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.

The application by Crop & Food is to field test Bt brassica made resistant to diamond back moth and cabbage white butterfly, but this makes little economic sense for New Zealand growers. Cabbage, broccoli and cauliflower are well controlled with safe Bt sprays, and have been for the last 30 years of organic production.

"Either this application is a misuse of taxpayer funding, or an abuse of our environment in the interests of overseas companies who might fund the research. The purposeless ten year project will cost millions of dollars and lead to products that will cause contamination and insect-resistance problems in New Zealand."

"The application indicates that the trial involves removing caterpillers, relocating older plants, and use of many sprays. " says Claire Bleakely. "With this regime it would be difficult to see how resistance, health or environment effects will be tested for in any useful way. The trial looks less like good science and more like a cover for a seed multiplication business possibly for overseas investors"

"The ERMA process has failed by allowing this application to proceed to notification, as usual just before Christmas. Many members of the public will lose any remaining confidence in ERMA unless the notification is to withdraw".

ENDS

Contact

Claire Bleakley (06) 3089842 mob: 027 348 6731

Notes

1. This application shows the sorry state of New Zealand science. Bt has been found to affect soil ecosystems and stay toxic in the soil for up to 140 days or 4 1/2 months (1b). 100 fold resistance after a 5 generations in insects with no refuge (1a). Observation of immune system effects, skin and respiratory allergies have been recorded in Countries that have people living near Bt crops or have handled the plants (1c). In 2004 a large report was published on sheep that died after grazing post harvest fields of Bt cotton (1d). (see previous press releases www.gefree.org.nz)

1a. Cerda. H, Sayyed.AH and Wright DJ, (2006) Diamond back moth resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis transgenic canola: evaluation of refugia size with non-resessive insects. J. Applied Entomology, 130(8), 421-425.

1b. Palm C; Schaller D; Donegan K; Seidler R (1996) Persistence in soil of Transgenic plant produced Bacillus thuringiensis var kurstaki delta endotoxin. Canadian J. of Microbiology 42(12), 1258 -1262.

1c. Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers Health investigation report Oct-Dec 2005

1d. Report of the Preliminary Assessment, Mortality in Sheep Flocks after grazing on Bt Cotton fields - Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh, released April, 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6494

ISIS Press Release 03/05/06, Mass Deaths in Sheep Grazing on Bt Cotton http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MDSGBTC.php

2. National Radio interview with applicants, RNZ

3. Application GMF 06001 www.ermanz.govt.nz

We're drinking what? US consumers dump BST milk

www.bestsyndication.com, 19 November 2006

Look at photos of the gigantic udders on rBST treated dairy cows and it's not hard to imagine the artificial hormone's role in increasing U.S. rates of breast and prostate cancer, precocious puberty and obesity.

But U.S. milk producers and agricultural officials continue to say Monsanto's Posilac, which has been used unlabeled in much of the U.S. public milk supply since 1994, is safe. [1]

Even as they jump all over each other to ban it.

Last year, Oregon's Tillamook County Creamery Association, the nation's second largest maker of chunk cheese, renounced rBST. [2]

This year, Dean Foods and H.P. Hood, New England's two largest milk processors, Arizona's Shamrock Farms and Northwestern Dairy Association's Darigold did. [3, 4]

And Dean Foods in Texas and Prairie Farms Dairy in Carlinville, IL, are leaning in that direction. [5]

Even Vermont Agriculture Secretary Steve Kerr has come out against rBST as his state moves toward zero tolerance. [6]

Created by combining cow DNA with E coli, (yes, that E coli) Monsanto's recombinant bovine somatotropin, rBST, designed to make cows produce more milk, was one of the first genetically modified substances approved for U.S. consumption by the FDA in 1993.

But its Frankenfood roots, hormonal actions, unlabeled status and expediency approach to agriculture--squeezing more profit out of each animal "unit"-- earned it the ire of farmers, consumer groups, environmental organizations and animal advocates. Even Mario Cuomo declaimed it when he was New York Governor. [7]

To this day rBST remains banned in Canada, Japan, the EU, Australia, New Zealand and all but 19, mostly nonindustrialized, countries though Monsanto says that's because of "an oversupply of dairy products" not safety concerns. [8]

In fact the more you learn about rBST, the more you wonder why anyone would think it is safe.

Take the unpublished rat study Monsanto supplied to the FDA for drug approval. Monsanto claimed no rats absorbed rBST in their blood stream--hence there was no need for long term toxicity studies--but Canadian scientists who obtained the study discovered that 20% to 30% of the rats did absorb rBST with biggest concentrations in (you guess it) the prostate. There were also thyroid cysts. [9]

This inspired Vermont Senators Patrick Leahy and James Jeffords to ask the U.S. Health and Human Services Department to formally investigate the FDA's approval of rBST in 1998. [9] Especially since the FDA employee in charge of labeling guidelines for rBST, Michael R. Taylor, had been a Monsanto vice president. And the FDA researcher charged with evaluating rBST levels in milk had done the same work at Monsanto. [10]

And how about IGF-1, insulin-like growth factor-1, the rBST byproduct that's associated with breast, prostate and colon cancer and may be in the milk? [11]

"IGF-1 is [a] naturally occurring human hormone commonly measured in our saliva," writes Trent Loos, columnist for the Agribusiness weekly Feedstuffs on the rBST supporting web site www.igf-1-and-milk.com. "Every person who has ever been diagnosed with cancer has also had saliva. Does that mean that saliva causes cancer? NO. Furthermore, if parents are worried about the impact of milk consumption on their kids, are they keeping the kids locked away from the sun? Malignant melanoma [is] the most serious form of skin cancer." Reassured? Me too.

Then there's the mastitis.

Occurrences of mastitis--udder infections--and lameness are so increased under rBST, a Canadian Veterinary Medical Association panel's report found, "Treated cows were at higher risk of being culled," and rBST was banned. [10]

John Shumway, a Lowville, New York dairy farmer told an Albany newspaper he had to cull a quarter of his cows after using rBST for eight weeks. [12]

And "cull chronically-infected cows," is actually one of the "general recommendations" Monsanto offers for mastitis management on its web site.

Not only does mastitis introduce antibiotic residues in milk and encourage antibiotic resistance, it has contributed to the wave of dairy downers seen in slaughterhouses in the last decade, food activists say. [13]

Some even claim the hopped up metabolic needs of rBST cows are what induced dairymen to feed downer cows to live ones in the macabre practice that transmitted mad cow disease.

As anti-rBST sentiment builds in the U.S. and the public says, "We're drinking WHAT?" Monsanto executives contend that the new rBST-free milk offerings are a marketing ploy.

They know a little about marketing ploys.

Notes:

[1] Rutland Herald June 12, 2005
[2] AP Feb 19, 2005
[3] St. Louis Post-Dispatch Nov 6, 2006
[4] Captial Press Oct 20, 2006
[5] New York Times Oct 7, 2006
[6] Rutland Herald, Oct 7, 2006
[7] The Buffalo News March 9, 1994
[8] www.monsantodairy.com
[9] Capital Times Dec 18, 1998
[10] The Oregonian Feb 27, 2005
[11] New York Times Nov 9, 2005
[12] Wisconsin State Journal Aug 14, 1994
[13] www.omafra.gov.on.ca

18 November 2006

Annan Warns Catastrophic Results if Biotechnology Manipulated

Kuwait News Agency, 18 November 2006

GENEVA, Nov 18 (KUNA) -- UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, on his last visit to Switzerland as Secretary-General, has warned Saturday of the rapidly increasing risks posed by biotechnology.

Receiving the Max Schmidheiny Freedom Prize in the eastern Swiss city of St. Gallen, Annan urged the creation of global safeguards.

Annan warned of "catastrophic" results if recent advances in biotechnology, including gene manipulation and work with viruses, fell into the wrong hands.

"As biological research expands, and technologies become increasingly accessible, this potential for accidental or intentional harm grows exponentially," he added.

Annan's warning comes after he called in May for a global forum on biological terrorism, saying current treaties were too weak, and governmental and commercial initiatives too scattered.

17 November 2006

South Australia extends genetically modified crop ban

Associated Press, November 17 2006

The South Australian government has extended a ban on genetically modified (GM) food crops until the end of April, 2008.

The ban, first imposed in 2004, was due to have ended in 2007.

But Agriculture Minister Rory McEwen said the extra time would allow for a review of the current legislation.

"The review will explore whether the conditions that resulted in the 2004 act are still valid or whether there are any alternatives to legislation to achieve the best outcomes," Mr McEwen said.

The minister said the state government remained committed to protecting the state's clean and green reputation by preventing the introduction of GM crops until it was clear they could co-exist with conventional crops.

Top of the crops

Irish Examiner, 18 November 2006. By Darina Allen.

IT GAVE me an oops in my tummy to see standing room only at the Organic Conference in Carrick-on-Shannon recently ó what a change from the years gone by when there might be a scattering of 40 or 50 pioneers and a few reluctant, not to mention deeply sceptical officials from the department.

The worldwide increase in demand for organic produce is fuelling a growing interest in all things organic. In the US supermarkets simply cannot get enough produce.

When Walmart announced its plan to stock organic produce earlier this year few people believed that they were motivated by eco-friendliness ó organic purists were concerned that they would force a dilution of the standards. The reality is that Walmart like all the multiples are keenly aware that customers have a genuine appetite for food that is free of pesticides, GMOs and antibiotic residues.

All over the world the trend is the same ó in the UK the demand has skyrocketed. In the UK it has increased 1,000-fold since 1993, to £1.6 billion in 2006. Sales of organic produce in Tesco are rising at the rate of £7 million a week, up 30% on last year.

Irish consumers now spend an estimated §66 million on certified organic products and production is expected to increase significantly, according to a study commissioned by Bord Bia.

Bord Bia has allocated §1.5 million to promote this sector. This was welcomed by delegates at the conference but was generally considered to be inadequate, considering the obvious opportunities for Ireland, the Food Island in this sector.

So what is driving the staggering growth in the artisan and specialist food sector?

There is unquestionably a growing awareness of the importance of the food we eat to our health. Words that were considered to be esoteric a few years ago are now mainstream language.

Customers are asking more and more searching questions about how their food is produced and where it comes from. They want food with a story ó for more people real quality must encompass a whole range of attributes ó sustainability, animal welfare, fair trade, GMO free, antibiotic and pesticide free, and be without a big carbon footprint.

At the farmers' markets, more customers are interested in variety and are asking about breed and feed, nutritional content. A growing number are purposely seeking out local food, in fact the sexiest words in current culinary jargon are local, artisan and slow.

Where to buy organic:

Directly from local producers at a local farmers' market
Organic box scheme
Online shopping on an organic website like www.ballybrado.ie
From local supermarket

For best flavour buy local food in season. At present root vegetables, carrots, parsnips, celeriac, pumpkins, red and Savoy cabbage, kale, broccoli, leeks, citrus fruit, pomegranatesÖ

15 November 2006

EU drags heels on biotech food, U.S. lawmakers say

Reuters, November 15 2006. By Missy Ryan.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States must pressure the European Union to stop dragging its feet on approving new imports of bioengineered food, senior U.S. lawmakers said in a letter released on Wednesday.

"The EU has avoided for too long its WTO obligations ... The illegal discrimination against biotech products on nonscientific grounds must cease," a group of lawmakers said in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab.

Scientists have created bioengineered foods, such as higher vitamin content in rice, by inserting genes from things like daffodils into targeted products.

The EU has insisted on careful regulation of bioengineered food to screen for health or environmental risks.

The U.S. lawmakers, including the incoming chairs of the House and Senate Agriculture committees, want European officials to act quickly on the heels of a September 29 ruling by the World Trade Organization's dispute settlement body.

A main finding of that ruling was that a ban on approving new biotech products, which the EU had in place for four years until 2003, led to "undue delays."

Lawmakers here are skeptical Europe will heed the ruling.

"Winning the WTO case without achieving any positive changes in the approval process would greatly erode the credibility of the WTO in the eyes of U.S. agriculture," the lawmakers wrote.

The letter was signed by Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin and Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, who are poised to lead the Senate and House Agriculture committees once Democrats take control of Congress in January.

The committees' outgoing chairs, Republicans Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, also signed the letter, along with the current heads of the powerful Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee.

The European Union says its current, updated regime for approving bioengineered products -- including a food safety authority based in Italy -- complies with WTO rules.

"The new system is science-based. We've set up a centralized procedure ... that's responsible for doing risk assessment" of bioengineered food, said Canice Nolan, who directs food safety, health and consumer affairs for the EU's delegation in Washington.

Nolan said he disagreed with the letter.

Europe has approved only "a handful" of biotech products in the past few years, and some approvals have been pending for over a decade, USTR spokeswoman Gretchen Hamel said.

Now, the United States will do everything in its power to ensure European complies with the WTO ruling, she added.

Nolan said the European Union had not decided if it would appeal the WTO's ruling. It has until late November to do so.

Groups seek ban on engineered trees

United Press International, November 15 2006

UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 15 (UPI) -- Environmental groups urged United Nations treaty signers to bar genetically engineered trees from the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Genetically engineered trees have been proposed for plantations created to offset carbon emissions as part of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism, the organizations said in a news release. However, research has shown that native forests absorb and hold more carbon than industrial plantations.

The organizations said genetically engineered trees can worsen global warming by aggravating problems associated with single-culture tree plantations or creating new issues such as altered decomposition.

The organizations said the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change must align its policies with the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity, which already has taken a position against genetically engineered trees.

"Genetically engineered trees do not offer a solution to global warming, rather they are a global distraction from finding real solutions," the organizations wrote to U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change members.

Groups endorsing this action include Bangladesh Krishok Federation, Carbon Trade Watch, Global Forest Coalition, Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth-Nigeria, FASE-Espirito Santo, Brazil, Large Scale Biofuels Action Group, Oilwatch International, STOP GE Trees Campaign, Timberwatch Coalition and The Corner House.

Organizations Around the World Demand Ban of Genetically Engineered Trees from Kyoto Protocol

World Rainforest Movement and Global Justice Ecology Project press release, 15 November 2006

World Rainforest Movement and Global Justice Ecology Project have presented a demand to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Nairobi, Kenya to ban the use of genetically engineered trees under the Kyoto Protocol. GE trees have been proposed for use in plantations developed as climate sinks or for biofuels.

At the Ninth Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Milan in 2003, genetically engineered (GE) trees [also known as genetically modified or transgenic trees] were approved for use in plantations created to offset carbon emissions as a part of the Kyoto ProtocolÇs Clean Development Mechanism. Research, however, actually shows:

• Native forests overall absorb and hold far more carbon than industrial tree plantations, which can also be responsible for net combined soil-carbon releases and carbon emissions during their life-cycle;

• Plantations bring many additional problems that contribute to global warming and ecological destruction, including water and nutrient depletion, increased soil salinity and acidity, increased fire risk and biodiversity loss;

• GE trees (e.g. Bt and reduced lignin trees) may actually worsen global warming by exacerbating problems caused by monoculture tree plantations, and by causing unprecedented new ones, including alteration of decomposition, insect and disease patterns.

For this reason, many organizations around the world in several official and unofficial events have called on the UNFCCC to ban GE trees from the Kyoto Protocol.

In addition, the UNFCCC must bring its policies in line with the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, which has taken a stand against GE trees.

On Wednesday, 22 March, 2006 during the Eighth Conference of the Parties of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, representatives from non-governmental organizations, social movements, scientists, indigenous groups, farmers, foresters and others were joined by CBD delegates from ten countries in calling for a moratorium on the release of GE trees into the environment.

As a result, the UN CBD made an historic decision, acknowledging for the first time the potential dangers "both social and ecological" of genetically engineered trees and urging countries to take a very cautious approach to the technology.

It is now the responsibility of the UNFCCC to end the contradiction between its own pro-GE trees decision and the UN CBDÇs cautionary decision. The UNFCCC must issue a new decision prohibiting the use of GE trees in carbon offset plantations under the CDM.

Genetically engineered trees do not offer a solution to global warming, rather they are a global distraction from finding real solutions to the problems of global warming. In addition, they threaten the worldÇs forests and forest-dwelling communities.

For this reason, the above groups call on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to bring its policies in line with those of the UN CBD and prohibit the use of genetically engineered trees in carbon sink plantations.

Groups endorsing this demand include Bangladesh Krishok Federation, Carbon Trade Watch, Global Forest Coalition, Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria, FASE Espirito Santo, Brazil, Large Scale Biofuels Action Group, Oilwatch International, STOP GE Trees Campaign, Timberwatch Coalition and The Corner House.

For the full text of the open letter, go to: http://www.wrm.org.uy/actors/CCC/Nairobi/Open_Letter.html

Contact in Nairobi:

Orin Langelle, Global Justice Ecology Project.
Nairobi number: 0724.130.511; International number: +254.724.130.511

New Evidence on American GM rice disaster -- scale of contamination is huge

Press Notice from GM Free Cymru. 15th November 2006

Key points:

• Probably 40% of US long-grain rice is contaminated with GM varieties, according to unpublished test results

• Around 9,800 tonnes of GM rice was harvested in 1999 and 2000 and transported to landfill sites

New evidence from American sources shows that the GM rice disaster in the Southern United States is on a much greater scale then previously realized.

After weeks spent in trying to obtain information about the extent to which the "rogue GM variety" labelled LL601 has contaminated American rice supplies, GM Free Cymru has discovered that seven rice exporting members of the American Rice Federation have between them tested around 700 rice samples during September and October, with 32% showing contamination with Liberty Link (LL) traits (1). The two GM varieties showing up in these tests are LL601 and LL62, both of which are illegal in any quantity in rice exported from the US to the EU. Commenting for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: "This is a massive scale of contamination -- much greater than anybody anticipated. In the early days of the contamination incident, there were rumours that contaminated rice was showing up across the Southern States and in rice consignments of all types, but there were no actual results to verify what some of the more outspoken members of the US rice industry were saying. There has been a determined attempt by the US Administration to keep actual test results out of the public domain and to maintain a virtual news blackout (2). At the same time the Administration has mounted a huge "consumer reassurance" offensive, while putting considerable resources into a diplomatic campaign in individual EU countries to promote acceptance of contaminated rice. That official policy is now in tatters, as the truth leaks out."

GM Free Cymru has also pointed out that the scale of contamination is probably far greater than the rice industry admits, because many of the tests used in the USA involve the use of the "strip method" which is cheap, but statistically unreliable unless at least sixty sub- samples are tested at the same time. The EU has not accepted this "ten minute" test as valid, and it is inevitable that many of the supposedly "negative" test results obtained in the US should in fact be recorded as showing positive traces of contamination. It is quite likely that a figure of 40% contamination is nearer to the truth. Indeed, false test negatives and false certification accompanying US rice consignments have been at the heart of a major row between the US and the EU, leading to mandatory testing of US rice consignments at the European ports regardless of whether the consignments are accompanied by "GM Free " certification (3).

US Rice federation Vice-President said recently: "The traits are in the system, you cannot guarantee statistically that you'll ever get rid of them." So why is it that GM rice has spread itself so comprehensively across the Southern rice-growing states and effectively killed off the US rice export market? Partly the problem arises from the slapdash and even chaotic regulatory system in the United States. There is no proper record of the sites used by Aventis / Bayer for the experimental growing of its GM rice varieties, but it is known that at least 50 sites were used. The biggest plantings of the varieties coded LL62 and LL601 were in 1999 and 2000, and research in the files of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have now revealed that around 3,500 acres of GM rice were planted mostly in the states of Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana (4).

An estimated total crop weight of 9,800 tonnes was harvested, stored in silos, and then dumped into landfill sites under instructions from Aventis / Bayer. One of these sites was in Brazoria County, Texas, and another was in Craighead, Arkansas. Other dumps were in the vicinity of Crowley in Louisiana. There was a small amount of media coverage of the Texas landfill, but the other dumps went unreported.

Dr John says: "The scale of these experimental plantings was enormous, as was the scale of dumping into landfill. We are talking about hundreds of trips by heavy trucks across land used for the growing of other rice varieties, the use of storage silos which might not have been segregated, and the use of combine harvesters for both GM and non-GM rice crops. No doubt those who were growing the GM varieties for Aventis / Bayer were very careful indeed with their procedures, but in the circumstances contamination was virtually inevitable. Also, from each experimental site Aventis held back several hundred tonnes of seed for further development use, and we have no idea what happened to that material. Probably some of it was used on experimental sites used by the AgCenter of the Louisiana State University (5). The company has allowed it to escape, and is culpable. One way or another, the GM seed has survived and multiplied in the period 2001-2006, probably without any systematic testing of American long-grain rice stocks for GM contamination. In fact, until August 2006 there was no verified LL601 identification test available to farmers, rice processors or exporters.

"This was a disaster waiting to happen, and no matter how tight the regulatory procedures are, it will happen again in America. Bayer must be punished for its incompetence. We must now ensure that no GM crops are grown commercially in the UK. If they are, we will have the "GM rice fiasco" all over again, and this time on our own doorsteps."

ENDS

Contact:

Brian John GM Free Cymru Tel 01239-820470

Notes:

(1) http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/171621/

(2) The Enforcement Division of the US Securities and Exchange Division (SEC) exists to regulate the securities markets and protect investors. Although it is supposed to "promote full public disclosure" it also clearly has a function of censorship, supported by legislation. This is what Bill Reed of Riceland said when the LL601 story broke: "There was input from them Ö because this was significant. They told us, 'You're not to talk about this.' In fact, we weren't even able to tell our salesmen."

(3) http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4280858.html

(4) http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/May/Day-03/p11032.htm

(5) LSU Crowley is the site of the USA rice "foundation seed program." Contamination of foundation seed stocks would be a very serious matter. At least one sample from foundation seed rice at Crowley has tested positive for LL601. It is reputed to have come from 2003 Cheniere foundation seed. http://www.agfax.com/news/2006/08/lsull.htm

14 November 2006

GM crops will help fight poverty, says biotech campaigner

The Irish Times, 14 November 2006. By Dick Ahlstrom, Science Editor.

Ireland should join world efforts to increase the use of genetically modified crops as these "biocrops" could help save lives, provide better nourishment and reduce poverty, according to the head of a body promoting food biotechnology.

There are more than 35 million farmers working 404 million hectares of biocrops in developing and developed countries, said Dr Clive James, chairman of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.

He was speaking yesterday in Dublin at BioIreland 2006, the third all-Ireland biotechnology conference.

"Is it reasonable to suggest that these 35 million farmers are all wrong about biocrops? This food is as safe as conventional food."

Europe had been slow to accept biocrops compared to North and South America, yet Asian countries were likely to lead the next stage of biocrop development, he argued.

"When we develop this technology in the next decade, let us make sure to tackle the largest pollution problem we have. I am talking about poverty, the most pervasive pollutant, which destroys the lives of 1.3 billion people," he stated.

"My hope is Ireland will make the right decision and join us in this fight against hunger by promoting this new technology."

The Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, gave the opening address at the international conference, held at University College Belfield. "Biotechnology will transform all our lives in this century," he told delegates. The Government had targeted biotech as a key part of its research strategy, he said.

The US could meet most of its enormous demand for petrol and diesel with biofuels derived from plants, said Dr Don Erbach, national programme leader for the US Department of Agriculture's engineering/energy programme. Such a change would provide security of supply and would not damage the farming sector, he said.

The US burned about 180 billion gallons of petrol and diesel a year, with imports to meet demand costing about $300 billion.

Biofuels, ethanol derived from sugarcane or maize and biodiesel from vegetable oils provided just 2.6 per cent of current demand, but could deliver almost all of it if biofuel technology was developed, he said.

"In my opinion cellulosic biomass feedstock can meet our transport needs," Dr Erbach said.

13 November 2006

GMO ban ordinance eyed

The Visayan Daily Star (Philippines), 13 November 2006

Oriental Negros Vice Gov. Jose Baldado said he will work for the passage of an ordinance banning genetically-modified organisms in the province.

Baldado spoke at the launching of the Negros Island Civil Society-NGO-PO Organic Agriculture Agenda, held at the Royal Suites Inn, in Dumaguete City, a press release from Kaisampalad Inc. said yesterday.

Speaking on behalf of Gov. George Arnaiz, Baldado said that since a memorandum of agreement has already been signed by the governor declaring Negros as the Organic Food Bowl of the country, and committing to the ban on GMOs, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan should come up with an ordinance supporting it, the press release said.

Renato Bañas of the La Salle University-Bacolod, and Visayas nominee to the National Organic Agriculture Board, said he is impressed by the consistent and strong support provided by the Oriental Negros to the MOA signed between Arnaiz and Negros Occidental Gov. Joseph MaraÒon.

Nenita Seno of the DA Regional Field Unit 7, said the department is committed to support initiatives under their High Value Crops Program, and is willing to explore opportunities for partnership, technical and other support, for the organizations involved, the press release said.

Lucito Rastica, president of the province-wide association of municipal agriculturists said they will pass a resolution committing to implement organic agriculture.

Also supporting the agenda were funding agencies like the Foundation for Philippine Environment, Philippine Development Assistance Program, and the Peace and Equity Foundation, the press release said.

The launching of the Negros Island CSO-NGO-PO Organic Agenda was a joint undertaking of two key provincial networks, the Negros Organic Agriculture Movement in Negros Occidental and the Organic Negros Alliance of Negros Oriental. The two networks, composed of over 50 organizations, have come up with an agenda for the CSO-NGO-PO community, to parallel the efforts made by the two governors in creating the Negros Island Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Foundation, the press release also said.

The agenda itself is composed of 164 action items, which the two networks are hoping to be adopted by the provincial administrations of Arnaiz and MaraÒon, the press release added.>

NGOs warn Africa on the dangers of biofuels and genetic engineering in the fight against Climate Change

The Gaia Foundation, UK Press Release from Nairobi UNFCCC COP-12 talks
13th November 2006

A number of NGOs have written an Open letter (attached below) to the African nation delegates urging them to call for rejection of large-scale Biofuels or Genetic Modification (GM) technology as possible ways to achieve fast growth or more efficient fuel conversion under the Clean Development Mechansism (CDM). They point out that dependence on Biofuels and GM technology may in fact exacerbate the problems of climate change, environmental degradation, social inequality and poverty, particularly in Africa.

Key points are:

• Large scale biofuels development can put pressure of food crop stocks, threatening food security and opening commodity markets up to increased speculation.

• Biofuels are often inefficient at saving energy or carbon emissions.

• Biofuels developments threaten forests and peatlands. • GM biofuel crops are being developed and yet African countries have not yet developed the necessary biosafety policies to regulate and monitor GM in food or fuel crops. Cross pollination and contamination of existing agriculture is under threat.

Teresa Anderson of the Gaia Foundation says "Africans risk multiple disasters in adopting GM technology. They may lose their rights to save their seed if they adopt patented GM crops. Consumers in Japan and Europe who have rejected GM are likely reject imports from Africa for fear of contamination. Planting GM trees may threaten the future of forests as the genes that affect the ability of trees to stand upright or resist insects could unpredictably cross-pollinate with native forests. Biodiversity would also be affected".

Andrew Boswell of the Large Scale Biofuels Action Group said "In the light of the precautionary decision on GM Trees made at UN CBD COP-8 in April 2006, we urge the African nations to stay resolutely cautious about adopting these technologies that are not in their control, nor likely to be in their best interests".

Contacts:

Teresa Anderson, Gaia Foundation, E: teresa@gaianet.org, M: +254-720955038 (in Nairobi) Andrew Boswell, Large Scale Biofuels Action Group, E: andrew.boswell@yahoo.co.uk, M: +254-720833788 (in Nairobi)

NGOs supporting letter (see below):

The Gaia Foundation, UK (Teresa Anderson, teresa@gaianet.org)
Global Forest Coalition, Paraguay (Simone Lovera)
Global Justice Ecology Project, US (Anne Petermann and Orin Langelle)
Tropical Forest Group, Uganda (John Begumana)
Large Scale Biofuels Action Group, UK (Andrew Boswell, andrew.boswell@yahoo.co.uk)
World Rainforest Movement, Uruguay (Ana Filippini)

Open letter to African COP-12 delegates from a number of NGOs

13th November 2006

Dear Delegate

A warning for Africa at COP-12: Biofuels, Genetic Engineering and Climate Change

The issue of Biofuels is gaining increasing currency at the UNFCCC COP-12, and in talk of environment and development solutions for Africa. Genetic Engineering (GE) or Genetic Modification (GM) technology may also be promoted in the form of GM crops and GM trees, by those who see the technology as helping to achieve fast growth or more efficient fuel conversion.

A number of NGOs would like to urge caution, and point out some of the many flaws with these arguments, and urge UNFCCC delegations and national policy makers not to embrace unsustainable large-scale biofuel plantations and potentially risky GM technology. Dependence on Biofuels and GM technology may in fact exacerbate the problems of climate change, environmental degradation, social inequality and poverty, particularly in Africa.

DID YOU KNOW:

Large-Scale Biofuels Threat to Food Security

• Using important agricultural land and water to grow biofuels instead of food for domestic consumption will have a detrimental effect on food security in Africa.

• The amount of grain required for one tank of bioethanol in a 4x4 SUV would feed one person for a year (1).

• In 2006, an increase in the use of grain worldwide for conversion to biofuels led to a 60% increase in global grain prices and speculator interest in what had previously been a stably priced commodity. (2)

• While African countries may yet explore the possibilities of small-scale farming of biofuel crops for local household and domestic grid energy use, the consequences of growing fuel for export to the wealthy developing countries instead of food for Africans could be severe.

Energy Inefficient

• Some studies from the US found that the amount of fossil fuel energy required to produce and process biofuel crops such as soya and maize (fertilizer, farm machinery, processing and transport) is almost as much as the amount of energy contained in the fuel produced. (3)

• Biofuels therefore give us very little carbon saving and low energy saving.

Deforestation and Destruction of Peatlands

• Soya grown in the Brazilian Amazon is driving deforestation.

• The forested regions of Indonesia and Malaysia are being cut down for Palm Oil plantations.

• Wetlands Intenational have shown that destruction of SE Asian peatlands for Palm Oil plantations, which cover 0.2% of the global land surface, is responsible for 8% of the global CO2 emissions. (4)

• The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) currently allows for peatland areas that have been burned and cleared to create biofuel plantations to be eligible for CDM funding.

• On Kalangala Islands in Uganda, large areas of tropical forest are being converted into BIDICO palm oil plantations, which will be used to produce biodiesel. BIDICO are currently lobbying government to be able to further expand their plantations into other forested areas.

Genetically Engineered Biofuel Crops?

• The Genetic Engineering industry is keen to use acceptance of biofuels as a strategy to speed up GM acceptance in Africa, and the industry is working on a number of GM biofuel crops.

• Currently South Africa is the only African country that grows GM crops commercially, as the rest of Africa has been wary of integrating a potentially dangerous technology into the core of food security policy.

• Most African countries have yet to develop biosafety policies on GM crops, and are cautious of the difficulties in regulating and monitoring this novel food system, which could easily cross-pollinate and contaminate conventional agriculture.

• If the UNFCCC were to endorse GE as a technology, this would reverse years of hard-fought resistance by African governments and citizens to prevent GM contamination of agriculture.

The Dangers of GM Crops:

• GM crops are patented by the corporations that sell them, making seed saving illegal.

• Monsanto corporation (which owns 95% of global GM crops) has successfully sued farmers for patent infringement when their crops were cross-pollinated by neighbouring GM farms. (5)

• In Africa, 80% of small farmers save their seed. Food security and livelihoods in rural areas are likely to be negatively affected with the advent of patented GM seed.

• GM crops can easily cross-pollinate with local varieties and wild relatives, which means that genes from other species may accidentally and irreversibly contaminate the food chain and environment. Local varieties will be lost, and scientists do not know what the impact of these GM genes will be on ecological systems.

• GM crops have barely been tested for human or environmental safety, in spite of the large possibility of new toxins or allergens created through the insertion of new genes. The few animal tests that have been carried out have raised cause for concern. (6,7)

• Consumers in Europe and Japan have rejected GM crops for food and agriculture. Due to the risk of contamination, these countries may reject imports from countries that are growing GM crops.

• If GM crops are developed for biofuel use, new genes will be inserted for the plant to create chemicals that are not intended for human consumption. The likelihood of these biofuel crops contaminating conventional crops is, however, very high and over a hundred cases of contamination have been officially registered around the world. (8)

• If second generation ligno-cellulosic technology is commercially developed, the processing will be GM-intense involving specially produced enzymes to break down cellulosic material- the effects of accidental or intentional release of such materials into the environment is also unknown.

GM Trees

• Genetically Engineered trees, with traits for insect resistance, fast growth, increased cellulose or reduced lignin are not yet grown commercially anywhere. However, GM tree plantations have been promoted by the US as carbon sinks, which may be grown in Africa.

• Tree pollen can travel for hundreds of miles and could cross-pollinate with non-GM trees, potentially spreading the genes for low lignin (which helps trees to stand up) or insect resistance.

• Trees have such a long growth cycle that we have little or no idea of what the impact on their ecologies will be.

• Trees provide the planetÇs most important ecosystems for keeping climate in the balance. It seems insanity to use this untested technology as a so-called "solution" when there is a large chance that it could harm global forest systems and create even more long-term chaos.

• GM tree plantations are likely to have the same effect as many exotic tree plantations and carbon sinks in Africa, which have only replaced current forested areas and reduced biodiversity, drained water tables, and prevented local people from accessing the trees traditionally important to their livelihoods and cultures

Precautionary Decision on GM Trees at UN CBD COP-8 2006

• The social and ecological threat from GM trees was acknowledged at the UN Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) in April 2006, urged a precautionary approach.

• The decision states in part: "The Conference of the Parties, recognizing the uncertainties related to the potential environmental and socio-economic impacts, including long-term and trans-boundary impacts, of genetically modified trees on global forest biological diversity, as well as on the livelihoods of indigenous and local communities, and given the absence of reliable data and of capacity in some countries to undertake risk assessments and to evaluate those potential impactsð recommends parties to take a precautionary approach when addressing the issue of genetically modified trees."

We therefore urge delegates to oppose large-scale biofuel plantations and Genetic Engineering technology at the UNFCCC COP-12 negotiations, particularly as part of the CDM and technology transfer initiatives. While there may be a role for small-scale and local biodiesel production for domestic consumption (e.g. Jatropha), where it does not displace food crops, forest or indigenous people, the inherent damage caused by large-scale plantations must be considered. Furthermore, under no circumstances should GM technology be endorsed at the UNFCCC.

Sincerely

The Gaia Foundation, UK (Teresa Anderson, teresa@gaianet.org)
Global Forest Coalition, Paraguay (Simone Lovera)
Global Justice Ecology Project, US (Anne Petermann and Orin Langelle)
Tropical Forest Group, Uganda (John Begumana)
Large Scale Biofuels Action Group, UK (Andrew Boswell, andrew.boswell@yahoo.co.uk)

(1) Lester Brown, Earth Policy Institute, "Starving the people to feed the cars," 10 September 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801596.html?sub=AR

(2) "Speculators buy up drought-hit wheat crops to earn their daily bread." http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1933832,00.html

(3) Robert Rapier, "E85: Spinning Our Wheels", R-Squared, May 2006 - http://tinyurl.com/yclt89

(4) http://www.wetlands.org/

(5) Center for Food Safety report "Monsanto vs Farmers", June 2005

(6) New Scientist "GM pea causes allergic damage in mice" 21 November 2005 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8347

(7) "Genetically Modified Soy Affects Posterity: Results of Russian Scientists' Studies" Regnum News Agency, Russia. 12 October 2005 http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html

(8) http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/

DU's transgenic mustard crop trials may hit roadblock

Financial Express, November 13 2006. By Ashok B. Sharma.

NEW DELHI, NOV 12: The Delhi University (DU)'s transgenic mustard crop under limited field trials may have to face difficult times ahead. The petitioners, Aruna Rodrigues and others in the ongoing public interest litigation (PIL) have drawn the attention of the Supreme Court suspecting application of genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs) in the development of the crop.

GURTs, otherwise known as terminator technology, produces terminator seeds which do not germinate when saved for the next crop season. The Plant Varieties Protection & Farmers' Rights Act has banned the registration and use of terminator seeds.

The Supreme Court had earlier imposed a ban on fresh approval of any genetically modified (GM) crops for field trials till further orders. However, on October 13, 2006 it made a case of exception by allowing contained field trials of GM mustard, DMH-11 developed by the Delhi University. The Delhi University had assured to follow all biosafety norms and agreed to uproot the crop if the apex court passes such a ruling in future on account of failure to adhere to necessary precautions.

Aruna Rodrigues and others, who had earlier filed a PIL urging for a moratorium on GM crops, have now drawn the attention of the apex court citing health and environmental hazards relating to the GM mustard crop.

They cited expert evidences put forth by three leading international specialists namely, Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Centre for Food Safety, Washington; Jack Heinemann, director, Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety in the University of Canterbury and Joe Cummins, professor-emeritus of genetics in the University of Western Ontario.

The petitioners have claimed that the Delhi University has suppressed facts about its GM mustard crop, DMH-11. They have said that DMH-11 is not identical to the developed and trial tested Ms8/Rf3 (GM canola crops) in Europe, the US, Canada and Australia as claimed by the Delhi University.

Aruna Rodrigues and others in their affidavit have said that barnase-barstar mutations in DHM-11 mustard may be GURTs. "The data in the IA is incomplete. It is not known whether this particular Barnase-Barstar system in the GM mustard is intended to be used as a GURT, which forces the farmer to buy new seed in every planting season or as a tool for making hybrids."

Mustard or Brassica juncea is an open pollinating crop which out-crosses pretty well and hence there is a danger of pollen flow from DMH-11 to other crops or wild relatives.

The regulator, Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), is deeply concerned over the developments. There are reports of local farmers under the leadership of Bharatiya Kissan Union (BKU) burning Bt rice under field trials in Karnal, Haryana.

The BKU has said that the field trial was conducted without the prior knowledge of the state government, district authorities and panchayats.

12 November 2006

Irina Ermakova appointed Vice President of Russian National Genetic Safety Association

Regnum News Agency (Russia), 12 November 2006. Russian researcher, known in the world for her studying of risks triggered by eating GM food, Doctor of Biology Irina Ermakova was appointed Vice President of the Russian National Genetic Safety Association (NGSA), REGNUM is told at the association.

Dr. Irina Ermakova's name became known to the world when in 2005 she started conducting experiments on finding out GM food impact on health conditions of rats and their posterity. Results of the research gave a reason for speaking about possible negative influence of GM food upon living organisms. The rats had been fed with genetically modified soy two weeks before coupling and during carrying of a pregnancy. According to data published by Irina Ermakova, as a result of the experiment, more than a half of born rats died soon after birth. 40% of those survived were falling behind in development of their internal, which had a much smaller size than by those whose parents were not fed with GM soy. Female rats and infant rats from the GMO-fed group had a heightened level of anxiety and aggression. Some female rats were registered to be having no maternal instinct.

"We are happy that Irina has made a decision to join us," NGSA President Alexander Baranoc says. "Our association initiated holding a public probe, first in worldwide history, to reveal damage or absence of damage of genetically modified organisms, and the fact that Dr. Ermakova joins us will only speed up preparation for the experiment."

"It has been a result of Dr. Ermakova's experiments that pushed our Association on the way forward to start an international action called 'Safety Test' to raise money for holding a public scientific experiment to discover GMO's impact on mammals," NGSA Director Alyona Sharoikina says.

Commenting on the program of NGSA experiments, Ermakova stressed: "It is written a lot of reports and articles every year about potential GMO-triggered risks, but transnational corporations count on that no studies have carried out in the world that would have unambiguously proven damage or absence of damage of GM-produce upon human. The task can be solved only by certain actions, a series of independent tests. I am happy, my views on the issue coincided with the NGSA position: scientific experiments instead of words. And now we shall combine our effort for practical results." According to Ermakova, "transnational corporations consider our country as a test ground for GMOs, which can be proved at least by US claims for Russia abandoning its obligatory marking of products with GM ingredients sounded at the WTO talks." Ermakova believes until harmlessness of GMOs has not been proved, the risk Russia and other countries are running is too high, and the consequences can include "genetic mutations, oncological illnesses, infertility, allergy and toxicosis."

10 November 2006

Lord Sainsbury quits as minister

BBC News, Friday, 10 November 2006.

Science minister Lord Sainsbury - one of Labour's biggest donors and a close ally of Tony Blair - has resigned, citing personal reasons.

The supermarket billionaire was one of 48 people questioned by police over the cash-for-honours affair.

He was also cleared of breaching the ministerial code in April after failing to disclose a £2m loan to Labour.

Lord Sainsbury said this had "no connection" with his resignation and he wanted to focus on business interests.

Future plans

Prime Minister Tony Blair said the science minister had been a "huge asset" to the country.

Lord Sainsbury revealed he would be carrying out a review of government science policy for Chancellor Gordon Brown.

The former chairman of the Sainsbury supermarket empire was ennobled in 1997 and became science minister the next year.

He is believed to have donated £6.5m to Labour since 2002.

Lord Sainsbury told the BBC he would not be returning to work for the supermarket that bears his name.

He said: "Well, I've done eight years in the job.

"I've achieved most of what I can achieve, and I think now is the time really to get back to all my other business and charitable activities, which of course I've not been able to do during the last eight years."

Lord Sainsbury apologised earlier this year about the £2m undisclosed loan, saying he had confused it with a declared donation he had made.

On being quizzed over the loans-for-honours affair, he told the BBC: "I was interviewed by the police as a witness as I had also given a loan. But of course I am not a fund raiser for the party.

"I have had a peerage for eight or nine years, so there is no question of buying a peerage."

Lord Sainsbury said he had "always been rather a keen supporter of more public funding of parties".

"I think it just removes the whole of government from the issue of raising funds," he added.

Lord Sainsbury to resign

Daily Telegraph, Friday, 10 November 2006. By Graeme Wilson, Political Correspondent.

Lord Sainsbury, the science minister and Labour's biggest donor, will resign from the government today, the Daily Telegraph can reveal.

Downing Street is preparing to announce the supermarket billionaire's shock resignation within the next hour.

His timing of the announcement will trigger speculation at Westminster that his departure has been driven by the cash-for-peerages scandal. advertisement

Lord Sainsbury was the first minister to be questioned by the police about the £2 million loan he made to the party last year.

He was also forced to apologise for "unintentionally" misleading the public after he said he had declared his loan.

It later emerged that he had failed to tell his officials about the money, a failure which critics claimed breached the ministerial code.

Labour's top donor quits as minister
Lord Sainsbury dramatically quit as science minister today.

The Evening Standard, Friday, 10 November 2006.

Whitehall sources claimed Labour's biggest donor was tired of being tainted in the cash-for-peerages affair.

See also:

• 'Only Blair and his chairman knew of secret Labour loans'

• Minister blasts cash-for-peerages probe

One source said: "He was fed up with his name being dragged through the mud whenever cash for honours came up. Every time there was a controversy about party funding he was put at the centre of it and eventually he had had enough."

The supermarket millionaire, pictured, has bankrolled the party to the tune of £7million. His departure casts a new shadow over Downing Street with Tony Blair increasingly isolated in the police investigation into the alleged sale of peerages to party backers.

Lord Sainsbury championed controversial causes such as GM technology and was one of the longest-serving junior ministers. Other sources suggested that Lord Sainsbury's departure was part of the exodus of Blair allies from the Government and No10 in advance of the Prime Minister's own retirement.

A No 10 source said: "This is not a sudden thing at all but something that has been planned and talked about for quite a long time.

"This was a retirement not a resignation. At 66 he wanted to pursue charitable and business work. Lord Sainsbury has other things he would like to do."

He is expected to be given responsibility for a government-commissioned review of scientific challenges to the country. But critics are bound to say that the peer has already enjoyed more influence than most ministers ever get over a single subject.

Mr Blair was one of only two Cabinet ministers who knew about secret loans in the cash for honours affair, it was claimed today.

The only other minister with prior knowledge of the £5million from businessmen was former party chairman Ian McCartney, sources close to the police probe said.

The latest twist in the saga risks leaving the Prime Minister isolated as the Metropolitan Police prepare to quiz him over the allegations.

Mr McCartney, now Trade Minister, signed certificates nominating the four businessmen for peerages.

He claims he did not know they were lenders at the time. But a police inquiry source said today: "Only two ministers knew when a system of secret loans was set up.

One was Ian McCartney, who gave party authority. The other was Tony Blair."

Mr Blair has said that he takes "full responsibility" for Labour's decisions, but insisted he did not nominate peers in return for loans.

But investigators want to know whether the deals were used to circumvent a 2000 Act of Parliament requiring all donations of more than £5,000 to be made public. The Government has since changed the rules to ensure all loans are also fully declared.

Ethiopian scientist decries genetic engineering
African scientist: Modified crops and animals not good for developing countries

Capital Press, November 10, 2006. By Terence L. Day

The man often described as a thorn in the side of proponents of genetic engineering of agricultural crops and animals says he isn't opposed to genetic engineering, but he is for strict regulation of it, and is adamantly against patenting living things.

Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher, general manager of Ethiopia's Environmental Protection Authority, recently lectured at Whitman College and at Washington State University, and was interviewed by the Capital Press in Walla Walla.

His visit was sponsored by the Ashton and Virginia O'Donnell Endowment at Whitman.

The diminutive Ethiopian is a much-honored scientist and a major player in diplomatic battles over the future of agriculture in developing nations.

Egziabher is credited with helping defeat U.S. and European Union interests that oppose international restrictions on genetic engineering.

After years of struggle, Egziabher helped negotiate restrictive rules at what is known as the Montreal Accord. They protect biodiversity by restricting genetically modified food crops and animals. They also ensure the rights of farmers and communities in developing countries to control their future.

Egziabher told the Capital Press industrialized agriculture needs to understand that technologies that work well in large-farm industrialized agriculture are often ill-suited to developing nations where conditions and economic and social structures are very different.

There is a difference between scientists sitting and dreaming what the solution will be and learning what works. "The trouble is that with anything humans do, they must keep testing to see how it will work," Egziabher said.

"You should start with what farmers themselves know what they need. Unfortunately that is a route not frequently taken by researchers."

Egziabher said, "In Ethiopia, we have found whether we use chemical fertilizer or compost, we get the same kind of increasing productivity."

A big improvement in Ethiopian farming comes when crops are protected from destruction by walking animals. Composting and restricting livestock activities greatly reduces or eliminates soil erosion and increases water infiltration.

"The impact of drought decreases, water for irrigation increases. You increase the growing cycle for the crops as well by improving your land management," Egziabher said.

He says genetically modified crops pose risks for traditional agriculture and can even threaten the livelihood of commercial farmers in the United States and other highly developed countries.

He cited a Saskatchewan farmer, Percy Schmeiser, who said he was forced out of agriculture after patented canola was found in his field and he was sued by the patent holder. Yet, Egziabher said, Schmeiser insists he didn't plant the patented seed. Rather, he believes the non-patented crop was contaminated by cross pollination.

Egziabher called that "an iniquitous ... horrible law."

And he says contamination of traditional crops by genetically engineered plants is a particular threat to small farmers who have carefully selected varieties, over thousands of years, that are highly adapted to their localities.

The average Ethiopian farmer has a highly diversified operation involving both crops and livestock on less than 5 acres. They can't afford to buy genetically modified seed, even if they wanted to. Egziabher also questions whether monocultures demanded by industrial agriculture and forestry will be viable in the long term.

He said we have only a few decades of experience with them, and they destroy biological diversity where they are employed.

While protecting biodiversity is a major concern about genetically engineered plants and animals, Egziabher acknowledges that even traditional agriculture has reduced biodiversity.

"The agrcultural revolution started 10,000 years ago," he said. "The fact we have developed farms and kept domestic animals has meant the replacement of those species that used to be there. So agriculture by definition removes species ... replaces species.

"On the other hand, though, a lot of diversity has developed in the development of crops and domestic animals by human-aided evolution. Humans want one particular trait and they select for it. The agricultural revolution has meant both a destruction of biodiversity and also the creation of biodiversity."

A major concern of scientists such as Egziabher lies in the nature of agriculture in the developing countries of Africa, South America, Asia and elsewhere.

"In Africa we have small-holder farmers, mostly. Most farmers cultivate about 2 hectares (4.942 acres) of land. That is their sole livelihood.

"Farms are highly diversified including both plants and animals. It's usually both. Very often, a single farmer may grow 10 crops."

Just as Egziabher recognizes a place for genetically modified organisms, he also has "no problem with chemicals" where their use is appropriate. "If you bring in chemicals such as fertilizer, it should be only in addition to a well-managed environment. If you manage your farm system well you reduce the amount of chemical fertilizer you need.

"One of the problems with chemical fertilizer is that these poor farmers have little money. Cash is not easy to come by. It is an economic argument rather than a shunning of chemical fertilizers."

Egziabher said chemical fertilizers are extensively used in Ethiopia, but "we are trying to reduce the use, particularly with petroleum prices increasing. Chemical fertilizer is becoming more and more out of reach of the small farmers."

And, where they are used extensively, Egziabher said they reduce biodiversity and are less effective in boosting crop production than they are in what some call industrial agriculture.

That's because the traditional varieties haven't been bred to respond to chemicals the way many crops have been bred for use in industrial agriculture. We must manage soil so productivity can be maximized.

But Egziabher said he understands the need for herbicides on America's large farms - huge by comparison with traditional African agriculture.

"But in those parts of the world where we have more people on the land - the whole developing world - maximize hand-weeding, rather than the herbicides."

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications that said 8.5 million farmers in 21 countries now grow genetically modified varieties means that the horse is already out barn, Egziabher said, "It's too early to say that GM is taking over."

He said the majority of farmers now growing GM varieties are in three counties; the United States, Canada and Argentina. In the other countries it's a small number of farmers.

"GM crops are still only a very small percentage of crops that are being grown. Even in the United States, you do grow many of your species non-GM. Soybeans, cotton and maize are the big three GM crops."

Genetic modification debate continues
Biowatch responds to would-be field-triallists

Grape News, 10 November 2006

Introduction

There is an international ban on genetically modified wine and overwhelming rejection of all genetically modified food and drink by consumers in Europe - South Africa's key wine export market.

Nevertheless, the University of Stellenbosch's Institute for Wine Biotechnology is determined to carry out open-air experiments with genetically modified (GM) grapevines in Stellenbosch.

At the end of October, the Institute took out an advert in the Weekend Argus in which it insisted the proposed field trial poses no risk to the environment or the South African wine industry. However, the Institute was only able to say there was a "negligible" probability that the GM grapevines would contaminate the environment.

In its public notice about the open-air experiment, which the law requires it to place in at least three newspapers, the Institute said that the flowers on the GM grapevines would be bagged to "minimise pollen dispersalâ.

The GM grapevines will be Sultana and Chardonnay - varieties grown in Stellenbosch. The InstituteÇs public notice does not say how many GM grapevines and non-GM grapevines are involved in the experiment.

In contrast, a field trial with GM grapevines started in France in September last year, appears to have far more stringent measures to prevent, not minimise, contamination.

According to reports about the field trial being run by the French governmentÇs National Institute for Agricultural Research the following key issues emerge.

The 70 GM rootstocks which have been modified to resist fanleaf virus are completely surrounded by about 1 500 non-GM grapevines. The floral buds will be cut, so no grapes are produced.

Pinot Meunier grapevines - a grape not grown in Alsace where the field trial is being carried out - are being used. This eliminates the possibility of cross-pollination.

The soil in which the experiment is being done was specially brought in and the natural ground has been shielded from it.

The French Ministry of Agriculture made decisions about safety requirements with a steering committee comprising researchers, farmers neighbouring the trial site, consumer groups and anti-GM activists.

The University of Stellenbosch's Institute for Wine Biotechnology also said their open-air experiment was necessary to ensure that the industry remains at the cutting edge of technology.

But that assumes that GM technology is at the cutting edge, despite its failure to deliver plants that are able to resist disease. Field trials with GM grapevines conducted in Germany between 1999 and 2004 found that the GM vines were just as susceptible to fungal disease as conventional vines.

And recently, the Wall Street Journal reported that the very companies that have promoted GM are turning again to more conventional marker assisted selection.

Marker assisted selection involves locating desirable traits in wild or other varieties of a particular food crop and then cross-breeding those plants with existing commercial varieties to improve the crop. This also helps to add to genetic diversity and that can help to cushion the effects of climate extremes, such as, drought.

There have been reports that a Swiss grape grower, Valentin Blattner, has succeeded in producing a disease-resistant, cold-tolerant grape variety the "old-fashioned way" - by using pollen from one variety and crossing it with another.

The Institute would also have us believe that GM technology is beneficial to the environment, poses no risks to human health and that consumers who now reject it will be won over. There is evidence indicating the contrary.

Various surveys done in different countries suggest that the more consumers know about GM crops, the less accepting they are of these foods. Even one of the worldÇs leading GM seed producers, Syngenta has acknowledged that it will be hard to change consumer attitudes on this one. In an interview about marker assisted selection, Syngenta's North American research director of vegetable seeds was reported as saying: "The public is lukewarm on GM products. Now we have technology that doesn't have an image problem."

Research carried out on GM crops and pesticide use shows that, while the need to use pesticide or herbicide decreases in the first two to three years, it increases after this because other pests become dominant. Studies have also shown that GM crops have an adverse effect on biodiversity in the environment and that they may cause allergic reactions in humans.

Click here for the full document in which Biowatch's replies to the Institute are given:
http://www.grape.co.za/News/061104aBSAdocument.htm

9 November 2006

Monsanto men in USA government

Indymedia Columbia, 9 November 2006.

The Bush administration's could be called the Monsanto Cabinet, per Robert Cohen, author of "Milk, The Deadly Poison" which details the horrid politics behind the contamination of our nation's milk and beef supply with bovine growth hormone.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was president of Searle Pharmaceuticals, a company owned by Monsanto. Rumsfeld was also the Secretary of Defense under President Ford.

Rumsfeld is believed to have earned around US$12 million from the sale of Searle to Monsanto.

Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly received $10,000 for his senatorial campaign from Monsanto in the mid 90s. Ashcroft's contribution from Monsanto was five times that of any other congressional hopeful. Ashcroft, and Sr. Bush Supreme Court appointee Clarence Thomas were instrumental in gaining Food and Drug Administation (FDA) approval for Monsanto's controversial artificial sweetener aspartame, which has been linked to over 200 ailments that include Alzheimer's disease, juvenile diabetes, depression, epileptic seizures, blindness, memory loss, excitability, weight gain, multiple sclerosis and lupus (The Idaho Observer, November, 2000).

[Former] Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman was on the board of directors of Calgene Pharmaceutical, another company currently owned by Monsanto.

Secretary of Health Tommy Thompson is the fourth member of the Bush cabinet to have direct ties to Monsanto. The former governor of Wisconsin designated his state as a "biotech zone" for the use of Monsanto's bovine growth hormone even though dairy farmers in his state opposed the designation by a 9-1 ratio. Thompson reportedly received $50,000 from biotech companies during his election campaign.

Bovine growth hormone, which does increase the productivity of dairy cows, has also been linked to many health problems in children and adults (The Idaho Observer, November, 2000) and makes cows sick.

Bovine growth hormone has been outlawed in most countries, but not the U.S.

And as Cohen points out, another player in the Monsanto-studded Cabinet is Rep. Richard Pombo, who will head the Agriculture Subcommittee on Dairy, Livestock and Poultry. Pombo is also a Monsanto boy, having taken campaign money from it while stalling a 1994 bill to make labeling mandatory for milk or milk products containing Bovine Growth Hormones. Pombo helped kill the bill in committee...

Monsanto has proven to be one of the most greedy, ruthless and environmentally irreverent corporations in world history. One cannot serve the interests of Monsanto and serve the interests of people at the same time.

Racketeering charges filed against Donald Rumsfeld, Monsanto

Indymedia, Columbia, 9 November 2006.

Racketeering charges have been filed against Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, Monsanto, NutraSweet Co., the American Diabetes Association and Dr Robert Moser for distributing toxic aspartame, in a class action representing many plaintiffs, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California seeking $350 million in damages.

The suit charges the defendants with manufacturing and marketing a deadly neurotoxin unfit for human consumption, while they assured the pubic that aspartame (also known as NutraSweet/Equal) contaminated products are safe and healthful, even for children and pregnant women. Present US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, is mentioned throughout the lawsuit.

As evidence, an explosive affidavit from a former translator for the GD Searle company - the developer of aspartame - was made recently public and revealed the following.

For 16 years, the Food and Drug Administration denied approval of aspartame because of compelling evidence of its contributing to brain tumours and other serious disabilities. Donald Rumsfeld left President Ford's administration as Chief of Staff to become the CEO of aspartame-producer GD Searle Co. in 1981. Shortly after, Rumsfeld became the CEO, and the day after President Reagan took office, aspartame was quickly approved by FDA Commissioner Arthur Hayes over the objections of the FDA's Public Board of Inquiry. Hayes had been recently appointed by the Reagan Administration. Shortly after aspartame's approval by the FDA, Hayes joined NutraSweet's public relations firm under a 10-year contract at $1,000 a day.

In January 1977, the FDA wrote a 33-page letter to US Justice Department Attorney Sam Skinner: "We request that your office convene a Grand Jury investigation into apparent violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act." Skinner allowed the Statute of Limitations to run. Three FDA Commissioners and eight other officers and Skinner took jobs in the aspartame industry shortly after it was approved.

The FDA once listed 92 adverse reactions from 10,000 consumer complaints and would send the list to all inquirers. In 1996 the FDA stopped taking complaints and now denies the existence of the report. Seizures, blindness, sexual dysfunction, obesity, testicular, mammary and brain tumours and death, plus dozens of other dread diseases named in the suit, arise from the consumption of this neurotoxin.

Defendant Moser, past CEO of NutraSweet, is cited for misrepresenting facts to public and commercial users with full knowledge of the deceptions. Aspartame/Nutrasweet is sold to Bayer, Con Agra Foods, Dannon, Smucker, Kellogg, Wrigley, PepsiCo, Kraft Foods (Crystal Light), Conopco (Slim-Fast), Coke, Pfizer, Wal-Mart and Wyeth (to name a few), who use it in some of their products, including children's vitamins. These entities are named in other suits now in Californian courts.

Defendant American Diabetes Association is meant to care for diabetics. A 35-year ADA member, diabetic specialist HJ Roberts, MD, FACP, discovered aspartame can precipitate or aggravate diabetes and its complications, or simulate the complications (especially neuropathy and retinopathy). His report, intended for the Annual Scientific Meeting of the ADA, was rejected for presentation - and even publication of the abstract - but was later published in another medical journal.

New regulatory body likely for GM crops

Financial Express (India), November 9 2006

NEW DELHI, NOV 8: India is likely to have a new regulatory body for genetically modified (GM) crops. While addressing the conference of economic editors here on Wednesday agriculture minister Sharad Pawar said, "The setting up of a National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority (NBRA) for promotion and regulation of application of biotechnology in agriculture is at an advanced stage."

Setting up of a NBRA was suggested by two separate expert panels headed respectively by MS Swaminathan and RA Mashelkar.

However, both the panels suggested a common regulatory authority for all biotechnological applications, including GM crops and food, recombinant pharmaceuticals, transgenic in livestock.

The public sector, Central Warehousing Corporation, has entered into a MoU with the ministry of railways for developing railside warehouse complexes at 22 locations in the country.

Concerned over rising prices of wheat and pulses, Pawar hoped that the situation would change with an expected good wheat crop in the present winter. The prices quoted on futures market has shown a downward trend.

He said that ministry had formulated an action plan for targeting 50% area under wheat crop in select areas in 8 states.

Pawar said that a decision to lift the ban on sugar exports would be taken soon, keeping in view the expected output of 22.7 million tonne (mt), carryover stock of 4 mt against a domestic demand of only 19 mt.

8 November 2006

Science fiction

The Guardian, 8 November 2006.

The prime minister devoted lots of his science speech on Monday to attacking "the anti-science brigade [which] threatens our progress and our prosperity" - by which he made clear he meant anyone who has opposed him on GM food, nuclear power, animal testing, the MMR vaccine, global warming or anything else.

Not all scientists understood what he was on about. Dr Sue Mayer, director of GeneWatch, thought Blair was "deaf to the genuine concerns that people have about the impacts of new technologies on society"; Douglas Cross, a former UK Department of Health forensic ecologist, suggested that "many of the 'campaigners' that he dismisses are highly reputable scientists"; and Friends of the Earth reminded Blair that his own government found that "when people become more engaged in GM issues, and choose to discover more about them, they harden their attitudes to GM".

Leading scientists shield links to industry support in published papers

OurStolenFuture, 8 November 2006

Swedish researchers report that Sir Richard Doll, co-author of a famous paper minimizing the role of chemicals in causing cancer, failed to disclose his industry funding for work on vinyl chloride, dioxin and phenoxy herbicides in papers published that were relevant to industry interests.

An analysis of peer-reviewed documents and other sources reveals that scientists paid by the tobacco industry are not the only scientists who regularly fail to to reveal their funding links to industry when they publish studies. The most striking case is that of Sir Richard Doll, co-author (with Richard Peto) of one of the most influential papers in cancer epidemiology, one that concluded that only a small percentage of cancer was caused by environmental exposures.

According to the findings of Hardell et al.'s research, Doll had a long term financial relationship with Monsanto between 1970 and 1990. Hardell et al. describe a letter a Monsanto epidemiologist renewing Doll's contract for GBP1000 per day from Monsanto, which Doll had deposited in 2002 in a library at the Wellcome Trust. The Doll and Peto paper was published in 1981. Additional documents, according to Hardell et al., reveal that Doll and an industry medical advisor agreed to have any articles written by Doll reviewed by Peto and the medical advisors of two chemical companies. Doll's work for Monsanto included reviews of the cancer risks of vinyl chloride, dioxin and phenoxy herbicides (2,4-D and 2,4,5-T). The vinyl chloride work led to a peer-reviewed paper published in 1988 in a Scandinavian journal reporting that vinyl chloride was not a significant carcinogen other than in the liver.

According to Hardell et al., Doll's analysis became the gold standard on vinyl chloride toxicity, including being cited by the American Chemical Council (2001) as showing no link between vinyl chloride and brain cancer.

Hardell et al. report finding additional documentation of Doll's relationships with companies and trade associations in the Welcomme Trust library. For example, in the 1988 paper, Doll did not disclose receiving £15,000 plus expenses from the Chemical Manufacturer's Association and the chemical companies ICI and Dow (two large producers of vinyl chloride), a payment documented by papers reviewed by Hardell et al. They also report that Doll was receiving additional payment at the same time from Monsanto, another large producer of vinyl chloride.

Hardell et al. also note that Doll, in a private unsolicited letter to the chair of an Australian Royal Commission reviewing the safety of dioxin and phenoxy herbicides wrote that "there is no reason to suppose they are carcinogenic in laboratory animals." His letter went further to challenge the veracity of peer-reviewed published research by Hardell and colleagues on the carcinogenicity of phenoxy herbicides: "In my opinion, his [Hardell's] work should no longer be cited as scientific evidence." The Commission's final report included, according to Hardell et al., "an almost verbatim account of a Monsanto submission on this issue."

Hardell et al. describe other additional examples of researchers failing to disclose financial ties to industries with vested interests in the outcome of their peer-reviewed studies. For example:

Swedish professor Ragnar Rylander worked for decades as a consultant to Philip Morris, failing to disclose this tie to his employer while, at the same time, discussing "all his tobacco related research at the universities with Philip Morris and their lawyers." While he initially denied the consultancies when it was first revealed in 2002, Rylander's contract has been made public in the Philip Morris Archives.

Scientists were hired by the product-defense firm Exponent to argue that dioxins are not associated with cancer in people. They made presentations at public meetings casting doubt on the chemical's impact, and wrote peer reviewed articles with the same conclusion, without revealing their industry ties. According to Hardell et al., the vice president of Exponent, Dennis Paustenbach, was on the EPA's science advisory board at the time, but was also conducting research for Dow Chemical on dioxin in soils around its chemical facility in Midland, Michigan. Paustenbach has since been associated with other efforts to distort science, particularly hexavalent chromium, including in articles in the Wall Street Journal.

Hardell et al. conclude their review by calling for strict development and application of policies on disclosing conflicts of interest. As they observe, "financial relationships between industry, researchers and academic institutions are becoming increasingly common." While funding from industry "should be a good thing," according to Hardell et al., "the few examples we give show that it invites abuse when it is secret, concealed, disguised or non-disclosed, and as other research suggests, these examples are not isolated." They are especially troubling because "they involved some of the world's leading epidemiologists."

An Environmentally disastrous company *

By Martin J Walker
http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~mamone/sci-dem/contri/walker.htm

Monsanto's list of difficulties with the EPA and other US regulation agencies as well as other companies is a sordid corporate tale. Monsanto has been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as 'potentially responsible' for no fewer than ninety-three contaminated U.S. sites under Superfund law.

In 1986, Monsanto was found guilty of negligently exposing a worker to benzene at its Chocolate Bayou Plant in Texas. It was forced to pay $100 million to the family of Wilbur Jack Skeen, a worker who died of leukaemia after repeated exposures.

In 1991, Monsanto was fined $1.2 million for trying to conceal discharge of contaminated waste water into the Mystic River in Connecticut. In 1993, the Food and Drug Administration approved Posilac, bovine somatropin (BST), despite constant alarms that it is a carcinogen. In 1995, Monsanto was sued after allegedly supplying radioactive material for a controversial study which involved feeding radioactive iron to 829 pregnant women. Also in 1995, the company was ordered to pay $41.1 million to a waste management company in Texas after criticism over hazardous waste dumping.

In 1997, The Seattle Times reported that Monsanto sold 6,000 tons of contaminated waste, containing cadmium, believed to cause cancer, kidney disease, neurological dysfunction and birth defects, to Idaho fertiliser companies. In 1969, Monsanto began producing the Lasso herbicide, known as Agent Orange, and in 1987 it was one of the companies named in a $180 million settlement for Vietnam War veterans exposed to the herbicide. Monsanto produced Cycle-Safe, the worldÇs first plastic soft-drink bottle. The bottle, suspected of posing a cancer risk, was banned the following year by the Food and Drug Administration.

Monsanto's closeness to government and its lavish outlay on politics and campaigning have helped the company maintain a constant battle against regulation. In 1986 it spent $50,000 to combat California's anti-toxics initiative, Proposition 65. The initiative was to prohibit the discharge of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects into drinking water supplies.

In 1990, Monsanto spent more than $405,000 to defeat CaliforniaÇs pesticide regulation Proposition 128, known as the Big Green initiative. The initiative was aimed at phasing out the use of pesticides, including Monsanto's product alachlor, linked to cancer and global warming.

* extract from Sir Richard Doll: Death, Dioxin and PVC

"All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector." - The Lancet

SC issues notice to Centre seeking moratorium on commercialization of Genetically Engineered crops

Hindustan Times, November 8 2006, Satya Prakash.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre on a PIL seeking a moratorium on commercialization of Genetically Engineered variety of crops until a competent regulatory structure and rules were put in place.

A Bench of Justice AR Lakshmanan and Justice Altmas Kabir issued notices to the ministries of Environment & Forests, Science & Technology and Agriculture after 'Gene Campaign' counsel Sanjay Parikh mentioned its application for an urgent hearing.

Parikh urged the court to direct the authorities to stop commercialization of Genetically Engineered variety of crops until the outdated 1989 regulatory regime was updated.

The NGO sought a moratorium on the ground that the 1989 rules for manufacture, use, import, export and storage of hazardous micro-organisms, genetically engineered organisms or cells did not take into account the environmental norms generally followed in other countries.

It contended the moratorium was necessary for protecting environment and public health, protected under the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

On a similar PIL by environmentalist Aruna Rodrigues, the court recently restrained the government from allowing any new field trials for Genetically Modified (GM) crops. The Government has, however, sought lifting of the interim ban.

Gene Campaign, which moved the court on the issue two years ago, has also sought a direction to authorities to make public all data relevant for determining environment and health safety standards.

Parikh said the latest application was moved after the authorities refused to divulge "toxicity" and "allergenicity" data generated on trans-genic crops that were yet to get approval for commercial cultivation.

The NGO said the authorities refused to provide such data under the RTI Act on the ground that these were intellectual property of the companies and had a commercial value. The disclosure would adversely affect the competitive advantage of the company generating the data, it was said.

The authorities had further said that data could be provided only for crops, which had already been released and that too after issuing notice to the companies producing them.

Bt Bhindi field trial poses human risk

NDTV (India), 8 November 2006.

(Hyderabad): Farmers in Karnal in Haryana recently set fire to a crop of genetically modified rice.

They said the field trial was being done secretly and no steps had been taken to ensure that contamination of rice being grown nearby did not take place.

Another field trial, this time of Bt Bhindi, in the Gulbarga region of Karnataka has shown gross violations of regulatory guidelines.

"We have been told not to allow any TV camera to shoot. We spray pesticide every four to eight days, not once in 15 days like the farmers. We have harvested about 12 times. We put it in a pit, we don't market it," said Bheema Shankar, Field Assistant, Mahyco.

Biosafety violations

The testimony confirmed that there are no foolproof measures in place to ensure that no one eats the untested Bt Bhindi by accident. There are other biosafety violations as well.

The village panchayat committee has no information on the field trial either.

"They have not informed any of us," said Laxman Poojary, Panchayat Committee Member, Nandikur.

Somasekhar Nadekkatti, a seed dealer, who leased land to Mahyco for the trial, said he is not happy with the Bt cotton grown on his field this year.

"On my three acres that I have grown Bt cotton commercially, I have lost the entire crop because of fungus," said Somasekhar.

Though field trials for genetically modified food crops is happening across the country, experience has shown that monitoring and accountability mechanisms to ensure biosafety is far from satisfactory.

The most worrying aspect is that the public mostly remains blissfully unaware of the potential danger to human health and environment.

7 November 2006

Blinded by the light
The prime minister sees himself as a champion of science and technology but all too often his government acts as a servant of corporate interest.

The Guardian, November 7 2006. Peter Melchett.

Last week, the prime minister made one of the speeches that he hopes will leave a clear description of his legacy for future generations to marvel at. He said that New Labour has laid the basis for "world-class science", scientific ideas are "moving better" from the laboratory to the marketplace, and the "standard account of British scientific history" (of being unable to derive economic benefit from our scientific discoveries) is being "confounded".

But what the speech actually set out with depressing clarity was the views of a politician ignorant of the politics of science, confused and misled about public perceptions of science, and hopelessly muddled about the difference between science and technology. For example, when Tony Blair lists the scientific discoveries that "have transformed our lives" over the last century, he bizarrely finds room for the mass fluoridation of water - a highly controversial, and for that reason only partially implemented, mass medication, which few think has played a significant role in the recent improvement in dental health.

Blair's approach seems to me more unquestioning, simplistic and ignorant even than Harold Wilson's embrace of the "white heat of technology" during the old Labour government in which I was a minister 30 years ago. The legacy bequeathed us by Wilson's enthusiasm for white-hot technology was Concorde (defunct) and nuclear fusion (still just a vague promise). Blair seems determined to embrace aspects of two equally ill-thought-through technologies: biotech and nanotech.

But after all his years in office, and the total rejection of GM crops, the prime minister is at least aware that he is not living in the era of Raymond Baxter and Tomorrow's World. Nowadays, we do not necessarily believe someone in a white coat promising us the equivalent of the 60s predictions that by now we would all be zooming around with an individual hover pack rather than driving old-fashioned cars, or that we would be swallowing different coloured pills three times a day instead of eating food. In the face of endless failed predictions by scientists, from nuclear power too cheap to meter to the more recent GM "golden rice" that should have cured blindness by now, people are rightly sceptical.

This rational, evidence-based distrust of wild promises from scientists, governments or corporations about jam tomorrow is not seen quite like that by the prime minister. According to Tony Blair, there are indeed threats to his happy nuclear, nanotech and genetically-engineered future, and the most difficult of these is what he calls the "irrational public debate" around science. In Blair's world, the government "must show leadership and courage in standing up for science" in the face of powerful and vocal lobbies, even in areas where there are "genuine areas of intellectual controversy". He claims that an "anti-science brigade threatens our progress and prosperity". Not, presumably, the sort of progress and prosperity delivered by the now defunct Concorde and non-existent fusion reactors.

What the prime minister and his scientific advisors have still failed to grasp is that public opposition to some technologies, like GM food, is neither irrational nor anti-science. It must depress social scientists, and it certainly should depress anyone interested in the future of science in this country, that we have a prime minister who so horrendously misreads public opinion about science and technology. If a politician has anything to contribute to this debate, it should be accurately to interpret public views to scientists, not to pander to the most ill-informed prejudices of the scientific, and indeed corporate extremists. While we need more public understanding of science, what we need much more urgently is more scientists who understand the public.

When individuals can make their own choices about whether to use a new technology or not, they are happy to weigh the risks and benefits themselves. That is why, as the prime minister notes, there is no opposition to GM drugs and very little to properly regulated stem cell research, at least in the UK. Mobile phone use is the other often-quoted example. But where the risks are run by all of us, and often future generations too, without any of us having a say in the matter, and where the benefits accrue to multinational companies, it is good sense - not anti-science prejudice - that drives public opposition. And the same is true where governments and companies have shown themselves unable to control technologies, and have been guilty repeatedly of putting the public at risk, as with nuclear power and, indeed, GM crops.

The real threat to "our progress and our prosperity", and the real threat to science, is the dogmatic support for any new technology which comes along that companies hope to make money from. Nothing reduces trust in scientists, and by extension, science, more effectively.

Those of us involved in the debate about GM crops over the last two decades have watched with disgust this abuse by Blair (and a succession of government scientists) of the good name of science - in the interests of corporate profits at the behest of a genuinely anti-science US Government. Sadly, for those who care about science, its degradation is Blair's legacy.

Irish farmers losing out on € 70m consumer appetite for organic food ‚ Naughten
• 70% of organic produce sold in Ireland is imported
• Lucrative UK market also has untapped potential for Irish producers

Fine Gael press release, 7 November 2006.

Fine Gael Agriculture and Food Spokesperson, Denis Naughten TD, has today (Tuesday) called on the Minister for Agriculture to provide greater supports to farmers who are interested in switching to organic farming.

"During this week, National Organic Week, it is important to focus on how Ireland can take advantage of the growth in the national demand for organic food. Ireland's domestic organic sector continues to under perform relative to the significant growth in organic production in other European States.

"On the consumption side, sales of organic food are increasing hugely, with retail sales in Ireland now topping € 70m per annum, proving that their is a huge appetite for organic produce. However, what is disappointing is that over 70% of organic produce sold in Ireland is imported. Not only is Irish agriculture losing out from the failure to meet demand in the home market, but Irish producers also have a huge export market on their doorstep in the UK, worth over € 1.7 billion annually, which could be tapped into by Irish producers.

"The barriers to the growth of the organic sector have been identified as:

• The high cost of establishing organic enterprises
• Access to education and training
• The need to improve marketing and distribution of organic produce

"We need imaginative, effective solutions to encourage more farmers to go organic.

• The Minister for Agriculture must make a concentrated effort to ensure that all establishment funding for organic producers is fully drawn down.

• In terms of providing education and training, we must develop more innovative ways to deliver training, such as with training over the internet or distance learning.

• Marketing and promotion of organic food is also crucial if domestic producers are to thrive. I would urge State agencies to support organic producers by developing new sales channels such as Internet selling or through farmers markets.

"Irish organic food production has a great future but Irish producers must be ready to meet consumer demand. With one of the lowest levels of land in Europe farmed organically, it is clear that all relevant State agencies and producers must remain focused on ensuring the potential of organic production is fully exploited for the benefit of Ireland's farmers."

Biofuels research tops UK farmers' HGCA research wish-list

Farmers Weekly Interactive, 7 November 2006. By Mike Abram.

Developing industrial uses for combinable crops, such as biofuels, tops the list of research topics growers would like to see the Home-Grown Cereals Authority (HGCA) fund between 2007-10.

Over 1200 levy-payers responded to the HGCA questionnaire assessing what research targets were most important to growers.

Exploiting genetically modified cropping came second bottom out of the list of 27 possible areas, although in consultation there was a lot of discussion about what traits could be introduced, should GM crops become acceptable. Full story.

6 November 2006

Government's approach to 'coexistence' fatally flawed - Peter Melchett

Farmers Weekly (UK), 6 November 2006. Letter to the editor:

Dear Editor,

You report that some 'staunch' defenders of organic farming accept that organic and GM crops 'will coexist' (News, 20 October). The Soil Association takes a much more robust view of what is needed to defend the interests of Britain's organic farmers. Working with Friends of the Earth and GM Freeze, we have been advised by a top QC that the Government's approach to 'coexistence' is fatally flawed and unlawful.

Our legal advice is that the Government's proposal to set a 0.9% coexistence threshold for GM in non-GM crops is not compatible with European law. The Government's attempts to exclude certain types of growing or farming activities like allotment holders, farmers producing their own fodder, and farmers who save seed, from the scope of the proposed coexistence measures are not compatible with European law. The Government's proposal not to have a public register of all GM crop locations is clearly illegal.

Most importantly, it is clear that natural justice, and on this occasion our legal advice says EU law also, requires coexistence between GM and non-GM to allow farmers "to make a practical choice between conventional, organic and GM crop production". The Government's proposals to permit a certain level of GM content do not enable farmers to make such a choice. Unlike the Government's unlawful proposals, fair coexistence measures would be aiming at "preventing the avoidable contamination of non-GM produce and not to merely minimising such contamination to (arbitrarily fixed) tolerance levels".

I know that Peter Kendall says that local and organic food are merely 'niche' and 'boutique' products (Letters, 20 October), which is presumably why the NFU supports the Government's proposals to allow routine GM contamination of organic and other locally produced British food. Farmers can of course take their lead from the pro-GM NFU, and bet their future on the currently non-existent market for GM food - the 'not even a niche' product. Alternatively, farmers may want to listen to their customers - Sainsbury's says that organic food is now "mainstream", UK sales are growing at 30% a year, and we currently face severe shortages of British organic product.

Yours,

Peter Melchett
The Soil Association.

4 November 2006

GM problems

The Press (New Zealand), November 4 2006

The Press headline on GM crop tests (p.1, Nov 1) reads as if the brassicas engineered with a bacterial toxin (Bt) are about to be planted. Before this happens, the application must meet the ERMA criteria for GM field trials. In order to meet the criteria, the science involved must be seen to be accurate.

Dr Mary Christey is quoted as saying that there is no scientific evidence of insects becoming resistant to the toxin in GM plants and no evidence that the toxin would harm any other organisms apart from pest caterpillars.

Actually, there are many publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals documenting insect resistance to Bt toxin when produced continuously and in relatively high concentrations by GM plants.

Similarly, there are many such publications on the harm done to non-target organisms, the most famous case being that of the monarch butterfly larva.

It is time that GM scientists made themselves familiar with all the scientific research relevant to their work.

Dr Elvira Dommisse
Christchurch

We need celebrity scientists to inspire young people, says Blair

The Times, 4 November 2006. By Philip Webster, political editor.

BRITAIN must stand up to the anti-science brigade by defeating them with rational argument and encouraging youngsters who want to change the world to become scientists, Tony Blair said yesterday.

The Prime Minister, declaring that he had become a born-again science enthusiast after being a "refusenik" at school, said that scientific and political leaders needed to face down the "outrageous distortion" of opponents and help people to dispel the myths, calm the fears and make moral judgments on the facts.

Talking about campaigns against GM foods (in which the Prince of Wales has been prominent), MMR, animal experiments and stem-cell research, he said that they must reject the "irrational public debate" encouraged by a powerful and vocal lobby. Standing up to it was difficult because it was a classic example of the struggle between short-term politics and long-term public good. If governments had not taken on animal rights extremists they would have lost essential scientific research.

It would be more difficult to win the argument in the genuine areas of intellectual controversy. Mr Blair said that the nuclear power debate had been reopened only just in time and there was no way to guarantee energy security or cleaner power without it.

"But the misconceptions, often born of the most outrageous distortion of fact by campaigners, who in accusing others of a lack of scruuple show precious little of it themselves, can be so pervasive. They can easily take hold."

Mr Blair, speaking in Oxford, made no reference to the Prince of Wales. His spokesman said later that he had not been talking about individuals but suggested that the public had not been engaged early enough in the GM debate.

He added: "We need our young people today to embrace science enthusiastically, to realise that challenges like climate change can only be beaten by motivated and dedicated scientists, and to understand that a career in science today is not a life all spent in a laboratory but has the best business and job prospects the modern world can offer. Science today abounds both with noble causes and with glittering prizes: reach out for them."

One of the most important steps was to make science popular again so that its leading figures were as famous as footballers and film stars. "In the 19th century, working civil engineers like Isambard Kingdom Brunel were national figures, not for writing about science but for what they achieved.

"We need our scientists today to be as celebrated and famous as our sportsmen and women, our actors, our business entrepreneurs. Scientists are stars too. This is Britain's path to the future, lit by the brilliant light of science."

George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, accused the Government of stifling innovation with central control and failing on science teaching. Speaking as he visited high-technology businesses in Cambridge, Mr Osborne said: "Tony Blair talks about encouraging more schoolchildren to study science. But after nine years of the Labour Government, we have seen science driven out of our schools and universities."

POPULAR SCIENCE

RAYMOND BAXTER Attracted audiences of up to 10 million as the original presenter of the BBC'S Tommorow's World from 1965 to 1977, where he introduced the pocket calcluator and microwave.

MAGNUS PYKE Famous for eccentric chatter and windmilling arms, presented the science programme Don't Ask Me from 1974 to 1978 and won an award as television's most promising newcomer ó aged 67.

HEINZ WOLFF Born in Berlin, he arrived in Britain on the day war broke out in 1939 and became best known for his television and radio work, including the 1970s television series The Great Egg Race.

DAVID BELLAMY Botanist and broadcaster with more than 400 television shows to his name. In 2004 he courted controversy for his dismissal of man-made global warming as "poppycock".

SIR PATRICK MOORE Has presented The Sky At Night since April 1957. His lifelong passion for astronomy began during a childhood illness when he chanced upon his mother's copy of The Story of the Solar System.

Farm and Food: Monsanto acquisition could lock up cotton market

JournalStar, 4 November 2006. By Alan Guebert.

In a move somewhere between brilliantly audacious and unbelievably outrageous, Monsanto's Aug. 15 offer to buy Delta & Pine Land Co. will create a titan with a hammer lock on every corner of the cottonseed market - seed genetics, seed distribution and seed price.

The $1.5 billion deal marries Delta, with an estimated 50 percent of the U.S. cottonseed market, to Monsanto, whose biotech traits are found over 80 percent of all American cotton acres.

But the deal is even bigger than those numbers suggest.

In 2004 and 2006, Delta signed licensing agreements with Syngenta, Dow and DuPont, Monsanto's smaller cottonseed biotech competitors. The moves came after years of court-docket troubles between Delta and Monsanto after the St. Louis giant walked away from a May 1998 deal to buy Delta.

With the lawsuits hanging fire (all remain pending, despite the current buyout offer), Monsanto's rivals were only too happy to poke Momma Monsanto in the eye by supplying Delta, the leading U.S. cottonseed breeder, producer and marketer, with weed and insect biotechnology.

The new buyout, however, would end all the costly litigation between the two and give Monsanto sole control to use - or, perhaps more importantly, not use - Syngenta's and DuPont's cottonseed biotech, notes a Lehman Brothers' analysis of the deal.

In short, if the deal passes muster with the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice's antitrust division - a hurdle Monsanto could not clear under the Clinton Administration in its 1998 engagement to Delta - Monsanto will dominate the American cottonseed market lock, stock and biotech.

Both Delta and Monsanto know DOJ and FTC approval will be a long row to hoe.

To shorten the distance, according to Delta's proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Monsanto will sell its cottonseed company, Stoneville, a 10 percent market player bought in 2005. Monsanto will also continue to sell its current biotechnology to competing cottonseed companies.

As reasonable as both concessions appear, both are mere crumbs on the big table Monsanto seeks to set, according to the Lehman analysis.

First, what seed company would buy Monsanto's 10 percent marketshare knowing Big Momma - with Delta's dominant 50 percent share in its back pocket - could make or break it by either undercutting seed prices, limiting the buyer's access to new generation Monsanto biotech, or both?

Second, Monsanto's offer to continue to sell its current biotechnology to competitors is a trade that heavily favors Monsanto. Stripped to its essence, the offer will cost competitors billions in licensing fees to Monsanto even as it gives Monsanto with an antitrust defense. That's as brilliant as it is audacious.

Moreover, the antitrust concession fails to mention Monsanto's willingness to sell competitors new seed technology - like second generation weed and insect traits or "stacked," multiple traits - that either Monsanto or Delta already has in the pipeline or in development.

Indeed, that's the bigger picture here: the new biotech ballgame Monsanto could create in the coming years with Delta.

Short of government edict, the combined company would have to be cataclysmically stupid to license new tech traits to competitors when it could use its dominating market and technology position to simply beat competitors and farmers into submission whenever and at whatever price it demanded.

And while Monsanto may be many things to many farmers - a bare-knuckle, courthouse enforcer of tech agreements is one - it isn't stupid.

After all, it rose from zero to become the dominant force in the global seed business in just 15 years; a period, incidentally, that has seen seed prices soar by over 80 percent.

But the August grab of Delta is a one step too far to many.

"Monsanto already has us ... let's just say in an 'awkward position,'" wrote Steve Brown, a University of Georgia extension cotton specialist, when explaining the Delta buyout in the school's Sept. 18 Cotton Newsletter.

"Unless issues of traits are adequately addressed in the proposed merger, things could get worse. The real answer... is legitimate competition," he concluded.

Alan Guebert is a freelance agricultural journalist. He can be reached at agcomm@sbcglobal.net or at 21673 Lago Dr., Delavan, IL 61734.

3 November 2006

GM insect resistance debate continues

Radio New Zealand, 3 November 2006

Debate continues over whether genetically modified crops will increase resistance within the insect population they are designed to fight.

Crop and Food Research has applied to do field trials on genetically modified brassicas - kale, cabbage, cauliflower and broccoli - that produce a natural insect pesticide called bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt.

Bt kills brassicas' main enemies - the cabbage butterfly, the diamondback moth and the soybean looper.

Former Crop and Food genetic engineering scientist Elvira Dommisse says claims by the research institute that there is no risk of such trials increasing resistance among the insect populations they are targeting are appalling.

Refuges needed

Dr Dommisse says because of problems with insect resistance, Bt crops grown overseas now have to include what are known as refuges - non-Bt plants that will aid the dilution of the resistance gene. This has not been successful everywhere.

Tony Connor, a senior Crop and Food scientist who worked on a successful Bt potato trial several years ago, denies that these sorts of crops carry any risk of insect resistance.

Dr Connor says the field trials done on Bt potatoes show it would be possible to commercialise the technology and the next step would be to test them on a larger scale.

But he says the potato industry won't support any further work at the moment because of the public's negative perception of genetic modification.

Prime Minister unscientific about science:
GeneWatch UK response to PM's speech on science and the economy

GeneWatch UK press release, 3 November 2006.

Responding to the Prime Minister's speech on science and the economy, Dr Sue Mayer, GeneWatch UK's Director said:

"The Prime Minister is extraordinarily ignorant about the scientific method. This makes him blind to the dangers of corporate control of science and deaf to the genuine concerns that people have about the impacts of new technologies on society. There are real questions about whether science to meet the interests of big business will meet the need to improve people's health and protect the future of the environment."

"Over-commercialisation of science leads to bias, secrecy and distorted research priorities: pills for obesity instead of a better diet. Treatments for baldness get greater priority than prevention of malaria."

"Ordinary people ask more intelligent questions about science than the Prime Minister. He seems to have been seduced by the excessive hype of industry and some scientists. Science is exciting and interesting, but its connection with the economy and the future of the planet is complex."

Got milk without hormones? It's headed toward St. Louis shelves

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 3 November 2006. By Rachel Melcer.

A new category of milk soon will join the old favorites on local store shelves, much to the chagrin of Monsanto Co.

Dairies and producers in the St. Louis region are preparing to meet retailers' demand for milk made without the use of Posilac, a synthetic bovine growth hormone sold by Creve Coeur-based Monsanto to boost a cow's production.

They predict that milk labeled or marketed as free of the hormone - and sold at a premium price - will reach local stores by next summer. It is the extension of a trend begun in California and the Northeast, and part of an overall drive by consumers toward food perceived to be natural or more healthy.

Retailers are eager to expand their organic milk offerings, which fetch a high price, said Scott Brown, a dairy expert with the University of Missouri's Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. But there is a lag in supply because it takes dairies three to five years to implement changes and achieve organic certification by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Advertisement

So, some retailers are turning to Posilac-free milk as "organic light," creating a category that is priced above traditional milk and gives consumers the sense their demand for a more-natural supply is being met, said Monica Coleman, spokeswoman for Dairy Farmers of America Inc. of Kansas City, one of the nation's largest milk cooperatives.

The movement comes despite the opinion of agriculture experts, including those at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that milk is the same, regardless of whether the cows that produced it received Posilac. There is no test that can detect a difference.

Dennis Wolff, Pennsylvania's secretary of agriculture, wrote in a Pennsylvania Farm News column on Wednesday that the distinction being drawn is a marketing ploy, which comes at the expense of producers who are being asked to give up a tool that can boost their bottom lines.

"These marketing techniques are guiding consumers to purchase this milk, and allowing processors and retailers to charge more per gallon than for unlabeled milk," he wrote. "However, in this situation, consumers are not basing their decisions on sound science, but rather on manipulative marketing."

Nevertheless, the technique is working - and spreading at a rapid pace.

"We believe the trend will continue from both sides of the country and converge on the Midwest sometime in the next year. And so we have begun advising our producers that this is looming ð and they need to start thinking about it," said Gary Lee, vice president of procurement for Prairie Farms Dairy Inc. of Carlinville, Ill.

The Prairie Farms cooperative of dairy producers has about 800 members, roughly half in Illinois and the remainder in Missouri, Iowa, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. A decision to switch to a Posilac-free milk supply will be all or nothing, because it is costly and complicated to segregate two streams, Lee said. And the dairy is under considerable pressure from retailers - including two major, household-name accounts he would not identify - to make the change.

Monsanto's stake

Monsanto is the sole producer of recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST, which it began selling under the Posilac name in 1994. The company does not disclose revenue from the product, but it is part of the $7.3 billion biotech crop giant's animal agriculture unit, which reported $1.1 billion in fiscal 2006 sales. Posilac sales were constrained from 2003 until this year by a quality-control problem at a European supplier - a problem that prompted Monsanto to invest in its own plant in Augusta, Ga., that opened in March.

Some financial analysts estimate Posilac is worth about $250 million a year to Monsanto.

The move toward Posilac-free milk is a concern for Monsanto, said Kevin Holloway, president of the company's dairy business.

"We are focused on this. We can't afford not to be," he said. "Anything that inhibits the opportunity to (increase sales) at the targets I would feel comfortable with is on my radar screen."

Yet in fighting the trend, the company is not aiming at consumers.

Monsanto spokesman Andrew Burchett cites a survey funded in part by the International Dairy Foods Association, a trade group, that says only 30 percent of consumers are aware of any issue regarding hormones and milk; and 70 percent of those who are aware say they are not concerned.

"It is clear that certain processors and retailers are driving this to gain market share and pricing power for their brands. Many farm and consumer families will pay for this and there will be no difference in the milk," he said.

So, Monsanto is appealing to producers, dairies and key retailers, Holloway said. The company recently sent to producers a 12-page brochure and unveiled a website, www.make10.net, both aimed at showing them how giving up the use of Posilac can cut production and profits.

"This challenge around an FDA-approved technology has caused us to be more focused and create better educational tools, to engage those in the industry for more support," Holloway said.

Dairy farm dilemma

But some producers say they are interested in anything that can bring more money to their mailbox.

The price producers receive for fluid milk, which is set by the federal government, is hovering around $12 for 100 pounds - so low that many dairy farms are shutting down and others are bare‚ly making a living, said Dave Drennan, executive director of the Missouri Dairy Association. Missouri, for example, had 1,837 permitted dairy farms in December, down from 3,499 at the end of 1994, according to the Missouri State Milk Board.

If a dairy is willing to pay a premium to farmers who pledge not to use Posilac, many are willing to take it - especially because only about one-third of them are using the synthetic hormone.

Using Posilac can boost milk production by 10 to 15 percent "and that means a lot when milk prices are high. But right now, milk is very cheap. There's not much profit in it," said James Wesselschmidt, who owns a 180-head dairy in New Haven. He is on the board of several dairy groups, including the Midwest Dairy Association, St. Louis District Dairy Council and Dairy Farms of America.

"Producers can make more by getting a premium from bottlers for (non-Posilac) milk than from boosting overall production using it," he said.

Kristen Burkemper, who runs an 80-head dairy farm with her husband, Roger, in Old Monroe, does not use Posilac. But she says every farmer ought to have the option, rather than having it taken away by market forces.

"You work so hard to farm ð whatever works for your bottom line, do it. Whatever technology you can utilize, I say it's terrific," she said.

The use of Posilac "is an individual decision for each dairy farmer and for each consumer - but you've got to pay attention to what's driving the consumer right now because the price is just too low not to, whether it's right or not," she said. "I want to take Monsanto's side, but then if I'm offered more money not to do it, then I'm going to take it."

Going organic

A growing number of dairy producers are going a step further, beginning the process of becoming certified as an organic farm. They want a piece of that most lucrative dairy category, for which a small but influential and affluent group of consumers is willing to pay three or even four times as much per gallon as "regular" milk.

Some of that premium flows to producers. In the case of Posilac-free milk, which typically retails at less than a dollar more than traditional varieties, producers also are seeking financial incentives from dairies for supplying it.

Dairies so far have shown a willingness to pay more for Posilac-free milk. But there is no guarantee that trend will persist, Brown said. He predicts that as more organic milk supply comes on line, prices in both categories will drop. That could leave producers of Posilac-free milk in double trouble: lower prices and lower production.

"And there is some reason to be concerned about starting a long-term trend of people thinking, 'Gosh, that milk I've been drinking all along is bad for me.' Does that get them to not drinking milk at all? ð The jury's out," Brown said.

As for Monsanto, Holloway said he expects Posilac sales to grow. New customers have come on board since the company's Georgia production plant opened and sales targets are being met. He would not quantify them, but said, "our goals are very aggressive ð that's the expectation of the company."

Brown noted that more than 60 percent of milk produced in the United States is used in the production of cheese, yogurt and other manufactured products. And consumers and retailers seem less concerned with Posilac use beyond fluid milk, he said.

"Having an organic or (Posilac-free) label won't be important if it goes in the mozzarella cheese that goes into a Pizza Hut pizza," Brown said. "I don't think that, overnight, Monsanto's going to find that the market for Posilac is gone. But it's something they need to keep a watchful eye on, to see if it's a long-term trend."

What milk labels mean

"Organic": Cows receive organic (not genetically modified or pesticide-treated) feed, have access to pasture and do not receive antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic dairies are certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture following a typical transition period of three to five years.

"Produced without the use of growth hormones": Producers pledge not to use recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST, a synthetic [read genetically engineered] version of a hormone that naturally occurs in lactating cows. Monsanto Co. is the sole maker of rBST, which it sells as Posilac.

Unlabeled, or "regular" milk: Animals may or may not receive Posilac, based on decisions made by individual producers. There is no test that can detect a difference in milk coming from Posilac-treated or untreated cows.

Health warning by the Department of Public Health over GMO rice

The Malta Independent, 3 November 2006.

The Public Health Department yesterday warned the public against consuming Blue Ribbon Golden Parboiled Long Grain Enriched Rice and Uncle Ben's Enriched Parboiled Long Grain Rice, due to the presence of Genetically Modified Organisms which is unauthorised in the EU.

For more information, contact the Department of Public Health on 2133-2225 or 2132-4093 between 8am and 1pm.

Meanwhile, Masterfoods said it was was totally committed to manufacturing and selling products which satisfy consumer needs and meet the highest standards of quality and safety.

It said that following the recent issue on US rice contaminated with GMO LL 601, our tests have shown a low rate of GMO presence in Uncle Ben's bags with batch no 625LKGRV045 best before date 06/2008.

Although there is no food safety issue and in light of the EU regulations, we would advise you to return this specific batch no. 625LKGRV045 to Francis Busuttil and Sons (Marketing) Ltd, St.Venera Square, St Venera and get a replacement bag. This incident only affects the bags bearing the above-mentioned references and no other Masterfoods products are affected.

German companies give to Republicans

Financial Times, 3 November 2006. By Olaf Gersemann and Thomas Klau.

Twelve US subsidiaries of German companies have donated $2.5m in mid-term poll campaign pledges, with $1.7m, or around 68 per cent, heading to Republican candidates and party organisations.

The report, compiled for FT Deutschland by the independent Washington- based Center for Responsive Politics, showed that DaimlerChrysler, the carmaker, Boehringer, the chemicals groups, BASF, and SAP, the software maker, earmarked over 70 per cent of their donation to the Republicans.

Most companies handle the majority of their donations through in-house "political action committees", which collect donations from employees, but leave it up to managers and lobbyists to decide where the money goes.

The only company included in the survey that did not have such a committee, Deutsche Bank North America, was also the only one that donated more money to the Democrats - 71 per cent - than to the Republicans.

2 November 2006

New controls needed to maintain independence of science: research shows scientists fail to disclose financial interests in the journal, Nature

GeneWatch UK Press release, 2nd November 2006.

Research conducted by GeneWatch UK, and published this week in the Journal of Medical Ethics (1), shows that scientists are failing to disclose their financial interests in the form of patents. The study of research papers on molecular biology and genetics, published in the leading science journal, Nature, between January and June 2005, showed that the authors of seven papers did not reveal that they had made patent applications and the authors of an eighth paper did not reveal connections to the biotech industry.

"GeneWatch's study has shown that scientists are failing to be open with the public about their financial interests. Publishing a scientific paper will be come to be seen as concealed commercial advertising if journals don't take steps to bring scientists into line", said Dr Sue Mayer, GeneWatch's Director and author of the research. "If they are to be held in respect, scientists are going to have to start operating to the standards of others in public life".

Good practice for scientific publications requires authors to reveal any competing interests so that readers can consider whether there may be any bias in the research or the way in which it is presented. Nature, like many other journals, requires authors to declare patent applications and any other financial or other competing interests, but this study shows that scientists are not following the rules.

Before conducting this research, GeneWatch had informed Nature in 2004 that an author had not revealed his patent application. This resulted in a correction being published but no other action being taken(2).

As a result of the findings of the research, GeneWatch UK is calling for:

• scientific journals to impose sanctions on scientists who are discovered to have concealed financial interests - such as refusing to publish research from the authors for a certain period of time;

• universities and institutes to establish a public register of scientists' interests, as in other areas of public life;

• scientific journals to make much more effort to ensure competing interests are declared and to include these with the paper rather than only as a separate web site entry as is the practice at Nature.

"If a scientist fails to reveal a financial interest when they get their research published, they should be blacklisted by the journal in future," said Dr Mayer. "To maintain confidence in science, universities and research institutes must publish a register of scientists interests".

For more information contact Sue Mayer on 01298 871898 (office) or 07930 308807 (mobile).

Notes to editors

1. Mayer S (2006) The declaration of patent applications as financial interests - a survey of practice among authors of molecular biology papers in the journal, Nature. Journal of Medical Ethics 32: 658-661.

Abstract of the paper:

Objectives: To determine whether authors of scientific publications in molecular biology declare patents and other potential financial interests.

Design: Survey of a 6-month sample of papers related to molecular biology Nature.

Methods: The esp@cenet worldwide patent search engine was used to search for patents applied for by the authors of scientific papers in Nature that were related to molecular biology and genetics, between January and June 2005.

Results: Of the 79 papers considered, four had declared that certain authors had competing financial interests. Seven papers in which no financial interests were declared had authors with patent applications that were based on the research in the paper or were closely related to it. Another paper had two authors with connections to biotechnology companies that were not disclosed.

Conclusion: Two thirds of the papers in which authors had patent applications or company affiliations that might be considered to be competing financial interests did not disclose them. Failure to disclose such information may have negative implications on the perception of science in society and on its quality if the possible bias is hidden. Journals should make greater efforts to ensure full disclosure, and scientific institutions should consider failure to disclose financial interests as an example of scientific malpractice. Establishing a register of interests for scientists is one way to increase transparency and openness.

2. GM animals high in omega-3 fatty acids: scientist ready to cash in via patent. GeneWatch UK response to paper published in Nature today. Press release, February 5, 2004. Available at http://www.genewatch.org/article.shtml?als[cid]=492860&als[itemid]=508012

FAO, organic and food security - IFOAM
FAO to Hold International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security in 2007

IFOAM, 2 November 2006

Rome, Italy, November 2nd 2006 - From October 30th - November 4th, the Committee on World Food Security of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) is meeting in Rome to discuss a host of issues, including the presentation of the Mid-Term Review of Achieving the World Food Summit Target, which concludes that practically no progress has been made since its establishment in 1992. Taking a solutions-oriented approach, a side event organized by IFOAM in the FAO Headquarters drew attention to the potential of Organic Agriculture for achieving global food security.

Mr. John Bosco Mugisha opened the side event by presenting the successful work of the Export Promotion of Organic Products from Africa (EPOPA) project, which began in 1994 as a program of the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).

EPOPA aims to provide African smallholder farmers a better livelihood through the development of local and international organic markets. The increase in agricultural production benefits rural communities, and thus the farmers. Through the projects - that reaches more than 30,000 smallholder farmers - the agricultural sector, particularly in Tanzania and Uganda, is constantly exposed to innovative and environmentally sound organic farming techniques, leading to abundant local spin off developments.

Thomas Rath from the International Fund for Agricultural Development IFAD) presented the evaluations IFAD has undertaken on the impact of organic agriculture on poverty alleviation. The evaluations show that Organic Agriculture is a promising alternative for small farmers, and that in almost all of the countries where the evaluations were carried out, small farmers needed only marginal improvements to their technologies to make the shift to organic production.

Ms. Patrizia Sentinelli, Italian vice-minister of foreign affairs explained her view on Organic Agriculture and local development in the international cooperation.

Mr. Alexander Müller, Assistant Director-General of FAO said that many countries request FAO's assistance to develop Organic Agriculture. He says that "there is a need to shed light on the contribution of Organic Agriculture to food security, so that FAO can provide objective and informed advice to its member countries. Thus, FAO plans to hold in 2007 an international conference on Organic Agriculture and food security." The conference aims to identify Organic Agricultures potential and limits to the food security challenge, including conditions required for its success. The report of the conference will be submitted to the 2007 Session of the Committee on World Food Security.

Mette Meldgaard, IFOAMs Vice President notes "The major constraints to achieving universal food security are found in social, economic and political conditions, more than in problems regarding agricultural productive capacity. One of the most important factors for poverty alleviation is Rural Development. Organic Agriculture, based on the Principles of Health, Ecology, Fairness and Care, is the more advanced tool for Rural Development," and concerning the announcement of [the Assistant Director-General of FAO] said "We are glad that the planned FAO conference provides for an opportunity to show Organic Agricultures potential."

Contact at the FAO:
Louise Luttikholt
Strategic Relations Manager
Cell: +49-177-6472-579

IFOAM is the international umbrella organization of organic agriculture movements worldwide.

IFOAMs mission is leading, uniting and assisting the organic movement in its full diversity.

Our goal is the worldwide adoption of ecologically, socially and economically sound systems that are based on the Principles of Organic Agriculture.

IFOAM Press Release, Responsible: Angela B. Caudle, Contact: Neil Sorensen

Kuweit, Mideast nations urged to block imports of GM rice from US
Country lacks law to restrict genetically modified foods: Khaled Al-Fahad

Arab Times, Kuwait, 2 November 2006

KUWAIT (KUNA): Kuwait has no laws or regulations against importing Gene-tically Modified (GM) foods, Controller of Standards Control at the Ministry of Commerce and Industry Department of Standards, Khaled Al-Fahad, told KUNA. The issue remains unclear on the international level, therefore, countries have been reluctant to join one of the two camps, he added. Al-Fahad continued this issue remains a hot topic internationally; once there is some global consensus on GM foods, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries will follow agreements.

To date, this issue is surrounded by speculation and science has yet to provide definitive answers, said Al-Fahad. This issue has divided the international community into two camps. The first camp, headed by the US, finds GM foods to be acceptable and does not have any legislation to criminalize it. The US has argued that GM foods have no compromised nutritional value therefore legislation against it is uncalled for. Green Peace had announced previously that a type of GM American rice, unfit for human consumption, was found in a number of Mideast countries including Kuwait.

The organization called on local governments to stop importing the rice that could affect public health. They have added that no solid scientific evidence has surfaced to prove that these foods are unfit for human consumption. The second camp is headed by the Europeans who have criminalized genetically modifying foods and claim the serious effects of GM foods on humans have yet to be uncovered. They add modifying foods can also impact the environment.

This camp based its arguments on some limited scientific findings. The rest of the world has remained indecisive on this issue. The International Association for Food Protection has been disputing consumerÇs right to know the origin of the food being consumed and how detailed labels should be. Unlabeled GM foods can only be recognized by costly laboratory tests, said Hashimiya Al-Enezi, Secretary of the Standing Food Committee.

Al-Enezi continued labels being advocated by the European camp are extremely important because such lab tests are not done periodically but done to verify information on the label. Figures have shown that around 37 million hectares of agricultural land is being used to harvest GM foods, which means about 2.6 percent of total agricultural land in the world is being used to harvest food that has not been licensed for consumption. GM foods are the primary ingredient in many processed food products. Most are unlabeled as GM foods, hence its import remains unregulated.

The Brave New World of genetics

Irish Medical Times, 3 November 2006.

At the recent Medico-Legal Society of Ireland's Golden Jubilee Conference in Dublin, one of the main topics of discussion was bioethics.

Delegates discussed how issues like embryonic stem cell research, eugenics and DNA manipulation would affect the present and future generations of both professions.

History of bioethics

The President of the Irish Bioethics Council, Dr Siobhain O'Sullivan, gave a brief and interesting history of bioethics, explaining that creating human-animal hybrids and choosing our children's characteristics are not only possible but are happening now.

An examination of the history that led to these new developments shows how quickly genetics has progressed.

Timeline

1859

Charles Darwin publishes the Origin of the Species.

1866

Gregor Mendel heralded the beginning of modern genetics with his research into the inherited characteristics of pea plants.

1925

Alleged secret documents were found in Russia in 2005 revealing that Stalin had tried to make a "subservient underclass" to use as slaves. In the mid-1920s he apparently instructed 'breeding scientist' Ilya Ivanov to create half-man, half-ape warriors.

Ivanov was sent to Africa in 1926 to begin the experiment, which included inseminating human volunteers with monkey sperm, and vice versa.

According to Moscow newspapers, Stalin told Ivanov he wanted a "new invincible human being, insensitive to pain and indifferent about the quality of food they eat".

1934

Geneticists in the Soviet Union were executed after a campaign was launched by the Russian agronomist Trofim Lysenko, supported by Josef Stalin. Genetics was termed "the whore of capitalism" and banned for being a "fascist science".

1950s

Scientists began freezing sperm.

1956

The term Artifical Intelligence was coined by American computer scientist John McCarthy at the first ever conference organised on the subject.

1967

The first human heart transplant was done in South Africa by Dr Christian Bernard. The recipient died 18 days after the operation.

1978

Human insulin was produced using genetics, becoming the first human hormone made using recombinant DNA methods.

In the same year, the first test tube baby was born through in-vitro fertilisation. Since then, over a million babies have been born worldwide through IVF.

Now, doctors, scientists and ethicists are concerned with how IVF should be regulated in Ireland. Questions such as who it should be available to, how it should be paid for and what should be done with any leftover embryos remain unanswered.

1980

The first sperm banks are opened in the US.

Eugenics, or improving human traits through genetic intervention, began to be widely discussed and debated as knowledge about genetics grew. American eugenicist Robert Klark Graham founded his 'genius sperm bank' in 1980. He wanted to collect sperm donations from Nobel prize winners in an effort to create 'genius babies'.

However, this turned out to be a problem as few Nobel prize winners agreed to donate sperm. He widened his selection criteria to choose men with an IQ of 180 or more. Female recipients had to be married and from wealthy families. A total of 218 children have been born from the bank. The best known donor was Nobel Prize winner William Shockley.

1981

Three independent research teams announced the discovery of human cancer genes.

1982

The first transgenic animal was made in the US. Richard Palmiter from the University of Washington and Ralph Brinster from the University of Pennsylvania transferred a foreign gene into fertilised mouse eggs, transferred the eggs to surrogate mother mice, and then documented that the gene functioned in several of the offspring.

'Pharming' is the term now used to describe altering an animal's DNA with that of another species in order to make human proteins that have medicinal, or other beneficial, value.

A recent effort in Canada resulted in 'Spidergoat', after scientists put spider genes for dragline silk ó one of the strongest materials in existence ó into a goat. The goat then produced silk proteins in its milk, which can now be used to make bullet-proof vests, thinner thread for surgery and indestructible clothes.

1984

The discovery that DNA could be used for identification purposes was made by Alec Jeffreys and was soon used by the police.

In the same year, an international team of scientists began the project to map the human genome. Today, the issue of national DNA databases continues to be debated around questions of privacy and access entitlements.

The Attorney General, Rory Brady SC, has rejected proposals for an Irish DNA database for reasons of privacy.

1985

The first genetically-modified plants were created by lab-based recombinant DNA techniques.

1988/9

DNA began to be used as identification in paternity, immigration and murder cases. The first criminal conviction based on DNA evidence alone took place in Portland, Oregon.

1990

The Human Genome Project began, headed by the US Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The main project aim was to locate and map all the approximately 20,000 to 25,000 genes in human DNA.

1997

The first mammal, named Dolly, was cloned in the Roslin Institute in Scotland. She was cloned from a cell taken from a six-year-old ewe. Research was later published in the journal Nature suggesting that Dolly may have been susceptible to premature aging, because of cells passed on from her six-year-old sibling. This would mean Dolly was genetically six-years-old at birth.

1998

The first stem cells were isolated from an embryo. Two teams of scientists from the University of Wisconsin and the Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore isolated and cultured the cells at a time when federal funding for human embryo research was banned in the US. To get ethical approval to work on the cells, the scientists had to sign an agreement stating they would not use them to clone an individual or to make a "human-animal chimera".

2000

Draft findings from the Human Genome Project were announced, after 10 years of work that began in the US and eventually had scientists from all over the world on the team.

2003

Scientists at the University of Shanghai successfully fused human cells with rabbit eggs, reportedly the first human-animal chimeras (a mixture of two or more species in one body) created.

The rabbit-human embryos developed for a number of days and were then destroyed so their stem cells could be harvested.

2005

Scientists at the Mayo Clinic created pigs with human blood in their veins.

2006

Irving Weissman, director of Stanford University's Institute of Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine, helped create the first mouse with an almost completely human immune system. The mouse is used to test drugs to fight AIDS.

Prof Weissman has also begun injecting human neural stem cells into mouse foetuses, creating mice whose brains are about 1 per cent human.

Prof Weissman has now proposed creating mice whose brains are 100 per cent human.

Ah-tchoo! Do Genetically Modified Foods Cause Allergies?

E Magazine, 2 November 2006. By Starre Vartan

Allergies are big news and big business in the new millennium. A hundred years ago, people would likely have been shocked that modern humans are plagued with illnesses that range from annoying to deadly due to allergic reactions. In recent years, allergy sufferers have spent billions to avoid itchy noses and bleary-eyed suffering, and anxious parents have demanded that schools and airplanes ban nuts. With all the angst over peanut dust and pollen, the potential allergy-causing properties of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been quietly overlooked.

Genetically modified food has genes from other plants or animals inserted into its genetic structure. Scientists and environmental and health advocates have long been concerned that this practice could stimulate allergies in humans. The argument goes like this: If you are allergic to fish, and you eat a GMO tomato that includes genes from a fish, might you have an allergic reaction if you eat the tomato? A 2002 Journal of Anatomy article denies it: "No direct evidence that [GMO] food may represent a possible danger for health has been reported so far; however, the scientific literature in this field is quite poor." Only a few GMO crops (soy, corn and canola) have been widely planted and truly infiltrated the American food supply, and there have not been any widespread documented allergies to those foods.

Full story: https://www.kable.com/pub/enmg/spcOption.asp

BASF net profit declines in third quarter

RTE, 2 November 2006.

BASF, the world's biggest chemicals maker, said today that its bottom-line profits declined in the third quarter as a result of one-off items and restructuring costs, while underlying earnings improved.

Net profit declined by 24.1% to € 613m in the three months from July to September, it said in a statement.

Earnings were impacted by € 177m in special items, including the cost of moth-balling a chemicals plant in China, inventory costs associated with the acquisition of Degussa's construction chemicals business and restructuring measures in the fine chemicals division, it said.

Underlying profits climbed by 21.7% to € 1.615 billion on a 28.4% rise in sales to € 13.299 billion.

'Demand for our high-value products and system solutions continued unabated. In our chemicals businesses, we again recorded higher sales volumes. Despite high and very volatile raw material prices, we were largely successful in passing on necessary price increases to the market,' BASF said.

Looking ahead, the group said it expected demanded for its products to remain strong. 'For the full year, we are continuing to expect sales to increase to more than € 50 billion and higher operating profit compared with last year's strong level,' said BASF chairman Juergen Hambrecht.

1 November 2006

Kildare declared "GM Free" zone

KFM Radio (Ireland), 1 November 2006.

Kildare County Council is to make every effort to maintain the land here as "genetically modified free".

It's in response to concerns raised about the potentital effects of such farming on the surrounding land.

County Councillors were worried that such a proposal would impact upon activities at the State Laboratory in Backweston.

However, it's been agreed that any anti-GM steps to promote and maintain Kildare as a GM free zone won't interfere with the state body.

Cllr Mary Glennon proposed the motion on behalf of the Naas Area Committee

She says it's important to protect Kildare many fruit and vegetable producers.

See related press release: www.gmfreeireland.org/GMFI31.pdf

Exporters flash GM rice alert

The Telegraph, 1 November 2006

New Delhi, Nov. 1: Rice exporters have called for a freeze on field trials of genetically modified (GM) rice in India, warning that any leakage into harvested rice could wreak economic havoc.

The exporters said GM rice field trials should be deferred until seed companies and regulatory agencies can guarantee that the rice will not contaminate harvested crop and until national health authorities can certify that GM rice is safe for long-term consumption by humans.

Citing the discovery earlier this year of trace levels of experimental GM rice in US commercial consignments and the subsequent backlash on US exports from the European Union and other countries, the exporters said India needed to draw lessons from the plight of US rice exporters.

The contamination prompted the European Union to order tests on all US rice destined for Europe. Russia, Switzerland, Japan and West Asia have also imposed restrictions that have hampered US rice exports.

"We're shocked that a trace level of just 0.06 per cent of GM rice in a US commercial consignment has brought business to a virtual halt for US exporters," said R. Srinivasan Seshadri, director of Tilda Riceland, a company exporting Indian rice.

"We have no ideological stand on GM crops. We're neither against GM nor for GM. But the economic reality is that a contamination of six grains in ten thousand can devastate exports," Seshadri said.

India exported Rs 7,000 crore worth of rice last year, including Rs 3,030 crore of basmati rice.

"Indian rice is GM-free today, but any doubt on Indian crops in future could have a disastrous effect on exports and on millions of farmers," said Anil Adlakha, executive director of All India Rice Exporters Association.

Field trials of GM rice are under way this year in 10 farms in seven states, including a farm in Kajla in Bengal's North 24-Parganas. The GM rice on trial has been engineered to protect it from pests.

A senior department of biotechnology official told The Telegraph that there was no risk of contamination if the field trials were conducted with proper containment and isolation as required under rules. "There is no reason at all for concern when proper procedures are followed," the official said, requesting anonymity.

But environment groups campaigning against GM crops in India had earlier this year claimed to have exposed flaws in the way field trials of GM crops are conducted. One farmer had admitted that he sold GM cotton on trial that he was expected to burn, while another farmer in south India had cooked and eaten GM okra on field trial in his farm, according to the activists.

USA Rice forms Seed Committee to address GMO trait issue

Delta Farm Press, 1 November 2006. By Forrest Laws.

The USA Rice Federation has formed a Seed Committee to develop a plan to try to eliminate LibertyLink traits from the commercial rice seed supply beginning with the 2007 crop.

Members of the committee are scheduled to meet in Dallas later this week to begin working on the plan. Participants include representatives from USDA, state plant boards, rice research stations, rice seed dealers, rice producers, rice millers and rice merchants.

Federation leaders said they were taking the action following the discovery of a trace amount of LibertyLink 601, rice that has been genetically altered to be resistant to glufosinate (LibertyLink) herbicide, on Aug. 18.

Since the finding in August, European Union member countries have closed their markets to U.S. rice and other countries have raised questions about the potential for the presence of the material in shipments of U.S. rice.

"A major focus of USA Rice will be leadership of an industry-wide effort to rid the commercial U.S. rice supply of Liberty Link genetically engineered traits (LLRICE06 and LLRICE62 and LLRICE601)," the Federation said. "We are taking this action because of the lack of regulatory approval and consumer acceptance of Liberty Link in overseas markets."

The Federation said the focus on the 2007 crop will bolster ongoing work to keep foreign markets open for U.S. rice or reopening them in the case of the European Union countries.

It also addressed the question of legal action by the Federation in a paper on the organization's Web site.

"Strong legal precedent indicates that USA Rice and its member organizations lack legal 'standing' to file a lawsuit to seek damages suffered by members due to the presence of LLRICE601 in the commercial U.S. rice supply," USA Rice said. "Such lawsuits for damages must be brought in the names of individual USA Rice members or by representation on their behalf in class action lawsuits.

"A class representative must have suffered damages like those suffered by the class members. USA Rice has not suffered damages and thus cannot serve as a class representative in a class action lawsuit."

Tight security for GM-crop tests

The Press (New Zealand), 1 November 2006. By Janine Bennets.

Security will be in place to protect field tests for genetically modified vegetables in Canterbury if they go ahead next year.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma) yesterday received its first application in three years to field-test a GM crop at Lincoln.

In 2002, protesters trashed three years of research on GM potatoes by the Lincoln-based company Crop and Food Research.

The attack followed an incident in 1999 when the Wild Greens group destroyed a GM potato trial at Lincoln.

Crop and Food Research has applied to field-test brassicas - a class of vegetable including broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower and forage kale - at Lincoln for 10 years.

The tests would see the brassicas modified for insect resistance with genes from bacillus thuringensis (Bt), a bacterium normally used as a toxin to repel insects.

Crop and Food Research spokeswoman Katherine Trought said the risk of sabotage was always a concern, but field tests had much higher security since the 2002 attack.

"The Erma regulations have changed (since 2002)," Trought said.

"They're much stricter in terms of test security."

Whenever field tests were done, the area was fenced off and had 24-hour surveillance.

Green Party MP and former Wild Greens spokesman Nandor Tanczos said he was no longer involved with the group, which he did not think was still active.

Anti-GM campaigners say the proposal is unnecessary and unsafe.

Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said the proposed GM crops were unsafe because, if commercialised, cross-pollination would affect all other non-GM brassicas.

"That is an infringement on the rights of other growers to grow GM-free crops," she said.

"There will be the usual issues - that we don't know what other characteristics the plant will have, we don't know what it will do to the food quality, we don't know what it will do to the soil."

Three years ago, Crop and Food Research conducted controversial trials of GM onions.

Fitzsimons said she expected more submissions and a greater public outcry than for the 2003 tests.

Dr Elvira Dommisse, a former Crop and Research GM researcher, said the tests were unnecessary.

"I think you've just got to put things in perspective and ask if there's actually a need for it, and there isn't a need for it," Dommisse said.

Insects always evolved and would become resistant to Bt, defeating the purpose of the modification.

Dommisse said Bt used in overseas GM crops such as cotton left the people working with the plants with respiratory and skin problems.

Dr Mary Christey, the research leader for the brassicas work, said there was no scientific evidence that Bt used overseas had caused health problems or that insects had become resistant. She said the pesticide killed only caterpillars feeding on the GM plants producing Bt and left the plant virtually undamaged.

There were no plans to make a commercial product out of the tests, Christey said.

If the product were made commercially, strategies would be put in place to ensure insects did not become resistant to Bt.

Greenpeace campaign manager Cindy Baxter said Greenpeace was "utterly opposed" to the application. "It poses unnecessary and unquantified risks to New Zealand's economy, environment and public health and it has no benefit."

The application will be publicly notified today and public submissions will close on December 12

Brassica trial crazy

Soil & Health Association of New Zealand press release, 1 November 2006.

Crop & Food's intended GE Brassica field trial is even crazier than their existing GE onion trial, according to Soil & Health, and move in the opposite direction to the Prime Ministers sustainability vision.

Potential key drawbacks are:

• Early resistance by pests
• Fast spread of GE brassicas and interbreeding contamination
• Contamination of GMO free crops
• Loss of markets through contamination
• Loss of markets through NZ's Clean Green image loss
• Human and animal health risks

The use of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in genetically engineered crops has shown an early build of resistance in pest insects, resulting in the loss of a safe and important tool for many farmers.

Organic producers are able to use Bt and careful use has maintained its benefit without pest resistance. Organic and GMO free producers markets demand products free of GMO contamination.

The current use of Bt poses little risk to humans or stock as the toxin only occurs in the pest caterpillar's gut.

GMO Bt poses risks as the toxin is in every cell of the GM crop including that eaten by consumers and also the pollen and roots.

Brassica pollen travels large distances, the seeds are small and brassicas cross easily, with hundreds of variants in existence. GMO brassicas will be one of the riskiest and dirtiest GMO crops possible.

The use of GMO crops flies in the face of Prime Minister Helen ClarkÇs vision of New Zealand being in the vanguard of sustainability, with New Zealand being the first truly sustainable nation, said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

A truly sustainable nation will have no part in GM crops or stock.

Crop & Food's is a State Owned Enterprise whose persistence with experimenting with many vegetable and flower crops that are creeping into field trial applications is contrary to New Zealand's Clean Green image.

Crop & Food are experimenting with a number of brassicas and also tomatoes, cucurbits, onions, asparagus, orchids, cyclamen, snapdragons, pelargoniums, violas and others in their laboratories. A lot more than most are aware of, according to Browning.

"It is time to stop these experiments if there is no serious expectation to grow in New Zealand. New Zealanders have clearly stated that GM crops are not wanted."

NZ Shooting Self in the Foot If GE Trials Allowed

Press Release: GE Free NZ, 1 November 2006

GE Free NZ believes the application submitted by Crop and Food to ERMA for a field trial on GM cauliflower, cabbage and broccoli should be withdrawn, or stopped by the New Zealand government.

Given the international rejection by consumers of GE foods the application must be regarded as foolhardy and economically unsound, especially in light of the Prime Minister's call for New Zealand to be a leader in sustainability to protect our international markets.

The EU and Japan have effectively closed their markets to GM imports in response to the public demand for non-GM food. New Zealand's brand reputation will be threatened by government-funded institutes pushing down the GE path rather than investing in research into production of clean and natural food that consumers actually want.

"Consumers do not trust GM and the main way it is being sold at all is through deliberate deception and keeping customers in the dark. Even most US shoppers agree with people from around the world that they do not want to be eating unlabelled GE food sneaking into their food-chain," says Claire Bleakley of GE Free NZ.

"New Zealand Crown Research Institutes are doing the country a disservice by continuing to pursue GE experiments long after they have reached their expiry date in the real world of consumer markets where the customer is 'right'."

GM crops that have been genetically modified with the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) gene can make them deadly to catterpillars and butterflies. But over the last ten years pests and diseases have been becoming resistant to the inserted insecticide and in some cases target insects are again damaging the GM crop.

"This is short-term thinking that is coming home to roost, and it is poorly conceived science that is to blame" says Jon Carapiet from GE Free NZ.

"The toxin produced by Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is a common organic insecticide. When used as a spray, it is non- toxic and easily washed off. However, when the Bt gene is inserted into the plant, the Bt toxin is expressed in every cell and cannot be washed away. It has proven to have a very different environmental effect over time."

The particular crops under threat are also particularly concerning given the brassica (cabbage) family is highly promiscuous. Wrightsons conducted a detailed study on brassicas and discovered that "crosses occur between all species and sub species within the genus" and "seedlot contamination with all brassica species is common but visually difficult to detect". Wind, insects, animals and farm workers can all spread the seed and pollen, resulting in cross-pollination of other cultivated or weedy brassicas.

" While the rest of the world is moving to assisted classical plant breeding techniques using genetic markers to assist, Crop and Food is wasting scarce R&D money on a GM product that no one wants" says Claire Bleakley.

"However, most concerning is that overseas experience has started to reveal how the GM techniques being used can negatively impact the health of animals and people. There have been deaths recorded in animals eating Bt foods and severe adverse effects observed in people handling and living near Bt crops."

A ten year study in Australia on peas (Pisum sativum) genetically modified to contain a gene from the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. cv. Tendergreen) resulted in detrimental effects on the health of laboratory rats. The mice developed antibodies specific to the protein, hypersensitive skin response, airway inflammation and mild lung damage.

"Are we to understand that the Government has gone mad with its budget surplus that it will allow its CRI to jeopardise the health of New Zealanders and agricultural economy of the farming sector by allowing GM broccoli, cabbage and cauliflowerfield trials? "

GE Free NZ requests that the government call in the Crop and Food the application.

References:

Wrightsons submission to MAF on protocol for seed testing."Brassica Cross pollination", Dr Stewart Gowers, Forage Brassica breeder, Crop and Food Research.

RI Vazquez Padron et al (1999) Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice. Life Sciences, 64, 1897-1912.

A Pusztai (2001) Genetically modified foods: are they a risk to human/animal health? http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html (and in press).

Impact of Bt Cotton on FarmersÇ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh) Investigation Report, Oct - Dec 2005, www.GMWatch_org.

Mortality in Sheep Flocks after grazing on Bt Cotton fields, Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh, Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April, 2006 www.GMWatch_org.

Chowdhury EH, Kuribara H, Hino A, Sultana P, Mikami O, Shimada N, Guruge KS, Saito M, Nakajima Y. Detection of corn intrinsic and recombinant DNA fragments and Cry1Ab protein in the gastrointestinal contents of pigs fed Genetically modified corn Bt11. J. Animal Science 2003, 81, 2546-51

Vanessa E. Prescott, Peter M. Campbell, Andrew Moore, Joerg Mattes, Marc E. Rothenberg, Paul S. Foster, T. J. V. Higgins, and Simon P. Hogan•, Transgenic _Expression of Bean -Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2005, vol 53 (23), p 9023-9030.

CCOF and The Epicurean Connection Present a Non-GMO Education and Dialogue With Percy Schmeiser in Five Locations Around the Bay Area

AScribe Newswire, 1 November 2006.

SANTA CRUZ, California, USA -- California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF), one of the oldest and largest organic certifiers and trade associations in the country, presents a Non-GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) Education and Dialogue with Percy Schmeiser, the Canadian farmer whose canola fields were contaminated with GMO seed, and in turn was sued by Monsanto. CCOF actively supports GMO-free initiatives, as the issue of GMO crops is one of the biggest concerns today for both organic and conventional producers alike. GMO seed is strictly prohibited throughout organic production.

Co-Hosted by Sheana Davis of The Epicurean Connection, the tour will bring to light Percy's story of his ongoing struggle and court appeal with agri-chemical and GMO giant, Monsanto. Special guest speakers include Dr. Ignacio Chapela (UC Berkeley), Michael Pollan (author, "The Omnivore's Dilemma"), Peggy Miars (CCOF Executive Director), Sheana Davis (The Epicurean Connection), and Britt Bailey (Environmental Commons).

Longtime farmers from Saskatchewan, Canada, Percy Schmeiser and his wife Louise were close to reaching retirement when they were surprisingly sued by Monsanto in 1998. Monsanto claimed the Schmeisers were illegally growing their patented GM technology, RoundUp Ready Canola, in their fields. But Schmeiser was yet another victim of unwanted, GMO contamination, and decided to take his fight all the way to the Supreme Court. The Schmeiser's never wanted the GM seed to enter their crop fields in the first place, and they have been sharing their story ever since.

All programs begin at 7 p.m. with doors opening at 6 p.m. Cost is a $10 donation (except for UC Berkeley, which is free), and no one will be turned away for lack of funds.

Tour dates:

- Monday, November 13, Santa Cruz, Live Oak Grange (831-423-2263)

- Tuesday, November 14, UC Berkeley, North Gate Hall (510-847-7141)

- Thursday, November 16, Sonoma, Burlingam Hall (707-935-7960)

- Friday, November 17, Ukiah, Mendocino Community College Little Theater (707-468-3012)

- Saturday, November 18, Pt. Arena/Manchester, Garcia Grange (707-882-3425)

All proceeds and donations from these events will go directly to the Schmeiser's efforts to fight Monsanto and GMO contamination, as well as to educate the public and farmers alike about the severe risks associated with GMO crops.

About CCOF

CCOF, a nonprofit organization formed by a group of grassroots activist farmers, is one of the oldest and largest organic certifiers in North America. CCOF's purpose is to promote and support organic agriculture in California and elsewhere through:

- A premier organic certification program for growers, processors, handlers, and retailers.

- Programs to increase awareness of and demand for certified organic products and to expand public support for organic agriculture.

- Advocacy for governmental policies that protect and encourage organic agriculture.

Contact:

Ellen Farmer, 831-423-2263 x. 31, ellen@ccof.org

Running on Hype
The Real Scoop on Biofuels

CounterPunch, November 1 2006. By Brian Tokar.

You can hardly open up a major newspaper or national magazine these days without encountering the latest hype about biofuels, and how they're going to save oil, reduce pollution and prevent climate change. Bill Gates, Sun Microsystems' Vinod Khosla, and other major venture capitalists are investing millions in new biofuel production, whether in the form of ethanol, mainly derived from corn in the US today, or biodiesel, mainly from soybeans and canola seed. It's literally a "modern day gold rush," as described by the New York Times, paraphrasing the chief executive of Cargill, one of the main benefactors of increased subsidies to agribusiness and tax credits to refiners for the purpose of encouraging biofuel production.

The Times reported earlier this year that some 40 new ethanol plants are currently under construction in the US, aiming toward a 30 percent increase in domestic production. Archer Daniels Midland, the company that first sold the idea of corn-derived ethanol as an auto fuel to Congress in the late 1970s, has doubled its stock price and profits over the last two years. ADM currently controls a quarter of US ethanol fuel production, and recently hired a former Chevron executive as its CEO.

Several well-respected analysts have raised serious concerns about this rapid diversion of food crops toward the production of fuel for automobiles. WorldWatch Institute founder Lester Brown, long concerned about the sustainability of world food supplies, says that fuel producers are already competing with food processors in the world's grain markets. "Cars, not people, will claim most of the increase in grain production this year," reports Brown, a serious concern in a world where the grain required to make enough ethanol to fill an SUV tank is enough to feed a person for a whole year. Others have dismissed the ethanol gold rush as nothing more than the subsidized burning of food to run automobiles.

The biofuel rush is having a significant impact worldwide as well. Brazil, often touted as the the most impressive biofuel success story, is using half its annual sugarcane crop to provide 40 percent of its auto fuel, while increasing deforestation to grow more sugarcane and soybeans. Malaysian and Indonesian rainforests are being bulldozed for oil palm plantations-threatening endangered orangutans, rhinos, tigers and countless other species-in order to serve at the booming European market for biodiesel.

Are these reasonable tradeoffs for a troubled planet, or merely another corporate push for profits? Two new studies, both released this past summer, aim to document the full consequences of the new biofuel economy and realistically assess its impact on fuel use, greenhouse gases and agricultural lands. One study, originating from the University of Minnesota, is moderately hopeful in the first two areas, but offers a strong caution about land use. The other, from Cornell University and UC Berkeley, concludes that every domestic biofuel source - the ones currently in use as well as those under development - produces less energy than is consumed in growing and processing the crops.

The Minnesota researchers attempted a full lifecycle analysis of the production of ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soy. They documented the energy costs of fuel production, pesticide use, transportation, and other key factors, and also accounted for the energy equivalent of soy and corn byproducts that remain for other uses after the fuel is extracted. Their paper, published in the July 25th edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that ethanol production offers a modest net energy gain of 25%, resulting in 12% less greenhouse gases than an equivalent amount of gasoline. The numbers for biodiesel are more promising, with a 93% net energy gain and a 41% reduction in greenhouse gases.

The researchers cautioned, however, that these figures do not account for the significant environmental damage from increased acreages of these crops, including the impacts of pesticides, nitrate runoff into water supplies, nor the increased demand on water, as "energy crops" like corn and soy begin to displace more drought tolerant crops such as wheat in several Midwestern states.

The most serious impact, though, is on land use. The Minnesota paper reports that in 2005, 14% of the US corn harvest was used to produce some 6 million gallons of ethanol, equivalent to 1.7% of current gasoline usage. About 1 1/2 percent of the soy harvest produced 120 million gallons of biodiesel, equivalent to less than one tenth of one percent of gas usage. This means that if all of the country's corn harvest was used to make ethanol, it would displace 12% of our gas; all of our soybeans would displace about 6% of the gas. But if the energy used in producing these biofuels is taken into account - the fact that 80% of the energy goes into production in the case of corn ethanol, and almost 50% in the case of soy biodiesel, the entire soy and corn crops combined would only satisfy 5.3% of current fuel needs. This is where the serious strain on food supplies and prices originates.

The Cornell study is even more skeptical. Released in July, it was the product of an ongoing collaboration between Cornell agriculturalist David Pimentel, environmental engineer Ted Patzek, and their colleagues at the University of California at Berkeley, and was published in the journal Natural Resources Research. This study found that, in balance, making ethanol from corn requires 29% more fossil fuel than the net energy produced and biodisel from soy results in a net energy loss of 27%. Other crops, touted as solutions to the apparent diseconomy of current methods, offer even worse results.

Switchgrass, for example, can grow on marginal land and presumably won't compete with food production (you may recall George Bush's mumbling about switchgrass in his 2006 State of the Union speech), but it requires 45% more energy to harvest and process than the energy value of the fuel that is produced. Wood biomass requires 57% more energy than it produces, and sunflowers require more than twice as much energy than is available in the fuel that is produced. "There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," said David Pimentel in a Cornell press statement this past July. "These strategies are not sustainable." In a recent article, Harvard environmental scientist Michael McElroy concurred: "[U]nfortunately the promised benefits [of ethanol] prove upon analysis to be largely ephemeral."

Even Brazilian sugarcane, touted as the world's model for conversion from fossil fuels to sustainable "green energy," has its downside. The energy yield appears beyond question: it is claimed that ethanol from sugarcane may produce as much as 8 times as much energy as it takes to grow and process. But a recent World Wildlife Fund report for the International Energy Agency raises serious questions about this approach to future energy independence. It turns out that 80% of Brazil's greenhouse gas emissions come not from cars, but from deforestation-the loss of embedded carbon dioxide when forests are cut down and burned. A hectare of land may save 13 tons of carbon dioxide if it is used to grow sugarcane, but the same hectare can absorb 20 tons of CO2 if it remains forested. If sugarcane and soy plantations continue to encourage deforestation, both in the Amazon and in Brazil's Atlantic coastal forests, any climate advantage is more than outweighed by the loss of the forest.

Genetic engineering, which has utterly failed to produce healthier or more sustainable food-and also failed to create a reliable source of biopharmaceuticals without threatening the safety of our food supply-is now being touted as the answer to sustainable biofuel production. Biofuels were all the buzz at the biotech industry's most recent biotech mega-convention (April 2006), and biotech companies are all competing to cash in on the biofuel bonanza. Syngenta (the world's largest herbicide manufacturer and number three, after Monsanto and DuPont, in seeds) is developing a GE corn variety that contains one of the enzymes needed to convert corn starch into sugar before it can be fermented into ethanol. Companies are vying to increase total starch content, reduce lignin (necessary for the structural integrity of plants but a nuisance for chemical processors), and increase crop yields. Others are proposing huge plantations of fast-growing genetically engineered low-lignin trees to temporarily sequester carbon and ultimately be harvested for ethanol.

However, the utility of incorporating the amylase enzyme into crops is questionable (it's also a potential allergen), gains in starch production are marginal, and the use of genetic engineering to increase crop yields has never proved reliable. Other, more complex traits, such as drought and salt tolerance (to grow energy crops on land unsuited to food production), have been aggressively pursued by geneticists for more than twenty years with scarcely a glimmer of success. Genetically engineered trees, with their long life-cycle, as well as seeds and pollen capable of spreading hundreds of miles in the wild, are potentially a far greater environmental threat than engineered varieties of annual crops. Even Monsanto, always the most aggressive promoter of genetic engineering, has opted to rely on conventional plant breeding for its biofuel research, according to the New York Times. Like "feeding the world" and biopharmaceutical production before it, genetic engineering for biofuels mainly benefits the biotech industry's public relations image.

Biofuels may still prove advantageous in some local applications, such as farmers using crop wastes to fuel their farms, and running cars from waste oil that is otherwise thrown away by restaurants. But as a solution to long-term energy needs on a national or international scale, the costs appear to far outweigh the benefits. The solution lies in technologies and lifestyle changes that can significantly reduce energy use and consumption, something energy analysts like Amory Lovins have been advocating for some thirty years. From the 1970s through the '90s, the US economy significantly decreased its energy intensity, steadily lowering the amount of energy required to produce a typical dollar of GDP. Other industrial countries have gone far beyond us in this respect. But no one has figured out how to make a fortune on conservation and efficiency. The latest biofuel hype once again affirms that the needs of the planet, and of a genuinely sustainable society, are in fundamental conflict with the demands of wealth and profit.

Brian Tokar directs the Biotechnology Project at Vermont's Institute for Social Ecology (social-ecology.org), and has edited two books on the science and politics of genetic engineering, Redesigning Life? (Zed Books, 2001) and Gene Traders: Biotechnology, World Trade and the Globalization of Hunger (Toward Freedom, 2004).

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

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

Archives 2004 • 2003

Sponsored by Global Vision Corporation

© 2003 - 2006 Global Vision Consulting Ltd • updated 30 November 2006
Privacy policy
For enquiries contact mail@gmfreeireland.org
URL of this page: www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2006/nov.php