NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • October 2006

Archives 2006: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September
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 and September 2006 archives

31 October 2006

GMO traces pressure Spain's organic maize farmers

Reuters, 31 October 2006. By Julia Hayley.

MADRID - Organic farmers in Spain are, according to new figures cited in this story, abandoning maize after finding traces of genetically modified (GMO) strains in their crops.

The amount of contamination is small, less than one percent, but environmental groups and organic farmers say they fear bigger problems ahead.

Organic and GMO maize is concentrated in the regions of Aragon and Catalonia, where organic food has to be certified by regional government-run agencies.

In 2004 farmers planted 120 hectares of organic maize in Aragon. All the crop that was eventually sampled was found to contain GMOs and the following year Aragon logged only 37 hectares of organic grain, data from the regional organic farming committee CAAE show.

The story says that Spain is the European Union country where GMO maize is making most progess. Some 46 varieties are now permitted, GMO lobby group Antama says.

Note: In 2004 farmers planted 120 hectares of organic maize in Aragon. All the crop that was eventually sampled was found to contain GMOs and the following year Aragon logged only 37 hectares of organic grain.

See also GMO contamination in Spain: a warning for Europe - Impossible Coexistence: Seven years of GMOs have contaminated organic and conventional maize: an examination of the cases of Catalonia and Aragon: http://eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/gmo/impossiblecoexistence060404.pdf

India's rice industry warns against GE trials

Reuters, October 31 2006

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India's top rice exporters and farmers unions warned the government on Tuesday that further field trials of genetically engineered (GE) rice could jeopardise the livelihoods of millions of poor farmers across the country.

The warning came just over a week after the European Union decided to compulsorily test all U.S. shipments of long-grain rice. That followed a discovery that U.S. imports to Europe were contaminated with genetically modified (GMO) rice.

No biotech rice is allowed to be grown, sold or marketed on the territory of the European Union's 25 countries.

India has carried out field trials of mostly short-grain rice at 10 different sites across the country since 2005, but the Supreme Court last month suspended fresh tests on all crops until a further court hearing.

Previous trials show no signs of GM seeds infecting rice exports.

But importers and farmers fear the risk of contamination through mixing of seeds during storage or in transportation could affect consumer confidence and India's reputation as a "clean and reliable" rice exporter.

"Indian rice is GM-free and we want to keep it that way," said R.S. Seshadri, director of Tilda Riceland and a member of the All-India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA) -- which represents exporters like Satnam Overseas, Sunstar, Kohinoor.

"We are asking them not to do further testing ... we need to review guidelines and enforce stricter standards in light of what has happened in the U.S.," he told a news conference.

India is the largest producer and exporter of Basmati rice -- a long-grain rice priced for its characteristic subtle aroma and delicious taste -- and exported 1.15 million tonnes, generating 30.3 billion rupees in the 2005/6 financial year.

Although most of the tests were on short-grain rice, farmers say many were not informed that field trials were taking place near their own rice paddys. If contamination occurs in exported stocks, buyers in Europe and Middle Eastern countries might ban Indian products, unions say.

"The GM-testing happening in this country is a dirty joke which is being played on us," said Yudhvir Singh, a senior official from the Bharatiya Kisan Union, a union representing hundreds of thousands of farmers across India.

"We run the risk of hundreds of thousands of farmers losing their livelihoods if bans are imposed or we lose consumer confidence in products."

Haryana farmers oppose GM crops

NDTV (India), October 31 2006. By Sandeep Bhushan.

(Karnal): While Bt cotton remains in focus, there is further controversy surrounding genetically modified food crops like potato, brinjal, tomato and rice.

Six edible crops have been cleared for field trials and for the first time, a field in Karnal's Rampura village was burnt just days before it would have been harvested because it was growing genetically modified rice.

Locals say about 400 activists of the Bharatiya Kisan Union, which is affiliated to the Mahendra Singh Tikait group, torched the crop standing over an acre.

"About 400 farmers stormed the rice fields. They told us this crop is poison, it will affect our cattle and children," said a farmer.

The land was leased out by a local farmer to the Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company or MAHYCO, the American multi-national Monsanto's partner in India, for a field trial that had been cleared by the Government of India.

'Unhealthy' technology

But farmers and activists object. They say genetically modified technology, which has now moved to food crops, is unhealthy, contaminates the ground and other crops and is also bad for the farmers because it promotes monopoly of seed companies.

The situation in Karnal has been building up since the government allowed field trials of GM crops like brinjal, potato and tomato.

A month ago, the Supreme Court had banned any further field trials of such crops - a shot in the arm for farmers and activists who have cited exactly such a ban in all European countries.

But influential opinion within the government has defended field trials. "It is a superior technology and has shown good results in other countries," said M S Swaminathan, Chairman, Farmers' Commission.

However, the farmers are not willing to buy such an argument. "The BKU has decided that all GM crops will meet this fate. We are opposed to the seed companies and will not allow them to profiteer," said Harinder Singh, BKU, Karnal.

The problem has been that neither the government nor private players have been transparent about the issue, giving rise to fears both among farmers and consumers.

The onus is squarely on the government and private companies to prove that GM food promotes the greatest common good.

Thailand reaffirms that all rice is GM free

The Bangkok Post, October 31 2006. By Phusadee Arunmas.

Thai authorities have assured importing countries that Thai rice is free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), in light of growing concerns, especially in Europe.

The European Union (EU), has urged Thai exporters to obtain GMO-free certification, at 1,800 baht per test, to improve confidence among European consumers, who are especially sensitive about genetically modified foods.

Concern rose earlier this year when genetically modified grains were detected in some rice shipped from the United States and China to the EU.

Officials from the Commerce and Agriculture ministries have reassured Thailand's trade partners that they could trace back the origins of every single grain of Thai rice. The Germ Bank and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) store all varieties of Thai rice.

"Thailand has no policies on using GMO plants for commercial purposes. The country has never imported GMO rice, even for research purposes," said Surapong Pransilapa, director-general of the Rice Department.

The ministries are distributing a handbook on Thai rice to importing countries, which they hope will stop the EU from requesting certification.

Vijak Visetnoi, deputy director of the Commerce Ministry's Foreign Trade Department, said Thai exporters should turn crisis into opportunity, expanding rice markets in the EU because of the concerns about US and Chinese shipments.

Biopharming panel sees way to protect health, advance work

OregonLive.com, 31 Oct 2006. By Alex Pulaski.

OREGON - A state committee on biopharming made final recommendations Monday on how to regulate crops designed to make drugs.

The committee's report suggests ways Oregon can protect public health while leaving the door open to new technology.

The 10-member group's meeting in Portland ended a year of work. Its report to Gov. Ted Kulongoski and the Legislature is designed to provide guidance on a bill expected to be introduced during the next several months.

In general, the document finalized Monday reflects an earlier draft. Several areas were deleted or reworked to respond to three dozen public comments -- most of them adamantly opposed to genetically altering crops to create pharmaceuticals, although no such crops are currently grown in Oregon.

The committee, made up of state agricultural and health officials and scientists, stemmed from a failed 2005 bill that would have placed a four-year state moratorium on biopharming.

Rick North, who spearheaded the bill for the state chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, said the report "obviously is not as strong as the bill, but it's a step in the right direction. A lot will depend on how the bill is written."

Katy Coba, a committee member who heads the state Agriculture Department, said the two main components of the bill being drafted are to allow the state to charge a permit fee for biopharming applicants and to provide that the proprietary information applicants give cannot be disclosed to the public.

Highlights of the committee's recommendations include:

Federal and state officials should collaborate in reviewing biopharming applications, instead of the current system that relies solely on federal review. State directors of agriculture and public health should have veto rights over applications.

Only crops not designed for human or animal consumption should be used. If food crops are used, they should be grown indoors unless the applicant can demonstrate why outdoor plantings are "desirable and safe."

Applicants should carry insurance to cover potential damages their crops could cause, such as humans being accidentally exposed to allergens.

30 October 2006

DEFRA's 'flawed' genetically modified crop proposals under fire from campaigners

Farmers Weekly, 30 October 2006. by Paul Spackman.

DEFRA [the UK Government's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] proposals to prevent gentically modified crops contaminating conventional and organic crops are "legally and fundamentally flawed", according to anti-GM campaigners.

In a joint response to the government's coexistence consultation, which closed on Friday 20 October, Friends of the Earth, the Soil Association and GM Freeze claimed some DEFRA proposals breached European law.

"The proposals are a thinly veiled attempt to introduce GM crops through the back door," said FoE spokeswoman Clare Oxborrow.

GM contamination

"Allowing routine, unlabelled, GM contamination of conventional and organic crops is not only unacceptable to the public, it is legally flawed too."

Former environment minister Michael Meacher said the consultation was an attempt to back the GM industry against public opinion and called on government to reject the coexistence plans.

"Instead of paving the way for GM crops to be grown in England, DEFRA secretary David Miliband must take on board the thousands of responses rejecting the government's GM contamination plans and put in place policies that protect GM-free food and truly promote his vision of sustainable farming."

Inaccuracies

But pro-GM farmer Bob Fiddaman, chairman of the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops, said the claims were inaccurate and as far as he was aware, DEFRA's lawyers were happy with the legality of the proposals. One of the main issues, he said, was the call for maximum contamination levels of 0.1%, instead of 0.9%.

"Even if you can test for, and detect GM contaminants, it doesn't mean it is harmful. If you look at other production legislation, you've got to have due diligence and certain standards, but it's never zero, which is effectively what they're demanding."

A DEFRA spokesman maintained that the coexistence proposals were legal. "We will give this consideration, but we are confident that our proposals are legally sound. GM crops will only be approved for commercial use after going through a very transparent assessment and decision-making process that is managed at EU level."

Areas of legal concern

• Coexistence measures should completely avoid GM contamination, not "minimise" it to an arbitrary 0.9% GM.

• Separation distance proposals are inadequate and are based on the assumption that contamination up to 0.9% is allowed.

• Coexistence rules need to include potential environmental and health issues alongside economic concerns.

• Coexistence measures should also protect crops not intended for the market place (eg from gardens to allotments).

• Full statutory backing should be given to any measures (eg volunteer control) to help prevent unintended presence of GMs, not just separation distances.

• A public register of sites where GM crops are grown is required.

How corporations use bilateral trade channels to weaken biotech regulations

New briefing from GRAIN and the African Centre for Biosafety

This new briefing looks at how governments, the agribusiness sector and transnational companies are increasingly using bilateral trade agreements to prise open markets for genetically modified crops. It documents the way in which this powerful alliance has been using these agreements, which are proliferating around the world, to confront worldwide opposition to GMOs and to weaken regulatory controls.

The main force behind this drive is the handful of giant corporations that control world trade in the world's main agricultural crops. Three companies, Cargill, Arthur Daniels Midland and Louis Dreyfus, control over four-fifths of the global grain market. Over the past few decades, they have ruthlessly pushed an agenda of market liberalisation and expansion through the multilateral trade and finance institutions. With talks stalled in these fora, they are now targeting, with determination and clout, the bilateral agreements.

Read the full report

Bilateral Biosafety Bullies is available in PDF and HTML format at: http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=199

Extract from the report:

Where they have been signed, FTAs with the United States in particular work as Trojan horses not only to impose patents on life but also to override national rules on the testing, field release and labelling of GM crops and food. They can thus quickly undermine successes that people have achieved in forcing their governments to keep GM crops and foods out of their countries. With the Biosafety Protocol now pretty much rudderless in the rising tide of bilateral deal-making, it is clear that much more work has to be done to support social movements in their broad- based struggles against FTAs.

27 October 2006

EU states order tests on US imports after finding illegal GMOs

Financial Times, October 27 2006. By Andrew Bounds in Brussels.

After finding traces of three different illegal strains of biotech rice in imports in as many months, fortress Europe this week pulled up the drawbridge. Unable to agree a common testing regime with the US, which is much more tolerant of genetically engineered produce, European Union governments have decreed that every American rice shipment be tested before unloading.

The image of "Frankenfoods" conjured up by the popular press a decade ago still resonates with the European public. Only 18 varieties of biotech crop have been approved even for animal consumption. Nonetheless, there are fears the monster may have escaped the laboratory for good. "We can only be responsible for our own testing and controls," says Philip Tod, spokesman for Markos Kyprianou, EU health commissioner. "It is incumbent on other countries to enforce theirs."

However, as biotech crops spread around the world - more than 8m farmers in 21 countries now grow them on 90m hectares of land, a 50-fold rise in a decade - the EU's ability to keep them out is under pressure, especially when its food safety agency ruled the genetically modified varieties found were not harmful to eat.

Environment ministers on Monday instructed Brussels to seek international rules and improve detection methods. "The European Commission and competent authorities of the member states do not have the necessary analytical tools to effectively check for the absence of unauthorised GMOs," said a statement tabled by Belgium and supported by six other member states.

The biotech industry realises the danger. Simon Barber of Europabio, the Brussels-based umbrella group for biotech companies, says: "Because we have a global trading system there is always the possibility that minute trace levels of GMOs will turn up where they do not have legal approval. This is going to happen again and again."

His group wants an international agreement on testing standards, something being debated at the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation. Last year, the US admitted that unauthorised Bt 10 maize developed by Syngenta had been exported to the EU for several months without detection.

Green groups charge that Washington is not doing all it could and that the biotech industry may be pursuing a deliberate strategy of spreading their wares. If not, they appear to have lost control of their technology. Two of the types discovered this year have not been commercially approved anywhere. LLrice 601, detected in a shipment in the Netherlands in August, was field-tested by Aventis in the 1990s but abandoned before that company was acquired by Bayer of Germany in 2002. The US department of agriculture is investigating how it entered the food chain.

Louisiana State University, which helped with research on LL601, has revealed it has found trace amounts of LL601 in seeds of one of its long-grain rice varieties.France this month said it had detected another Bayer variety, LL62, in rice from the US. The company said it could not confirm the report but was ready to help.Annette Josten, spokeswoman for Bayer Cropscience, said: "It has been fully approved in the US but we do not sell it. The big exporters want import clearance in all the major markets before they use it."She did not know how it had found its way into the food chain. "We comply with all necessary rules and regulations under the law of the countries where we operate," she said.

Mr Barber of Europabio pointed out that all crops are approved by national food safety authorities before trials were begun. But he said the number of partners in such trials increased the risks of seeds "escaping". China is another matter. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, the pressure groups, found illegal Bt63 rice from China on supermarket shelves. Austria and Germany have confirmed the finds.

The variety has not been authorised anywhere but it is suspected that Beijing handed it out to farmers to plant. Greenpeace has demanded that all US imports be suspended and called for Bayer to be banned from further trials. However, US farmers may have the bigger say. They are suing Bayer over LL601 because they fear its presence will shut them out of European markets.

The misleading voice of EuropaBio: comment on above article by GM Watch:

The Financial Times piece above about European testing for the rogue GM rice strain (LL601) currently contaminating US rice supplies (item 2), contains a number of questionnable statements.

The most dubious has to be the one attributed to the Brussels based GM lobbyist Simon Barber of EuropaBio:

"Mr Barber of Europabio pointed out that all crops are approved by national food safety authorities before trials were begun."

This gives the impression that even though LL601 never gained approval for commercial growing in the US, it will still have gone through a careful screening process by the US's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make sure that it was safe before field trials began.

But nothing could be further from the truth, as Bill Freese, a biotech expert at the Center for Food Safety in the US, confirmed to us when we sent him the article. Bill told us, "This is absolutely false. FDA does not review GM crops either prior to or during the field trial process, which often goes on 5-10 years." (item 3)

Europabio is short for the "European Association for Bioindustries" and it describes itself as "the voice of the European biotech industry." It is a voice that is constantly heard within the European Union, where it seeks to shape legislation in a way that suits its members' interests. To this end it provides "a steady flow of information about biotechnology to the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers." Through its member associations, EuropaBio also "fosters a standing dialogue with policy makers and stakeholders at a national level". See http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=197

Judging by the misleading fantasy - about GM regulation in the US - fed to the Financial Times by Europabio's Simon Barber, "the voice of the European biotech industry" needs to be listened to with a healthy degree of scepticism.

FDA does not review GM crops either prior to or during the field trial process:
comment on Financial Times article above article by Bill Freese, Friends of the Earth:

FDA does not review GM crops either prior to or during the field trial process, which often goes on 5-10 years. Though FDA recently established a process whereby companies may (not must) share limited data with the agency during the field trial process, I see no evidence that anyone is using it. Even if they do, it is essentially a worthless, rubber-stamp confidence building measure designed to quell concern when LibertyLink rice-type contamination debacles occur, and has little or nothing to do with food safety. In fact, the only procedure required for conducting a field trial of the great majority of GM crops (i.e. all except for a handful involving production of drugs or industrial compounds not meant for food use) is a so-called "notification" of the USDA by the institution doing the field test. The institution fills out a 2-page form with a few attachments, providing basic information about the crop, the gene vector, location of field trial, etc. In response, the USDA issues an "acknowledgement." As the language indicates, these are not true "permits," merely notifications. USDA issues such acknowledgements routinely, without conducting environmental assessments.

Gene splicing has been made obsolete by a cutting-edge technology that greatly accelerates classical plant breeding

The Guardian, Thursday October 26, 2006. by Jeremy Rifkin.

For years, the life-science companies - Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Pioneer etc - have argued that genetically modified food is the next great scientific revolution in agriculture, and the only efficient and cheap way to feed a growing population in a shrinking world. Non-governmental organisations - including the Foundation on Economic Trends, of which I am president - have been cast as the villains in this agricultural drama, and often categorised as modern versions of the Luddites, accused of continually blocking scientific and technological progress because of our opposition to GM food.

Now, in an ironic twist, new cutting-edge technologies have made gene splicing and transgenic crops obsolete and a serious impediment to scientific progress. The new frontier is called genomics and the new agricultural technology is called marker-assisted selection (MAS). The new technology offers a sophisticated method to greatly accelerate classical breeding. A growing number of scientists believe MAS - which is already being introduced into the market - will eventually replace GM food. Moreover, environmental organisations that oppose GM crops are guardedly supportive of MAS technology.

Rapidly accumulating information about crop genomes is allowing scientists to identify genes associated with traits such as yield, and then scan crop relatives for the presence of those genes. Instead of using molecular splicing techniques to transfer a gene from an unrelated species into the genome of a food crop to increase yield, resist pests or improve nutrition, scientists are now using MAS to locate desired traits in other varieties or wild relatives of a particular food crop, then crossbreeding those plants with the existing commercial varieties to improve the crop. This greatly reduces the risk of environmental harm and potential adverse health effects associated with GM crops. Using MAS, researchers can upgrade classical breeding, and cut by 50% or more the time needed to develop new plant varieties by pinpointing appropriate plant partners at the gamete or seedling stage.

Using MAS, researchers in the Netherlands have developed a new lettuce variety resistant to an aphid that causes reduced and abnormal growth. Researchers at the US department of agriculture have used MAS to develop a strain of rice that is soft on the outside but remains firm on the inside after processing. Scientists in the UK and India have used MAS to develop pearl millet that is tolerant of drought and resistant to mildew. The crop was introduced into the market in India in 2005.

While MAS is emerging as a promising new agricultural technology with broad application, the limits of transgenic technology are becoming increasingly apparent. Most of the transgenic crops introduced into the fields express only two traits, resistance to pests and compatibility with herbicides, and rely on the expression of a single gene - hardly the sweeping agricultural revolution touted by the life-science companies at the beginning of the GM era.

There is still much work to be done in understanding the choreography, for example, between single genetic markers and complex genetic clusters and environmental factors, all of which interact to affect the development of the plant and produce desirable outcomes such as improved yield and drought resistance. Also, it should be noted that MAS is of value to the extent that it is used as part of a broader, agro-ecological approach to farming that integrates new crop introductions with a proper regard for all of the other environmental, economic and social factors that together determine the sustainability of farming.

The wrinkle is that the continued introduction of GM crops could contaminate existing plant varieties, making the new MAS technology more difficult to use. A landmark 2004 survey conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that non-GM seeds from three of America's major agricultural crops - maize, soya beans and oil-seed rape - were already "pervasively contaminated with low levels of DNA sequences originating in genetically engineered varieties of these crops".

Not surprisingly, MAS technology is being looked at with increasing interest within the European Union, where public opposition to GM food has remained resolute. In a recent speech, Stavros Dimas, the EU's environment commissioner, noted that "MAS technology is attracting considerable attention" and said that the EU "should not ignore the use of 'upgraded' conventional varieties as an alternative to GM crops".

As MAS becomes cheaper and easier to use, and as knowledge in genomics becomes more easily available over the next decade, plant breeders around the world will be able to exchange information about best practices and democratise the technology. Already plant breeders are talking about "open source" genomics, envisioning the sharing of genes. The struggle between a younger generation of sustainable-agriculture enthusiasts anxious to share genetic information and entrenched company scientists determined to maintain control over the world's seed stocks through patent protection is likely to be hard-fought, especially in the developing world.

If properly used as part of a much larger systemic and holistic approach to sustainable agricultural development, MAS technology could be the right technology at the right time in history.

… Jeremy Rifkin is the author of The Biotech Century

GM rice legal challenge issued against Food Standards Agency

Friends of the Earth Press Release, 27 October 2006

Friends of the Earth has filed a legal challenge against the Food Standards Agency (FSA) over its failure to take necessary action to prevent UK consumers being exposed to illegal GM rice in their food. The action comes two months after it was revealed that an experimental and unapproved GM rice had contaminated food supplies in the US and been exported to the UK and Europe.

The application for Judicial Review was filed with the High Court challenging the Food Standards Agency's response to the incident.

According to the Emergency Decision issued by the European Commission shortly after the contamination incident was announced, any long grain rice imported into the EU must be certified as free of the illegal rice (BayerCropScience's LL Rice 601) [1]. Furthermore, member states must 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;

* to investigate or take enforcement action;

* encouraged food businesses to carry on as normal and not to worry about taking steps to test their rice for contamination or to withdraw any contaminated rice that they found.

No strains of GM rice have been approved in Europe, and no GM rice varieties are being grown commercially anywhere in the world. However, experimental trials are being carried out in a number of countries, including the US. In August, US Authorities announced that the illegal LL Rice 601, grown experimentally from 1998-2001 had contaminated commercial long grain rice supplies. Since then, over 90 incidents of illegal GM rice contamination has been detected in 15 European countries[2]. In the UK illegal GM material has been detected in long grain rice from Tesco, Sainsbury's, Morrisons, Somerfield and the Co-op.

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

"The Food Standards Agency is not taking the UK's legal obligations seriously. It has failed to take necessary steps to verify that illegal GM rice is not on the market. It has effectively told business and local food authorities that no action is required. The Agency needs to take steps to check the food chain to ensure that this GM rice is not present and, where it is present, ensure that it is removed. It is failing to do so. Despite providing the FSA with repeated opportunities to reconsider its position it has failed to take the necessary steps. That is why Friends of the Earth feels it has no choice but to take urgent legal action."

On Monday, member states in the EU agreed to stricter measures requiring all long grain rice from the US to be re-tested at the point of entry into the EU, following a mix up where a number of consignments of rice that had entered Rotterdam port and were certified by the US as GM-free, were tested by Dutch authorities and subsequently found to be contaminated [3].

Notes:

[1] http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?....

[2] http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/rice_contamination.htm

[3] GM rice: Standing Committee backs Commission Decision on strict counter testing of US rice imports: http://europa.eu.int/rapid/middayExpressAction.do?date=25/10/2006&direction=0&guiLanguage=en

26 October 2006

GM foods harm the environment

Galway Advertiser, 26 October 2006.

Letter to the Editor:

A Chara,

As many of you will probably have suspected, you have been consuming genetically modified foods for some time now, but do Irish consumers have any idea to what extent this is the case?

Since 1998 Ireland has approved the introduction of unlabelled GM animal feed and food in Europe (indeed, Ireland has NEVER voted against GMOs in the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers). Therefore, if you are a meat eater, there is a good chance the animals have been fed on GM animal feed. Buying meat from abroad is also no guarantee. For example, Denmark is one of the largest producers of pork and bacon, and the country is also a major purchaser of soya (much of which comes from Argentina, the world's third largest producer of GM soya).

According to the book Genetic Engineering, Food, and Our Environment (Luke Anderson, 2000), most processed food in Europe now contains GE ingredients from soya and maize in the form of soya oil, lecithin, and corn (maize) syrup. So why should we be concerned?

Apart from anything else, GM food is being forced on us despite 70 per cent of EU consumers being against GM, and there have been no long-term studies carried out on the technology. What's more, GM food has been linked to allergic reactions (in 2001, the US public only found out that unlabelled GM food was being sold to them after some people became ill after having allergic reactions to GM maize in crisps). In addition, the technology is unpredictable, unstable, and more liable to fail ó as with 'FlavrSavr' tomatoes which were withdrawn from the market in the US due to underperformance (soft, easily bruised tomatoes and poor yields). GM crops also reduce biodiversity of wild and agricultural seeds. Perhaps most worrying of all, a single GMO seed shipment can irreversibly contaminate Irish farms within a few years via seed dispersal. If contamination occurs, lawsuits may be brought against farmers (in the US hundreds of such cases have been brought to court).

USAID, the US International Aid Agency, exerts enormous pressure through the UN World Food Programme, telling countries they have no choice ó accept GM food or get no aid whatsoever. Indeed in 2004 more than 60 groups from 15 African countries wrote to the WFP criticising the way in which hunger is being cynically used to impose GM food on so-called developing countries.

If nothing is done GM seeds will terminate Ireland's reputation as a 'clean, green food island'. As a result, all Irish people will lose out in the long term. Only the biotechnology industry will benefit, their aim of course to profit at our expense by buying up seed companies and ultimately to control the entire food chain. I urge all readers to confront politicians on this issue now that a General Election is forthcoming.

Is mise,

Somhairle MacAodha,

Lower Salthill, Galway.

Environment / GM papaya row
Greenpeace files suit to end open-field trials

Bangkok Post.October 26 2006

Greenpeace Southeast Asia yesterday petitioned the Administrative Court to revoke the Agriculture Department's order allowing the open-field trials of genetically modified (GM) papaya. The group also filed a petition with the court against the department and its director Adisak Sreesunpagit for negligence in preventing the leak of GM seeds from its research station in Khon Kaen in 2004.

Khon Kaen Horticultural Research Station, which conducted a controlled field trial of GM papaya, failed to prevent the leak of GM seeds. The incident caused the Agriculture Department to eliminate all GM papaya at the station.

''The department and related government agencies failed to act to protect the public interest. GM papaya continues to contaminate our environment,'' Greenpeace campaigner Patwajee Srisuwan said yesterday.

She alleged GM papaya was found in many provinces such as Kamphaeng Phet, Kalasin, Maha Sarakham, Rayong and Chaiyaphum, even though the Agriculture Department had assured that it had destroyed all of it.

Open-field trials of all GM crops were banned in 2001 by the cabinet for fear of possible cross-pollination between GM and non-GM plants, but the department and a group of papaya farmers in the Northeast managed to get the ban lifted.

Mr Adisak said earlier this year the trials would be a way to help the government evaluate whether the farming of GM crops harmed the environment.

GM technology allows scientists to add or remove genes across species to build desirable traits for crops, including better resistance to pests and drought. In the case of papaya, a viral gene was injected into the fruit, which subsequently developed immunity to the virus which causes ring spot.

However, biosafety advocates fear that GM pollen will contaminate non-GM crops and this would affect Thai exports of farm produce to countries that impose a ban on GM products.

Meanwhile, Banpot Napompeth, chairman of the National Biological Control Research Centre, said the disparity in views between different groups over GM crops had delayed the launch of the biosafety law.

He said the panel would not be able to present the draft biosafety law to the interim government during its term.

''I think it will be difficult to make progress on the law in one year. But we have to make it clear the law is important as it's a tool to secure safety,'' he said.

U.S. Holy See Embassy Wades Into Genetically Modified Crops Debate

National Catholic Register, October 29-November 4, 2006 Issue. By Edward Pentin.

ROME - The use of genetically modified organisms is a controversial topic these days - even in Rome.

As part of its ongoing efforts to stimulate debate about the issue, the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See invited three American professors to Rome on Oct. 5-6, to present eight years of research on genetically modified organism (GMO) crops and their effect on farmers, industry and the environment.

The professorsÇ visit was timely. A network of Christian and environmentalist groups recently spearheaded a campaign warning of "Terminator Technology" (genetically modified seeds that could be programmed to die and so protect intellectual property rights of the corporations that engineer the seeds).

And in August, anti-GMO campaigners destroyed a French farmer's genetically modified corn - the first time a commercial farm using genetically modified crops had been targeted.

Biotech companies, meanwhile, have been continually accused of applying heavy-handed tactics to force farmers to use their products.

In September, the non-profit Public Patent Foundation filed a formal request for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to revoke patents issued to one biotech multinational, St. Louis-based Monsanto. The foundation alleges that Monsanto is using the biotech patents "to harass, intimidate, sue - and in many cases bankrupt - American farmers."

For its part, the Vatican has expressed awareness of the technology's great potential in reducing hunger, but has offered no definitive judgments on its use.

Pope Benedict XVI has not spoken on the issue, and the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences have advised scientists to "proceed with caution."

The three professors who spoke this month in Rome offered some compelling arguments about the merits of genetically modified organisms. Between 1996 and 2004, the researchers found substantial net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to a total of $27 billion.

The technology had also reduced pesticide spraying by 380,000,000 pounds and significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture - the equivalent, the researchers said, of removing five million cars from the roads.

Furthermore, none of the professors had come across a single case of negative health effects on human beings from using or consuming the genetically altered products.

What gave added weight to their findings was the neutrality of the academics.

All three were former Peace Corps volunteers whose research focused on the humanitarian aspects of GMO science. And all three said they had no direct ties to biotech multinationals, although one does belong to an organization that receives some funding from Monsanto.

"We're just public sector employees," said Professor Greg Taxler, an Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology lecturer at Auburn University in Alabama. "We usually like to run these things down, run them to the ground."

The professors advocated more genetically modified organism research targeted towards developing countries and the small-seed market, and more public-sector investment in biotechnology research.

Apart from a few government-directed projects, most commercial genetically modified organism products are sold by Monsanto and three other multinationals.

But the researchers debunked the claim, often made by anti-GMO campaigners, that profiteering multinationals make poor rural farmers dependent on genetically modified seeds that aren't beneficial to the farmers.

These "paternalistic" arguments imply that farmers are not clever enough to be able to discern the advantages of one crop from another, the researchers said. This "misinformation" - particularly prevalent among European environmentalist groups - prevents farmers in developing countries from being able to make good choices because propaganda has caused some regulators in developing countries to prohibit genetically modified organism products.

"The regulators always tend to say No," said Professor Lawrence Kent, director of International Programs at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, "but in the meantime agricultural productivity goes down, poverty goes up, and people aren't finding a solution."

Particularly frustrating for Prof. Kent is that his organization has teamed up with biotech multinational Monsanto to offer free modified seeds to poor farmers, but many African governments won't look at them.

The professors also accused their opponents of spreading myths about damage caused to the environment by biotech crops.

Carl Pray, professor of agricultural food and resource economics at Rutgers University in New Jersey, cited documentation of genetically modified organisms from China that actually showed a "dramatic" drop in nausea and signs of pesticide poisoning when farmers used genetically modified crops that contain their own internal pesticide mechanism.

Pray also highlighted research indicating that genetically modified white corn in South Africa has reduced toxins related to cancer and miscarriages.

Cardinal Martino

The Vatican has persistently warned of two temptations regarding genetically modified crops: thinking that only genetically modified organisms can solve the problem of hunger; and falling into the trap of providing superficial information, fueled by over-enthusiasm or unjustified alarmism.

Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, has taken a particular interest in the debate.

During a two-day seminar on genetically modified foods that the council hosted in November 2003, Cardinal Martino said the Vatican is a "student" in the debate about genetically modified foods and will continue to study the issue for some time before making any moral pronouncements on the technology.

"I continue to say what I have said in the past: We must feed the hungry," Cardinal Martino told reporters at the end of the 2003 meeting. "You do not do that by giving them a meal of genetically modified food, but by giving them an opportunity to improve their lives, perhaps even using genetically modified crops."

(CNS contributed to this article.) Edward Pentin writes from Rome.

Labour sets out its vision for rural Ireland

Irish Examiner, 26 October 2006. By Stephen Cadogan.

THE Labour Party says that how Irish agriculture and its associated industries fare will, to a large extent, determine the degree and nature of rural development in Ireland.

The party's 21-point plan for rural Ireland includes policies to encourage part-time farming, and to ensure uptake of the Farm Assist and Rural Social Scheme programmes, but larger farms would also be facilitated, through stamp duty relief and land leasing incentives.

Labour would improve the early retirement schemes for farmers.

However, the party proposes a REPS payment maximum, to ensure large land owners do not receive the lion's share.

Support for organic livestock agriculture is a core element, alongside measures to achieve high added value, specialist milk products from small and larger-scale dairy processors.

Establishing an Irish organic label which can do for organic agriculture what ëKerrygold' has done for conventional agriculture is one of Labour's aim, as are GMO-free all-island status, and improved land availability for qualified horticultural farmers.

According to Labour's agriculture and food spokesperson, Mary Upton, the quantity and quality of the suckler herd may have been hit by de-coupling, and mitigation measures may be needed.

Labour would increase annual forest premiums, but shorten the payment period from 20 to 10 years, and would consider implementing another Bacon Report proposal ó that the State guarantees purchase of timber after 10 years.

Addressing electricity, broadband and other infrastructure deficits would also be Labour priorities.

The party would also work towards the contribution of farm men and women being valued equally; accurate and concise food labelling; and a clampdown on animal abuse.

The last three shops, pubs and garages surviving in a rural community should get 50% rates relief, says Labour, which would also expand the Rural Transport Initiative nationally.

A national nutrition policy for sectors at risk of food poverty, and a daily piece of fruit for children in the school milk programme are also envisaged in the plan, full details of which are available on the http://www.labour.ie/ download/pdf/rural-ireland-policy-pages-oct06.pdf page. http://www.labour.ie/ download/pdf/rural-ireland-policy-pages-oct06.pdf

25 October 2006

Lazio region GMO-free, Council approves law

Agenzia Giornalistica Italia (AGI), 25 October 2005.
Special service by AGI on behalf of the Italian Prime Minister's Office.

Rome, Oct 25 - The growing and breeding of any kind of genetically modified organisms (GMO) has been banned throughout the region. An analogous ban has been imposed also for the productive cycle of the feed and fodder for livestock.

The failure to respect the regulations is to be punished with fines (up to 50,000 euros) and the companies' exclusion from the concession of regional contributions. It is on these points that the law passed today by the Lazio Regional Council, chaired by Massimo Pineschi, which imposed "urgent provisions on the subject of genetically modified organisms".

The law, approved with 37 votes in favour, two abstentions and no votes against, not only prescribes the suspension of contributions in the case of the use of genetically modified organisms, but also the revoking of previously conceded contributions and the returning of the sums paid.

Companies using GM goods will be denied access to certificates of quality. The use of GM goods can only be authorised for experiments and with strict limitations. The law also established the regional GMO-Free certificate, in accordance with European and national laws on traceability and labelling of GMO goods.

The law also imposes strict regulations on the retailing of GMO goods, which must be sold in a clearly marked separate area to avoid confusing and mixing up GMO and non-GMO products. At the same time, it is forbidden to use GMO products in collective catering services at kindergartens, schools, hospitals, certified resting homes, regional offices, provincial offices and communal offices, or at their respective subsidiary organisations.

The Region supports research projects for non-GMO products and establishes a Committee for the protection of the agricultural production and biodiversity from the use of GMO.

Supervision and checking responsibilities have been entrusted to Arsial and fines will be incurred by those who violate the laws.

The introductory report was presented by assessor for Agriculture Daniela Valentini.

USA Rice criticizes European GMO rice decision

Delta Farm Press, 25 October 2006. By Forrest Laws.

The European Commission's decision to require testing of all imports of U.S. long grain rice is an "overreaction" that will only result in the denial of a safe product to northern European rice millers, USA Rice Federation officials said.

The European Commission's Standing Committee on the Food Chain announced the decision earlier this week following extended negotiations between USDA and EC representatives following the discovery of unapproved GMO rice in U.S. commercial rice.

"The decision yesterday (Oct. 23) by an European Commission committee to impose mandatory testing in all imports of U.S. long-grain rice entering the European Union is an unfortunate overreaction to a commodity that governments ó including the EU ó have already declared safe for human consumption," said Al Montna, USA Rice chairman.

"The Commission is imposing an overzealous testing regime on a product for which such strictures are unnecessary. The net result of this decision is the denial to European consumers of wholesome U.S. rice, the economic consequences of which are clearly avoidable."

USA Rice officials said they were grateful for the efforts by a team of U.S. negotiators, led by Floyd Gaibler, acting undersecretary of agriculture for farm and foreign agricultural services.

"While we are extremely disappointed that European officials were unable to agree to a practical and commercially viable solution on the issue of testing, we are very appreciative of the prolonged and aggressive negotiation done on behalf of the U.S. rice industry by U.S. officials," said Carl Brothers, chairman of USA Rice International Trade Policy Committee and senior vice president, Riceland Foods, Inc.

"We look forward to working again with government officials during the review period that will begin early next year as provided by the Standing Committee's action. The U.S. rice industry believes it is in everyone's interest, from U.S. rice producers and exporters to EU rice importers, consumers and the EU Commission to resolve this issue so that trade can resume," Brothers said.

In August, laboratory tests confirmed that a sample of 2003 foundation seed rice of the variety Cheniere grown by the LSU AgCenter contained a trace amount of genetic material from LL601 ó a LibertyLink genetically modified rice.

The test results also indicated Cheniere foundation seed grown in 2005 appeared to be free of Liberty Link 601.

Those tests, validated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, also indicated lots from 13 other varieties currently in the LSU AgCenter's foundation seed program also appeared to be free of LL601. The other varieties involved in the initial testing included Cocodrie, Cypress, Trenasse, Pirogue, Bengal, Jupiter, Clearfield 131 and Clearfield 161.

Rice prices fell following the announcement but have since recovered some of those losses.

Mandatory counter testing for unauthorised GMOs in all US rice imports

European Entrepreneur's E-Guide, 25 October 2006. By Elina Mialouli.

The European Commission will table a Decision imposing mandatory counter testing for unauthorised GMOs in all imports of US long grain rice. The decision follows the lack of agreement by the US authorities to a common sampling and testing protocol which would ensure a high level of consistency and accuracy in the tests for the unauthorised GM rice LLRICE601 in consignments to the EU. The measures are being taken in response to findings four weeks ago of LLRICE601 in shipments of US long grain rice, despite the rice having been certified as free from this unauthorised GMO.

On 4 October, the European Commission gave Commissioner Kyprianou the mandate to introduce this counter testing, but to first allow 15 days to seek agreement with the US on a common approach to sampling and testing. However, despite extensive discussions between both sides, the Commission and the USA were unable to agree on such a protocol. US long grain rice imports will continue to be subject to the certification requirements imposed when LL601 was first reported to be in US rice in August.

Now in addition, under the draft Decision to be presented to the Standing Committee on Monday, all consignments of US long-grain rice will also be sampled and tested at the point of entry to the EU by Member State authorities according to the EU testing protocol, which will be referred to in the decision. Responsibility for paying for this additional testing will lie with the operators. The counter tests will also take into account the French authorities' recent finding of another unauthorised GMO, LLRICE62, in US rice, as the tests to be applied will also detect this GMO.

Brazil biotech commission: No approval on corn, cotton GMO

Checkbiotech.org, 25 October 25. By Kenneth Rapoza.

SAO PAULO - Brazil's biosafety commission, CTNBio, was unable to reach a consensus Wednesday regarding technical studies on transgenic cotton and corn seeds from Bayer CropScience, Monsanto and Syngenta Seeds, a CTNBio spokeswoman said Thursday.

CTNBio meets monthly and is responsible for accepting field tests on genetically modified crops. The group's scientists conduct independent studies and analysis on whether the biotech product is harmful to the environment or human consumption. Final commercial approval depends on political and economic decisions made by a consensus of various government departments.

CTNBio said the commission's scientists responsible for the review of Monsanto and Bayer's transgenic corn and cotton seeds did not appear at the meeting Wednesday and did not submit a final report to the committee. CTNBio said another study was required for Syngenta's BT-11 corn, which is resistant to certain insects. Bayer is asking for permission to sell LibertyLink cotton and Monsanto is asking for permission to sell Roundup Ready cotton in the local market.

Farmers and seed companies regularly complain that CTNBio takes too long to pass transgenic field studies and even longer to commercialize seeds currently in the field test phase.

Since 1998, Brazil has permitted only two genetically modified products in the national market, Monsanto's Bollgard cotton and Roundup Ready soybeans. Roundup Ready was permitted in 1998 but quickly suspended following political protests. Roundup Ready soy was allowed by executive order in 2005 and is expected to constitute roughly 50% of the soy planted in the 2006-07 crop.

24 October 2006

Councillors declare a 'GMO-free' zone

Irish Independent, 24 October 2006. By Aideen Sheehan.

KILDARE County Council has declared the area to be a "GMO-free zone" in a unanimous decision by local councillors.

The decision promises the council will "take all possible measures necessary to promote and maintain Kildare as a genetically modified crop-free zone in order to protect the interests of farmers and to encourage development of our valuable agricultural industry".

The decision taken at a meeting on Monday was hailed by the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association and by local chef Olivier Pauloin-Valory from Les Olives restaurant in Naas.

"This is a delicious decision. As a member of Euro-toques which represents Europe's 3,000 leading chefs, I refuse to serve any GM food to my customers. The future of the restaurant business in this country depends on keeping our food safe and free of all GM ingredients," he said.

However, the decision does not have any binding authority as the Environmental Protection Agency is the body charged with deciding on whether GM crops can be grown, and local authorities do not have the right to veto their decisions.

County Kildare becomes GMO-free zone
Cross-party support for local farmers and food producers

GM-free Ireland press release, 24 October 2006.

DUBLIN, 24 October 2006 ‚ Kildare County Council became the ninth county on the island of Ireland to declare itself a GMO-free zone [1]. The decision was taken by the elected County Councillors at a meeting yesterday.

The Motion states "that this County Council takes all possible measures necessary to promote and maintain Kildare as a genetically modified crop-free zone, in order to protect the interests of farmers and to encourage development of our valuable agricultural industry".

The motion was tabled by Mary Glennon, Independent Councillor for the Naas area, and was passed unanimously by elected representatives from all the political parties, with two abstentions.

Cllr. Glennon said "The economic value of Kildare's bloodstock, farm, food and tourist sectors have great economic importance and must be protected from any contamination by GM crops [2]. Our alarm bells went off when the world largest chemicals company, BASF, attempted to conduct an experiment with 450,000 GMO potatoes in Co. Meath earlier this year. We are absolutely delighted at the cross-party support for this motion to protect current and future generations of farmers and consumers from the threat of GM crops in Co. Kildare."

BASF's attempt to release the GMO potatoes led to massive opposition including a ban on GM crops in Co. Meath [3].

Eddie Punch, General Secretary of the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association (ICSA) said he welcomed Kildare's GMO-free regulation as a pragmatic response to the future of conventional agriculture in the area. "If Irish farmers are to compete, the secret must be to be able to differentiate our product ‚ to sell a different product which has specific characteristics that are attractive to the people that want them. The vast majority of EU consumers do not want to eat food containing GM ingredients. The whole island of Ireland should become a GMO-free zone, in order to supply the consumers of Europe with the GM-free product they desire." [4]

A spokesperson from the Kildare branch of the Irish Farmers Association said the local IFA was also pleased by the motion.

Chef Olivier Pauloin-Valory, from Les Olives restaurant in Naas, said "This is a delicious decision. As a member of Euro-toques, which represents Europe's 3,000 leading chefs, I refuse to serve any GM food to my customers. The future of the restaurant business in this country depends on keeping our food safe and free of all GM ingredients." [5].

A survey of tourists visiting this country now underway by Fáilte Ireland found that 92 per cent of foreign visitors perceive Ireland as a "clean green" destination, 62 per cent associate Irish food products with natural and local production, and 46 per cent have negative perceptions of GM crops.

Local organic farmer Nick Cullen, from Ballysax, who suggested the motion to Kildare Co. Council, said the GMO free motion will help protect his constitutional right to earn a livelihood, because he would be forced out of business if his crops became contaminated by GM pollen if anyone was stupid enough to try growing GM crops nearby [6]. Mr. Cullen also arranged for local landowners to place GMO-free zone signs along the main access road to the recent Ryder Cup which brought thousands of foreign visitors to Kildare last month [7].

Kildare Co. Council's decision came as EU member states voted yesterday to require mandatory testing of all rice imports from the United States for genetically modified material before allowing them to enter the EU. Illegal GM rice which escaped from open air field trials six years ago has since been found to have contaminated food supplies in 15 EU countries, Russia, Japan and the Middle East, leading to a collapse of American rice prices on the commodity markets, a virtual shut down of US rice exports to the EU, and massive economic losses for contaminated farmers and food exporters in the USA. [8]

Eight European countries have total or near total bans on GM seeds and crops and livestock, as do 175 regional governments, 3,500 local authorities and 1,000 smaller areas across 22 EU member states. These include most of Britain's Celtic fringe from the Highlands of Scotland through Wales and Cornwall. [9]

Unlike most EU countries, the Irish and UK governments still do not recognise the right of Local Authorities to prohibit GMO crops, and are poised to allow their "co-existence" with conventional and organic farming on this island following public consultations that have been described as totally undemocratic by stakeholder groups in Ireland and the UK [10]. Evidence from contamination incidents in 40 countries shows that "co-existence" inevitably leads to contamination [11]. GM crops can not be recalled after their release, and according to the official EU report on the subject, they may cause up to 40% higher production costs for EU farmers. [12] Moreover there is no market for GM-labelled food in Europe [13].

GM-free Ireland Network spokesman Michael O'Callaghan said that since our governments are failing in their duty to protect our security from the economic, health and environmental threats of GM food and farming, it is imperative for County and Town Councils North and South of the border to specifically prohibit the release of any GMO seeds, crops, trees, fish and livestock in their areas as soon as possible [14]. GM-free Ireland also advises Local Authorities to join the Assembly of European Regions to empower the latter to lobby on their behalf for a new EU Directive that recognises the democratic legal right of local areas to have the final say on whether to allow GM crops in their areas [15].

"Ireland's best economic interest is to declare the whole of this island a GMO-free zone" he said, "but since this government is in bed with the WTO and the agbiotech corporations on this issue, its up to citizens and their local elected representatives to take the lead at the County level to protect the interests of our farmers and consumers."

Contact:

Michael O'Callaghan
Coordinator, GM-free Ireland Network
Tel: + 353 (0)404 43885
Mobile: + 353 (0)87 799 4761
Email: mail@gmfreeireland.org
Web: www.gmfreeireland.org

Notes to editors:

1. Irish GMO-free zones now include 9 counties (Cavan, Clare, Fermanagh, Kildare, Kerry, Meath, Roscommon, Monaghan, and Westmeath), 9 towns (Bantry, Bray, Derry, Galway City, Letterkenny, Navan, Newry, Mourne, & Clonakilty) and 1,000 smaller areas. See detailed national and county maps at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/map.

2. See proceedings of the Green Ireland Conference on branding for food, farming and tourism at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference.

3. See http://www.gmfreeireland.org/potato. The world's largest chemicals company BASF gave up its plans for a controversial patented GMO potato experiment in Co. Meath this year, and may cancel it altogether. BASF said it made the decision because of the conditions imposed in the provisional consent given by the Environmental Protection Agency on 8 May. These included obligations for the company to reduce the risk of cross-contamination of neighbouring farmers and wildlife, and to pay the costs of an independent monitoring of health and environmental impacts. BASF complained that such conditions had not been imposed for similar experiments in Sweden.

Days later, BASF CEO Hans Kast, who also chairs the biotech lobby Europa-Bio, announced that all the European countries which oppose GM food and crops should "get out of the EU"!

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

4. ICSA is the first Irish conventional farmers group with a clearly defined policy to conserve Ireland's GM-free farming status. The speech by Eddie Punch at the Green Ireland Conference should be mandatory reading for all Irish farmers and food producers concerned about the competitive advantage of Ireland's green image, and the undemocratic way that farm policies are being determined by bureaucrats in the European Commission and the World Trade Organisation. See http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/epunch.php.

5. See Euro-Toques Ireland web site: http://www.eurotoquesirl.org.

6. EU and Irish laws forbid organic farmers and food producers from using any GM ingredients.

7. See "Organic farmer seeking to raise awareness of dangers of GM food", Leinster Leader, 5 October 2006.

8. Friends of the Earth Europe has published information online about all the reported rice contamination cases over the last two months: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/rice_contamination.htm.

See also GM-free Ireland press releases for September / October 2006 at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press.

9. For maps and details of GMO-free zones in Europe see http://www.gmofree-europe.org.

10. For details of Irish plans for "co-existence" of GM crops see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/coexistence.

11. See the international GM Contamination Register at http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org.

See also "Impossible coexistence: Seven years of GMOs have contaminated organic and conventional maize: an examination of the cases in Catalonia and Aragon". Published by Greenpeace International, 4 April 2006 (928 KB PDF file): http://www.gmreeireland.org/coexistence/Greenpeace/impossible-coexistence.pdf

12. "Scenarios for co-existence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops in European agriculture" published by the European Commission Joint Research Centre, May 2002. Download as 1 MB PDF file: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/gmcrops_coexistence.pdf

(Note that Ireland's former Chief Scientific Officer "Dr." Barry McSweeney, was accused by Greenpeace of attempting to suppress the publication of this report because of its disappointing conclusions for the biotech industry, whilst he was CEO of the Joint Research Centre.)

13. "No Market for GM-labelled Food in Europe", Greenpeace, January 2005. This detailed report shows that the EU market for GM labelled food products is virtually closed. Europe's top 30 retailers and top 30 food & drink producers have policies and non-GM commitments which reveal a massive international food industry rejection of GM ingredients. This cuts across the industry from food and drink manufacturers to retailers, and includes everything from snacks and ready meals to pet food and beer. The combined total food and drink sales of the 49 companies with a stated non-GM policy in their main market or throughout the EU (27 retailers and 22 food and drink producers) amounts to € 646 billion, more than 60% of the total € 1,069 billion European food and drink sales. Irish food companies doing business internationally need to implement a non-GM policy without delay. Download report (2MB PDF file):
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/NoMarketForGMFood.pdf.

14. The GM-free Ireland Network recommends that GMO-free zone motions by Irish County, City and Town Councils be worded as follows:

(a) to protect the interests of landowners, farmers, food producers, consumers and future generations by prohibiting the release of GMO seeds, crops, trees, insects, crustaceans, fish, poultry and livestock in [insert name of county];

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

(c) to prevent the transportation, storage, and use of live GMO seeds, crops, trees, insects, crustaceans, fish, poultry and livestock on its land, water, and airspace (including GMO seeds and crops approved only for animal feed or biofuel).

Because the Government will dismiss such motions, also ask your County, Town council or Regional Authority to join the Assembly of European Regions (http://www.a-e-r.org) which will lobby on your behalf for a new EC Directive that recognises the democratic right of local authorities to have the final say on whether GM crops may be grown in their area.

15. The proposed EU Directive should also include strict liability provisions for GMO contamination, and take into account not only economic but also ecological aspects of growing GM crops. See the briefing "Time to change European policy on GMOs in agriculture" issued to the EC Commissioners on 17 March 2005 by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), European Community of Consumer Cooperatives (EURO COOP), Friends of the Earth Europe (FOEE), Greenpeace European Unit, and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) EU Group. Download as 924K PDF file: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/coexistence/EU/BriefingGMOs_March05.pdf.

Only indigenous crops can end poverty

New Vision (Uganda), 24 October 2006. By Margaret Muhanga.

[The writer is the woman MP for Kabarole District]

ONE of the most crucial Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is poverty alleviation. The bulk of the Uganda's poor live in rural areas. They survive on less than one US dollar per day.

Uganda's development strategy now focuses on rural development; improving household incomes and people's quality of life.

However, the most critical question is why are rural people poorer than their counterparts in urban areas?

New development thinkers have realised that poverty is far more than mere absence of income. Social exclusion, lack of status in society and disempowerment are some of the other factors that can explain this phenomenon.

In African setup, many people thrive on social capital. Whether or not one has money they can at least eat, have shelter, clothing and perhaps live more a comfortable life than people in gainful employment who lack social capital. However, in Western societies social capital is not important. People live on their own and need cash or credit facilities to survive. This calls for a different approach to poverty alleviation in that setup.

Rural-urban migration in the developing countries is increasing very fast. The trend is worrying because, unlike the developed countries, there are few industries to absorb immigrants in towns.

People are attracted to urban centres because they assume they will get better housing, hospitals, schools, communications, consumer goods, jobs, higher salaries and career prospects. Rural-urban inequalities need to be sorted out because one does not necessarily become rich because they have moved to cities and towns. Some people's living conditions become when they arrive in the towns.

However, there is urgent need for poor countries to invest in the poorest segments of their population in terms of education, health and access to credit.

Part of the reasons we have lost focus on rural development is the perception that promotion of exotic knowledge as opposed to indigenous the way to go. No-one attempts to research on the indigenous knowledge. The Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture (PMA) is one of the examples of the global trend of trying to imitate what cannot solve our immediate problems.

A colleague of mine calls PMA 'plan for malicing of agriculture'. He argues that African indigenous plants are tastier, grow wild, need no fertilisers, do not pollute the environment, and can multiply and preserve the quality of our soils. With the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), poor people are going to live like slaves. They will have to depend on Western rich countries for fertilisers and seeds, hence increasing the dependency syndrome. This is partly because some of the GMOs have no seeds and in order to multiply them, one has to depend on imported seeds that are very expensive for a local farmer.

Recently, I toured my constituency trying to learn how people earn a living, especially those in peri-urban centres with small land holdings. I realised that there is a new Matooke (banana) breed locally known as 'fear' which is a liability to the farmers. It yields a very big bunch, looks healthy but is not tasty. People have realised that its market is limited because no-one wants it for any purpose, whether food or juice.

The indigenous bananas are highly marketable, taste nice, conserve our soils, need no fertilisers, and so are the rest of our indigenous crops.

Livestock farming has followed a similar pattern. The carriers of modernity have advocated exotic cattle which need special care and are suited for temperate climate. The Bahima of Ankole stuck to their indigenous cattle which need little attention and have tastier products than the exotic ones. Those breeding exotic ones think the Bahima have a åcattle complexÇ but in essence, they are better off than those with exotic breeds.

However, for those living on small land holdings, the rearing animals is limited to exotic cows because of the high milk yields. People in poetry have also realised that local chicken and eggs are tastier and more expensive. The exotic breeds are less tasty, take less time to cook and are sold in super markets. With the habit of consumerism among Ugandan middle class, no-one wants to venture into buying native chicken and go through the hassle of slaughtering it at home. This therefore means that rural poverty cannot be fought with 'imported' or exotic technology alone. We need to preserve our traditional ways of life. Preserving our indigenous crops and animals offers sustainable solutions to our needs as opposed to importing foreign ways which may never answer our problems.

GM Rice Contamination
How Regulators Tried to Sidestep the Law
BSE, drug trials and GM food, who are the regulators protecting? Prof. Peter Saunders

Extract only - see full article at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMRiceContaminationUK.php

European regulator quick to reassure public

The European Union has legislation requiring that any GM product put on the European market must have passed an authorisation procedure. Although the scientific assessments used are superficial and ignore a great deal of important evidence [1] (GM Food Animals Coming, this issue), but at least the law is clear. As the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection Markos Kyprianou said, "There is no flexibility for unauthorised GMOs à these cannot enter the EU food and feed chain under any circumstances." [2]

So when the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on 18 August that some commercially grown long grain rice had been contaminated with small amounts of the GM rice LLRICE601, the EU acted swiftly. The European Commission adopted emergency measures that forbid US long grain rice entering the EU unless accompanied by a certificate from an accredited laboratory assuring that LLRICE601 is absent. This is necessary because the present US procedures for testing are clearly inadequate: by mid-October, LLRICE601 had been detected in 74 separate incidents in 15 European countries [3].

The Commission also asked the European Food Standards Agency (EFSA) to examine the data supplied by the US and to assess whether they were sufficient to allow a proper safety assessment to be carried out; and the EFSA duly reported [4]:

"The available data are not sufficient to allow the safety of LLRICE601 to be assessed in accordance with the EFSA guidance for risk assessment. However, on the basis of the available molecular and compositional data and on the toxicological profile of PAT proteins, EFSA considers that the consumption of imported long grain rice containing trace levels of LLRICE601 is not likely to pose an imminent safety concern to humans or animals."

UK regulator privately allowed the sale of tainted rice at first

The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) also sought advice, but only informally from two members of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP). They too were told that there was no imminent safety concern. As with the EFSA, this positive advice was based on a dossier supplied by Bayer CropScience on 25 August with about 30 pages deleted as confidential business information (CBI).

Bayer CropScience eventually sent the full dossier, but too late to be used by the scientists who advised either of the agencies.

But while the EU decided to ban US long grain rice, the UK FSA told retailers in a memo later leaked to the press that there was no need to check whether any of the rice they were selling included some LLRICE601. It is, however, illegal to sell unauthorised GMOs in the UK, and Friends of the Earth threatened to take the FSA to court to make them comply with the law.

It would have made an interesting case, but the FSA backed down. On 5 October a new item appeared on their web site. It included the following statement [5]:

"The Agency has reconsidered and updated its advice to retailers regarding rice contaminated with GM material in the light of the EFSA risk assessment. The Agency had previously advised retailers that it would not be proportionate to track down and remove all products from sale that contain LLRICE601 because they were not thought to pose an imminent risk to health.

"However, the law states that no unauthorised GM material should be present in food on sale in the UK. Therefore the Agency is reminding food businesses of their responsibility to ensure that food they sell complies with the law. Any rice known to be contaminated with GM material is illegal and should be removed from sale."

You may get the impression from this that the FSA has modified its advice in the light of new scientific evidence, as any responsible body should, and that's obviously what you're meant to think. Not so. The EFSA risk assessment was based on the same evidence that was available to the FSA, the expurgated dossier originally provided by Bayer, and it reached the same conclusion.

In fact, the public statement from the FSA on 1 September did say that food retailers are responsible for ensuring that the food they sell does not contain unauthorised GM material [6]. At the same time, however, the FSA was privately advising retailers that it would not expect them actually to stop selling such food. It is the private advice that has changed.

The FSA is now admitting that it had previously advised retailers not to take measures to ensure they were complying with the law. It is also admitting that the reason it is now advising them to check if their rice is contaminated and, if it is, not to sell it, is simply that it is illegal to sell unauthorised GM products in the UK. But that was just as true in August as it was in October. Nothing has changed, except that the FSA now accepts that regulatory bodies are not supposed to advise businesses to ignore the law of the land.

GM bananas can wait

SciDev.net, 24 October 2006.
By Richard Markham and Anne Vezina
International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain, Montpellier, France

The situation created by the bacterial wilt disease attacking bananas in Uganda is both more complex and less intractable than your article suggests (see Uganda 'needs biotech law' to save banana sector).

It is more complicated in the sense that, although all banana varieties tested so far eventually succumb to the disease, these results were obtained by injecting the bacteria directly into the plant.

In farmers' fields, the conditions for the bacteria to enter the plant naturally are not always met, making it possible for some varieties to escape infection.

So far, the worst affected variety is Kayinja, a type of banana used to make juice, beer and alcohol that provides a much needed income for poor farmers in East and Central Africa.

The disease can be controlled by sterilising cutting tools, as mentioned in your article, but also by removing the male inflorescence as soon as the fruits have set.

This prevents insects from transmitting the bacteria to healthy plants.

The insects pick up the bacteria when they visit the inflorescence of sick plants, which exude bacteria-laden ooze through the openings made by the fallen bracts.

Removing the male inflorescence reduces the incidence of new infections almost to zero and is easy to implement.

In southwest Uganda, home to a group of bananas unique to the highlands of East Africa, farmers have been routinely removing the male inflorescence for other reasons.

This simple measure has prevented the disease from getting a foothold in the region, important as the region produces most of the cooking bananas that Ugandans eat at almost every meal.

There is no denying that farmers need resistant bananas, and given that bananas are hard to breed because they don't usually produce seeds, genetic engineering is an obvious avenue to explore.

We at the International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain have also been coordinating a project to genetically engineer varieties of highland bananas with Ugandan scientists.

At present, however, the only genetically modified (GM) bananas ready for field testing are dessert types and plantains that would not help the farmers wrestling with the bacterial disease, even if they were released tomorrow.

Contrary to the impression given by your article, it is not just any resistant banana that will do the trick. There are some 80 to 100 varieties of East African highland bananas in Uganda alone.

They cannot be replaced by one resistant variety. In the case of bacterial wilt, the variety that most urgently needs engineering is Kayinja, but as far as we know, nobody is working on it.

Biotechnology is one tool among many. Banana farmers should not be scared into accepting GM bananas as the only solution to a problem for which other measures are proving effective, and which Uganda's National Agricultural Research Organisation is also actively promoting, in addition to its work on GM bananas.

It is not worth the risk of creating a backlash against GM bananas, a situation that could jeopardise years of work and the ability of Ugandan scientists to exercise their skills in their home country.

Mexico GMO commercial corn seen years away

Reuters, 24 October 2006.

MEXICO CITY, Oct 24 (Reuters) - Mexico is unlikely to see the commercial production of genetically modified corn for years, even though it will soon let companies plant GMO corn test crops, biotech firm Monsanto (MON.N: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Tuesday.

The agriculture ministry said last week Mexico will establish rules within two weeks allowing biotech companies to grow GMO corn test crops.

But the experiments will take time and Mexico would still need rules allowing the commercial production and sale of GMO corn, Monsanto executive Jesus Perez told Reuters.

"In the best case scenario, it will be at least three years before this biotechnology becomes available to the Mexican grower," Perez said.

Mexico, which prides itself as the historical home of corn, is a big consumer of U.S. corn and corn seeds but is a major corn producer. About a million mostly poor farmers plant the crop, often on small plots in remote areas.

EU votes to test all US rice imports

Friends of the Earth Europe Press Statement, 24th October 2006.

Brussels, 24th October - Friends of the Earth Europe has welcomed the decision to test all rice imports from the United States for genetically modified material before allowing them to enter the EU. EU member states voted for the tougher controls in a meeting of national food experts yesterday. [1]

Reacting to the decision, Adrian Bebb, GM Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said, "Mandatory testing of all rice imports from the United States for illegal genetically modified material is absolutely vital since there have now been around eighty cases of contamination across Europe in the past six weeks." [2]

But the environmental campaign group has warned that contamination is likely not only in American rice imports, but in imports from all countries that conduct outdoor experimental GM trials. Indeed, rice products imported from China have already been found to be contaminated with an illegal genetically modified variant. [3] Friends of the Earth Europe has demanded that the new strict protocols are extended to all crops imported from countries that test genetically modified crops outdoors.

"Compulsory testing of all foods imported from countries that experiment with genetically modified crops outdoors should urgently be introduced. This includes imports from China. Chinese rice has already been shown to be contaminated, although the European Commission has so far failed to take action and seems to prioritise its trading relationship with China over protecting consumers," Mr Bebb added.

For more information, please contact:

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

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

Notes:

[1] The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health met yesterday (Monday October 23rd) in Brussels.

[2] Friends of the Earth Europe has published information online about all the reported rice contamination cases over the last two months: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/rice_contamination.htm

[3] Friends of the Earth Europe press release from 5th September 2006 following the discovery of GM contamination of Chinese foods: http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/AB_5_Sept_China_rice.html

Rosemary Hall
Communications Officer
Friends of the Earth Europe
Rue Blanche 15
B-1050 Bruxelles
Belgium
Tel.: +32 2 542 6105
Mobile: +32 485 930515
Fax:Ý +32 2 537 5596
rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org
http://www.foeeurope.org

23 October 2006

EU to test all US rice imports

The Associated Press, 23 October 2006. By Aoife White.

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- European Union nations voted Monday to test all U.S. long-grain rice imports to make sure they don't contain genetically modified varieties that haven't been approved by the EU.

All consignments of U.S. long-grain rice will be sampled and tested at EU entry ports before they can be distributed and sold, the European Commission said. The new rules will go into effect within a few days.

The EU action stems from fears that a banned genetically modified rice strain named Liberty Link Rice 601, which was accidentally imported from the United States, could have found its way into the food supply.

The Commission said it has to start mandatory tests because the EU and the U.S. failed to agree on how to check for genetically modified rice not legally allowed on sale in Europe.

Talks broke down after the sides could not find a way of testing the rice to "a high level of consistency and accuracy" within a 15-day negotiation period, it said.

The costs of testing will be borne by exporters.

The EU buys about 70 million euros ($90 million) worth of U.S. rice each year.

The tests also will check for another unauthorized genetically modified rice, LL Rice 62, recently found in French imports of U.S. rice.

Wary of public health and environmental concerns, the EU allows only genetically modified foodstuffs that have been evaluated and authorized to be placed on the EU market.

While the EU's executive arm insists on a recall of the illegal imports, it has said the presence of LL 601 poses no immediate health risk to humans or animals based on a review of incomplete data provided by the U.S. government and the maker of the rice variety.

Whether the rice is safe to eat or not, it is still cannot be sold in Europe because it has not been evaluated and authorized in line with EU law, the Commission said.

The EU said it was acting in response to finding LL Rice 601 in U.S. shipments four weeks ago. It first stepped up controls on U.S. rice in August after Dutch officials found an unauthorized genetically modified variety in shipments that arrived in the port of Rotterdam in August.

Other shipments also were found in the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy.

The LL 601 strain was developed by Aventis CropScience, which was taken over by Germany's Bayer AG in 2002 and renamed Bayer Crop Science. Bayer announced in July it had found the 601 strain in storage units in Arkansas and Missouri.

EU Tests May Stifle U.S. Rice Imports

Farm Futures, 10/23/2006

If the EU decides to go ahead with mandatory rice testing, U.S. rice exports to Europe may fizzle.

As the European Commission asks the EU nations to approve its proposal of mandatory testing of all U.S. rice imports, the U.S. says the burden may be too much for rice trade to continue between the U.S. and Europe.

The U.S. has "consulted with the industry and reviewed it internally and came to the conclusion it would just have the effect of not allowing trade to resume," says Floyd Gaibler, U.S. deputy undersecretary for farm and foreign agricultural services.

The proposed testing program would be aimed at making sure rice sent to the EU contains no unauthorized genetically modified varieties. The push for mandatory testing comes in response to the EU discovery of Liberty Link Rice 601, a genetically modified strain of long-grain rice banned in the EU, in a shipment of rice supposed to be free of biotech products.

Since the EU increased monitoring for genetically modified strains, U.S. rice shipments to Europe have halted.

Gaibler says the European testing program would be "simply too onerous for us to accept," but Philip Tod, spokesman for the EU, says the group has "no other option" from mandatory tests after the U.S. and EU failed to agree on a common testing protocol.

What are you eating?

IAfrica.com, 23 October 2006. By Lize de Kock.

Johannesburg, South Africa -- In the past two months Europe has lashed out at the US after supposedly untested genetically modified (GM) rice from the United States found its way into Britain, the Netherlands, France, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and the Baltic States.

The uproar came in the wake of persistent rumours that GM food companies have been leaking experimental GM products onto the market, despite the fact that European Union law dictates that unauthorised GM material is not allowed in foods.

SA backs biotechnology

In South Africa, our government supports biotechnology and Parliament recently passed the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Amendment Bill, which allows for increased acreage of GM crops. We already find genetically modified potatoes, corn, maize, soy and cotton on our supermarket shelves.

Worryingly though, we cannot really be sure what else is out there, since a couple of phone calls revealed that the Department of Agriculture believes food regulation is the responsibility of the Department of Health, and vice versa. The alarm bells also start ringing louder when you take into account that South Africa is one of the United States' top ten markets for rice exports.

So what are GM foodstuffs exactly?

Every living organism is made up of cells and each cell has a nucleus. Inside the nucleus there is DNA, which in turn is made up of genes. But genetic engineering (GE) has made it possible to transfer genes from any one organism to another.

To create a more pest-resistant apple, for instance, scientists may find that a gene from a blowfish can help. And so the make-up of the living cells inside the apple may be fused with that of the fish and become a whole new living cell, or genetically modified organism.

Comparing apples with apples

Back in your local supermarket, however, it's impossible to tell the difference between a GM apple and a regular one with the naked eye.

One of the main arguments in favour of GM foods is that it will relieve world hunger. The basic premise is that genetically engineered crops can withstand droughts and extreme weather conditions and therefore alleviate the onset of food shortages and famine.

The biggest worry though is that there have been virtually no official studies and no post-release monitoring of GM food on human health, despite some disturbing results from research by non industry-financed scientists.

Are we eating Frankenfood?

According to independent scientists the addition of a single gene to DNA causes one out of twenty other genes to perform differently, according to Jeffrey M. Smith writes in his book ëSeeds of deception'. This means that when the gene of a blowfish enters the DNA of an apple, it will modify the genetic make-up of the apple almost entirely.

A British government-funded study conducted by Dr Arpad Pusztai and published in the Lancet medical journal in October 1999 makes for some rather shocking bedtime reading. The study demonstrated that rats fed a GM potato developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, as well as damaged immune systems and organs.

Worryingly, field trials of grapes modified with a gene from E.coli are being planned in Stellenbosch despite there being a reported oversupply of grapes this season. Moreover, according to the local wine industry all GM substances are banned in local and export wine.

Owning the food chain

It's also fairly sobering to learn how the giant US biotech company Monsanto buys up smaller seed companies and genetically modifies the seeds. ëThe future of food', a documentary about GMOs in the US, explains how these new genes are patented and becomes the property of the company. This is the cause of an ongoing and emotional international debate about whether it's ethical to patent and own life.

An Agence France Presse (AFP) report in April this year linked farmer suicides in India to the burden of debt imposed by the cost of Monsanto's GM cotton seeds. Initially, trial crops gave good results, after which rising prices and failing crops drove farmers to despair. According to the report, nearly 10 000 farmers have committed suicide there since 2001.

But South African farmers seem to favour the new GM crops, a report released in October by the US Department of Agriculture has revealed. The reason? GM crops are easier to manage than natural varieties, need less effort and produce higher yields.

What terrifies environmentalists and farmers worldwide is that when genetically modified crops cross-pollinate with regular crops, the GM gene is dominant. This means that regular crops can turn GM within a season, and if the gene is patented the company who owns the gene owns the crops.

As with many things in life there are no concrete answers. There are, however, more questions. Should we allow a company (or a country) to own the food chain? And why does our government expose us in South Africa to potentially dangerous food? Does that not turn us into lab rats?

GM-risk food imports must be tested
EU countries to vote on measures to keep contaminated rice out of Europe

Friends of the Earth Europe Press Release, 23 October 2006.

Brussels, 23rd October 2006 - EU member states must adopt tougher measures to control the spread of contaminated food imports, says Friends of the Earth Europe. Environment Ministers and national food safety experts are meeting separately today to discuss how to deal with the contamination of rice from both the United States and China with illegal genetically modified (GM) experimental strains.

The national food safety experts will vote today on a new proposal for mandatory testing of all US rice imports for GM contamination. [1]

Adrian Bebb, GM Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said, "Mandatory testing of all rice imports from the United States for illegal genetically modified material is absolutely vital since there have now been around eighty cases of contamination across Europe in the past six weeks."

Friends of the Earth Europe has published information online about all the reported rice contamination cases over the last two months. [2]

The environmental campaign group has warned that contamination is likely not only in American rice imports, but in imports from all countries that conduct outdoor experimental GM trials. Indeed, foods imported from China have also been found to be contaminated with an illegal GM rice strain.

Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace first raised the alert about contaminated Chinese rice products over six weeks ago [3], but the Commission has so far refused to introduce measures to restrict their import. The food products have now been found in four countries. [2]

Friends of the Earth Europe has called for the proposed testing of rice imports to be extended to all foods imported from countries that test genetically modified crops outdoors.

"We urgently need compulsory testing of all foods imported from countries that experiment with genetically modified crops outdoors. This includes imports from China. Chinese rice has already been shown to be contaminated, although the European Commission has so far failed to take action and seems to prioritise its trading relationship with China over protecting consumers," Mr Bebb added.

In addition to the meeting of national experts, Environment Ministers from across the EU will be discussing the rice contamination at their Council meeting in Luxembourg today. Friends of the Earth Europe has written to all member states calling for the introduction of a "detection register" of all GM crops tested outdoors. Currently, biotech companies are not obligated to publicise information about the crops that they are testing.

Friends of the Earth Europe believes that if a company wants to test GM crops outdoors then it must first provide a validated test for that specific crop. This would enable food authorities and food companies to test normal food supplies for contamination originating from test sites.

"It is clear that you cannot grow genetically modified crops outdoors without the risk of contaminating the whole food chain. Ideally, outdoor growing should be banned. Failing that, biotech companies must be forced to disclose details about their experiments so that we can track contamination of foods and take preventative action to protect public health," Mr Bebb said.

For more information, please contact:

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

Notes to Editors:

[1] The US revealed on 18th August that the US food chain has been contaminated with an illegal and untested genetically modified (GM) strain called LL601. The EU introduced an Emergency Procedure on 23rd August that required imports from the US to be certified free of LL601 rice. The European Food Safety Authority has also declared that there is insufficient data on LL601 to be able to guarantee its safety. However, discrepancies between US testing standards and the EU's stricter requirements has led to a stand-off between the two trading blocks with all imports of US rice halted. The European Commission gave the US a 15 day deadline to agree to the EU's testing protocols which ran out on Thursday (19th October), before introducing new measures that require mandatory testing to EU standards at all ports.

European Commission press release from Thursday 19th October http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?... .

FoEE press statement reaction: http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/AB_19_Oct_tougher_EC_rice_controls.html,

[2] FoEE webpage compiling contamination cases: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/rice_contamination.htm

[3] FoEE press release following Chinese rice contamination http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/AB_5_Sept_China_rice.html

22 October 2006

EU to force GMO counter-test over US rice shipments

Euractiv.com, 19 October, updated 22 October 2006.

In Short:

The European Union is set to adopt a decision imposing a mandatory counter-test to US rice imports over concerns that they could be contaminated with the unauthorised GMO LLRICE601.

RELATED

EU strives to find GMO needle in rice haystack

Brief News:

Talks between the EU and the US broke down on Thursday (19 October) after the two failed to agree on a common approach to certify US rice as GMO-free.

A proposal to impose a counter test on all imports of long grain rice from the US will be submitted for approval by the EU Standing Committee on the Food Chain next Monday, the Commission said. The tests will be carried out by national authorities in the member states at the costs of exporters, the Commission indicated.

The measures are being taken after it emerged in August that the unauthorised GM rice LL601, a variety engineered by Bayer CropScience, had been shipped to the EU and placed on supermarket shelves as early as January. Systematic checks at EU borders were imposed as a result (EurActiv, 24 Aug. 2006).

"The tests [costs] will be for the exporters' to bear," said Philip Tod, the Commission's spokesperson for health and consumer issues. "Only if the counter-tests confirm the absence of LLRICE601 or any other unauthorised GMO will [the shipment] be released," he added.

The test will also apply to LLRICE62, another unauthorised GM rice variety detected recently by French authorities.

Tod further said that the issue was not so much about the GMO variety posing a threat to public health. "This is an unauthorised GMO which has not been evaluated and authorised in the EU," he explained.

Officials at the US mission to the EU declined to comment, saying a statement may come out from Washington at a later stage.

LINKS

EU official documents

• Commission (press release): GM rice: Commission to propose strict counter testing of US rice imports

• Commission (press release): Commission requires certification of US rice exports to stop unauthorised GMO entering the EU [FR] [DE] (23 August 2006)

• Commission (memo): Questions and Answers on the finding of unauthorised GM rice on the US market (23 August 2006)

• Commission (memo): Questions and Answers on the Regulation of GMOs in the European Union [FR] [DE] (22 March 2005) Governments

• US Dept. of Agriculture (USDA): Statement by Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns Regarding Genetically Engineered Rice (18 August 2006)

• US Dept. of Agriculture (USDA): Fact Sheet - Genetically engineered rice (August 2006) 4000650

• Bayer CropScience: Comments on the identification of traces of biotechnology rice in U.S. rice samples (18 August 2006)

• EuropaBio: Press center NGOs

• Friends of the Earth Europe: Bayer, not taxpayers, must pay for GM rice testing in Europe (1 Sept. 2006)

• Friends of the Earth Europe: EU clamps down on GM rice (23 August 2006)

• Greenpeace: EU restrictions on illegal US rice imports inadequate (23 August 2006)

Opposition to GE crops: Thais reap windfall
Kingdom lands more export orders as EU and some Asian countries ban GE rice from US

The Nation, October 22 2006

The global rice trade was stunned last July when US shipments bound for the European Union were found to contain genetically engineered rice.

Thailand, as the world's leading rice-exporter, has reaped a windfall as orders for non-GE rice have kept rising in past months.

Sixteen European countries and Japan have effectively banned all imports of GE rice.

The Thai government has adhered to its non-GE rice policy.

Morrakot Tanticharoen, director of the National Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (Biotec), told The Nation recently that GE rice was not an option today, though it might be in the distant future.

Science and Technology Minister Yongyuth Yuthavong said rice was a very big and sensitive issue.

"Policywise we ought to move very carefully. Yet, we shouldn't close all doors to scientific development," he said. According to environmental group Greenpeace, Ebro Puleva, Europe's largest food-processing company, has suspended rice imports from the US following the July GE rice scandal.

The US Agriculture Department has announced that rice shipments of one exporting company, Riceland Food Inc, were found to have carried a GE rice strain called Liberty Link (LL) 601.

The strain should have been restricted to laboratories and trial fields, according to the department. LL 601 is said to have been developed by Bayer Crop Science, a unit of German chemical giant Bayer. It is designed to resist some agricultural chemicals but has not yet been approved for commercial planting or consumption.

According to Greenpeace International, GE rice traces were originally discovered last January involving several of Riceland's suppliers.

Afterwards, Riceland traced back the sources of the rice to four US states, Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana and Texas.

At least four US farmers have sued Bayer for the infiltration of GE rice, demanding billions of dollars in damages. The case is pending in court.

Besides Europe and Japan, other US rice markets such as the Philippines have imposed a ban on GE rice.

Korea has also tightened its import rules by requiring a non-GE certificate, especially for rice from the US. The moves overseas against GE rice have proved a boon for Thai exporters - at least for now.

"We've got more orders from Europe to replace those which would otherwise have gone to the US," said Wanlop Pitchyapongsa of Capital Rice, a major exporter.

"Replacement is obvious, especially for long-grain rice, which is normally supplied by the US. Usually we export only premium jasmine rice to the EU," he said.

The scandal shows that Thailand's strength lies in non-GE rice, which should be maintained as the chief selling point, he said.

Thanakorn Jitratangbunya of Chia Meng Group, another big player, said the risk of experimenting with GE rice was high and it should not be allowed here.

Even though the US regulations are very strict, there was still a leak and contamination from the lab to the farm, he said.

Wallop said the damage from GE crops was irreversible and it was difficult to clean up if there was GE contamination.

Capital Rice exports around one million tonnes of non-GE rice worth Bt12 billion annually while Chia Meng, the country's biggest fragrant-rice exporter, ships out 400,000 tonnes per year worth Bt7 billion.

The country ships a total 7.5 million tonnes worth around Bt80 billion a year.

Both Wanlop and Thanakorn said the government should promote Thailand as a 100-per-cent non-GE rice-exporter.

Yongyuth said the country had no GE-rice research and development facilities.

Biotec director Morrakot said the only biotechnological research on rice going on here was related to the development of DNA markers, which are part of the rice genome research series, aimed at developing better rice strains through genetic improvement, not by inserting non-rice genes.

The work has yielded the high-iron nutrient khao hom nil strain and also flood-resistant strains in laboratory and field trials.

These strains will be offered to farmers soon, he said.

"Although we've closed the door to GE rice development, we should still keep a window open in the laboratory so that we don't miss the next biotechnology train. Field trials should be allowed case by case, particularly for papaya and tomato research," he said.

Sairung Thongplon of the Confederation of Consumer Organisations of Thailand said the government should review biosafety legislation being drafted by the Agriculture Ministry because it would promote the biotech business rather than protect the country's rich biological diversity.

"This bill is a legacy of the past government," she said, adding that citizens'-rights advocates and other non-governmental groups were preparing a parallel bill focusing on biodiversity to replace the biosafety bill.

Anti-GE campaigner Patwajee Srisuwan of Greenpeace Southeast Asia said GE rice had also been detected in food products sold in the UK, France and Germany, as these items contained ingredients made from GE rice exported by China.

These products were removed from the shelves early this year.

"GE rice has become a major issue as consumers worldwide have sent a strong 'No' message," she said.

According to Greenpeace, GE rice is understood to be supported by the US, China and Iran, but it remains illegal for consumption and commercial plantation due to the safety issue.

In China, GE rice strains developed by Huazhong University were found to have reached farmers, with the rice identified in a vast area of Hubei province and some southern cities.

The GE rice was found contaminating Heinz baby cereal food in March.

According to a Greenpeace survey conducted this year, 57 per cent of Chinese respondents said they would avoid eating GE rice, up from last year's figure of only 40 per cent.

Iran, the world's largest rice market, is experimenting with GE rice containing antibiotic-resistant genes in the field with plans to distribute seeds to farmers soon, amid opposition from an international anti-GE alliance.

GM grapes earn wrath of growers

The Sunday Times (South Africa), 22 October 2006. By Bobby Jordan.

The University of Stellenbosch's planned planting of 'super-grapes' has top wine exporters seeing red.

AN EFFORT to produce South Africa's first genetically modified Chardonnay wine has sparked ferment among top winemakers, who want the country's wines to remain 'pure'.

The 'super-grapes' already in incubation inside a greenhouse at the University of Stellenbosch, are due to be grown at the university's experimental farm.

But the trial first needs the go-ahead from the government's Executive Council on Genetically Modified Organisms, which will debate the matter next month amid a chorus of opposition from wine authorities, including premier estates such as Spier, Lanzerac and Distell.

This week the national Wine Council, chaired by former Cabinet minister Kader Asmal, opposed another application from the university - to use genetically enhanced yeast in wine production.

The row over super-grapes highlights a broader spat over GM foods such as maize, soya and cotton, which are already widely cultivated in South Africa despite concerns about possible health risks and environmental contamination.

A Free State University study has found traces of GM ingredients in 90% of soya products and 61% of maize products tested from the local market. Maize meal is one well-known GM product.

South African companies at present do not have to label food products containing GM material unless they show 'significant difference' from other products - a term yet to be clearly defined.

Wine farmers opposed to GM foods fear their non-GM grapes might become contaminated by GM seed, which in the case of wine would be a disaster for the country's eco-friendly reputation. Anti-GM lobby groups such as Biowatch South Africa also warn of intellectual property issues - the patents on GM organisms are retained by the companies that produce them.

However, pro-GM scientists and companies believe GM crops offer significant benefits such as resistance to disease and higher nutrient content. They argue that GM products are already widely available throughout much of the developed world as well as in South Africa. About 30% of yellow maize and 10% of white maize is already derived from GM crops.

Among other things, GM grapes could lower alcohol content in wines and reduce headaches resulting from particular grape sugars.

GM maize is resistant to some harmful weeds and bugs, thereby reducing the need for pesticides. Some GM herbicides contain insect genes that make crop sprays more effective.

Dr Sarita Groenewald, GM field trial manager at Stellenbosch University Institute for Wine Biotechnology, said the whole point of the GM trials was to produce more environmentally friendly grapevines.

Groenewald said: 'It is really vital that we do these trials. The actual aim is to produce a grapevine that can be used in more environmentally friendly production on wine farms. These trials are for research purposes only.'

Groenewald said the trial site would be completely sealed off to minimise the risk of contamination. All flowers would be bagged and grapevines covered with nets to prevent seed dispersal by birds or other animals during fruiting stages.

'The genes that have been inserted into these plants [come from] from E. coli, which is generally present in nature anyway,' Groenewald said.

But Leslie Liddell, director of Biowatch South Africa, said: 'The nets and bagging of flowers will not ensure that small insects and micro-organisms don't get to the GM plants.'

GM vineyard trials are a thorny issue in several other wine-producing countries, including the US and France, where science is making inroads in the fight against harmful crop viruses.

A GM vineyard under lock and key in Colmar, the heart of France's famous Alsace wine region, has angered fiercely traditional French farmers, some of whom say they'd rather live with viruses.

South African winemakers this week expressed concern about the university's ability to completely isolate its vineyard trial. The head red winemaker at Spier Estate, Kobie Viljoen, said even the slightest exposure to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), such as a GM yeast, could contaminate a wine cellar and have serious repercussions for wine exports.

'For us on the production side, GMOs are a no-go,' he said.

The head of grape and wine buying at Distell, Ernst le Roux, said consumer doubts about GM products outweighed the need for innovation in agriculture.

'From a commercial point of view we can't afford to even say we are thinking of using this [GM] material,' Le Roux said, adding that Distell had no plans to buy GM grapes. 'We won't be pressing to make it legal either.'

Consumer doubts are well founded, according to Chris Viljoen, head of the University of the Free State GMO testing facility in the faculty of Plant Sciences.

'Most scientists who are pro-GM have no problems with GM plants. But when you talk about producing GM babies then suddenly viewpoints become quite varied. One wonders if people would want labels on GM human beings,' he said.

'This debate is not about accepting or rejecting technology. It's about making sure that technology is relevant. One can't just say because we used technology to produce something then we have to use it because it's better.'

No golden rice! No GE rice!

Organic Farming Association of India - Orissa Chapter press release, 22 October 2006.

Dr Mangla Rai, Director-general of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), made a statement a few days ago in Delhi that "India is not lagging behind in developing its versions of the genetically modified (GM) Golden Rice., "According to him large-scale field trials of Golden Rice will happen within a year. Golden Rice is being promoted to reduce vitamin A deficiency in our country.

The Organic Farming Association of India-Orissa Chapter (OFAI-Orissa chapter) doest not see genetically engineered golden rice as a solution to vitamin A deficiency, rather a part of the problem and strongly opposes of open field trials of golden rice.

Genetic engineering is a biotechnology that allows the introduction of foreign genes into a genome. This technique is used to create gene combinations that would be impossible through natural processes like sexual reproduction - for example, introducing flounder genes into tomatoes, bacterial genes into corn, or even human genes into rice.

"Vitamin A rice / golden rice", developed to counter vitamin A deficiency in the populations of poor countries. This genetically-engineered rice produces beta-carotene in its endosperm, giving it the distinct yellow colour that affords it the name 'golden rice.' It was developed with funds from the Rockefeller Foundation and the European Commission.

A March, 2000, report by Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) says Vitamin A deficiency rarely occurs in isolation. It is only one of a whole range of nutrients, the lack of which occurs within the context of poverty, environmental degradation and social disparity.

We fail to understand how by just providing only a single micronutrient - vitamin -A via rice to a population which is deficient in a whole range of nutrients will help to enhance their nutrional standards.

The one-dimensional technical fix approach to Vitamin -A deficiency is a reminder of the Green Revolution paradigm. 'Golden rice' is being promoted as a universal solution to the problems of the poor decided upon and developed by scientists from the North. It comes as no great surprise that the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the main architects of the Green Revolution, has been financing this approach to solve a problem which it helped to create in the first place.

Supplementation and fortification programmes treat the symptoms but not the underlying cause of micronutrient malnutrition. Poor quality diets consisting primarily of staple foods are the underlying cause of micronutrient malnutrition. 'Golden rice' is merely an extension of the supplementation approach and also fails to address the cause. Even worse, it actually perpetuates malnutrition because it fails to address peoples' requirements of other minerals and vitamins, which would be met by adopting a balanced nutrition.

We are afraid that golden rice" as a solution to solve vitamin A problems in India, is being used as a strategy for corporate takeover of our rice production, using the involvement of the public sector as shield.

90% of small & marginal farmers are rice growers and rice being our staple food we can't achieve security when transnational corporations control our rice production .This will not help our farmers and / farming. We are also quite afraid that the large scale open air trial of GE Rice will contaminate our traditional varieties. This will remove our' choice to grow non-GE rice and allow the MNCs to take control of our food system.

There are many important sources of Vitamin -A which are not expensive, does not need much care and are being & can be grown in our back yard .Among them a wide range of green leafy vegetables viz: drumstick leaves in particular provide a very rich and inexpensive source of pre-formed vitamin A, in addition to other important micronutrients. Scientific reports suggests a glassful of fresh drum stick leaves contains the daily requirement of vitamin A for up to ten people, or small amounts of less than 10 gm of fresh can meet the day's requirement of vitamin A of preschool children. Bathua, another important green leafy vegetable high in nutritional value and rich in vitamin A. The other leaves which are important sources of Vitamin A are cassava leaves, sweet potato leaves, taro leaves. A few other vegetable crops rich in vitamin A are coriander leaves, amaranth, curry leaves, carrot, pumpkin, fenugreek leaves, radish leave, kundri, winged bean, cowpea and bitter gourd. Mango, papaya and jackfruit are the two fruits rich in vitamin A. So, there is a wide range of locally available rich sources of vitamin-A available with us.

However, the contribution of crops especially drumstick leaves , curry leaves cassava leaves, sweet potato leaves, taro leaves to alleviate Vitamin A deficiencies is greatly underappreciated by our policy makers .

The attempts by various extension services to promote "high value "market oriented crops have led to decreased diversity of species & varieties in home gardens.

We feel far more effective approach to treat vitamin A deficiency is to focus on the utilization of the food plant mentioned above which are being under utilized at the moment and many of them are fast disappearing in the fields.

Diversity is the basis of balanced nutrition. Agricultural and nutritional policies should promote the availability of micronutrient-rich foods .The higher the diversity of our crops, the better the uptake of vitamin A, as well as many other nutrients. Diversity combats malnutrition in general.

So, OFAI-Orissa chapter stands for NO GOLDEN RICE and will oppose any move for field trial of GE Rice.

Contact: Debjeet Sarangi
on behalf of he Organic Farming Association of India - Orissa Chapter

Living Farms (a project of DRCSC, Kolkata)
77 B, Brhameswar Patna
Tankapani Road
PO-Baragada Brit Colony
Bhubaneswar 751018
Orissa
Phone 0674 -5524011
Phone 0674-5524011
www.drcsc.org

21 October 2006

Forum opens conversation on canola (GM) oilseed rape

Capital Press (Salem, Oregon, USA) 20 or 21 October 2006.

Farmers and fieldmen have agreed on isolation distances of two miles for seed crops and three miles for GMO seed crops.

Read the article (requires subscription:
http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=67&SubSectionID=618&ArticleID=28107&TM=35352.43.

Resist this rush for GM crops.

Western Morning News, 21 October 2006

The government's supposed consultation over the future of genetically modified crops in Britain smacks of a sham exercise. Tony Blair's view on the matter is well known and - as we have seen before - if Mr Blair is resolved on something he is not too bothered what the public thinks.That is not the spin that is being put on this process, of course. Ostensibly, all opinions will be taken into account, due weight will be given to arguments both for and against, then a balanced and considered decision will be made.

Excuse us for sounding cynical, but we do not believe it.

The former Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, is closer to the mark when he says that public opinion is being overridden. Despite trials that provoked outrage among organic and non-GM farmers in the countryside, despite the militant uprooting of experimental crops, and despite the very well-founded fears about cross-pollination, the Government still has the audacity to claim that there is "no scientific case" for a ban.

That is a preposterous argument that owes more to this Government's all too comfortable relationship with big business than with any objective analysis of the facts.

For every argument that GM does not pose a threat to human health, there are opponents in the farming and scientific community who can point to the contrary.

For every insistence that GM crops cannot compromise nearby organic fields, there is evidence to make a mockery of it.

The stark fact of the matter is the Government has decided on a technology which could have long-term effects on agriculture over which there is little control. In its haste, it could be opening a Pandora's Box which lets loose a trail of damage stretching far into the future. If it then transpires that ministers got it disastrously wrong - as they are being warned they have - it may be too late to reverse the damage.

It is confusing as to what are the Government's motives in this matter. It may be that vested interest has influenced opinion; it may even be Mr Blair and senior colleagues at Defra are persuaded of the long-term benefits of GM to the food market and the consumer.

Whatever the Government's reasoning, we believe its conclusions are both wrong-headed and dangerous.

If that means it must be challenged in law, then good.

If it means public demonstrations against the crude imposition of GM, then so much the better. We would expect that those protests would be particularly widespread in the Westcountry, which has such a high concentration of organic farms.

Farmers cannot afford to be used as the guinea pigs for a Government experiment in genetic technology.

The health of the public must not be compromised by an expansion of the market in tainted food. There is enough of that already to contend with and overcome without the situation being worsened. Nor must opponents of GM be brow-beaten or intimidated by accusations of their being "anti-science".

We are very much in favour of science when it is to the benefit of human health and progress.

If the Government is not in the mood to listen to that, then it must be made to listen.

One word sums up our message on GM crops: no!

Secret agenda

Western Morning News (UK), 21 October 2006. By Duncan Sandes.

Farmers and campaigners have labelled as a "sham" the Government's consultation over whether genetically modified (GM) crops should be grown commercially in the UK for the first time.

The three-month consultation over whether GM crops can successfully "co-exist" with conventional and organic produce ended yesterday.

However, the latest consultation exercise comes after the Government insisted that there was "no scientific case" for a total ban on growing GM crops.

That view lead to former environment minister Michael Meacher, and other campaigners, suspecting that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is looking for a way to overcome opposition and introduce GM crops "through the back door".

Yesterday Lavinia Halliday, an organic sheep and beef farmer , from Linkinhorne, South East Cornwall, said: "The Government seems to have adopted a steamroller approach to this consultation, and is treating this as a fait accompli."

When the consultation was launched, Environment Minister Ian Pearson insisted the plans were "not about giving a green light to GM", and that any crop would still have to obtain full EU safety approval before it could be grown in the UK.

However, Mr Meacher this week claimed that public opposition to GM crops was being "overridden" by the Government's determination to support the controversial industry.

His views were yesterday backed by Westcountry farmers and campaigners, who insist the controversial technology could lead to a "cross-contamination" with organic crops being grown in the region.

Andrew George, the Lib-Dem MP for St Ives, who has backed a campaign to keep Cornwall GM-free, described the latest move as a "sham consultation". He said: "This is nothing more than window dressing. If the Government was so concerned with public opinion then it would have taken more notice of the scepticism surrounding previous consultations on the issue."

The public consultation was over proposals to allow GM crops to be grown for the first time in the UK, provided they are separated from other crops by at least 35 metres (115 feet). Private gardens and allotments would receive no protection.

Previous attempts to conduct GM experiments were met with huge opposition in the UK, with campaigners voicing concerns over cross-contamination with organic crops.

In the Westcountry, protesters tried to destroy an experimental maize crop trial site at Hood Barton Farm in Totnes, while organic farmer Guy Watson brought an unsuccessful High Court action against the same trial site, saying the crop was contaminating his sweetcorn crop growing nearby.

Such has been the level of opposition that GM crops have never been grown commercially in Britain.

A spokesman for Defra yesterday said that it was "confident the proposals are legally sound", but it would give Mr Meacher's comments "due consideration".

However, Maurice Spurway, Westcountry spokesman for the environmental group, Friends of the Earth, backed Mr Meacher's claims.

He said: "To say that the evidence shows GM and organic crops can co-exist seems a tenuous concept, particularly with the risk of cross-contamination. We can only hope that the Government sits up and takes notice of public opinion against this."

Robert Vint, a campaigner with Totnes-based Genetic Food Alert UK, accused the Government of showing "remarkable bias" towards introducing GM crops.

He said: "Defra is doing all it can to push GM crops and that is something that has to set the alarm bells ringing."

Mr Watson, who runs his Riverford Farm Organics from Staverton, South Devon and who brought the unsuccessful High Court action in 1998, was also critical of the consultation.

He said: "It seems to me that the Government's strategy is to hold these consultations until the public grow bored of protesting, and then it can do as it wants and introduce GM crops to the countryside."

Ian Johnson, the National Farmers' Union spokesman for the South West, said GM crops were a "big issue".

However, he added: "The underlying fact is that farmers need to be commercial and they will not grow anything that the public will not want or buy, so I cannot see GM crops being grown in the UK."

In 2003, many of the Westcountry's district, borough and county councils shunned genetically modified plants and foods by declaring themselves GM-free zones.

They insisted that GM crops should not be grown for commercial purposes until scientific evidence had shown conclusively that there are no harmful impacts on human or animal health.

Now, many of the local authorities, including South Hams District Council and both Devon and Somerset County Councils, have written to the Government to reiterate their opposition to GM crops.

In its letter, the South Hams council said the proposals offered "inadequate protection" to the environment, farmers, and the local economy, as well as pointing out there was "currently no demand for GM products" in the UK.

In response, a Defra spokesman said: "If there is no market for them, GM crops will not be grown."

GM crops would be approved for commercial use only after going through a very transparent assessment and rigorous decision-making process that would be managed at EU level.

"Our co-existence proposals address the possibility that approved GM crops might be grown here in due course. Our proposals will minimise any unwanted GM presence in non-GM crops as far as possible."

Planet matters: low-impact living, by Jane Powers.

The Irish Times magazine, 21 October 2006.

Conventional cotton crops consume 25 per cent of the world's pesticides and 10 per cent of its herbicides, yet they occupy only 3 or 4 per cent of agricultural land. These are the most frequently quoted statistics in favour of switching to organic cotton, but they are gobsmacking enough to bear repetition. And I've just learned the further unsavoury fact that the cotton in the T-shirt I am wearing required 150g of fertiliser and other chemicals to produce. Imagine: a ball of chemicals the size of a large apple hanging out of your otherwise snug top.

Some of the chemicals used in poorer countries are now banned in Europe. And although cotton is not designated an edible crop, by-products - cotton-seed oil and waste materials processed into animal feed - end up in the human food chain.

Cotton may be sprayed numerous times before harvest. Along with insects, earthworms are casualties. They rise to the soil's surface to die, where they are plucked by birds. These in turn are killed, and are eaten by larger birds, and mammals and snakes - with fatal consequences. Livestock may also be affected, and the effects on human health can be disastrous. Where farmers are barely eking out an existence - cotton subsidies in the US have led to artificially low market prices worldwide - there is much scope for poisoning besides contamination from handling and spraying. Food crops are unsafely grown with cotton, and pesticide containers are reused for drinking water and food.

Twenty per cent of the world's cotton is genetically modified. One kind, inserted with the Bacillus thuringiensis gene, is toxic to bollworms. But other pests are taking their place, so that crops have to be sprayed up to 20 times during the growing season, according to a Cornell University study.

Organically grown cotton relies on natural methods such as the rotation of crops, the physical removal of weeds, the addition of organic matter to the soil and the use of beneficial insects to control pests. Yields are usually not as high as for the conventional crop, but farmers are paid a premium and have lower costs, so they have higher net incomes. Other benefits include freedom from debt, better health and food uncontaminated by pesticide residue. (Organic-cotton bed linen, towels and clothing are available from www.ecoshop.ie.)

Yes, organic cotton products may be more expensive for consumers, but perhaps it's better that we, rather than small cotton farmers, pay the price.

20 October 2006

Second Kind Of Bayer GM Rice Detected In EU

Dow Jones, October 20, 2006

FRANKFURT -- A second kind of genetically modified rice developed by German chemicals and pharmaceutical company Bayer AG (BAY) has been detected in the European Union, a E.U. spokesman confirmed to Dow Jones Newswires Friday.

French authorities' recently found unauthorized rice LL62 in France imported from the U.S. and notified the European rapid alert system, spokesman Philip Tod told Dow Jones Newswires.

The E.U. spokesman said the LL62 rice is still unauthorized in the E.U., but is in the approval process. The application to import the rice into the E.U. was made three years ago, Philipp Mimkes of Coordination gegen Bayer Gefahren, or CBG, an anti-Bayer campaign group, told Dow Jones Newswires.

Although the rice is authorized for marketing in the U.S., it has not been commercialized there, Tod added. Bayer spokeswoman Anette Josten said "we are taking note of this report about an alleged positive detection made by the French authorities and continue to work closely with the governments and others in the rice industry as more information becomes available." She also confirmed the rice hasn't been commercialized in the U.S.

In September of this year, traces of Bayer's LL601 rice were found which were not authorized in the U.S. Later the LL601 rice was also found in Europe for example in Germany in rice sold in discount supermarkets.

Three out of four Italians see GMOs as health threat

Reuters News Service, Oct 20 2006

CERNOBBIO, Italy (Reuters) - Three quarters of Italians see genetically modified (GMO) foods as a health hazard, according to research published on Friday.

European consumers are known for being wary of GMO foods, but the biotech industry says its products are perfectly safe and no different to conventional foods.

But a study conducted by Italy's major farm body Coldiretti and research center ISPO showed 74 percent of Italians believed GMOs could damage human health.

That represented a 4 percent increase on a similar survey last year.

The study, presented at the International Forum on Agriculture and Food organized by Coldiretti, was based on a survey of 4,093 Italians who represented the country's population breakdown by gender, age, profession and residence.

More Italians are opting for organic food, with 71 percent saying they prefer products free of chemical additives, it showed.

Biotech's deceptive fiction

GM Watch news alert, 20 October 2006.

DuPont and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) have announced a US$1.3 million program for collaboration on research, product development, and technical support in Africa. Researchers from CIMMYT and DuPont subsidiary Pioneer Hi-Bred will work over the next three years to develop novel traits in African crops. For more on DuPont's previous involvement in African crop projects see 'Biotech's deceptive fiction.' http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5823.

EXTRACT: Either the Green Revolution's institutions don't work, or the Green Revolution itself doesn't work - or both. The Green Revolution did not "bypass" Africa. It failed. Because this new philanthropic effort ignores, misinterprets, and misrepresents the harsh lessons of the first Green Revolution's multiple failures, it will likely worsen the problem.

New Report Critical of Gates/Rockefeller and FAO's "Green Revolution for Africa"

Food First Press Release, October 20, 2006

October, 20 2006, Oakland, CA: The Institute for Food and Development Policy, also known as Food First, today released a report that is highly critical of the Rockefeller and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations' $150 million "Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa" (AGRA). The Food First Policy Brief is titled:

Ten Reasons Why the Rockefeller and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations' Alliance for Another Green Revolution Will Not Solve the Problems of Poverty and Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa

by Eric Holt-Gimenez, Ph.D., Miguel A. Altieri , Ph.D., and Peter Rosset, Ph.D.

To read the complete report, click on the following link:
http://www.foodfirst.org/policybriefs

The authors-all distinguished experts on rural development-show how the recently announced $150 million "Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa" fails to take into account the failures of the original Green Revolution. The creators of AGRA promise to bring benefits to the African continent's impoverished farmers who-they claim-have until now been bypassed by the first Green Revolution. In what appeared to be an orchestrated move, one day after that announcement, Jacques Diouf, Director General of UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), called for support for a "second Green Revolution" to feed the world's growing population. UN boss Kofi Annan also weighed in to support the initiative.

The AGRA plan is remarkable given that over the last 20 years, the CGIAR-which brings together all the key Green Revolution research institutions-has invested 40-45% of their $350 million-a-year budget in Africa. If these public funds were not invested in a Green Revolution for Africa, then where were they spent? If they were spent on the Green Revolution, then why does Africa need another one? Either the Green Revolution's institutions don't work, or the Green Revolution itself doesn't work-or both. The Green Revolution did not "bypass" Africa. It failed. Because this new philanthropic effort ignores, misinterprets, and misrepresents the harsh lessons of the first Green Revolution's multiple failures, it will likely worsen the problem. The report discusses the following ten reasons why:

1. The Green Revolution actually deepens the divide between rich and poor farmers.

2. Over time, Green Revolution technologies degrade tropical agro-ecosystems and expose already vulnerable farmers to increased environmental risk.

3. The Green Revolution leads to the loss of agro-biodiversity, the basis for smallholder livelihood security and regional environmental sustainability.

4. Hunger is not primarily due to a lack of food, but because the hungry are too poor to buy the food that is available.

5. Without addressing structural inequities in the market and political systems, approaches relying on high input technological solutions fail.

6. The private sector alone will not solve the problems of production, marketing and distribution

7. Introduction of genetic engineering-the driving force behind AGRA initiative-will make smallholder systems more environmentally vulnerable in Sub-Saharan Africa.

8. The introduction of GE crops into smallholder agriculture will likely lead to the indebtedness of these farmers.

9. AGRA's assertion that "There Is No Alternative" (TINA) ignores the many successful agroecological and non-corporate approaches to agricultural development that have grown in the wake of the Green Revolution's failures.

10. AGRA's "alliance" does not place smallholder farmers-the principal actors in agricultural improvement-in the driver's seat. In fact, peasant organizations have already put forward a more coherent alternative, called "food sovereignty," which more accurately addresses the underlying causes of rural poverty and hunger in Africa and other regions of the world.

To read the complete report, click on the following link: http://www.foodfirst.org/policybriefs

To arrange interviews with the authors, please contact:

Eric Holt Gimenez: eholtgim@foodfirst.org
Peter Rosset: rosset@globalalternatives.org
Miguel Altieri: agroeco3@nature.berkeley.edu

Contact:

Eric Holt Gimenez at + 1 510 654 4400 ext 227 or cell + 1 202 288 8699

EU to test all US rice after GM find

Irish Examiner, 20 October 2006. By Ann Cahill, Europe Correspondent.

ALL long-grain rice from the US is set to be tested for genetically modified organisms after several consignments were found to have traces of GM rice varieties banned in Europe.

Authorities from the US and the EU failed to reach agreement on testing procedures in the past few weeks.

Now food safety experts from all 25 EU member states will be asked to agree compulsory tests, paid for by the US exporters, when they meet on Monday.

Over the past few months unauthorised GM traces were found in samples of US rice in a number of countries including France and the Netherlands. It had been certified GM free by the US authorities.

The EU ordered all US rice had to be tested and began discussions with the US authorities to agree on new standards of certification.

These talks broke down this week despite extensive discussions, according to a statement from European Food Safety Commissioner Markus Kyprianou.

The expert committee is expected to agree all rice will have to be tested at point of entry according to EU testing protocol.

The discovery of GM rice mixed with non-GM has US resulted in a sharp drop in exports to Europe and Japan and has hit US rice growers hard.

Defra accused of introducing GM through back door

The Independent, 20 October 2006. By Andy McSmith.

Public opposition to GM crops is being overridden by a government determined to back the industry, Michael Meacher, the former environment minister, has claimed.

His remarks came yesterday in response to the launch of a government consultation over whether GM crops can "co-exist" with non-GM crops in the British countryside. Those who want to take part must have their answers in by today.

Early GM experiments met huge opposition in the UK, with the result that no GM crops have been grown commercially in Britain. The same is true through most of Europe, and environmental groups claimed yesterday that what the government is now proposing could be illegal under EU law.

But the government's view is that there is "no scientific case" for a total ban. Mr Meacher, and other campaigners, suspect that the Environment Secretary, David Miliband, is looking for a way to overcome public opposition.

"This consultation is the Government's latest attempt to back the GM industry over the wishes of the British public," Mr Meacher claimed. "Instead of paving the way for GM crops to be grown in England, David Miliband must take on board the thousands of responses rejecting the Government's GM contamination plans and put in place policies that protect GM-free food and truly promise his vision of sustainable farming."

Three pressure groups yesterday published a legal opinion claiming that the government plans are "fundamentally flawed".

The opinion said that Mr Miliband's department is wrong to assume that it is permitted under EU law to seek to "minimise" rather than "avoid" the risk that other crops will be contaminated if there are GM crops growing nearby.

They also say that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was wrong to think that EU law does not require it to publish a register of sites where GM crops are grown, and to assume that gardeners and allotment holders do not have a right under EU law to know whether GM crops are being grown near their land. The legal opinion was prepared for Friends of the Earth, The Soil Association and GM Freeze.

Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett said: "The Government's proposals to deny organic and other farmers the choice of staying free of GM contamination break their repeated promises."

Friends of the Earth's GM campaigner Clare Oxborrow said: "Government proposals for rules that allow GM crops to be grown alongside conventional and organic crops are a thinly veiled attempt to introduce GM crops through the back door. Allowing routine, unlabelled, GM contamination of conventional and organic crops is not only unacceptable to the public, it is legally flawed."

GM Freeze director Pete Riley said: "The Government appears to be willing to rewrite EU law."

19 October 2006

EU to propose mandatory GMO testing in all imports of US long grain rice

Forbes.com, 19 October 2006.

BRUSSELS (AFX) - The European Commission said it is to propose imposing mandatory counter testing for unauthorised GMOs in all imports of US long grain rice.

The commission will table its decision at the EU's standing food chain committee next Monday.

The EU executive said it took the decision following the lack of agreement with US authorities to a common sampling and testing protocol in tests for the unauthorised GM rice LLRICE601, created by Bayer AG's Bayer Crop Science, a German-based multinational, in consignments to the EU.

The counter tests will also take into account the French authorities' recent finding of another unauthorised Bayer GMO, LLRICE62, in US rice.

Four weeks ago LLRICE601 was found in shipments of US long grain rice, despite the rice having been certified as free from this GMO.

On Oct 4, the commission allowed 15 days to seek agreement with the US on a common approach to sampling and testing.

However, no agreement was reached.

US long grain rice imports will continue to be subject to the certification requirements imposed when LL601 was first reported to be in US rice in August.

Now, all consignments of US long-grain rice will also be sampled and tested at the point of entry to the EU by member state authorities according to the EU testing protocol.

Responsibility for paying for this additional testing will lie with the operators.

A spokesman for EU health and consumer protection commissioner Markos Kyprianou said that the commission's talks with US authorities had 'ceased' for the time being.

Monsanto Roundup herbicide leads to superweeds

GM Watch news alert, 20 October 2006.

The over-reliance on Monsanto's herbicide Roundup (active ingredient, glyphosate), massively encouraged by the growing of Roundup Ready crops, has triggered an explosion in glyphosate-resistant weeds on US farmland.

Attracting particular attention has been glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth, or pigweed, which one regional weed specialist has called "a real threat to future cotton production":

"The troublesome weed can quickly grow more than 8 feet tall with a thick stalk and suck valuable nutrients from nearby plants. It can clog a cotton picker, too, making it hard to harvest the crop." http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5878.

And University of Tennessee weed scientist, Professor Tom Mueller, says the problems are not confined to cotton, "Palmer pigweed that is not killed by glyphosate will cause major yield losses and harvest headaches for soybean, cotton and other row crop producers." http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5795.

Worse still, as the following article notes, Palmer amaranth/pigweed is just one of a whole series of weeds now proven, or likely, to have developed resistance. The article lists:

horseweed (aka marestail)
lambsquarters
cocklebur
common ragweed
giant ragweed

Some of the resulting problems may be severe. For instance, "Resistant giant ragweed would be a problem comparable to Palmer amaranth in some parts of the country."

Pigweed not only threat to glyphosate resistance

Southeast Farm Press, October 19 2006. By Roy Roberson.

Though Palmer amaranth, commonly called Palmer pigweed, is the most pressing weed resistance problem for farmers from the Midwest to the Southeast, it is not the only weed showing resistance to glyphosate.

The first glyphosate resistant weed to create problems was horseweed, sometimes called marestail. Horseweed resistance was first found in the Carolinas in 2003, and it continues to be a problem. "Each year we find a little bit more - it is wide-spread all up and down the Coastal Plain of North Carolina," says Alan York, long-time North Carolina State University weed specialist.

In 2006, glyphosate resistant common ragweed was reported in a handful of counties in North Carolina. "High rates of Weathermax uglied-up the terminal, but the ragweed didn't die," York says. He explains that to document resistance, there has to be proof that the resistant trait is heritable.

Giant ragweed is being investigated in Indiana, with distinct signs that it has developed resistance to glyphosate. Resistant giant ragweed would be a problem comparable to Palmer amaranth in some parts of the country.

Common ragweed is not likely to be a big problem for growers in the Carolinas and Virginia, according to York. The biggest problem may be in no-till or reduced-till systems which require a clean field to plant cotton. In these systems the problem is what to use for burn-down. If ragweed is resistant to glyphosate, the options are limited to dicamba, paraquat and 2,4-D.

Researchers in South Carolina have found glyphosate resistant cocklebur, and are in the process of documenting for certain that it is resistant. Clemson researchers are still conducting greenhouse tests, but the evidence is strong that at least one cotton field in South Carolina has glyphosate resistant cocklebur.

Virginia Tech researchers are at a similar place in time in documenting glyphosate resistant lambsquarters. More of a problem in the upper end of the Southeast, lambsquarters, prior to the introduction of Roundup Ready technology, was a constant problem in a number of row crops.

Conflict of interest at Irish Times
Why the Times won't publish articles condemning GM

Indymedia Ireland, 19 October 2006.

David McConnell, a molecular geneticist, is Professor of Genetics at Trinity College Dublin. He is head of the Irish Times Trust , the owner of the Irish Times. He also happens to be Co-Chair of the biotech lobby group EAGLES ‚ European Action on Global Life Sciences (www.efb-eagles.org), which is funded by the European Federation of Biotechnology.

Small wonder then, that the Times so rarely publishes anything about GM and never criticises the technology. Of course, a recent letter critical of GM written by myself was also not published.

Needless to say, I will keep sending my letter until they get sick of me.....!

Just another example of vested interests destroying free speech in our 'democracy'.

Related Link: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/mediawatch/index.php

NUI is the servant of the GM and Pharmaceutical Corporations

Indymedia Ireland, 19 October 2006.

Good to see this issue raised. The connections between NUI and the major corporates is a humungous public interest boil that needs urgent lancing.

Stephen Jackson of the International Famine Centre at UCC is one alternative voice in the NUI pro-GM wilderness. Article from the Irish Times, 16 October 1998:

Who are the real beneficiaries of GM foods?

The prospects for genetically modified foods helping to feed the world are assessed by Kevin O'Sullivan, Environmental and Food Science Correspondent

The developers of genetically modified (GM) foods always think big. The approach, generally, is to show a graph on projected global population growth (doubling within 40 years), relate it to food output and conclude it will soon be impossible to feed the world.

A white knight is then unveiled: "GM crops . . . it can be done!" With the US biotechnology company, Monsanto, this dominates its global advertising: "Worrying about starving future generations won't feed them. Food biotechnology will."

The technology is radical and persuasive, given its ability to increase production using the same land volumes. Many, including the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, endorse it as vital to future global food production. Within development organisations in the west and Third World, such certainty is largely absent.

In the latter camp, ecological campaigner Ms Vandana Shiva considers it a move to "producing scarcity through one-dimensional monocultures".

But why are biotechnology companies spending billions of dollars on seed companies? Mr. Arnold Donald, Monsanto's senior vice-president, on a recent Irish visit said it was "not a process of buying market access but of buying plant breeding capabilities by way of alliances". Even if Monsanto wanted to own all the seed, it is never going to own all the enabling technology.

Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) is dedicated to sustainable improvement of agricultural biodiversity. It puts seeds buy-up in a broader context: "Access to biodiversity is the lifeblood of commercial biotechnology. The genes from plants, animals and micro-organisms that flourish in the forests, fields and seas of the southern hemisphere are the strategic `raw materials' for the development of agricultural, pharmaceutical and industrial products."

Ms Shiva says we are witnessing the transformation of farmers as breeders/producers of their own seed supply to farmers as consumers of proprietary seed from multinational-owned seed industry - all triggered by a massive scale-up in GM crop production: 30 million acres this year. The first GM food products were resistant to disease, insects or herbicides. The second, within five years, will see GM foods with quality traits such as high starch or ability to produce vaccines. The third, Monsanto predicts, will see crops used as "environmentally friendly 'factories' to produce substances for human consumption". RAFI does not share the optimism, believing biosynthesis (laboratory production) of tropical commodities "will ultimately transfer production out of farmers' fields in the south to bioreactors in the north" with economic havoc left in its wake. Its executive director, Mr. Pat Mooney, says rich companies have never fed poor countries, and he does not believe this is going to change. Looking at traits currently being generated, such as the "flavr-savr" tomato, they are "hardly going to benefit starving people", he adds.

On the issue of GM crops and food supply, Dr. Stephen Jackson, director of UCC's international famine centre, says tackling food shortages is not a simple matter of scaling-up production. "Famines emerge not because there is insufficient food overall, but because certain groups are denied access to the food that there is."

Famines are caused by many factors - wars, political instability, economic oppression, employment crises, with only a secondary contribution from "natural" factors such as drought. Where does that leave GM crops?

"It has been part of the propaganda of certain biotechnology firms to assert that these crops will simply eradicate world hunger on their own", says Dr. Jackson. "This is dangerous fiction and a disingenuous marketing hype."

Dr. Patrick O'Reilly of Monsanto has dismissed suggestions his company has a voracious bent on global domination. He says its feed-the-world advertising is often taken out of context. It merely suggests the technology is a tool for generating higher and better quality food, he says. Traits that extend food shelf-life, "vaccine cuisine", and disease resistance, "are in the interests of developing countries" despite what the critics say. He says Monsanto often imparts technological capability to Third World states through its large "philanthropic budget".

The Panos Institute, a non-governmental organisation in the UK focusing on sustainable development, this week issued its evaluation of GM foods and world hunger issues. Greed or Need concludes it is "too early to know whether either the benefits or the fears will materialise". Meanwhile, "the technology raises new questions of science, law, ethics and economics which should be thoroughly debated around the world".

EU says US rice should be tested for GM

EUpolitix.com, 19 October 2006. By Anne-Marie White.

All US rice imports entering the EU must be tested for the presence of illegal GM crops, the European commission has urged.

If the proposal is approved on October 23 by food safety experts from the 25 member states, US rice will have to be tested at EU entry ports at American expense.

The commission insists testing is necessary following unsuccessful negotiations with the US over a new "sampling and testing protocol" to ensure that American rice is GM-free.

The move follows the discovery over the last few months of batches of unauthorised GM strains LL601 in US-exported rice, which has led the EU to tighten import requirements for US rice.

The rice will also be tested for LL rice 62, another unauthorised GMO which was recently found by the French authorities.

The mandatory testing would come on top of GM-free certification which the EU has imposed since August.

Although the US government says LL601 poses no immediate risk to health, no biotech rice is allowed to be grown, sold or marketed on the territory of the EU's 25 countries.

US rice exporters face new costs

Financial Times, October 19 2006. By Andrew Bounds in Brussels.

Exporters of US rice are to be hit by new charges as the European Union widens its clampdown on genetically modified food.

The European Commission said on Thursday that on Monday it would ask national food safety experts to require mandatory testing of all imports of US long-grain rice at EU ports after talks on an agreed testing regime broke down.

The decision follows the detection of a herbicide-resistant strain - which is illegal in the EU - in rice certified GM-free by the US, and indicates that Brussels has lost confidence in Washington's testing methods.

In August, the Commission tightened rules governing imports of US long-grain rice after finding the LL Rice 601 strain in a batch already checked by US authorities. It has since been found in nine of the EU 25 countries.

"If a consignment is certified as free of LL Rice 601, [then] before it can be released, it will be counter-tested by the authorities," a Commission spokesman said. "Only if the counter-test confirms the absence of LL Rice 601 or any other unauthorised GMO, would it be released."

The tests, costing exporters several hundred euros at least, would also look for a strain known as LL Rice 62, detected recently in France.

A fortnight ago the EU health commissioner Markos Kyprianou began negotiating a common sampling protocol with Washington, but talks ended on Thursday without agreement.

"Despite extensive discussions between both sides, the Commission and the United States were unable to agree on such a protocol," his spokesman said. It is understood that the US wanted higher acceptable levels of GM strains than Brussels.

While the Commission said LL Rice 601 was produced by Bayer, the German chemical company told Reuters news agency it was not.

The strain was developed by Aventis CropScience, a company it acquired in 2002. Development ended the year before, the company said.

Europe's Food Safety Authority has initially ruled there is no threat to human health from the GM rice. However, all biotech rice remains illegal in the EU.

Only a few strains of GM crops have been approved for cultivation or consumption in the EU because some countries, such as Austria, and many consumers are opposed to them.

Katharine Mill, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace, the environmental pressure group, welcomed the move. "We congratulate the EU for not agreeing to weaker US testing measures," she said.

However, she pointed out that Brussels has not taken any action against Chinese imports. Greenpeace found the BT63 strain of rice, which has not been approved for commercial use anywhere, in Chinese products on supermarket shelves in Germany in August.

"European rice growers are worried about the seeds getting out and contaminating their crops," she said.

Another GE rice from Bayer contaminates EU food supplies
Greenpeace calls for EU strategy to prevent food and feed contamination with GMOs

Greenpeace press release, 19 October 2006.

BRUSSELS News that French authorities have detected another variety of illegal genetically engineered (GE) rice contained in US imports to the EU - the third illegal GE rice scandal in Europe in two months - should prompt urgent action on behalf of regulatory authorities, Greenpeace said today.

Tests in France found US rice containing a GMO called Liberty Link 62 (LL62), which is not approved in Europe (1). This comes on top of test results from several EU countries since August showing that US rice on sale in Europe is contaminated with another unauthorised GE rice variety, LL601. For the second time, the source of the contamination is Bayer Cropscience. Greenpeace believes that Bayer should be held accountable for its negligence, as it is clearly incapable of controlling contamination of rice with its genetically engineered varieties. In the interests of the global rice supply, Bayer should withdraw from all research, field trials and applications for GE rice globally.

The European Commission on Thursday announced that it would seek member state approval for compulsory tests on all US long-grain rice imports, to prove the absence of LL rice varieties. The Commission should be congratulated for not giving in to US demands to weaken import testing standards.

The Commission's proposal will be examined on Monday by a committee of EU food safety experts. On the same day, EU environment ministers may address the question of how to avoid contamination of the food chain with illegal GMOs.

Greenpeace is urging ministers to develop a strategy to prevent further contamination by GE products: any country which grows GMOs for commercial or experimental use should provide the EU and member states with a full list of these crops, and reliable testing methods for each of them. GE crop-growing countries should have to provide a certificate to accompany imports to the EU proving that they are not contaminated with crops that have not been approved in Europe. In the absence of reliable certification and testing systems, the EU should prohibit imports of products which may have been contaminated.

Greenpeace also expressed concern that the EU has still not agreed on emergency measures regarding the import of illegal Bt63 rice from China, identified by testing on behalf of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth six weeks ago, and confirmed by official tests in Germany, France and Austria. While the EU imposed emergency measures in response to news of the US rice contamination within five days of the notification, no such steps have been taken on Bt63, despite its potential health risks (2).

Notes to editors

(1) LL62 rice is legal in the United States (since 2000) and Canada, but is not authorised anywhere else in the world. LL601 is not legal anywhere. Neither is Bt63, detected in Chinese rice products on sale in Europe.

(2) For further information on the Chinese GE rice contamination, see http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/IllegalChinaGErice

Contact

Martina Holbach, Greenpeace GMO campaigner, +32 (0)2 274 1906 Katharine Mill, Greenpeace European Unit media officer, +32 (0)2 274 1903

Mexico rejects biotech corn planting

Associated Press, October 19 2006. By Mark Stevenson.

MEXICO CITY - Mexico this week barred Monsanto Co. and other biotechnology companies from planting genetically engineered corn, rekindling fierce debate in that country over the technology.

Environmentalists said the government's decision will help prevent biotech corn from contaminating native varieties in Mexico, the birthplace of corn and still a storehouse of genetically valuable native species.

But the decision, announced late Monday by Mexico's Agriculture Department, angered some biotech supporters that said it would limit access to plants that could reduce pesticide and herbicide use and have other advantages for local farmers. Columnist Sergio Sarmiento, writing in the newspaper Reforma on Wednesday, called it "cowardly."

Genetically modified corn "is already in use in many parts of the world and it has enormous benefits, both in terms of the environment and production, given that it reduces pesticide use," Sarmiento wrote.

Even environmentalists don't think Monday's decision is the last word.

"This is temporary, because there is so much pressure from the multinationals," said Gustavo Ampugnani of Greenpeace Mexico. "They are going to put a lot of pressure on the incoming administration" of president-elect Felipe Calderon, who takes office Dec. 1.

Monday's decision turned down all seven requests filed by companies including St. Louis-based Monsanto, Wilmington, Del.-based DuPont Co.'s Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. subsidiary, and others.

"We were surprised by this decision," said Eduardo Perez Pico, director of technological development at Monsanto's Mexico subsidiary, which had applied to start experimental fields in the northern states of Sinaloa, Sonora, and Tamaulipas.

"These are not centers of origin or biodiversity of corn," Perez Pico said, referring to the areas where corn ancestor plants or primitive varieties grow naturally.

Under current law, such areas are off-limits to biotech planting, in part to protect the genetic traits of those ancestor varieties in case their traits are needed for hybridization efforts in the future.

In areas of Mexico where corn is determined to be a non-native or non-original crop, "there is the possibility of a permit being granted for the first phases of experimental projects," said Pedro Mata, of Mexico's food safety agency.

Mata said Monday's ruling hinged on an ongoing debate over whether any area of Mexican can be designated as a non-origin region for corn.

"The researchers and experts are still discussing it, and there are some controversies," Mata said. There is no deadline for drawing up the map of "safe" areas.

Mexico imposed a moratorium on the planting of genetically modified crops in 1998, but in 2005, President Vicente Fox signed a bill that set out a framework for approving such planting in the future.

Farmers in Mexico first bred corn some 6,000 to 8,000 years ago. The country is home to at least 59 species of maize, from the protein-rich variety used to make tortilla chips to a softer grain mashed for use in tamales.

A study in the Sierra de Juarez region in the southern state of Oaxaca found evidence of transgenic corn contamination in 2000 from corn that was apparently imported for food use. The study was published and then retracted by the science journal Nature.

Another study by Mexican and U.S. researchers in 2004 found no trace of genetically altered corn in crops in the same area four years later.

Friends of the Earth welcomes tougher controls on US rice imports

Friends of the Earth Europe press statement, 19 October 2006.

Brussels, 19th October - Friends of the Earth Europe has welcomed the European Commission's proposals announced today that all rice imports from the United States should be tested for genetically modified material before they are allowed into the EU.

Reacting to the European Commission's statement today [1], Adrian Bebb from Friends of Earth Europe said, "Friends of the Earth Europe welcomes the move by the European Commission to propose tougher controls against imports of contaminated rice from the US. This is absolutely necessary since there have now been almost eighty cases of contamination across Europe in the past six weeks."[2]

But the environmental campaign group has warned that contamination with genetically modified material is likely wherever outdoor experimental trials are conducted. Indeed, rice products imported from China have already been found to be contaminated with an illegal genetically modified variant.[3] Friends of the Earth Europe has demanded that the new strict protocols are extended to all crops imported from countries that test genetically modified crops outdoors.

"Compulsory testing of all foods imported from countries that experiment with genetically modified crops outdoors should urgently be introduced. This includes imports from China. Chinese rice has already been shown to be contaminated, although the European Commission has so far failed to take action and prioritises its trading relationship with China over protecting consumers," Mr Bebb added.

For more information, please contact:

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

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

Notes:

[1]Attention: long link may be broken, please copy and paste both lines into browser: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1437&forma t=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

[2] http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/rice_contamination.htm

[3] http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/AB_5_Sept_China_rice.html

Rosemary Hall
Communications Officer
Friends of the Earth Europe
Rue Blanche 15
B-1050 Bruxelles
Belgium
Tel.: +32 2 542 6105
Mobile: +32 485 930515
Fax:Ý +32 2 537 5596
rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org
http://www.foeeurope.org

EC proposes compulsory rice testing

Food Navigator, 19 October 2006 [shortened]
Full article: http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?n=71419-biotech-gm-rice

The EC is set to ask food safety experts to impose compulsory tests on all US long-grain rice imports to prove the absence of illegal biotech strains.

According to Reuters, the European Commission will table a decision imposing mandatory counter testing for unauthorised genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in all imports of US long-grain rice, at the Standing Committee on the Food Chain next Monday.

If the experts accept the Commission's proposal, tests will be carried out on cargoes arriving at EU ports - at the expense of the exporter.

This follows the discovery in August by US authorities that an unauthorised GMO, LL Rice 601, had been found in samples of commercial US rice. No GM rice is allowed to be grown or sold within the EU.

The EC swiftly adopted a decision requiring imports of long grain rice to be certified as free from the unauthorised rice.

The stringent procedures have already had an impact on US farmers, for whom the EU is a key market. The EU imports approximately 20,000 tons of long grain husked, semi-milled and wholly-milled rice from the USA per month on average...

Strict limits placed on US rice imports have led to a dramatic fall in the price of US rice.

Earlier this month, the Commission set a 15-day period for negotiating a common sampling protocol with US authorities to detect the GM rice strain, which has turned up in the food chains of at least nine EU countries in the last two months.

Bilar goes back to traditional rice

Philippine Information Agency (PIA) Press Release, 19 October 2006
By Rey Anthony Chiu

Tagbilaran City (19 October) -- TAKING conservation a step further, farmers of Bilar, Bohol have institutionalized its rice tradition by crafting the first ever Bilar Rice Heritage by legislative act in a move to go back to the basics and protect its heritage.

The Rice Festival is an opportunity for our farmers to show off and share their experiences, skills and materials, explains Jean Yasol of Searice, a non government organization building capacities of farmers here. Searice empower, teach and assist farmers in seed selection and in developing new varieties Yasol explained.

The step also grounds the provincial stand opposing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the proliferation of modern rice varieties that appear to be productive but bears on the farmerÇs pockets and the environment.

During a Farmers' Rights Forum expounding on the sustainable community based initiatives as expressions of farmers' rights, Visayas and Mindanao farmers gathered at the MetroCenter Hotel here October 18 to listen to best practices in sustainable agriculture in support of pro-environment farming and nature based tourism.

A sharing of best practices from South Cotabato and Bohol along with the Bhutan experience with Agriculture Minister Lyonpo Sangay Ngedup highlighted the forum.

For Bohol, the best practice was with Bilar's going back to the basics, literally by addressing the problem of vanishing rice cultivation tradition and the traditional riceÇs uncultivated potential for food security.

Bilar farmers, with technical help from Searice, harnessed community-based initiatives sustaining local rice culture and tradition and entered the records when it passed October 9 the ordinance protecting the Bilar rice and its tradition.

Bilar farmer, Ruperta Mangaya-ay said her family has been into preserving the traditional Bilar rice varieties and have opted for it over the much-hyped modern rice varieties. The decision came after realizing that the sturdy and resistant local varieties stand a better chance of surviving and often end up giving more savings to the farmers.

In her sharing Mangaya-ay told media that she used to plant scientific rice and spends between P10T to P11T in the entire process.

Now, with a traditional rice variety she and the community along with Searice and Central Visayas State College of Agriculture Forestry and Technology developed, coupled with organic farming technology, she only spends as much as P5T.

"Although modern rice varieties produce greater yields, but organic rice is heavier, better tasting, husks better and is more filling," Mangaya-ay said.

The traditional rice that we grow fits into our organic farm set-up, and knowing that organic fertilizer from natural sources is more environment-friendly, the difference for the environment pays, she added. (PIA) ... for more about SEARICE: http://www.searice.org.ph

18 October 2006

Romania Harvests Trouble with its GM Crops
With its slipshod standards on GM food production, Romania may find Europe closes door to its exports

Balkan Insight, 18 October 2006. By Christine Lescuin Bucharest.

[Lescu is a journalist for Radio Romania International, RRI]

Romania may find itself excluded from the European Union markets and even have difficulties selling its genetically modified products locally, because of delays in complying with European food traceability and labelling regulations.

Experts say its increasing use of genetically modified crops also hinders organic agriculture, an area in which Romania has the potential to be competitive in the EU market.

After farmers this year cultivated almost 130,000 hectares of GM soybean, Romania became the single biggest producer of this product in Europe, according to Greenpeace.

The environmentalist campaigning organisation in 2004 ranked Romania 11th in a table of the world's biggest producers of GM crops.

A large percentage of the GM soybean crop was also planted with non-certified seed, meaning its origins cannot be identified or traced.

Bucharest has done too little, and too late, to address Europe's concerns about the kind of food coming out of Romania.

In 2002, it adopted the first measures to regulate GM products, when it told manufacturers of GM products to declare this information on packages and labels.

But results have been patchy. A poor level of compliance reflects the lack of interest in the subject felt by Romanian consumers - unlike the situation in Western Europe.

Local consumer groups say few Romanians feel eating GM food products is risky. "If we avoided eating everything bad, we'd die of starvation" is shoppers' stock response.

In February this year, meanwhile, the government made further moves. Until then, cultivation of GM soybeans had been totally unregulated.

Now the government is trying to bring food production standards into closer harmony with EU environmental rules. It has ordered cuts in the production of GM herbicide resistant soybeans, of which the EU does not approve, and introduced a monitoring and control system for GM crops.

But so far there is little sign of progress with these initiatives either. This year the production of GM soybean increased - from about 65,000 to 130,000 hectares.

Experts say the authorities are unable to cope with the growth of illegally cultivated genetically-engineered crops.

The problem is that farmers have strong incentives to grow GM soybeans. Normally, combating weeds and beetles is time consuming and expensive. With the cultivation of resistant varieties, they can combat pests more easily.

The Garda Nationala de Mediu (National Environmental Guard), the body put in charge of monitoring compliance with the new rules, has handed out 23 warnings and imposed 15 fines this year. But it says tracking down all the culprits is hard.

Apart from dealing with known GM crop growers, the body is struggling to halt the activities of those who buy seeds from producers and sell them on.

Florian Udrea, of the Garda Nationala, says checking this activity is an almost hopeless task. "Out of carelessness or ill will, some people don't declare where the seeds from their crops came from," he said.

Some farmers keep quiet about their GM crops because they do not even know they have planted GM seeds. Cases of contamination of crops with GM varieties are frequent.

Agricultural consultant Dragos Dima says Romania will pay a price for failing to put in place effective systems to test and control soybean production from cultivation to consumption and monitor the presence of GM seed.

"If Romania does not adopt the traceability and labeling measures required by the EU legislation, I am afraid that starting with 2007, all its products containing soybean will be restricted from entering EU markets," Dima told Balkan Insight.

This is a serious threat to farmers, he added, as most food products contain at least traces of soybean. Romania could also find its access to structural funds for agricultural projects restricted.

In a few months, Romania is about to join a club that has strict standards on the GM issue and in which public opinion is on the alert.

Several EU member states, including Germany and Austria, ban the cultivation and import of GM seeds outright.

EU legislation does not ban GM products altogether but it insists on strict rules concerning the release of GM seeds into the environment and the traceability and labelling of Genetically Modified Organisims, GMOs, and GMOs in food and animal feed.

Only seeds approved by the European Food Safety Authority may be traded within the EU.

These tight European mechanisms reflect many scientists' continuing concerns about genetic modification. Some worry that GM organisms may yet have unforseeable and unpredictable consequences on the environment and on health.

Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, of the University of Caen, voiced some of those concerns, felt especially with regard to Romanian GM products, to Romanian public radio, RRI.

"The soybeans grown in Romania are treated with a very powerful pesticide named 'Roundup Ready', which has toxic effects on human placenta and embryos," he said in a recent interview.

"Roundup Ready is used to destroy weeds and parasites attacking soya crops but also destroys every other plant nearby, damaging the environment.

"Roundup Ready genetically engineered soya is not approved for growing in the EU."

Dragos Dima says it may take Romania many years to put its agricultural house in order.

"The country will have to decontaminate itself from unapproved GM varieties and put in place working systems on the release of GM organisms and on food labeling," he said.

"But the decontamination process is likely to take years. Romania may also become a test case to see whether GM crop-plant decontamination is possible at all."

[Balkan Insight is the online publication of BIRN - the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, a close group of editors and trainers that enables journalists in the region to produce in-depth analytical and investigative journalism on complex political, economic and social themes.]

Bayer agrees to $18 million settlement in price-fixing case

The Associated Press, October 18, 2006

Bayer AG has agreed to pay $18 million ([Euros]14.3 million) to settle claims it conspired with other manufacturers to inflate the price of certain plastics, the second multi-million-dollar settlement the company has made this year regarding its polymer operation. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum in Kansas City, Kansas, approved the settlement, which covers the company's sales of polyester polyol-based products between Jan. 1, 1998 and Dec. 31, 2004.

The agreement also requires Bayer, headquartered in Germany, to cooperate with plaintiff attorneys as they continue their class-action lawsuit against former co-defendants Uniroyal Chemical Co. and Chemtura Corp., formerly known as Crompton Corp. Lungstrum also agreed to dismiss defendants Rhein Chemie Corp. and Rhein Chemie Rheinau GmbH, subsidiaries of Lanxess Corp., which was spun off from Bayer last year.

In August, Lungstrum approved a $55.3 million ([Euro]44 million) settlement by Bayer in a separate case involving the sale of polyether polyol. Bayer also agreed to help attorneys against former co-defendants BASF Corp., BASF AG, The Dow Chemical Co., Huntsman International Holdings LLC and Lyondell Chemical Co.

A Bayer spokesman provided a company statement Wednesday confirming the two settlements but declined to comment further. An attorney for the polyester plaintiffs didn't immediately return a phone call for comment.

Bayer disclosed in March that it had been subpoenaed by the Justice Department seeking information about its manufacture and sale of polyurethane products called MDI and TDI, along with other products.

Court documents say Bayer, Dow, BASF, Huntsman and Lyondell control the entire MDI and TDI markets and 75 percent of production of polyether polyol, a polyurethane material that is mixed with other substances to make foams used in furniture, automobile seats and other products.

Federal authorities two years ago consolidated 16 cases filed across the country against polymer manufacturers by customers who alleged the companies had gotten together to fix the price of urethane and urethane chemicals.

Mexico to set up GMO rules within two weeks

Reuters, 18 Oct 2006. By Adriana Barrera

MEXICO CITY, Oct 18 (Reuters) - Mexico will establish rules within two weeks allowing biotech companies to plant test crops of genetically modified, or GMO, corn seeds, the government said on Wednesday.

Mexico, widely considered the origin of many of the world's corn varieties, recently prohibited biotech firms Monsanto , Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Dow AgroSciences from planting GMO test crops.

Javier Trujillo, head of the agricultural health service in Mexico, told Reuters the permits were rejected because the government had not completed a map of native corn species and a scheme to protect those species, both legally required for GMO tests in Mexico.

"I expect these two requirements will be published in the government journal in one or two weeks," he said.

The companies would be allowed to plant GMO test crops in Mexico after that, Trujillo said.

U.S.-based Monsanto, the GMO industry leader, was not immediately available for comment.

Mexico, which prides itself as the historical home of corn, is a big consumer of U.S. corn and corn seeds but is a major corn producer. About a million mostly poor farmers plant the crop, often on small plots in remote areas.

About 500 larger corn farmers in the north of the country are lobbying the government to allow them to use GMO seed, which they say would boost yields by around 10 percent.

Mexican farmers struggle to compete with their northern neighbors, who enjoy better crop yields and government subsidies.

Environment group Greenpeace warned the genetic diversity of corn in Mexico, where it has been cultivated for thousands of years, would be put at risk by the widespread use of GMO seeds.

"It is really stupid to risk contaminating a genetic origin center that has an incredible ecological richness just to please 500 people, big farmers," said Gustavo Ampugnani, who heads the group's anti-GMO campaign in Mexico.

In 2001, researchers discovered native corn strains in the southern state of Oaxaca, where some of the earliest evidence of domesticated corn comes from, had cross-bred with transgenic DNA.

(Additional reporting by Frank Jack Daniel)

Brazil commission to discuss new biotech corn, cotton types

MarketWatch from Dow Jones, Oct 18 2006

SAO PAULO (MarketWatch) -- Brazil's biosafety commission will review technical studies on three corn and three cotton transgenic plants on Wednesday following pressure from farmers and seed companies who said the commission was moving too slow to approve GMO studies for both field tests and commercial use.

The commission, known as CTNBio, meets monthly. No genetically modified organisms were approved for field tests or commercial use in the last meeting, the group's spokeswoman said.

The last GMOs permitted were Monsanto's Bollgard cotton and Roundup Ready soybeans in 2005.

Monsanto's Roundup Ready soy was first approved in 1998 but later suspended on political and activist pressure.

On the list of items requesting commercial restrictions to be lifted are biotech corn resistant to insects from Syngenta (SYT) and Monsanto (MON). For cotton, Bayer CropScience's LibertyLink and Monsanto's Roundup Ready are also on Wednesday's agenda.

If those products are approved by CTNBio, it's up to a government committee made up of analysts from various government departments who make "political and economic decisions" whether to permit the product for commercial use, CTNBio said.

SC imposes ban on field trials of GM crops
Supreme Court raises questions on GM regulatory regime

Down to Earth, October 18 2006. By Sourav Mishra.

NEW DELHI, INDIA -- The Supreme Court of India, for the first time, on September 22 2006, issued an interim verdict banning all field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops in the country and slammed its regulatory mechanism. This means that the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (geac) - the GM regulatory authority under the Union ministry of environment and forests - will not give any further approval to field trials of GM crop until the court delivers its final judgment. The order was issued in response to a public interest petition filed by economist Aruna Rodrigues and other experts. Devender Sharma, one of the petitioners, has welcomed the judgement.

"The overhaul of the GM regulatory was long overdue," he said.

The court has directed geac to form an independent experts committee to look into the regulatory aspects for release of gm crops. Following the directive, geac has formed a committee, headed by geneticist Deepak Pental, also the vice-chancellor of Delhi University. Anti- gm activists are unhappy about the development. "Dipak Pental is an ardent promoter of GM, his centre has been trying to develop many gm food crops. His decisions could be biased," says Kavita Kuruganthi of the Hyderabad-based Centre for Sustainable Agriculture. "Most of the members of the committee are from geac , which means the same story again," she adds.

Defending the GM crop regime, a senior member of geac, says, "India was the first country in the world to formulate guidelines for gm crops in 1989, even when gm was in the preliminary stages of discussion." Besides, India's GM regulations are also considered to be one of the toughest, involving five statutory regulatory bodies including geac.

Massive protests

The court's decision came after massive campaigns by civil society organisations against GM regulations. The campaign intensified after geac approved field trials for 'Bt brinjal'. Cotton, as of now, is the only approved and commercially cultivated gm crop in the country. There are 70 more crops, including GM brinjal, awaiting geac approval.

The impact of Bt cotton on environment and animal health has long been debated upon. There have been reports of sheep deaths in Andhra Pradesh in 2005 and 2006. The impact on human health is also a matter of concern. T Ramannaiah, director, department of biotechnology, Union ministry of science and technology (most), says Bt cotton oil can prove toxic if not refined. The failure of Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu has spelt doom for farmers. A study by entomologist K R Kranthi of the Nagpur-based Central Institute for Cotton Research has shown that Indian Bt cotton is 10 times less effective against the major pests than its counterparts in the US.

"The fact that Bt cotton is 10 times less effective, questions the credentials of the regulatory bodies, the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (rcgm) and geac," says Rajiv Baruah, organic cotton farmer and one of the petitioners rcgm is a regulatory body under the department of biotechnology, most.

In a judgment given on May 1 2006, the court had ordered that geac would be the only regulatory authority. Citing conflict of interests in field trials, the court found rcgm, which conducts field trials, is the same establishment that also has biotechnology interests. "This ensures conflict of interests, as rcgm could easily be biased towards ensuring easy passage of GM crops," says Kuruganthi. She brands geac as nothing but a rubber stamp. "Previously, rcgm used to call the shots by conducting the field trials and bio-safety regulations. geac was a rubber stamp when it came to releasing the variety," she adds.

The debate

But experts are not ready to buy this argument. Bhagirath Chaudhury, India's co-ordinator of the International Society for Acquisition of Agricultural Biotechnology, says, "rcgm was formed to provide technical support to geac. All the 28 members of rcgm are thorough experts and come from premier institutes in the country." Anti-GM activists equate Indian regulations to industry-dictated regulation in practice in the US. But according to a senior rcgm member, "India's rcgm comprises only scientists and has no one from the industry, unlike in the US. So , how can they both be equated?"

There is another angle, the so-called illegal Bt cotton, mostly of a variety Navbharat-151, which the geac banned five years ago, covers more than 60 per cent of India's cotton area. "Unfortunately, we promote varieties which lead farmers to suicides and ban the ones which have added Rs 4,500 crore to farmers' income since 2002," says N P Mehta, developer of Navbharat-151.

17 October 2006

Keep Chiloe Free of Transgenics, Say Activists

Inter Press Service (IPS), Oct 17 2006

SANTIAGO, Oct 17 (Tierramerica) - Environmentalists are demanding that Chilean authorities declare the southern archipelago of Chiloe -- 1,190 km south of Santiago -- a transgenic-free zone, and recognise it as a birthplace of the potato (Solanum tuberosum), alongside Bolivia and Peru.

Cultivation of genetically modified foods is not permitted in Chile, but transgenic seed production for export is allowed. In 2005 there were 12,928 hectares of farmland dedicated to that practice: 93.7 percent maize, 4.85 raps and 1.28 percent soy.

In Chile's 10th region, Los Lagos, where the Chiloe archipelago is located, there is some land dedicated to production of transgenic potato seed, but this biotechnology has not yet been brought to the main island of Chiloe or its surrounding islets.

Maria Isabel Manzur, of the non-governmental Sustainable Societies Foundation (FSS, Fundacion Sociedades Sustentables), told Tierramerica that the principal risk of releasing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in this insular territory is the potential genetic contamination of its autochthonous products, especially the potato, threatening varieties that are thousands of years old.

The potato was domesticated 10,000 years ago, and introduced to Europe by the Spanish Conquistadors in the 16th century. Today it is the fourth leading food crop in the world, with annual production of around 300 million tons.

"Potatoes are the basis of the culture of Chiloe, and many of its varieties were improved in European countries," Carlos Venegas, director of the ChiloÈ Technology Center (CET), told Tierramerica.

Knowledge about the potato has been passed down through generations of "Chilotes", as Chiloe's people are known, most of whom follow the related rites and superstitions. Many potato farmers will only plan during the waning moon, believing this will ensure better crops.

Furthermore, "there is such a great diversity of potatoes, of different shapes, colors and tastes, that it's possible to prepare endless different potato dishes," said Venegas, who advocates a government policy to promote Chiloe's gastronomy as a boost to tourism and the local economies.

Tonta (foolish), colorada (red), guapa (handsome), clavela blanca and azul (white or blue carnation), zapatona (big shoe), noventa dÌas (90 days), cabeza de santo (head of a saint) and cachimba are some of the curious names of the local potato varieties. Some are used for food, while others are used as medicine, with potato-based recipes helping relieve problems related to the liver or gall bladder.

Seminars are being held Oct. 17-18 -- "Transgenic Crops and Native Potatoes of Chiloe" -- organised by FSS and CET in Castro and Puerto Montt, both located in the 10th region.

Manzur said the objective is to raise citizen awareness about the importance of native potato varieties and to gather signatures to pressure the authorities to declare the ChiloÈ archipelago a GMO-free zone.

Environmentalists warn that no legal tool exists that can be used to establish this category, but they say it is a citizen demand that must be heeded by the government and lawmakers.

The residents of Chiloe's big island have reinforced their appreciation of their native potatoes, thanks to efforts by various groups in the area, like CET, which in 1987 set up a potato species bank that today maintains more than 200 varieties.

The seeds are gathered by the farmers themselves, who exchange the different types to plant in their fields, which generally are no larger than 15 hectares, said Venegas. This approach has been so successful that farmers have set up three more such banks.

In April, The Austral University of Chile launched a project sponsored by the government to recuperate, protect, and commercialise varieties of potatoes native to Chiloe, and includes official description and registration of the Chiloe varieties in the potato registry of the government's Agriculture and Livestock Service.

CET and other local institutions have set aside three sites in the archipelago for the "Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems" (GIAHS), launched in 2002 by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and other development agencies.

According to Venegas, CET's proposal was approved and should be implemented late this year or early 2007. The aim is to promote social, economic and environmental sustainability through the creation of local capacity-building, promotion of its values and dissemination of traditional knowledge.

According to data from the International Potato Centre, since the 1960s, the area in developing countries planted with potato has expanded more rapidly than that of any other food crop.

(*Daniela Estrada is an IPS correspondent. Originally published Oct. 14 by Latin American newspapers that are part of the TierramÈrica network. TierramÈrica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Environment Programme.)

FDA Is Set To Approve Milk, Meat From Clones

Washington Post,, October 17, 2006. Rick Weiss.

Three years after the Food and Drug Administration first hinted that it might permit the sale of milk and meat from cloned animals, prompting public reactions that ranged from curiosity to disgust, the agency is poised to endorse marketing of the mass-produced animals for public consumption.

The decision, expected by the end of this year, is based largely on new data indicating that milk and meat from cloned livestock and their offspring pose no unique risks to consumers

"Our evaluation is that the food from cloned animals is as safe as the food we eat every day," said Stephen F. Sundlof, the FDA's chief of veterinary medicine, who has overseen the long-stalled risk assessment.

Farmers and companies that have been growing cloned barnyard animals from single cells in anticipation of a lucrative market say cloning will bring consumers a level of consistency and quality impossible to attain with conventional breeding, making perfectly marbled beef and reliably lean and tasty pork the norm on grocery shelves.

But groups opposed to the new technology, including a coalition of powerful food companies concerned that the public will reject Dolly-the-Lamb chops and clonal cream in their coffee, have not given up.

On Thursday, advocacy groups filed a petition asking the FDA to regulate cloned farm animals one type at a time, much as it regulates new drugs, a change that would drastically slow marketing approval. Some are also questioning the ethics of a technology that, while more efficient than it used to be, still poses risks for pregnant animals and their newborns.

"The government talks about being science-based, and that's great, but I think there is another pillar here: the question of whether we really want to do this," said Carol Tucker Foreman, director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America.

That there is a debate at all about integrating clones into the food supply is evidence of the remarkable progress made since the 1996 birth of Dolly, the world's first mammalian clone, created from an udder cell of an anonymous ewe.

Scientists have now applied the technique successfully to cattle, horses, pigs, goats and other mammals. Each clone is a genetic replica of the animal that donated the cell from which it was grown.

Cloning could solve a number of long-standing farm problems. Many prize males are not recognized as such until long after they have been tamed by castration. With cloning, that lack of semen would not matter. Cloning also allows farmers to make many copies of exceptional milk producers; with natural breeding, cows have only one offspring per year, and half are males.

In the eyes of many in agriculture, cloning is simply the latest in a string of advances such as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization that have given farmers better control over animal reproduction.

"Clones are just clones. They are not genetically engineered animals," said Barbara Glenn, chief of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Results of Clone Studies

Two new studies and a number of earlier ones have compared the meat and milk from clones and conventional livestock. A summary of the earlier findings:

• A 2002 Japanese study found "no biologically significant differences" in blood counts and blood chemistry, chemical composition of milk or meat, digestibility of meat fed to rats, allergenicity, or health or behavior of rats raised on clonal food.

• A 2004 study of rats raised on milk and meat from cloned animals showed no differences in growth rates, food consumption, behavior and reflexes, or breeding. Measures of their blood and urine were the same as for rats fed conventional chow, and their tissues were normal at autopsy.

• Another 2004 study found milk from cloned and conventional cows to be biochemically identical.

• A 2005 study also found the two types of milk to be virtually identical; all but 12 of more than 100 meat measures were also the same. Eight of the measures that were higher in the clones were for desirable fats and fatty acids that had been selected for in those clones. The other four were all within normal range.

Northeast China pigs cloned from somatic cells

People's Daily, October 17 2006

The Northeast China Agricultural University (NCAU), the Harbin Municipal Science & Technical Bureau and their cooperative unit announced their successful cloning of local pigs with the use of somatic cells last Saturday. Three cloned baby pigs have been doing well and normally since their birth on October 12.

Dr. Liu Zhonghua, leader of the project who comes from the Life Science College of the NCAU, acknowledged that the three cloned baby pigs, unlike pigs cloned in the past, had taken somatic cells from a three-day old piglet as donor cells.

The Northeast China local pigs, noted for being reproductive and adaptable with a good meat quality, are a leading fine breed under the state protection.

Exporters want GM-free pledge

Bangkok Post, 17 October 2006. By Apinya Wipatayotin.

Rice exporters yesterday urged the government to confirm for Thailand's trading partners that Thai rice is free of genetically modified (GM) organisms. The move follows the discovery that food products sold in European markets contained GM rice.

Government assurances are urgently needed to boost international confidence in Thai rice in the wake of the reports about GM rice spreading, they told a press conference to mark the World Food Day.

Last month, Greenpeace released findings that the environmental group says show GM rice from China has affected food products in France, Germany and the UK.

The group also said GM rice from the US has been found on supermarket shelves in Germany.

Commercialisation of transgenic rice is banned in many countries.Wallop Pitchyapongsa, managing director of Capital Rice, a leading organic rice exporter, said the non-GM policy was the ''selling point'' of Thai agricultural products, including rice, therefore the government should promote this policy to global consumers.

One indication of consumer preference for non-GM rice was that some US rice customers had turned to importing rice from Thailand after Greenpeace confirmed US-grown rice contained GM organisms (GMOs), said Mr Wallop.

Tanakorn Jitrarangbunya, of Chia Meng, another major rice exporting company, said Thailand could lose export markets if the government fails to create a global perception that Thailand a GMO-free.

Export of the world's popular Hom Mali rice would be the first to suffer, he said.

Thailand exports about 7.5 million tonnes of rice a year, earning around 100 billion baht. The major markets include Africa, Asia, Middle East, the EU and US.

Mr Tanakorn called on the government to continue the ban on field trails of GMOs, as well as commercialisation of GM crops.

''I know the [GMO] field trial is important. But, it must be conducted under stringent measures to prevent adulteration by GMOs,'' he said.

Patwajee Srisuwan, Greenpeace genetic engineering campaigner, said many countries, such as Japan and in Europe, have been enforcing tougher rules to prevent the import of GM rice from China and the US.

The move would also be positive for Thai rice exporters, she said.

''The government should take this opportunity to declare Thailand a 'GMO-free country' and terminate all pro-GMO policies and activities,'' said Ms Patwajee.

Government reluctance to embrace a total non-GMO policy will adversely impact the whole agricultural sector, she said.

Greenpeace urged the government to come up with stringent measures to prevent the import of GM rice shipments into Thailand.

Rice importers should demand certificates and ensure products coming into Thailand do not contain GMOs, said Greenpeace.

16 October 2006

EU set to decide on compulsory tests for GMO rice

Reuters, 16 October 2006.

BRUSSELS - EU regulators will decide this week whether to force testing of all U.S. long-grain rice imports to prove the absence of a genetically modified (GMO) strain not allowed in Europe, an official said on Monday.

Earlier this month, the European Commission set a 15-day period for negotiating a common sampling protocol with U.S. authorities to detect the GMO rice strain, which has turned up in the food chains of at least nine EU countries since August.

That deadline expires on Thursday. If no deal is reached, the EU-25 is expected to order compulsory testing of U.S. rice cargoes that arrive at any EU port -- at the exporter's cost.

"We will have to decide whether we have a deal (with the United States) or not. If we don't, we will send the matter to the standing committee (of EU experts) on Monday," one Commission official said.

"If there's no deal, it would be a decision imposing mandatory counter-testing on U.S. long grain rice imports by the member states at the expense of the exporters," he said.

No biotech rice is allowed to be grown, sold or marketed on the territory of the European Union's 25 countries.

In August, the Commission tightened rules governing imports of U.S. long-grain rice to prove the absence of the LL Rice 601 strain, which it said was marketed by Germany's Bayer AG (BAYG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) and produced in the United States.

Its decision followed the discovery by U.S. authorities of trace amounts of the GMO rice, engineered to resist a herbicide, in long-grain samples that were targeted for commercial use.

Bayer says it does not sell or produce LL Rice 601 and the strain was developed by Aventis CropScience, a company bought by Bayer in 2002. That development ended in 2001, the company says.

Hunger Due to Injustice, Not Lack of Food

Inter Press Service, October 16 2006. By Tito Drago.

MADRID, Oct 16 (IPS) - Millions of people die of hunger-related causes every year. However, that is not because of actual shortages of food, but is a result of social injustice and political, social and economic exclusion, argue non-governmental organisations that launched a campaign in Spain on World Food Day Monday.

Oct.16 was established as World Food Day in 1979 by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), commemorating the agency's Oct. 16, 1945 founding date. Monday also marked the first day of Anti-Poverty Week, which will include events in Spain and around the world to raise awareness of the issue.

FAO's slogan for World Food Day this year is "Invest in Agriculture for Food Security". But NGOs argue that the problem is not a lack of food production, but of the injustice surrounding access to and use of foods.

Theo Oberhuber, head of the Spanish environmental NGO Ecologists in Action (EEA), told IPS that enough food is produced in the world to cover the needs of everyone, so that no one would have to go hungry.

But, he added, there are two problems that stand in the way of this. The first is that a large part of all food, whether agricultural products or food obtained from oceans or rivers, goes towards feeding livestock "whose meat and by-products are consumed mainly in the countries of the industrialised North."

The second, he said, is social injustice. In many countries, the majority of the population cannot afford food, "not even food of lesser quality."

Olivier Longue, director general of Action Against Hunger in Spain, pointed out to IPS examples of lower-quality food: in Malawi and Guatemala, for instance, corn forms the basis of the subsistence diet, while in the Philippines the staples are corn, potatoes and plantains.

Action Against Hunger reported that every four seconds someone in the world dies of hunger-related diseases and that nearly one billion people suffer from hunger around the world.

The global NGO also noted that six million children a year die of hunger, which is responsible for half of all deaths of children under five. In addition, many children who survive hunger and malnutrition suffer disabilities for the rest of their lives.

The international NGOs Engineers Without Borders, Caritas and Veterinarians Without Borders, along with Prosalus, a Spanish organisation that promotes health care in Africa and Latin America, launched in Spain the campaign "Derecho a la Alimentacion: Urgente" (Right to Food: Urgent), and presented a DVD Monday in which they state that food security cannot be achieved without support for agricultural development.

They note that FAO statistics show that more than 70 percent of the people suffering from hunger around the world live in rural areas, where they should be able to feed themselves through agriculture.

The campaign is demanding that governments recognise food security as a basic human right, and that they review their policies on the question and promote agricultural development in a framework of environmental sustainability.

But the EEA questions FAO's call to "Invest in Agriculture for Food Security" because of the growing influence of agribusiness and concentration of land.

The EEA stresses that "more than 70 percent of the global pesticide market is in the hands of six giant agrochemical corporations, of which only three will be left within a few years."

The group adds that these companies control a large part of global seed sales in a lucrative captive market, by means of sales of genetically modified (GM) varieties that are resistant to the firms' own herbicides.

In addition, the offspring of some GM plants are sterile, which means they cannot be stored to grow future crops. Poor farmers thus become dependent on transnational companies, and are forced to buy new seeds every year.

The EEA also points out that the world's 10 biggest food companies account for one-quarter of all food produced worldwide, and 10 large chains account for one-quarter of all food sales.

As an example of the consequences of that policy, "in Spain, farmers often receive only 25 percent of the end price," says the NGO.

"If that is the situation in a developed European country, it's not difficult to imagine what happens in countries of the South, where the rural population lives in infrahuman conditions," said Oberhuber.

13 October 2006

UK Government plans for controls on GM crops like putting 'dracula in charge of the blood bank':
GeneWatch response to consultation on coexistence of GM and non-GM crops

GeneWatch Press Release: 13th October 2006.

Today, GeneWatch UK has said that if a voluntary, biotech industry-controlled scheme is allowed to decide when compensation is given to farmers whose crops suffer GM contamination, it will be like 'putting dracula in charge of the blood bank' (1).

GeneWatch is responding to the Government's consultation on the coexistence of GM crops with non-GM and organic crops (2). In the consultation document, DEFRA says that setting up a voluntary (industry-led) scheme to administer compensation to non-GM and organic farmers who suffer economic losses as a result of GM crops being grown, would be 'cheaper and more straightforward to establish and operate' than a statutory, independent approach (para 170). DEFRA reveals that the biotech industry is already preparing a voluntary redress 'charter', that it hopes Government will adopt.

The Government is also proposing that farmers growing GM crops are governed by a mixture of statutory rules on separatation distances and industry codes of conduct.

"The biotech industry is pressing to be judge and jury on GM crop contamination and the Government looks set to take its lead," said Dr Sue Mayer, GeneWatch UK's Director. "Public confidence in the Government on GM issues has taken a battering in the past - it will evaporate if they go ahead with this plan."

The closing date for responses to the consultation is Friday 20th October 2006.

Contact:

Sue Mayer on + 44 (0)1298 871898 (office); + 44 (0)7930 308807 (mobile)

Notes to editors:

DEFRA consultation on proposals for managing the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops. Response from GeneWatch UK.13th October 2006. http://setup.greennet.org.uk/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/DEFRA_consultation1006.doc.

The DEFRA consultation on 'proposals for managing the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops', can be found at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/gmnongm-coexist/index.htm

The closing date for responses is Friday 20th October.

12 October 2006

Farmers' group wants rice import banned

The SunStar, October 12 2006

Manilla, The Phillippines -- A FARMERS' group in Negros Oriental urged the Department of Agriculture (DA) to ban rice imports from the US to protect the local rice farmers and safeguard Filipino consumers from the alleged contaminated and genetically engineered rice variety.

The variety of the imported rice is called LibertyLinkRice601 (LLRice601), said Eugene Quirante, regional liaison officer of Centro Saka Inc.

Centro Saka Inc. is a research and policy advocacy and a non-government organization accredited by the National Research Institute of the Department of Agriculture.

Quirante said farmers want the ban imposed after the United States Department of Agriculture found that commercial long grain rice in the US has been contaminated by the unapproved genetically engineered (GE) LLRice601 rice variety.

He said traces of the illegal genetically modified rice have been found in supermarkets in European countries and the United Kingdom.

"As a result, Japan banned all long-grain rice from the US, while the European Union now tests US rice shipments and rejects any rice imports contaminated with LLRice601," said Quirante.

LLRice 601, he said, is a long grain of rice that containing the protein Liberty Link that allows the crop to withstand herbicide applications.

"Imported rice, especially genetically modified (GM) rice from the United States, should be banned from entering our country to prevent contamination of our crops," warned Quirante adding, "If the European countries and the United Kingdom were not spared from the contamination, then we are also at risk from possible contamination since the United States has been dumping their rice into our country through the PL 480 grant!"

He said Centro Saka demands that government impose stricter measures in testing and monitoring shipments of all imported rice from the US and other countries to ensure that local rice varieties and species would be spared from possible contamination.

"The Department of Agriculture should protect our local rice farmers from the risks of GE rice," he said adding, "We should not allow this to happen to our already beleaguered local rice industry."

Quirante stressed that the contamination of GE rice has been causing massive problems for the US rice industry.

Groups say FDA should ban sale of food from clones

Reuters News Service, October 12 2006. By Christopher Doering.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Citing public health, ethical and animal cruelty concerns, consumer and religious groups on Thursday urged federal regulators to issue a moratorium on the introduction of food made from cloned animals.

In a petition to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Center for Food Safety, the Humane Society of the United States and others said there is still too much uncertainty over the safety of food from cloned animals.

"Cloning is completely unnecessary and will increase animal cruelty in food production, yet the industry wants to test their cloned foods on the American public," said Joseph Mendelson, legal Director for the Center for Food Safety.

The advocacy groups want FDA to require health and environmental reviews before allowing food from cloned animals to be sold. A blue ribbon panel also should be established to review the ethical issues tied to animal cloning.

Additionally, they asked the agency to regulate cloned animals as "new animal drugs," using the argument that processors are making changes that affect the body of the animal.

An FDA spokesman could not be immediately reached for comment.

At present, selling food made from cloned animals is not approved in the United States.

The FDA in October 2003 issued a draft risk assessment saying food from cloned animals and their offspring was as safe as conventional food. But an FDA panel later urged more research into the new technology, delaying a final decision which has yet to be made.

Good Enough To Eat: Weighing both sides to the genetic engineering debate

Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 12 October 2006. By Chris Smith.

In last week's column, I introduced the subject of genetic engineering of plants, explained what that procedure is and discussed who's using it and on which plants.

This week the column will focus on how people feel about this form of biotechnology. As could be expected with such a controversial matter, there are cheerleaders and detractors.

Cheerleaders

In my mind, cheerleaders sort into schemers and dreamers.

When they think genetic engineering, schemers see dollar signs. As a highly promising, if problematic new technology, it is bound to attract the attention of big business.

The fact that transgenic material is intellectual property and patentable adds to the interest. If a company has exclusive control over a plant that it can grow more cheaply than the competition or that yields a high-value product, it owns, potentially, a very profitable commodity.

That companies should try to profit from agriculture is not surprising. Agribusiness is a reality. Concentration of control is another matter. That a few companies should virtually control seeds, food crops and plant-derived pharmaceuticals and that many of these entities would resist accurate labeling of genetically engineered products is disturbing to many people.

According to "Genetic Engineering of Plants: Research, Rhetoric & Reality" by Julie Dawson and Margaret E. Smith (NRAES, 129 pages, $17 plus shipping & handling), "Ten biotech companies control 32 percent of the $23 billion global seed market and virtually 100 percent of transgenic seeds. Five vegetable seed companies control 75 percent of the global market. Ten agrochemical companies control 81 percent of the $29 billion market. Monsanto, Pioneer, Novartis and Dow control 45 percent of the global soybean market."

Dreamers seem benign in comparison. They see genetic engineering as the solution to a myriad of biological problems. I suspect they underestimate the complexity of playing with genetic material. Perhaps they don't take into consideration what plant breeder Carol Deppe, author of "Breed Your Own Vegetable Varieties" (Chelsea Green, 367 pages, $27.95), identifies as pleiotropy.

"Pleiotropy refers to the effects of genes on characteristics other than the 'primary' one. ... Pleiotropy is a genetic version of the ancient Taoist understanding that you cannot do just one thing."

The Flavr Savr tomato illustrates pleiotropy in action. A synthetic gene was implanted in a tomato to harden its skin so it could ripen on the vine and still be shipped. Apparently the synthetic gene hardened the tomato's skin all right, but it also made it taste like gasoline.

Detractors

Some detractors of genetic engineering are permanently, philosophically against the technology or the legal framework under which it currently operates.

Other detractors might be persuaded -- with changes in regulation, convincing safeguards and wider sharing of control of the technology -- that benefits may outweigh risks for some applications.

Organic gardeners and farmers aren't likely to morph into backers of genetic engineering. Transgenic material is not certifiable as organic, so organic growers can't use genetically engineered seed or plants. Moreover, if transgenic material escapes and contaminates organic crops, organic producers are major losers.

Contamination of non-engineered crops concerns a much larger group of people than organic practitioners. Anyone who values a diverse, natural gene pool of plants can legitimately worry about unintended transfer of genes.

To the alarm of such people, escape and contamination already has happened -- several times. Transgenic corn from Texas has contaminated non-engineered corn in Mexico. A virus-resistant, engineered papaya in Hawaii has contaminated organic and wild papaya trees. And in Oregon, there are reports of transgenic material being found in wild creeping bentgrass.

The escape of transgenic materials raises questions about the seriousness and effectiveness of our regulatory apparatus. Currently three federal agencies, eight subdivisions of those agencies and five federal committees share oversight of genetic engineering.

Opponents of the technology point to the lapses of security and cumbersome oversight as reasons to halt or slow it.

From other quarters, there are concerns that genetic engineering will accelerate the evolution of pathogens resistant to antibiotics, and insects and weeds resistant to pesticides. Those worries stem from the use of antibiotics as markers in laboratory-based gene transfers, and the use of insecticide- and herbicide-resistant genetic material in field crops.

To some of our trading partners, genetic engineering is problematic. According to Dawson and Smith, the Cornell University authors of "Genetic Engineering of Plants": "Exports of U.S. corn to Japan fell 38 percent, to Taiwan fell 52 percent and to the EU fell 83 percent from 1996 to 2000, in part because of objections to genetic engineering technologies. Soybean exports, however, increased 14 percent from 2001-2002."

Add health concerns about allergic reactions to the new proteins created by engineering and suspicions that the corporations involved in this technology are or will be unscrupulous, and you have a noisy chorus of doubters.

In next week's column, we'll consider what might be done to rein in the excesses of some of genetic engineering's cheerleaders and convince some of its detractors that the technology has benefits to offer that outweigh its risks.

Chris Smith, a Master Gardener who lives in Port Orchard, is retired from the WSU Cooperative Extension. Send questions to P.O. Box 4426, South Colby, WA 98384-0426.

Supermarkets withdraw banned rice

Irish Independent, 12 October 2006. By Aideen Sheehan.

A NUMBER of Irish supermarkets have been found to be selling banned genetically modified rice in products that were certified free of GM components.

Dunnes Stores and Marks and Spencers have now withdrawn the long-grain rice products affected after the State's food watchdog found they contained a GM rice type barred from sale in the European Union.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland revealed yesterday that their tests had found small quantities of GM rice in St Bernard Easy Cook Rice and Marks & Spencer American Easy Cook Rice.

The FSAI has now alerted the EC to the discovery and the supermarkets have withdrawn the contaminated products, while Tesco and Musgrave have also removed GM rice from their shelves. Both Dunnes and Marks & Spencer had their own analytical tests carried out, which certified their products to be free of the barred GM rice strain.

However, the FSAI said they had to go by the independent tests carried out for them by the State Laboratory.

The controversial GM rice strain was grown in crop trials by biotech company Bayer in the US between 1998 and 2001 but though it was never approved for human consumption it escaped into the food chain.

It was found last month to be present in some US rice exports to Europe and is now being tracked down by health authorities across the EU, with all further imports banned unless they are certified free of it.

The FSAI also discovered the barred GM rice in Nice Price Long Grain Rice sold by the Musgrave Group, which supplies SuperValu and Centra stores.

Tesco Ireland last month also removed batches of its own-brand long grain rice from sale after their own tests revealed them to contain GM traces.

The FSAI said in a statement they were satisfied that the presence of low levels of the GM rice product on the market "does not pose an imminent threat to consumer health.

"However as this GM rice is not authorised for food use in the EU its presence is not tolerated on the market, even at low levels," they said.

"Marks and Spencer and Musgrave Group have voluntarily removed all batches of the affected product from sale, while St Bernard has removed the specific batch in which the GM rice was identified," the FSAI said.

10 October 2006

GE Technology out of control:
Greenpeace discovers contamination from Bayer's Genetically Engineered Rice in Middle East

Greenpeace Press Release, 10 October 2006

NEW DELHI, India - October 10 - Test results released today by Greenpeace International establish that rice products being sold in the Middle East region have also been contaminated by Bayer's illegal genetically engineered (GE) rice grown in field trials in the United States. (1) Contamination in the Middle East has serious global implications as the region is the world's 2nd largest importer of US rice and a major re-exporter of food throughout the Asia region.

Today, Greenpeace activists challenged Agriculture Ministers attending the International Rice Congress (IRC) in Delhi to take immediate action to prevent the continuing contamination of the world's most important staple food. Conference delegates were presented with symbolic bowls of rice with question marks.

Agricultural ministers of eight countries (2) are participating in the IRC, to set the agenda for rice production and export over the next five years, discussing trade issues as well as scientific innovations and sustainable solutions for rice production. Ironically, Bayer and Monsanto - the two main advocates for the GE industry, are jointly sponsoring the Congress, placing them in a key position to influence the agenda to their advantage. Contamination from Bayer's rice has already been found in nine countries, and resulted in import restrictions against the United States.

"The contaminated rice in the Middle East is yet another body blow to the US rice industry, already reeling under product recalls, testing requirements, import restrictions and cancelled orders in many countries," said Divya Raghunandan, GE campaigner from Greenpeace India. "Now, more than ever before, it is clear that GE crops pose a serious risk and that 'controlled field trials' are a dangerous myth. Any country allowing GE crops to be grown, even in field trials, is exposing its farmers and traders of agricultural produce to an economic and environmental disaster. A complete ban is the only solution," added Raghunandan.

Greenpeace urged governments to protect this staple food, by drawing up a clear plan of action to protect their countries from similar GE contamination, prevent genetic contamination of crops and hold Bayer accountable for its recklessness.

"The extent of contamination necessitates an urgent response. This rice and its by-products could be on supermarket shelves anywhere," warned Jeremy Tager, GE Campaigner from Greenpeace International. "We urge agricultural ministers to immediately order comprehensive testing of all products that may have been exposed to contamination from GE rice, and to impose strict import controls on any goods imported from GE rice-growing countries. It will take a globally coordinated approach to ensure that citizens everywhere are responsibly protected from GE-contaminated products," concluded Tager. Notes to Editor

Notes to editors:

1. The following samples were found to contain traces of Bayer's illegal LL601 GE rice when tested at an independent laboratory.

Product details

Uncle Ben's long grain rice: Purchased at Geant supermarket Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE) Riceland Chef-way, preboiled rice: Purchased at Carrefour supermarket,Dubai, UAE Riceland, preboiled rice: Purchased at Geant supermarket Dubai, UAE American Rice, INC, parboiled rice: Purchased at City Center supermarket Salmiya, Kuwait.

2. China, Indonesia, India, Laos, Nepal, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam.

7 October 2006

Which Cows Do You Trust?

New York Times, October 7 2006. By Andrew Pollack.

MONROE, Wash. - For demanding consumers, some dairy producers are demanding less milk from their cows - and charging more for it.

The dairy companies are bowing to the natural-foods trend by shunning milk from cows treated with genetically engineered growth hormone. By labeling milk free of the artificial hormone, the dairy industry can ride the popularity of natural foods, without the greater expense and special feeds required to produce milk that can be fully certified as "organic."

As a result hormone-free milk can be priced higher than conventionally labeled milk, but less than organic.

At a Safeway near central Seattle, for example, a half gallon of conventional Lucerne-brand whole milk was recently selling for $1.69, while the Horizon organic brand was priced at $3.69.

Priced neatly in between, at $2.79, was the Darigold milk labeled as "coming from cows not treated with the growth hormone rBST•"

The asterisk referred to tiny letters near the bottom of the carton indicating that the Food and Drug Administration says there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.

Some milk producers have long avoided the hormone rBST, which is made by Monsanto and was approved by the F.D.A. in 1993. Still, it has been in wide enough use since then, as a way to increase a cowÇs milk supply by a gallon or more a day, that many of the nationÇs dairy products probably contain milk from cows injected with the hormone. Many pure-food advocates oppose the hormone's use on health grounds, saying it can require cows to be treated with extra antibiotics and can result in milk with higher amounts of a separate hormone linked to cancer in some studies. But only recently do more consumers appear to be paying heed to those concerns, as part of the growing interest in whole and natural foods.

Experts say that avoiding the hormone is the main reason people buy organic milk, whose sales have been growing rapidly the last few years. But organic sales still account for only about 3 percent of the total milk market, so marketers see an opportunity to tap the demand for organic milk by simply eliminating the hormone.

"It seems to be an explosion in the industry," said Kurt Williams, general manager of Lanco-Pennland Milk Producers, a cooperative in the mid-Atlantic region, most of whose members do not use the hormone. "All of a sudden we have national processors like Dean Foods taking entire plants hormone-free."

In June, Dean Foods, the nation's largest milk producer, stopped accepting milk from hormone-treated cows at a big bottling plant it owns in Florence, N.J., which sells milk under the Tuscan name. That means most of the Tuscan milk sold in the New York metropolitan area is now free of the artificial hormone.

Dean Foods is now beginning a similar shift at its New England plants, which market the Garelick Farms brand, and is considering a similar move in Texas. Still, Dean Foods says only 10 of its 100 milk processing plants around the country offer milk from untreated cows.

"Are we doing a wholesale shift? No," said Marguerite Copel, a spokeswoman for Dean. "Are we seeing movement? Yes."

Darigold, which is owned by the Northwest Dairy Association, a large cooperative, recently began selling milk only from cows not treated with growth hormone. Several other dairy companies in the Northwest have recently done likewise.

"I think it's going to become a competitive disadvantage if you are not rBST-free," said Randy Eronimous, the director of marketing for Darigold. He said surveys had shown that use of the hormone was beginning to affect consumer decisions on what milk to buy.

But at least one of the co-op's farmers, Jim Werkhoven, says he is not convinced that consumers are really clamoring for milk from untreated cows - or at least would not be without prodding from marketers.

"It's really about milk processors trying to position themselves on the grocery store shelf," said Mr. Werkhoven, 47, who has been farming since 1979. "All they're doing is selling fear, and I think thatÇs a miserable deal."

For about a dozen years Mr. Werkhoven, who runs a herd of 800 cows on a farm in Monroe, about 25 miles northeast of Seattle, injects his cows every two weeks with the hormone.

"It's worth 10 to 12 pounds a cow a day, a little over a gallon a day," Mr. Werkhoven said, explaining that the hormone raised a typical cow's daily output from over 70 pounds of milk to somewhat less than 90. He showed a visitor through his barns, where cows with yellow identification tags in their ears munched on a ration made mainly of corn plants or lolled about in sandy stalls.

Mr. Werkhoven said it was difficult to estimate the effects on his profit because that depends somewhat on the price of milk. But he is convinced the hormone lowers his cost per gallon.

For now, Mr. Werkhoven can continue to use the hormone, because the co-op's ban applies only to bottled milk, which is consumed in large quantities by children, and not for other dairy products like cheese. Some milk bottlers, including Darigold, are paying small premiums to farmers who sign affidavits certifying they do not use the hormone. (Since there is no test to distinguish milk from treated and untreated cows, claims of hormone-free milk are based on the honor system).

A Department of Agriculture survey in 2002 found that 22 percent of the nationÇs dairy cows were being injected with the hormone. Currently, about one-third of the nationÇs dairy herds are managed using the bovine growth hormone - though not every cow in each herd gets it, according to Monsanto.

The substance, one of the first applications of genetic engineering to make its way into food production, is a synthetic version of a natural cow hormone called bovine somatotropin, or BST. Monsanto makes its version - recombinant BST, or rBST - by splicing the cow gene for the hormone into bacteria.

Critics say that milk from treated cows contains higher levels of a different hormone - insulin-like growth factor 1 - that has been linked to an increased risk of cancer in people. They also say that inducing the cow to produce more milk increases the risk of udder inflammation, which then leads to increased antibiotic use. Canada has not approved use of the hormone because of its harmful effects on cows.

But Monsanto and other proponents of the technology say the amount of extra insulin-like growth factor in the milk is insignificant compared with the amount made naturally in the human body. They also say milk is screened for antibiotics before it can be sold. Dairy companies that are now rejecting the hormone say they are doing so not because milk is unsafe but simply in response to customer demand.

"People have become more educated on what they buy," said Heidi Horn, marketing manager for Wilcox Family Farms.

At the company's milk processing plant in the bucolic countryside south of Tacoma, about 110 gallons of milk a minute are pasteurized, homogenized and squirted into cartons amid a near-deafening clatter of machinery. Since July the cartons have borne the name "Wilcox Natural" instead of just "Wilcox," because the company eliminated milk from hormone-treated cows.

Executives of the dairy said they had been getting requests for rBST-free milk from consumers as well as from school boards, hospitals and retailers, including a big customer, Costco.

Judging the true level of consumer demand is difficult. Susan Ruland, a spokeswoman for the International Dairy Foods Association, a trade group, said that in studies her group helped sponsor, only 30 percent of consumers said they were aware of any issue regarding hormones and milk. And 70 percent of those who were aware said they did not care about it, she said.

But when one dairy company makes the shift to rBST-free, it puts pressure on others.

The move away from the hormone has been strongest on the West Coast and in the Northeast. But there are signs the trend is spreading. For example Shamrock Farms, a major dairy company in Arizona, recently went rBST-free for all its products.

The Prairie Farms Dairy in Carlinville, Ill., has started a review of its policies, said Gary Lee, vice president for procurement. "It's moving toward the Midwest," he said.

Monsanto is worried enough that in late August it mailed brochures to its farmer customers urging them to defend their rights to use the hormone. "Consumers have choices ... but so do you," said the brochure. It included a sample calculation to help farmers assess how much money they would lose if they gave up the hormone and asked them to demand compensation.

Monsanto does not disclose its sales of the hormone, which it calls Posilac. Kevin McCarthy, an analyst at Banc of America Securities, estimates they will be $250 million this year out of Monsanto's total sales of $7.2 billion, which will come mainly from seeds, both genetically engineered and conventional, and herbicides.

A few years ago Monsanto sued Oakhurst Dairy in Maine, saying its labeling of milk as coming from cows not treated with the hormone was misleading. The dairy added a sentence to the effect that the F.D.A. had found no significant difference between the milk from treated and untreated cows.

Some farmers and dairy marketers say that advertising rBST-free milk pits one form of milk against another and could undermine consumer confidence in conventional milk.

"If certain products can make these unsettling claims, what does that then say about the milk my family has been drinking for years?" Jerry Kozak, president of the National Milk Producers Federation, a trade group, said in his monthly message to members for September.

To be sure, many farmers do not use the hormone, either because they are philosophically opposed to it or because its use requires more work for them and more food for the cows.

"It's like steroids for athletes," said Stephen H. Taylor, New Hampshire's commissioner of agriculture, markets and food and a dairy farmer himself. He said he had tried the hormone but it put stress on his cows and made them thinner.

Last month, his wife signed an affidavit, requested by Agri-Mark, a big New England co-op, certifying that the couple's 80-cow farm does not use the hormone. "A lot of people in the dairy industry say goodbye and good riddance to BST," he said. But in Monroe, Mr. Werkhoven, who has a refrigerator full of boxes of Posilac, each containing 25 syringes, said his cows had not had any problems.

The move to eliminate the hormone, he said, "puts at risk a valuable tool for agriculture and it adds cost to the customer with absolutely no benefit," he said. "If this is a technology that's going to go away, IÇd be shocked and stunned."

Has the Bt cotton bubble burst?

India Together, 7 October 2006

Cotton farmers around the country are following Andhra Pradesh's lead in skipping both pesticides and Bt seeds. And there are no pests. Why? There are 28 predators of the American bollworm, cotton's main enemy. If you stop spraying pesticides, these beneficial insects devour the bollworm, notes Devinder Sharma.

7 October 2006 - Anil Khondwa Shinde was a cotton farmer in Bhadumari in Vidarba. Last week he swallowed pesticide and died within minutes. At 31, Shinde was not the only young farmer to have taken the fatal route to escape the continuing agrarian distress. Nearly 60 per cent of the farmers committing suicides happen to be less than 45 years in age.

Ironically, Shinde is a victim of the highly expensive and sophisticated improved technology. The New York Times reports that he had planted Bt Cotton, the genetically modified crop expected to reduce the application of pesticides and thereby improve profitability. He is not the only Bt cotton farmer to have ended his life, hundreds of Bt cotton farmers in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have killed themselves over the past few years.

In neighbouring China too, what was initially projected as a silver bullet has finally hit the dust. Seven years after Bt cotton was commercialised, a recent study by Cornell University and the Chinese Academy of Science have concluded that Chinese farmers are incurring losses due to a spurt in secondary pests. Farmers have to spray as many as 20 times to control the pests. Putting at rest the hype generated by agricultural scientists and seed companies often exhorting India to follow the example of China, the latest study only establishes what was known for long - in the name of higher productivity, cotton farmers are being literally fleeced by the companies.

In India, Bt cotton was projected as a 'magic bullet'. Although I had warned time and again that the technology is not suitable for the non-irrigated areas (and much of cotton is grown in dryland regions), it was pushed nevertheless. Several studies have shown Bt cotton yields to be substantially lower than non-Bt varieties. Agricultural scientists had earlier projected a net increase in profit by Rs 10,000 per acre from growing Bt cotton without considering that the seed royalty in India was 30 times more than what was being collected in China. Let us not forget that the loss being incurred by Chinese farmers would have been much higher if they were also made to cough out a higher royalty fee.

As a result, while an increasing number of Bt cotton farmers are dying, the seed companies and dealer's profit continue to soar. Thanks to the marketing blitz launched by the seed companies - even using dancing girls to lure gullible farmers - the area under Bt cotton continues to multiply. And so are the profit margins for the companies. Between 2002-05, the seed companies had earned Rs 1,400-crore by way of royalty alone (they call it 'technology fee'). In 2006, the seed companies aim to pocket Rs 4,000-crore as royalty from farmers cultivating Bt cotton in 3.5 million hectares.

I have often said that if only this money had remained with farmers there would have been far less suicides. It only needed a government regulatory order to stop the royalties from being collected. With no price regulation, seed companies extracted an exorbitantly high royalty in India - Rs 1200 per acre (now lowered to Rs 900 as per company claims) compared to a paltry Rs 38 in China. Higher the seed cost, higher was the need for crop loans. At the same time, as I said earlier Bt cotton requires more water, which means more cost to pump out underground water. Fertiliser requirement also went up considerably. And with the crop harvest belying the promised yields, farmers found themselves in a terrible crisis - a victim of faulty technology.

As the New York Times reports "frustration is building in India with American multinational companies peddling costly, genetically modified seeds. They have made deep inroads in rural India - a vast and alluring market - bringing new opportunities but also new risks as Indian farmers pile up debt." Regardless of the extent of failure of Bt cotton, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) - the apex nodal agency that accords clearance for GM crops - has been merrily approving Bt cotton varieties. In the past four years, 59 Bt cotton varieties have been approved for commercial planting

With the single-gene Bt cotton varieties failing to stand up to the promise, the GEAC is getting ready with the two-gene Bt cotton varieties. Without being first held accountable for the release of single-gene Bt cotton, the GEAC is being allowed a free hand to play havoc with the future of the farming community. Such is the callous neglect that it continues to brush aside reports of 1,600 sheep dying in Andhra Pradesh reportedly from eating Bt cotton leaves. It also refuses to take notice of reports of Bt cotton varieties causing skin allergies among cotton pickers in several parts of the country.

The question I am often asked is as to what is the alternative. My answer is very simple: Follow the two-pronged strategy. First, ban the use of chemical pesticides on cotton (which incidentally consumes 55 per cent of the total pesticides applied). This will result in a restoration of the ecological balance, minimise the insect attack, and result in a safer environment. Secondly, stop cultivating genetically modified cotton varieties. Not only will it reduce drastically the cost of production, it will also mean that the farmer is pulled out from the death trap.

Farmers in several parts of the country are following this approach. In more than 4,500 hectares in Andhra Pradesh, farmers are reaping a higher harvest without growing Bt varieties or using pesticides. And there are no pests. Why? If you stop spraying pesticides, beneficial insects take over. In case of cotton, there are 28 predators of the American bollworm in the same field. When the farmer stops using pesticides, these beneficial insects survive and devour the bollworm. With indiscriminate pesticides applications, these predators are the first one to be killed.

Hundreds of farmers in Tamilnadu, Punjab, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh have taken the route to sustainable cotton production, and emerged free of the clutches of the seed and agribusiness companies. And if you are still not convinced, read what The Guardian has to say for rice, another crop for which GM varieties are being evolved. The Government of Egypt has announced its best-ever rice harvest. Farmers using conventional seeds grew a record average of 9.5 tonnes per hectare.

While the area under Bt cotton is expected to rise, government estimates point to a significant drop in cotton production this year. Still worse, China - with the largest area under Bt cotton - is planning to import cotton from India this year. The Bt cotton bubble has surely burst.

Devinder Sharma is a food and trade policy analyst. He also chairs the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security. Among his recent works include two books GATT to WTO: Seeds of Despair and In the Famine Trap.

6 October 2006

Stores told to remove GM rice from shelves

The Guardian, October 6, 2006

The government's food watchdog has changed its advice to retailers about genetically modified rice.

Stores must remove any rice known to contain GM strains from their shelves, the Food Standards Agency said.

The move follows ongoing concerns over the presence of GM strains in batches of long-grain rice from the US.

Selling products known to be contaminated with GM material is illegal in the UK, but the FSA previously told businesses that actively tracking down and removing contaminated rice products was unnecessary because they didn't pose an "imminent" health risk.

The watchdog's updated advice follows the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) assessment of safety implications of GM material in rice.

EFSA experts said rice containing traces of GM material was "not likely" to pose an imminent safety concern, but they found insufficient information to complete a full risk assessment of the issue.

The FSA's advice to consumers is unchanged. Anyone who has US long-grain rice at home can continue to eat it.

An FSA spokesman said today: "We are doing this because there is new information."

The environmental group Friends of the Earth complained that the stepped-up advice had come too late.

The group's GM campaigner, Clare Oxborrow, said: "The FSA should have issued this advice right from the start, instead of playing down the seriousness of the issue.

"The agency is still refusing to carry out any testing of rice on shelves and still failing to require retailers to carry out such testing themselves."

The US government confirmed in August that a genetically modified strain of long-grain rice was found in samples.

In response, the EU introduced emergency measures to stop contaminated rice entering the food chain.

Friends of the Earth researchers claim they have found GM strains in packets of rice and noodles on sale in a number of UK stores.

Japan's rice testing stuns industry

Capital press, 6 October 2006. By Bob Krauter.

SACRAMENTO - "Duplicative and unnecessary" is how a California rice industry leader assesses the decision by Japan to test all U.S. rice for evidence of an unapproved genetically enhanced variety.

California Rice Commission President Tim Johnson reacted with surprise to the requirement from Japan's Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries that U.S.-origin short and medium grain rice and rice stocks will be tested for the presence of Bayer CropScience's LibertyLink 601 rice.

"The announcement by Japan is surprising and disappointing," Johnson said. "California has conducted thorough testing of all foundation and basic seed supplies for rice varieties produced in our state and those results clearly demonstrate that this LibertyLink event is not present in any California-source rice varieties. The action taken by Japan is duplicative and unnecessary."

Testing began with a shipment of U.S. rice that arrived in Japan on Sept. 30. Japan's announcement of testing comes more than a month after the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that commercial samples of the 2005 long grain rice crop in Arkansas and Missouri tested positive for trace amounts of an herbicide tolerant protein, LLRICE601, developed by Bayer.

In response to the August discovery by USDA, Johnson said tests were conducted in late August at the California Rice Experiment Station on samples of all its foundation and basic seed supplied by the facility to California rice farmers. LLRICE601 was not present in the long, medium or short-grain foundation or basic seed supplied to California rice farmers.

USDA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have reviewed the available scientific data provided by Bayer CropScience, and have not found any human health, food safety or environmental concerns associated with the rice in question.

Discovery of the unapproved LibertyLink 601 protein prompted Japan to ban imports of U.S. long grain rice, and the European Union imposed specific import testing rules.

Japan is the top market for California medium and short-grain rice, taking more than half of the state's production, according to the Rice Commission. California is the largest producer of short and medium-grain japonica rice in the U.S. These rice varieties comprise more than 95 percent of the state's annual crop production grown on 500,000 acres, mostly in the Sacramento Valley.

Bayer CropScience is the target of a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of U.S. rice growers who allege that the company's failure to keep the non-approved genetically modified rice out of the food chain has depressed U.S. rice prices and harmed international trade.

5 October 2006

Germany Says Found Illegal GMO Rice from US, China

Reuters, October 5, 2006

BERLIN - German consumer protection authorities said on Wednesday that they detected the presence of banned genetically modified (GMO) rice from the United States and China in various food products.

The German tests, carried out by ministry for environment and consumer protection in the state of Hesse in central Germany, revealed that 11 samples from eight different food products carried trace amounts of LL Rice 601 from the United States.

Five samples from three different products showed the unauthorised Chinese Rice BT 63.

No GMO rice is allowed to be grown, sold or marketed in the European Union's 25 countries, where consumers have a reputation for mistrust of GMO foods. GMO food manufacturers, however, insist that their products are safe.

In August, the EU tightened requirements on US imports to prove the absence of LL Rice 601, developed by Germany's Bayer AG.

The EU decision followed the discovery by US authorities of trace amounts of GMO rice in long-grain samples targeted for commercial use.

Despite some lobbying in favour of GMO, EU member states have for many years been unable to secure the majority needed to overturn the present ban on GMO foods and crops.

Food Propaganda Prevails In the Land of Corporate Rule

OpedNews.com, 5 October 2006. By Pamela Drew.

Ripped From The Headlines

This week's food news in America was, "Shoppers shun spinach as E. coli cases top 100 and it was splashed in bold headlines and led the television news reports. For the rest of the world, and watchers of genetically engineered crops, a far more dire food crisis has been the feature story for weeks. A genetically engineered variety of toxic Bt rice, never approved for human consumption and grown in a small test batch in 1999 had been found to have contaminated vast amounts of the American rice crop.The Bayer LL601 rice is a Bt variety that produces a pesticidal protein. That means when the bugs eat it they die; no one knows what it might do to humans because no tests have been done to determine any level of safety for LL601. It was assumed when Bayer abandoned the trials in 1999 that no one would ever have to. Unfortunately the greatest fears of unregulated genetically engineered field crops were realized when this abandoned variety turned up as a contaminant in worldwide exports.

Show Me The Money

The rice contamination was not totally absent from American news. In this land that worships corporate profits, the reports led with a business spin noting the $1 billion dollar market. Smaller news noted millions in losses faced by American farmers and their efforts filing lawsuits against Bayer. Those feeling the impact impact, rippling through the South Eastern States, even noted the cost of the Star Link corn contamination, that years earlier, ended with tainted corn in consumer products. No one noted that it forced rare public discussion of the otherwise secret ingredients in American foods.

Ever the dutiful servant of the corporate customer, USDA Secretary leapt forward with assurances that this posed no threat. It doesn't matter that the stuff is banned worldwide and has never been subjected to safety testing. Secretary Johannas confidently announced, and US news quoted the following, "Based on "available scientific data" provided by Bayer, the USDA and the FDA have concluded "that there are no human-health, food-safety or environmental concerns associated with this G.E. rice." It is nice to know he has blind faith in safety when genetic scientists are alarmed. It must be the water in Washington.

Consumer Protection and Free Speech

On Sunday, September 18, in media outside America, worldwide headlines carried news of the tainted rice stating simply, GM Cover Up and similar condemnations . In Britain, where strict controls are in place and consumers are provided ingredient labels identifying genetically modified ingredients, the story was one of outrage. Not only had the toxic tainted rice been shipped to the EU in opposition to the ban, American authorities had waited two months to tell the world. Meanwhile LL601 rice was finding its way to supermarket shelves in Europe and Japan. The overseas government demanded the rice shipments be recalled and a ban was put in place. In defense of the US, the Administration is casual with laws and it's nothing they won't try to feed to Americans.

America didn't even know there was a problem until Bayer brought it to their attention. Most people would assume that the regulatory agency would provide oversight but don't look, don't find has been the preferred American method. Actually, Bayer discovered the problem in January but waited nearly seven months to inform US regulators. Since the US policy is based on the manufacturers voluntarily informing the government about their products, this probably seemed acceptable to both Bayer and the USDA. They both understand that no one tells the American consumers.

Swallow This

There have been huge strides in the Federal Government's policy of keeping bad news under wraps. Last week we looked at new rules to remove whistleblower protections from EPA employees charged with enforcing the Clean Air and Water Act. If the EPA did not have some many years of testing for threats to human health and the environment maybe the Administration wouldn't be forced to silence them. Who really needs to hear about violations of toxic corporate contamination? America, this is insanity.

The President's Orwellian war continues to threaten our security. Beyond the contaminated air and water, the EPA is restrained from reporting, we have the uncontrolled growth and contamination of the genetically engineered crops. Despite the fact that the USDA approvals are generally rubber-stamps for these crops, there have been some varieties, never approved for commercial production or deemed fit for human consumption.

This was the case with the contaminating Bayer variety. The offending LL rice 601 was grown in a small test plot in 1999 and abandoned. Suddenly widespread contamination was discovered in 2006. While this highlights the lack of oversight and control it leaves the rice growers in a terrible predicament.

The result has been a ban on US rice exports to the EU, Japan and other nations around the world. The economic loss from the event has been huge now that the estimated 20,000 tons of rice, normally exported each month, now have now foreign buyers.In classic Bush Administration form the USDA's response has been to hurry to get a retroactive approval for the toxic LL 601 rice. The government view is that it's better to see us swallow it than have Bayer lose money.

If The Shoe Fits

There is no sense breaking the law when it can be changed so the lawbreaking activity is legal. President Bush has Senator Specter working to revise the domestic spying to remove the obstacles he faces with the pesky FISA court impeding his domestic spying program.

Torture bans in place under the Geneva conventions are up for grabs as he moves to avoid having the detainees who have been interrogated in secret prisons unable to charge their questioners with war crimes. What's the big deal with a few words moved around in the laws? This preferred approach to problem solving is what has been done again.

Bayer and the USDA quickly began the process to retroactively approve the toxic rice. By feeding the shunned LL601 to ignorant American consumers, the financial losses can be dramatically reduced; and what you don't know won't hurt you. The American media has dutifully given the ecoli spinach enough coverage that people get the feeling that someone is looking out for consumers. The spinach crop is nothing compared to rice?

The Best Laid Plans

By revising the rules and selling the LL601 toxic rice to the American public and Bayer's Crop division does not have to eat the loss. The USDA approval will save Bayer millions in claims from the US farmers who plan to sue. This is what Homeland Security is all about. Do business with the Administration and count on them for economic security. The risks are greater than just this one crop. This year, 181 acres in eight states were planted with crops that produce pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals, according to Rachel Iadicicco, a spokeswoman for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service." What other cross contaminations and combinations of unexpected foods could be out there? The financial impact is mind-boggling. News like this is a threat.

Homeland Security

Listen to the President talk about security threats and protections. Ask yourself, what it is that we are trying to protect? This is an outrage. There is not one reason in the world to prevent the EPA scientists from reporting threats to our air and water. There is not one reason in the world to expect Americans to eat the results of a toxic food experiment gone awry. There is no tribute to our heroes of 9/11 who are sick from false claims of safe conditions at Ground Zero and no honor in seeing them sick and without health care.

Unfortunately, the Administration has taken the wrong course. We all knew on September 11 how deeply we loved our freedom and how angry we were to have that attacked. Now it is time to fight to get it back. What follows is a summary of the contamination by the center for Food Safety and links to the announcements and contacts at the USDA. Call, write, contact your members of Congress and tell them it is not acceptable to feed Americans a toxic mistake to avoid a corporate loss. Tell them that it is not okay to be forced to buy or consume products from corporations you don't want. The Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121. They work for you or they ought to.

Take a stand, tell a friend, do one thing to demand that our public servants work in the public interest. The hundreds of thousands of public employees who are trying to serve and protect will appreciate the support and by raising your voice you will help to raise us all from the corporate menace that threatens our security. The threat is on the table. One by one, day-by-day we will create the change to save the world. That's more than enough for one day.

SC steps in to tighten GM crop test norms

The Times of India, 5 October 2006. By Manoj Mitta.

NEW DELHI: Fresh field trials of genetically modified crops are on hold. The Supreme Court has directed the government that it should not give any fresh approvals to GM crop field trials until further orders.

GM crops is an issue that has cleaved the scientific community. Field trials of GM crops are governed by stringent regulations around the world, including most of Europe where GM food has not passed muster despite immense pressure from biotech giants.

In India, the regulatory structure for field trials is strict in theory, but in practice, scandalously lax. This is what the Supreme Court discovered on September 22 when it issued its order against fresh field trials.

Soon thereafter, agriculture minister Sharad Pawar - a votary of GM foods - also admitted that food safety and environment risks should be assessed on a "strict scientific basis" for GM crops.

GM crops have been mired in controversy for several years across the world despite claims of high yield and reduced dependence on pesticides.

Currently in India, many blame the farmer distress in cotton-growing areas on high-priced GM seeds that failed to deliver on their promise, leaving the farmer badly indebted.

Who allows field tests of GM crops in India? Until May 1, permission was being given by the review committee of genetic manipulation (RCGM) under the department of biotechnology, the very same department that promotes GM technology.

The obvious conflict of interest was highlighted in a PIL filed by activist Aruna Rodrigues.

The apex court went into the issue and discovered that under the 1989 rules framed under the Environment Protection Act, permission for field trials was actually meant to be granted by the genetic engineering approval committee (GEAC) under the environment ministry.

Intervening for the first time on May 1, the Supreme Court ordered that only GEAC could clear field trials. But in the event, GEAC turned out to be a mere rubber stamp.

In its four meetings since the May 1 order, GEAC cleared as many as 142 proposals of multi-locational field trials.

The range of crops under test includes vegetables and food grains: brinjal, maize, mustard, sugar cane, sorghum, rice, tomato, potato, banana, papaya, cauliflower, oilseeds, castor, soyabean, chick-pea and medicinal plants.

Rodrigues went to the court again, this time to draw attention to GEAC's failure to exercise due diligence while clearing proposals for field trials.

Commission bureaucrats are getting too powerful, says Verheugen

EUobserver.com, 5 October 2006.

European Commission vice-president Guenter Verheugen has spoken out strongly against the power of high-ranking civil servants within the commission who are able to influence decisions according to their personal whims.

In an interview with German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung, the German commissioner in charge of the important industry portfolio said "the whole development in the last ten years has brought the civil servants such power that in the meantime the most important political task of the 25 commissioners is controlling this apparatus."

"There is a permanent power struggle between commissioners and high ranking bureaucrats. Some of them think: the commissioner is gone after five years and so is just a house keeper, but I'm sticking around," he continued.

He suggests that his own project to simplify 54 EU laws has fallen foul of stubborn commission bureaucrats. Before the summer he "strongly criticised internally some general directorates who evidently did not want to take the head of the commission's aim to reduce bureaucracy seriously, because it did not fit in with their own ideas."

Mr Verheugen, who is now in his second term as EU commissioner having previously been in charge of enlargement, noted that the problem will get worse again once Bulgaria and Romania join the EU because then there will be two new general directorates - units in the commission that deal with specific areas - and "that is a problem."

Illustrating how power struggles happen, the commissioner said it all occurs "under the surface."

"The commissioners have to take extreme care that important questions are decided in their weekly meeting, and not decided by the civil servants among themselves."

"Unfortunately it sometimes happens in the communication with member states or parliament that civil servants put their own personal perspective across as the view of the commission," he told the newspaper.

Citing a concrete example the 62-year old social democrat commissioner said that commission bureaucrats had tried to sort out the use of pesticides between them and the issue only came to the attention of their political masters ‚ the commissioners ‚ when the bureaucrats fell out over the issue.

Noting that the way some commission officials communicate is technical and arrogant, which he finds "appalling", Mr Verheugen said that only a "change in political culture" in the commission would improve the situation.

He suggests that commissioners should be able to move around the powerful general directors, something which they cannot do at the moment, pointing out that when something goes wrong then it is always commissioners who take the flak.

"In my opinion, too much is decided by civil servants," he said in conclusion.

4 October 2006

European Union Seeks Joint Testing With U.S. to Prevent Illegal GM Rice Imports

Canadian Business Online, October 4 2006

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - The European Union will try to set up joint tests and controls with the United States to prevent genetically modified American long grain rice from entering the 25-nation region, an official said Wednesday.

The European Commission will seek negotiations to get a quick deal with U.S. agriculture authorities on setting up a joint testing operation to ensure only legally approved rice makes it to Europe, EU spokesman Philip Tod told reporters.

Unless there is such an agreement with Washington, the European Commission will push for mandatory sampling and testing by the EU's 25 states of all long rice imports to ensure they do not contain genetically altered strains, Tod said.

The commission would seek only a 15-day negotiating period with the U.S. "with the view to reaching an agreement on a common sampling and testing protocol to be used when carrying out the tests required to certify U.S. long grain rice," he said.

The EU action stems from fears that a banned genetically modified long grain rice strain, named Liberty Link Rice 601, which was accidentally imported from the United States, could have found its way into the food supply.

Controls were reinforced after Dutch officials found an unauthorized genetically modified variety in shipments that arrived in the port of Rotterdam in August. EU officials have confirmed that one shipment had been impounded in the Netherlands, another in Belgium.

Tests in Italy also found the illegal variety in imports there last month, and the EU has alerted officials in Britain, France and Germany that some of banned long-grain rice may have entered their nations.

If no agreement is reached with the United States, EU governments would go ahead without Washington to boost testing and certification procedures, Tod said.

Wary of public health and environmental concerns, the EU allows only genetically modified foodstuffs that have been evaluated and authorized to be placed on the EU market.

The LL 601 strain was developed by Aventis CropScience, which was taken over by Germany's Bayer AG in 2002 and renamed Bayer Crop Science. Bayer announced in July it had found the 601 strain in storage units in Arkansas and Missouri.

While the EU head office insists on a recall of the illegal imports, it has said the presence of LL 601 poses no immediate health risk to humans or animals based on a review of incomplete data provided by the U.S. government and the maker of the rice variety.

"Positive scientific assessments" cited on LL601 safety were worthless

GM-free Cumry news release, 4 October 2006.

It has been revealed today, after much persistent questioning, that the "positive scientific assessments" used by the UK Food Standard Agency (FSA) and by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in support of their statements that LL601 rice is safe to eat are totally worthless. They were not proper scientific assessments at all, or indeed "scientific opinions" properly arrived at. They were not independent, but came from scientists who are personally involved in the GM regulatory process. Furthermore, the scientists made their statements without seeing 30 pages of crucial data relating to LL601, which were at that time being withheld by Bayer CrapScience as "confidential business information."

Background

On 5th September 2006, in response to the news that LL601 had contaminated US long grain rice supplies shipped to overseas markets, the EC adopted an emergency decision to halt all imports into the EU unless they were accompanied by full certification as to GM free status (1). The EC also asked EFSA for an assessment which might be useful in supporting the EC position, since it clearly expected a furious response from the Americans. There were also strong statements from Commissioner Kyprianou and others (2).

Interestingly enough, in this country FSA "jumped the gun" and put out a statement on its web site (3) on 1st September which was clearly intended to play down the scale of the contamination incident and to reassure the public that LL601 was perfectly safe to eat. That statement was so full of inaccuracies and deceptions that it is the cause of an official complaint from GM Free Cymru (4). FSA also advised key personnel from the food industry at a secret and un- minuted meeting on 5th September to disregard warnings about the safety of rice products contaminated with the illegal variety called LL601, and to continue to sell packages of American long-grain rice whether contaminated or not. They also advised the retail trade not to test their rice products for GM contamination, on the grounds that "there are no health or safety risks". In other words they advised them: "Don't look -- don't find." Finally, they advised the trade that there was no need to withdraw contaminated rice products from sale, and no need to take products down from shelves. (5) That action was a trigger for a legal challenge from FoE against FSA, on the grounds that it has failed to do its duty as laid down in the regulations. (6)

In its 14 September statement EFSA said: "The advisory bodies of the UK and the Netherlands have recently advised that the consumption of rice containing traces of LLRICE601 does not pose risks for human and animal health." It is clear that EFSA used this advice when its GMO Panel deliberated and then advised the EC as follows: "........... the consumption of imported long grain rice containing trace levels of LLRICE601 is not likely to pose an imminent safety concern to humans or animals." (7)

The "Positive Scientific Assessments"

Neither FSA nor EFSA could have issued their reassuring statements about LL601 rice without having "positive scientific assessments" to back them up. As indicated above, there are two:

(a) In the case of FSA, the Statement published on 1st September cited an "informal assessment" made on request by unnamed members of the ACNFP and never published. There was no ACNFP meeting, and not even an Email consultation. That off-the-record advice (24 August) is entirely unacceptable from a scientific point of view, and it has been shrouded with secrecy until now. Today ACNFP admitted that the advice had come from Prof Mike Gasson, Chairman of ACNFP, and one other member (8). Gasson is also a member of the EFSA GMO Panel. He should never have been asked for his advice -- and having been asked, he should not have offered it. In part, Gasson's view seems to have been based on the fact that "there was no evidence that the GM rice was in circulation in the UK at that time." That was irrelevant and also disingenuous, as it was already known (9) that contaminated rice was widespread across the Southern States and was already known to be present in export consignments to Europe and elsewhere. It was absolutely inevitable that it would be found in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.

(b) The other "positive assessment", this time cited by EFSA in 14th September, was based upon work done by RIKILT (Institute of Food Safety, Univ of Wegeningen, Netherlands), which is the institute run by the Chairman of EFSA's GMO Panel, Prof Harry Kuiper. That again is a cause for concern, since there was no chance that that assessment could be genuinely independent and free from improper pressure. The assessment is only 5 pages long, and it was written on 2nd September (10). The Dutch National Food and Consumer Product Authority's risk assessment opinion (based on the RIKILT Report) was then published on their website on 13 September.

On 21st September we placed on the record our view that these assessments were worthless (11). We have also been pressing continuously for the release into the public domain of the 30 pages of CBI information which has been "frivolously" classified as such by Bayer CrapScience and which has caused protests to be submitted to the authorities both in the USA and Europe (12). At last we have obtained something of use, if not the missing pages from the Bayer dossier. It has been confirmed to us by EFSA (13) that this is the sequence of events relating to the receipt of data from Bayer:

On 1st September, after considerable pressure, the EC received the full Bayer dossier, including all the CBI information. On the same day the EC forwarded it to EFSA, who in turn sent it out to all members of the GMO panel.

On 8th September the same package of data was sent by the EC to the "competent authorities" of all EC countries.

This means that the two "positive scientific assessments" were made by scientists who could not have seen the CBI material. In other words, their reports were based upon partial information which omitted all of the following:

Appendix 2 -- insert characterization
App 3 Vector backbone analysis
App 4 Stability of the insert
App 5 Bioinformatics analysis
Fig A5-1 schematic overview of the transgenic locus of the LL601 event
Fig A5-2 schematic overview of the newly created ORF in the 5-prime and 3-prime DNA junction regions of the LL601 rice event
App 6 Protein equivalency
App 7 (USDA?) PVP objective variety description of rice LL601

In the Dutch Report there is an admission that only partial information was examined, but there has been no such admission by FSA in this country. This all confirms that the so-called "positive scientific assessments" are not worth the paper they are written on; crucial information was not examined, because it was simply not released by Bayer in time.

CrapScience, anyone?

NOTES

(1) The Commission Decision on emergency measures (5 September) is here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_244/ l_24420060907en00270029.pdf.

(2) Shortly after the news of the contamination incident broke, Commissioner Kyprianou said this: "We have strict legislation in place in the EU to ensure that any GM product put on the European market has undergone a thorough authorization procedure based on scientific assessment. There is no flexibility for unauthorized GMOs - these cannot enter the EU food and feed chain under any circumstances." Even the FSA Director of Food Safety, Dr Andrew Wadge, has said: "The presence of this GM material in rice on sale in the UK is illegal under European health law, even at extremely low levels." This means, quite simply, zero tolerance of illegal GMO components in human food, in accordance with EU law. http://www.euractiv.com/en/biotech/eu-restricts-rice-imports-us/article-157209?Source=RSS
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2006/sep/gmricetest.

(3) The FSE statement (1st September) is here: http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2006/sep/gmricetest.

(4) On 1st September we submitted a formal complaint to FSA and to Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary.

(5) http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice12Sept2006.htm.

(6) See for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5354294.stm
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7042

(7) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/gmo/statements0/ efsa_statement_gmo_LLrice601.html

(8) http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp_79_14.pdf

(9) Report dated 22 August 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/business/22rice.html?_r=1

10) The Dutch "positive scientific assessment" was written on 2nd September and published on 13th September, for consideration by the EFSA GMO Panel on 14th September. http://www2.vwa.nl/portal/page? _pageid=35,1554101&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_file_id=12446
http://www2.vwa.nl/CDL/files/1/1004/12446%20Front_Office_rijst.pdf
The authors were Noteborn, Hoogenboom, Kleter and Glandorf.

(11) http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice21Sept2006.htm

(12) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LLRICE601.php

(13) Letter from Karin de Borchgrave dated 2 October 2006

EU to require mandatory tests of U.S. rice imports

Reuters, 4 October 2006.

BRUSSELS, Oct 4 (Reuters) - The European Union is set to introduce mandatory tests of rice imports from the United States following the finding of an unauthorised GMO strain in recent weeks, the European Commission said on Wednesday.

"We have agreed to require mandatory sampling and testing of these imports," a Commission spokesman told a news conference.

The spokesman added that the EU executive would not submit its proposal to farm experts from the EU's 25 governments for 15 days. The experts are widely expected to approve the proposal.

"During these 15 days, we will negotiate with the U.S. authorities with a view to reaching an agreement on a common sampling protocol," the spokesman said.

"If there is no agreement, the Commission will still go ahead with the original proposal."

No biotech rice is allowed to be grown, sold or marketed on the territory of the European Union's 25 countries.

In August, the Commission tightened rules governing imports of U.S. long-grain rice to prove the absence of the LL Rice 601 strain, which it said was marketed by Germany's Bayer AG (BAYG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) and produced in the United States.

Its decision followed the discovery by U.S. authorities of trace amounts of the GMO rice, engineered to resist a herbicide, in long-grain samples that were targeted for commercial use.

Since then, samples of the LL Rice 601 strain have appeared in at least nine EU countries after random testing by national authorities in each food and retail supply chain, according to notices posted on the Commission's food safety alert system.

LATEST CASES

The latest countries to report the presence of LL Rice 601 are Ireland, Austria and Slovenia, according to Commission data.

In their alert notices, all three countries said the rice had entered national territory via one or even two other EU countries -- for example Britain, Germany and the Netherlands.

Earlier this month, two bargeloads within a 20,000-tonne U.S. rice cargo held in Rotterdam tested positive for the GMO strain after first having tested negative, leading the EU to consider a tightening of controls.

Another U.S. rice cargo of a similar volume -- around that of one month's average EU imports -- is due to arrive in Europe in mid-October, also probably in Rotterdam, officials say.

Bayer says it does not sell or produce LL Rice 601 and the strain was developed by Aventis CropScience, a company bought by Bayer in 2002. That development ended in 2001, the company says.

Haven't cottoned on

Indian Express, October 4 2006

With India poised to become the world's second largest cotton producer, as reported in this newspaper, thanks largely to higher yields from genetically modified cotton, the most important follow-up question to this good news is why are the chances of more breakthroughs being held back by bureaucratic infighting. The department of science and technology and the environment ministry have been battling for months over whose nominee should head the proposed national biotechnology regulatory authority. This body, recommended by the M.S. Swaminathan task force, is to function as a single window for preliminary approval, research evaluation and final clearance, taking care of inter-ministerial wrangles that characterise the current three-stage process. It is surprising there has been no top-of-the-government intervention as yet to sort out this bureaucratic turf battle.

The surprise is greater because India, unlike, say Europe, has a fairly rational GM policy. Of course there have been examples of unnecessary obfuscation by government regulators, which is also one of the reasons Swaminathan advocated a single-window system. But overall, India's GM policy has been a reasonably good mixture of positive attitude to new technology and abundant caution while testing it. That the government has set up a special committee that will evaluate independent assessments of field trials for Bt brinjal - the reason is that Bt brinjal, if cleared, will be India's first GM food crop - is one example of cautious policy. On the other hand, the system of event based clearance - this means once a GM crop from one party has been cleared, other parties planning to employ the same variety need not seek approval - shows policymakers have learnt flexibility.

But this government, which says farming is a high priority, should consider itself warned: its current GM regulation is equipped neither to efficiently handle the flood of applications coming India's way - GM tomato and golden rice, among others - nor to manage the resultant high intensity NGO activism.

Crop circles appear on three continents

Greenpeace press release, 4 October 2006.

Barcelona, Manila, Mexico City October 3rd: Greenpeace activists today created giant crop circles in maize fields on three different continents (1) to mark the beginning of a global campaign to protect maize - one of the world's most important staple foods - against contamination from genetically engineered (GE) or transgenic varieties. The crop circles - large enough to be clearly visible from the air - appeared in fields in Spain, the Philippines and Mexico.

Geert Ritsema, GE Campaigner, Greenpeace International said: "Today's tide of protests marks the launch of a global campaign to protect maize from genetic contamination."

The Greenpeace campaign is demanding that:

• Governments around the world place a ban on the release of any transgenic crop or seed;

• Governments withdraw existing authorizations for both commercial and experimental growing of GE crops;

• Genetic contamination of crops must be cleaned up, with costs borne by biotech companies such as Monsanto, according to the "polluter pays" principle.

In Zuera (Zaragoza), Spain, Greenpeace activists entered the site of a GE maize field trial, and carved a 50-metre crop circle, marking the field a genetic contamination zone. Juan-Felipe Carrasco GE campaigner of Greenpeace Spain said: "This experimental field, only centimetres away from commercial fields, poses an unacceptable risk to both, our food and the environment. Contamination from GE rice has already proved disastrous for farmers in the US - why should we wait till our maize is similarly tainted?"

In Isabela, the Philippines Greenpeace activists carved a 45-meter "M" with a slash through it in the field of a friendly farmer, thus marking it as a no entry zone for Monsanto (2). Danny Ocampo, GE campaigner, Greenpeace Southeast Asia, said "Monsanto is the largest promoter of Bt corn in the Philippines, and has persistently sold the crop even in GMO-free provinces like Oriental Mindoro.(3). Farmers have been lied to and lured into planting Bt corn, but the reality is that it endangers sustainable farming, which is safe, ecologically superior and economically beneficial. GMOs are none of the those things."

In Jocotitlan, Mexico(4), a huge crop circle simply stated 'NO', in a demand for the government to reject Monsanto's proposal to break a long-standing moratorium against the cultivation of GE maize. Gustavo Ampugnani GE campaigner of Greenpeace Mexico said: "Mexico is the source of all the worldÇs maize varieties. It began here. If Monsanto is allowed to introduce GE maize into Mexico, the result will be the genetic contamination of Mexico's native maize varieties. We have to ensure that we don't let that happen."

Many of the long-term effects of genetic engineering on the soil, animals, plants and human health are still unknown. Genetic contamination of crops is a disturbing reality in all parts of the world where GE crops are being grown, and the technology continues to be a serious threat to biodiversity, food security, farmersÇ livelihoods and consumers' right to choose.

For further information:

Geert Ritsema, GE Campaigner, Greenpeace International: +31 646 1973 28
Namrata Chowdhary, Greenpeace International Communications: +31 646 1973 27
Greenpeace International picture desk: +31 653 819 121

Notes to Editors:

(1) Pictures from all three locations are available from Greenpeace International picture desk, John Novis: +31-(0)6 53 81 91 21

(2) Monsanto is a US biotech company that sells more than 90 % of GE seeds around the world, see Greenpeace briefing "Monsanto's seven deadly sins": http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/7-deadly-sins.

(3) Several provinces in the Philippines have legislations passed (Oriental Mindoro) or are in the process of drafting legislation (Marinduque) that bans the entry of GMOs.

(4) A decision by the Mexican government whether to allow field trials with transgenic maize is imminent. More about the threats of GE maize to MexicoÇs native maize varieties can be found here: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/ge-maize-briefing.

Re-engineering your food
A sound regulatory system should be the first course

Financial Express (India), October 4 2006. By Suman Sahai.

Genetically engineered (GE) foods are promoted as the answer to hunger even though it is widely recognised that hunger persists because the poor do not have access to productive assets to grow food or incomes to buy food. A technical input like GE will not change either situation and hence has little chance of addressing either hunger or poverty. The Asia director of the UN World Food Programme is on record saying that in Asia, access to food is the problem, not its production, which is sufficient.

Apart from this, there is widespread concern about the impact of GE crops on the environment and the health of animals and people. The biotechnology industry has insisted that GE foods are safe to eat, even as evidence mounts that this may not be the case. Data on the health damage caused by eating GE foods comes from several studies, including one that was conducted by the multinational giant, Monsanto, the results of which were leaked to the public. The Monsanto report that rats fed on a diet rich in GE maize produced by them, developed organ abnormalities, changes in the blood profile and collapse of the immune system, have once again raised fears about human health risks from eating genetically engineered foods.

The health impacts of GE foods are usually not tested since funds are seldom made available for such studies. When such studies have been done, as in the case of the studies showing health damage to rats from eating GE potatoes, the results are sharply attacked by the biotech industry. When the first GE tomato "Flavr Savr" was fed to rodents in laboratory studies in 1994, many developed lesions in the stomach.

Seven of the 40 experimental rats died within two weeks. There have been numerous other reports of stomach lesions in rats, false pregnancies in cows, excessive cell growth and damage to animal immune systems, following feeding studies conducted with GE foods.

Researchers at the University of Cornell, US, observed that the caterpillars of monarch butterflies when fed with genetically modified corn suffered varying degrees of ailments, and were crawling more slowly than usual. Scientists concluded that 44% of the caterpillars died after being fed continuously with the GE corn. None of those exposed to normal corn suffered. The government research establishment in Australia decided to discontinue work on GE peas after food safety tests repeatedly showed that rats suffered damage to organs and the immune system on being fed GE peas.

In India, both the public and private sector are engaged in research on GE crops and several crops, including food crops like brinjal, cabbage, cauliflower, potatoes, tomatoes and rice are in the pipeline. Large-scale field trials, running into several lakh hectares have been sanctioned for Bt brinjal and Bt okra. In the light of the alarming evidence that is gathering about the health risks of GE foods and the lack of information about the kind of food and feed safety tests being conducted or their outcomes, it would be advisable to hold back the release of GE foods for now. A rigorous testing protocol for food and feed safety must be put in place and sufficient data on the impact of GE foods on human and animal health must be collected before we consider releasing food crops or permitting their import.

GE foods are being imported indiscriminately. Many foods are imported from the US, which has a policy not to label them. It is thought that much of the imported maize and soybean is genetically engineered, and so are numerous food products that are available in the supermarkets. It is crucial that the public is involved in any decision-making on food crops that they will be consuming. The final decision on whether a food crop should be allowed into the country must rest with the consumer.

The methodology used for the food and feed safety tests must be made known to the public, as also the labs where such safety tests are conducted. All decisions on GE crops and foods must be taken in accordance with the provisions of the internationally agreed Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety which suggests the following: a Precautionary Principle, taking into account the socio-economic impact of such crops and foods on local communities and which requires public participation in all decision making.

Releasing GE foods into the market, either through research programmes in India or through imports must be held in abeyance until technically strong regulatory systems are put in place and publicly conducted cost and risk benefit analyses are done.

- The writer is convener of the Gene Campaign.

Standards, not double standards, please
India should take US-backed WTO attempts to thrust GM foods on us with a pinch of salt

Financial Express (India), October 4 2006. By Bhaskar Goswami.

If things do not work your way, seek influence of a heavy weight. This is exactly what the United States is trying to do. With India not accepting genetically modified (GM) foods, the US is trying to rope in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to exert pressure. Knowing that India has not violated any WTO norms, the US is still trying to use the Geneva route to open the Indian market to GM foods. It is opposing India's efforts to set standards for labeling GM products. Terming it as trade restrictive, it has threatened to invoke the WTO provisions on creating technical barriers to trade, and sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures.

Either way, India is refusing to blindly toe the American line. The government has taken two significant measures to regulate GM products. First, the ministry of commerce has issued a notification, which prohibits the import of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for food, feed or processing, industrial processing, research and development for commercialisation or environmental release without the approval of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC).

Second, the health ministry has amended the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act, and issued a similar notification which covers import, manufacture, storage, distribution or sale of GM food. Both these new rules have also made labeling of GM products compulsory.

Human safety from eating GM foods has been a matter of great concern. After GM soya was introduced in the UK, for instance, cases of allergies went up. A 2005 study found that GM pea, which is under development, caused severe immune responses in mice. Another study reported that GM maize-fed rats developed major lesions in kidneys and livers. Likewise, a number of other scientific studies have pointed out the harmful effects of GM food.

Notwithstanding GM industry claims to the contrary, the fact remains that many aspects of this technology still remain uncertain and several products are being released into the market without adequate tests and trials. In agriculture, for example, GM and non-GM crops cannot grow in isolation and can easily combine through pollination, mixing of seeds etc. Experiments to study the impact of such contamination on the environment and food have simply not been done. It is, therefore, to prevent illegal imports, and also to enable consumers to make a conscious choice that labeling norms are essential.

Since the US does not segregate GM products from non-GM ones, almost all processed food products contain traces of GMOs. This is also the main reason why they persistently oppose labeling. Ironically, while goods imported into the US have to meet the most stringent specification, whenever any US exporter is directed to follow the same procedures by the importing country, it is termed as a trade barrier. When similar tactics failed with India, the US turned to the WTO, which has legal instruments, to help it out.

Using multilateral bodies to prevent GM labeling is not new. The US has consistently blocked international legislation on labeling at various forums like the United Nations' Food Standards Committee and Codex Committee on Food Labeling. However, this time it has challenged the sovereign right of India to decide about its food and its safety, something which is not only against democratic principles but also runs contrary to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. As it is, under pressure from edible oil importers in India, the commerce ministry has exempted the import of GM soybean oil from labeling requirement till March 2007. Even the amended PFA of the health ministry is quite lax. Instead of rigorous biosafety tests before allowing the import, the ministry is merely relying on the safety information provided by the importer.

Further, the amendment is coming at a time when there is no laboratory in the country, which can test products for GM presence. Instead of protecting the health interests of the citizens by prohibiting production or import of GM food, the amendment in its present form intends to legalise its trade. Now, through the WTO, the US wants India to lift all curbs on the import of GM products into the country.

Incidentally, major trading partners of the US, such as Canada, Japan, South Korea, European Union and Australia follow their own GM labeling protocols but the US has never brought such complaints against these countries. It is obvious that the notifications are not only discriminatory but meant to browbeat India into submission. While the extreme reaction of the US is not surprising, the government should resist the attempt of the US to dump GM food into India and concerned citizens should insist on strengthening the PFA in the interest of the consumer.

- The writer is with the Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security, New Delhi

3 October 2006

Young European Greens see Europe's future GMO free

Federation of Young European Greens press notice, 3 October 2006.

The Federation of Young European Greens (FYEG) condemns the WTO complaint about the EU's moratorium on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) because it supposedly broke international rules on trade.

Ernest Urtasun, spokesperson of FYEG, says: "FYEG strongly regrets that the moratorium fell and we urgently call for a new one that would ensure that no GMO enters the European Union. We strongly support the ban on GMOs as it is kept in some countries and regions."

Ska Keller, spokesperson of FYEG, adds: "GMOs are not a matter of trade but of health and the maintenance of our biodiversity. Once the GMOs spread they cannot be taken back and they will change our bio system completely. Nobody knows, how and to which extend this will happen and what the results will be nor what the consequences of consumption of GMO-food are in the long term, we cannot allow GMOs to be produced and spread. We only have this one world and its rich biodiversity, we better not destroy it."

In 2004/5 FYEG ran the campaign "Tell me what I eat!" which focussed on GMOs versus organic farming.

Brazil's 2006-07 soy crop to be 50% GMO, researcher says

MarketWatch.com, 3 October 2006.

SAO PAULO (MarketWatch) -- Brazil's 2006-07 soy crop will be at least 50% transgenic, said Amelio Dall Agnol, a researcher at Brazil's top crop science institute, Embrapa. In the 2005-06 crop, some 9 million hectares of genetically modified soybeans were planted out of a total 22 million. This season should see an additional 2 million hectares of genetically modified soy added, Agnol said, following last years ruling by the government that permitted GMO soy to be planted. Brazil soy growers are expected to plant under 21 million hectares of soy in the 2006-07 crop.

"From what we hear in talks with farmers and cooperatives, all signs are pointing to a big increase in transgenic soy," Agnol said.

Farmers use genetically modified soybeans to control the spread of weeds in soy fields, thus reducing herbicide costs.

Monsanto Co. (MON), makers of the only transgenic soy seeds permitted in Brazil, said the company couldn't comment on sales volume at this time. Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybean is used by a handful of crop science companies in Brazil to produce varieties of transgenic soybeans. Farmers have to pay a fee for using the genetically modified seeds, but fee costs still come out lower than extra investments in herbicides, Agnol said.

Farmers are currently facing one of their worst financial crises in decades and will spend less on the 2006-07 crop, according to consensus estimates.

Brazil is the world's No. 2 soy producer and exporter.

2 October 2006

Russia: US rice imports suspended over GMOs

Just-Food.Com, 2 October 2006.

The Rosselkhoznadzor, the Russian agricultural inspection agency, announced on Friday (29 September) that it has stopped issuing quarantine permits for US rice because genetically modified rice, which had not yet passed safety tests, had been on sale in the US. .. ... The complete article is available to full members only at http://www.just-food.com/article.aspx?id=96181

More GMO Soy Than Conventional At Paranagua Port In Brazil

EasyBourse.com, 2 October 2006. By Kenneth Rapoza, Dow Jones Newswires;

SAO PAULO -(Dow Jones)- Exports of genetically modified soybeans have surpassed exports of conventional soy by nearly 50,000 metric tons in August at Paranagua port in Parana state, until now the only anti-transgenic port in Brazil.

According to a maritime shippers association, Sindapar, 205,000 tons of transgenic soy were shipped out of Paranagua in August compared to 154,000 tons of conventional soy. Larger volume of GMO soy is expected in September, considering a federal judge in Parana ordered two more port terminals to store and transport transgenic soybeans.

Paranagua port was Brazil's No. 1 soy export terminal, but the governor Roberto Requiao took a position against transgenic soy shortly after he was elected four years ago. The transgenic debate has gone back and forth between courts for the past two years. On Sept. 15, the federal court in Parana ordered berths 212 and 213 in the export corridor to permit transgenic soy shipments. Previously, only one private berth was permitted to export transgenic soybeans. Ships docked on Sept 20 to load GMO soy for the first time at these two berths, Sindapar said.

The change will allow Parana soy cooperatives to ship soy out of Paranagua instead of having to pay extra transportation costs to ship from Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul ports in the south.

Brazil first permitted transgenic soy in April 2005. Monsanto's Roundup Ready is the only transgenic soy permitted in Brazil. Various crop science companies, including the state run Embrapa, create different varieties based on the Monsanto (MON) technology. Brazil is the world's No. 2 soy exporter behind the U.S.

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

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 31 October 2006
Privacy policy
For enquiries contact mail@gmfreeireland.org
URL of this page: www.gmfreeireland.org/news/index.php