NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • September 2006

Archives 2006: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • • October
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: More coverage of Bayer's illegal GMO rice contamination scandal may be found in our August and October 2006 archives

30 September 2006

US rice kept out of Britain because of GM contamination
Food agency faces legal action over lack of testing
American industry collapses in wake of crisis

The Guardian, September 30 2006. By John Vidal, environment editor

American rice which may have been contaminated with a controversial GM strain has been effectively blocked from the UK, it emerged yesterday.

The world's biggest importer of rice has said it has ceased trading in US-grown rice because of fears about the GM variety, which has not been approved for human use.

Ebro Puleva, the Spanish rice processing company which controls 30% of the EU rice market, said it has stopped all US rice imports because of the threat of contamination by a strain of GM rice grown in crop trials by the GM company Bayer between 1998 and 2001.

The strain, known as LLRICE 601, was never approved for human consumption but has escaped in large quantities into the world food chain. In a separate move, the US department of agriculture yesterday said it was helping Bayer to fast track retroactive approval for the rice so it could be consumed by humans.

Arguing that the offending strain is similar to other strains that have already been approved, it has now filed a request for deregulation of the Bayer rice to the US plant health inspection service and prepared an environmental assessment on the company's behalf for a preliminary decision.

More than 300,000 tonnes of conventional American rice is imported annually into Europe, including several thousand tonnes into Britain, but supplies are believed to be drying up as supermarkets and food manufacturers switch to other importers in fear of a consumer backlash. The European Union, which has not approved any GM rice for sale within its borders, is presently testing shipments, and has found that nearly 20% are contaminated.

In Britain, Aldi and Morrison's supermarkets have recalled products which tested positive for LLRICE 601, but other retailers and food manufacturers have not acted because the Food Standards Agency has told them it does not believe there is a health problem.

Last week the European Food Safety Authority said it did not have sufficient scientific data to rule on the rice's safety.

But a leaked memo last week revealed that the FSA has privately told retailers and manufacturers that it does not expect them to remove American rice from their shelves or to test for GM contamination. The memo urged them to answer queries by stating: "On currently available evidence there is no food safety concern."

Friends of the Earth is now legally challenging the FSA to demand testing.

However, the escalating row, which now extends to Japan, has resulted in the virtual collapse of the US rice industry as countries have imposed bans and US rice farmers file lawsuits against Bayer.

Yesterday European environment groups urged supermarkets to test their products. "Supermarkets are failing to investigate the level of contamination in their own products due to a totally irresponsible attitude by the Food Standards Agency," a Greenpeace spokesman said.

"This stuff is fundamentally untested and has not been declared safe anywhere in the world. It may be safe but we just do not know."

In a separate development, the World Trade Organisation yesterday published its full ruling on the long standing GM trade row between the US and Europe.

As anticipated by the draft ruling leaked in May, it refused to rule against strict EU regulations to control the use of GM food and crops or whether GM foods are safe or different to conventional foods.

However, it ruled on technicalities that Europe's four-year GM moratorium, which ended in 2004, broke trade rules by causing "undue delays", but stated that moratoriums were acceptable under certain circumstances.

Sonja Meister, trade campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, said: "This ruling shows that the WTO is the wrong forum to deal with environmental trade disputes and the international community must find an alternative before another case occurs."

RAQ Food chain

What is LLRICE 601?

Liberty Link 601 is a strain of long grain rice which contains a gene that makes it resistant to the herbicide Liberty. It was grown as an experiment in five US states between 1998 and 2001 by agrochemical giant Bayer but was never intended for commercial release.

How much contaminated rice has got into the food chain?

The US government says it has no idea, has no way of finding out and cannot predict where it may turn up.

Is it dangerous to health?

It has never been tested or approved for human consumption. But US agriculture secretary Mike Johanns insists the rice is similar to other approved strains and poses no risk to health or the environment.

EU may ban altered foods, WTO says

United Press International, 30 September 2006.

GENEVA, Switzerland (UPI) -- The World Trade Organization said European countries were within their rights to ban genetically modified foods on health and environmental grounds.

The organization, which sets rules for global trade and resolves disputes among member states, left in place government rules without saying if genetically modified foods are dangerous.

Environmental groups said the report showed the WTO was not fit to judge disputes of this kind, The Financial Times reported.

Adrian Bebb, a campaigner against genetically modified foods at Friends of the Earth Europe, called the dispute 'a pointless exercise.'

U.S. consumers readily buy genetically modified products, but European consumers are generally suspicious of what some call 'Frankenfoods,' the newspaper said.

U.S. and European Union officials said they would study the WTO report before deciding on any appeal. They have 60 days to do so.

Diplomats said a European appeal was unlikely since the ruling left its current system of approvals in place.

All in a day: Six farmers commit suicide

The Times of India, 30 Sep 2006

NAGPUR: Upbeat projections by Maharashtra chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh and generous financial promises from the Centre aren't working in Vidarbha. At least six more cotton farmers, crushed by debt, have committed suicide in the last 24 hours.

The toll in September alone has gone up to 116, the highest in a month within the last decade, Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti, a pressure group fighting for the farmers's cause, said on Friday.

Deshmukh had claimed in the presence of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and party president Sonia Gandhi last week at the Congress CMs' conference in Nainital that the situation was improving in the cotton belt of Vidarbha where 318 farmers had reportedly committed suicide since July 1.

Earlier, the PM had announced a Rs 3,750 crore special relief package for six worst-hit districts. Introduction of BT cotton in Vidarbha has led to a spurt of farmer suicides.

Most suicide cases relate to those farming families which have run up huge debts because of the high cost in using the expensive genetically-modified cotton seeds, which have to be bought every year.

Crop failures in this situation, therefore, leave farmers with debts they are unable to pay and are then hounded by loan sharks.

The latest names on the Vidarbha death roster were those of Prakash Madavi of Yavatmal, Parasram Rathod of Washim, Ramesh Bhatkar of Chandur Bazar in Amravati, Gopintah Dongre of Warud in the same district, Ravindra Chakbandalwar of Chandrapur district and Rama Baghel of Gondia, according to Samiti president Kishore Tiwari.

Tiwari rejected the government claim that loans were being liberally distributed to farmers. "In fact on Friday, a large number of farmers started an agitation in front of Ghonsa branch of Indian Bank in Wani taluka of Yavatmal district after the bank manager declared that he had received instructions from superiors to stop loan disbursement.

Amravati divisional commissioner S K Goyal has, however, stressed that the loan flow this year was doubled as compared to last year. "Till date, we have given farm loans of Rs 1,500 crore covering eight lakh farmers in the division, he told TOI recently. "Last year about Rs 750 crore was distributed among around four lakh farmers," he said.

He also claimed relief measures like cash compensation for crop losses, aid for medical treatment, funding for mass marriage of farmers' daughters were made available to take care of major problems of the distressed farmers.

In addition to this, subsidies were given in schemes aimed at supplementing income of farmers through poultry, dairy farming and agri-processing business.

Reacting to the latest deaths, Maharashtra deputy chief minister R R Patil said the government was in a fix, because all possible measures to address immediate problems of farmers had been taken care of.

"There is a moratorium on loan recoveries. No one is knocking at farmers' doors demanding old dues. I have asked police department not to support such activities of bank staff," Patil said.

29 September 2006

EU told to speed up GM approvals

BBC News, 29 September 2006.

The US has urged the European Union to speed up its process for approving new genetically modified (GM) products.

The call came after the World Trade Organisation publicly released its ruling that the EU acted illegally in banning GM imports from 1999 to 2004.

The case was instigated by the US, Canada and Argentina who were critical of an EU moratorium on GM food crops.

EU officials said the ruling had little impact because the moratorium had already been lifted.

'Partial moratorium'

Since the case was first brought to the WTO in 2003, the EU has given decisions on 10 GM product applications and is reviewing more than 30 others.

"This confirms that the EU system for GM approval authorisation has functioned in strict application of the law," said Peter Power, spokesman for the EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson.

However, US Trade Representative Susan Schwab said the EU was still operating a partial moratorium on GM imports, based on political rather than scientific criteria.

"Although the EU approved a handful of biotech applications following the initiation of the case in 2003, the EU has yet to lift the moratorium in its entirety," Ms Schwab said in a statement.

"Some biotech product applications have been pending for 10 years or more and applications for many commercially important products continue to face unjustified, politically motivated delays."

The WTO also challenged six EU members - Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Luxembourg - for independently banning GM crops that had already been approved by the EU.

Rice scare

The 1,000-page WTO ruling confirmed a preliminary verdict that was issued in February, and was released to the countries involved in the dispute in May.

It did not address the issue of whether GM crops were safe or if they could be compared to naturally occurring products.

Crops including corn or soybeans that have been genetically modified to resist insects or disease have been widely grown in the US for years.

In August the EU introduced emergency measures to ban imports of US rice that had been contaminated with an unauthorised genetically modified variety.

The GM variety was later found in packets of own-brand rice sold by a UK supermarket.

Spain's Ebro suspended U.S. rice imports in August

Reuters, 29 September 2006.

MADRID, Sept 29 (Reuters) - Spain's Ebro Puleva, one of the world's biggest rice processors, said on Friday it suspended rice imports from the United States in August after detecting genetically modified grain in a shipment.

U.S. rice traders shrugged off the news due to the small amount of U.S. rice that Spain buys and the decision being made more than a month ago. Rice prices at the Chicago Board of Trade rose 5 to 12 cents per hundredweight on Friday morning.

"We have suspended imports from the USA since August 18," the company said in a statement.

"The detection of GMO rice was a complete surprise to us and we regret having to take this decision due to the close ties we have with that country (the United States)," it said.

"We are importing from other countries, except for China, which also uses transgenic seeds," a company spokeswoman said.

Ebro Puleva did not say how much rice it usually imports from the United States, but said it mainly bought U.S. rice to send to Northern Europe and supplied the Spanish market from production in Seville.

Last year, Spain bought about 20,000 tonnes of U.S. rice. In 2005, EU member states bought a total of 300,000 tonnes of U.S. rice, with 85 percent being long grain.

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

In August, the European Commission tightened rules governing imports of U.S. long-grain rice to prove the absence of the LL Rice 601 strain, which it said was marketed by Germany's Bayer AG and produced in the United States.

Its decision followed the discovery by U.S. authorities of trace amounts of the GMO rice, engineered to resist a herbicide, in long-grain samples that were targeted for commercial use. (Additional reporting by Lisa Haarlander in Chicago)

Open letter to Food Administrations representatives

September 29 2006

Dear Madam, Dear Sir,

This summer, in several world locations, traces of artificial genetic constructions (AGC) were found in food which was not supposed to have been genetically modified.

In the UK, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands and France, GM-free long-grain rice imported from the USA unexpectedly contained a molecule (PAT protein) making it tolerant to the herbicide Liberty®. In France, the UK and Germany, noodles and rice sticks imported from China, on sale on supermarkets, contained a pesticide (Bt protein) with significant potential allergenicity. In Nicaragua, almost all samples of maize flour and cereals provided by the United Nations World Food Programme have been found to host AGCs. In China, in 2005, the GeneScan independent laboratory had already discovered Bt traces in baby food.

Thus, the genetic contamination will have reached a global scale in 2006.

This would not be so worrying if these transferred genetic constructions had at least been approved for human consumption and clearly shown on their host food label, after truly independent scientific assessment had been carried out.

This would not be so worrying if Health & Food Administrations of the concerned countries had been alerted soon enough to avoid the food chain to be touched.

In every country, the approval procedure of a GM product is based on documents provided by the applicant itself. For instance, a recent statement of the American Food & Drug Administration (FDA) concerning the LLRICE601, resistant to an herbicide, relies on information provided by its promoter (Bayer) . This declaration is based upon the wrong assumption that the safe natural gene which expresses the PAT protein is equivalent to the artificial construction AGC which is inserted into the host organism. As a matter of fact, serious health problems encountered by laboratory animals fed with GM food can be attributed to an AGC, whereas the natural version of the gene it contains is definitely safe. Furthermore, the accused GM rice has been discontinued in 2001. Given the recognized high instability of an AGC, there is no evidence that the molecular characteristics studied years ago have been preserved.

Therefore, the contaminant GM products, as well as the contaminated ones, can be considered as unfit for human consumption until unequivocal evidence to the contrary is provided by independent scientific assessment.

With respect to the time-delayed and insufficient reactions of the Food Standards Agencies, the US rice case is also illustrative:

- The Riceland cooperative discovered the contamination in January, but did not notify the public nor the United State Department of Agriculture (USDA).

- Bayer knew about this in June, but did not inform the USDA until July 31.

- The USDA hid the contamination during three more weeks, anticipating that foreign rice importers might reject the product.

- September 15, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) GMO Panel issued a Statement which says that "the available (US) data are not sufficient to allow the safety of LLRICE601 to be assessed in accordance with EFSA guidance for risk assessment and EFSA is unable to carry out a full risk assessment". Notably based upon the assumed low inadvertent presence of LLRICE601, as well as on the debatable equivalence between the natural gene and its AGC, the contaminated rice consumption "is not likely to pose an imminent safety concern to humans or animals".

Since last January, at least 140,000 tonnes of this contaminated rice has been exported to Europe, and may now be present in the food chain and consumed by millions of people, including babies.

Although rice imports were stopped late August by Japan, and then by the European Commission, no satisfactory plans have been put in place yet to recall contaminated food; European national authorities have only been reminded of their duty to make sure contaminated products are destroyed. In the case of the US rice, Bayer is trying to escape lawsuits instead, by inducing the deregulation of the status of the contaminant LLRICE601.

This is why we call on you to act so that current contaminated products be immediately recalled and that the related assessment tools be used in the future for preventing other contaminations of the food-chain, a measure that would notably improve your credibility in the sight of the citizens. Despite the known strong influence of the industrial lobby, we hope that you still have the power to decide what the main priorities are in placing health and safety considerations above economical ones.

Thank you very much in advance for urgently taking that path.

Organisational Signatories:

Instituto Para la Produccion e Investigacion de la Agricultura Tropical - IPIAT (Venezuela)
Plataforma Transgènics Fora ! (Spain)
Red "Bolivia Libre de Transgenicos" (Bolivia)
Uniterre syndicate, member of Via Campesina and Coordination Paysanne Europeenne - CPE (Switzerland)
Tierra Viva (Bolivia)
Friends of the Earth - France
Fédération Nationale d'Agriculture Biologique des régions de France - FNAB (France)
Collectif des Faucheurs Volontaires de la Region Centre (France)
Comite Local d'ATTAC-Pays d'Aubagne (France)

Scientists:

Dr. Masaharu Kawata, Yokkaichi University, Yokkaichi (Japan)
Dr. Erzsebet Barat, Central European University, Budapest (Hungary)
Dr. Michel Somville, Biologist, Conseiller en genetique et bioethique du Groupe des Verts au Parlement europeen, Brussels (Belgium)
Dr. CS Pawar, Advisor, Shree Vivekanand Research and Training Institute, Kutch, Gujarat (India)
Dr. Pablo Achard, Neuroscientist, Anvers (Belgium)
Dr. Brian Tokar, Biotechnology Project Director, Institute for Social Ecology, Vermont (USA)
Dr. Yamama Naciri, Unité de Phylogénie et Génétique Moléculaires, Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève (Switzerland)
Dr. Jeremy Thompson, Slought (UK)
Dr. Miroslaw Szulczynski, Environmental biotechnology, frankfurt (Germany)
Dr. Christian Velot, Scientific board of the Comité de Recherche et d'Informations Indépendantes sur le Genie Genetique (CRII GEN) ; Inst. of Genetics and Microbiology (France)
Dr. Claude Seureau, Biologist (France)
Dr. Lilian Ceballos, Pharmacologist (France)
Dr. Jacques Testart, Biologist, Senior Researcher, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale - INSERM (France)
Dr. Didier Collumeau, Agronomist, Ecole Nationale Superieure d'Agronomie de Rennes (France)
Dr. Yannick Comenge, Microbiologist, Paris (France)
Dr. FranÁois M. Catzeflis, biologist, (France)
Dr. Jean-Pierre Berlan, Research Director, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - INRA (France)
Dr. Dominique Cellier, Conseil Scientifique du CRIIGEN, Universite de Rouen (France)
Dr. Yves Chilliard, Nutritionnist, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - INRA (France)
Dr. Paul Lannoye, Depute europeen honoraire, Membre du CRIIGEN (France)
Dr. Dominique Béroule, Computer Scientist, Chevreuse (France)

Organisations representatives:

Mrs Ryoko Shimizu, Policy Research Institute for the Civil Sector - PRICS, Tokyo (Japan)
Mrs Maria Hamlin Zuniga, MPH, Centro de Informacion y Servicios de AsesorÌa en Salud, Managua (Nicaragua)
Mrs Annick Ferauge, Collectif dÇAction GènEthique - CAGE ; Attac-Wallonie, (Belgium)
Mrs Catherine Marielle, Coordinadora Programa Sistemas Alimentarios Sustentables, Grupo de Estudios Ambientales (GEA) AC, Mexico (Mexico)
Mrs Georgina Catacora, Red para una América Libre de Trangénicos - RALLT (Bolivia)
Mrs Géraldine Savary, president, Stop OGM, conseillère nationale vaudoise (Switzerland)
Mrs Corinne Lepage, former Minister, President of CAP 21 (France)
Mrs Monique Marquet, Vice Présidente ý l'environnement, Mouvement Ecologiste Indépendant (France)
Mrs Anna Massina, President, Coord de l'Action Non-Violente de l'Arche de Lanza del Vasto - CANVA (France)
Mrs Marie-Hélène Thuillier, Attac-Vosges (France)
Mrs Martine Bonnet, President, Regain Nature (France)
Mr Keisuke Amagasa, President, Citizen's Biotechnology Information Center, Tokyo (Japan)
Mr Miguel Angel N™Òez, Mr Pedro Reyes Millan, Mr Enrique Gonzales, Mrs Gidalsy Jimenez, Mr Alejandro Maldonado, Mr Ignacio Birriel, Mrs Jimena Sosa, Mr Leonardo Verraes, Mr Aldo Gonzales, Mr Luis Belran N™Òez, Mr Cesar Alejandro Gonzales, Mr Eduardo LaPadula, Mr Carlos Palacios, Mr Jose Guerrero, Mrs Itzamana N™Òez, Mrs Karibay N™Òez, Mr Vladimir Aguilar, Mr Luis Aguilar, Mr Jess Montilla, Mr Andres Avellaneda, Mr William GoitÌa, Mr Juan Ferreira, Mr Pedro Urbina, Mr Felix Dirinot, Mr Freddy Eizaga, Mr Leoner Medina : Instituto Para la Produccion e Investigación de la Agricultura Tropical - IPIAT, Barinas (Venezuela)
Mr Gerald Miles, GM Free Cymru, Genetic Engineering Network - GEN UK; GM Freeze, Wales (UK)
Mr Sylvain Fattebert, StopOGM Coordination romande sur le genie genetique, (Switzerland)
Mr Eric Delhaye, Spokeman of CAP21 (France)
Mr Christophe de Varine, Porte-parole du Collectif Pour une Franche-Comte sans OGM (France)
Mr Dietrich Taussig, Federal Union of Consumers "Que Choisir", Aix-en-Provence (France)
Mr André Lefebvre, Ingenieur agrobiologiste, Directeur du Service d'EcoDéveloppement Agricole et Rural de Bourgogne (France)
Mr Aurelien Bernier, head of the Attac "GMO Committee" (France)
Mr Didier Vallet, president, Syndicat d'Agriculture Bio-Dynamique, Colmar (France)

Individual signatories:

Mrs Yannick Phillips, California (USA)
Mrs Marisela Yábar Larios, Ing. , Lima (Peru)
Mrs Geneviève Perret, Genève (Switzerland)
Mrs Ute Sprenger, consultant in environmental issues, Berlin (Germany)
Mrs Michèle Bufferne Khamtache, Fontaines sur Saône (France)
Mr ¡ngeles Leonardo, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (Argentina)
Mr Dominique Schoeni, Ethnologist, Genève (Switzerland)
Mr Henri Deprez, Brussels (Belgium)
Mr Pascal Peduzzi, Environmental sciences (Switzerland)
Mr Daniel Evain, Agronomist, former Researcher at Monsanto (France)
Mr Serge Raynaud, Le Revest (France)
Mr Jean-Claude Lacour, Epinal (France)
Mr Patrick Monnet, Lyon (France)
Mr Franck Loiseau, teacher, Cholet (France)

WTO Biotech Ruling Threatens Precautionary Approach
Decision Challenges Europe's Biotech Regulations - More Litigation Likely

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy press release, 29 September 2006.

Minneapolis/Geneva - A World Trade Organization dispute panel decision today differed from a confidential interim conclusion in February in that for the first time the panel left open the possibility that parts of the European Union's new regulatory regime for agricultural biotechnology might violate WTO rules, according to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP).

In an appendix (K) to the final ruling, the panel expressed "grave concern" that publication of the confidential interim ruling earlier this year had led to a misinterpretation of its findings, particularly concerning the right of WTO members to take a precautionary approach to the regulation of food safety and animal health when scientific evidence to demonstrate product safety was inadequate or inconclusive.

"A comparison of the interim and final ruling conclusions show that the United States, Canada and Argentina successfully pressured the panel to change its ruling and expose the European Union to further WTO biotech litigation," said Steve Suppan, a senior policy analyst at IATP and author of a backgrounder on the biotech case. "It's most regrettable that the precautionary approach to regulation will remain under threat of further litigation."

The U.S., Argentina and Canada brought the case against the European Commission's regulatory system for genetically engineered crops - specifically a moratorium on new approvals of GE crops. The EC, which has since modified its regulatory system and removed the moratorium, argued that many of the issues in the case are no longer relevant.

The EC defended its regulatory system before the WTO by referring to the UN's Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, a ratified UN treaty that authorizes signatories to take a precautionary approach to regulating GE corps when there is scientific uncertainty. Over 130 countries around the world have signed onto the Biosafety Protocol, but the U.S. is not one of them. The WTO panel ruled that because the U.S. has not signed onto the Biosafety Protocol, the EC could not use a Protocol based defense.

"The panel's legal reasoning really undercuts the Biosafety Protocol," said Suppan. "Many countries who are signatories to the Protocol, particularly poor countries, have not set up their regulatory framework for genetically engineered crops. This ruling is a warning to Protocol members that if they regulate biotech products according to their Protocol commitments, a Protocol based defense of those regulations cannot prevail at the WTO if the plaintiffs are not Protocol members."

Europe utilizes what is known as the precautionary principle to regulate not only GE crops, but also toxic chemicals as part of their newly passed REACH system. The WTO panel ruled that the precautionary principle is too controversial and unsettled in international public law to serve as a basis for panel rulings.

The ruling will have little immediate effect on trade between the U.S. and Europe. Europe's new system still requires that GE foods and crops be labeled. European consumers are overwhelmingly opposed to GE crops, so GE food products are not on supermarket shelves. IATP supports labeling of approved GE foods and moratoria against commercialization of GE crops such as wheat that have been rejected by farmers, food processors and consumers.

Press contact Ben Lilliston (612) 870-3416 or blilliston@iatp.org

IATP has written a backgrounder and analysis of the preliminary ruling, available at: www.tradeobservatory.org

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy works globally to promote resilient family farms, communities and ecosystems through research and education, science and technology, and advocacy.

"No winners, only losers" in biotech trade war says FOEE

Friends of the Earth Europe Press Statement in response to the WTO ruling on GM foods
Friday 29th September

Commenting on the WTOís final ruling [1] on genetically modified foods which questions whether a moratorium in the EU is still in place, Adrian Bebb, GM food Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said,

"In the real world, legal arguments over whether there is or was a moratorium are totally irrelevant. Europeans will continue to reject genetically modified foods. This trade dispute has created no clear winners but many losers. The public faces contaminated foods resulting from weak regulations in the United States and farmers see their livelihoods threatened by contamination."

Sonja Meister, Trade Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said, "The change in the ruling proves once again that the WTO puts corporate interests ahead of environmental protection, public safety and democracy. The WTO is the wrong forum to deal with environmental trade disputes and the international community must find an alternative before another case occurs. The WTO ignored international environmental laws, met in secret behind closed doors and barred any public involvement, even though we have a strong public resistance against GMOs in Europe."

Notes

[1] http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news06_e/291r_e.htm

For more details see: http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/AB_29_Sept_WTO_GMO_dispute.htm

For more information, please contact:

Adrian Bebb, GMO Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: +49 80 25 99 19 51; Mobile: +49 1609 4901163; Email: adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org

Sonja Meister, Trade Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: +32 25 42 61 00; Mobile: +32 484 975107; Email: sonja.meister@foeeurope.org

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

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

GM crops are a liability not asset

BBC News, 29 September 2006. By Sue Mayer.

The announcement in August 2006 that an unapproved variety of genetically modified (GM) rice had been found at low levels in US long-grain rice sent shock waves through the food industry.

Bayer Crop Science's GM LL601RICE had last been grown in field trials in 2001 and was not intended for commercialisation.

Although two other varieties of Bayer's GM rice have been given approval for commercial growing and use as food, neither of these are yet being grown.

All of these varieties of GM rice have been modified to be tolerant to Bayer's herbicide, Liberty (glufosinate), so farmers can use the weed-killer without harming the crop. How the contamination arose remains a mystery and awaits the outcome of a US Food and Drug Administration inquiry.

The recent rice episode follows a very similar incident in 2005 when an experimental and unapproved variety of Syngenta's GM maize, Bt10, was found to have been grown mistakenly for four years. Errors in the laboratory and poor quality control had led to the mix up.

In 2000, another GM maize, Starlink, made by Aventis (now owned by Bayer), was found in the human food chain when it had only been given approval for animal feed because of concerns about possible allergenicity. Farmers had not known or had not been able to keep Starlink separate from other varieties of maize.

In all these cases, there have been international shipments rejected, product withdrawals and legal cases costing the industry millions of dollars.

Unapproved GMOs

The reason these GM contamination incidents have such far reaching effects is that they have affected commodity crops which are being traded internationally. A GM crop does not only require approval in the country where it is being grown; most importing countries also require GM crops to undergo a safety assessment before they are allowed in.

In Europe, because a GM organism cannot be released without approval, the presence of an unapproved GM crop - at whatever level - is illegal except in special circumstances.

The exception is when a GM organism has been through a positive safety assessment in Europe but before final approval has been given, and only applies if the contamination is at a level of up to 0.5% and is "adventitious or technically unavoidable". Neither LL601RICE or Bt10 maize fall into this category.

Therefore, the sudden widespread appearance of an unapproved GM rice has had a dramatic effect. Its detection has led to product withdrawals in Switzerland, Germany, France, Sweden, Ireland and the UK. Shipments into Europe require certification that they are GM free and Japan has halted rice imports from the USA.

Bayer is being sued by several groups of rice farmers in the USA because of the effects on their markets and other claims will probably follow.

GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace run an on-line register of GM contamination incidents which gives information about all the cases of GM contamination that are in the public domain.

There are now 132 incidents on the register and they show GM contamination can arise at every stage of development - from the laboratory, to the field, to the plate.

It shows that the controls in place are prone to failure and human error is increasingly being shown to take place - people seem unable or unwilling to take the precautions required by the law or commercial demands.

For many in the biotech industry, the fuss caused by GM contamination episodes, such as those from LL601RICE and Bt10 maize, is excessive because they do not believe there is a risk to human health or the environment.

Because the full details of these GM crops are not in the public domain, an independent assessment of claims of safety is not possible.

Food worries

Whether these particular GMOs are harmful or not, their presence in the food chain demonstrates the inability of the industry to maintain separation between GM and non-GM lines.

Bayer, Syngenta and other companies are developing unquestionably more potentially dangerous GM crops that have altered nutritional characteristics, produce therapeutic drugs or industrial chemicals. Like LL601RICE and Bt10 maize, these experimental lines do not exist officially and there are no tests available for them.

To reduce the risk, governments and companies will have to screen crops from high risk countries that grow and trial GM crops.

However, because companies maintain much information about the nature of their experimental GM crops as "confidential business information", screening will only be possible for the genes that are commonly introduced as markers, so the risk of contamination remains.

Governments also need to take the failure to comply with the law more seriously.

The fine for the Bt10 contamination incident in the USA was $370,000 (GBP196,000) - a trivial amount for a company the size of Syngenta. Europe and Japan took no legal action. That has to change if a more serious incident is to be avoided.

Food companies must despair about the poor practice of the agbiotech industry. They have to face the public and deal with product removals and then try to obtain redress.

Insurers are likely to continue to be sceptical about providing cover for the risks arising from the use of GM crops and foods, and large biotech companies probably have to self-insure - something that will require explicit reporting to investors. GM crops still look more of a liability than an asset.

Dr Sue Mayer is director of GeneWatch UK, a not-for-profit group that monitors developments in genetic technologies from a public interest, environmental protection and animal welfare perspective

EU due to tighten import rules to keep out GMO rice

Reuters, 29 September 2006. By Jeremy Smith.

BRUSSELS, Sept 29 (Reuters) - The European Union is likely to toughen up entry requirements next week for U.S. long-grain rice to avoid an unauthorised biotech strain, possibly making EU governments conduct compulsory rather than just random testing.

In August, the European Commission tightened rules governing imports of U.S. long-grain rice to prove the absence of the LL Rice 601 strain, which it said was marketed by Germany's Bayer AG and produced in the United States.

Its decision followed the discovery by U.S. authorities of trace amounts of the GMO rice, engineered to resist a herbicide, in long-grain samples that were targeted for commercial use.

Since then, samples of the LL Rice 601 strain have appeared in at least nine EU countries after random testing by national authorities in each food and retail supply chain, according to notices posted on the Commission's food safety alert system.

"We are going to reinforce the measures that we already have on testing," one Commission official told reporters.

"We don't have a date yet, it (revised requirements) would probably be discussed by the Commission and then go to a standing committee (of food safety experts)," he said.

That decision is widely expected sometime next week.

Industry sources said the Commission was likely to recommend mandatory testing of U.S. long-grain rice cargoes at the point of entry into the 25-country European Union. In practice, most of these cargoes enter the bloc via the Dutch port of Rotterdam.

More countries report GMO strain

The need for tighter EU import rules arose earlier this month when two bargeloads within a 20,000-tonne U.S. rice cargo held in Rotterdam tested positive for the GMO strain after first having tested negative.

Another U.S. rice cargo of a similar volume -- around that of one month's average EU imports -- is due to arrive in Europe in mid-October, also probably in Rotterdam, officials say.

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

"Member states are now reporting test results, including positives, from their controls in the market. There are a number of alerts coming," the official said.

"We expect member states to do a certain amount of random tests ... at the moment, we would expect it (long-grain rice) to be certified before it leaves the United States," he added.

The latest countries to report the presence of LL Rice 601 are Ireland, Austria and Slovenia, according to Commission data.

In their alert notices, all three countries said the rice had entered national territory via one or even two other EU countries -- like Britain, Germany and the Netherlands.

Bayer says it does not sell or produce LL Rice 601 and the strain was developed by Aventis CropScience, a company bought by Bayer in 2002. That development ended in 2001, the company says.

World's largest rice company halts all US rice imports because of GM contamination threat:
Bayer's illegal GM rice continues to inflict damage on US rice industry

Greenpeace International press release, 29 September 2006.

In yet another blow to the US rice industry, the world's largest rice processing company, Ebro Puleva,(1) which controls 30% of the EU rice market, has confirmed to Greenpeace that it has stopped all imports of rice from the USA to the EU due to the threat of contamination by genetically modified (GM) rice.

The move follows a string of scandals, with illegal GM contamination found in rice products all over Europe. In January of 2006 a strain of BayerÇs GM rice, which was not approved for human consumption was found in US rice intended for export. As a result of Bayer's recklessness, the global food industry is facing massive costs associated with this contamination, including testing costs, product recalls, brand damage, import bans and cancelled imports and contracts.

In a letter to Greenpeace(2), the Chairman of Ebro Puleva states: "We regret that US rice is facing a problem with GM rice and decided to stop any imports of US rice since August 2006."

Ebro Puleva has also indicated that it will not consider purchasing from the US until the situation is under control. Instead, the company will purchase rice from other countries, with the exception of China, which continues to have problems with GM contamination of its rice.

"By imposing a blanket ban on rice imports from the US, Ebro Puleva has acknowledged how real and costly the risk of GM contamination is," pointed out Jeremy Tager, GM campaigner, Greenpeace International. "With GM now as uneconomic as it is unacceptable, governments in countries that grow or import GM must stop placing farmers, consumers, the environment and industry at such high risk."

At least three multi-million dollar class action lawsuits have been filed by US rice farmers against Bayer CropScience already, as farmers struggle to protect their livelihoods (3). Ebro Puleva has said they expect to bring legal actions against Bayer as well.

The strain of Bayer's illegal GM LL601 rice was first detected in rice intended for export from the US earlier in 2006. This variety has not been approved for human consumption anywhere in the world. It has only been grown in field trials that ended in 2001, and yet in September 2006, testing commissioned by Greenpeace and then by various European government agencies showed a broad variety of products on supermarket shelves in Europe had been contaminated by Bayer's illegal GM rice. Following the Greenpeace expose a leading German supermarket chain Edeka announced that they would cease selling all US long grain rice. A number of European retailers, millers and processors have followed suit.

"It is now time for governments to respond strongly as well. They cannot leave enforcement of food safety laws to industry alone. We urge the EU to enforce its laws more vigorously and ensure that all member states comply, particularly those that have thus far refused to enforce EU law," concluded Jeremy Tager.

For further information, please contact:

Greenpeace Press Office +44 207 865 8255
Or Graham Thompson, GM Campaigner, Greenpeace +44 207 865 8293

1. Ebro Puleva, with a presence in 40 countries, is the first supplier of rice as a raw material for the major companies of the European food sector. It has taken over, and now owns Riviana Foods, Inc, the leading company on the US rice market, with extensive distribution networks in the United States and Central America; Kraft FoodsÇ rice business in Germany, Austria and Denmark; and Panzani, one of the leading food enterprises in France. http://www.ebropuleva.com/ep/en/acerca_ebro/negocioarroz.jsp

2. The letter from the Chairman is available online at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/letter-from-ebro-puleva-to-gre

Rice Industry: Keep Genetically Engineered Varieties in the Lab

Silling the Beans Newsletter, September 2006. by Jeffrey M. Smith.

The US rice industry can take a lesson from Hawaiian coffee growers. In 2004, the University of Hawaii and others were getting dangerously close to conducting outdoor trials of genetically modified (GM) coffee - plants whose DNA had been artificially inserted with genes from other species. Growers throughout the state knew if their premium coffee became contaminated with GM varieties, it would threaten their markets.

The growers rejected claims that small buffer zones around GM fields would protect them. Bees carry pollen for miles. GM crops can get mixed up by human error. And everyone on the islands knows that seeds naturally travel. (Consider Hawaii's conversion from lava rock to a lush paradise.)

They extracted a promise from the University to discontinue studies that could lead to outdoor GM coffee trials, saving their farms from contamination. Not so for the rice industry, which just saw world markets close and prices plummet after unapproved GM rice escaped from field trials, contaminating US stocks. Japan stopped buying long grain US rice, products were taken off shelves in Europe and the industry may lose $150 million or more.

Amid the lawsuits and rejected shipments, the rice industry must now decide whether to belatedly follow the coffee growers' example. They can tell the government and five multinational GM crop companies, 'No more GM rice trials!' Or they can continue to risk costly episodes of contamination. And for what? To share the fate of soybean and corn growers?

In 1996, biotech companies introduced GM soy and corn varieties that could either withstand herbicide or produce pesticides in every cell. Although the new technology was largely hidden from American shoppers, the European press did extensive coverage and consumers there were not pleased. In a single week in April 1999, food companies throughout the continent responded by vowing to remove GM ingredients from their European brands. Japanese companies followed suit and American agriculture has yet to recover.

The corn industry lost their $300 million European market; US soy sales also plunged. The government poured an extra $2-3 billion per year in price support subsidies. And many non-GM growers were forced to pay for costly segregation programs just to keep their customers. The promise of higher yields, lower chemical use and weed-free living through GM crops turned into slightly lower average yields, significantly higher herbicide use and the emergence of superweeds that resist weed killer. Many who were once enthusiastic about GM technology are saying 'Come back in 50 to 100 years when you've done your homework.'

The Biotech PR firms want the rice industry and others to believe that gene inserted crops are catching on around the world. In reality, studies show that the more people learn about GM food, the less they want to put it in their mouth. The main reason why most US consumers are complacent is that they donÇt know about the issue. Sixty percent say they have never eaten a GM food in their lives. In truth, most eat it everyday - usually in the form of soy and corn derivatives in processed foods.

When Americans find out that they have been eating GM ingredients, they usually assume that the FDA has tested it and proven it safe. Not true. Documents made public from a lawsuit revealed that FDA scientists had repeatedly warned their superiors that GM foods might create unpredictable, hard-to-detect allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. They urged political appointees to require long-term safety studies. But the person in charge of FDA policy was the former attorney (and later vice president) of biotech giant Monsanto. And the agency was under orders from the White House to promote GM crops. The policy that was adopted in 1992, and still stands, is that no safety tests whatsoever are required by the FDA. Thus, varieties that had never been rigorously safety tested with animals, and probably never even fed to humans, were approved for sale.

Evidence of adverse reactions is mounting. From the tiny number of safety studies that have been conducted, animals treated with GM crops show stunted growth, impaired immune systems, bleeding stomachs, potentially precancerous cell growth, damaged and misshapen cells, inflamed kidneys, smaller brains and testicles, enlarged intestines, reduced digestive enzymes, higher blood sugar, inflamed lung tissue, increased death rates and higher offspring mortality, to name a few. Reports from the field are less encouraging. Two dozen US farmers say that sterility in pigs or cows is related to GM corn varieties. Seventy-one Indian shepherds report that 25% of their sheep died from grazing on GM cotton plants. Filipinos in at least 5 villages fell sick when nearby GM corn was pollinating. And hundreds of laborers in India developed allergic reactions after handling GM cotton. Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK soon after GM soy was introduced. And in the 1980s, a GM food supplement killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness and disability in another 5,000-10,000.

If this information makes you uneasy, consider what will happen when millions of US consumers learn that high-risk GM foods are in their baby's formula and kids' breakfast cereal. The reaction may force US food manufacturers to repeat the vows of their European counterparts. The corn and soy growers would surely be hit even harder than before.

How will the rice industry fare? That depends on what they choose now. But the choice is not just with rice growers. What about those who deal in lettuce, barley, sunflowers and plums? Most vegetables, fruits and grains have GM counterparts in some stage of development. And behind that variety stands a biotech company, more than willing to grow it field trials and risk the food industryÇs markets. Even the US wheat growers remain in danger. They had forced Monsanto to abandon plans to introduce GM wheat in May 2004, but unlike Hawaii's coffee growers, they can still be contaminated from outdoor field trials.

It is time that US producers take charge and say to the biotech industry, 'You can grow your GM crops only when we are ready to take that risk. Until then, keep it in the lab.'

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception, the world's bestselling book on GM foods. His forthcoming book, Genetic Roulette, documents more than 60 health risks of GM foods in easy-to-read two-page spreads, and demonstrates how current safety assessments are not competent to protect consumers from the dangers. He is available for media at info@seedsofdeception.com.

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at www.responsibletechnology.org.

Bio Firm Plans Kansas Rice Plant

The Associated Press, September 29 2006. by John Hanna.

JUNCTION CITY, Kan. - A California company that has faced criticism for growing and processing genetically engineered rice is planning to open a processing plant here and contract with area farmers to grow the crop.

State and local officials have embraced Ventria Bioscience's project, and they and the Sacramento, Calif.-based firm's leader had a news conference Friday to tout it as a major boost for Kansas' emerging biosciences industry.

Ventria plans to use the genetically altered rice it grows for manufacturing medicine, including one developed to fight childhood diarrhea, a leading cause of death for infants and toddlers worldwide.

The company plans to spend $6 million to renovate an abandoned grocery distribution center here and hopes farmers under contract will begin planting rice in the spring. Eventually, Ventria could hire 50 workers at its plant and contract to grow 30,000 acres of rice, Chief Executive Officer Scott Deeter told reporters.

"There were a lot of states that were very excited about Ventria putting a bioprocessing facility in place," Deeter, a Holton native, said after the news conference. "We're quite excited about Kansas. We think it's a perfect fit for us."

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius issued a statement welcoming Ventria, adding that she looks forward to "their contributions to the health of children worldwide."

Tracy Taylor, CEO of the Kansas Technology Enterprise Corp., a state agency set up to nurture emerging high-tech industries, said the project will create high-paying jobs, generate wealth for farmers and investors, improve health care and allow a Kansas native to bring his company into his home state.

"Is that great stuff or what?" Taylor said.

But Jane Rissler, a senior scientist and plant pathologist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, was skeptical the promised benefits would emerge.

"I have seen promise after promise after promise to get venture capital, to get taxpayer funds, and most of the promises do not appear," she said. "States with a lot of farmers and rural communities that need support, I can understand their searching for an industry that will help farmers and help revitalize rural communities, but this isn't it."

The practice of growing genetically modified crops to use in manufacturing drugs is sometimes called "biopharming," and the products have nicknames such as "pharmarice" and "pharmacorn."

Outside Kansas, Ventria's critics contend its technology could threaten the safety of conventional food crops by mixing with them. Rissler said contamination could make crops more dangerous for human consumption and increased biopharming makes contamination more likely.

Thomas Wynn, director of market development for the U.S. Rice Producers Association in Houston, said no one in the U.S. is growing genetically modified rice to sell to consumers. He said some people simply don't want to eat food they perceive as not being "completely natural."

"There are a lot of countries that are concerned about those types of things," he said. "We try to keep our industry as clean as possible."

California's native rice industry drove Ventria's experimental work out of that state two years ago, and protests by farmers and others in Missouri caused the company to abandon plans there.

Anheuser-Busch Companies, the nation's No. 1 brewer of beer and buyer of rice, announced in April it wouldn't buy rice from Missouri if the growth of pharmacrops were allowed there.

But Kansas has no rice-growing industry, and its officials are enthusiastic about Ventria's plans, having connected with the company earlier this year during an international biosciences convention in Chicago.

Junction City has pledged $5.5 million in incentives, money it expects to reclaim over time as the company's operations become profitable. Ventria plans to pay farmers between $150 and $200 more an acre than they're receiving for their current best crop, said state Agriculture Secretary Adrian Polansky.

"Kansas producers are progressive. Producers have adopted technology, biotechnology in corn and soybeans very, very readily," Polansky said. "We are very supportive of doing things better."

Polansky also said Ventria's efforts will create a "closed system," in which its rice is stored near farmers' fields and used only by Ventria. Deeter said the company will burn the material not used.

Deeter said the company genetically modifies its rice so that it produces a protein common in the human body, though the process does not involve mixing human and plant material. He said the protein is then extracted and used in medical products.

"We can make a major different for some of the children around the world who need it the most," Deeter said during the news conference.

Rissler said companies choose food crops for biopharming because they're relatively easy to work with. However, she said, there are alternatives, including growing fungi in a secure environment.

"They must stop, and if they want to produce drugs, use alternative systems," she said. "That is the only sane, long-term, safe way to go."

"No winners" says FOEE as WTO makes ruling public

Friends of the Earth Europe Press Release, 29 September.

Brussels, 29th September 2006 ‚ Friends of the Earth Europe has today called for alternative ways to deal with environmental trade disputes. The call comes as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) publishes its final ruling on the transatlantic trade dispute on genetically modified (GM) foods [1]. Friends of the Earth Europe believes that there will be "no clear winners but many losers" in todayís ruling, the longest in WTO history.

Adrian Bebb, GM food Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said, "Whatever the World Trade Organisation says, the dispute over genetically modified foods has created no clear winners but many losers. The public faces contaminated foods resulting from weak regulations in the United States and farmers see their livelihoods threatened by contamination. This trade dispute has been a pointless exercise that will change absolutely nothing. Europeans will continue to reject genetically modified foods."[2]

The WTO ruling will be substantially the same as the 'draft ruling', which was leaked to Friends of the Earth Europe in February. The draft ruling rejected most of the US-led complaints:

• It refused to rule against strict EU regulations to control the use of GM food and crops;
• It refused to rule on whether GM foods are safe or different to conventional foods;
• It rejected US claims that moratoria are illegal and did not question the right of countries to ban GM foods or crops.

However, the WTO draft ruling did rule - on technicalities - that Europe's four year GM moratorium, which ended in 2004, broke trade rules by causing "undue delays", but stated that moratoria were acceptable under certain circumstances. The WTO said national GM bans also broke trade rules, but only because the risk assessments did not comply with the WTO requirements.

Sonja Meister, Trade Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE) said, "This ruling shows that the WTO is the wrong forum to deal with environmental trade disputes and the international community must find an alternative before another case occurs. The WTO ignored international environmental laws, met in secret behind closed doors and barred any public involvement, even though we have a strong public resistance against GMOs in Europe."

The Biosafety Protocol is one international agreement that was ignored by the WTO in the biotechnology trade dispute. It allows nations to use a precautionary approach, giving them the right to ban GMOs if there are concerns about their impacts on health and the environment.

Friends of the Earth Europe suggests the International Court of Arbitration or the International Court of Justice as possible alternatives to the WTO to settle trade disputes over environmental Matters.[3]

For more information, please contact:

Adrian Bebb, GMO Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: +49 80 25 99 19 51; Mobile: +49 1609 4901163; Email: adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org

Sonja Meister, Trade Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: +32 25 42 61 00; Mobile: +32 484 975107; Email: sonja.meister@foeeurope.org

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

Notes:

[1] The final report from the WTO is due to be published at 1630 today (29th October 2006)

[2] Since the trade dispute started, Hungary, Greece, Austria and Poland have introduced new bans on GM products. In addition 174 European regions and 4500 smaller areas are calling for restrictions on GM crops. See http://www.gmofree-europe.org

Long grain rice imports from the United States were found to be contaminated with a genetically modified variant in August 2006. The GM rice in question was produced by the multinational Bayer. It was grown in outdoor experimental trials in the US five years ago, which probably were not contained properly, allowing contamination of conventional supplies. The rice has never been subject to a full scientific investigation and never been approved safe for human consumption. It is very likely that citizens in the EU have eaten the illegal genetically modified rice before and even since the contamination was discovered.

[3] "Is the WTO the only way? Safeguarding Multilateral Environmental Agreements from international trade rules and settling trade disputes outside the WTO." Briefing paper from Greenpeace, Adelphi Research and Friends of the Earth Europe.

See: http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2005/alternatives_wto.pdf

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
www.foeeurope.org

PUBPAT Challenges Monsanto Patents Being Used to Bankrupt American Farmers

The Public Patent Foundation press release, 29 September 2006.

New York, NY (PRWEB) September 29, 2006 -- The Public Patent Foundation filed formal requests with the United States Patent and Trademark Office today to reexamine four of Monsanto Corporation's patents related to genetically modified crops that the agricultural giant is using to sue - and in some cases literally bankrupt - American farmers (http://www.pubpat.org/monsantovfarmers.htm). In its filings, PUBPAT submitted prior art showing the patents were obvious in light of earlier work by other inventors and, as such, should have never been granted.

Monsanto has filed dozens of patent infringement lawsuits asserting the four challenged patents against American farmers, many of whom are unable to hire adequate representation to defend themselves in court. The crime these farmers are accused of is nothing more than saving seed from one year's crop to replant the following year, something farmers have done since the beginning of time. The Center for Food Safety found in its study of the matter (http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/Monsantovsusfarmersreport.cfm ) that, "Monsanto has used heavy-handed investigations and ruthless prosecutions that have fundamentally changed the way many American farmers farm. The result has been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for centuries in this country and millennia around the world, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed."

The lawsuits filed by Monsanto against American farmers include Monsanto Company v. Mitchell Scruggs, et al, 459 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006), Monsanto Company v. Kem Ralph individually, et al, 382 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Monsanto Company v. Homan McFarling, 363 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

"Monsanto's aggressive assertion of its patents is not only obnoxious and offensive to the core fabric of American life and culture, it is also causing substantial public harm," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director.

"It appears as though Monsanto wants to control all of America's farmland and - unfortunately - the patent system is providing them the perfect means to accomplish that goal by bullying independent and family owned farms right out of existence."

Copies of the Requests for Reexamination filed by PUBPAT against the four patents Monsanto is widely asserting against America's farmers can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/monsantovfarmers.htm

Contact:

Daniel Ravicher, Executive Director
Public Patent Foundation
+1 212 796 0570 info@ pubpat.org

About PUBPAT:

The Public Patent Foundation is a not-for-profit legal services organization working to protect the public from the harms caused by the patent system, particularly the harms caused by undeserved patents and unsound patent policy. To be kept informed of PUBPAT News, subscribe to the PUBPAT News List by sending an email with "subscribe" in the subject line to news-request@ pubpat.org.

28 September 2006

Green Party calls for biofuel plant at Carlow and GM-free island status, at ploughing championships

The Green Party today called for a bio-fuel plant in Carlow and for the country to be declared completely GM free, at the National Ploughing Championships in Tullow. Speaking at an information workshop Green Party Deputy Leader and General Election candidate for Carlow/Kilkenny Cllr Mary White said biofuels are the way forward to support diversification in a post-CAP era.

Cllr White said: "Now is the time to turn Carlow into a leader in bio-ethanol production. When the Carlow sugar plant closed, a unique opportunity arose to turn the factory into a biofuel plant. This turnaround would provide an alternative source of income for sugar beet growers and create sustainable employment.

"Carlow formerly processed half of the national quota for sugar beet. A bio-ethanol plant on the site, using the same source of beet, could provide fuel for 60,000 cars. By processing other crops at different times of the year, this figure would rise even higher.

"With the EU about to take legal proceedings against Ireland over its failure to implement a renewable energy policy, biofuels could make an enormous contribution to Ireland's energy needs. A modest quantity of farmland, planted with biofuel crops could drive our entire public transport system."

Speaking at a workshop on GM Foods General Election candidate for Wicklow Cllr Deirdre de Burca said: "Keeping Ireland GMO free makes economic sense. The vast majority of European food brands, retailers and consumers refuse GM food. One hundred regional governments and 3,500 local authorities in 22 EU countries prohibit GMO crops. "Our island status can make Irish produce the most credible GM-free food in the EU. However, GM animal feed is already causing Irish farmers to lose access to prime export markets and destroying our world famous clean green reputation as 'the food island.' Scientific evidence from around the world proves that GMO crops contaminate surrounding regions, can never be recalled and cannot 'co-exist' with conventional and organic farms. The Green Party in Government will work towards making Ireland a GMO-free island."

Contact:

Cllr Mary White: 087 270 7189
Cllr Deidre de Burca: 086 806 1450
Nicola Cassidy, Press Office: 01 618 4088 / 085 719 8449

Holes in Indian laws promote biopiracy

SciDev.net, 28 September 2006.

S. Bala Ravi argues that deficiencies in India's seed and biodiversity policies promote biopiracy.

In India, centuries of intimate human dependence on biodiversity have generated a rich traditional knowledge of the use and conservation of wild species, and have increased the genetic diversity of agriculturally important plants and animals. The country is one of the world's eight major centres of crop diversity with an estimated 163 fruit tree and crop species having originated there.

National laws and policies relating to biodiversity therefore have immense implications for the livelihoods, food security and health of the majority of India's 1.1 billion people. But inconsistencies in two Indian laws enacted in the past five years encourage the unfair misappropriation of Indian genetic resources.

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act of 2001 (PPVFR Act) complies with the World Trade Organization's agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. The act protects the rights of plant breeders, farmers and researchers over plant varieties.

The Biological Diversity Act of 2002 (BD Act), meanwhile, seeks to establish India's sovereignty over its biological resources and associated traditional knowledge. In line with the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the act aims to establish a system for managing access to biodiversity and how benefits from its use are shared.

Granting access

Under the BD Act access to biological resources by non-Indian people or companies and by non-resident Indians requires prior approval of the National Biodiversity Authority. This applies to research and "bio-survey and bio-utilisation", which the act defines as research activities that explore the commercial potential of biological resources or associated knowledge.

For resident Indian citizens and companies, the State Biodiversity Board must grant permission for access, while for local communities none of these restrictions applies.

Intellectual property rights over innovations based on Indian biological resources or traditional knowledge can be established only with the prior approval of the National Biodiversity Authority, which will notify the public of approvals. During such granting of permission, a mutually agreed decision on benefit sharing is made.

A major problem arises from a provision in the BD Act that allows the government to exempt certain items "including biological resources normally traded as commodities" from the remit of the act. In the case of seeds, which are tradable commodity, such an exemption in the absence of other laws to regulate seed exports opens a legitimised door for biopiracy.

The BD Act has other deficiencies that undermine it provisions on access and benefit sharing. The terms 'commercial utilisation', 'use' and 'utilisation' are critical to the way the act restricts access to biological resources. But the act defines neither use nor utilisation. And although it defines 'commercial utilisation' as any activity that generates economic gain, this definition excludes "conventional breeding or traditional practices in use in any agriculture".

Therefore access to Indian genetic resources for use in conventional breeding or other traditional practices followed in agriculture, even by the non-Indian entities does not require prior approval under BD Act.

Legitimising piracy

If seeds were exempted, this would mean that the only law controlling access to them would be the PPVFR Act, which allows anyone conducting research free access without prior informed consent to any genetic resource, including varieties protected by plant breeders' rights.

The PPVFR Act does not differentiate the nationalities of people or organisations accessing Indian genetic resources, including varieties protected by plant breeders' rights, for breeding new varieties. The only exception is the need for prior informed consent for repeated use of such a protected variety as a parental line for the commercial production of a new variety.

These mean that non-Indian entities can freely access plant genetic resources and associated knowledge for use in breeding or for bio-surveys within India.

Secondly, having freely accessed the genetic resources of choice to develop breeding lines or new varieties or nothing, seeds of this material can be taken out in different pretexts as 'exports'.

The lack of a legal system regulating seed exports and of an informed customs system with the capacity to verify what is exported leaves a wide open door for the unchecked outflow of the planting material of virtually any genetic resource ò including farmers' varieties, land races and pre-bred material.

Once these resources are taken out through the trade route and used in conventional or non-conventional breeding, there is virtually no way to ensure that benefits are shared equitably to the communities that generated and conserved these resources.

The irony is that laws established to protect these resources and promote their conservation are in fact legitimising their piracy and misappropriation from the holder community.

- S. Bala Ravi is a scientist at the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation in Chennai, India.

Monsanto sued for alleged glyphosate monopoly
Plaintiffs say company unfairly dominates market years after Roundup patent expired

Agriculture Online, 28 September 2006

The Monsanto Company is the target of a class-action antitrust lawsuit filed this week in federal court.

Pullen Seeds and Soil, based in Sac City, Iowa, led the group filing Pullen Seeds and Soil v. Monsanto Company, No. 06-599, Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware. Plaintiffs allege the company violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, as it allegedly has a monopoly over the glyphosate herbicide marketplace with its Roundup products. Monsanto's patent on Roundup product name expired in 2000.

"During the post-patent period...Roundup has maintained an 80% (or more) market share of all the glyphosate herbicides sold in the United States despite Monsanto's charging dealers 300% to 400% more for brand-name Roundup than the price charged by generic competitors," according to the Pullen v. Monsanto court document filed Tuesday. "Monsanto's ability to charge higher prices for Roundup is the result of a comprehensive anticompetitive scheme which Monsanto began implementing in the 1990s."

In the class-action lawsuit filed Tuesday, Pullen, a licensed grower of Monsanto's soybeans and corn containing glyphosate tolerance and seller of Monsanto seed, is joined by an estimated 100,000 class members around the nation (1,000 in Iowa), according to Iowa State University agriculture law specialist and ag law center director Roger McEowen. But, according to Monsanto spokesman and public affairs manager Andrew Burchett, the anticompetitive practices named in the suit do not exist.

"There are dozens of different brands and formulations of glyphosate available from more than 30 different companies in the United States," Burchett says. "This is far more competition than exists with regard to any other agricultural chemical."

Plaintiffs also allege Monsanto retained product exclusivity "by acquiring seed companies that were developing modified seed technology, eliminating those products that could have led to the development of genetically modified seeds that could be used with non-glyphosate herbicide," according to McEowen.

"These efforts to block the development of competing genetically modified seeds had a direct effect on Monsanto's glyphosate herbicide monopoly because had competing seeds been developed, farmers would have had a choice not only to buy competing seeds, but also to use different types of herbicides instead of glyphosate," according to the court document. "Thus, the development of these competing seeds would have created an increased demand for other non-glyphosate herbicides that would have competed with Roundup.

"This would have dramatically reduced Roundup's market dominance and Monsanto's ability to charge monopoly prices," the document reads.

Also at issue in the Pullen case is the practice of "bundling" crop input products like herbicides with seed. While this is not uncommon in the crop seed industry, it could become a major argument in the case.

"In addition to the exclusive dealing requirements with its seed company licensees, Pullen claims that Monsanto has used various types of bundled rebates to ensure that seed companies produce and sell seed containing Monsanto's seed traits virtually exclusively," McEowen says.

Yet, the arguments used by Pullen, et. al., according to Burchett, are not new and instead appear to be attempts to find holes in previously resolved cases.

"This complaint appears to recycle old allegations regarding our marketing and pricing of glyphosate -- complaints that DuPont and others previously have made in lawsuits and which were the subject of an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice that was closed in 2004 with no enforcement action," Burchett says. "We believe this complaint is without merit and will vigorously defend against it."

The process now awaits the formal organization of the plaintiff class, which McEowen says will seek "declaratory and injunctive relief for Monsanto's alleged violations...and treble damages under Iowa antitrust law for the overcharges Pullen and other class members have paid." He estimates the "very difficult" case could take up to 10 years.

Calls to Pullen Seeds and Soil were not returned.

Will GE foods cause allergic reactions?
Michigan State University scientists receive EPA grant to find out

Michigan State University press release, 28 September 2006

EAST LANSING, Mich. ó The potential of genetically engineered foods to cause allergic reactions in humans is a big reason for opposition to such crops. Although protocols are in place to ask questions about the allergy-causing possibilities, there has been no test that offers definitive answers.

But all of that could change as a Michigan State University researcher has developed the first animal model to test whether genetically engineered foods could cause human allergic reactions. Venu Gangur, MSU assistant professor of food science and human nutrition, has received a $447,000 grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to validate the test.

Genetically engineered crops are created by inserting a protein from a different organism into the original crop's genome. This is usually done to create a plant that is more resistant to insects or diseases.

The Food and Agriculture Organization within the World Health Organization has a structured approach to determining whether genetically engineered foods cause allergies, according to Gangur, who also is a faculty member in the National Food Safety and Toxicology Center. "But it has a major flaw. A critical question in that process asks, 'Does the protein cause an allergic reaction in animals?' The problem is that there has been no good animal model available to test this."

Gangur and students in his lab have developed a mouse model ‚ the first of its kind ‚ to test the allergy-causing potential of genetically engineered foods. He'll use the EPA grant to examine whether the model works on a variety of proteins. If successfully validated, the testing could be available commercially in about five years.

Perhaps the best known case of a genetically engineered crop potentially causing allergies was StarLink corn. Created by Aventis in 1996, StarLink contained the cry9C protein from a common soil bacterium, a strain of Bacillus thuringiensis. The cry9C protein protected the corn from several types of corn borers and black cutworms. StarLink was approved by the EPA for use in animal feed and nonfood products in 1998. But in 2000, fragments of cry9C DNA were detected in taco shells and other food products.

"Many people believed that StarLink was responsible for their asthma attacks and other allergic reactions," Gangur said. "The Centers for Disease Control took samples and tried to figure out if StarLink was the cause, but the data were inconclusive. There was really no good method to determine if StarLink caused allergic reactions. This is why our model will be such a valuable tool. We'll be able to determine the allergenic potential of genetically engineered crops before they're released into the human or animal food chain."

Robert Tempelman, MSU professor of animal science and statistics and probability, is the project's co-investigator. Gale Strasburg, chairperson of the MSU Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition; and Jim Pestka and Maurice Bennink, MSU professors of food science and human nutrition, also are participating in the project.

The research of Gangur, Tempelman, Pestka and Bennink is supported by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station.

Japan widens testing of U.S. rice for illegal GMO

Reuters News Service, September 28 2006

TOKYO, Sept 28 (Reuters) - Japan has expanded testing of U.S. rice for an unapproved genetically modified (GMO) strain due to a lack of proof from Washington that short- and medium-grain rice are free from contamination.

An official at Japan's Agriculture Ministry said on Thursday that testing of U.S. rice for the unapproved strain, previously limited to long-grain rice and its products, now covers short- and medium-grain rice from the country.

The ministry has started testing U.S. short- and medium-grain rice stockpiled in warehouses in Japan, totalling about 1.1 million tonnes, for the unapproved GMO rice strain LLRice 601 owned by Bayer CropScience, a division of Bayer AG (BAYG.DE:

The genetically engineered rice has a protein known as Liberty Link, which allows the crop to withstand applications of an herbicide used to kill weeds.

The ministry has also started testing U.S. rice before shipment to Japan, with samples from each lot of contracted supplies examined by Japanese laboratories, the official said.

"We will only accept rice tested negative for GMO," he said.

Japan has a zero-tolerance policy on imports of unapproved GMO crops, and importers of crops tainted with unapproved GMO must destroy them or ship them back to exporting countries.

Japan has put rice imports under the state trading system as the grain is the nation's staple food, with the Agriculture Ministry acting as a rice importer.

Japan suspended imports of U.S. long-grain rice and its products immediately after the United States Department of Agriculture disclosed on Aug. 18 that LLRice 601 was detected in long-grain rice targeted for commercial use.

27 September 2006

Unpolished rice

The Guardian, September 27 2006. David Adam, Eco soundings

The GM rice farce continues. Weeks after illegal contamination of US supplies with an unapproved experimental GM variety was highlighted, European authorities have revealed that it has arrived on our shores. Campaigners are outraged and, while the Food Standards Agency and others are quick to point out there is no risk to health, those reassuring words are slightly undermined by the fact that the contaminated shipments were originally certified as GM free.

Get your acts together, folks.

EFET alert for GM China rice

Kathimerini, September 27 2007

Athens, Greece -- Food authorities are conducting strict checks on the market in order to detect any genetically modified rice that has been illegally imported into the country, President of the Hellenic Food Authority (EFET) Ioannis Vlemmas told Kathimerini yesterday.

Vlemmas said that about 20 tons of the rice had been smuggled into Greece throughout 2006 but has since been pulled off supermarket shelves.

The head of EFET was responding to calls from the environmental group Greenpeace to speed up checks on the food market.

Greenpeace accused EFET of being slow and said that it takes about a month for control mechanisms to roll into action from when the order is given.

The environmental group also called on EFET to publish the methods it intends to use to keep a watch out for GMO rice in Greece as a means of protecting consumers.

Genetically modified Chinese rice has also been detected in France, Germany, England, Holland and Belgium.

26 September 2006

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

Irish Green Party press release, 26 September 2006.

Following a recent meeting of the Water and Environmental Strategic Policy Committee of Wicklow County Council, Green Party councillor, Deirdre de Burca, has called on the council to declare County Wicklow a GMO-free zone. De Burca made her comments after a presentation was made to the Committee by a spokesman for the GM-free Ireland Network.

"Mr Michael O'Callaghan of the GM-free Ireland Network told us that 8 county councils including Cavan, Clare, Meath, Kerry, Roscommon, Monaghan and Fermanagh County Councils have all declared their counties to be GMO-free zones" says de Burca. "It is clear that County Wicklow should do the same as protecting our Countyís current GMO-free status is vital for the health of future generations and for the long-term economic advantage of our farm, food and tourism industries".

De Burca says that the inevitable cross-contamination caused by the introduction of GMOs into the county will seriously undermine the growing organic sector in County Wicklow. "Research carried out by the GM-free Ireland Network shows that County Wicklow has one of the highest concentrations of organic farms, restaurants and markets in the country" says de Burca. "It is vital that we recognise the huge economic potential of this sector and act to protect it by declaring County Wicklow a GMO-free zone. Furthermore, keeping Ireland GMO free makes economic sense. The vast majority of European food brands, retailers and consumers refuse GM food. 175 regional governments and 4,500 local authorities in 22 EU countries prohibit GMO crops. Our island status can make Irish produce the most credible GM-free food in the EU".

The Green Party councillor is calling on her fellow-councillors to pass a motion on Wicklow County Council to prohibit the release of GMO seeds crops etc in County Wicklow. She is also calling for Wicklow County Council to exclude funding for the procurement of food containing GM ingredients in schools, hospitals, nursing homes, canteens etc. "It is my hope that councillors will see the economic, consumer and health benefits in making Co Wicklow a GMO free zone" says de Burca.

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

23 September 2006

SC bans further approval of GM seed field trials

The Times of India, 23 Sep, 2006

NEW DELHI: In what could be a wake-up call to the Centre, the Supreme Court on Friday banned for two weeks any further grant of approval for field trials of genetically modified seeds by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC).

This temporary ban on further permission to field trials of GM seeds was granted by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justices C K Thakker and R V Raveendran taking exception to non-filing of response to a PIL highlighting the apprehension of agriculturists about possible mutilation of domestic seed variety by the onslaught of GM seeds.

Though the Bench refused the plea of petitioner Aruna Rodrigues' counsel Prashant Bhushan for a stay on the ongoing field trials of GM seeds like Bt Brinjal, it agreed for inclusion of an independent expert in the statutory body for examination of the possible impact of GM seeds before they are given the go-ahead for field trials.

Asking additional solicitor general R Mohan and senior advocate Rajiv Dutta to ensure that Centre files its response in two weeks, the court fixed October 13 as the date for next hearing on the PIL.

Acting on Rodrigues' PIL, the court had on May 1 asked the government to ensure that no such trials in genetically modified varieties took place without the prior approval of GEAC. It had also warned against indiscriminate field trials of GM seeds.

Petitioner had alleged that open field trials of Bt Okra, Bt Brinjal and Bt Rice are being conducted in various parts of the country on the basis of the safety tests conducted by the companies and without any independent verification of their safety claims about GM seeds.

Court stays fresh field trials of GM crops

The Hindu, Sep 23 2006

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday restrained the Centre from granting any fresh approval for field trials of genetically modified organisms in the country until further orders.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice Mr Y.K. Sabharwal also directed the Government to induct scientists and experts into the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), a statutory body for regulating the field trials to examine the issue in depth.

The apex court's stay order would, however, not apply to field trials of GM products, which are already underway such as BT brinjal and BT cotton.

The Bench passed the orders while dealing with a PIL filed by one Ms Aruna Rodrigues, which complained that the GM products being introduced by some of the MNCs posed serious threat to ecology, crops and human lives.

Citing the spate of farmer suicides in Maharashtra's Vidharbha region and other places in the country as an offshoot of the extensive use of GM seeds, the petition had sought a complete ban on their usage.

It was alleged that the GEAC, granted permission for the products in a reckless manner without considering the debilitating effect it would have on the crops and human lives.

The petitioner said the move to allow large-scale field trials of BT brinjal by biotech company Mahyco, an Indian collaborative and partner company of Monsanto, if not checked would lead to untold hardships to the farmers and large-scale destruction of crops.

The Bench would take up the matter for further hearing on October 13.

Court: withhold approval for genetically modified products

But it will not stop field trials without knowing Government's stand

• GMO seeds may pose health hazards, say petitioners
• The process will be a risky experiment in the country

The Hindu, Sep 23 2006

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee not to give approval for genetically modified products until further orders.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice C.K. Thakker and Justice R.V. Raveendran gave this direction on an application filed by Aruna Rodrigues and three others seeking a ban on release of genetically modified organism/seeds having the potential of causing major health hazards.

Counsel Prashant Bhushan alleged that the Government's policy was to give speedy clearance for genetically modified organisms (GOM) even before putting in place a mechanism to test their bio-safety value. He pleaded for stay on grant of fresh approvals and on all field trials of genetically modified crops.

Involve experts

The Bench said: "We are not inclined to direct stoppage of all field trials at this stage without [knowing] the stand of the respondents.

At the same time, we deem it appropriate to direct the GEAC to withhold the approvals until further directions are issued on hearing all concerned. The Government would also consider associating independent experts in the field with the GEAC." It directed that the matter be listed after two weeks.

In their public interest litigation, the petitioners said GMO seeds were a pest-resistant, high producing variety with the inherent drawback of passing on strands of pesticide to human body that could in future blow up into major health problems. The hazards included new allergies, greatly increased resistance to antibiotics, and severe toxicity to humans, animals and micro-organisms, resulting in a serious import on human health, and loss of wildlife and biodiversity.

In a fresh application, they said genetic engineering, if allowed unchecked, would change the molecular structure of the world's food.

Stop giving approvals to field trials of GM crops: SC

Financial Express, September 23 2006. By Ashok B. Sharma.

NEW DELHI, SEPT 22: In a landmark interim verdict, the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Centre not to go ahead with its proposed plan for approving field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops in the country.

A bench, consisting of Chief Justice YK Sabharwal, Justice CK Thakkar and Justice RV Ravindran, directed the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) not to give any further approval to the field trials of GM crop until the final judgement was passed on the writ petition by Aruna Rodrigues and other seeking a moratorium on GM crops.

The counsel for the petitioner, Prashant Bhushan, told FE, "A rejoinder was filed on behalf of Aruna Rodrigues on August 1. This came up for hearing today and the apex court directed the government to reply to the rejoinder within two weeks."

The Supreme Court also directed the GEAC to co-opt independent experts for deciding on GM crops.

The judgement has given a relief to NGOs and consumer organisations who were opposing the proposed field trials of the countryÇs first transgenic food crop, Bt brinjal. GEAC had formed an in-house panel of experts, headed by Delhi University vice-chancellor Deepak Pental, to review the objections to the proposed Bt Brinjal field trials raised by independent scientists, NGOs and consumer groups. The panel is scheduled to meet on September 25.

The apex court's judgement has also given some relief to a group of independent scientists who were opposed to the proposed field trials of Bt brinjal.

GEAC has already approved a number of field trials for new Bt cotton hybrid. It has also approved some Bt cotton hybrid for commercial cultivation in the current kharif season. As the courtÇs interim verdict is for restraining further approval of GM crops, the approved Bt cotton hybrid have escaped the purview of this order.

22 September 2006

GMO Rice Found In Germany's Rhineland-Palatinate Region

Associated Press, Friday September 22nd, 2006

FRANKFURT (AP)--The Ministry for the Environment of Germany's Federal State of Rhineland-Palatinate said Friday genetically modified, or GMO, rice from the U.S. has been found in the region.

Six out of 15 long grain rice samples were contaminated with the banned LLRice601 strain, the ministry said.

The local authorities will secure possible contaminated products that have already been delivered to stores, the ministry added.

The ministry also noted the European Union's has already released a statement that the consumption of the rice doesn't pose a threat to consumers.

Legally, no GMO rice material is allowed to go on sale in Germany or any other E.U. country.

Don't Cry to Them, Argentina
Is Monsanto playing fast and loose with Roundup Ready Soybeans in Argentina?

Grist magazine, 22 Sep 2006. By Kelly Hearn

[Kelly Hearn is a writer in South America. He is a former UPI staff reporter and a correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor and other publications.]

Crying not for Argentina but for lost patent fees, Monsanto's legal hacks are in European courts suing to block millions of tons of Argentine soybean meal from docking on the continent.

Monsanto says that much of the meal crossing the Atlantic to feed Europe's cows and pigs contains traces of its genetically modified Roundup Ready Soybeans. Known as RR, the soybeans are tweaked to withstand the company's Roundup herbicide. This resistance lets farmers blanket entire fields with the chemical mixture rather than surgically applying it to kill off weeds.

Monsanto holds a patent for the seed in Europe, but not in Argentina, where a dispute over technology rights keeps the U.S.-based agri-giant from collecting technology fees on RR seed sales. By using its European patent to disrupt Argentina's lucrative soy-meal trade with Europe, the company hopes to strong-arm Argentine farmers into paying up.

Meanwhile, the tricky lawyering is shedding light on what critics say is a dubious corporate strategy to make Argentina a mega-lab for GM soybeans, one that's already spawned deep environmental and economic problems far off the radar screen of the international media.

The Patent Play

Walking into the Social Forum for the Resistance Against Industrialized Agriculture in downtown Buenos Aires last month, I wasn't sure what to expect. Instead of suits and ties, I found lots of facial hair and rumpled clothes -- technology wonks, students, professors, scientists, and landless peasant farmers gathered to protest the sins of large-scale industrial agriculture. One middle-aged water-quality activist wore a papier-mache spigot on his head. An interpretive artist twirled a rubber hose and let out angry groans. Though less legible than the speakers' PowerPoints, her message seemed thematically congruent: the soy is hitting the fan in Argentina -- and Monsanto's bad behavior is to blame.

I got a café cortado and searched out Adolfo Boy, an agronomist with the Grupo de Reflexion Rural, a technology watchdog group. "Ask yourself why Monsanto, with all its lawyers, never got a patent for gene RR in Argentina," he said, thumbing through a binder exploding with dated newspaper clips.

He rewound to the 1990s, when the firm brought its new genetically tweaked seeds to Argentina. His theory -- shared by many here -- is that Monsanto intentionally left RR seeds in the public domain so Argentine farmers would use them, spread them, create new plant varieties, and, most important, lock themselves into buying the pricey Roundup herbicide.

Argentina first approved RR seeds in 1996, and Monsanto tried to build its royalty fees into the price, but a thriving black market kept the seed prices too low for the company to recoup the fees. Meanwhile, up in the land of strong patent enforcement, U.S. farmers were paying a $6.50 patent-based technology fee every time they bought a 50-pound bag of RR seed. Around that time, seeds that sold for $9 a bag in Argentina were going for $21.50 in the United States. A report issued at the time by the U.S. government's General Accounting Office blamed the price difference on lack of property-rights enforcement in Argentina. The American Soybean Association asked Monsanto to refund more than $300 million to U.S. farmers. The company refused.

As Argentina struggled to recover from a devastating economic collapse that hit in 2001, the illegal trade in RR seeds grew. By 2005, according to one estimate, only 20 percent of Argentina's $1 billion annual soybean seed trade was legal. Monsanto had had enough. It stopped direct seed sales in 2003, though Argentine companies continued to sell seeds containing RR genes and paid some licensing fees.

Having missed out on the chance to collect fees at the point of sale, Monsanto lawyers in 2004 said the company would charge a $1-per-ton export fee on Argentine soy and soy derivatives shipped abroad (and $2.50 per ton between 2006 and 2011). Argentina's farmers and government officials refused.

Monsanto has denied that it made a strategic decision not to pursue patent rights in Argentina. It didn't respond to requests for comment for this story, but in an open letter published in an Argentine paper, El Clarin, Monsanto rebuffed the public-domain theory, claiming the company tried to get a patent but was blocked by legalities.

Evidence suggests otherwise: as farmers were getting to know its RR seeds, Monsanto did not object -- as Argentine law allows it to do -- when farmers registered some 200 plant varieties containing Monsanto's RR technology with the National Seed Institute, according to a report by the French newspaper Le Monde Diplomatic. Had Monsanto been truly interested in exercising legal rights over RR seed, the theory goes, it would have made use of the law, stopping others from incorporating it in other varieties.

Monocultural a Manos

What's clearer than Monsanto's patent strategy is the astounding rate at which the RR soybean took hold, and the repercussions it has wrought.

Since RR was approved for use here in 1996, Argentine jungles and savannas have been cleared to make room for more than 34 million acres of the crop. The rate at which forests in northern Argentina are being turned into soy plantations is three to six times higher than the world average, and the country now ranks second only to the United States as the biggest producer of GM crops in the world.

As GM operations push out traditional farming here, civil and environmental groups are crying foul, making Argentina a case study for the technology's unintended economic, social, and environmental consequences. Agronomists say the herbicide-resistant soybean is leading to serious problems, including deforestation, soil degradation, pesticide pollution, and genetic contamination.

"Argentina is placing its future economy and food security in danger by choosing to ignore the ecological downside of such heavy reliance on a no-till, herbicide-based system," said Charles Benbrook, an agronomist and consultant who worked for the Carter administration and conducted a study in 2005 on GM soy's impacts in Argentina. "They are going to run into serious problems."

GM cheerleaders say the crops enhance food security, feeding the hungry masses with higher yield power. But statistics fall crossways. Walter Pengue of the University of Buenos Aires and Miguel Altieri of the University of California-Berkeley report that wheat, dairy, and fruit production has dropped significantly in Argentina as farmland has turned to soybean monoculture.

Monsanto claims RR soybeans decrease the need for repeated herbicide applications. But some weeds build resistance to herbicides, and when they do, different herbicides are needed in the mix. Pengue and Altieri report that in the Argentinean pampas, eight species of weeds exhibit resistance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. The fear: the more plants become resistant, the more farmers turn to different pesticides, further complicating the soup of poisons being spread through the country's fields.

There are also concerns that all this genetic tinkering is causing GM soy to have lower protein levels than regular varieties. A study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry in 2004 analyzed soybeans and soybean meal from the world's top producers: Argentina, Brazil, China, India, and the U.S. Those from Argentina, which Benbrook says at the time were 98 percent Roundup Ready, had the lowest crude protein content. Those from China, which grew no GM soy at the time, had the highest. "This points directly to the possibility that RR has resulted in significant decline in protein level," Benbrook said, adding that it mirrors concerns that protein levels in soy and corn in the United States are decreasing.

Meanwhile, experts say that GM crops may be playing a role in rising social dislocation. In 1998 there were 422,000 producers or local farmers in Argentina; by 2002, that number had dropped by 25 percent to 318,000.

And there are health worries stemming from the widespread use of Roundup, which has reportedly been sprayed aerially and drifted onto non-RR crops and into communities. Dario Gianfelici, a general physician from the small town of Cerrito in a soy farming region, says he has seen medical problems in farmhands that stem from herbicide exposure. "I don't have the money or the manpower to [raise awareness] like I would like to do," he said in a telephone interview, "but I continue to talk about this."

Attention, Class

With people like Gianfelici and Boy sounding alarms, Monsanto is scrambling to bolster its public image. To create a new generation of customers friendly to the idea of consuming GM products, it has joined the likes of Bayer S.A. and Dow AgroSciences Argentina S.A. in funding ArgenBio, a trade association that offers teacher workshops and downloadable educational materials for use in Argentine schools. Gabriela Levitus, ArgenBio's director, says the group's purpose is "to divulge information about biotechnology."

One woman's information is another woman's propaganda. Said Silvie Sieb, a grade-school teacher from the province of Entre Rios who attended one of the workshops, "It's pure show business so they can turn kids into customers."

Sieb said the presenters explained how "inofensivo" the RR soybeans and Roundup herbicide are. But, she said, "They did not say that it is destroying our soil and reducing biological and productive diversity with a monoculture cultivation that serves to feed the pigs of Europe and Asia, and next the cars of Europe with soy-based biodiesel."

Meanwhile, over in Europe, a body of the European Union released a nonbinding decision in August saying it disagrees with Monsanto's claims that soy meal derived from genetically modified seeds infringes the company's patents. But Monsanto's lawyers are still beavering away, undeterred.

Italy finds unauthorized variety of genetically modified rice in imports: Health Ministry

Associated Press, 22 September 2006

Italy has found an unauthorized genetically modified variety of rice in shipments from North America, the Health Ministry said.

The ministry said it carried out checks after being alerted by U.S. diplomatic authorities.

It found that four samples included the Liberty Link Rice 601, a genetically modified variety developed by Bayer CropScience AG in the United States. It was testing three more batches, the ministry said in a statement late Thursday.

The European Union allows only genetically modified foodstuffs that have been evaluated and authorized to be placed on the EU market. Liberty Link is not among them and also is not approved for human consumption in the United States.

"It's a very serious episode," Health Minister Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio was quoted as saying in Corriere della Sera on Friday. "We need more checks and rules to safeguard consumers' health."

The Health Ministry said that the contaminated rice will be taken off supermarket shelves and either be destroyed or sent back.

On Thursday, the EU alerted officials in Britain, France and Germany that some of the genetically modified long-grain rice may have entered their nations. Brussels also said it would reinforce controls.

Dutch officials found traces of Liberty Link Rice 601 in shipments that arrived in the port of Rotterdam last month.

21 September 2006

False GM-free certification for US rice
Greenpeace: EU should stop all rice imports from US



Greenpeace press release, Brussels, 21 September 2006

Commenting on today's revelation of contaminated unauthorised GM rice in a shipment from the US to Europe that had been declared GM-free, Greenpeace calls on the European Commission not only to ask all EU member states to block long-grain rice imports from the US with or without GM-free certification, but also to let the US authorities know that no more imports of US rice will be allowed into Europe until the US authorities have established a trustworthy certification scheme and ensured that the contamination in the US has been contained.

The integrity and credibility of the entire EU food safety system is at stake and should be defended against a possible strategy of contamination by the biotechnology industry.

If the US authorities are not able to ensure that US rice exports are free of contamination with unauthorised - and therefore illegal - GMOs, they should themselves block the exports also for the sake of their own credibility. This is what the EU did with UK-produced beef during the BSE crisis. This is what credible authorities do.

Notes to editor

The unauthorised GM rice in question is LL601, a variety developed by Bayer and tested in open field trials in the US. The company decided subsequently not to proceed with development and never obtained authorisation for this rice in the US. No GM rice has been authorised in the EU.

For more information, please contact:

Jorgo Riss, director, Greenpeace European Unit, tel +32 (0)2 274 1907
Katharine Mill, media officer, Greenpeace European Unit, tel +32 (0)2 274 1903

Read the article: link

Britons eating GM rice as watchdog fails to test imports

Daily Mail, 21st September 2006. By Sean Poulter.

Official watchdogs have admitted that a huge gap in the policing of food imports allowed GM rice to end up on the nation's dinner tables.

Millions of families are believed to have been eating American imported long-grain rice tainted with GM genes for at least eight months.

Supplies of rice sold by Morrisons are known to have been contaminated and have recently been withdrawn.

Tesco also withdrew its own-label American rice amid concerns it may be contaminated, while Sainsbury's has had to find alternative sources for its ready meals.

However, this is just the tip of the iceberg. For the tainted rice will have been used in many other processed foods.

The Food Standards Agency,(FSA) which is responsible for policing the food system, yesterday admitted there has been no official state testing regime to prevent GM contamination of food imports.

Instead, retailers are expected to make sure their products are not contaminated. This failure has allowed GM tainted rice and possibly many other contaminated crops to be imported into the UK.

The government watchdog said it now intends to hold talks with the European Commission to improve GM testing.

The US authorities discovered GM contamination of long-grain rice in January this year, but it did not tell Britain and the rest of the world until August - eight months later. During this period GM tainted rice continued to be sold and eaten.

The FSA is now testing all new rice imports. However, it has left the testing of products on the shelves to voluntary action by retailers.

The watchdog's handling of the issue has been condemned as scandalous by politicians and green campaigners.

They point out that the risk of illegal GM contamination of rice and other food crops was entirely predictable. And they argue the FSA has failed in its duty to prevent this law-breaking.

The Conservative shadow food, farming and environment Secretary, Peter Ainsworth MP is particularly critical.

"The FSA is meant to be a custodian of public health and consumer interests in relation to food. Yet their reaction to the news that GM rice has been on sale in the UK seems astonishingly casual," he said.

"The point is that we don't know if this rice is harmful or not."

Friends of the Earth GM campaigner, Clare Oxborrow, said: "It is quite shocking that there is not a system in place looking for GM contamination of imports. It should have been in place a long time ago.

"The FSA should not be reduced to scrabbling to deal with the problem now. That is only shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

"This is not just a problem with American rice, for it is clear that there could also be GM contamination of rice and other crops from other regions."

The biotech industry is now developing a raft of new GM crops containing pharmaceuticals.

Peter Riley, of the GM Freeze organisation, warned that failure to check crop imports could allow food containing GM drugs to get on to plates. "If that happened, it would have very wide implications for public health," he said.

The FSA's chief scientist, Andrew Wadge, admitted gaps in knowledge about the food on our plates at an FSA board meeting in London yesterday.

He said: "Are there things out there in the food that we don't know about? I think the honest answer is, 'Yes, sometimes there can be.'"

Mr Wadge accepted that the GM rice contamination had highlighted the gap in testing of imports. And he said the FSA would be raising this with the European Commission.

"This incident has raised questions as to what are the opportunities for this type of thing to happen again in future," he said.

"This has shown, this is a possibility that could occur. Rather than being in a reactive mode, what we need to do across Europe is to discuss and make sure we have in place appropriate testing methodology."

The FSA insist the trace levels of GM contamination found in the UK are not a health risk, however this is disputed.

Illegal GMO rice cover-up by EFSA and Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI)

FSAI safety claims based on insufficient evidence
No testing of product on supermarket shelves
Certified GM-free rice found to be contaminated
Call for FSAI head to resign

GM-free Ireland Network news alert, 22 September 2006 ï GM-free Ireland Network

The GM-free Ireland Network has written to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) demanding why American GM long grain rice is still on sale in Ireland even though GM rice is illegal in the EU and all US long-grain rice imports are banned in Japan and Swizerland. The letter can be downloaded at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/rice/GMFI-FSAI1.pdf.

Bayer CropScience genetically modified LL601 rice from experiments in the USA in 1999-2001 contaminated food supplies world-wide without detection until January 2006.

The unapproved rice contains virus DNA suspected of causing pre-cancerous growth in animals, and bacterial DNA for resistance to glufosinate ammonium weedkiller, a neurotoxin linked to birth defects.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and FSAI (whose CEO Dr. John O'Brien is a former director of the International Life Sciences Institute biotech industry lobby group) claims there is no health risk, even though the EFSA GMO panel said there is insufficient data to justify this claim, and Bayer is refusing to release a secret dossier that might well show that LL601 is genetically unstable and dangerous.

The illegal GM rice was found in Tesco, Aldi, and Morrisons stores and has probably been sold by most retailers and consumed for years by millions of people. Kellogs Rice Krispies, Gerber baby food, and Anheuser-Busch beer could also be contaminated.

Representatives of major Irish retailers who attended a briefing on the issue by the FSAI yesterday said the FSAI has not required them to conduct their own tests or to recall suspect products.

The EU admitted yesterday that some of 12 US rice consignments certified as GM-free were also contaminated, so the certification system is a total farce.

GM-free Ireland coordinator Michael O'Callaghan has asked the FSAI to ban all imports of US long-grain rice and to recall all US long-grain rice from stores pending further investigation of this massive food safety scandal.

He said "Dr. John O'Brien's ties to the biotech industry present a clear conflict of interest. Having a former director of a biotech industry lobby group in charge of Ireland's food safety is not acceptable."

For latest news coverage see: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/index.php

30 Aug press release: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI29.pdf

Contact

Michael O'Callaghan
Co-ordinator, GM-free Ireland Network
tel: + 353 404 43 885
mobile: + 353 87 799 4761
website: www.gmfreeireland.org

Lousiana farmers file federal suits
Company accused of letting rice strain into commercial fields

Acadiana, Sep 22 2006. By Richard Burgess [shortened] Full article: http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/acadiana/4206241.html

LAFAYETTE - Louisiana farmers filed four federal lawsuits this week alleging Bayer CropScience allowed a genetically engineered rice strain to escape from test plots into commercial fields ò a major headache for a crop that depends on overseas markets sensitive to engineered foods.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture last month announced the discovery of trace amounts of BayerÇs LL601 strain in long-grain rice at an Arkansas mill that serves several rice-growing states, including Louisiana.

The news led to a sharp drop in the market price for rice and a move by the European Union to require testing of all long-grain rice imports from the U.S.

"It has essentially shut down the rice industry for almost a month," said Joey Simon, who farms about 1,300 acres of rice in Acadia Parish.

Simon, the named plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of rice farmers throughout the state, said more than 35,000 barrels of rice sit in storage at his farm because of poor market conditions.

He has yet to find out if LL601 mixed with his crop because testing is expensive and performed at only one lab in Louisiana, his attorney said.

Three other federal lawsuits were filed in Lafayette this week by farmers in St. Landry and Evangeline parishes.

They join rice growers in Arkansas and Missouri in legal action against Bayer CropScience.

The Louisiana lawsuits seek damages for falling market prices and to off-set the increased cost of testing rice crops and ensuring that fields are free of LL601.

Bayer engineered LL601 to be resistant to a specific herbicide, allowing the rice plant to survive while surrounding weeds die.

The company has not pushed the product to market, so the strain has not gone through the testing required for commercial use.

The USDA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and some European food regulators have declared that LL601 poses no health risks.

The USDA has announced an expedited approval process for the rice strain.

Regulatory approval could help acceptance in overseas markets, critical for an industry that exports about half of its crop.

Researchers with Bayer and federal agencies continue to investigate how LL601 mixed with commercial rice crops.

Bayer officials have said the company acted in compliance with all laws and regulations in testing the experimental strain.

The rice strain was grown in test plots in the U.S. from 1998 to 2001, including fields at the LSU Agricultural CenterÇs Rice Research Station near Crowley.

LL601 was detected in trace amounts of one strain of non-genetically engineered seed grown at the research station in 2003, but further testing found no trace of LL601 in seed strains grown more recently, according to information from LSU.

Research station Coordinator Steve Linscombe said researchers are unsure how LL601 mixed with the non-genetically engineered strain.

He said LL601 test plots were isolated and USDA testing standards were strictly followed.

"We are working diligently and working closely with the USDA to determine how that happened," Linscombe said.

Contamination inevitable

GM Watch Daily, 22 September 2006.

The following article reports on farmer lawsuits seeking damages for "falling market prices and to off-set the increased cost of testing rice crops and ensuring that fields are free of LL601."

Tracing the global spread of this GM rice (LL601) is proving quite a headache. But amid the product recalls and plummeting prices, nobody seems to have yet figured out exactly how an illegal variety of GM rice not grown in the US except in field trials that ended five years ago, ended up contaminating American commercial rice supplies.

As this article notes, Bayer officials claim the company acted in compliance with all laws and regulations in testing the experimental strain. It would be easy to suspect otherwise but, as the article also notes, Steve Linscombe, who heads the research station where a number of the trials were run, and where there has been some evidence that contamination of non-GM seed may have occurred, also says that the LL601 test plots were isolated and USDA testing standards were strictly followed.

In an interview with Delta Farm Press, Linscombe goes further, "APHIS has guidelines and protocols for testing (GM) material. We went above and beyond those protocols. Our isolation and distances (in tests) were always more than called for. We tried to eliminate any chance for this to happen." http://deltafarmpress.com/news/060921-linscombe-gmrice/

As former EPA biotech specialist Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman has pointed out, "It is intrinsically impossible to assure that contamination will not occur, it is not just a matter of sloppiness. That was the conclusion of a US National Academy of Sciences report from two years ago.

"For example, we should not forget that Monsanto/Scott's WAS FOLLOWING APHIS ISOLATION POLICY when the bentgrass contamination occurred - there is no easy remedy." http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6971

And don't forget that there are huge numbers of barely regulated GM trials that have been going on in America, including a large amount of GM crops that produce pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals. According to APHIS, 181 acres were planted this year alone with crops producing pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7044

Given that it seems to have taken 5 years for the current GM rice contamination to have been spotted, how much US produce may already be contaminated with illegal GM content that has not yet been detected? After all, crops are known to have been contaminated by pharma trials in the past. (The Three Mile Island of Biotech) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20021230/nichols

As we've said before, we're fast reaching a point where all food out of the US has to be regarded as a potential major liability.

EXCERPT: "It has essentially shut down the rice industry for almost a month," said Joey Simon, who farms about 1,300 acres of rice in Acadia Parish.

Simon, the named plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of rice farmers throughout the state, said more than 35,000 barrels of rice sit in storage at his farm because of poor market conditions. <