finding visits, can be obatined as a pdf file from Kavitha Kuruganti kavitha_kuruganti@yahoo.com
For more information, contact:
1.Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu at +91 939 135 9702 or gvramanjaneyulu@gmail.com
2.Ms Kavitha Kuruganti at +91 939 300 1550 or kavitha_kuruganti@yahoo.com
Investors, others seek support for DuPont on GMOs
Ecological Farming Association (USA), 24 March 2006.
NEW YORK - Concerned that DuPont may be going down the same road that led to its current woes surrounding Teflon, Christian Brothers Investment Services, Inc. (CBIS) is urging DuPont investors to vote next month in favor of a shareholder resolution calling on the company to meet its Sarbanes-Oxley obligations to disclose any potentially material risk or "off-balance sheet liability" that could be posed by its manufacturing and distribution of food-related genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
CBIS is the primary filer of the shareholder resolution to be voted on at the DuPont annual meeting in late April 2006. A wide variety of government, industry and scientific experts have raised concerns about the lack of adequate testing and controls in place in relation to the GMOs unleashed by DuPont and other firms. Recent reports also have raised major health concerns -- including increased incidence of allergies -- that could result from the introduction of GMOs into agriculture and the food supply.
John K. S. Wilson, director of socially responsible investing at Christian Brothers Investment Services, Inc., said: "We are deeply concerned that DuPont unknowingly may be sowing the seeds of risk for its shareholders and the general public. A major issue here is the lack of information regarding the safety of these products. We wish to avoid a repeat of the Teflon controversy, which was brought about when DuPont inaccurately asserted the safety of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) over many decades. It is particularly important that the company conduct independent assessments of GMO products already in the market so that neither DuPont nor its shareholders are surprised if GMOs fail to live up to DuPont's preliminary safety and environmental claims. At a minimum, DuPont has an obligation under Sarbanes- Oxley to start acknowledging to its shareholders that there are valid concerns here about potential risks."
In addition to citing recent health concerns and regulatory problems with GMOs, the CBIS resolution states: "Disclosure of material information is a fundamental principle of our capital markets. Investors, their confidence in corporate bookkeeping shaken, are starting to scrutinize other possible 'off- balance sheet' liabilities, such as risks associated with activities harmful to human health and the environment, that can impact long-term shareholder value. SEC reporting requirements include disclosure of environmental liabilities and of trends and uncertainties that the company reasonably expects will have a material impact on revenues. Public companies are now required to establish a system of controls and procedures designed to ensure that financial information required to be disclosed in SEC filings is recorded and reported in a timely manner."
The CBIS resolution urges that DuPont's "board of directors review and report to shareholders by the 2007 annual meeting on the company's internal controls related to potential adverse impacts associated with genetically modified organisms, including: reviewing the adequacy of current post- marketing monitoring systems; retaining an independent environmental expert to review the effectiveness of established risk management processes; and examining possible impact on seed product integrity."
Margaret Weber, coordinator of corporate responsibility, Adrian Dominican Sisters and co-chair of the Water & Food Working Group of the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), said: "In contrast to some assertions that genetically engineered crops are simply the next generation of crop breeding, this process is actually a severe interruption of the ordinary natural process of breeding. There is no global agreement that these products are 'substantially equivalent.' Precaution would call, at a minimum, for post market monitoring for early detection of negative health effects. Yet that is not possible in the United States, the largest producer of these crops, because they are not labeled as genetically engineered. Consumers who are highly sensitive to allergens and public health officials have no method of monitoring health impacts."
Leslie Lowe, director of ICCR's Environmental Justice and Water & Food Working Groups, said: "The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed by Congress in 2002, requires the CEO and CFO of public companies to certify that the companies' financial statements 'fairly present' their financial condition and results of operations. In order to ensure that these certifications are meaningful, Sarbanes-Oxley also requires that companies have appropriate 'internal controls' over their financial reporting. Moreover, the Accounting Oversight Board has made clear that these controls should include 'monitoring and risk assessment' of areas where, given the nature of the company's operations, actual losses are reasonably possible."
Lowe added: "Proponents of this resolution believe it is reasonably possible that genetically engineered (GE) products could cause significant losses for the company. DuPont (and other biotech firms) should, therefore, establish post-market monitoring systems for their GE products. This would enable the company to act at the earliest moment should problems arise and it would reassure investors that the company actually knows whether its operations result in adverse impacts for which the company may be liable."
In outlining the potential risks surrounding DuPont GMOs, the CBIS resolution notes: "'Gone to Seed' [from the Union of Concerned Scientists] reports that genetically engineered DNA is contaminating U.S. traditional seed stocks of corn, soybeans and canola, and that if left unchecked could disrupt agricultural trade, unfairly burden the organic foods industry, and allow hazardous materials into the food supply ... Insurers in Germany, the UK and elsewhere are refusing liability coverage for genetically engineered (GE) crops, demonstrating heightened concern about the long-term safety of GE crops."
28 March 2006
Supermarkets act after Greenpeace GMO claim
The Budapest Times, 28 March 2006.
Supermarket chains last week promised to act to either remove or investigate suspect products after Greenpeace Hungary claimed that food made with GMO soya was being sold unmarked.
Greenpeace last Tuesday said that it had found inappropriately high levels of GMO soya in canned meat goods made by Globus, Szegedi Paprika and a third unnamed firm.
"The National Food Safety and Nutrition Science Institute inspected the goods and found they contained more than 3% of GMO soya protein," Greenpeace spokeswomen Szabina Mózes told daily newspaper Magyar Hírlap.
According to Hungarian law, products with GMO content over 0.9% must indicate this on the packaging. Greenpeace asked the companies to withdraw their products and activists labelled hundreds of cans of the affected goods in a branch of Tesco.
Globus told MTI news agency that the products had not in fact undergone any testing, but claimed that it would look into instigating such tests immediately. The company said that all of its contracts with its suppliers state that products with GMO content greater than the legal limit would not be accepted.
German discount chain, Lidl, said that it would take the goods off the shelves, adding that they would not go back on sale until the manufacturers could certify that they were GMO free. Tesco promised it would do the same.
27 March 2006
Group says RP is now GMO-contaminated
Sunstar (The Philippines), 27 March 2006.
Potentially unsafe substances from genetically-modified organisms (GMO) have allegedly contaminated some common food products that are being sold in the country, environmental group Greenpeace claimed.
Daniel Ocampo, genetic engineering campaigner of Greenpeace Southeast Asia, said the Philippines is one of the 39 countries in the world that are affected by contamination from GMOs based on the "GM Contamination Report 2005" of Greenpeace and GeneWatch UK.
The report, which focused on the extent to which GMOs have leaked into the environment, showed widespread global contamination, illegal planting and cases of negative agricultural side effects supposedly caused by genetically-engineered products.
Ocampo said the contamination case specifically cited for the Philippines was the presence of GMOs in common food products, including baby food.
"The Philippine's inclusion in the list is not surprising considering the country's failure to ratify the Biosafety Protocol, which establishes the minimum international safety standards for GMO crops and their trade," he said.
Eliezer Billanes, convenor of the Socsksargen Movement against GMOs, expressed alarm over the reported GMO contamination on local food products as it practically places consumers at risk.
He reiterated the need for the government to impose a mandatory labeling of consumer products to make consumers aware of products that contain GMOs.
"The issue here is that the safety of GMOs to human health and the environment remains a big question. So until this issue is not yet properly resolved, it's only proper for our government to control the distribution of these questionable products if it cannot totally ban them," Billanes said.
He showed a pamphlet containing a list of products supposedly containing GMOs and a call for their boycott. The list covers at least 47 processed products that include milk, noodles, and hot dogs containing genetically-engineered corn and soya.
Contamination was even found in countries conducting supposedly carefully controlled high-profile farm-scale evaluations such as the UK," the report noted.
In the case of the Philippines, Ocampo was alarmed over the government's continuing adoption of various biotechnology products, which started with the commercialization of Monsanto's Bacillus Thuringiensis or Bt corn.
But agricultural biotechnology proponents insisted that GMOs are in fact safe and there's no need to label them.
Dr. Benigno Peczon, president of the government-backed Biotechnology Coalition of the Philippines, said conclusive studies made by scientists and medical experts worldwide have substantially affirmed the safety of the GM products. (Allen V. Estabillo)
25 March 2006
Who needs G.M. foods?
Irish Independent, 25 March 2006 (letter to the editor).
Probably nothing demonstrates the end of genuine democracy more than the insidious introduction of genetically modified foods. Absolutely no member of the public ever asked for them and there is no need for them whatever to feed the world.
It is, yet again, a greedy industrial food corporation that is pouring millions into PR of various sorts to influence our craven politicians. Judging by all the other things we never wanted (many prescribed drugs, nuclear power, mercury fillings, plastic, nutritionless food, etc.), the medical establishment is also going to be rubbing its hands with glee in a few years time.
Dick Barton
Tinaheely, Co. Wicklow
24 March 2006
Terminator Seeds Suffer Defeat at Global Conference
IPS News, 24 March 2006.
CURITIBA, Brazil, Mar 24 (IPS) - Small farmers and activists celebrated a triumph against Terminator seeds in Brazil Friday, but said they would not let down their guard, and would continue to fight the seeds.
The working group in charge of addressing the issue at the Eighth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP8) maintained the moratorium on field trials of Terminator technology, which produces seeds whose sterile offspring cannot reproduce.
The decision is still pending a vote in next Friday's plenary session in the Mar. 20-31 conference taking place in the southern Brazilian city of Curitiba. But that will merely be a formality.
Only Australia, Canada and New Zealand tried to leave a door open, pushing for "case-by-case" evaluation of permits for field testing, which critics say would weaken the moratorium put in place in 2000 on Terminators, or GURTS (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies).
For the stance they took in this case, and with regard to transgenic crops in general, Australia, Canada and New Zealand were granted the "evil axis" award by an informal coalition of civil society groups that annually hands out the Captain Hook Awards for Biopiracy.
The coalition awarded 10 "prizes" to "biopirates" as well as 10 "cog awards for resisting biopiracy". (Cogs were ships designed to repel attacks by pirates).
The United States won the award for "most despicable" act of biopiracy, for imposing plant intellectual property laws on occupied, war-torn Iraq in June 2004, making it illegal for Iraqi farmers to re-use seeds harvested from new varieties registered under the law.
Swiss biotech giant Syngenta was voted the worst threat to food sovereignty, for its patent on the Terminator potato.
The global small farmer movement VÌa Campesina has held near daily demonstrations since COP8 began on Monday, to demand a ban on Terminator seeds.
On Friday, it announced that it would continue holding protests in Curitiba to call for a total worldwide ban on Terminator technology.
Other activists also said they would keep up their guard, even while they celebrated the victory. "There are governments and companies that will keep trying to produce ësuicide seeds'," said Maria Rita Reis, with the Brazilian NGO Terra de Direitos.
GURTS, as Terminator technologies are referred to in the Convention on Biological Diversity, produce "suicide seeds" or "homicide seeds" stressed Hope Shand, research director for the ECT Group (Action Group on Erosion, Concentration and Technology), a Canada-based organisation that works to defend cultural and ecological diversity and human rights.
The commercialisation of Terminator seeds, which would make it impossible for farmers to save seeds from their harvests, would provoke enormous losses for farmers, forcing them off the land and exacerbating hunger and poverty, she maintained.
According to ECT Group estimates, soybean production in Argentina would be hit by an additional 276 million dollars in annual costs, while the cost of wheat production in Pakistan would be 191 million dollars higher.
Numerous activists emphasised that potential contamination and sterilisation of other species would have catastrophic results. There is no need for "field testing" to establish that this technology poses a threat to all life on earth, just as there is no need for field testing on the effects of torture, one activist commented.
The protests voiced by small farmers and environmentalists have fallen on more than fertile ground. Restrictions on Terminator seeds have enjoyed majority support from the outset of COP8. In the European Parliament, this position earned 419 votes in favour and a mere 15 against.
Within the Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC) there is a consensus on maintaining the moratorium on field trials and commercial releases of Terminator seeds and rejecting the proposal for a "case by case" assessment, Alicia Torres, director of Uruguay's National Environment Office and head of her country's delegation to COP8, told IPS.
In the meantime, Syngenta is currently facing troubles in Brazil that go beyond acts of protest.
In addition to the occupation of its test field since Mar. 14 by close to 1,000 rural activists from Brazilian groups associated with the Via Campesina network - like the Movement of Landless Rural Workers š the transnational corporation has just been hit with a fine of one million reals (470,000 dollars) from Brazil's environmental authority.
The sanction stems from the fact that Syngenta's transgenic soybean test crops in Santa Teresa, in the southern state of Paran·, violate national laws because they are located too close to Iguacu National Park, a nature preserve.
Syngenta and Monsanto have both been consistently targeted by protesters at the parallel meetings to COP8 and by the Global Civil Society Forum, a gathering of social movements and non-governmental organisations held in tents outside the Expo Trade Centre, the venue of the official conference.
Terminator rejection - a victory for the people
Greenpeace press release, 24 March 2006.
Curitiba, Brazil, March 24, 2006 -- A broad coalition of peasant farmers,
indigenous peoples and civil society today celebrated the firm rejection
of efforts to undermine the global moratorium on Terminator technologies
- genetically engineered sterile seeds - at the UN Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) in Curitiba, Brazil.
"This is a momentous day for the 1.4 billion poor people worldwide, who
depend on farmer saved seeds," said Francisca Rodriguez of Via
Campesina, a world wide movement of peasant farmers, "Terminator seeds
are a weapon of mass destruction and an assault on our food sovereignty."
"Terminator directly threatens our life, our culture and our identity as
indigenous peoples", said Viviana Figueroa of the Ocumazo indigenous
community in Argentina, on behalf of the International Indigenous Forum
on Biodiversity.
"Today's decision is a huge step forward for the Brazilian Campaign
against GMOs," said Maria Rita Reis from the Brazilian Forum of Social
movements and NGOs, "This reaffirms Brazil's existing ban on Terminator.
It sends a clear message to the national government and congress that
the world supports a ban on Terminator."
"Common sense has prevailed - lifting the Moratorium on the Terminator
seeds would have been suicidal - literally," said Greenpeace
International's Benedikt Haerlin from the Convention meeting. "This is a
genuine victory for civil society around the world - it will go a long
way to ensuring that biodiversity, food security and the livelihoods of
millions of farmers worldwide are protected."
Terminators, or GURTS (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies), are a
class of genetic engineering technologies which allow companies to
introduce seeds whose sterile offspring cannot reproduce, preventing
farmers from re-planting seeds from their harvest. The seeds could also
be used to introduce specific traits which would only be triggered by
the application of proprietary chemicals by the same companies.
At the CBD Australia, Canada and New Zealand along with the US
government (not a party to the CBD) and a number of biotech companies
were leading attempts to open the door to field testing of Terminator
seeds by insisting on a 'case by case' assessment of such technologies.
This text was unanimously rejected today in the CBD's working group
dealing with the issue and still needs to be formally adopted by the
plenary of the CBD.
"Despite today's victory, there is no doubt that the multinational
biotech industry will continue to push sterile seed technology," said
Pat Mooney of the Ban Terminator Campaign. "Terminator will rear its
ugly head at the next UN CBD meeting in 2008. The only solution is a
total ban on the technology once and for all," he concluded.
Greenpeace is an independent, campaigning organisation which uses
non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental
problems, and to force solutions essential to a green and peaceful future.
Further Information:
Benedikt Haerlin, Greenpeace International +55 41 9677 1859
Francisca Rodriguez, Via Campesina +55 41 8429 2970
Pat Mooney, Ban Terminator Campaign +55 41 8833 0437
Greenpeace International
Web: http://www.greenpeace.org
Ottho Heldringstraat 5
1066 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Press Desk Hotline +31 (0) 629001141
General media Inquiries +31 (0) 646162038
E-mail: patrizia.cuonzo@int.greenpeace.org
Tel: +31 (0) 20 5148150
Press Desk Fax +31 (0) 5148156
Michael Kessler
International Communications
Greenpeace International
Ottho Heldingstraat 5, 1066 AZ Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 718 2000
Fax: +31 20 514 8151
Mobile: +34 660 637 053
Email: michael.kessler@int.greenpeace.org
www.greenpeace.org
IBIA calls for debate on GM crops
BizWorld, 24 March 2006.
The Irish BioIndustry Association (IBIA), today called for a real debate on the potential for Irish farmers to grow GM crops and urged government officials to "stop playing mind games" on the issue.
IBIA Director, Marian Byron, said that comments made by the Minister for Agriculture Mary Coughlan regarding the level of interest among Irish farmers in availing of plant biotechnology need a fuller explanation.
"The simple truth is that Irish farmers have been subjected to misinformed, negative and totally misleading information about plant biotechnology. The time has come to stop playing mind games and deal with the substantive issue," she said.
"In an extremely competitive global food market Irish farmers need to be fully aware of the scale of plant biotechnology adoption and its positive impact"
The IBIA claim that in 2005 8.25 million farmers in 17 countries on six continents used plant biotechnology to solve difficult crop production challenges and conserve the environment.
"Right across the developed world plant biotechnology is allowing farmers to grow crops more efficiently and economically. Irish farmers must compete in this market and must be made more aware of the health, environmental and economic benefits of the technology," Marian Byron continued.
The group argue that Irish farmers should have the choice to use whatever technologies are approved in other parts of the world, so that they can compete on a level playing field.
"Currently Irish framers are prohibited from growing biotech corps and have no choice as the decision is made for them. This situation cannot continue indefinitely without an open and frank debate and the Minister has a responsibility to review the benefits to farmers, consumers and Ireland be gained by the use of growing GM corps," Ms. Byron said.
23 March 2006
Movie gives Killarney viewers food for thought
The Kingdom, 23 March 2006, by Eve Kelliher.
HAILED by many as the Fahrenheit 9/11 of the battle against genetically engineered crops, a unique documentary is set to give the people of Kerry food for thought this week.
Anti-GM food campaigners in the county plan to unveil a film on the subject, The Future of Food, in Killarney Great Southern Hotel this Thursday at 8pm.
GM-free Kerry, part of the GM-free Ireland network, will host the screening of this American documentary, together with a discussion.
The Kerry branch of the national organisation was set up by Tralee-based Claire O'Connor and this week's event will be cohosted by Killarney Nature Conservation Society.
The film has previously been shown in Tralee and Listowel and it attracted full houses.
"We just want to get the message out to people about the danger of modified crops," said GM-free Kerry member Tom Donovan.
The Future of Food, which has already inspired the anti-GM movement in the United States, was the brainchild of Deborah Koons Garcia. The documentary uses archival footage and interviews with farmers and agriculture experts to argue that GMO foods are jeopardising food safety.
Italian growers want better grapes, but no gmo
Fresh Plaza, 23 March 2006. By Rosella Gigli.
Rome ‚ After six years long researches, the agrarian institute S. Michele in Trento has decoded the grapes genetic code. This new knowledge makes the realization of new protections against grapes' diseases and parasites possible, but the Italian agricultural organization Coldiretti is worried about possible genetic manipulations.
"The growers are happy about this new mean for fighting against the grapes' diseases, but the idea that genetic manipulations of grapes could be possible in the future, we don't like", says the Coldiretti chairman. However, the agrarian institute agrees with Coldiretti completely: "The new knowledge must be used following natural methods", says the S. Michele chairman.
CBD must maintain moratorium on Terminator technologies
Greenpeace press release, 23 March 2006.
Curitiba, Wednesday, March 22, 2006- Greenpeace today called upon the
188 states at the 8th meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) to maintain the moratorium on the field trials and commercial
releases of Terminator seed technology which was agreed six years ago.
"Some states like New Zealand along with a number of biotech companies
now want to sneak language into the text that would actually allow for a
'case by case' assessment of such technologies to open the door to field
testing, while they officially claim to uphold the moratorium", said
Greenpeace International's Benedikt Haerlin from the Convention.
"This technology threatens biodiversity, farmers rights and the
environment - what is needed is a ban on these technologies and not an
erosion of the moratorium under the pretext of scientific impact and
risk assessment," said Haerlin.
Terminators, or GURTS (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies), are a
class of genetic engineering technologies which allow companies to
introduce seeds whose sterile offspring cannot reproduce, preventing
farmers from re-planting seeds from their own fields. The seeds could
also be used to introduce specific traits which would only be triggered
off by the application of proprietary chemicals provided exclusively by
the same companies.
Terminator technologies would allow companies to prevent the public from
accessing the results of future breeding, which is the present rationale
of plant breeders' rights and even patents. The moratorium adopted by
the Convention on Biodiversity in 2000, discussed the need for more
information on the socio-economic, cultural and environmental impacts of
these technologies.
"Nothing in the past six years has changed the status quo. Rather, all
the additional information we now have on the impact of these
technologies confirms that sterility is not a viable means to protect
agricultural biodiversity, that it poses a potential threat to food
security and that it would have severe impacts on the livelihoods of
farmers around the world," concluded Haerlin.
Greenpeace is part of the global campaign www.banterminator.org
Greenpeace is an independent, campaigning organisation which uses
non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental
problems, and to force solutions essential to a green and peaceful future.
Further information:
Benedikt Haerlin, Greenpeace International GE spokesperson, +55 41 9682 3117
Michael Kessler, Greenpeace International Communications +34 660 637 053
Plans to grow GM spuds 'a bad idea'
Irish Independent, 23 March 2006. By Paul Melia
JUST one group has told the Environmental Protection Agency that growing genetically-modified potatoes in Co Meath is a good idea, it emerged yesterday.
Of 96 submissions received by the environmental watchdog over proposed trials by German biotech firm BASF, just one - from the Irish Bioindustry Association (IBA), an arm of IBEC - was supportive.
The IBA said the technology had the potential to bring 'major benefit to potato farmers', adding that crops produced through plant biotechnology had been grown commercially for a decade with 'no adverse effects to human health or the environment'.
IBA's views were not shared in the 95 other submissions, with most saying that it was 'impossible to guarantee' that GM crops would not contaminate produce grown traditionally.
BASF are seeking a licence from the EPA for a five-year field trial of blight- resistant GM potatoes at a farm in Arudstown, Summerhill, Co Meath.
Green Party leader Trevor Sargent claimed the Irish potato industry would be damaged at news that GM crops were being grown.
Submissions also came from organic farmers' groups, local residents, the Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA) and GM-Free Ireland.
The Irish Wildlife Trust said it was the EPA's responsibility to examine the 'growing body of damning evidence' on GM crops.
The EPA will review the submissions before a decision near the end of April.
Greenpeace Reaction to Syngenta fine
Greenpeace press release, 23 March 2006.
Geneva, Wednesday, March 23, 2006 - Greenpeace today welcomed the
decision of the Brazilian Environment Protection Agency IBAMA to fine
Swiss Agro-Biotech multinational Syngenta one million reais (386 000
euros) for conducting illegal field trials of GE soy in a buffer zone
around the Iguacu Falls World Heritage Site. The organisation is
confident that a judicial order for the destruction of the genetically
engineered plants will also be issued in due time. IBAMA' s decision was
announced today at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
taking place in Curitiba, Brazil.
"This decision sounds a clear warning to agro-biotech firms intent on
putting economic interests ahead of biosafety and enforces respect for
biodiversity and protected areas," said Greenpeace International's
Doreen Stabinsky from the field site. " The announcement is right on
the mark and makes a mockery of Syngenta's denial last week that it had
acted illegally. It confirms the legitimacy and necessity of the
occupation of the field by local peasants."
National law in Brazil expressly prohibits the planting of GMOs in
conservation areas as well as buffer zones around those areas, based on
the precautionary principle. Syngenta's GE soy field trials were found
six kilometres from the park, however national law requires a buffer
zone of at least ten kilometres.
Greenpeace is an independent, campaigning organisation which uses
non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental
problems, and to force solutions essential to a green and peaceful future.
Further information:
Doreen Stabinsky, Greenpeace International, +55 41 9677 1852
Benedikt Haerlin, Greenpeace International GE spokesperson, +55 41 9682 3117
Sandra Sato, IBAMA Press Officer +55 61 9989 9119
Syngenta Appeals Brazil Fine, Farm Still Occupied
Reuters, 23 March 2006. Story by Andrei Khalip.
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil - Syngenta Seeds said on Wednesday it has appealed a fine of 1 million reais (US$462,000) set by Brazil's environmental agency for planting genetically modified crops too close to a national park.
A spokesman for the unit of Switzerland's Syngenta AG also said the company expected hundreds of farmers occupying its farm next to the Iguacu park since last week to leave Wednesday as a court order demands.
On Tuesday, the government's Ibama environmental agency fined Syngenta for having about 30 acres (12 hectares) of transgenic soy plantings in the parks' so-called "amortization zone." The plantings were about 4 miles (6 km) from the park, while the allowed distance is 6 miles (10 km).
Ibama also requested court permission to destroy the plantings in the forbidden area.
"Syngenta is already appealing against Ibama's decision. Consultations with lawyers showed that the definition of contention area around the park is not fixed, while Syngenta followed all the legal process correctly," the spokesman said.
The company has denied any illegal tests, saying it follows all regulations of the National Technical Commission for Biosecurity (CTNBio), which oversees GMO issues.
Some 600 activists from La Via Campesina (Peasant Way), an international group allied with Brazil's militant Landless Peasants' Movement, occupied Syngenta's Santa Teresa do Oeste farm in the southern Parana state to "denounce the illegal activity of experimenting with transgenic seeds in the area."
The act, which started eight days ago, coinicides with an international meeting on biodiversity this week in the same state. The meeting is discussing GMO biosecurity among other issues.
Syngenta last week obtained a court order giving the peasants five days to leave the farm.
"Today's the last day. The company expects a peaceful outcome with the justice's order being fulfilled," the spokesman said, adding that Syngenta employees had been barred from working at the farm, abandoning research.
"A lot of the research there is with conventional materials, a fruit of 20 years of work," he said.
MST says the activists will not leave the farm as they want the authorities to confiscate it from Syngenta. Police, who normally have to intervene to fulfill court rulings in such cases, said they had not yet received any orders.
Land invasions are common in Brazil, mainly to demand that the government speed up the distribution of public land for settlement of poor peasants.
Earlier this month, activists in Rio Grande do Sul state ransacked a tree nursery of Brazilian pulp and paper company Aracruz, destroying part of a research lab.
22 March 2006
Coughlan outlines farm industry plans
RTE News, 22 March 2006.
The Minister for Agriculture has published a plan for the development of the farm and food industry over the next decade.
Mary Coughlan said farming remains a bedrock of rural communities despite those who regularly predict its terminal decline.
The minister set out her vision for an industry which is undergoing major change because of reforms of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy and World Trade Organisation policies.
She stressed the importance of competitiveness, innovation and focus on the consumer.
Ms Coughlan outlined greater roles for Teagasc and Bord Bia in achieving these aims, and she said there has to be a new relationship between farmers and the beef processing sector.
She also wants to reform the school milk scheme to make it more attractive for children with more dairy products available.
The minister also highlighted the economic importance of the agri-manufacturing industry.
She said most farmers are not interested in growing genetically modified crops and that the organic route was a preferred option.
However, Ms Coughlan would not predict how many farmers would survive into the future.
Newly appointed Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Mary Wallace, said farmers would get good incentives to grow more trees and bio-fuels.
ICMSA 'disappointed'
One of the main farm organisations, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, said it is very disappointed that after all the analysis, there are very few actual proposals for the business of farming.
ICMSA leader Jackie Cahill said that unfortunately, the action plan is not a clear blueprint for action as claimed but will deliver increased bureaucracy, fewer farms and lower income.
Another farm leader, Malcolm Thompson of the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association, said the plan is the last chance for Irish agriculture.
Green Party opposition to GM foods
Meath Chronicle, Letter to the editor, 22 March 2006.
Dear sir - I wish to compliment the excellent letter of Martin Dier which appeared in a recent edition of the Meath Chronicle. Mr Dier referred specifically to research carried out in Scotland where laboratory rats experienced depressed immune systems following the consumption of GM potatoes. He correctly identified the potential of genetically modified potatoes to spread and cross fertilize with other potatoes.
This issue is of particular significance in Co Meath at the present time because of the proposed trials by the German company BASF of GM potatoes in Summerhill. The only beneficiary in these trials is the company BASF itself. Their GM crop is not to be developed for the unique and small Irish market but is part of a global strategy to create a product for a global market.
The trials of GM potato will only be of benefit to a company which wants to advertise worldwide that it grew a crop in a country prone to blight. The Irish consumer will not benefit as he/she is generally fearful of GM foods and is loyal to certain potato potato varieties by name. We are all familiar with names such as Roosters, Kerr's Pinks and Queens which suit the Irish palate.
It is ironic that the Irish government is remaining neutral on BASF GM potato trials. This is even more pertinent in Meath where we now have a Minister of State with responsibility for Agriculture and Food together with the Chairman of an Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture.
The irony is borne out by the stated position of both the Ministers for Agriculture and the Environment respectively speaking in April 1997 when they stated: "current scientific knowledge is inadequate to protect the consumer and the environment from the unpredictable and potentially disastrous effects (of GM) which may appear immediately or at any time in the future. Fianna Fáil will not support what amounts to the largest nutritional experiment in human history with the consumer as guinea pig.
The effects of genetically modified food are well documented. They include: unexpected toxins and allergens in food; increased used of chemicals on crops; contamination of water and food; the creation of 'super weeds', herbicide resistant weeds; damage to the ecology of the soil; loss of biodiversity and consequent damage to the food chain.
The rush to market with genetically modified foods is unscientific, unseemly and premature. Prevention is wise because cure is impossible. Genetically modified organisms once released can never be recalled."
A further irony is government reassurances about non-contamination of non GM crops.
Buffer zones have not prevented contamination in countries where GM crops have been grown. Any contamination would not be possible to detect until after the non-GM potatoes had been harvested and put on the market as the contamination would not show up until the harvested seed had been grown as a new plant.
What effects would the introduction of GM potatoes have on Irish farmers? GM potatoes would not have any benefit for Irish farmers.
The value of the seed potato industry was estimated in 2005 at €5.8 million and the value of sales of certified seed potatoes on the domestic market in 2005 was estimated at e2.8 million, with exports valued at €170,000.
Although GM companies will try to promote the idea that less chemicals are required, the same companies will increase their price to reap any would-be saving for the farmer. Secondly, The Department of Agriculture and Food has not committed itself to compensating Irish farmers for the damage caused by GM trials to such established Irish brands such as Roosters, Kerr's Pinks and Rush Queens.
The antipathy of the Irish consumer to GM foods and their cross contamination of the above established brands will result in Scottish seed potatoes benefiting from Ireland's loss, just as Ireland will benefit from Denmark's loss as a result of the Muslim cartoon controversy.
Finally, there is the matter of insurance. Insurance companies refuse cover to farmers growing GM crops should their crops contaminate a neighbour's conventional or organic crop.
The GM promoting company does not take responsibility for such scenarios so farmers will be further forced to carry this additional burden.
This burden is also in effect a threat to the livelihood of a conventional or organic farmer.
The proposal to grow GM potatoes runs contrary to the policies of The Green Party which seeks to protect the interests of both the consumer and the Irish farmer.
Yours,
Brian Flanagan,
Meath West Green Party Candidate,
Navan.
Disown patent on "terminator" potato,
indigenous farmers tell business leader
Media release, 22 March 2006, from the Quechua-Aymara Association for Nature and Sustainable Development (Peru) and the International Institute for Environment & Development
Indigenous farmers in Peru, the birthplace of the potato, have pleaded with agribusiness Syngenta International to publicly abandon its patent on "terminator" technology to control sprouting potatoes which could put at risk more than 3,000 potato varieties in the region and undermine efforts to reduce poverty.
More than 40 indigenous leaders from potato producing communities in the Andean region of Peru came together this weekend (18 March) in the Sacred Valley in Cusco to sign a strongly-worded letter to the company's Chief Executive demanding immediate action.
Syngenta's patent (US Patent 6,700,039) is of particular concern because it describes a technology that could be used to prevent the sprouting of potatoes, unless they are treated with chemicals supplied by the patent owner.
The call to the Swiss-based company comes as government officials meet in Brazil this week for a United Nations biodiversity conference where terminator technology will be hotly debated.
Genetic Use Restriction Technology, dubbed "terminator", would mean that patented plants are genetically-modified to switch off seed fertility. Local farmers would be prevented from saving and reusing terminator type seeds and storage organs such as potato tubers, thus increasing corporate control over the global food system.
Indigenous people fear that it would destroy the sharing of seeds, a centuries-old tradition, and with it their cultural and social way of life.
As a result of biosafety and other concerns, an international moratorium under the Convention on Biological Diversity has stopped the field testing and commercial use of terminator technology since 2000.
Some governments want to relax the UN's biosafety regulation, but the main biotech companies have accepted that public concern and environmental risk is too great to press ahead.
Alejandro Argumedo, Associate Director of the Quechua-Aymara Association for Nature and Sustainable Development, said: "We want the big companies like Syngenta to show corporate social and environmental responsibility. The irresponsible attempt by some governments to bust the moratorium is motivated by power and greed at the expense of people, the environment and poverty reduction. Syngenta could prove that they are on the right side by abandoning their patent on the terminator potato."
The meeting of indigenous people was hosted by the Association of Communities in the Potato Park in Pisaq near Cusco. The park aims to put indigenous people back in charge of managing biological resources by developing locally controlled food systems and institutions.
Dr Michel Pimbert of the International Institute for Environment & Development, which supported the establishment of the Potato Park and this weekend's meeting on Syngenta's patent, said: "Sterile seed technology is dangerous and will further erode the rights of indigenous people and farmers to save and reuse seeds. Terminator is not a solution and the moratorium must be upheld. It is a great shame that a few governments have been able to hijack this important UN meeting when the debate should be focused on tackling the root causes of dwindling biodiversity and deepening poverty."
Ends.
For further information
Alejandro Argumedo (ANDES) +55 41 8441 5484
Liz Carlile (IIED) +44 207 388 2117
Tony Samphier +44 208 761 8155
Notes to editors
The Eighth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP8) takes place in Curitiba, Brazil, from 20 to 31 March 2006. The issue of terminator technology is expected to be discussed during the second and third days of the meeting (21/22 March).
The Quechua-Aymara Association for Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development (ANDES) is governed by a general assembly which is largely composed of indigenous people from Andean villages. ANDES has three professional staff in their office in Cusco, in southern Peru, while another 15 technicians and university-trained professionals and 25 local villagers work in the field with local communities.
The International Institute for Environment & Development (IIED) is a London-based think tank working for global policy solutions rooted in the reality of local people at the frontline of sustainable development. www.iied.org
A full text of the letter from indigenous leaders to the Chief Executive of Syngenta International is available at www.iied.org
Bill would take food-label rights away from states
The New Mexican, by Kristen Davenport, March 22, 2006.
A bill that would forbid states from labeling food products unless the federal government allows it passed through the House of Representatives last week without a single committee hearing.
"It was really bad," said Tom Udall, Northern New Mexico's Democratic congressman. "In the normal legislative process, a bill goes through committee, and the committee calls witnesses . What the Republicans do now is bring up bills without ever letting the committees work their will."
In other words, the thousands of people who oppose the bill were not heard. Udall said he received at least 500 letters, phone calls or e-mails from New Mexicans opposing the bill ó and not one in favor.
The bill ó named the Food Uniformity Act ó has been slammed by opponents as a bow to big agribusiness and those who don't want states to be allowed to label foods containing genetically altered organisms.
"A lot of people don't know how much genetically engineered material is in their food," said Bobbe Besold, a Santa Fe food activist and former member of the now defunct Food Fight group. Food Fight used to organize anti-GMO ó Genetically Modified Organism ó gatherings and provide literature to people about genetically engineered food.
No research to date has conclusively shown that genetically modified foods are harmful to human health. However, organic farmers say GMOs are a threat to biodiversity and that pollen from such engineered crops threatens to drift into organic gene pools.
"I see (this bill) as infringing on our rights ó withholding information from the public and keeping us from being informed about what's in our food," Besold said.
Opponents say the bill came about because certain large agriculture and food-production companies ó such as Novartis, General Mills and Monsanto ó dislike the increasing efforts by activists and others to pass laws banning GMOs or requiring all GMO foods to be labeled as such. The Food Uniformity Act allows states to appeal to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to have their labeling requirements adopted by the federal agency. But Udall said that measure simply puts the cost and burden on states, which isn't fair. "It will cost the states $100 million," Udall said. "That really places an undue burden on them." Udall said the bill certainly didn't originate with consumers or with state governments; it originated with the food industry. "These big companies want to sweep aside the right to label as the states want," Udall said. Many things could be affected by the act, including small local farmers who label their products "organically grown in New Mexico."
The bill was sponsored in the House by Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Missouri , who said the bill is necessary to eliminate the "patchwork" of safety laws that differ from state to state.
"Creating a uniform system assures Americans that no matter where they live or travel in the nation, they can depend on food labels to reflect the contents of food and the potential for reactions to certain contents ," Rogers said in a press release after the bill was introduced in December 2005.
"In today's worldwide market, it is essential that we have a mechanism for a thorough, orderly foodlabeling system based on safe, scientific guidelines," Rogers said.
But Udall said the measure also indicates that Republicans are abandoning their decades-old belief in states' rights.
"That was a big part of the conservative philosophy," Udall said. "Let the states do these things. When civil rights came up, that was their mantra ó let's let the states do this. Anytime there's a federal program, they say, ëLet the states do it.' Well, food-safety labeling is something the states have traditionally done for themselves . And now they want to take it away at the urging of these big special interests."
However, Udall said, it appears unlikely the bill will pass in the Senate because the Senate's calendar is full and "there's not much space for something like this."
So far, no states require labeling on all GMO crops, although the European Union requires all food containing GMOs to be labeled as such.
Farmers 'betrayed' over technology
Western Mail (Australia), 21 March 2006. By Steve Dube.
THOUSANDS of farmers are expected to demonstrate today against
proposals that will open the way for a form of genetic modification
that makes it impossible for them to save their own seeds.
A global moratorium on testing and marketing so-called terminator
technology, established under the United Nations Convention on
Biodiversity in 2000, could be overturned this week as 188 governments
gather in Curitiba, Brazil, for the eighth conference of the
convention.
The UK has joined Australia, Canada and New Zealand in urging the
convention to abandon its opposition and fall in line with the United
States, where the seeds are currently being tested.
Almost 500 organisations, including farmers groups, international
organisations, trade unions, charities and churches have now called for
a ban in a growing campaign of opposition.
Terminator technology is controversial because it prevents farmers from
saving their own seeds to grow new crops, forcing them to buy new seeds
each season.
Opponents say it is easy to understand why a handful of wealthy
governments want to join the US in developing terminator seeds.
The major seed companies effectively control a world seed market worth
about £14bn a year. If farmers could not save their own seeds, and were
forced to buy every time, the value could double.
The UK Government's decision to abandon its opposition was only
revealed on the Defra web site on February 21 when the House of Commons
was in recess.
It was raised by Opposition MPs on March 8, when Defra Minister Ben
Bradshaw insisted that the policy was unchanged, although a moratorium
on testing would be wrong.
He said the UK's position was to approach every bid to test or market
such seeds on a case-by-case basis, as with all GM seeds.
Former Environment Minister Michael Meacher says UK policy now differs
significantly from the one he approved six years ago.
"I could see the need for a global agreement on how to prevent the
release of terminator," he said.
"It poses a greater threat than any other type of GM seeds because it
would undermine farmers' seed saving, threaten food security and
agricultural biodiversity.
"Using this technology would force more farmers to buy new seeds each
season from corporations whose control over seeds is already
substantial."
Dr Meacher said the Government appeared to back the claim by the big
biotech corporations that the terminator would prevent GM genes
contaminating neighbouring crops or wild plants.
"This is nonsense because terminator cannot provide 100% sterility, nor
prevent normal cross-contamination through pollen drift," he said. "In
any case, that is not its purpose; it is to make the seeds
agronomically unviable in order to ensure seed sales."
Dr Brian John, of the campaign group GM Free Cymru, questioned where
the Welsh Assembly Government stood on the issue.
In an open letter to Wales Environment Minister Carwyn Jones, Dr John
said, "This is an appalling policy shift which betrays the interests of
farmers.
"There is no new evidence which might underpin a shift in the Defra
position.
"The implications for the Third World are truly terrifying."
A Welsh Assembly Government spokeswoman said, "If GM crop varieties
containing terminator technology were ever approved for use in the EU,
it would be up to individual farmers to decide whether or not to use
them."
Tests have benefits, says scientists
A NEW discussion document endorses the need to make sure new crops and
farming practices are not going to damage biodiversity. But the
Government's Advisory Committee on Releases (Acre) into the Environment
says the current regulatory system is flawed because it doesn't weigh
this damage against potential benefits.
Acre chairman Professor Chris Pollock, the director of the Institute of
Grassland and Environmental Research near Aberystwyth, who chaired the
Scientific Steering Committee of the UK Farm Scale Trials on GM crops,
believed the trials were a great model for testing environmental impact
before new technology is widely introduced.
"But many scientists also feel that by only asking about the
dis-benefits of this technology, policy makers cannot make a balanced
decision based on a proper risk-benefit analysis."
21 March 2006
Environmental advisory committee appointed by Minister is unbalanced
The Irish Times, 21 March 2006.
The Minister for the Environment has shown his true colours with his appointments to the EPA's advisory committee, writes Frank McDonald, Environment Editor
Dick Roche would like people to believe that he cares about the environment, even that he's more sympathetic to the "green agenda" than his predecessor Martin Cullen.
But when it came to choosing nominees to serve on the Environmental Protection Agency's Advisory Committee, he nailed his true colours to the mast.
Not one of the six nominees put forward by 24 groups involved in various aspects of environmental protection was chosen by the Minister.
He passed over all of them - including such prominent figures as Karin Dubsky - in favour of appointing people with little or no discernible track-record in the area.
Section 27 of the 1992 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Act specifies that its advisory committee should be broadly representative of professions and organisations concerned with environmental protection, those concerned with social and economic development and those involved in environmental education or research.
Until Mr Roche took over as Minister for the Environment in September 2004, the prescribed organisations under the environmental protection heading were An Taisce, Voice and Eco-Unesco - all three of them actively involved in this area.
However, that was changed by a little-noticed statutory instrument signed by the Minister in December 2004.
Henceforth, the organisations with rights to nominate candidates for selection as members of the EPA advisory committee were to be Fáilte Ireland and the Heritage Council - both State agencies - and Environmental Ecological NGOs Core Funding Ltd, (EENGOCF) an umbrella body for non-governmental organisations involved in environmental protection.
EENGOCF had been set up to administer the relative pittance disbursed annually by the Department of the Environment in "core funding" for 24 environmental NGOs, to enable them to survive. In 2005, it received §80,000 to share out between them, plus a further §115,000 for administration and conference travelling expenses.
In January 2005, EENGOCF was requested by the Minister to nominate six candidates for appointment to the new EPA advisory committee - three of whom should be male and three female, in the interest of "gender balance". The environmental groups had every reason to believe that at least one of their nominees would be chosen.
The previous advisory committee, incidentally, had been allowed to lapse 10 months earlier even though the 1992 legislation under which the EPA was established laid down that "there shall be a committee" with 12 members to advise the agency on such matters as its work programme, standards, guidelines and codes of practice.
EENGOCF submitted six nominees: Jack O'Sullivan, who served on the previous advisory committee; Elizabeth Cullen, of the Irish Doctors' Environmental Association; Karin Dubsky, of Coastwatch; Michael Ewing, of Friends of the Irish Environment; Pat Finnegan, of Grian, and Caroline Lewis, of the Irish Natural Forestry Foundation. Though these nominations were made within a tight timetable, a full year passed before EENGOCF was informed by the Minister's office that the new advisory committee had been appointed, and none of its nominees was selected. Instead, Mr Roche chose the F·ilte Ireland nominee, environmental consultant Jeanne Meldon, from the panel.
He also made four personal appointments: John Dillon, former president of the IFA; John Buckley, a Killarney auctioneer who was on the previous advisory committee, and two of his own constituents - Irene Sweeney, described as a "community representative" from Arklow, and Seán Byrne, of the Wicklow Uplands Council.
Mr Dillon has said he was approached directly by the Minister within weeks of stepping down from the IFA's leadership and asked if he would like to serve on the EPA's advisory committee; he had agreed to accept the appointment "for the good of Irish farmers". At the time, the IFA was at war with the Government over the EU nitrates directive.
Ms Sweeney is married to a Fianna F·il councillor in Arklow whose family have been active in the party for many years, and was involved in the Special Olympics in 2004, while Mr Buckley is also a board member of Sustainable Energy Ireland, the State agency charged with promoting the adoption of alternatives to fossil fuels.
As reported in today's newspaper, Mr Buckley took an interest in the case of an illegal dump in Co Wicklow and plans by Brownfield Restoration (Ire) Ltd to remediate and develop it; he forwarded a letter from the company's managing director addressed to the Minister to the EPA's deputy director general, Dr Padraic Larkin.
There is no doubt that the committee appointed by the Minister is unbalanced. The farming sector is more than well represented, not just by Mr Dillon, but also by Donal Harte, chairman of the ICMSA in west Cork, who has complained that a "draconian" application of the nitrates directive would put pig and poultry farmers out of business.
Carmel Dawson, of the Irish Countrywomen's Association, is also a member of the new advisory committee, as is Marian Byron of Ibec, which represents companies in the chemical and pharmaceutical sector that must obtain integrated pollution control licences from the EPA - though the committee has no role in relation to individual licences.
According to Frank Corcoran, national chairman of An Taisce, Mr Roche's decision to overlook all six of the nominees put forward by the NGO umbrella group in his appointments to the advisory committee - "sends a clear signal" that the Minister "places no value on the input of civil society" into the whole area of environmental protection.
Ms Dubsky agreed. "There are weaknesses in the way the EPA is being run, such as the requirement that any complaint to its Office of Environmental Enforcement must be in writing.
"A lot of people are afraid to do that because their names would appear on a public file. If we were on the advisory committee, we could change things like that."
19 March 2006
Biotech Foods: International safety laws agreed
Friends of the Earth International media advisory, 18 March 2006.
CURITIBA (BRAZIL), 17 March 2006 - United Nations talks on the global trade
in genetically modified (GM) foods and crops ended here today with an
agreement on the labelling of GM grains traded worldwide. Friends of the
Earth welcomed the agreement as a "small step forward" but attacked the
biotech industry and the trade interests of a few countries for blocking
progress towards better protection for developing countries and the
environment.
The biotech industry consistently opposed clear identification and labelling
requirements for GM crops. Without clear labelling many countries,
especially developing countries with their limited resources, are unable to
protect their food supply and environment from GM contamination.
Nnimmo Bassey, International Coordinator of the Friends of the Earth GMO
Campaign said:
"Protection of the environment and the public from genetically modified
crops has taken a small step forward today. However it is clear that trade
interests and the biotech industry stopped a better agreement from being
made. Countries have the right to know what is being imported into their
country and the right to say no to GM crops."
The UN Biosafety Protocol, which was originally agreed in January 2000,
provides basic international rules that allow mainly developing countries to
regulate the safety of GM foods, crops and seeds. It has been ratified by
132 countries but the three main countries that grow GM crops - the United
States, Argentina and Canada - have refused to support it.
Ten years after the first significant planting of GM crops, no plants with
benefits to consumers or the environment have materialized and GM crops have
failed to deliver the promises of the biotech industry. More than 80% of the
area cultivated with biotech crops is still concentrated in only three
countries: the US, Argentina and Canada.
Friends of the Earth International recently published a report that
concluded:
• GM crops are not green. Monsanto's GM soybeans, the most extensively grown
GM crop today, has led to an increase in herbicide use. The intensive
cultivation of soybeans in South America is fostering deforestation, and has
been associated with a decline in soil fertility and soil erosion.
• GM crops do not tackle hunger or poverty. Most GM crops commercialized so
far are destined for animal feed, not for food, and none have been
introduced to address hunger and poverty issues. In Argentina, the second
biggest producer of GM crops in the world, only 2% of the soya stays in the
country. Other developing countries, such as Indonesia and India, have
experienced substantial problems with Monsanto's GM crops, often leaving
farmers heavily indebted.
• The biotech industry has failed to introduce the promised new generation'
of GM crops with consumer benefits. After 30 years of research, only two
modifications have made it to the marketplace on any scale: insect
resistance and herbicide tolerance.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT
In Curitiba, Brazil
Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth International / Friends of the Earth
Nigeria
Tel: +44 7785334200 (UK mobile) or email nnimmo@eraction.org
Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe
Tel +49 1609 490 1163 (German mobile) or email adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org
In Europe
Juan Lopez, Friends of the Earth International
Tel +34 6259 805 820 (Spanish mobile)
For more information:
Background on biosafety:
http://www.foei.org/gmo/biosafety.html
17 March 2006
G.M. and the food supply
Irish Independent, Letter to the editor, 19 March 2006.
It seems that human genetic material will soon become part of our daily diet if large biotech companies have their way. In spite of the tragedy of BSE, which was caused by feeding animal protein to cows, it appears that we are next in line to be forced down the dangerous path of cannibalism, courtesy of a new, third generation of GMO's.
Recent reports reveal that Canadian biotech company, SemBioSys has applied for permits to use third generation GM crop technology called biopharming to inject crops like barley and safflower with human genes to produce synthetic drugs for the treatment of diabetes and heart conditions.
Independent scientists have warned of the dangers of this process and say that it will be virtually impossible to keep these biopharms out of the food supply. They have pointed to a case in Nebraska in 2002, where so-called rigorous regulations failed to prevent half a million bushels of Soya, worth about $2.7 being contaminated by a pharmaceutical crop grown there the previous year.
In the meantime our own pro-GM Government carries on its strange love affair with the global biotech industry and in a shameful display of cowardice, continues its refusal to vote against the introduction of GM food into Europe. This stance is totally at variance with the wishes of 80 per cent of Irish consumers, who when interviewed in a recent survey, said that they did not want GM food.
In Ireland we are blessed with a natural eco-system, which is the envy of our European neighbours. Our Irish Government has an enormous moral obligation to its citizens and their environment, to ensure that absolutely nothing threatens the integrity this unique natural asset.
John Heney, Kilfeacle, Co. Tipperary
EU Says Cypriot Law On GMO Labels Is "Nonadmissable"
Wall Street Journal, 17 March 2006.
Brussels - The European Commission Wednesday told Cyprus its draft law requiring genetically modified foods to be displayed separately in supermarkets is "nonadmissable."
Cyprus asked the Commission in September if its law was legal under E.U. rules. Friday, the Commission said no.
The Cypriot example underlines tensions within the E.U. over genetically modified products. Despite ending its unofficial moratorium on approving new GMO products in 2004, the E.U.'s pace of new GMO approvals has been slow - some eight products in nearly two years.
The U.S. has complained about the length of time it takes the E.U. to approve new types of GMOs and what it sees as excessive political involvement in what should be a science-based decision.
Last week, farm ministers failed to agree with the European Commission on the issue. Positions are so entrenched, they said, that there is little hope of them getting a deal later.
"We are in the beginning of an interesting debate," said Austrian Agriculture Minister Josef Proll, who was chairing the meeting. "We will continue with discussions" at other meetings. "There is no straight yes or no to such a sensitive topic."
The issue pits environmentalists and some national governments, which are fighting the products, against the Brussels-based European Commission which promotes them as a key test of the E.U.'s willingness to adopt new technologies.
Silver Pail dips into lucrative [GM-free] ice-cream tub
The Irish Times, 17 March 2006.
At just 31 Thea Murphy is set to take over her father's Cork ice-cream business, which has just landed a €2 million-a-year contract with Baskin-Robbins, writes Claire Shoesmith
.
Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough, Golden Medal Ribbon and Cherries Jubilee - all ice cream flavours for those of you who don't know - are an everyday feature in the life of Thea Murphy. Not only does she have millions of litres of ice cream at her disposal but soon she will have individual deserts and ice-cream-based cakes too.
At 31, Thea is being groomed to take over Silver Pail, the ice-cream business her father established 28 years ago. Thea has been in the company for four years. She runs it with her father, Michael, who has grown the Fermoy, north Cork-based firm from three people to about 60.
Thea is relaxed about the prospect of running a business that in January signed a €2 million-a-year contract to supply ice cream to Baskin-Robbins's shops in the UK and Europe. This is also in addition to producing its own brand of ice cream, making frozen products for Irish retailers and producing Carolan's Irish Cream liqueur under contract for C&C.
Her father is also relaxed about the idea. "If Thea wasn't coming up behind, I couldn't keep going," he says, dismissing the idea that he will struggle to hand over the reigns when the time comes for him to step aside.
"I have more experience now, but within three or four years there won't be much more I can teach her," he says, declining to divulge his age.
While full ownership of the company will one day pass into his daughter's hands, the decisions concerning the future of the company don't lie on her shoulders yet. According to Michael, Silver Pail has a very good management team, which includes a product manager who's been there from the start.
Thea's main duties, as well as part-running the company, lie in product development and looking after suppliers. She divides her time between travel and the Fermoy factory.
Since the start of the year, most of her time has been taken up with the Baskin-Robbins contract. The world's leading chain of ice-cream stores, based in California, used to source its ice cream from a plant in Canada. However, changes to labelling regulations in Europe mean that any products containing genetically modified ingredients must say so on the label. Because some of the Canadian ingredients were modified, Baskin-Robbins decided to switch to a European GM-free supplier.
This is where Silver Pail came into its own. The company, whose philosophy is to use only natural local ingredients, fitted the bill perfectly. As a result, Ireland's largest privately owned ice-cream manufacturer will by June be producing 36 flavours of ice cream for the American chain.
This year more than 1.5 million litres of Baskin-Robbins ice cream will be produced in Fermoy, using cream from seven million litres of milk sourced from local farms. According to Michael, the contract has the potential to be worth three times the initial €2-million-a-year estimate.
"This is a very significant contract for us," says Thea, adding that what makes it better than other business is that it's static throughout the year. "This is a quieter time of year for our own business, so it's good to have new business."
It has, however, taken up a lot of the company's time - so much that its plans to start manufacturing individual-sized desert portions are now 18 months behind schedule. The company hopes to launch the new range at the beginning of April to satisfy the demands of much of the catering industry.
Silver Pail is also introducing an ice-cream-based cake business, but this is a little further down the line, according to Thea.
Once the bulk of the Baskin-Robbins development work is out of the way - Silver Pail has had to replicate all of the flavours exactly - it can focus again on the company's own brand of ice cream.
Corrin Hill ice cream, named after a landmark overlooking the town of Fermoy where Thea was born, was launched in 2004. Last year it had sales of €1.3 million, according to market research group AC Nielson. However, it isn't making any money for Silver Pail and won't do for at least another two years. Corrin Hill is aimed at what Silver Pail believes was a gap in the market.
"There were no good quality dairy products on offer in the mid range," says Thea. "That's where we saw a gap - between the economy pack sizes and the premium end, which was proper dairy, but that cost a lot.
"So that became our brief: to make a dairy product using only natural ingredients, colours and flavours but to keep its price down."
Then came the fun bit. To test the suitability of the product, Silver Pail took it into local schools for testing. The results of the school tasting sessions were then put to the test again at DIT in Dublin. Ultimately, five flavours were chosen, which can be found in most Irish supermarkets, including Supervalu, Dunnes, Tesco and Centra. Silver Pail has just taken on an agent in the North and may expand the brand further.
"Any expansion into the UK will be very targeted," says Thea, while her father acknowledges that by focusing on just one UK town, the group can reach more people than in the whole of Ireland.
Things haven't always gone swimmingly. During 2000 and 2001 Silver Pail was forced to downsize its business after being squeezed by the British supermarkets. "The margins they were asking for were just impossible," says Michael, who initially learned his trade as part of Express Dairies in Cheshire and London.
He then went to South Africa where he set up a yoghurt factory outside Johannesburg. When that was sold he moved on to ice cream and eventually back to Ireland. "We were forced to end the contracts with the UK supermarkets and as a result had to lay people off," he says of Silver Pail around the turn of the century. The group's headcount fell back to about 40 and a decision was made to focus on more niche markets.
It still supplies to some Irish supermarkets.
However, in the UK it focuses simply on speciality chocolate maker Thorntons and one larger group, Nestlé.
Michael declined to comment on the company's financial performance, saying he didn't want to divulge any information to the group's competitors. However, according to the latest filings with Companies House, Foxway, the ice-cream manufacturing part of the business, made a profit of €125,579 in 2004. Gross profit before distribution and administrative costs and interest was €1.166 million.
Whatever the outcome of the accounts, Silver Pail appears to be in the right market. At more than 10 litres per person each year, the Irish eat more ice cream than most other Europeans. And with an increase in household spending and a desire for natural products, the company is certainly making its way down the right path.
Whether it will succeed in its unspoken aim of displacing the multinationals in the Irish market remains to be seen, but in the meantime I certainly would be content with sampling as many new flavours as Silver Pail wants to try out.
Factfile
Name: Thea Murphy
Position: Co-director of Silver Pail
Family: Single with no children, lives in Fermoy, Co Cork
Background: She studied food nutrition at UCC in Cork and then worked at Kerry Foods before joining the family company four years ago
Why she is in the news: Thea is being groomed by her father to take over as head of the family company when he retires. She already co-runs the company, which in January won a 2 million-a-year contract to manufacture ice cream for Baskin-Robbins, the world's leading chain of ice cream stores.
16 March 2006
Safety expert sounds biotech alarm
The Guardian, Thursday March 16, 2006. By Sarah Boseley and Ian Sample.
A leading drug safety expert warned yesterday that scientists should not take lightly the potential hazards of modern biotech drugs, such as the one that has endangered the lives of six volunteers.
Conventional drugs are simple chemicals, said Saad Shakir, head of the Drug Safety Research Unit at Southampton University. But modern biotech drugs, produced through genetic engineering, are effectively large proteins. Contamination during the manufacturing process, for instance by a virus, would be far easier - and the drugs also have more potential to cause a harmful reaction in the body.
"The message is that biological products are more complex products. They are a protein, so they can induce reactions in the body which could be of an allergic or hypersensitive nature," said Dr Shakir.
Phase-one studies carried out on healthy people to check the safety of new drugs had been very safe in the past, he said. "You could count the number of fatalities on the fingers of one or two hands." But now that a new generation of biological products had arrived, we could be into "a new paradigm".
At TeGenero, the 15-strong German biotech company that brought what it hoped was an exciting, innovative drug into its first human trials, scientists were still trying to absorb the shock yesterday and begin to help investigators at the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority in the UK. TeGenero insisted that nothing in the laboratory work and animal testing performed prior to the human trials would have warned it of the extreme reaction in the volunteers. "These events were completely unexpected and do not reflect the results we obtained from initial laboratory studies which enabled us to progress investigations into human volunteers," said Benedikte Hatz, its chief executive.
The new drug, known as TGN1412, was being developed "for the treatment of immunological diseases with a high unmet medical need, such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and certain cancers", the company said.
The company that TeGenero contracted to run its clinical trials, US-based Parexel, expressed itself just as stunned as TeGenero and emphasised the speed with which its staff got medical help for the volunteers. "We worked in cooperation with the [Northwick Park] hospital intensive care doctors and the sponsor to have the volunteers given the best possible care, and to explore all possible treatment options," said Herman Scholtz, head of Parexel International Clinical Pharmacology.
Parexel recruits volunteers on the internet, where a site clearly aimed at students offers free meals, time to study, pool and internet access as well as more than £1,000 per trial, depending on its length.
How it should work
• TGN1412 uses artificial antibodies designed to target a subset of immune system cells called T cells.
• Rheumatoid arthritis is believed to be caused by some T cells attacking the body.
• The antibodies in the drug get into the bloodstream, seek out the immune cells and latch on to them.
• Most antibody treatments work by shutting down biological reactions, but this drug is designed to do the opposite. The antibodies should bind to the rogue immune cells so well that they over-stimulate them, making them burn out and die.
Greenpeace condemns latest attempt to undermine organic and GM-free agriculture
EUbusiness.com, 16 March 2006.
Greenpeace has objected to threats of legal action by the European Commission against EU member states and regions that seek - within the law - to prevent unnecessary and unwanted contamination of conventional and organic agriculture by genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
In an official Communication published 10 March, the Commission attacks some member states and regions that have adopted or drafted legislation that, it claims, is "overly restrictive" for GMO-growers. The Commission says it will take "necessary steps to ensure that Community legislation is respected".
Eric Gall of Greenpeace European Unit said: "The Commission has approved every GMO that the industry has passed its way, and is now trying to bully with threats of legal action against any country or region that wants to defend the right of farmers and consumers not to plant GMOs or eat genetically modified food."
According to the Commission, by the end of 2005, 20 draft national and regional laws against GMO contamination had been notified to Brussels. The Commission reveals that it has objected to half the draft laws to date, denouncing provisions such as:
• the proposal to prohibit or restrict GM crop cultivation in protected or ecologically sensitive regions;
• the requirement that GM crop growers obtain insurance so as to compensate organic and conventional farmers for losses caused by GM contamination;
• bans on the growing of GM crops due to concerns about contamination of GMO-free agriculture, public health risks and damage to the environment.
In the last two years, the European Commission has repeatedly authorised new GMOs against the will of most EU member states, thanks to the EU's technical procedure for decision-making: 'comitology'. At the same time, it has denied the claims of over 170 European regions which have declared their opposition to the cultivation of GM crops on their territory.
Eric Gall continued: "People have a right to GM-free food; farmers have a right to grow GM-free crops; and regions or countries have the right to protect their land, citizens and farmers from potentially dangerous and irreversible GMO contamination. The EU Commission has been using an undemocratic procedure to force GMOs onto a public that rejects them and onto governments that have regularly voted against them. The Commission is getting further from the people day by day."
A conference on coexistence will take place on 4-6 April in Vienna, organised by the European Commission. Farmers, GMO-free regions and NGOs including Greenpeace will join a "March of the GMO-free regions" outside the venue.
Syngenta Brazil Denies Illegal Genetic Seed Tests
Reuters, 16 March 2006. Story by Andrei Khalip.
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil - Syngenta Seeds on Wednesday denied claims by a peasant group occupying its farm in southern Brazil that the biotechnology company's experiments with genetically modified organisms were illegal.
The unit of Swiss Syngenta AG said in a statement it was talking to authorities and taking all legal measures to end the invasion. The act started on Tuesday in Parana state where an international meeting on biodiversity this week is discussing GMO biosecurity and other issues.
"All Syngenta's product development follows rigid security and quality norms, government policies and all the applicable regulations," the company said, citing its licenses from the government commission that authorizes GMO research in Brazil.
La Via Campesina (Peasant Way), an international group allied with Brazil's militant Landless Peasants' Movement, said 1,000 activists invaded Syngenta's Santa Teresa do Oeste farm to "denounce the illegal activity of experimenting with transgenic seeds in the area."
Peasant Way's Web site said an inspection this month by Brazil's environmental agency Ibama found GMO seeds planted closer to the Iguacu National Park than permitted by law.
An Ibama spokesman confirmed that 30 acres (12 hectares) of Syngenta's transgenic soy plantings were about 4 miles (6 km) from the park, while the allowed distance is 6 miles (10 km).
"The area was embargoed, which means they cannot harvest there until further notice. There are fines involved as well," said the spokesman, saying the biosecurity council license did not exempt Syngenta from abiding environmental regulations.
Syngenta did not comment on Ibama's claims, but repeated that it followed all regulations of the National Technical Commission for Biosecurity (CTNBio).
It said the invasion was peaceful, although the activists broke the main gate on Tuesday. It said all employees had left the farm, except for the manager and his assistants.
In 2001, protesters taking part in the World Social Forum in Brazil yanked up more than 5 acres (2 hectares) of genetically modified soybean crops at an experimental farm owned by US biotech giant Monsanto.
Roberto Baggio, a coordinator for the Landless Peasants' Movement, said small farmers and peasants wanted the government to intensify biosecurity checks around the Iguacu park.
"They believe that the only way out is to cut short the experiments definitively and bar Syngenta from occupying the property (near the park)," he said.
Anti-GMO activists blame Syngenta for what they call the largest case of genetic contamination in the world. Syngenta's Bt-10 biotech corn, which was approved for only animal feeds, was accidentally mixed with US grain meant for human consumption between 2001 and 2004.
US authorities subsequently concluded that Bt-10 corn is not a danger to people, animals or plants.
Land invasions are common in Brazil, mainly to demand that the government speed up the distribution of public land for settlement of poor peasants.
Separately in Brazil, the Landless Peasant Movement has been occupying a farm belonging to Suzano pulp and paper company in Sao Paulo state and a few private farms elsewhere.
Last week, activists in southern Rio Grande do Sul state ransacked a tree nursery of Brazilian pulp and paper company Aracruz, destroying part of a research lab. Aracruz estimated losses at $400,000 including 1 million saplings and genetic material that took 15 years to produce.
Another contamination case in organic agriculture in Catalonia
GM-free Catalunia press release, 3 March 2006.
On Sunday 26 February 2006, over 50 people cut down a contaminated organic maize field, and burned nearly 4 tonnes of maize in protest at the plight of organic farmers in Catalonia who are contaminated by the expansion of GM maize fields.
All this happened in Albons, a small village near the coast 40 km from Girona, in Northern Catalonia, where the number of hectares of GM maize is growing year by year. Enric Navarro, the organic farmer, has developed an agroecological park near the village, where people go to learn about our local varieties, medicinal plants, and agroecology in general. Enric also produces certified organic products to sell in the organic market.
This farmer planted certified organic maize seeds two years ago, and when he harvested the crop he requested the local organic certification body CCPAE (Consell Catala de la Produccio Agraria Ecologica), to analyse the yield. The analysis showed his crop was GMO-free.
The next year he planted 3,300m2 of the same seed, but problems began on the 18th of January when CCPAE informed him that his field had been contaminated by GM maize at 12.6%. This appears to be the highest level of GM contamination so far detected in Catalonia. CCPAE was forced to remove the crop's organic status, and suggested it be sold as conventional maize. But Enric refused to do so on principle, because he d