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 Int