NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • November 2006

Archives 2006: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • December
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.

NOTE: Previous news re. Bayer's illegal GMO rice contamination scandal may be found in our August, September and October 2006 archives

30 November 2006

Key wildlife species and habitats excluded from proposed GM environmental liability laws

GeneWatch press release, 30 November 2006

Tomorrow, the [UK] Government is launching its consultation on the implementation of the Environmental Liability Directive (1). This includes the proposals for laws that will govern whether biotech companies have to pay for environmental harm caused by GMOs (2).

The Government's proposals, seen by GeneWatch UK, are the weakest possible and will fail to protect important sites and species.

"For GMOs, the Government doesn't intend to make the polluter pay," said Dr Sue Mayer, GeneWatch's Director. "These proposals are too weak to be effective and are dangerous because they create the impression that laws exist when they are a sham. While the public pay millions to protect species like the red squirrel and water vole, any damage that may be done by GMOs will not be paid for by the biotech industry".

Of the 566 Biodiversity Action Plan species, three hundred and seventy five (66%) will not be covered (3). A full list is published on the GeneWatch web site and includes: the cirl bunting, corn bunting, tree sparrow, bullfinch; the water vole, the red squirrel, and the brown hare; and many butterflies and moths.

Three thousand three hundred Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), forming 25% of the land area of biological SSSIs in the UK will not be included. The SSSI system is an important pillar of nature conservation in the UK. GeneWatch has published a full list of these sites on its web site. (4)

The proposals also make it difficult to ensure the biotech industry pays out, even when harm occurs to species that are covered.

"It is highly unlikely that a biotechnology company or person using GMOs would be required to pay for remediation of any environmental damage that may arise unless they were proven to be negligent. Either damage will not be repaired or the state will have to pay. This is not what people said they wanted during the Government?s own 'GM Nation?' debate. The proposals could have been written by the biotech industry", said Dr Mayer

For further information contact Sue Mayer on + 44 1298 871898 (office) or + 44 7930 308807 (mobile)

Notes to editors

1. The DEFRA consultation 'Environmental Liability Directive. Consultation on options for implementation of the Directive' will be launched on Friday 1st December 2006 and will be available at:www.defra.gov.uk/environment/eldcon . The closing date for submissions will be the 22nd February 2007

2. The Environmental Liability Directive (ELD - 2004/35) provides the liability regime for environmental harm arising from the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This is the regime that was promised during the negotiation of the Deliberate Release Directive (2001/18 - Recital 16), but it also includes environmental damage caused by other activities that are not addressed here. If environmental damage takes place as a result of using a GM organism, the company or person responsible should have to pay the costs of remediation (putting things right). For briefings about the Environmental Liability Directive and GMOs: http://www.genewatch.org/sub.shtml?als[cid]=530853%20

3. In the UK, a Biodiversity Action Plan was launched in 1994. Species and habitats of conservation concern were identified and plans established to protect and improve their status. For a full list of those species not covered under the Government's proposals: http://www.genewatch.org/sub.shtml?als[cid]=530853%20

4. For a full list of SSSIs that the Government does not intend to be included in the environmental liability laws: http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/SSSIsnotELD_bycounty.xls

Syngenta says Brazil officials drop GMO enquiry

Reuters, 30 November 2006.

ZURICH, Nov 30 (Reuters) - Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta (SYNN.VX: Quote, Profile , Research) said on Thursday Brazilian officials had dropped an investigation into allegations the company had been growing genetically modified organisms too close to the border of a national park without permission.

Syngenta, which has been ordered by the governor of the state of Parana to leave the land in question, said a federal prosecutor dismissed a civil investigation after finding that Syngenta had been authorised by the National Technical Commission for Biosecurity (CTNBio) to plant the crops.

Syngenta said the federal prosecutor had also said CTNBio was the appropriate official body to grant permission.

The group said it had planted the seeds no closer than 6 kilometres from the boundaries of the national park, complying with recently introduced measures that forbid any plantation within 500 metres of a national park boundary.

A peasant group occupied the field used by the group's unit Syngenta Seeds in March, alleging the firm's experiments with GMOs were illegal and that it had planted seeds too close to the national park.

A spokesman for Syngenta said the state governor's expropriation order made no mention of illegal growing of genetically modified corn but said that he wanted to use the land for a farming school.

The Swiss company was still weighing up how to respond to the expropriation order, the spokesman said.

In October, the group said third-quarter sales at the company's seeds division were down 3 percent at $222 million, below an expected $231 million.

Corn and soybean seed sales, hit hard by lower acreage in Brazil and the effect of currency movements, were down 42 percent at $37 million.

28 November 2006

Diapason Launches Non-GM Agro Commodity Index

BlackEnterprise.com, 28 November 2006. By Bill McIntosh, Financial Correspondent

LONDON (HedgeWorld.com) - Diapason Commodities Management has launched the first ever agricultural commodity-based index to incorporate only non-genetically modified output.

The Diapason Commodities Agriculture Non-GMO Index or DCI AG NGMO covers a range of otherwise conventional agricultural commodities, but is restricted to those with no genetically modified content. The index is calculated in dollars and is meant to offer a liquid, truly international benchmark for non-genetically modified investment in OECD countries.

"A (non-GM) agricultural index not a big issue in the United States, but is a very big issue in Asia, especially Japan," Christian Simond of Diapason said in an interview. "And we would argue that it is a growing one in Europe." He added that the index should be suitable for widespread retail distribution in a variety of structured financial products.

The new index will use world trade significance (WTS) and world contract liquidity (WCL) criteria. All eligible contracts will have to be non-genetically modified commodities and fulfill both criteria.

Under the first criterion, a commodity will only be considered for the index if its exports represent more than 0.1% of total world trade. Under the second, a commodity will only be included if its most recent average of the combination of market value and open interest exceeds $10 million.

The final contract weight of the index is calculated by taking a weighing of 33.33% of the export-oriented WTS and 66.67% of the market-biased WCL. There are currently five physical commodities of that quality: Tokyo Grain Exchange Non-GMO Soybean (42.10% of weighting); Euronext Milling Wheat (16.85%); Euronext Feed Wheat (11.61%); Euronext Corn (8.99%); and Euronext Rapeseed (20.45%).

Weightings are to be revisited each December. The index will rebalance monthly according to the initial weighting as defined by the Diapason Commodities Index committee. Future rolls will occur during the last three index business days of the month. During the roll period, the index is shifted from the second nearby baskets at a rate of 0.3333% per day.

The DCI AG NGMO Index is the third new product index to be launched by Diapason this year. In June, the Diapason Commodities Index was launched. That followed the February launch of the UBS Diapason Bio-Fuel Index.

GMO rice found safe, but trade still fettered

Reuters, 28 November 2006. By Missy Ryan.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. regulators' latest move to sanction a strain of biotech rice may do little to soothe lingering doubts about the oversight of genetically modified foods destined for export markets, analysts and industry groups said this week.

"This is just a question of reputation," said Steve Suppan, a senior policy analyst for the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. If exporters can't guarantee the crops they sell to other countries are GMO-free, "what is that going to do to the overall ability of U.S. rice exporters?"

Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that LLRICE601, a strain of genetically modified rice made by Bayer CropScience, was safe for the environment and could be grown and sold without government oversight.

USDA's ruling comes three months after the rice, which was never destined for supermarkets but somehow made its way into the food chain, was found in commercial bins in the United States and later in shipments to European countries.

At least nine countries in Europe -- where consumers are usually more wary of genetically modified products which some have dubbed "Frankenfoods" -- have discovered LLRICE601 in shipments of long-grain rice from the United States.

The findings prompted the European Union to slap tighter testing rules on U.S. rice -- effectively halting U.S. exports worth $97 million a year. Other nations, like Japan, Korea and Russia, likewise stepped up tests for the rice.

But even more troubles could lie ahead, trade analysts say, as increased production of biotech products bring out the difference in countries' approaches to regulating those goods.

"We have zero tolerance in the EU for this. It shouldn't be on the shelf," said Canice Nolan, who heads food safety for the European Commission's delegation to the United States

Suppan said skepticism about the safety of U.S. rice could easily seep into consumers' beliefs about other crops.

The Bayer rice case is not the first time genetically modified food has made its way into the world marketplace. In 2001, for example, a biotech corn called StarLink, which was approved only for animals, was found in the food chain.

"In the EU and others, there's a great deal of consumer resistance to GMO foods ... We're not really looking very deeply at what the concerns of our trading partners are," said Joe Mendelson, legal director for the Center for Food Safety.

International standards a ways off

Some analysts say the U.S. process for approving biotech goods -- with USDA overseeing environmental safety and the Food and Drug Administration looking at human health considerations -- is fractured, calling it lax and unwieldy.

FDA hasn't formally evaluated LLRICE601. But the agency did rule out health risks earlier this year, saying it's safe because it is so similar to other, sanctioned GMO rice.

LLRICE601 is different from traditional rice because it contains a protein called LibertyLink, which makes it resistant to a herbicide used to kill weeds.

The United States might counter marketing problems by helping shape a new international process for harmonizing food and crop safety rules, some crop experts said, perhaps through the Rome-based food safety body Codex Alimentarius.

Until that happens, "people have to grapple with this in a way as not to disrupt trade," said Charlotte Hebebrand, president of the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council.

According to Nolan, European officials will review the stepped-up testing rules for U.S. rice in January.

If U.S. crops continue to be held up by concerns about contamination, other countries could try to fill that gap. Thailand, the world's biggest rice exporter, has said it hopes to increase sales to Europe. It does not permit GMO crops.

Rachel Iadiciccio, a spokeswoman for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, said that the agency was still investigating whether Bayer had broken any rules by letting the GMO rice seep out into the food supply.

Bayer, a division of Bayer AG (BAYG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research), is being sued by a number of farmers seeking damages. Company spokesman Greg Coffey said it is doing all it can to cooperate with USDA.

GM soya fed rats: stunted, dead, or sterile
Alarming findings dismissed by regulators

Institute of Science in Society press release, 28 November 2006.

Female rats fed genetically modified (GM) soya produced excessive numbers of severely stunted pups with over half of the litter dying within three weeks, and the surviving pups are sterile.

These alarming findings came from the laboratory of senior scientist Dr. Irina Ermakova at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. The experiments began two years ago, and the initial findings hit the world press when Ermakova was invited to speak at the 11th Russian Gastroenterological Week in Moscow in October 2005.

Preliminary results have been published in a Russian journal [1], in conference proceedings and official reports [2-7], and a fuller paper containing further results is in press [8]. Ermakova has also spoken at numerous public meetings and scientific conferences and in the popular media, both at home and abroad, but regulators have continued to ignore and dismiss her findings.

UK's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) has been systematically biased in favour of studies that fail to show significant effects of GM food and feed right from the beginning. Not surprisingly, it continued to cite research that's seriously flawed as evidence against Ermakova's findings [9], and Ermakova has lodged her own protest [10].

One particular study cited by the ACNFP to bolster its GM bias [11] used a batch of GM soya harvested in a middle of a certain field in South Dakota, processed by a commercial company, and fed to mice of indeterminate age and body weight. These factors alone would make the experiments invalid and totally unreplicable. Furthermore, the remarkable similarities in the composition of the GM and non GM diet - both supposed to contain 21.35 percent soya meal - is simply beyond belief. There were no standard deviations to the figures provided; 59 out of 78 of the figures were identical to 2 - 3 significant figures, and the rest differed so slightly that they would have been within standard errors. Could it be that the researchers have been feeding both groups the same diet? There is no evidence that the two diets were different, no DNA tests on the food samples were performed to ascertain that one was GM and the other non-GM.

This contrasts with the investigations carried out by Ermakova, who has been updating her results on her website (http://irina-ermakova.by.ru/eng/ [12], and urging other scientists to repeat the experiments; all the more important now, as since publishing the initial results, her funding has been cut, and she is strongly discouraged from pursuing this line of research.

Suppression and victimisation of honest, independent scientists has now become routine while obfuscation and misrepresentation are perpetrated at the highest levels, most recently by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who once again, blames the controversy over GM foods, along with MMR vaccine, stem-cells and BSE (!) on the "anti-science brigade" that "threatens our progress and our prosperity" [13]. Is Blair implying that BSE is not a hazard to human health? Ten years ago, the then UK government was forced to admit BSE was linked to the variant Creuzfeld Jacob Disease in humans, after having repeatedly proclaimed BSE-infected beef was safe for human consumption for 10 years previously [14] ( http://www.i-sis.org.uk/the-inside-story-of-BSE.php - The Inside Story of BSE, SiS 32).

Read the rest of this article here: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Soya_Fed_Rats.php

Hungary sets limits for GM crops

BBC News, Budapest, 28 November 2006. By Nick Thorpe.

[The EU grows less than 1% of the world's GM crops]

Hungary's parliament has overwhelmingly backed legislation which severely restricts the planting of genetically modified crops (GMOs).

The Act came despite a plea from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences for more liberal legislation.

Under the law, a buffer zone 400m (1,320ft) wide will have to exist between any GMOs and adjacent fields.

The written agreement of all landowners within that buffer zone will also be needed for planting to go ahead.

Farmers, environmentalists and scientists who oppose the introduction of GMOs worked closely with parliamentary deputies from both the governing and opposition parties on this legislation.

Critics of the legislation - led by biotech firms, some farmers and a vocal group of scientists in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences - say such stringent conditions will make it almost impossible to plant GMOs in Hungary.

Hungary, like Austria, Greece and Poland, already has a moratorium in place against one particular genetically-modified organism which is permitted elsewhere in the European Union.

The Act is seen as a way of pre-empting expected pressure from the European Commission to end that moratorium.

Hungary is the second-largest exporter of maize seed in the EU, second only to France.

Supporters of the legislation argued that the strong position of Hungarian grain on the European market was partly due to its label as a GMO-free product.

Canada Canola Still Banned From Europe Despite WTO Ruling

Dow Jones, 28 November 2006.

"Nothing has changed," said Diane Wreford, assistant vice president of public affairs for the Canola Council of Canada. "There has been no victory."

She said the WTO ruled that the E.U. was unjustified in blocking genetically modified, or GM, canola imports between 1999 and 2003.

"So what the E.U. is essentially accepting is that they used improper procedures during that timeframe to stop GM canola imports, but now have corrected those procedures," Wreford said.

She said the Canadian government's reaction earlier this week also left the impression that the E.U. market would now be open to GM canola.

"This is incorrect, as each GM canola event (variety) must still be approved by the E.U. before the commodity can be imported," Wreford said.

The Canola Council, or CCC, is working closely with Bayer AG unit (BAY) Bayer CropScience and Monsanto Co. (MON) to ensure the E.U. continues to adhere to its approval process and deadlines, a statement from the CCC to its members on this issue said.

"It is difficult to predict when all the approvals will be in place, but we are hoping that this will occur sometime in 2007," the statement read.

Canadian canola hasn't directly moved to any E.U. member country since March 1998, when a small test sample was allowed in, an export source said.

"Their decision to block Canadian canola remains tied to the biotech issue and is solely based on politics rather than science," the source said.

There is no scientific reason for the E.U. to keep genetically modified canola from entering its system, the source said. A second exporter commented that if the E.U. does eventually accept GM canola imports, all it will do is adjust where the canola is first being shipped to.

"Right now countries like (the U.A.E.) and Turkey are importing Canadian canola, processing the seed and reshipping the finished oil back to Europe for the bio-diesel sector," the exporter said.

The E.U.'s limited canola crush capacity and ever-increasing bio-diesel demand could, however, mean that processed canola oil will still need to be imported from those countries, the exporter acknowledged.

Biggest rice exporters say no to GE as new US contamination found in the Philippines

Greenpeace press release, 28 November 2006.

Manila, Philippines 28 November 2006 - Rice producers from Thailand and Vietnam, together the world's biggest exporter, have announced their commitment to only growing GE free rice, in a new Memorandum of Understanding announced last week. The two countries account for more than half of all the rice traded in the world market today and will put mounting pressure on other rice producing nations to commit to a GE free rice supply.

"This announcement from the biggest rice exporters occurred after massive backlash against the GE industry following the recent scandals where illegal and unapproved GE rice varieties from the US and China contaminated the global rice supply," said Jeremy Tager of Greenpeace International.

In the wake of the announcement, Greenpeace today revealed yet another major contamination, this time in the Philippines, where rice is the staple food: Bayer's LL601 - - has contaminated rice products coming from the US, which are currently on sale in Manila(1). The brand found to be contaminated by GE rice is "Uncle Sam Texas Long Grain Rice" which is distributed in the Philippines by Purefeeds Inc and sold in major supermarkets like Robinson's, Shopwise and SM.

"The public must be immediately warned, and the government must recall all US rice and rice products from supermarket shelves," said Danny Ocampo of Greenpeace Southeast Asia. "The Philippine Government must safeguard the staple food of Filipinos. The latest GE contamination scandal shows that once GE organisms are released into the environment, the consequences for consumers, farmers and traders are enormous," Ocampo added.

The global food industry is now facing massive costs associated with GE contamination, including testing costs, product recalls, brand damage, import bans and cancelled imports and contracts. At least five multi-million dollar class action lawsuits have been filed by about 300 US rice farmers against Bayer, as they struggle to protect their livelihoods from GE contamination. In addition, the world's largest rice processing company, Ebro Puleva, which controls 30% of the EU rice market, has stopped all imports of rice from the US and is expected to bring legal action against Bayer as well.

The company responsible for the global contamination is Bayer, which ended field trials of the LL601 variety in the US five years ago. So far in 2006, this unapproved and illegal variety has been found in at least 24 countries. Last week contamination was announced in several countries in Africa. How small scale field trials in the US resulted in global contamination of rice supplies is still not known. Many countries including the EU, Russia and Japan have responded with import restrictions, and recent export figures show serious declines in US long grain rice sales.

Earlier, Chinese rice exports to the EU were also found to be contaminated by illegal GE Bt63 rice.

Greenpeace campaigns for GE-free crop and food production that is grounded in the principles of sustainability, protection of biodiversity and providing all people to have access to safe and nutritious food. Genetic engineering is an unnecessary and unwanted technology that contaminates the environment, threatens biodiversity and poses unacceptable risks to health.

For more information and interviews:

In The Philippines: Daniel Ocampo, Genetic Engineering Campaigner, +63 917 8976416
Lea Guerrero, Media Campaigner, +63 2 434 7034 loc 104, +63 916 374 4969

In Amsterdam:
Suzette Jackson, Greenpeace International communications officer, +31 6 4619 7324
Jeremy Tager, Greenpeace International GE campaigner, +31 6 4622 1185

Notes to Editors:

(1) On Friday 24th November the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) granted marketing approval of Bayer's LL601 GE rice variety following its illegal contamination of the food supply and rice exports, first discovered 11months ago. The controversial decision was taken at the request of the developer, Bayer CropScience, solely to ensure that it is not responsible for the ongoing contamination of US rice supplies. Bayer dropped plans to commercialize the variety five years ago and has no intention to market the variety. The decision by the USDA provides some legal protection for Bayer for future contamination caused by its LL rice.

(2) The presence of illegal rice was verified in nine samples of U.S. food aid and commercial imports after tests were conducted in an independent laboratory in the U.S. The unapproved GE rice has been detected in rice sent to Ghana and Sierra Leone and the results were publicly announced by Friends of the Earth Africa in a simultaneous press conference in both countries in the morning of the 24th of November. http://www.eraction.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27

Formal complaints lodged against Monsanto subsidiary for violations in GM rice field

Richharia Campaign (India) press release, November 28, 2006.

After investigations by activists and media in Chattisgarh revealed serious violations in the Environment Protection Act (EPA), the biosafety guidelines for GM-related research and of the conditional clearance for trials given to Mahyco in the case of a Bt Rice plot outside Raipur city, activists of Richharia Campaign lodged formal complaints against the company with the local police station and the District Magistrate of Raipur.

Meanwhile, it is also reported that the 2-member Inquiry Team set up by the Government of Chattisgarh to look into the GM rice trial by Mahyco has submitted its report to the government. It is not clear whether the team looked into the potential dangers created to the world's richest collection of rice germplasm close to Mahyco's Bt Rice plot, due to this open air trial. The Chattisgarh government had earlier promised to write to the Central government about its concerns about GM crop trials based on the findings of this investigation.

After listing out various violations in the case of this trial, the police complaint against the company by Jacob Nellithanam of Richharia Campaign pointed out violations falling under IPC clauses of public nuisance, negligent conduct related to hazardous material etc. The complaint to the Magistrate was based on the Penalties clause [Section 15] of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, which prescribes a punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees for failure to comply with the rules, orders or directions issued under the EPA.

After BKU lodged a similar complaint in the case of violations found in the GM Rice trial in Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh, this is the second time that such a complaint is being lodged against the company for its routine violations of guidelines and rules related to biosafety.

As is known, the government of Chattisgarh took serious objection to trials happening in the state without information to, or permission being sought from, the state government. The monitoring team that was advised to go to visit the plot by the Department of Biotechnology in Government of India went to the plot at the end of the season only to find that the crop was in mid-harvest! Following reports about various irregularities in this trial, the state Agriculture Minister, Mr Nankiram Kanwar rushed to the trial location and ordered the destruction of the standing crop in the field.

This is the first time in the controversial GM history of the country that a state government ordered and ensured destruction of an open air trial. It is ironical that when farmers in Haryana [led by BKU] and Tamil Nadu [led by TNFA] destroyed GM Rice plots fearing contamination from the plots and for similar biosafety violations witnessed there, criminal charges were booked against them by the police based on the company's complaints.

For more information, contact:

Jacob Nellithanam, Richharia Campaign, at farmersrights@gmail.com or (0) 9425560950

Also visit www.indiagminfo.org for more information on GE in Indian agriculture.

Glyphosate-resistant weeds more burden to growers' pocketbooks

Delta Farm Press (USA), 28 November 2006. By Forrest Laws. Cotton producers who encounter glyphosate-resistant horseweed in their fields may be tempted to fall back on a solution that served their fathers and grandfathers well: cold steel.

Before you pull that disk out of the weeds on the back side of the equipment lot, however, think about this: Do you really want to spend all that extra money on diesel fuel and labor and undo the benefits of conservation tillage you've worked so hard on all these years?

And there's another consideration, according to Larry Steckel, Extension weed scientist with the University of Tennessee, and a speaker at Cotton Incorporated's recent Crop Management Seminar in Memphis.

"You have to be careful," says Steckel, displaying a photo of a freshly disked field with green horseweed plumes sticking up in it. "If you don't do a thorough job of disking, you can wind up with a worse problem than when you started."

There's no doubt glyphosate-resistant horseweed has set back conservation tillage efforts in Tennessee, says Steckel, who spoke on "The Impact of Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed and Pigweed on Cotton Weed Management and Costs." (The University of Georgia's Stanley Culpepper and Arkansas' Ken Smith were co-authors.)

In a 2004 survey, county Extension agents said glyphosate-resistant horseweed had reduced conservation tillage farming in Tennessee by 18 percent. Even more telling, the survey showed the percentage of farms using conservation tillage in the largest cotton counties in Tennessee had dropped from 80 to 40 percent.

Arkansas weed scientists estimate a 15 percent reduction in conservation tillage in their state due to glyphosate resistance. Similar trends have been reported in Mississippi and the Bootheel of Missouri.

Glyphosate-resistant horseweed has spread much more quickly than anticipated when Bob Hayes, a weed scientist with the West Tennessee Experiment Station in Jackson, discovered it in west Tennessee's Lauderdale County.

"It's in all our cotton acres now," Steckel told Crop Management Seminar participants. "Horseweed can grow in Tennessee 11 months out of the year. It has a very aggressive tap root, and it loves a no-till environment."

Horseweed (it is sometimes called marestail) also competes well with cotton. Studies show horseweed can reduce cotton yields by 40 percent when left unchecked through the two-leaf stage. If not controlled between planting and first bloom, losses can reach 70 percent.

The staggering increase in glyphosate-resistant horseweed followed a spectacular rise in the amount of glyphosate products (Roundup, Touchdown and others) being applied in cotton and other glyphosate-tolerant crops.

"We saw a 752-percent increase in glyphosate applications between 1997 and 2003 at the expense of just about everything else with the exception of diuron (Karmex, Direx)," said Steckel. (Applications of diuron jumped 101.1 percent during the same period while those of other herbicides declined.)

As most farmers now know, weed scientists with the University of Georgia have documented cases of glyphosate-resistant Palmer pigweed in southwest Georgia. More recently, glyphosate-tolerant Palmer pigweed has been found in Crockett and Lauderdale counties in Tennessee and Mississippi County in Arkansas. Resistant waterhemp, a cousin of pigweed, has also been found in Missouri.

Culpepper, a weed scientist with the University of Georgia, also discussed Palmer pigweed resistance in Georgia at the Cotton Incorporated seminar.

"Scientists at Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina have found an 8x to 12x level of resistance to glyphosate in Palmer pigweeds in their states," said Steckel. "We've seen pigweed survive 2x to 4x rates of glyphosate in Arkansas and Tennessee.

"When you look at some of the slides Stanley (Culpepper) showed earlier, it's a shock. We don't have near the weed problem with Palmer pigweed in this part of the world that they do in Georgia."

Weed scientists say glyphosate-resistant horseweed and pigweed can be managed with a combination of herbicides, but it will cost growers more.

One approach has been to burn down with glyphosate or paraquat (Gramoxone Inteon) plus 8 to 12 ounces of dicamba (Clarity, Oracle) in early February and go back with Gramoxone at 48 ounces plus Ignite at 29 ounces plus Caparol at 32 ounces, Cotoran at 32 ounces or Direx at 16 ounces 21 days before planting.

Some growers have also been making a fall (November or December) herbicide application with Valor at 2 ounces plus Clarity or Oracle at 8 ounces. Others have applied Valor plus Caparol, Cotoran or Direx in February.

"A fall application of Valor has been getting a lot of attention from growers," says Steckel. "You've got to get some residual control out there to keep the horseweed from emerging during the winter."

Envoke has also received a label from EPA for fall and early winter application in cotton fields. Envoke will provide residual and knockdown control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed and other winter annuals. The use rate will be 0.10 ounce per acre.

"Trying to burn down large horseweed that got its start the summer of the previous year or early in the fall is going to be hard with anything," said Steckel. "If a grower catches these populations early with a residual herbicide, he will be ahead of the game."

Cotton farmers can spend an extra $20 per acre to control glyphosate-resistant horseweed by the time they add Valor, Clarity and Caparol to their program, according to Steckel.

For glyphosate-resistant horseweed and pigweed, the cost could rise $27 an acre if they have to apply a maximum rate of glyphosate; add Dual Magnum over-the-top with the first or second glyphosate spray, followed by a post-directed application of Caparol or Dual and Valor or Caparol in a hooded sprayer.

But that's not as expensive as what growers already face in southwest Georgia, says Steckel.

Control costs for glyphosate-resistant Palmer pigweed in Georgia can range from another $45 an acre to as high as $92 an acre in fields where farmers have had to resort to hand weeding to remove the problem weed.

"Glyphosate-resistant Palmer pigweed can be much more problematic than horseweed due to its more competitive nature," says Steckel. "On average, glyphosate-resistant Palmer pigweed could cost cotton producers an extra $40 per acre or more to manage.

"Because of that, we think glyphosate-resistant pigweed is a much bigger threat to cotton production, and every year we can delay its arrival in the Mid-South can mean big savings to our producers."

Farmers cautioned on Bt rice tests

Statesman News Service (India), 28 November 2006.

BHUBANESWAR, Nov. 28: The Organic Farming Association of India's Orissa chapter has appealed to the farmers and their organisations to be on constant vigil against the attempts by any companies and research institutions to conduct open air trials of Bt Rice in the state. Expressing shock over reports that a firm had conducted a field trial on Bt rice without taking due permission in a neighbouring state, the OFAI said Jeypore tract in Koraput district is known as the centre of origin of rice. It is said that the district is home to more than 300 indigenous varieties of paddy. There has been depletion of indigenous varieties of rice.

According to reports, the number of local land races of rice is now only about 150.

Extensive induction of high yielding and hybrid varieties of rice with organised support is one of the major reasons for the depletion of genetic resources in the area. So, there is an urgent need to take all possible measures to ensure that state's existing local varieties of rice do not get contaminated due to Bt rice, the organisation said in a statement issued here.

It cautioned the farmers that since there is absolutely no regulatory mechanisms for GE trials in Orissa the situation is quite alarming. OFAI's Orissa chapter demanded that all field trials in India be cancelled with immediate effect unless it was ensured that such trials could be done with bio-safety and scientifically fully incorporated.

Mr Debjeet Sarangi, the convener of the state chapter, felt that the departments of Biotechnology and Agriculture should convene a meeting involving farmers, scientists and representatives from civil society organisations to form monitoring bodies on GM trials at state, district, block and pancahyat level.

Top rice exporters say no to genetically engineered rice

Greenpeace International, 28 November 2006

Bangkok Thailand: Good news: the world's first and second largest exporters of rice have agreed to shun genetically engineered (GE) varieties. A recent agreement between rice traders from Thailand and Vietnam protects half the crop traded on the world market from the dangers of GE, and will put mounting pressure on other rice-producing nations to commit to a GE-free rice supply.

According to our campaigner Jeremy Tager, the decision resulted from a  "massive backlash against the GE industry following recent scandals." Illegal and unapproved GE rice varieties from the US and China have contaminated the global rice supply, with disastrous results for many growers, distributors, and traders.

Last week, a historic meeting between the powerful Rice Exporters Association of Thailand and the Vietnam Food Association resulted in the joint announcement of a non-GE rice production policy. More than 30 of the largest rice producers and traders in Thailand and Vietnam were present to endorse the agreement. Only days earlier in India (the worlds third largest exporter of rice), the representative body for India's rice exporters announced they too were supporting a ban on GE rice field trials because of the threat they pose to their GE-free export markets. The Indian government has yet to take action to ban field trials.

Thailand has shown the world that it can lead in rice production without GE rice. As a key agricultural producer, Thailand stands to benefit more if it stops all open-field GE crop trials and declares a GE-free policy once and for all.

Rice production accounts for 11 percent of the world's arable land, or 500 million hectares, 90 percent of which is produced on Asian farms of less than one hectare.

We are eating the GE industry's experiments

Stopping field trials is important because the results of GE rice experiments don't seem to be containable: they keep turning up where they're not welcome. Even as news of the Thailand Vietnam accord was breaking, we uncovered yet another major contamination, this time in the Philippines, where rice is the staple food.

Bayer's LL601 has contaminated rice products coming from the US, which are currently on sale in Manila. So far in 2006, this unapproved and illegal variety has been found in at least 24 countries. Last week contamination was announced in several countries in Africa.

Bayer ended field trials of the LL601 variety in the US five years ago. The global food industry is now facing massive costs associated with GE contamination, including testing costs, product recalls, brand damage, import bans and cancelled imports and contracts.

At least five multi-million dollar class-action lawsuits have been filed by about 300 US rice farmers against Bayer, as they struggle to protect their livelihoods from GE contamination.

Rice has been part of our staple diet around the world for over 10,000 years, it is cultivated in 113 countries - in China alone there are 75,000 varieties. Studies of the potential ecological risks of GE rice show that there is a high risk of 'transgene escape' (gene flow) from GE rice to non-GE rice varieties. Research also shows that GE rice out-crossing may threaten wild rice varieties.

Importers are banning it too

The world's largest rice processing company, Ebro Puleva, has stopped all imports of rice from the US and is expected to bring legal action against Bayer as well. Ebro Puleva controls 30 percent of the EU rice market.

This move is only one of dozens by traders, millers, exporters, producers and retailers to protect themselves and their customers from unwanted GE foods.

Greenpeace campaigns for GE-free crop and food production that is grounded in the principles of sustainability, protection of biodiversity and providing all people access to safe and nutritious food.

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

Exporters worried over GM rice rejection

Financial, Express, November 28 2006. By Ashok B. Sharma.

NEW DELHI, NOV 27: Indian rice exporters are concerned over the growing rejection of genetically modified (GM) across the world. Recently producers in major rice exporting countries - Thailand and Vietnam - signed agreement to keep GM rice out of cultivation. The

All India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA) has woken up to the situation and have asked the government not to allow any field trials or commercial cultivation of GM rice in the country. They say that the retention of the country's image as producer of non-GM foods would largely boost the prospects of rice exports.

"Country earns millions of dollars in foreign exchange due to export of rice. India's long grain aromatic rice - basmati has a premium market abroad," said RS Seshadri of Tilda Riceland - a major exporter of basmati rice.

AIREA chief Anil Adlakha has already expressed his concern over the possible contamination of long grain non-GM rice if GM rice trials were allowed to be conducted in the country.

Seshadri said "We must learn lessons from the recent contamination of food chain by GM rice under field trials in the US and China. The profitability of US rice industry has declined as many countries began rejecting the US shipments of contaminated rice."

He said recently on November 16 in the Rice Exporters Association of Thailand and the Vietnam Food Association signed an accord in Bangkok to keep off GM rice. This accord was signed in presence of senior officials and ministers of both the countries. He said that this is a wake up call for India too.

Agreement on non-GE policy

Bangkok Post, 28 November 2006. By Apinya Wipatayotin.

An agreement between Thai and Vietnamese rice exporters to maintain non-genetically engineered produce will enable Thailand to gain more access to the European Union market, Wanlop Pichpongsa, a member of the Thai Exporters Association, said yesterday. The association and the Vietnam Food Association last week agreed in principle to announce non-GE crops during a meeting in Bangkok. The agreement will be made official in March next year.

Mr Wanlop said the agreement would present a big opportunity for Thai and Vietnamese rice exporters, who would enjoy better access to the EU market after the EU imposed a ban on rice imports from the United States, after GM strains were found in a rice shipment from the US last month.

''We should not waste this opportunity because the EU is seeking new sources of rice to replace the US,'' Mr Wanlop said.

Currently, Thailand's export of jasmine rice to the EU totalled about 250,000 tonnes a year, compared to 300,000 tonnes by the US to the same market. Thailand is the world's biggest rice exporter with 8.2 million tonnes a year, followed by Vietnam with 4.7 million tonnes. India and the US ranked third and fourth with 4.3 and three million tonnes, respectively. Meanwhile, Patwajee Srisuwan, an anti-GE campaigner for Greenpeace Southeast Asia, welcomed the private sector's initiative.

''This is a victory for farmers in the region. However, the threat of GE rice adulteration still looms large and it is necessary that the agreement be expanded to cover other Asian countries,'' she said.

In another development, the Administrative Court yesterday agreed to hear the case of GM papaya leakage to farms in Khon Kaen province.

27 November 2006

Germany permits first trial GMO wheat plantings

Reuters, 27 November 2006.

HAMBURG (Reuters) - The German government has permitted the first plantings of genetically-modified wheat for research, it said on Friday.

Planting of about 1,200 square metres of GMO wheat had been approved at Gatersieben in Saxony-Anhalt in east Germany on the site of the Leibniz agricultural research institute, German food safety agency BVL said.

"The BVL has in its safety assessment concluded that the open air cultivation will not have any damaging impact on humans, animals or the environment," the BVL said in a statement.

The office had taken into account 30,000 objections from the public when taking its decision, it said.

The GMO wheat type to be tested has a higher protein level, it said. Germany and the rest of the European Union already permit commercial cultivation of GMO maize (corn) and about 955 hectares were cultivated in 2006, including 230 hectares in Saxony-Anhalt.

This year the government also permitted open air experimental cultivation of GMO barley and potatoes.

Several pressure groups attacked the decision. Nature protection group NABU called the decision "a clear rejection of risk prevention and consumer protection." Organic food association Bioland called the decision "a scandal" and said GMO wheat was an unwanted product.

Although the German public is very safety-conscious about food, the GMO question is not a major issue in the country.

Hungary Set To Pass "Strictest" GMO Crop Law

Reuters News Service, November 27 2006. BY Andras Gergely.

Hungary is set to impose strict rules on genetically modified crops that would mostly block their cultivation even if the EU overturns the country's GMO ban.

The law, supported by the opposition as well as government parties, is expected to be passed on Monday in case the European Union forces Hungary to abandon its complete ban.

"This is Europe's, perhaps the world's, strictest GMO law," Agriculture Minister Jozsef Graf said.

Although the European Union permits cultivation of the MON 810 maize hybrid produced by biotech giant Monsanto, Hungary banned the crop in 2005.

Hungary, which has millions of tonnes of surplus maize, extended the ban in February, saying GMO's were dangerous to health, the environment and to its position as one of Europe's biggest seed producers.

A simple majority of EU states supported a draft order in September for the Hungarian ban to be lifted, but that was not enough under the EU's complex voting system.

The issue is likely to be discussed next at a meeting of EU environment ministers in December, and if there is no agreement it could return to the European Commission for a default rubberstamp.

The new Hungarian law will prescribe a 400-metre buffer zone between GMO and conventional crops. Farmers will also need the approval of neighbouring landowners and users to plant GMO's.

That will be too complicated in a country where many plots are small, rented or farmed in cooperatives with many members, farmers said.

Farmers see discrimination

Farmers' group MOSZ said the law will exclude all but the biggest landowners from GMO production.

"Our main problem is not that it is stringent, but that it is not equally stringent towards everyone," MOSZ Secretary Istvan Toth told Reuters.

"In some respects it is discriminatory."

The law may also be ineffective because it only separates GMO and conventional crops at the growing stage, without any guidelines on harvesting, processing or packaging, Szent Istvan University Professor Laszlo Heszky said.

Graf said Hungary is erring on the side of caution for now but it may later reconsider its stance on GMO's, especially for use as biofuels, not for human consumption.

"We cannot bury our heads in the sand, we'll have to do something with GMO's," he said. Another reason Hungary does not want to allow GMO's yet is that there are not yet any varieties suited to local conditions, Graf's deputy, Zoltan Gogos said.

"We are not hindering research, but then let those be Hungarian types," Gogos said. "But that will take years."

Burkina Faso's GM cotton causes concern

Business in Africa, 27 November 2006

Ouagadougou - Africa's largest producer of cotton, Burkina Faso, was to introduce transgenic cotton to the market in June 2007 in a bid to increase production and fortify a crop susceptible to insects, the country's largest textile firm said on Friday.

The plan has sparked concern from organisations that believe genetically modified organisms pose a potential danger to the environment and human health and would not solve Africa's farming problems.

"There is no longer any obstacle to introducing transgenic cotton in Burkina. It was scheduled to be introduced in 2008, but the authorities want it to be in 2007," said Celestin Tiendrebeogo, director of the Society of Burkina Fibers and Textiles (Sofitex).

"This new technology will reduce the cost of production for farmers and eliminate the predators of the cotton sector," added Agriculture Minister Salif Diallo.

Burkina launched trials of genetically-modified Bt cotton in 2003. Cotton production accounts for 60 percent of state revenue and supported four million people.

Producers hope transgenic cotton would lead to a 30 percent increase in production per hectare and a reduction in the use of insecticides, Tiendrebeogo said.

The Coalition for the Protection of African Genetic Heritage (COPAGEN), a grouping of Sub-Saharan farming and consumer organisations, however, voiced concern at the prospect.

"We have real concerns about a hasty (decision) ... on the introduction of transgenic cotton in Burkina Faso," the association said.

COPAGEN and another regional organisation called JINKUN said in a statement in September that the Burkina government had begun trials of Bt cotton in 2003 without first setting up any regulatory controls, under pressure from United Ststes biotech firms Monsanto and Syngenta, and the US state departments for development aid and farming.

Introducing transgenic cotton was "a Trojan horse" that would allow such biotech multinationals to bring a whole range of GM crops into Africa, they said.

"The problems of cotton in the sub-region today have nothing to do with seeds or productivity or yields," their statement said.

"In general terms, GMOs are not a solution for Africa. The major problems that agriculture faces in our countries include incompetent water management, low soil fertility in many regions, lack of access to the means of production, in particular around issues related to land, lack of access to loans at acceptable interest rates, and the processing of our raw materials on our own continent.

"Faced with these problems, there are a number of solutions other than GMOs, solutions that are scientifically controllable, economically profitable and socially sustainable."

COPAGEN and JINKUN urged the region's leaders not to accept Bt cotton, saying it would "open the door to the introduction of all genetically modified seeds in agriculture and food".

It has also been suggested that GM seeds would not be sustainable in Africa since farmers would need to purchase seeds on an annual basis from suppliers, as to avoid contamination these seeds generally produced seedless plants.

Contaminated U.S. rice must be recalled from Africa
African groups condemn US decision to authorise illegal GM rice sent to Africa

Lagos (Nigeria), Johannesburg (South Africa), 27 November:

Friends of the Earth Africa and the African Center for Biosafety are today urging African countries to monitor US rice imports and to recall all shipments contaminated with GM rice known as LibertyLink601 (LL601). This call follows the confirmation of the presence of the illegal variety LL601 in food aid and commercial imports of rice from the US in Ghana and Sierra Leone.

"This rice is not approved in Africa and must be immediately recalled from our countries," said Nnimmo Bassey of FoE Africa. "Africa will not accept being the dumping ground for unwanted GM rice. Our governments must stay firm and not fall under the US pressure to accept this tainted rice".

The presence of illegal rice was verified in 9 samples of U.S. food aid and commercial imports after tests were conducted in an independent laboratory in the U.S. The unapproved GM rice has been detected in rice sent to Ghana and Sierra Leone and the results were publicly announced by FoE Africa in a simultaneous press conference in both countries in the morning of the 24th of November (1).

Following FoE Africa announcement, the experimental rice LL601 found in Africa was given commercial approval by the United States Department for Agriculture (USDA) on the evening of the 24th November (2).

"The approval of GM rice right after it has been found in US food aid sent to Africa is a blatant insult to our people", added Mariam Mayet of the African Center for Biosafety. "USDA's stamp of approval to genetically engineered rice after it has illegally contaminated the food supply completely erodes all trust in the US Food System".

The GMO Rice was only released for experimental purposes, and Bayer CropScience, the developer, dropped plans to commercialize the variety, known as LibertyLink601 (LL601), five years ago. The U.S. based Center for Food Safety has strongly condemned its government decision since no exhaustive testing has been done on LL601 to guarantee that the GM rice would not create human health or environmental hazards. (3)

"The rice was released only for experimental purposes more than five years ago, Bayer announced it will not commercialize the rice, and on top of that there is no guarantee of the safety of those crops. It is obvious that Africans cannot accept this rice", added Bassey.

The African Center for Biosafety and FoE groups from 6 African countries will be meeting in Nigeria this coming week. These groups will also send an open letter to the World Food Programme (WFP) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to protest the dumping of unwanted GMOs via food aid.

See FoE Africa briefing on rice contamination: http://www.eraction.org/publications/FoEAfrica_briefing01.pdf

Notes

(1) Africa contaminated by illegal GM Rice: http://www.eraction.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27

(2) USDA deregulates line of genetically engineered rice: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2006/11/rice_deregulate.shtml

(3) Center for Food Safety. 2006. USDA Gives Rubber-Stamp Market Approval to Genetically Engineered Rice Contaminating Food Supply. Press Release 24 November. >http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press_room.cfmlink

24 November 2006

USDA deregulates disputed GMO rice

Reuters, 24 November 2006.

WASHINGTON, Nov 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Agriculture said on Friday that it has deregulated a strain of genetically altered rice whose discovery this year triggered concern around the world.

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) today announced that after a thorough review of scientific evidence it will deregulate genetically engineered LLRICE601 based on the fact that it is as safe as its traditionally bred counterparts," USDA said in a statement.

The request for deregulation came from Bayer CropScience, a division of Bayer AG (BAYG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research), which notified the government in July that it had found small amounts of LLRICE601 in commercial long-grain rice. That finding led some countries to require certification for some kinds of U.S. rice.

USDA spokesman said the rice could now be grown without oversight from the department.

USDA Gives Rubber-Stamp Market Approval to Genetically Engineered Rice Contaminating Food Supply
'Approval-by-Contamination' Policy Puts Consumers and Environment at Risk, Erodes Trust in U.S. Food
USDA Continues to Allow Bayer to Test Experimental Genetically Engineered Crops

Center for Food Safety (USA) press release, 24 November 2006.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today granted marketing approval of a genetically-engineered (GE) rice variety following its illegal contamination of the food supply and rice exports, first announced three months ago. The controversial decision was taken despite the insistence of its developer, Bayer CropScience, that it dropped plans to commercialize the variety, known as LibertyLink601 (LL601), five years ago.

"With this decision, USDA is telling agricultural biotechnology companies that it doesn't matter if you're negligent, if you break the rules, if you contaminate the food supply with untested genetically engineered crops, we'll bail you out," said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety. "In effect, USDA is sanctioning an 'approval-by-contamination' policy that can only increase the likelihood of untested genetically engineered crops entering the food supply in the future, and further erode trust in the wholesomeness of U.S. food overseas," he added.

Mendelson also noted that USDA has still not determined how LL601 entered the rice supply or the extent of the contamination, and that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not undertaken a formal assessment of the rice, which is designed to survive direct spraying with the powerful herbicide glufosinate.

"Experimental, genetically engineered crops like LL601 are prohibited for a reason", said Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst at Center for Food Safety. "Exhaustive testing is required to determine whether or not mutagenic gene-splicing procedures create human health or environmental hazards, and no one has done that analysis on LL601 rice," he added.

In comments filed with USDA, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) opposed USDA's consideration of Bayer's petition for market approval of LL601 as an abuse of the regulatory process. CFS also blasted USDA for allowing Bayer to black out extensive portions of its petition as "confidential business information," and demanded that it be released for public scrutiny and comment before any decision was made. CFS further noted that Bayer might exploit the approval to evade liability for an estimated $150 million in market losses suffered by U.S. farmers because of the episode. The comments also spelled out the potential for LL601 to spread its herbicide-resistance trait to weedy red rice, making it more difficult for farmers to control.

LL601 is one of several 'LibertyLink' (LL) rice varieties that have been genetically engineered by Bayer to survive application of Bayer's proprietary Liberty ® herbicide. Liberty kills normal rice, but can be applied directly to LL varieties to kill surrounding weeds. This explains why Bayer had to obtain government approval to permit residues of the weedkiller on rice grains of its two approved versions of LibertyLink rice.

"Contrary to what you hear from the biotech industry, genetically engineered crops like LibertyLink rice mean more chemicals in our food, not less," said Freese.

"USDA's decision to approve genetically engineered rice that Bayer itself decided was unfit for commerce is the clearest sign yet that U.S. authorities are intent upon dismantling federal regulation of genetically engineered crops in the interests of the biotechnology industry," said Mendelson.

"Center for Food Safety will consider all legal options to put an end to USDA's 'approval-by-contamination' policy for new genetically engineered crops," he added.

Mendelson further noted that since the contamination debacle was first announced on August 18, 2006, USDA has given Bayer the green light to conduct nine more outdoor field trials of new genetically engineered crops.

Contacts:

Joe Mendelson: + 1 703-244-1724
Bill Freese: + 1 301-985-3011

Further resources:

For CFS's comments to USDA on BayerÇs petition for approval of LL601, see: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/policy_com.cfm

CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY

660 Pennsylvania Ave., SE , Suite 302, Washington, DC 20003, USA + 1 202 547 9359 - fax + 1 202 547 9429

2601 Mission Street, Suite 803, San Francisco, CA 94110 + 1 415 826 2770 - FAX + 1 415 826 0507

www.centerforfoodsafety.org

GM field trials face the ire of Chattisgarh State Government (India) now
State Government not informed about Bt Rice trial, close to the world's richest rice germplasm collection; trial conditions violated yet again

Richharia Campaign press release, 24 November 2006.

Raipur, India: After the Uttar Pradesh government, it is now the turn of the Chattisgarh state government to order an inquiry into a Bt Rice trial close to the state capital of Raipur. State officials have expressed their displeasure at the fact that they have not been informed about the trial even though conditions imposed on the company prescribe that it should inform the local panchayat, the concerned authorities in the district and state administration about the full details of the trial. For the first time in the controversial history of GM crop development in India, a state Minister had to rush to the trial spot to undertake damage control exercises as the local media and activists started reporting violations.

Yesterday, the state agriculture minister Mr Nankiram Kawar visited the Bt Rice trial plot in the field of a farmer called Jagdishlal Arora in Purara village close to Raipur city (a village that has been annexed into the city) after receiving reports from media and activists that trial has been conducted without information to state authorities and worse, that crop remains have been allowed to lie around including some grain without being destroyed as per biosafety guidelines. He ordered the immediate destruction of the remaining crop in the field by burning. Investigations reveal that destruction is still underway.

What is very important to note is that this trial has happened at a distance of only around one kilometer from the world's richest collection of rice germplasm available with the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vidyalaya, the state agriculture university.

"This is suicidal - allowing GM rice trials so close to our rich collection of rice diversity, most of which has been evolved by indigenous communities over centuries. How do the government and the company propose to make themselves liable in case of contamination - are the Environment Protection Act's liability clauses anywhere close to protecting such a valuable legacy? We have been constantly pointing out that GM crop experimentation especially in the case of rice is against the Cartagena biosafety framework to which India is a signatory, given that India is a Centre of Origin and diversity for rice. It is shocking to see such short-sightedness in our regulators while it is very unsurprising to see that the company involved only has its own profits as its main concern and nothing else", said Jacob Nelllithanam of Richharia Campaign, Chattisgarh.

Dr Ilina Sen of Chattisgarh Jaiv Suraksha Manch added, "The selection of the farmer for the trial is questionable. Further, the team that went to visit the trial at the behest of the DBT has found that the Bt Okra plot next to the Bt Rice plot has already been harvested and that the Bt Rice plot was in mid-harvest. The team admitted that given this situation, they were unable to ascertain the safety and efficacy of the technology. The Mahyco officials contacted said that since our questions cover biosafety and statutory aspects, it is best to approach the regulatory authorities for details. Clearly, all is not well with the way these trials are happening".

This field trial of Bt Rice followed the routine pattern of violations found in most trials happening around India - the local Councillor Ms Vinod Bhaghel had no information about the trial nor did the district authorities in the agriculture department. Officials spoken to were complaining about the fact that some of the officials were told about the trial only towards the end of the season, that too when the Department of Biotechnology in the Government of India asked them to be part of a monitoring team to visit the plot.

Speaking on the phone with Kavitha Kuruganti of Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Mr Prabhat Tridatta, senior official in the state agriculture department said that the state government has not given permission to the trial and that after collecting detailed information, they will write to the Government of India about their concerns. He also admitted that regulatory institutions laid down under the Environment Protection Act have not been set up in the state of Chattisgarh.

For more information, contact:

1. Mr Jacob Nellithanam, Richharia Campaign, at farmersrights@gmail.com or (0) 9425560950

2. Dr Ilina Sen, Chattisgarh Jaiv Suraksha Manch, at sen.ilina@gmail.com or 0771-2424669

For your information, Phone number of the Secretary, Agriculture, Government of Chattisgarh, Mr Pankaj Dwivedi: 0771-2221209/5080209; Deputy Secretary-Agriculture Mr Prabhat Kridatta - 0771-4080933

23 November 2006

Biggest Russian food and feed importers adopt GE free policy

Greenpeace Russia press release, 23 November 2006.

Kaliningrad, Russia - Today, after three weeks of intensive campaigning against imports of genetically engineered food (GE) and feed coming into Russia, Greenpeace received an announcement from two major Russian food and feed importers that they have adopted a policy of only using non GE products.

Sodruzhestvo, the biggest soya importer in Russia, which supplies 70% of all soya used in the Russian food and feed industry, has stated that it will turn its new factory currently under construction in Kaliningrad into a GE free zone. The new oil-extraction and feed-processing plant will not only produce GE free soya oils and feeds, but also GE free maize and GE free oilseed rape products. (1) Following the move by Sodruzhestvo the feed producer Rybflotprom, which controls 7 % of the Russian feed market and is 80 % owned by the French company Provimi, also announced it has adopted a GE free policy for all its products.

Both companies will soon start importing GE free soya from Brazil instead of GE soya from Argentina and the US. (2)

"Greenpeace welcomes the move by the Russian companies it's a significant shift in the global market towards GE free products," said Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International GE campaigner. "This is good news for Russian consumers, who reject the use of GE ingredients in their foods by an overwhelming majority of 80 %. It is yet another blow to the global genetic engineering industry - and in particular to Monsanto - the world's biggest seller of GE seeds."

The announcements were made at a press conference at the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise, currently in the harbour of Kaliningrad. For the last three weeks the Arctic Sunrise was on the Baltic Sea exposing controversial imports of GE food and feed products being imported into Russia. (3)

The decisions by Sodruzhestvo and Rybflotprom will have a strong effect on countries that export GE products such as the US and Argentina and will cause a shift in the demand to countries such as Brazil where soya and maize production is still predominantly GE free. In a written statement Sodruzhestvo director S.L. Kandybovich explicitly stated that his company will in the future mainly use imported soy from Brazil. "We think that Brazil is the only country that grows GMO-free soy, whose quality meets our criteria", his statement said. (4)

Earlier in the year, and following a Greenpeace investigation into the impacts of the soya trade in the Brazilian Amazon rainforests, multinational soya traders in Brazil have agreed to a two year moratorium on buying soya from newly deforested land in the Amazon. Greenpeace will also ask Sodruzhestvo to support this initiative to ensure the soya produced in Brazil does not contribute to the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest.

Greenpeace campaigns for GE-free crop and food production that is grounded in the principles of sustainability, protection of biodiversity and providing all people to have access to safe and nutritious food. Genetic engineering is an unnecessary and unwanted technology that contaminates the environment, threatens biodiversity and poses unacceptable risks to health.

For more information and interviews:

Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International GE campaigner, mobile: +31 6 4619 7328 Natalia Olefirenko, Greenpeace Russia GE campaigner, mobile: +7 903 739 4956
Suzette Jackson, Greenpeace International communications officer, mobile +31 6 4619 7324

Notes to Editors

(1) Sodruzhestvo is currently building a new processing plant for oil seeds in Kaliningrad. The new factory is expected to have a turnover of 2 million tonnes of soya, maize and oilseed per year of which 1.5 million tonnes will be soya products used for both food and feed.

(2) According to data provided by the Russian customs at present Russia imports approximately 1 million tons of soya products which are used in both feed and food industry. Data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) show that 77 percent of soya imports into Russia originate from Argentina and the Netherlands. Most soy products imported from the Netherlands contain U.S. origin soybeans that have been processed in the Netherlands or other EU countries. In Argentina almost 100 % of the cultivated soya is GE, in the US this is approximately 90 %, meaning that most soya currently imported into Russia is genetically engineered.

(3) On 13 November, Greenpeace boarded a Russian vessel, RUSICH-1, loaded with 5000 tons of feed soya destined for St. Petersburg in the middle of the Baltic Sea. The samples taken from the cargo have now been tested in a laboratory. The lab tests reveal that 78 % of the soya on board of the Rusich-1 was genetically engineered. The captain of the ship could not present any documentation identifying the cargo as GE soya, which is a legal requirement according to European Regulations as well as Russian law.

(4) Statement by Sodruzhestvo is available at:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/sodruzhestvo-ge-free-company-s

EU to debate approving first "live" GMO in 8 years

Reuters, 23 November 2006. By Jeremy Smith.

BRUSSELS, Nov 23 (Reuters) - The European Union will venture into the sensitive area of "live" genetically modified (GMO) crops next month, for the first time in eight years, when EU experts debate whether to let farmers grow biotech potatoes.

EU countries have been divided for years over GMO policy and even the idea of how biotech crops should be separated from traditional and organic varieties has proved controversial. So to approve another "live" GMO will be difficult, diplomats say.

The EU's last approval of a GMO product for cultivation was in 1998. Shortly after, the bloc started its de facto moratorium on new biotech authorisations that ended in 2004. Still, no more "live" GMOs have gained EU approval since that time.

That may all change in December, when EU environment experts will discuss an application by German chemicals group BASF to grow a potato -- known as Amylogene -- that is genetically engineered to yield high amounts of starch.

BASF's application only relates to industrial processing, so the potatoes would not be consumed either by humans or animals.

However, the company has submitted a separate application -- no date is yet set for an EU discussion -- where the waste from processing would be incorporated into animal feed. "It's the first proposal that we'll be putting forward for cultivation since before the moratorium," an European Commission official said. The experts' debate is scheduled for Dec. 4.

Greens outraged

Europe has long been split on genetically modified policy and the EU's 25 countries consistently clash over whether to approve new varieties for import. The Commission usually ends up issuing a rubberstamp approval, which it may do under EU law.

Green groups were outraged by the idea of the EU authorising the cultivation of more GMO crops. At present, only a handful may be grown, with approvals dating back to 1998 and earlier.

"For many the people the potato is almost sacred. Allowing genetically modified potatoes to be grown in Europe will be a disaster," said Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe.

"There will always be contamination if GM crops are grown outdoors and sooner or later these GM potatoes will end up in the food chain," he said.

Later in December, EU environment ministers are expected to discuss Commission proposals ordering both Austria and Hungary to lift their bans on certain GMO products after an expert committee failed to reach a consensus agreement in September.

They are also likely to debate an application for EU imports of a carnation whose colour has been genetically modified to produce blue pigment and also carry a herbicide-resistant gene.

Ironically, carnations were the EU's last two GMO plant authorisations before the unofficial moratorium began. The application, lodged by Florigene -- one of Australia's first biotech companies -- does not include cultivation.

Outside South Africa, Southern African Nations Eschew GMO Crops

VOANews.com, 23 November 2006. By Carole Gombakomba.

Interview with Reverend Forbes Mantonga: http://www.voanews.com/mediaassets/english/2006_11/Audio/ra/zim_gmo_matonga_23nov06.ra

Not enough is known about the potential risks of genetically modified crops for Southern Africa to embrace the controversial technology, according to scientists and government officials attending a conference at Victoria Falls this week.

Zimbabwean and other scientists concluded that despite the food shortages facing countries in the region - Zimbabwe among them - more research is needed to ensure the safety of genetically modified seeds and other organisms.

Reverend Forbes Matonga, national director of Christian Care, which organized the conference, said the Harare government has recommended that all grain be milled outside the country so modified grain cannot be planted within Zimbabwe.

Harare continues to block the entry of genetically modified food from countries such as the United States and South Africa. The use of genetically modified organisms in farming is also banned as research and debate continues.

Matonga told reporter Carole Gombakomba of VOA's Studio 7 for Zimbabwe that all of the countries in Southern Africa with the exception of South Africa share the view that caution is warranted on genetically modified crops until the verdict is in.

Zimbabwe: GMO - Debate Rages On

The Herald (Harare), November 23, 2006/

A SOUTHERN Africa regional conference on genetically modified organisms and food security has stirred debate over the new technology's perceived benefits and negative implications on the African people.

This year's conference is being held under the theme: "Being the light of the world in the light of GMO debate".

The three-day conference, organised by Christian Care, which is expected to end today has drawn delegates, including environmental lawyers, from South Africa, Zambia, Botswana, Tanzania, Canada and Germany, who are experts in biotechnology, environmental science and agricultural science, among others.

Christian Care national director Reverend Forbes Matonga said the conference was aimed at providing the churches with information on GMOs in Africa to share experiences on the issues related to genetic engineering.

"We want them to explain to us their legal point of view since they are protocols and conventions that are being signed by governments.

"The organisation has a duty to look into the implications of the technology from its understanding of God, nature and humanity," said Rev Matonga.

"We receive food from donors on behalf of the communities which we distribute, therefore it is important for us to have accurate information on the GMOs."

His organisation also wanted to have an understanding of the Government's position on GMOs since it complemented State effort in both development and humanitarian work.

"We have managed to get the scientific details on what is genetic engineering and explanation on the legal framework at an international level.

"It is important to understand our own Zimbabwean law on biotechnology," he said.

Participants would, at the end of the conference, be able to strike a balanced understanding on the debate which would help the organisation to come up with some policies regarding GMOs.

GMOs are at the centre of intense debate.

Concerns raised included environmental impact, food safety, and control of agriculture technology and direction of agriculture change.

While the majority of agricultural scientists worldwide have welcomed the advent of the new technology, the public remains sceptical.

UK judge gives go-ahead to FSA High Court challenge over GM rice

Friends of the Earth UK, 21 November 2006

A High Court judge has given Friends of the Earth permission to take its legal challenge against the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to a full hearing in the High Court. The environmental campaign group says that the FSA failed to take appropriate action to prevent unauthorised GM rice entering the UK food chain. The FSA had claimed that Friends of the Earth's challenge should not be allowed to proceed to a hearing because its case was 'unarguable'.

Friends of the Earth also argued that the case needs to be heard urgently to ensure that the FSA acts while GM-contaminated rice is still on the market. The FSA has argued that the case is not urgent. The Court [1] has ordered a hearing be held "as soon as possible" to decide the next steps in the case.

The Court's initial decision follows Friends of the Earth's application for judicial review of the Food Standards Agency's (FSA) failure to take necessary action to prevent UK consumers being exposed to unapproved GM rice in their food. The illegal GM presence stems from an incident in the US where GM rice grown experimentally (BayerCropScience's LL Rice 601) has contaminated commercial long grain rice supplies and been exported around the world. The rice is not approved for human consumption or cultivation anywhere in the world.

Friends of the Earth's Head of Legal, Phil Michaels said:

"The High Court has recognised that this is a serious case which requires a full hearing by the High Court. Three months after the Emergency Decision the Food Standards Agency is still not taking the UK's legal obligations seriously. The FSA's response to the case has been to point the finger at everyone else and to deny that it has any responsibility. Rather than seeking to avoid responsibility the FSA should instead be taking steps to comply with the law and to make sure that proper testing and analysis is carried out throughout the UK so that consumers are not exposed to illegal GM rice."

The Court's decision follows the publication by the FSA last week of its findings that just under 10% of samples collected in UK rice mills were contaminated with the illegal GM rice [2]. Illegal GM material has already been detected in long grain rice from Tesco, Sainsbury's, Morrisons, Somerfield and the Co-op.

According to the European Commission's amended Emergency Decision any long grain rice imported into the EU from the US must be tested to be demonstrated free of the illegal rice [3]. Furthermore, Member States must take appropriate steps to test rice products already on the market to make sure the illegal variety is not present.

Friends of the Earth claims that the FSA:

• has failed to take actions necessary to comply with the requirements of the Emergency Decision to test rice already on the market in the UK;

• has failed to ensure that local food authorities investigate or take enforcement action;

• has encouraged food businesses to carry on as normal and not to test their rice for contamination or withdraw product.

Notes:

[1] Mr Justice Crane

[2] http://www.food.gov.uk/science/surveillance/...

[3] http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1120...

22 November 2006

EU accepts trade ruling on GMOs

EurActiv.com, 22 November 2006.

To the anger of green NGOs, the EU has decided not to appeal against a WTO ruling which upholds a US-led complaint that it is illegally blocking imports of genetically modified food.

Background:

The case against the EU's rules for the approving and marketing of biotech products was brought to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in May 2003 by leading GMO producers Argentina, Canada and the United States, which claimed that their farmers were losing millions of euro annually because of the EU.

On 29 September 2006, the WTO's dispute-settlement body issued its ruling on the complaints, faulting the EU for "undue delay" in approving GMO products for a four-year period ending in 2003 and accusing a number of member states of maintaining unjustified bans on GMO products already found safe by the EU.

The EU had until 21 November 2006 to launch an appeal, but decided not to do so.

Issues:

The international trade body found that, that by suspending the approval of all GMO products between 1999 and 2003, the EU had applied a "de facto moratorium" resulting in "undue delay" and thereby breaking trade rules.

It also ruled that national bans applied on a number of GMO products by six EU member states ‚ Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Luxembourg ‚ despite the fact that the Commission had approved these products as safe, were in violation of WTO rules.

Nevertheless, the WTO's 1,148-page ruling ‚ the longest ever in the history of the WTO ‚ is unlikely to settle transatlantic differences over how the EU currently deals with GMO imports, as it rejected claims that the strict regulations currently applied by the EU on GM food and crops were illegal and refused to rule on the overarching issue of whether biotech foods are safe.

Thus, while the US claims that the ruling means the EU will now be obliged to speed up its GMO approval system, the EU argues that the panel's findings are purely "theoretical" as it has already come into compliance by putting an end to its moratorium in 2004 and subsequently allowing a number of GMOs into its market.

The Commission will nevertheless have to find a way to deal with the issue of national bans, which are still in place. It has asked the plaintiffs to allow it "a reasonable period of time" to work with member states.

Positions:

Commission Trade Spokesman Peter Power explained: "The European Commission has decided not to appeal the GMO decision as the current regulatory provisions are not in any way affected by the judgment," adding: "The impact of that judgment is entirely of historical interest." He defended the European system, saying: "The current approval system works, as evidenced by the approval of 10 authorisations since the (WTO dispute) panel was established. More authorisations are in the pipeline."

Ambassador Peter F. Allgeier, US Trade Representative to the WTO, said: "Although the EC has approved a handful of biotech applications following the initiation of the dispute in 2003, the EC has yet to lift the moratorium in its entirety. Some biotech product applications have been pending for ten years or more, and applications for many commercially important products continue to face unjustified, politically motivated delays." He urged the Commission and member states to comply with the panel findings, which he says "uphold the principle of science based policymaking over unjustified, anti biotech policies".

Green NGO Friends of the Earth Europe condemned the EU decision not to contest the WTO ruling, warning that this could set "a dangerous precedent for future environmental disputes". Indeed, the group stresses that the UN's Biosafety Protocol - an international agreement on GM products that allows nations to use a precautionary approach and ban GM products if they have concerns about their impacts on health and the environment - was totally ignored by the WTO, despite the fact that the EU is a signatory of this agreement and therefore obliged to follow its rules.

"This case clearly demonstrates that the WTO is the wrong forum to deal with environmental trade disputes,"said GM Campaigner at FOE Europe Adrian Bebb, adding: "It seems that the EU is happy for the WTO to trample over environmental laws and expose the public and the environment to business interests."

Trade Policy Advisor at Greenpeace International, Daniel Mittler, criticised the EU for its internal contradictions: "They said to the WTO that genetic engineering is risky and told member states they were safe, and now they have decided not to stand upÖThe EU has botched its response to the US assault on biosafety from start to finish."

Latest & next steps:

EurActiv would like to hear your views on this story and invites readers to write a "Letter to the Editor". Contributions (max. 300 words) can be sent to letters@euractiv.com.

De Burca calls for County Wicklow to become a GM-free zone

Wicklow Greens press release, 22 November 2006.

Following a recent public meeting in the Tinahely Courthouse Centre organised by the campaign group 'GM-free Ireland', Green Party councillor Deirdre de Burca has called for County Wicklow to be declared a GM-free zone. Ý

Cllr de Burca says that bans on GMO crops have been adopted in nine counties on this island including Cavan, Clare, Fermanagh, Kerry, Kildare, Meath, Roscommon, Monaghan and Westmeath. "There is every reason why County Wicklow should join the growing number of counties declaring themselves GMO-free zones" says de Burca.

"The organic sector in Co Wicklow is worth approximately 30 million euros at present" says de Burca "There is a higher concentration of organic growers in County Wicklow than in almost any other county in the country. If GM crops are introduced in this island, the cross-contamination of organic crops is inevitable. Why would we go down this road when the organic sector has such growth potential and when there is no public demand for genetically modified produce"? Ý

De Burca says that the Environment Strategic Policy Committee of Wicklow County Council has already considered the issue of GMOs in recent months.

"I was delighted to see Cllr Vincent Blake, Chairman of Wicklow County Council's Stragegic Policy Commitee on the Environment, at the public meeting on the subject of making County Wicklow a GM-free zone" says de Burca. "Cllr Blake obviously understands that the introduction of GMOs into the county will pose a significant risk to Wicklow's farmers, as they face the possibility of being made liable for any cross contamination that occurs on their land. There are several examples of legal cases from Canada and the US where innocent conventional farmers were sued by large biotechnology corporations because genetically modified seeds were found on their lands. The courts found that regardless of how the GM seeds ended up on farmer's land, liability rested with the farmer". Ý

"I am very hopeful that my fellow councillors on Wicklow County Council will act in the interests of the farmers of the county and will declare Wicklow a GM-free zone" says de Burca. "I would encourage anybody who feels strongly about this issue to contact their local councillors and to lobby them to pass a motion that will declare the county GM-free". Ý

For further information please contact Cllr Deirdre de Burca on 086 8061450

World's leading rice exporting countries to cooperate on preventing use of GM rice

Extract: "The world's leading rice exporting countries, Thailand and Vietnam, agreed Thursday... to cooperate on preventing use of genetically modified rice, as required by the European Union, [Chukiat Opaswong, chairman of the Thai Rice Exporters Association] said."

Read the article: http://www.thanhniennews.com/business/?catid=2&newsid=22297

Firm Blames Farmers, 'Act of God' for Rice Contamination

Washington Post, November 22 2006. By Rick Weiss

The company that created the experimental variety of genetically engineered rice found this summer to have contaminated the U.S. rice supply contends that rice farmers and an "act of God" are to blame for the inadvertent release of the unapproved crop.

Those are among the assertions by Bayer CropScience of Research Triangle Park, N.C., in response to a class-action lawsuit filed by hundreds of farmers in Arkansas and Missouri

The 30-page response offers the first clue to how the company plans to defend itself against the 15 class-action lawsuits filed by farmers, who allege that they stand to lose millions of dollars because of the contamination.

Lawyers for the farmers said they had expected the company to deny responsibility, but were offended by its attempt to blame farmers. The lawyers said their clients had no reason to suspect that the seeds they were planting in recent years were contaminated by Bayer's unapproved variety.

"The farmers are innocent victims," said Don Downing, a principal at Gray, Ritter and Graham PC, the St. Louis firm that filed the largest suit, in U.S. District Court in eastern Missouri.

Denying any culpability, the Bayer response variously blames the escape of its gene-altered variety of long-grain race, LL601, on "unavoidable circumstances which could not have been prevented by anyone"; "an act of God"; and farmers' "own negligence, carelessness, and/or comparative fault."

Asked how farmers were at fault, Bayer spokesman Greg Coffey said the company does not comment on pending litigation.

Bayer conducted field tests of LL601 from 1999 to 2001 in Louisiana, then dropped the project without seeking government approval to market it. This year, LL601 was found to be widespread in U.S. long-grain rice, prompting Europe to cut off imports and throwing the rice futures market into turmoil.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is investigating how the variety escaped from test plots into farmers' fields, where it was quietly amplified for years until its discovery. The seeds and plants of LL601 look virtually identical to those of the popular conventional variety with which they had become mixed, said Steve Linscombe, director of Louisiana State University's rice research station in Crowley.

The day the contamination was announced in August, Bayer asked the government to approve the variety. A decision is still pending. Meanwhile, lawsuits have been filed on behalf of about 300 rice farmers in the South.

The company's response to the largest of those suits asserts that Bayer's test plots were in full compliance with Agriculture Department rules. Critics of U.S. biotech regulations have said that, if true, that only proves the inadequacy of those rules and calls into question whether the department can fairly investigate the problem.

"It is unfortunate that Bayer, rather than accept responsibility for its actions, is instead trying to pin the blame on the American rice farmers, the very people most detrimentally affected by Bayer's conduct here," said Adam Levitt, a Chicago lawyer who has filed five class-action suits for rice farmers.

21 November 2006

Industry must pull together on LL601 issue

Delta Farm Press (USA), 21 November 2006. By Ford L. Baldwin.

I recently retuned from a USA Rice Federation Seed Committee meeting in Dallas dealing with how to clean LL601-containing rice from the system. The LL601 event may well be deregulated and the regulatory community and scientific community is in agreement that any rice containing this protein poses no threat to human health.

However, certain segments of the market have said they will not buy rice that tests positive for LL601. While I do not agree with that decision, there is nothing I can do about it. To have strong prices, there must be strong demand.

There is an entire discussion on what a positive test is because that depends entirely on the levels of detection and the lowest limit being tested for.

As a weed scientist who listened much and spoke little at this meeting (which is out of character for me), I came home from the meeting hearing a clear message from the rice millers: "We will not accept Cheniere in 2007." The clear message from the seed industry: "We will not sell Cheniere in 2007."

I have heard some say we should just blow off the EU and some other countries that are making this a political issue rather than a scientific issue. Most of us probably have some of those feelings. Those feelings, at least in the short term, do not line up with selling all of the rice we want to grow for a good price.

Others are disappointed or upset about not being able to grow Cheniere simply because it is an excellent rice variety. I do not know of anyone who believes Cheniere is not an excellent variety.

As a weed scientist, I would love to see LibertyLink rice accepted and grown, because it is excellent weed control technology. For the near-term, however, that is not where we are. We have LL601 in the U.S. rice supply, and that has to be dealt with whether it is a scientific issue or a political issue.

There was a wide range of people at the Dallas meeting with an amazing level of agreement among them. That agreement was the most logical first step to correcting an industrywide problem: purge Cheniere from the system.

I thought it spoke volumes when the seed industry took the stand it did. A lot of those guys are going to lose a lot of money because there is a lot of Cheniere seed rice in the system.

That says to me that nobody sees an alternative. It is easy to be negative, but who has a better idea?

The millers at the meeting felt strongly enough about the decision that they are going to require proof of variety and a seed certificate of origin for rice being delivered.

Decisions like this place more hardships on some than others. This, however, is an industrywide issue that is going to require everyone pulling together. From what I can see, the best minds in the rice industry see no short-term solution other than purging Cheniere from the system.

I believe it is in everyone's best interest to come together on this point whether or not there is complete agreement. It is very doubtful that we will ever be able to say again that U.S. rice is "GMO-free." Hopefully, however, we will get it down to a level that will be accepted to all of our customers.

I have had a lot of questions about the survival of Cheniere as a variety. There is foundation seed that tests negative. I did not hear any sort of mandate at this meeting to kill Cheniere as a variety. Whether it survives as a variety after it is purged from the system will likely be based on demand and whether or not the seed industry will ramp back up for it.

South Africa: growing storm over superspuds

FreshPlaza.com, 21 November 2006.

Genetically modified potato trials in SA draw protest from environmentalists. 'Taxpayers have so little say over whether the experiments should be conducted at all' South Africans could be eating genetically modified (GM) potatoes as early as next year.

The publicly funded Agricultural Research Council (ARC) is conducting field trials of GM "superspuds" at secret locations countrywide, and hopes to apply for a commercial permit next year.

The trials ó confirmed by the council ó have drawn a chorus of protest from scientists and environmental groups opposed to GM agriculture. They believe GM crops and food may have health and environmental side effects. GM foods are banned in several countries .

South African commercial farmers already grow GM maize and soya thanks to a GM-friendly biotechnology policy aimed at developing local agriculture. Other trials currently under way include GM tomatoes, cassava, grapes, sugar cane and cotton.

The environmental group Biowatch criticised the government for conducting GM experiments at taxpayers' expense without proper public consultation around GM food, which often involves transplanting animal genes into plants. Consumers worldwide have been reluctant to accept GM food.

Professor Chris Viljoen, head of the University of the Free State genetically modified organisms (GMO) testing facility at the faculty of Plant Sciences, said the potato trials suggested South Africa was out of synch with the rest of the world.

"It's almost like the entire world has said, 'no way, we don't want GM potatoes', but we seem to be continuing to press forward with trials in South Africa," he said. But the government has insisted the trials are good news, both for science and small-scale farmers battling to make ends meet.

Surging interest in GMO trials has prompted more regular meetings of the national GMO executive council to consider a long list of GMO trial applications, said the council's chairman, Ben Durham.

"Our national biotechnology strategy comes out strongly in favour of biotechnology as a key tool in developing South Africa. GMOs are a part of biotechnology. In essence South Africa is in favour of biotechnology."

GM crop applications were thoroughly checked by the council and a scientific advisory committee comprising experts from health, labour, environmental science, and trade and industry, he said.

The former head of the ARC potato project, Professor Graham Thompson, said GM potatoes would significantly benefit small-scale farmers because superspuds were more resistant to disease ó a major problem during storage.

If the trials were successful, the ARC planned to apply for a commercial licence. Trials were carried out countrywide to ensure the potatoes were suited to various climates and ecosystems, he said. The new technology had so far proved successful for maize and cotton and held promise for Africa.

However, Biowatch SA director Leslie Liddell said: "We think it's highly problematic because taxpayers have so little say over whether the experiments should be conducted at all. " Liddell said farmers were unlikely to benefit from GM seeds if consumers worldwide remained sceptical about the technology, which was ultimately driven by profit.

"Whether or not farmers here are getting cut-price GM seeds isn't the issue. The multinational GM seed companies are still laughing all the way to the bank. "According to a recent report, farmers around the world paid about 2-billion in 2005 for GM maize seed," said Liddell.

EU refuses to fight WTO ruling on GM foods
Dangerous precedent set for future disputes, says Friends of the Earth Europe

Friends of the Earth Europe Press Release 21 November 1006

Brussels/Geneva, 21 November - Friends of the Earth Europe has condemned today's decision by the EU not to contest a controversial ruling by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in the transatlantic trade war over genetically modified foods. The environmental NGO has warned that accepting the ruling, which ignored international environmental agreements, sets a dangerous precedent for future environmental disputes.

Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth Europe said: "The EU has made a disappointing decision not to appeal the WTO's ruling. It seems that the EU is happy for the WTO to trample over environmental laws and expose the public and the environment to business interests. This sets a dangerous precedent for future environmental disputes. It is not for the WTO to decide what we eat or how we protect our environment. Whatever the WTO says, Europeans will continue to reject genetically modified foods."

Friends of the Earth Europe is critical of the way the WTO handles international agreements to protect the environment. In this case, the UN's Biosafety Protocol was totally ignored by the WTO. The Protocol is the only international safety agreement for GM products and allows nations to use a precautionary approach, giving them the right to ban GM products if there are concerns about their impacts on health and the environment. The WTO totally ignored the Protocol because the complainants ‚ the United States, Canada and Argentina ‚ were not signatories, even though the EU is and is therefore obliged to follow its rules.

"This case clearly demonstrates that the WTO is the wrong forum to deal with environmental trade disputes and the international community must find an alternative before another case occurs. The WTO ignored international environmental laws, met in secret behind closed doors and barred any public involvement, totally ignoring the strong public opposition to GM foods in Europe," Mr Bebb concluded.

The WTO ruling was published on 29th September and gave the EU until today to launch an appeal. The ruling rejected most of the US-led complaints against Europe's stance on genetically modified (GM) foods:

• It refused to rule against the EU's strict regulations to control the use of GM food and crops;

• It refused to rule on whether GM foods are safe or different to conventional foods;

• It rejected US claims that moratoria are illegal and did not question the right of countries to ban GM foods or crops.

However, the WTO draft ruling did rule - on technicalities - that Europe's four year GM moratorium, which ended in 2004, broke trade rules by causing "undue delays", but stated that moratoria were acceptable under certain circumstances. The WTO said national GM bans also broke trade rules, but only because the risk assessments did not comply with the WTO requirements. Most of the products banned are no longer on the market.

For more information, please contact:

Adrian Bebb, GM Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel : +49 802 599 1951, Mobile : + 49 1609 4901163, Email: adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org

Rosemary Hall, Communications Officer at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: +32 25 42 61 05, Mobile: + 32 485 930515, Email: rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org

20 November 2006

Executive shelves GM crops proposals until after election

Farming UK, 20 November 2006

The [Scottish] Executive is repeatedly delaying a crucial consultation on the threat of GM crops and has now announced that it will not take place until summer 2007, after the next election. Ministers were due to issue proposals on the "co-existence" of GM crops in summer 2005, and Greens argue that the latest delay indicates Labour and LibDems' fear of drawing attention to their support for GM crops.

Mark Ruskell MSP, Green speaker on environment, has proposed a bill at Holyrood [home of the Scottish Parliament] to make GM companies strictly liable for any economic damage as a result of contamination caused by GM crop trials and commercialisation.

Mr Ruskell said, "This delay proves the Labour and LibDem Executive is simply trying to dodge the issue because they know that their support for GM is massively unpopular with the public, and potentially disastrous for consumers, farmers and the environment. A similar consultation has been completed south of the border - election or no election, there are no excuses for not pressing ahead with it in Scotland."

Mr Ruskell added, "Consumers don't want GM, and they don't want foods contaminated with GM - just look at how the organic food sector is thriving. Farmers, organic and conventional, have enough pressures without having to deal with the risk of contamination.

"GM contamination has cost conventional and organic farmers in North America dear - we must not make the same mistakes in Scotland. All economic liability must fall onto the GM companies, who must carry the can for contamination."

GM crops are not currently grown commercially in the UK, and in 2004 the Executive pushed through a "voluntary ban" on GM crops in Scotland, a move Greens describe as completely ineffective. The proposals for measures suggested by DEFRA for England have been found by experts on EU law to be seriously flawed, and if implemented, will allow widespread GM contamination of UK food and farming.

Concern over testing for GM trait in rice

Delta Farm Press (USA), Nov 20, 2006. By David Bennett

In mid-August a USDA announcement hit the rice industry like a bombshell. A GM trait (Bayer CropScience's LibertyLink) had been found in the U.S. rice supply.

Few were surprised when the immediate aftermath included a market downturn, a shocked farming community, trading partner fears, a promised APHIS investigation, and the inevitable lawsuits.

But several months down the road, a key question is now being tackled: how best to rid U.S. rice of the GM trait?

All segments of the rice industry agree that part of the solution is a ban on planting Cheniere, so far the only variety found to have the offending GM trait. They also agree part of the solution is a genetic test (known as "35S-bar PCR") to check the rice supply, with a concentration on foundation seed stocks of all varieties currently being planted.

Prior to the start of next growing season some in the rice industry, including the USA Rice Federation, are in favor of conducting 35S-bar PCR tests at a 0.01 percentage on all commercial seed stocks. Those in favor say having rice seed pass that level of scrutiny - much more stringent than used in previous tests on grain - would lessen European Union worries and help bring the U.S. export market back to health. The EU accounts for some 5 percent of U.S. exports.

But prominent Mid-South seedsmen have serious concerns with the proposed 0.01 percent testing level. They say such a test has yet to be scientifically validated by Bayer. Without that validation there are fears the test could lead to inaccurate results and further market damage.

Those advocating for the more stringent testing level "want to get something done ASAP," says Randy Woodard, who runs Cache River Valley Seed in Cash, Ark. "But I don't see how any industry members could have much more knowledge about this 0.01 percent level of testing than some of the technical folks in the seed business. I've talked to labs, to those in the seed industry, to Bayer.Bayer definitely wants this test to be accurate. Obviously, their neck is stretched out plenty far.

"And our industry can't afford a bunch of inaccurate test results that might not really apply to what's happening. Let's get this testing technique and process right the first time rather than say we'll come back and correct it if something doesn't go right."

Jacko Garrett, a rice seed producer from Danbury, Texas, says he believes a deal that's palatable to all industry segments can be reached because all "are working in good faith. If that continues it'll help as much as anything.

"The need for the entire rice industry to find common ground has never been greater. At this point, we've got to use some good judgment. The worst thing we can do is jump in and make hasty decisions. We've got to eliminate the trait but rice farmers and seedsmen also have got to have a reasonable testing level for the products they produce. Otherwise, we'll paint ourselves into a corner. Let's not make tolerance levels tougher than what our customers will accept."

And right now, the customer holds the aces.

Milo Hamilton, a marketer with Firstgrain, Inc., and Delta Farm Press contributor, advises clients throughout the rice industry chain. He's spoken with many "experts who know the European customers and are absolutely convinced if we don't apply European standards to the marketplace, we'll lose their business. And in the end it's all about the customer and what he perceives. It isn't about what we want, what's rational or anything else. It's about what the customer wants. And if he doesn't want our rice, for whatever reason, that's our problem, not his. At the same time, the customer has to have reasonable expectations.

"We've got an ongoing problem with the EU. They have zero tolerance so if they find the material, they'll reject the rice. Even if the (LL601 trait) is deregulated here in the United States - and there's a strong prospect of that - it's still illegal in Europe. It's a legal and political issue there, not a real health concern."

Should the U.S. testing standards be geared towards satisfying the EU?

"It's very sad we've lost Europe," says Hamilton. "It may just be 6 percent of U.S. exports, but it's a prime cut. The European millers want this resolved and definitely want our rice. Everyone should understand that Europe's rice business is American in orientation. In Japan, they're forced to take our rice. In Europe, they want our rice - they like the way it looks, the way it tastes - but are legally restricted from taking it.

"This isn't a situation without hope. But we've got to get this (GM- trait purge) done properly."

Before adopting industry-wide standards and testing regulations, Randy Ouzts is asking for a little patience and a lot of dialogue.

"We need to slow down a bit," says the general manager of Memphis- based seed company HorizonAg (the marketers of Clearfield rice). "The science part of this isn't ready yet to accommodate what the mills want."

Why is that the case?

"PCR tests are extremely sensitive. The current standard for testing most crops is 0.10 percent. That's been going on for a long time.

"The request from the rice industry is to move to 0.01 percent for all commercial seed. To my knowledge that's never been done with any grain crop. Only now is that being asked of the rice industry because of an EU demand."

Does that have to do with EU laws or is it an arbitrary level it set?

"Most everything going overseas is tested at 0.10 percent when a customer requests GM-free grain. The opinion of many is the new 0.01 percent EU proposal for rice is simply an arbitrary number. Though it's now law there, essentially what they did was pull up the bridge on the moat and shut the castle gates for now. It's a nice way of saying, 'Until you meet this, don't send us any more rice.' They might as well have gone to zero - no tolerance whatsoever. They've given the U.S rice industry a number that's impossible to hit.and a tremendous dilemma for seedsmen trying to appease the market demands being leveraged on growers by the mills.

"No matter how much we test over here, the EU can test over there and likely find something if they want to. They're just not going to take any U.S. rice right now. If that's WTO-related or something else, it's as much political as anything.

"The mills are saying to the seedsmen and growers, 'Since the EU demands this, we've got to do it to get back into that market next year.' But these things aren't solved that fast and history has shown that. Look at the experiences with the Starlink situation - we're years removed from that contamination and it's still around."

Ouzts wonders what segment of the rice industry will end up driving the clean-up truck.

"So many are wondering who's god in this situation? Who can say, 'No,' and get away with it? The mills can certainly say, 'We're not buying your rice unless you do what we say.' We've even heard of some anti-trust discussions making the rounds with people questioning whether the mills can collectively say, 'Do this, or else.'

"This is a lawyer's dream - getting an entire industry to start shooting at each other. It's time for all factions of the industry to come together and find an acceptable answer that fits the entire trade.

"As it stands today, too much is being asked of the seedsmen. All we're doing is saying, first, 'You're drastically impacting our ability to run our businesses. It's time to begin processing seed for the 2007 crop and we're at a standstill until an agreement is reached.' Second, 'You're asking us to participate in something we're told is not yet completely scientifically attainable.'

"According to Bayer's designated labs, the testing procedure is still being validated. And it's also extremely risky according to technical personnel in the industry who understand PCR testing and what might be shown once this level is attempted.In the opinion of many key member of the rice industry, it's not worth the risk."

What needs to be done short-term and long-term?

"First, let the USDA report what they've found," says Ouzts. "Once that happens, let's find some common ground between the players. Let's do that instead of one side driving everyone else to accept a decision that hasn't necessarily involved the entire trade when it was made.

"I can tell you how serious it is for some of my producer processors of rice seed. A couple have already said, 'You know, I may just sit this year out. I may not sell seed in 2007 because it's too risky. The chances of being sued should something else happen are too high and the risk can't be managed.'"

Despite asking for more study of testing procedures, Garrett understands the urgent need for a solution. "We all know this problem has a short fuse. Rice will be going into the ground in late February or early March. That's not far off."

Environmental disaster in the making

Financial Express (India), November 20 2006

Will GM crops reduce dependency on pesticides and protect the environment?

A recent Cornell University report has answered this question very well through a study done in China to assess Bt cotton that is in its seventh year of cultivation there. Growing secondary pest populations have slowly eroded the benefits of Bt technology, the study concludes, pointing out that total pesticide use and expenditure for Chinese Bt cotton farmers is the same as their conventional counterparts. The study shows a three-fold increase of pesticide use now compared to the initial years of Bt cotton adoption, taking back the Bt cotton farmers to nearly the same levels of pesticide use as before the advent of Bt cotton, thanks to such changes in farm ecology. This is inevitable, as any knowledgeable farmer would tell you.

Similarly, data from the US compiled from USDA data, 10 years after the adoption of GM crops, shows that the use of chemicals has only increased with GM crops even as super-weeds and super-pests (not easily controllable by the chemicals used earlier) are emerging.

Experience in India from various studies shows that sucking pests are higher on Bt cotton and the pesticide use has not come down as promised. Further, there are newer diseases emerging on Bt cotton - official monitoring by state governments records this.

It should be realised that even a few sprays of pesticides will damage the farm ecology by killing beneficial insects too and GM crops incidentally are not guaranteeing a complete elimination of such pesticides! They target only specific insects with their reductionist science. That is not the case with many non-chemical alternatives, however.

Very often GM crops are shown as part of an IPM (Integrated Pest Management) approach. A closer look will show that GM crops are actually defying many IPM principles. For example, IPM does not advocate a single chemical with the same mode of action and asks for alternation of methods/chemicals with different modes of action. In India, thanks to the generous giving away of the 'Bt' genes on a payment by some institutions, all major crops are being converted into Bt crops - Bt Brinjal, Bt Rice, Bt Tomato, Bt Cabbage, Bt Cauliflower, Bt Maize and so on. It does not take a genius to guess what kind of an environmental disaster this monoculture would lead to.

What is also interesting to note is that the biotech industry would like to paint itself environment-friendly while on the one hand, there are no guarantees against potential environmental hazards from GM crops and on the other, most major players in the biotech industry are selling agri-chemicals and have a major chunk in the pesticide industry themselves! The same players who thrust agri-chemicals down our throats are now saying that these chemicals are bad and therefore, GM crops should be adopted. How about getting accountable for the damage caused so far?

Important also is the recognition that pesticide reduction and elimination can be achieved through simple political will as the Indonesian example shows us. This does not require the answer of GM crops, which comes with a baggage of several undesirable, unpredictable and irreversible environmental and health hazards. One of the glaring problems with decision-making related to GM crops is that the rationale of pesticide use reduction is being employed for glossing over the many ill-effects that they bring along.

It should be realised that the basic problem that the farmer has begun with is pest management and not pesticide management. Our experience in thousands of acres of NPM (Non-Pesticidal Management of crops) shows that elimination of pesticide use itself is enough to restore farm ecologies and to improve the environment.

- The writer is consultant, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture

19 November 2006

"Public Should Be Paid" For Challenging Misleading Scientists

GE Free NZ press release, 19 November 2006.

GE Free (NZ (in food and environment) believes that overseas investors may benefit more than New Zealanders from GE field trials and believes ERMA should pay community groups for making submissions on the application to field-test Bt Brassicas (cabbage, cauliflower and broccoli and forage rape) GMF06001.

There are concerns that New Zealand is being exploited by foreign biotechnology companies who may be set to be the biggest beneficiaries from this GE trial. Far from being of benefit, the environmental risk and opportunity-cost is at the expense of New Zealand investing in sustainable agriculture and research.

"The application is so lacking in economic sense, and scientific data(1), that the resources of public- interest groups are being misused to fill the knowledge gap," says Claire Bleakley president of GE Free NZ (in food and environment).

Claims by the scientists applying to field-trial Bt crops that there have not been problems with Bt crops overseas (2) are misleading and add to concerns that the application should never have been accepted by ERMA.