NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • May 2006

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

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

30 May 2006

Pesticide industry plotted Bush human testing policy
Meeting with OMB staff laid out exemptions for experiments on children

GM Watch news release, 50 May 2006. By Carol Goldberg + 1 202 265 7337.

Washington, DC - One month before the Bush administration proposed rules authorizing experiments on humans with pesticides and other chemicals, its key operatives met with pesticide industry lobbyists to map out its provisions, according to meeting notes posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The industry requests for exemptions allowing some chemical testing on children and other provisions were incorporated into the human testing rule ultimately adopted this January 26th.

At the August 9, 2005 meeting held inside the President's Office of Management and Budget, representatives of the pesticide trade association, Crop Life America, as well as Bayer Crop Life Science met with OMB and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials. Also attending was a former top EPA official, James Aidala, who now acts a lobbyist at a law firm representing chemical companies.

The meeting notes detail industry concerns about the text of a proposed rule that the Bush administration first unveiled a month later on September 12th. For example, the Crop Life America attendees urged:

• "Re kids never say never" (emphasis in original);
• "Pesticides have benefits. Rule should say so. Testing, too, has benefits"; and
• "We want a rule quickly [therefore] narrow [is] better. Don't like being singled out but, speed is most imp."

"These meeting notes make it clear that the pesticide industry's top objective is access to children for experiments. "After reading these ghoulish notes one has the urge to take a shower," commented PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, whose organization works with EPA scientists who have been prevented from voicing ethical and scientific concerns about human subject testing. "For an administration which trumpets its concern for the 'value and dignity of life'Ç it is disconcerting that no ethicists, children advocates or scientists were invited to this meeting to counterbalance the pesticide pushers."

The upcoming August 3rd deadline for EPA final approval for a controversial class of pesticides derived from nerve agents called organophosphates appeared to be a top industry priority. Jim Aidala, the industry lobbyist, stated, "Won't be able to meet the FQPA [Food Quality Protection Act] deadline. Wouldn't anyway. Just do the rule first, then proceed ASAP."

Aidala also suggested how the rules could make subtle exceptions for chemicals testing on children:

• "Distinguish testing kids from using data on kids who were tested"; and • "Some workers may legally be children, albeit old enough for DOL" [Department of Labor coverage].

The human testing rule adopted by EPA earlier this year contains the loopholes advocated at the OMB meeting for exposing children to pesticides, such as testing on workers and exposures unconnected with the approval process for new pesticides or new uses for existing agents. In addition, the rule broadly allows dosing experiments on infants and pregnant women using non-pesticide chemicals.

"Unfortunately, using human beings as guinea pigs to test the toxic strength of commercial poisons has become a central regulatory strategy under the Bush administration," Ruch added.

See the Crop Life-OMB meeting notes
http://www.peer.org/docs/epa/06_26_5_EPA_HumanTesting_meetingnotes.pdf

Look at the meeting participants
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/2070/meetings/461.html

Read about political pressure on EPA scientists to approve organophosphate pesticides
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=691

Revisit the Bush human testing rule
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=653

Westmeath becomes 7th GMO-free County

Westmeath is now the seventh Irish County to prohibit GMO seeds and crops. The motion, tabled by Fine Gael Councillor Pat McLoughlin, was passed unanimously by Westmeath County Council yesterday.

Health effect of GM foods

The Irish Times, Letter to the editor, 30 May 2006

Madam, - We welcome debate on genetically engineered food and, in particular, the letter from Philip Dix (May 23rd), in reply to my article of May 17th.

It is not possible to discuss exhaustively all experiments and data in the short space of a newspaper article, and the primary purpose of my piece was to draw attention to the lack of knowledge about the risks of genetically engineered crops and foods. Mr Dix's comments do not engage with this point; he tries to sidestep the issue by pointing to a slight inaccuracy. I should have said bacterial, not viral, vectors were used, but the point about random and uncontrolled integration remains. Genetic engineering of plants is not a precise technique. Viral, bacterial and plant sequences are included in the transferred material.

Furthermore, there may be many unknown health risks associated with the genes for herbicide resistance and resistance to pests in the pipeline of products to come. If these are allowed to enter our food chain without questions asked, and without proper data on their environmental and nutritional impact, they could have damaging effects.

The central point of my article remains: that reputable and independent scientists have expressed serious concerns about the effects of genetically engineered foods on animals in research projects. I also pointed out that we have not undertaken any testing of the impact of genetically engineered foods on humans and we do not have any established validation procedures by which we can deduce that such food is safe.

- Yours, etc,

Dr. Elizabeth Cullen, Irish Doctors' Environmental Association, Thomastown, Kilcullen, Co Kildare.

Friends of the Earth demands sacking of industry scientists

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 30 May 2006

Brussels, 30 May 2006 - Friends of the Earth Europe has today warned the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that it will only gain public trust if it frees itself from the biotechnology industry and employs neutral scientists. EFSA is expected to announce new members of its scientific panels this week.

Adrian Bebb, GM Foods Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said, "Europe's food safety agency needs to be cleaner than clean if it wants to build trust with the general public. In the past it has employed industry-friendly scientists who have dismissed all safety concerns and rubber-stamped virtually every application by the biotech industry."

"EFSA is now installing a new set of scientists and this time, public health and environmental safety must be put before the interests of big business," added Bebb.

Criticism of EFSA's work on genetically modified foods (GM or GMOs) has been growing over recent months with both national Environment Ministers and the European Commission calling for more transparency, and more investigation into the long term effects of GM crops and foods (1).

Recent papers released by the European Commission to Friends of the Earth Europe were critical of EFSA's methods, describing one study that EFSA relied on as "scientifically flawed". The Commission papers also outline how cancer and allergies from eating GM foods cannot be ruled out and recommend that GM crops should not be grown until their long-term effects are known. (2)

Friends of the Earth Europe accuses EFSA of three major discrepancies:

- EMPLOYMENT OF INDUSTRY-FRIENDLY SCIENTISTS:
EFSA's GMO Panel contains a number of influential scientists that have strong pro-GMO interests. (3)

- EMPLOYMENT OF SCIENTISTS WITH CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:
A large number of EFSA scientists also sit on national food safety committees. This means that they are asked to judge opinions that they helped write in the first place.

- DECLARATION OF INTERESTS NOT LEGALLY ENFORCED:
EFSA has refused to enforce EU law requiring all the scientists to declare any interests. Most scientists leave their declaration forms blank in spite of clear pro-GM interests.(4)

Friends of the Earth Europe first accused EFSA of being biased towards the biotechnology industry in a report in November 2004 (5). Since then EFSA has given positive opinions to all but one application for new GMOs and has disregarded virtually every safety concern raised by scientists working for the 25 EU member states.

Environment Ministers from almost all member states criticised EFSA's work on GMOs at the March Environment Council, forcing the European Commission to introduce new proposals in April. These called on EFSA to justify why they do not accept scientific objections from member states and to address the long-term safety effects of genetically modified foods and crops.

For more information, please contact:

Adrian Bebb
GM campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe: +49 1609 99 19 51, adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org

Helen Holder
GM campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe: +32 474 857 638, helen.holder@foeeurope.org

Rosemary Hall
Communications Officer at Friends of the Europe: +32 485 930 515, rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org

NOTES:

1. The Commission has proposed practical improvements to the way the European GMO legislative framework is implemented. Press release IP/06/498, 12 April 2006.

2. See Hidden Uncertainties: http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/joint_18_April_GMOs.htm

3. Examples of pro-GM scientists include:

- one scientist was until recently a consultant for a GMO investment company: Mike Gasson acted until last year as a consultant to Danisco Venture - a venture capital company that invests in biotech companies.

- three scientists are supporters of a pro-GMO pressure group: Hans-J–rg Buhk, Joachim Schiemann and George Sakalaris are supporters/members of the Public Research and Regulation, an industry-funded pressure group that campaigns for weaker biosafety legislation and campaigns against public access to information.

- two scientists who appeared on a GM industry promotional video: Hans-Jörg Buhk and Dartlef Bartsch gave interviews in a film promoting GM maize.

In addition, EFSA employs a large number of external experts to help it write its opinions. This list of experts includes Andrew Cockburn (former Director of Scientific Affairs at the US biotech corporate Monsanto) and Richard Phipps (a researcher who has worked for many GM companies including Monsanto and Germany's Bayer).

4. Buhk was on the steering group for the biggest GM conference in 2004 but failed to declare this as an interest. Both Buhk and Schiemann have not declared their support of the Public Research and Regulation as an interest.

5. See Throwing Caution to the Wind: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/publications/EFSAreport.pdf

26 May 2006

Councillors declare Bray a 'GMO free zone'

Bray People, 26 May 2006.

The members of Bray Town Council have declared Bray a 'GMO free zone'.

The move bans the growth of genetically modified organisms within the boundaries of the town.

Green Party Cllr Caroline Burrell had asked her council colleagues to support her on the motion at last Tuesday's meeting of the local authority, after the EPA gave the green light for GM potato trials in County Meath.

GM-free is the goal...

Westmeath Examiner, 26 May 2006.

Last Tuesday night, a meeting was held in the Greville Arms to discuss "The future goal - a GM-free Ireland."

GM-free Westmeath are the local branch of a national network of individuals and organisations, working together to keep the whole island of Ireland free from genetically modified (GM) animal feed, seeds, trees, crops, livestock, fish and food.

Within their group are foresters, farmers, food producers, food distributors, people in the hospitality and tourism trade and other concerned individuals and groups.

They are creating a plan of action which will preserve farmers' right to a sustainable future and protect consumers' right to choose GM-free food.

Their website states they wish to hold "the Irish and UK government accountable under EC law to forge an all island policy that is democratically informed by stockholders whom it will affect."

25 May 2006

Global Alarm Over GE Papaya Grows as Hawaii Market Spirals Downward

Greenpeace press release, 25 May 2006.

Hilo, Hawaii May 25th 2006 - Several local farmers and native Hawaiian activists joined Greenpeace experts today in decontaminating an organic farm in Hawaii that has been tainted with genetically engineered (GE) papaya from nearby commercial farms. The farm was sealed off with signs reading, 'GE Papaya Restricted Area' as volunteers in hazmat suits removed trees, fruits and seeds from the scene.

According to evidence released today by Greenpeace, GE papaya profits have dwindled significantly as a growing number of global markets reject the crop. Organic farmers in Hawaii are especially alarmed, as the state is considered a contamination hot spot with the most GE field trials per square mile in the world and the only place where GE papaya is grown commercially.

"These US corporations tried to force feed GE papaya on the world and the world isn't biting," said Local Hawaii Farmer, Melanie Bondera. "Organic crops can get three times what GE papaya can get on the market, but not if there's a possibility it's contaminated. The GE industry came to us promising big money but instead they are ruining our crops and robbing us of our profits."

Greenpeace has been at the forefront of decontamination efforts around the world, assisting farmers concerned about genetic engineering tainting and stopping illegal distribution of GE papaya in countries such as Japan and Thailand that have put a ban on these crops. Currently a court case is underway in Thailand where South East Asia campaigner Patwajee Srisuwan and the former Executive Director Dr. Jiragon Gajaseni are facing up to six years in prison for exposing a Thai government agency's role in the illegal distribution of GE contaminated papaya.

"The Thai Government has attempted to lift the genetic engineering ban under pressure from the US government and the agro-chemical industry. However, Thais oppose GE crops because we don't want to lose the market for our farm crops, like what happened to Hawaiian papayas, as well as our status as the world's kitchen," said Patwajee Srisuwan.

Papaya has been grown in tropical regions for centuries and Hawaii exports markets were flourishing until the introduction of genetically engineered papaya in 1998. Most of the countries importing papaya from Hawaii including the EU, Japan, and China have an aversion to GE crops and foods. Doors started closing on Hawaii's exports and prices went into free fall.

Organic and conventional farmers have also suffered losses, as it is difficult to guarantee the GE-free status of their crops due to contamination from neighbouring commercial GE farms. Greenpeace is calling on governments and industry to protect its farmers and consumers from the food safety and environmental risks posed by genetically engineered foods.

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

For interviews and more information:

Hawaii - Carol Gregory Greenpeace USA communications officer Mob: + 1 202 4138 531

Thailand - Arthur Jones Dionio Greenpeace South East Asia Regional media campaigner Mob: + 66 1 710 9605

Amsterdam - Suzette Jackson Greenpeace International communications officer Mob: + 31 6 4619 7324

Images and from today's activity contact Melissa Molyneux Greenpeace USA Mob: + 202-319-2429 (office); + 609-713-9660

Greenpeace International report 'The Failure of GE Papaya in Hawaii': www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/FailureGEPapayainHawaii

German CSU politician supports re-think on transgenic corn

Süddeutsche Zeitung, 24 May 2006

MUNICH -- According to the Bavarian Farmers Union (BBV) it now appears that the CSU Party is also changing its policy regarding transgenic technologies.

For example, CSU General Secretary Markus Soeder recently emphasized his opposition to outdoor experiments with transgenic plants in an interview with the Berliner Zeitung newspaper. He said that although research in this field should continue "outdoor experiments are problematic, as long as the long term environmental effects of these experiments are unforeseeable."

With this statement, Soeder differs from his party colleague, the Federal Economy Minister Horst Seehofer, who is currently preparing a new draft law on GMO crops intended to favour the research and use of transgenic technologies. This is also supported by Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel. But Mr. Soeder points to widespread public concerns about GM food and farming.

Farming lobby

Only a few days days ago, the Bavarian Farmers Union (BFU) revised its previous lenient position on GM crops, and is now urging its members to "avoid planting transgenic maize". According to a report by the BBV, transgenic technology currently offers "no benefits" to farmers.

This was preceded by a unanimous declaration by the leaders of the farmers' union which made their opposition to GM crops clear. More and more farmers in Bavaria support the establishment of GM-free zones similar to the Austrian model.

But the Bavarian CSU party still declines to make GM-free agriculture the goal of the state's agricultural development programme. This led to the failure of a petition to the State Parliament of Bavaria signed by fifteen thousand people.

The Bavarian Ministry of Agriculture said "our GM policy has not changed". The question of liability for the planting of transgenic crops must urgently be regulated. Despite Soeder's speech, the Ministry of Agriculture is continuing with outdoor field trials of GM maize on an area of about four hectares of state land. The ministry emphasiszed that "outdoor field-tests are necessary".

Altered crops in Europe: At what cost?

International Herald Tribune, MAY 25, 2006. By Elisabeth Rosenthal.

ALBONS, Spain -- Enric Navarro was dumbfounded when the letter arrived from the testing lab of the Spanish organic farmers association in late February, informing him that his organic crop contained 12 percent genetically modified corn. Hearing that his plants had been modified by biotechnology was almost as traumatic for Navarro as finding they contained nuclear waste.

For four years, he has lovingly planted hundreds of varieties of trees, shrubs, flowers and herbs to attract just the right mix of insects so that he would not need fertilizers or weed- killers on his precious seven hectares. "If I could not farm organic, I would not farm," Navarro said. "I could not sleep at night if I sold that crop."

He burned the corn in the field to rid his farm of what he calls a "contaminant." But he does not know how the genetically modified seed blew in. He cannot claim compensation for his losses. Also, since pollen lingers, he is not sure when, if ever, it will be safe to use the field to farm organic corn again.

As the European Union cracks open the door to genetically modified crops, Navarro's tale serves as a caution about the risks, scientific uncertainties and the hazy policies now in place to deal with problems that will almost certainly arise.

For eight years, Spain was the only EU member state to allow commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops. In the last 18 months, the European Commission has approved 11 genetically modified seeds for planting in the bloc. In 2005, France, Germany, Portugal and the Czech Republic began planting small commercial plots.

The cornerstone of the EU's policy is the political conviction that genetically altered crops and conventional crops can coexist as long as proper safeguards are in place - such as keeping a distance between the two types of fields and imposing a liability scheme for accidents.

But scientifically, there are strong disagreements about whether coexistence is possible, and at what cost.

"Coexistence is feasible in the vast majority of places, so long as farmers talk to each other and cooperate," agreeing, for example, not to place GM and conventional seeds of the same crop in adjacent fields, said Simon Barber of EuropaBio, an industry group in Brussels. Ordeals like Navarro's, he said, should be rare.

But many scientists - not just those with Green credentials - believe that the small, closely spaced farms of Europe make such coexistence difficult if not prohibitively expensive.

"My experts all agreed that coexistence often just doesn't work, it isn't possible," said Chantal Line Carpentier, an agricultural economist who assembled an independent panel of international experts to study the issue in North America.

The study was requested by Mexico in 2002, after GM corn was discovered contaminating fields of native crops in Oaxaca, hundreds of miles south of the United States. Mexico had not permitted GM cultivation, for fear that the heartier, but more uniform, genetically modified variants would edge out its dozens of unique strains of maize.

That report, "Maize and Biodiversity," prepared by the North American Council on Environmental Cooperation, concluded that the GM corn - which came from the United States - might have a long-term effect on Mexico's ecology and biodiversity and should be more thoroughly studied and monitored.

The United States and Canada attacked its conclusions. "We are deeply disappointed that the CEC secretariat has produced a report that ignores key science about biotechnology," reads a letter of protest from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

But some farmers believe the report did not go far enough. "Saying that GM and non-GM farming can coexist is nonsensical," said Julian Rose, an organic farmer from England who has helped organize Polish farmers against modified crops. "It's like saying that noise and silence can coexist in a room."

The biotech industry considers that "coexistence" has been achieved if mixing is below 0.9 percent. It argues that foods in the EU could be labeled GM- free if they contained less than that amount. The concept infuriates advocates of organic foods, who liken it to allowing a bit of meat in vegetarian products. But even industry analysts admit that 100 percent GM free foods are not practical once GM farming begins on a large scale. "Coexistence has become a problem in Europe because some people want zero percent tolerance," Barber said. "And that is, quite frankly, unobtainable."

There are simply too many ways that mixing occurs: Mills grind crops from different farms, a cookie contains oil made from imported GM soy. The GM corn in Oaxaca was most likely the progeny of GM ears that had been legally imported for animal feed, whose kernels had been illegally used for planting.

With so many routes, environmental groups say it inevitably spreads past the 0.9 percent limit and to areas where it is unwelcome.

"When the government of Catalonia says there's no evidence of genetic pollution, what they mean is they didn't look," said Anna Rosa Martinez of Greenpeace in Barcelona. Last year, Greenpeace tested 40 organic farms, and nearly 20 percent had some level of contamination, from 0.7 to 12 percent.

Suzette Jackson, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace International, said: "We would like to keep Europe as a supplier of non-GM food, and when you look at countries with a lot of GM crops, it eventually becomes really hard, or hugely expensive, to maintain regular farming."

Spain allowed GM cultivation in 1998. Twelve percent of corn is now GM - 50,000 to 60,000 hectares - about half of that in Catalonia.

Farmers are free to choose what to plant, but representatives of GM seed companies now regularly hold dinners touting the benefits of modified seeds, which are patented. Some variants produce pesticides, others have stalks that resist wind or need less water.

While some farmers signed on, others - like Navarro - said no, preferring the independence and quality they see with traditional seeds.

Traditional farmers in Mexico, and many in Europe, save seed from one season's crop to plant the next. It is cheaper and allows selection of unique varieties. Such replanting is forbidden under the agreement for GM corn seed that farmers sign with companies like Monsanto and Syngenta.

In 2004, knowing that GM corn was growing in his area, Navarro planted just a small patch of land to see if he could grow without contamination. Successful, he later planted two large corn fields. "But it was very windy here last fall," he said, "so perhaps it blew in some stalks from another field, and contaminated me. I don't know, I will never know."

His two fields are 70 and 100 meters, 230 and 330 feet, from his neighbors' farms, a distance often deemed adequate to prevent mixing. But the GM seed could have come on the wind or on a truck tire, from anywhere.

He would like an investigation to prevent a recurrence. But there is no reliable log of which farmers plant GM seeds in the area, and farmers are not likely to confess, for fear of being sued.

In Denmark, to prepare for GM farming, the government is creating a liability pool that all GM farmers will have to pay in to.

The EU agriculture commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel, has told EU states to try to guarantee coexistence, but it is unclear how, or at what cost. Can farmers afford to maintain buffer zones of 100 meters between fields? Would it work to create zones specifically designated for GM crops? Will the GM crops harm the environment?

BASF not to grow GM potatoes this year

The Irish Times, 25 May 2006. By Seán Mac Connell, Agriculture Correspondent

The announcement that German company BASF will not be growing GM potatoes here this year will give the Environmental Protection Agency time to revoke permission to grow them next year, Green Party leader Trevor Sargent said yesterday.

BASF confirmed yesterday that due to the limited time restrictions of the planting season, it has decided not to conduct the field trials in 2006 for which an EPA licence had been received.

"The consent document contains a number of conditions, and BASF Plant Science has been in contact with the EPA in order to seek clarification on certain areas.

"Due to the limited time restrictions of the planting season, it has been decided not to conduct the field trials in 2006," said its statement.

"The field trial is due to take place on a farm at Arodstown, Summerhill, Co Meath. The approval is for a trial period from 2006 to 2010. A full schedule and outline of the proposed trial was included in the formal notification to the EPA," it continued.

Mr Sargent said the EPA must now use this opportunity to reverse its previous decision to allow any GM trials in Ireland. "Now is the opportunity to ensure that Ireland remains a GM free producing island," he said.

24 May 2006

German firm may abandon planned GM potato trials

Sunday Business Post Online, 24 May 2006.

The German chemical firm that received permission to grow genetically modified potatoes in Co Meath is reportedly considering abandoning the trials.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided earlier this year to let the trials to ahead on a farm in Arodstown, despite intense opposition to GM food in Ireland.

However, reports this morning said the firm (BASF) was now considering cancelling its plans to grow the crops due to the stringent restrictions being imposed by the EPA.

The company has already decided not to go ahead with the trials this summer and says it is awaiting the outcome of discussions with the EPA before making a decision about future years.

EPA urged to withdraw licence for GM potato trials

Sunday Business Post Online, 24 May 2006.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is coming under pressure today to withdraw the licence it has granted for trials of genetically-modified potatoes in Co Meath.

Reports this morning said the BASF, the German firm that secured the licence, is considering abandoning the trials due to the stringent restrictions being imposed by the EPA.

The Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association has claimed the move is a ploy by BASF to force the EPA into relaxing the restrictions.

It is calling on the agency to withdraw the licence altogether, saying the people of Ireland do not want anything to do with GM crops.

The campaign group GM-free Ireland, meanwhile, has said it cannot understand why the EPA granted the licence in the first place in the face of widespread opposition and advice from leading international scientists.

Ferris welcomes decision not to proceed with GM Potato Crop

Sinn Féin press release, 24 May 2006.

The Sinn Féin spokesperson on Agriculture, Martin Ferris TD has welcomed the decision by German company BASF not to proceed with the planting of a trial crop of genetically modified potatoes at Summerhill, County Meath. The company is claiming that the conditions imposed on them by the Environmental Protection Agency are too restrictive.

Deputy Ferris said: "I and many other people will welcome this decision. As we have pointed out there was and is no demand for genetically modified crops in this country, and that if any are planted they will pose an almost certain risk of cross-contamination. I trust that the EPA will not allow itself to be forced to lower the conditions for the trial, as appears to be the intention of BASF.

"I will also be questioning the Minister for Agriculture regarding her reaction to the decision and will be closely monitoring the official response. If the Government is listening to those with knowledge and interest in the area, they will no longer promote or facilitate the introduction of GM, for which there is absolutely no necessity and no demand from Irish consumers or farmers."

Potato rules halt GM trials

RTE Business: Today in the press, 24 May 2006

The Irish Independent says genetically modified (GM) potatoes will not be grown here this year. According to the paper, it has also emerged that field trials may be cancelled altogether because of stringent restrictions on how they can be carried out.

German chemical giant BASF said yesterday that it would not be proceeding with the field trials of blight-resistant potatoes in Co Meath this summer because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had made it too difficult to do so.

The Irish authorities were imposing conditions that were 'not common with other EU states', a BASF spokesperson said.

GM organic contamination stokes EU controversy

FoodNavigator.com 24/05/2006 - The threshold for the contamination of organic products with genetically modified organisms (GMO) was one of the most controversial issues discussed by EU agriculture ministers this week.

The new EU regulation on organic production was discussed for the first time on Monday. At least 10 Member States at the Council called for the GMO threshold of 0.9 per cent for conventional products to be formulated much more strictly for organic agriculture.

Critics of gene technology, including Greece, Italy and Austria, were particularly vehement.

EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel countered that the burden on organic agriculture in the EU must not be increased unnecessarily. She argued that a GMO threshold of less than 0.9 per cent would increase costs in organic agriculture.

She said that the situation should not be made more difficult for such a promising sector.

In addition, Austria's agriculture minister Josef Proll, the current president of the EU agriculture council, called for low GMO threshold for conventional agricultural seeds.

Two further meetings have been scheduled to iron out these differences.

"The two further meetings of the council working group that have been scheduled now make it possible for the Finnish Presidency to reach conclusions before the end of the year," said Austria's agriculture minister Josef Proll, the current president of the EU agriculture council.

Some points were less controversial. The Member States agree that, with regard to organic agriculture, the Commission should not have greater influence than it has hitherto.

All the Member States took the view that details of production technology should continue to be deliberated on the regulatory committee and not on the management committee, where the Commission has the final word.

In addition, the ministers unanimously approved conclusions setting two main tasks for the EU Commission. Firstly, environment commissioner Stavros Dimas is to submit a proposal for a GMO threshold for conventional seeds.

Secondly, the Commission should examine whether additional rules from Brussels on coexistence are appropriate. On this point, the Commission has agreed to compile and evaluate studies on the various national liability regulations and guidelines on segregation of GMO and conventional crops in the Member States by the end of June.

However, the Commission made no pledge on the proposal for seeds, especially as the Commissioner responsible was not present. Proll explained that the threshold for seeds should be kept as low as possible.

"We shall be very careful to ensure a sensible solution to this problem is found," he said. "Today's policy debate on organic products has, without doubt, clearly shown that organic agriculture is considered very important for the future."

Company suspends GM potato trials

RTE News, 24 May 2006

The German BASF plant science company that was granted a five-year licence to carry out field experiments on genetically modified potatoes in Co Meath says it has postponed the trials for one year.

The company says it is seeking clarification on a number of the conditions imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

A company spokesperson said similar trials were being conducted successfully in Sweden and the Netherlands but described some of the ten conditions imposed by the EPA on the company as being complicated and detailed.

The EPA says it is clarifying the conditions with BASF but stressed that the licence granted earlier this month stood and would not be changed.

Sargent says EPA must now reverse decision to allow GM trials
as BASF chemical giant pulls out of planned GM potato trial in Co. Meath

Green Party press release, 24 May 2006.

Green Party Leader Trevor Sargent TDtoday welcomed the news that German chemical company BASF is considering pulling out of the planned GM potato trial in Co. Meath.

"The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must now use this opportunity to reverse its previous decision to allow any GM trials in Ireland. It must not give into any demands from BASF," said the Green Party Leader today. "Now is the opportunity to ensure that Ireland remains a GM free producing island.

"Ireland's traditional GM free food status is a key selling point for Irish food exports and must be protected.

"Green Party policy is to develop the potential of Irish food production on an island-wide GM free basis. The notion that GM pollen can be contained and that GM and non-GM crops can co-exist is a fallacy, as cross contamination in Spain has proven. The only acceptable buffer zone is to keep GM crops out of Ireland," concluded Deputy Sargent.

Information

Trevor Sargent TD - 087 254 7836
Elaine Walsh Press Office - 01-618 3852 / 087 914 8175

BASF admits defeat of GMO potato experiment
EPA conditions "too difficult" to deal with
GMO patents violate human rights
Call for EC to allow total GM crop bans

GM-free Ireland press release, 24 May 2006.

The world's largest chemicals company BASF said yesterday it will not go ahead with its controversial patented GMO potato experiment in Co. Meath this year, and may cancel it altogether.

BASF said it made the decision because of the conditions imposed in the provisional consent given by the Environmental Protection Agency on 8 May [1]. These included obligations for the company to reduce the risk of cross-contamination of neighbouring farmers and wildlife, and to pay the costs of an independent monitoring of health and environmental impacts. BASF complained that such conditions had not been imposed for similar experiments in Sweden.

The cancellation may also have been influenced by nationwide opposition from more than 100 farm and food industry groups, resistance by TDs from all the parties, two motions passed unanimously by Meath Co. Council, and the threat of further legal action on planning and constitutional grounds. [2]

GM-free Ireland Network spokesperson Michael O'Callaghan said "the official cancellation of the GMO potato experiment this year is a victory for European farmers who refuse to surrender ownership of their seeds and crops".

The WTO's Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement enables corporate owners of GMO crop patents to claim ownership of contaminated farmers produce. [3] Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser faced a million dollar patent-infringement lawsuit from Monsanto after his crops became contaminated with its GMO rapeseed in 1996. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that he no longer owned his seeds and crops because they contained the patented GMO genes. [4]

Speaking by phone from Canada last night Percy Schmeiser congratulated the Irish farming groups who opposed the GMO potato experiment, and said he has filed a GMO-related complaint against the government of Canada with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights earlier this month. His charges against the Canadian government include:

• Violation of consumers rights because they are not being told about the level of GM contamination in their food supply;

• Violation of farmers' rights because of GMO contamination of their seeds and crops;

• Suppression of academic freedom, due to private sector funding of biotech research;

• Attempts to foist GMO terminator seeds on the rest of the world (terminator seeds are modified to be sterile and thus prevent farmers from saving and planting their own seeds).

Percy Schmeiser and the Indian farm leader Vandana Shiva, who is leading the global campaign against the patenting of farm crops, will be keynote speakers at the Green Ireland conference organised by GM-free Ireland to discuss Ireland's GMO policy at Kilkenny Castle on the weekend of 16-18 June. [5]

Michael O'Callaghan described the cancellation of the GMO potato experiment as "a small victory in the battle to prevent the commercial release of dangerous GMO seeds and crops for which there is no market in Europe".

He said the next step is for the Irish Government to join the European-wide campaign for EC legislation that clearly recognises the legal democratic right of member states and regions to prohibit the release of GMO seeds, crops, trees, fish and livestock if they wish to do so. "The time has come for the Irish Government and the EC to stop surrendering our sovereignty and food security to the WTO", he said. [6]

ENDS

ATTRIBUTION

Michael O'Callaghan
Co-ordinator, GM-free Ireland Network
tel + 353 (0)404 43885
mobile + 353 (0)87 799 4761
email: mail@gmfreeireland.org
web: www.gmfreeireland.org


NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provisionally approved an experimental field trial of 450,000 patented GMO potatoes by the world's largest chemicals company BASF on 4 May 2006, subject to BASF agreeing to 10 conditions including providing detailed plans before the trial begins for post-release monitoring of health and environmental impacts, and the installation of a high-security electrified fence. The BASF notification and related EPA documents and submissions may be found on the EPA web site at http://www.epa.ie.

2. Information about Ireland's opposition to the proposed GMO potato experiment (including the transcript of a national press conference, protest photos, independent scientific risk assessments, reports of local community meetings, and a map of the proposed experiment site) may be found at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/potato.

3. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement (TRIPS) enables individuals and corporations to obtain patents on living organisms ‚ including those that have been genetically modified. The TRIPS agreement is a cornerstone of the so-called "Free Trade Agreement" set up by the World Trade Organisation (WTO). This enables companies like Monsanto to demand patent royalties from farmers who use GMO seeds and crops, including farmers who have no wish to use them but who have been inadvertently contaminated. TRIPS is formally known as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Annex 1C of the Marrakech Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, signed in Marrakech, Morocco on 15 April 1994). The relevant documents may be found at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm0_e.htm.

A paper published in the journal Science in 2005 revealed that nearly 20% of human genes have now been patented, mainly by commercial companies (see note 110 below for details). Gene patents allow companies to claim monopolies on future genetic tests and treatments, and may restrict and distort research.

See the controversial EU Biotech Patents Directive 98/44 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indprop/invent/index.htm which apparently fails to consider the contamination of seeds and crops by transgenic DNA.

According to Feargal Brady, Examiner of Patents at the Irish Patents Office (http://www.patentsoffice.ie), there is nothing in EU or Irish patent law to protect contaminated farmers from being sued for patent infringement. The key legal texts include the Irish Patents Act 1992: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA1Y1992.html, the Patents (Amendments) Bill of 1999 and the drafting of amendments to the Patents (Amendment) Bill, 1999 approved on 15 September 2004. According to Feargal Brady, Irish patent law places the burden of proof in GMO contamination lawsuits on the contaminated farmer. This violates farmers rights and the "consumer pays" principle and the Irish Constitution. The Irish Patents Office has already granted hundreds of life patents, of which at least 247 to Monsanto. A database of life patents granted in Ireland may be found at http://www.patentsoffice.ie.

4. Expropriation of farmers crops: see interview with Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, who lost ownership of his crops after being contaminated by Monsanto's GMO oilseed rape in 1996; the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the patented GMO genes found in his seeds and crops belong to the patent owner Monsanto, and that the farmer no longer owns his seeds and crops: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/interviews/schmeiser.php .

5. The Green Ireland conference will take place at Kilkenny Castle on the weekend of 16-18 June. Ireland's clean green image provides a competitive advantage for our farming, food and eco-tourism industries. But this is now under threat from air and water pollution and the possible introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops. This conference provides an opportunity for stakeholders and international experts to discuss solutions and learn about our democratic legal rights and responsibilities to determine our future. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference .

6. Irish MEPs are being urged to sign the European Parliament's Written Declaration on genetically modified food, seeds and fodder. The deadline for signatures is 13 June. The Declaration calls for every country and region to have the right to completely prohibit the import, growing and sale of genetically modified organisms; it urges urges the Council and the European Commission to implement strict and unlimited liability for gene technology firms concerning all damages to the environment, health and the economy which result from the introduction and utilisation of GMOs; and calls for all patent rights on living organisms to be declared invalid. The full text of the Declaration is available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/decladoc/document/2006/P6_DCL(2006)0014/P6_DCL(2006)0014_EN.doc

EPA urged to withdraw licence for GM potato trials

Evening Echo, 24 May 2006

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is coming under pressure today to withdraw the licence it has granted for trials of genetically-modified potatoes in Co Meath.

Reports this morning said the BASF, the German firm that secured the licence, is considering abandoning the trials due to the stringent restrictions being imposed by the EPA.

The Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association has claimed the move is a ploy by BASF to force the EPA into relaxing the restrictions.

It is calling on the agency to withdraw the licence altogether, saying the people of Ireland do not want anything to do with GM crops.

The campaign group GM-free Ireland, meanwhile, has said it cannot understand why the EPA granted the licence in the first place in the face of widespread opposition and advice from leading international scientists.

German firm may abandon planned GM potato trials

Irish Examiner, May 24 2006

The German chemical firm that received permission to grow genetically modified potatoes in Co Meath is reportedly considering abandoning the trials.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided earlier this year to let the trials to ahead on a farm in Arodstown, despite intense opposition to GM food in Ireland.

However, reports this morning said the firm (BASF) was now considering cancelling its plans to grow the crops due to the stringent restrictions being imposed by the EPA.

The company has already decided not to go ahead with the trials this summer and says it is awaiting the outcome of discussions with the EPA before making a decision about future years.

In EU, front lines in food war

International Herald Tribune, 24 May, 2006. By Elisabeth Rosenthal. ATHENS In this famously fractious country, there is one thing on which almost all Greeks agree: They do not want genetically modified crops grown, sold or eaten here.

In 2004, the Parliament passed a national ban, but the European Union rejected it as an illegal trade barrier.

Since then, all 54 Greek prefectures have passed local bans, testing international regulations and patience.

"All political parties are opposed to GMOs, which is odd because we disagree on everything else," said Theodore Koliopanos, a legislator and former deputy environment minister.

Greece and a few other EU countries that have banned genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are on the front lines of a war over the future of such food in Europe, the only large swath of the world that does not already grow or purchase such crops. Last Friday, the Polish president signed into law a similar ban, following Austria some months back.

Facing international pressure and a lawsuit at the World Trade Organization, the EU said this year that all member states must open their doors to GMOs, preparing practical and legal regulations to ensure safety for health and the environment. But five countries have imposed eight different types of ban. Many others use their votes in Europe's Council of Ministers to block the crops from entering.

Furthermore, the battle pits the United States and Canada, which produce the vast majority of such seeds and crops, against their closest European allies. The United States is not shy about enlisting its diplomats to push European countries to admit GMOs, according to European politicians. European consumers and farmers generally do not want them, leaving the EU trying to steer a Solomonic course between competing and conflicting interests.

Basically, Europeans, whose food culture has developed over centuries, balk at putting genetically modified crops in their fields or in their mouths.

"We think we have a good policy, but we have discovered extreme reluctance among consumers and many member states to move forward with GMOs," said Barbara Helfferich, spokeswoman for the EU's Environment Directorate.

Since the EU is a common market, lawmakers in Brussels demand a unified solution - a seed that is sold in Britain has to be sold in Poland and Greece as well. But critics say that countries should be allowed to decide if they will accept a risk, however small, noting that unpasteurized milk is legal in France but not in Britain, for example.

In much of Europe, genetically modified foods are so unpopular that some main stream supermarket giants will not stock them. In surveys, consumers and many experts - not just organic farmers and environmental groups - emerge unconvinced that GMOs are safe, particularly for the environment.

"The environment minister who gives in and allows GMOs into this country will never be minister again," said Nikos Lappas, head of Greece's largest farmers' union. "For farmers, forcing GMOs would be economic suicide, since our market doesn't want them."

On the other hand, producers of genetically modified products are aggressively pursuing their cases at the WTO and with individual governments, spurred on by an untapped European market. "The first visit any new minister in Greece gets is from the U.S. ambassador saying you need to have GMOs," said Koliopanos. "The pressure is incredible."

Arguing that GMO crops have been widely planted and consumed across the world for a decade without obvious ill effects, companies insist that GMOs must be admitted in Europe. "The EU has put systems in place to deal with GMOs and now the market has to be allowed to operate," said Simon Barber, of EuropaBio in Brussels, an industry group. "If member states are breaking EU law, we expect the commission to take action."

From 1998 to 2004, the European Union enacted a de facto moratorium on GM farming while studying the issue - above all mulling ways to keep GM crops and non-GM crops distinct.

GM seeds and plants contain genes inserted in a laboratory that give them special advantages, such as resisting common pests. But pollen from GM crops can spread from field to field, intermixing with conventional crops.

Once GM crops enter a country's food production, it can be difficult and costly to keep food GM free, because there is mixing of plants from various farms in milling and in production.

Greece and other EU members say that such issues make any cultivation of biotech plants impossible because they would quickly infiltrate both agriculture and the food supply. As in much of Europe, where small farms are the norm, it is hard to create "buffer zones" between fields on adjacent farms.

"I would guess we may be able to keep them apart in the U.K., but it would be difficult in Greece because of the issue of size," said Julian Kinderlerer, of the University of Sheffield in England.

In fact, Europe's agricultural insurers will not cover farmers for liability should their GM crops harm the environment or contaminate adjacent fields.

"I started with an open mind on this, but now I think the answers are clear," said Lappas. "If our market doesn't buy it, and insurers won't insure us, how can we grow it?"

Indeed, in many areas that have blocked GMOs, such as Tuscany, small farmers survive by producing niche food, like high quality vegetables and grain; there is a premium for food that is GM free. "This is a cutthroat global market and if all we do is cultivate mass-produced GM corn, we're finished, since other nations will be able to provide that cheaper," Lappas said.

In Poland, 1.5 million farms are still farmed mostly without pesticides, giving that nation the opportunity to become an important producer of natural, non-GM foods, according to the International Committee to Protect the Polish Countryside, which has lobbied for a national ban.

From the perspective of the biotech industry and major GMO producers, the issue is simple: GM corn is just corn, GM wheat is just wheat, and there is no scientific reason to differentiate.

Industry groups argue that products should not even be labeled as GM or GM-free, as the EU proposes, because such labels are an unfair trade barrier. "Labeling has turned out to be a stigma because the public is so frightened, and retailers have become easy targets," said Barber. "Look at the Greenpeace Web site with its list of brands that use GMs. We're O.K. with consumers making a choice, but we're leery because they're scared."

Helfferich, by contrast, insisted that shoppers should know which type of crop they are buying.

Politically, the EU's 25 members are extremely divided. Five generally vote to expand access for GMOs, about 10 generally vote against, and a number abstain - not convinced that they are safe, and unwilling to suffer certain political fallout, said Philip Tod, spokesman for the EU Directorate on Health and Consumer Protection.

GM seeds are approved case by case, and once the European Commission has approved a seed for planting, the only legal reason that countries can enforce a ban is if "new scientific evidence" shows it would be harmful.

But recently, each time the commission has recommended a new product, the Council of Ministers, representing the member states, has voted against it - and some countries have taken this as a "scientific exception."

"They haven't provided any new evidence," said Dr. Michael Phillips, vice president of the Biotech Industries Association in Washington. "This is a technology that is as safe as - or safer than - traditional plant breeding."

The European Food Safety Advisory, or EFSA, commission of the European Union provides scientific judgments on such matters. But this agency's core mandate concerns food safety and even the EU environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, said recently that it had not looked adequately at long-term effects of GMOs on issues like biodiversity.

Critics note that EFSA has approved all 11 applications it has received and rejected all appeals. In a meeting with disgruntled member states in Brussels last week, Dr. Harry Kuiper, head of the agency's GMO panel, defended its work, noting that its experts had just six months to review each submission.

"We are aware that through genetic modification there may be unforeseen and unintended environmental effects," he said. "But we think we can get a fairly good idea about these by extrapolating from available scientific evidence."

The European Union is still hoping to win over reluctant members, and so far has taken none to court. But environmental groups seek an EU-wide ban pending clearer answers to scientific questions. "The EU policy of just pushing forward with the technology is utter blindness," said Helen Holder, a spokeswoman for Friends of the Earth in Europe. "Genetic contamination is unavoidable and irreversible and will only increase over time."

Next: A look at an organic farmer in Spain whose crops became contaminated with gentically modified corn.

Firm prevents GM potato-growing field trial

The Irish Independent, 24 May 2006. By Aideen Sheehan

GENETICALLY modified (GM) potatoes will not be grown here this year.

It has also emerged that field trials may be cancelled altogether because of stringent restrictions on how they can be carried out.

German chemical giant BASF said yesterday that they would not be proceeding with the field trials of blight-resistant potatoes in Co Meath this summer because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had made it too difficult to do so.

The Irish authorities were imposing conditions that were "not common with other EU states", a BASF spokesperson said.

One of the conditions imposed was that the potatoes would have to be sown in May which had posed too tight a timeline for this year, given the issues that still needed to be clarified with the EPA, she said.

BASF is in discussions with the EPA at the moment over the conditions attached to approval of their field trials, and following these will decide whether to go ahead with them in 2007, she said.

The trials of blight-resistant potatoes were recently approved to go ahead this summer at a farm in Arodstown, Summerhill, Co Meath and continue until 2010, but stringent conditions including the need for independent monitoring were included.

BASF is now assessing the cost and other implications of the EPA decision, their spokesperson said.

The company had been carrying out trials of GM potatoes in Sweden for seven or eight years without problems, she said. GM-Free Ireland welcomed the news, which they said was a victory for opponents of GM technology.

"I am delighted that the local farmers and food producers who put a lot of effort into resisting this and lobbying the county council to take action have succeeded," said spokesman Michael O'Callaghan.

23 May 2006

Irish Farmers Association's strategy on GMOs

checkbiotech.org, 23 May 23 2006

Irish Farmers Association's strategy on GMOs is as follows: As the decisions on the use and release of GMO products, and the safeguard regulations, are taken at EU level, Ireland cannot adopt an independent national position.

Clearly Irish regulatory authorities, including the EPA, have a crucial role to play in implementing these safeguard regulations in order to reassure consumers on the safety of the products.

Provided that the use and release of GMOs meet all the detailed regulatory requirements, IFA's assessment of GM technology is that, like science and technology generally, it can have many positive implications for agriculture and food production. These include: control of animal and plant disease, reduction of costs and improved productivity.

EU legislation must ensure that plant and animal varieties shall not be patentable. The use of farm saved seed must be allowed.

The key issue currently facing the EU Commission and the member states is the regulatory arrangements for the co-existence of conventional, organic and genetically modified crops. COPA and COGECA, on behalf of EU farmers and co-operatives, have adopted a position as follows.

Firstly, a pre-condition for co-existence is that the sector must be economically viable under the constraints applied to it.

Secondly, harmonised EU legislation on co-existence, which would be compulsory on all member states, must be put in place.

Thirdly, as regards conventional agriculture, the "adventitious" (i.e. non-intended) presence of GMOs is unavoidable due to imports and trade, and realistic thresholds must be set before compulsory labelling is triggered.

Background

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms (bacteria, plant and animal cells, etc) capable of transferring genetic material which has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination. In the past 30 years, the development and use of genetic engineering technology has brought many useful applications in healthcare, e.g. new pharmaceuticals and vaccines. For the EU member states including Ireland, the regulation of GMOs is decided at EU level.

In some countries outside the EU, including the US, the use of GMO technology in commercial production is more advanced than in the EU. This has implications in terms of low levels of GM products in the EU food chain, irrespective of EU regulation.

In the context of EU regulation, GMO activities are considered under the separate headings of "contained use" and "deliberate release". Contained use activities are carried out by third-level institutions or industrial users for research and development. Permission from the EPA is required before GMO trials in Ireland may be carried out.

Deliberate release of GMOs into the environment, which is the area of most concern to both producers and consumers, is covered by EU Directive 2001/18/EC. This Directive, which has been transposed into Irish law, strengthens the previous legislation with respect to a more detailed pre-market scientific evaluation of GMOs, mandatory postmarket monitoring plans, and mandatory labelling for all GMOs. The EU GMO-specific regulations on labelling and traceability, food and feed, transboundary movement and environmental liability are now in force.

Two types of release are covered by Directive 2001/18/EC; these are for (a) field trials or clinical trails and (b) placing GMOs on the market. To-date 23 GMO products have been approved at EU level to be marketed in any EU member state. To do otherwise could be challenged in EU or WTO and compensation demanded. The moratorium in the EU from 1998, whereby no new GMOs had been approved, has recently been lifted.

Source: Meeting the Challenges of WTO and CAP Reform. Irish Farmers Association Submission to Government for a Viable Farming and Food Sector and Sustainable Rural Economy

Excerpt from page 35 & 36.

Full report in PDF format: http://www.ifa.ie/connected/ifa/media/press/Meeting%20Challenges.pdf

Biotech industry gets € 2m investment boost

The Irish Times, 23 May 2006.

Enterprise Ireland today unveiled a € 2 million research programme for the biotechnology industry.

The BioIndustry-Led Research Programme aims to increase value in the Irish biotechnology sector through investment in research and development.

Enterprise Ireland, in collaboration with the Irish BioIndustry Association, invited business managers and scientists to identify key priority areas for research as part of the 18-month programme.

The R&D will be carried out, on behalf of the companies, by a team of leading academics from Irish universities with expertise in sensors, microfluidics, microelectronics, biodiagnostics and process engineering.

Minister for Enterprise Miche·l Martin said: "Biotechnology is an area of global opportunity where Ireland has a strong research base . . . this targeted approach will contribute to the competitiveness of Irish biotech companies in global markets".

Keeping tabs on GMOs

New Zealand Herald, 15 May 2006. By Simon Terry.

Conditions for the international trade of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are to become tougher as a result of changes to the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol.

Buried in the diplomatic language added to this United Nations agreement is a shift in the rules on food labelling that has deep ramifications for GM food cultivation.

The protocol will ultimately require sufficiently detailed labelling of GM content in food exports to make it the norm for GM crops to be strictly segregated from conventional export crops.

While a number of richer nations already have import requirements for identifying GM content, the protocol provides for their wider application to developing countries, and is likely to pave the way for a de facto global standard for labelling.

The success of these negotiations puts the protocol back on track to deliver an international liability regime governing shipments containing living GMOs.

The protocol regulates the international shipment of living GMOs and its central purpose is the protection of biodiversity and human health.

The new rules contribute to this by requiring identification of unintended GM content in shipments of conventional food.

Importing countries can then determine if they wish to prevent or limit the unintended release of GMOs through a process of informed consent in advance.

The labelling issue has, however, been a major point of contention since negotiation of the protocol began a decade ago and its final text, agreed in 2000, in effect postponed a real solution.

When a way forward was attempted last year, New Zealand and Brazil vetoed the proposed arrangements - changes required to make the agreement operational.

The recent negotiations thus became something of a do or die for the protocol, as a failure to reach consensus on labelling was likely to have resulted in individual countries going their own way to protect their borders.

Brazil, the host country, had rethought its stance and the compromise position it put forward - primarily a delay in implementing some aspects - gained early backing from other parties.

However, the New Zealand delegation, led by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, indicated that its position had not changed.

While it agreed with labelling intentional GMO content in food, New Zealand said it remained steadfastly opposed to labelling GM content that was unintended - it did not want to label for "actual content".

Concern over New Zealand's stance prompted the heads of two other delegations to take the unusual step of speaking to journalists while the negotiations were in progress.

Leading African representative Dr Tewolde Egzhabier, of Ethiopia, said: "New Zealand's position is freezing the whole of the negotiations."

The EU couched its comments in more diplomatic terms, but the message was the same - New Zealand was not supporting the Brazil compromise and other countries were struggling to understand why.

New Zealand was not the only country raising difficulties - Peru, Paraguay and Mexico also had issues. However, it was the one many countries were most concerned about.

Then, on the last day, New Zealand dropped its objections, the concerns of the Latin American counties were attended to, and the hammer fell without dissent.

The protocol establishes the framework for nations to require that any GMO contamination in a shipment is identified and labelled in accordance with an importing country's minimum standards.

Although there are limitations for the next six years on the scope of GMOs for which labelling can be required, these are intended to expire once the phase-in period is over.

Each of the 132 countries that have ratified the protocol determines its own threshold standards for what triggers the labelling requirement. But exporters will want to produce to just one standard of purity, so the strictest major importer will tend to act as a ratchet setting standard for all.

The EU, which is New Zealand's largest food export market, already has the bar set at 0.9 per cent maximum GM content, and other countries can now use the protocol to readily impose standards that are tougher.

As a result, any country thinking of newly permitting GMO cultivation will most likely allow GM crops only if they are strictly segregated from conventional export production.

Segregation can be very costly, where it is technically achievable.

More costly, however, is not properly segregating, given the strength of consumer resistance to GM foods.

Wholesale buyers in markets such as Japan and Western Europe have zero tolerance for GM contamination and continue to reject food products with any detectable level of GMO content irrespective of whether it triggers labelling requirements.

Who pays for segregation or product rejection thus becomes a key question - one the protocol is also poised to influence. The next major change will be an international liability regime intended to allow importers to gain redress for harm caused by a living GMO.

For this to work fairly for conventional farmers that suffer GMO contamination, each country needs to have domestic law that ensures that claims ultimately rest with those producing the GMOs.

The protocol is therefore likely to put into sharp focus New Zealand's ill-founded liability law that essentially absolves from claims anyone who uses a GMO consistent with an ERMA approval.

Premium export markets will leave no place to hide from GMO contamination and those who cause losses for conventional farmers should not be able to hide from the financial consequences.

Global Coalition Sounds the Alarm on Synthetic Biology
Demands Oversight and Societal Debate

Today, a coalition of thirty-eight international organizations including scientists, environmentalists, trade unionists, biowarfare experts and social justice advocates called for inclusive public debate, regulation and oversight of the rapidly advancing field of synthetic biology - the construction of unique and novel artificial life forms to perform specific tasks.

Synthetic biologists are meeting this weekend in Berkeley, California where they plan to announce a voluntary code of self-regulation for their work (1). The organizations signing the Open Letter are calling on synthetic biologists to abandon their proposals for self-governance and to engage in an inclusive process of global societal debate on the implications of their work (see [] Open Letter [below]).

"The researchers meeting in Berkeley acknowledge the dangers of synthetic biology in the hands of 'evildoers,' but they naively overlook the possibility - or probability - that members of their own community won't be able to control or predict the behavior of synthetic biology or its societal consequences," said Jim Thomas of ETC Group.

"Scientists creating new life forms cannot be allowed to act as judge and jury," explains Dr. Sue Mayer, Director of GeneWatch UK. "The possible social, environmental and bio-weapons implications are all too serious to be left to well-meaning but self-interested scientists. Proper public debate, regulation and policing is needed."

In the last few years, synthetic biologists, by re-writing the genetic code of DNA, have demonstrated the ability to build new viruses and are now developing artificial life forms. In October last year, synthetic biologists at the US Center for Disease Control re-created the 1918 Spanish flu virus that killed between 50-100 million people (2) and last month scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison created a new version of E. coli bacteria (3).

Meanwhile, genomics mogul Craig Venter, whose former company, Celera, led the commercial race to sequence the human genome, now heads a new company, Synthetic Genomics (4), that aims to commercialize artificial microbes for use in energy, agriculture and climate change remediation. It is one of around 40 synthetic biology companies undertaking gene synthesis and/or building artificial DNA.

"Biotech has already ignited worldwide protests, but synthetic biology is like genetic engineering on steroids," says Dr. Doreen Stabinsky of Greenpeace International. "Tinkering with living organisms that could be released in the environment poses a grave biosafety threat to people and the planet," adds Stabinsky.

In October 2004, an editorial in the journal Nature warned, "If biologists are indeed on the threshold of synthesizing new life forms, the scope for abuse or inadvertent disaster could be huge." The editorial suggested that there may be a need for an "Asilomar-type" conference on synthetic biology - a reference to an historic meeting in 1975 where scientists met to discuss biosafety risks associated with genetic engineering and opted for self-governance which ultimately pre-empted and avoided government regulation. Following the Asilomar model the "Synthetic Biology Community" intends to use their second conference (Synthetic Biology 2.0, 20-22 May 2006) to adopt a code of self-governance for handling the biosafety risks.

According to the Open Letter, the effect of the Asilomar declaration was to delay the development of appropriate government regulation and to forestall discussion on how to address the wider socio-economic impacts. Asilomar proved to be the wrong approach then, and Synthetic Biology 2.0 is the wrong approach now.

"We scientists must come to terms with the fact that science can no longer claim to be living in an abstract realm disconnected from the rest of society," said Alexis Vlandas of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES).

The signatories to the Open Letter urge the synthetic biologists meeting in Berkeley to withdraw their declaration of self-governance and join in seeking a wider, inclusive dialogue.

For further information:

North America: Jim Thomas - ETC Group, email: jim@etcgroup.org, ph: +1 613 2412267
Pat Mooney - ETC Group, email: mooney@etcgroup.org, cell: +1 613 2610688
Hope Shand - ETC Group, email: hope@etcgroup.org, ph: +1 919 960-5767
Edward Hammond - Sunshine Project (biological weapons expert) email: Hammond@sunshineproject.org, cell: +1 510 717 7772
Beth Burrows - Edmonds Institute: email: beb@igc.org, ph: +1 425-775-5383

Europe:

Dr Sue Mayer - GeneWatch UK, email: sue.mayer@genewatch.org, ph: +44 1298 871898 (office); mobile: + 44 7930 308807
Alexis Vlandas - International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility. email: alexis.vlandas@materials.ox.ac.uk, ph: +44 7747 036446

A background note for press is available from the ETC Group at http://www.etcgroup.org and at http://www.etcblog.org

Notes to Editors:

1. Go here to read about Synthetic Biology 2.0 Conference and proposals for self-governance: http://syntheticbiology.org

2. Tumpey, TM et al (2005) Characterization of the Reconstructed 1918 Spanish Influenza Pandemic Virus. Science 310: 77 - 80.

3. Posfai, G et al (2006) Emergent Properties of Reduced-Genome Escherichia coli. Published online April 27 2006; 10.1126/science.1126439 (Science Express Reports).

4. http://www.syntheticgenomics.com/

Text of Open Letter:

An Open Letter from Social Movements and other Civil Society Organizations to the Synthetic Biology 2.0 Conference May 20-22, 2006 Berkeley, California concerning the "community-wide vote" on Biosecurity and Biosafety resolutions (to be implemented Jan 1, 2007.)

We are writing to express our deep concerns about the rapidly developing field of Synthetic Biology that is attempting to create novel life forms and artificial living systems. We believe that this potentially powerful technology is being developed without proper societal debate concerning socio-economic, security, health, environmental and human rights implications. We are alarmed that synthetic biologists meeting this weekend intend to vote on a scheme of voluntary self-regulation without consulting or involving broader social groups. We urge you to withdraw these self-governance proposals and participate in a process of open and inclusive oversight of this technology.

Asilomar 2.0?

In 1975 a group of scientists convened at Asilomar to try to address the safety hazards associated with genetic engineering. The Asilomar meeting promoted self-regulation that had the result of preempting public debate and preventing government action. Synthetic Biology 2.0 follows down the same self-regulation road. The scope of discussion at Asilomar was narrowly limited to questions of safety hazards - explicitly excluding broader socio-economic and ethical issues. The effect of the Asilomar declaration was to delay the development of appropriate government regulation and to forestall discussion on how to address the wider socio- economic impacts. Asilomar proved to be the wrong approach then, and Synthetic Biology 2.0 is the wrong approach now.

We recognize that you are justifiably concerned about certain risks of Synthetic Biology, but society requires strong mandatory measures in accordance with the precautionary principle to curtail these risks. As the chair of the recent Boston 'Town Hall Meeting' speaking about the recent proposals said: "I don't think this will have a significant impact on the misuse of this technology." We agree that these proposals will be ineffectual. Moreover, the social, economic, ethical, environmental and human rights concerns that arise from the field of synthetic biology go far beyond deterring bioterrorists and "evildoers." Issues of ownership (including intellectual property), direction and control of the science, technology, processes and products must also be thoroughly considered.

Society - especially social movements and marginalized peoples - must be fully engaged in designing and directing dialogue on the governance of synthetic biology. Because of the potential power and scope of this field, discussions and decisions concerning these technologies must take place in an accessible way (including physically accessible) at local, national and global levels.

In the absence of effective regulation it is understandable that scientists are seeking to establish best practices but the real solution is for them to join with society to demand broad public oversight and governmental action to ensure social wellbeing. Moreover, in the years since Asilomar, science has become more strongly linked to commercial interests, so this can appear as an industry saying that it should only police itself. We urge you therefore to withdraw your declaration of self-governance and join with us in seeking a wider inclusive dialogue.

List of Organizations Signing the Open Letter: http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=562

22 May 2006

Coldiretti: one town out of four is GMO-free in Italy

AGI (Italy), 22 May 2006.

Rome -- One small town out of four joined the "GMO-free" campaign, supported by Coldiretti to "preserve and enhance our great environment and food heritage".

That's what a Coldiretti survey, presented at the event "Voler bene all'Italia", reveals.

Among the 5,835 towns with less than 5000 people, 1,574 municipal administration adopted regulations to preserve their territory from GMO and biotech contamination.

This result "proves that local citizens and institutions oppose biotech in Made in Italy products. This is mainly to be seen in small town municipal councils, which account for 2/3 of the 2,355 municipal councils that joined the national initiative.

On the whole, most of the GMO-free towns are in Piedmont (394), followed by Lombardy (202), Campania (196), Veneto (192), Lazio (171), Sardinia (137) and Emilia Romagna (127).

In one out of four there are GMO-free farms producing DOP appellation products such as cheese and ham; in 60 pct of them there are olive-groves which give 37 DOC Italian oils.(AGI) .

Ireland should have the right to prohibit the import, growth and sale of GM foods
– Bairbre de Brún

Sinn Féin press release, 22 May, 2006

Sinn Féin MEP Bairbre de Br™n has today called for the risks associated with GM foods to "health, animals and the natural environment to be explained to the general public".

Ms de Brún made her comments as EU farm ministers gather in Brussels for a debate on Genetically Modified foods, amongst other items. The Agriculture Council will meet today to discuss the issue of "Coexistence" on whether or not such foods can be grown alongside non-GM foods.

Speaking today Ms de Brún said:

"Sinn Féin is in favour of a GM free Europe. It is my belief that the majority of Irish consumers are also opposed to the introduction of GMOs to Ireland. Farmers are genuinely concerned about the introduction of GM seed, food and animal foodstuffs into this country, thus shattering Ireland's international image as a clean green society. Environmental groups have consistently warned that GM foods have not been adequately tested to ascertain their long-term effects on human health.

"It is on this basis that I have signed a European Parliament Written Declaration outlining the risks that GM presents for public health, animals and the natural environment. I am also calling for every country and region within the EU to have the right to completely prohibit the import, growing and sale of genetically modified organisms.

"Today's meeting of the Agriculture Council will see Ministers adopt conclusions on the issue of GM Co-existence on whether or not such foods can be grown alongside non-GM foods. The European Commission's approach on this issue leaves much to be desired. They continue to show a total disregard for the views of the citizens of EU member states, who overwhelmingly oppose the introduction of GM foods. I will continue to work both inside and outside of the European Parliament to campaign for Ireland to be declared a GM Free Zone." ENDS

EU Nations Divided Over Organic Food Rules

Associated Press, 22 May 2006. By Constant Brand.

European Union agriculture ministers were divided over plans Monday to set up new EU-wide labeling of organic and bio-produced foods.

Officials said several countries argued that a European-wide logo to identify products classified as organic would confuse consumers already familiar with the labeling used in their own countries.

Most EU nations already have their own labeling to identify organic products grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers and without being genetically altered.

Germany's deputy agriculture minister, Gert Lindemann, said the plan posed too many problems. "It is too bureaucratic," he said, adding that organic farmers in his country preferred sticking with national rules and guidelines on labels.

Several nations, including Belgium, Austria, Italy and Greece, demanded that any new rules on what constitutes organic should ensure that biotech content of the product be near zero, and not the proposed 0.9 percent limit, which EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel argued was needed to account for accidental contamination.

"There are different views on this," Fischer Boel told reporters. "It's quite clear that a majority of member states do really see this as a growing market and therefore it is important that we have common rules, so that we can give consumers certainty of the quality of the product that they buy."

Fischer Boel said that forcing the limit lower would cost farmers too much and would harm sales of organic goods, which have grown in popularity over the last decade.

EU officials said they hope to get a deal on the new labels by the end of the year.

Under the current proposal, at least 95 percent of the final product has to be organic for it to get the "EU-Organic" label. Products imported from non-EU countries would also be allowed to use the logo if their products abide by the EU rules.

The debate coincided with a separate discussion on how the EU could ensure that non-biotech crops are not contaminated by neighboring genetically modified crops.

Austrian Farm Minister Josef Proell, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency, said EU ministers agreed they "are keen on protecting the farmers that wish to stick to GMO-free methods."

Several EU nations, including Poland, Austria, France, Luxembourg, Hungary, and Germany, have voiced concern over the lack of rules on that issue.

Those countries have also instituted bans on EU approved biotech crops and products in recent years and some, like Poland and Greece, want a total ban on the growing of biotech crops in certain regions or within their entire territories.

Commission to decide on GMO today

Press release from Kathy Sinnott MEP, Monday 22 May 2006.

The European Commission is to decide today on the future of GM farming in Europe. Because GM farming causes changes and mutation in surrounding farms, thus contaminating other local produce, it cannot be done in isolation. If the EU decides to allow GM in the 25 member states it means that no produce can be called GM free any longer.

Commenting Kathy Sinnott said, "We are an island nation, whose produce is of the highest quality. We must as a nation preserve our ability to produce high quality GM free produce. We are not a big enough country to compete in large scale farming, so it is in our best interests to compete on quality. I would entreat our minister for agriculture, Mary Coughlin to stand up for us on this today. Our health is at stake with GM products whose long term effects are completely unknown. And our agriculture sector is at risk if we give up our quality advantage. I pray that the Irish government will do what is in our best interest today. And insist on keeping Ireland GM Free."

ENDS

For further information, comment from Kathy Sinnott or interview, contact:
Tel: 0032 228 47692, mobile 087 278 6552 or email ksinnott@europarl.eu.int

UN food agency deputy resigns over leader's 'culture of silence'

The Observer, May 14, 2006. By Jo Revill.

The United Nations body which combats world hunger was in turmoil last night after one of its most senior officials resigned, claiming that her boss ruled through 'silence, rumour and fear'.

Louise Fresco, assistant director-general of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), handed in her notice last week, angered at the way the agency was being run by its Senegalese director-general, Dr Jacques Diouf. In a scathing letter of resignation, which has been leaked to The Observer, she criticises him for the direction of the agency and its inability to offer the poorest countries proper advice on agriculture.

She writes to Diouf: 'I am sad that you have isolated yourself so much from most senior managers. Combined with a lack of transparency in decision-making, you have stimulated a culture of silence, rumours and even fear.

'FAO deserves a reform, but a fundamental reform which does not limit itself to hastily moving units across departments or dispatching generalist decentralised teams. FAO needs visionary leadership to move itself out of its bureaucratic paralysis. But such leadership can only flourish if it builds on the commitment of all staff.

'We need to become an exemplary body, not only technically but also in our mode of operation: committed, compassionate and critical.'

The FAO was set up after the Second World War to help developing nations overcome food shortages by offering agriculture support and technical expertise, as well as framing policies which would allow them to compete against wealthier countries.

With a budget of $765m this year, it aims to help improve the production, processing, marketing and distribution of food and agricultural products, and also to promote rural development. But there has been criticism that it replies too heavily on involvement from agribusiness, and does little to encourage independence and projects that would boost the nutritional levels of the poorest countries.

In January, Diouf was elected for a third term of office which upset many officials, according to one insider. In 2004, Diouf attracted huge protests from campaigners in more than 80 countries for an FAO report on biotechnology, which, his critics said, was a thinly-veiled attempt to support genetically engineered crops. They said the study failed to point out that it would disadvantage the world's poorest farmers, and that one major company, Monsanto, dominated the market in genetically modified seeds.

One UN insider, who asked not to be named, said: 'There is a general perception that Diouf has done very little to work closely with other UN bodies. He seems keener to spend time with the US guys running multinational companies than he does to sort out problems on the ground. There have been tensions brewing over its lack of any clear strategy and they are coming to the surface now.'

According to Fresco's letter, 'there is no single cause that explains the crisis that has affected FAO for several years. The role of agriculture is changing, demands on our specialised expertise are growing and there is no doubt that we have a unique global role. But the organisation has been unable to adapt.'

She writes that the FAO is 'caught in a vicious circle' in which most countries appreciate its work for specific projects but do not like it as a whole. She adds that it has not been able to build coalitions and that its reputation is in decline. 'Unfortunately, its leadership has not proposed bold options to overcome this crisis.'

Fresco, who is leaving to take up a professorship at the University of Amsterdam after nine years at the FAO, said there had been no serious questioning of the organisation's direction and in particular the balance between the work it does in the field - working with the poorest countries to overcome their problems - and the more centralised research.

'Whatever is done now is too little and too late,' she writes. 'The current intent at reform does hardly anything to alleviate these problems.. '

A spokesman for the FAO said last night that it could not comment on the contents of a private letter. The spokesman said: 'I understand that Louise Fresco has written a private letter to the D-G explaining her reasons for resigning but it was a private letter which has not been published.

'My understanding is that she does not intend to make a public comment on this, and neither does Dr Diouf.'

FAO accused of persecuting farmers in Asian countries

The Jakarta Post, May 17, 2006

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is supporting the liberal economic and production policies that persecute farmers, an Asian non-governmental organization alleges.

The Asian Peasant Coalition (APC), a grouping of agricultural organizations across Asia, claimed Tuesday in Jakarta that the FAO had failed to meet its target of combating hunger in the region.

"Poor Asian farmers were further weakened and subjected to increasing exploitation. It leads to the worsening of hunger, poverty and landlessness," the APC said on a statement handed out on the sidelines of the 28th FAO Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific here Tuesday.

The APC -- which boasts 14 million members from Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan and the Philippines -- said that more and more farmers had no access to land, which was increasingly taken over by transnational corporations.

Taking Philippines as an example, APC Research Coordinator Carl Anthony said that more than 35 percent of Filipinos were going hungry. This is because of landlessness, trade liberalization and monopolistic practice by transnational corporations.

"Farmers are forced to plant mangoes, pineapple and asparagus -- instead of rice or corn -- simply to fulfill the needs of the wealthy countries," Carl told The Jakarta Post.

More than 7 out of 10 farmers in the Philippines, he said, do not own the land they toil. Nearly 60 percent of agricultural land is owned by 13 percent of landowners.

Carl demanded that the FAO discard all of its policies that are detrimental to the people, especially farmers. According to him, in 2004 the FAO promoted the development of genetically modified products.

"We reject this. For us, the way to improve the condition of farmers in Asia is to give them access to land so that they can toil it," he said.

If the farmers get access to land, they will improve their lives and eventually strengthen the economy of the nation.

Carl said that governments should not depend on genetically modified products because it would only benefit transnational corporations.

David Dawe, a senior food system economist at FAO in Bangkok, separately said that farmers and fishermen in the region found difficulties due to inflation.

Speaking at the FAO forum Tuesday, David said that farmers could solve their problems through intensification and diversification of activities outside agriculture.

"Many farmers, however, will not make it due to limited access to resources," he said.

David said that per capita production of fisheries and wood declined as a result of shrinking bases, increased population and, in some cases, over-exploitation in the past.

19 May 2006

Field trials of GM potatoes

The Irish Times, 19 May 2006, letter to the editor.

Madam, - Richard Braun (March 16th) is correct in his outsider's observation of the suffering endured in this country as a result of the Great Famine. But I think he'll find, if he does a little more research, that it had more to do with politics than potato blight.

It is still the case today that millions are starving because of oppression, and there is no GM food resistant to that.

– Yours, etc,

Kevin Davenport
Brookville, Ashbourne, Co. Meath

Views sought on EU food, dring labelling

The Irish Times, 19 May 2006. By Seán Mac Connell, Agriculure Correspondent

Irish consumers have been urged to give their views on EU food and drink labelling in a public consultation process, before the end of this month.

Consumers can air their views on issues such as genetically modified organism (GMO) content, whether salt content should be mandatory on labels, and even the size of the print in the food labelling in the EU process.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) yesterday asked the public to take part in the process to inform European policy in modernising food labelling regulations. The EU is also seeking a coherent approach to food labelling in member states as part of the commission's review from 2006 to 2008.

The FSAI said the consultation focuses on general food labelling (including labelling requirements applicable to all foodstuffs), compulsory and voluntary information, clear and readable labelling, and alcoholic beverages.

It will also cover nutrition labelling (including mandatory labelling, type of nutritional information, placement and presentation of information) and dual labelling. Other food issues to be covered include more specialist areas such as origin labelling, welfare labelling, GMO labelling and health warnings on alcoholic beverages.

Submissions can be made by 5pm on Wednesday, 31st May, via e-mail to consultation@fsai.ie, by fax to 01-8171301 or by post to Consultations, Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Abbey Court, Lower Abbey Street, Dublin 1.

Bt cotton driving farmers to suicide:
Vandana Shiva calls for a movement to reclaim seed sovereignty

Business Line (India), 19 May 2006.

Hyderabad, May 18. Noted environment activist Ms Vandana Shiva has alleged that Bt cotton was responsible for the increased cost of farm production and indebtedness of farmers, forcing many of them to end their life.

Addressing a press conference here on Thursday, she called for a moratorium on cotton planting and an independent study of the socio, economic, environmental and health impacts of Bt cotton.

Ms Shiva was here as part of the 20-day, three-State "beej yatra" to promote "desi seeds" and sustainable agriculture. It would also promote "GMO-free, patent-free, debt-free and suicide-free zones in the country," she said.

She expressed concern over the proposed Seed Act, which might destroy native varieties and leave farmers completely dependent on unreliable GM (genetically modified) seeds from corporations like Monsanto.

Stressing on the need to develop a strong base for "desi seeds", she said seed played an important role in farming activity. "It decides what amount of water, fertilisers, power and pesticides are needed. Organic farming will stop the vicious cycle of debt and make them self-sustaining. Reclaiming seed sovereignty is vital for reducing rural indebtedness," she observed.

Ms Shiva, who heads the Delhi-based Navadanya Trust, said the Trust was launching a People's Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture to increase awareness on sustainable agriculture, genetically modified organisms and their impact on the environment.

The trust plans to take such campaigns to Punjab and other wheat-growing regions in the country.

Mr K. Ramakrishna, a senior CPI leader and President of AP Ryotu Sangham, said indebtedness was solely responsible for the increasing number of suicides.

18 May 2006

Justifying GM?

Irish Farmers Journal, letter to the editor, 18 May 2006

Dear Sir,

I knew that when I bought the Irish Farmers Journal this week that it was going to irritate me and indeed it did, with the patronising comment on GM potatoes in Meath. After reading the final sentence that said " that we cannot have it both ways", I was greatly struck by the irony of Andy Doyle's piece on the EPA granting the licence and an article next to it, on the huge opportunities for growth of Irish Speciality Foods or is that Irish Speciality GM Foods?

Though I do not think that they will find a market for that!

As one of those people described as well-meaning. I take great exception to the inaccuracies of the information reported by the Irish Farmers Journal. The linking of the products of GM ie medicines with GM crops in the environment is inaccurate as we are talking about two different things. The agricultural biotechnology industry has been keen to link itself to the huge potential offered by biotechnology in medicine. But we are talking about completely different senarios.

The agricultural biotechnolgy industry still insist on using the dogma that one gene codes one protein, which we in the biomedical world know not to be true. To correctly read DNA in the genome, cells must read another notation that overlays it- the epigenetic code. Epigenetics refers to all the heritable biological factors other than DNA sequences that influence gene expression.

Epigenomics is where genomics was 30 years ago, when everyone was working on part of the puzzle. It still has a long way to go and until it unravels this code, the jury is still out on GM. This certainly disputes the comment that states that there are clear and obvious potential benefits.

We also know that this technology in agriculture is not reducing costs of production and in fact yields are shown to be lower in many GM crops. In Spain which legalised GM maize, the only way they could make it cheaper was by selling two bags for the price of one. Cynically, knowing that once the land was contaminated there was no going back for the farmer.

I would like to ask the Irish Farmer's Journal how they can justify their position on GM when there is not a clear evidence base, particularly when you consider the cost to the environment, agriculture and the Green Image, of Ireland. Prehaps they could tell us who they are representing, it is certainly not the majority of farmers that I know. No one has a monopoly on truth, but the people who are objecting to the licence are people who are in touch with the consumers, who have expressed their concerns throughout Europe in relation to GM in agriculture and Food.

Yours sincerely,

Kate Carmody,
Beal Lodge, Asdee, Co. Kerry

GM foods raise concern

Irish Farmers Journal, letter to the editor, 18 May 2006

Dear Sir,

With regard to your article on the GMO potatoes in Meath and disregarding more serious health and environmental issues of GM crops here, I want to ask: do you really think that this technology has to be introduced into Ireland for us to be able to compete? Do you really think that Ireland has to start growing GM crops when they already abound in other much larger countries and unfortunately have been made to invade developing countries?

Do you really think that Ireland has to - or even would be able to - compete with this?

In a few years time Ireland's agriculture, if it accepted GMOs, would go down the drain because those GM crops are produced much cheaper in other countries.

In the long term, Ireland's agriculture will be neglible, if it went down that line. It can only survive if it has to offer something different. That would be a GM-free agriculture. Foresight doesn't seem to be a characteristic of Irish agriculture - see Nitrates Directive, sugar idustry, and stupid Sitka spruce plantations. Okay, let's talk in 15 years time, when Irish farmers will mourn and lament and look for compensation payments, before they finally shut down.

With regard to the trial which prompted your articles, if you had read the documents available from the EPA, you would have noticed that even the EPA itself was concerned about health hazards that emerged from a genetically engineered pea, into which genes from a near relative, the bean, were introduced.

The same might potentially happen in the case of these GM potatoes, where genes from a wild member of the potato family which never crossed naturally with Solanum tuberosum, were used during the engineering process. I believe that consumers are entitled to expect somewhat better informed attitudes and actions from their natural food growers than simple uninformed talk.

Christine Raab-Heine
Kilmore, Dowra, Co. Leitrim.

_______________________

Polish GE seed ban big step towards sustainable agriculture

Greenpeace press release, 18 May 2006.

Poland 18th May 2006 - Greenpeace welcomed the ban on the sale of genetically engineered (GE) seeds, which was approved yesterday by the President of Poland Lech Kaczynski. The signing by the President was the final step for the GE ban to come into force, the legislation was approved by both chambers of the Polish Parliament in previous weeks.

One of the amendments of the new act states that, "genetically engineered varieties will no longer be registered in the National Seeds Catalogue", another adds that trading of GE seeds is forbidden within Polish territory. These regulations constitute a big step forward in order to keep the country's agriculture completely free of GE crops.

"This decision by the Polish President shows that political decision makers are at last taking into account the serious perils connected with planting of GE crops, these crops are not needed and pose a grave danger to the environment, consumers and farmers' livelihoods," said Maciej Muskat, Greenpeace GE campaigner in Poland. "The Government has kept their word to Polish voters, farmers and environmentalists and implemented this ban - a promise that was given prior to the last election."

The ban is a clear political signal that directly contravenes the recent WTO ruling, the verdict declared EU member states national bans on GE organisms are in breach of the rules of free trade. "Poland has implemented this GE seeds ban in defiance of bullying from both the European Commission and the WTO," said Mr Muskat.

There are now 12 GE organism bans in seven EU countries, more than in 2003 when the US presented its case against the EU to the WTO. The Polish announcement is a blow to US agro-chemical giants, as Poland is the second biggest agricultural food producer in the EU.

"Greenpeace will continue to work with and encourage other countries to follow the Polish example, which has put environmental concerns and sustainable agriculture above the profits of agro-chemical conglomerates." Concluded Mr Muskat.

For further information or to arrange interviews, please contact:

Maciej Muskat European GE campaigner in Poland +40 509 058 651
Jacek Winiarski European GE media officer in Poland +48 504 274 080

Public to be consulted on food labels - FSAI

Members of the public are to be asked their views on food labelling in a consultation process announced today by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI).

The FSAI said the Food Labelling in the EU consultation would inform European policy in modernising food labelling regulations and would help ensure a coherent approach to labelling in the EU.

Labelling of genetically modified foods and the question of health warnings on alcoholic drinks will also come under scrutiny.

Alan Reilly, deputy chief executive of the FSAI, said food labelling issues have generated much debate in recent times.

"This consultation asks people for their views on everything from whether salt content should be mandatory, to whether guidelines should be put in place regarding clear and readable labelling.

"Another important area that is addressed is how nutritional information is presented on food products. Current labelling practices for nutritional food products can often cause confusion amongst consumers, so it is hoped that a uniform policy across the EU would assist tackle that problem," Mr Reilly said.

The deadline for submissions to the FSAI is Wednesday, May 31st, and the full consultation document is available on the FSAI website at www.fsai.ie

New appointment to Teagasc

The Guardian (Tipperary), 19 May 2006.

The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Mary Coughlan has appointed Mr. Derek Deane to the Teagasc Authority.

Mr Deane is the Deputy President of the Irish Farmers Association and replaces Ruaidhri Deasy who has served on the Teagasc board for the last four years.

He is a beef and sheep farmer from Tombeagh, Hacketstown, Co. Carlow and won the Bord Bía Quality Beef Producer of the Year Award in 2005. Derek is a former chairman of the IFA's National Livestock Committee.

Speaking at the Teagasc Authority meeting last week, the Teagasc Chairman, Dr. Tom O'Dwyer, welcomed Derek to the board saying that he looked forward to working with him in Teagasc.

ICSA furious with EPA decision

The ICSA has expressed fury with the EPA over its decision to allow a test crop of GM potatoes to go ahead in Co. Meath.

"It's a scandal," said ICSA Rural Development Chairman John Flynn. "This decision is wrong on so many levels. Science has not yet determined the effects that GM crops could have on consumer health. All surrounding farms are now extremely vulnerable to contamination and most importantly, the EPA has just compromised Ireland's clean green image. This is possibly the worst decision that this agency has ever made, and all farmers and consumers will pay the price."'

ICMSA slam Commissioner Boel's speech to D·il

The President of ICMSA, Jackie Cahill, described the Commissioner's speech to the Dáil as "more of the same aspirational and meaningless nonsense that has bedevilled the relationship between the Commission and Irish farmers". Mr Cahill said that telling the Dáil that the Commission wanted stability was all very well, but that farmers would judge the Commission by its actions. And as long as those actions were of the type that through open EU markets to untraceable and possibly infected South American beef, then farmers would remain very sceptical about the type of stability that the Commission had in mind.

Mr Cahill added that Irish farmers preferred dealing with facts, and the two facts that he wanted the Commissioner to remember as she returned to Brussels was that the farmers of Ireland are now suffering year-on-year drops in income and that they have lost all confidence in the ability of the Commission to organise European agriculture in a manner that will pay the primary producers - the farmers - a living wage.

The ICMSA President concluded by saying that something had to change and on the basis of Commissioner Fischer Boel's comments to the Dáil, farmers could only believe that the Commissioner didn't understand this.

Bray Co. Council unanimously passed a motion to declare Bray a GMO-free zone on 17 May

_______________________

KFC exposed for trashing the Amazon rainforest for buckets of chicken
Greenpeace accuses fast food giant of Amazon crimes before its Annual Meeting

Sao Paulo/Rio, Brazil 17th May 2006 - Greenpeace volunteers unfurled a 300 square metre banner in a massive area of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest this morning with the words 'KFC - Amazon Criminal' - in advance of Kentucky Fried Chicken's (KFC) Annual General Meeting in Louisville, Kentucky tomorrow.

Activists in 2 inflatable boats also protested against US commodities giant Cargill, at its illegal soya export facility in the heart of the Amazon, which supplies KFC with animal feed in Europe. They held up a banner saying 'Cargill Out', as rainforest soya was being prepared for export. Both protests highlight the fact that KFC is fuelling the destruction of the Amazon by selling cheap chicken fed on soya grown on deforested land.

Recent Greenpeace investigations (1) have traced the chain of rainforest destruction directly from the heart of the Amazon, via Cargill's facility, to KFC's European restaurants (2), which sell bucket-loads of cheap soya-fed chicken to millions of people every day.

"Deforestation, slavery, use of toxic chemicals, land theft, illegal farming and the extinction of rare species are a recipe for disaster in the Amazon rainforest, but they are ingredients in KFC's quest for cheap animal feed," said Greenpeace International Forest Campaign Coordinator Gavin Edwards. "Fast food companies like KFC must take Amazon deforestation off their menu before it is too late for the world's greatest rainforest."

The Amazon rainforest is being destroyed at an alarming rate and is in urgent need of protection. Since January 2003, nearly 70,000 km2 has been destroyed, equivalent to an area of rainforest the size of 6 football pitches every minute. Soya, which is mainly grown to feed animals, is a leading cause of this destruction. A report last month in Nature magazine (3) revealed that 40% of the Amazon will be lost by 2050 if current trends in agricultural expansion continue, threatening bio-diversity and massively contributing to climate change.

KFC is part of Yum! Brands, Inc., the world's largest restaurant chain which includes Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, A&W and other fast food companies. Greenpeace recently wrote to Yum! Brands, Inc. regarding the destruction of the Amazon, but the company claimed its soya is grown in other parts of Brazil. Yet Greenpeace has traced its supply chain and found that some comes from facilities that use soya grown in the Amazon rainforest.

Greenpeace is calling on KFC and Cargill to ensure that the animal feed they buy does not contribute to the destruction of the Amazon and that none of their soya products are genetically engineered.

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.

For further information or to arrange interviews, please contact:

Matilda Bradshaw, Greenpeace International communications (m) +31 653504701 (in Amsterdam) Gavin Edwards, Greenpeace International forests campaign co-ordinator (m) +31 652 391429 (currently in the Amazon) Scott Paul, Greenpeace US Forest Campaign Coordinator. +1 202 319 2469 (in Washington DC)

Photos are available from:

Franca Michienzi, Greenpeace International Picture Desk, Amsterdam +31 6 53819255
Carol Donnati, Greenpeace Brazil, Sao Paulo. + 55 11 82 726926

Notes to Editors:

(1) A copy of the "Eating up the Amazon' which documents the problems of soya in the Amazon is available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/eating-up-the-amazon

(2) Greenpeace has key evidence including: … US company Cargill, which owns an illegal export terminal at Santarem, is supplied by farms operating on rainforest land that has been illegally cleared for soya production.

… Almost all of the soya passing through this terminal is destined for Europe. In 2005 more than 50% went to the Netherlands, 31% went to the UK, Spain received 6.5% & 6% to France.

… Industry sources and Greepeace research have identified Cargill soya terminals in Europe, through which Cargill's amazon soya enters the continent, as a source of feed for KFC meat in the UK and Netherlands.

(3) Soares-Filho, B.S. et al., 2006. Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 440:520-523. Published 23rd March 2006.

Contact information:

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/

Friends of the Earth protest as EU farm ministers give go-ahead to GMO pollution

Friends of the Earth Europe press invitation, 18 May 2006
for protest on 22 May in Brussels on 22 May.

Leaked documents obtained by Friends of the Earth Europe reveal that EU Agriculture Ministers are set to adopt measures that will allow irreversible contamination of Europe's food and environment from GM crops. Friends of the Earth Europe will be protesting outside the Agriculture Council meeting on Monday 22^ May, urging Ministers to put the public and environment before the interests of the biotech industry.

WHAT: Friends of the Earth Europe GM pollution protest
WHERE: Corner of Rond-Point Schuman and Rue de la Loi, opposite the main entrance of the "Justus Lipsius" Council building, Brussels
WHEN: Monday May 22^nd from 9:30 to 10:30

COMMENT:

Helen Holder, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said, "Evidence shows that you cannot introduce genetically modified crops without contaminating other food crops and the environment. Agriculture Ministers have the opportunity here to stop this contamination. Documents obtained by Friends of the Earth show that they will do the opposite and allow our food and countryside to be polluted. It is time they stood up for the public and not big business!"

"The EU must stop the commercial growing of genetically modified crops until EU-wide measures are in place to protect conventional and organic food and farming from genetic pollution. Without these measures, our governments are ignoring our right to choose and putting the environment at risk," Holder added.

INTERVIEWS: Campaigners from Friends of the Earth Europe will be present for interviews during the action. Interviews will be available in the following languages: English, French, German, Romanian, Hungarian.

PHOTOS: High resolution photos will be available as from 1.00 p.m. on Monday 22 at: http://www.foeeurope.org

BACKGROUND:

Friends of the Earth Europe has obtained a draft of the conclusions due to be agreed by the EU Agriculture Council, at a meeting in Brussels on Monday May 22.

Friends of the Earth Europe welcomes the Austrian Presidency's initiative for Council conclusions on coexistence, and urges Member States to use this opportunity to adopt strict measures against genetic pollution.

The draft conclusions however show that EU member states will:

• ignore concerns raised by farmers, consumers, beekeepers and environmental groups at a recent stakeholder conference organized by the European Commission (1).

• reject calls for EU-wide laws to prevent contamination from GM crops. Friends of the Earth claims that this is a "wait-and-contaminate" policy that will end up with organic and conventionally grown foods polluted (2).

• ignore the calls by over 170 European regions and 4,500 local authorities and smaller areas to have the right to prohibit GM crops in their areas (3).

• not demand that liability for contamination be made mandatory on the GM industry. Instead they will look at existing national legislation, which is already proven insufficient.

CONTACT:

Helen Holder, + 324 74 857 638, helen.holder@foeeurope.org
Adrian Bebb, + 49 160 949 011 63, adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org

NOTES:

(1) EU coexistence conference, April 4-6 2006, Vienna: http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/events/vienna2006/index_en.htm

(2) FoE Europe position paper "Contaminate or Legislate? European Commission policy on coexistence", April 2006: http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/contaminate_or_legislate.pdf

(3) http://www.gmofree-europe.org

World Council of Churches calls for action to stop terminator seeds

World Council of Churches press release, 15 May 2006.

The general secretary of the World Council of Churches, Rev. Dr Samuel Kobia, called upon churches and ecumenical partners to take action to stop "terminator technology". "Applying technology to design sterile seeds turns life, which is a gift from God, into a commodity. Preventing farmers from re-planting saved seed will increase economic injustice all over the world and add to the burdens of those already living in hardship," stated Kobia.

He underlined: "Terminator technology locates food sovereignty, once the very backbone of community, in the hands of technologists and large corporations. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 1.4 billion people depend on farmer-saved seed as their primary seed source. All Christians pray "Give us this day our daily bread" (Matt 6:11). That this profoundly material request appears in this profoundly spiritual prayer, signals for us the centrality of food in our lives, as well as the indivisibility of the material and spiritual in the eyes of God. It is of great concern to me that life itself is now often thought of and used as a commodity."

Governments upheld the international de facto moratorium on "Terminator technology," which refers to plants that are genetically engineered to produce sterile seeds, about a month ago at the Eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP8) to the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) held in Curitiba, Brazil. They finally gave in to strong pressure by social movements and civil society groups and a number of governmental delegations supporting their claims. The UN conference was held in Brazil only weeks after the WCC's 9th General Assembly in Porto Alegre, Brazil, where delegates urged the WCC to respond to the challenges posed by science and technology.

The call for a ban on sterile-seed technology had taken center stage at the two-week meeting in Curitiba. Thousands of peasant farmers, including those from Brazil's Landless Workers Movement (Movimento Sem Terra), protested daily outside the conference center to demand a ban. The women of the international peasant farmers' organization Via Campesina staged a silent protest inside the plenary hall on 23 March, holding hand-painted signs with the words "Terminar Terminator con la Vida" ("Terminate Terminator with Life").

Brazil and India have already passed national laws to ban Terminator - and other campaigns to prevent commercialization of seed sterilization technologies will follow in various countries around the world. Protestant chu