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.

21 September 2006

Outrage as illegal genetically modified rice slips through the net
US long grain rice imports must be banned

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 21 September 2006.

Brussels - Friends of the Earth Europe has demanded a suspension of all long grain rice imports from the United States after the European Commission admitted today that a consignment of US rice certified as "GM-free" was retested and found to be contaminated. [1]

Helen Holder, GM Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said, "This revelation shows that the system for certifying rice free from genetically modified material is a complete farce. If contaminated rice has slipped through the net once then how can we be sure that it won't happen again? The European Commission must suspend long grain rice imports from the United States until the testing system is fully reviewed and proven to be robust and trustworthy."

The announcement by the European Commission today is the latest scandal in a saga that began in August, when rice stocks in the US were found to be contaminated with an illegal genetically modified (GM) strain.

It is now mandatory that long grain rice imports into the EU are certified as free from illegal GM contamination. Markos Kyprianou, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, has insisted "There is no flexibility for unauthorised GMOs - these cannot enter the EU food and feed chain under any circumstances" [2].

Twelve consignments of rice - imported from the US through Rotterdam after the contamination was discovered - have been released, destined for the UK, Belgium, France and Germany. These consignments were certified as free of contamination from GM rice LL601 ten days ago by the European Rice Millers Federation [3]. But the Dutch authorities re-tested some samples that had been held back from the shipments and found them to be in fact positive for LL601 rice contamination. The national authorities in Belgian, France, Germany and the UK have been informed of the error by the European Commission and asked to trace the contaminated shipments.

Friends of the Earth Europe has expressed concern already that the European Commission's emergency measures to deal with the GM contamination are not being implemented properly at a member state level. Today's news only confirms this.

"We would like detailed, publicly available information about the exact testing that is being conducted in each member state and the protocols that are being followed. We also want any positive contamination results to be publicized immediately. This blunder in the Netherlands has undermined the credibility of the EU's response to the crisis," Ms Holder added.

The GM variant is an experimental Bayer CropScience rice called LL601 that was grown at outdoor test sites in the US between 1999 and 2001. The rice has not been authorised for human consumption anywhere in the world. Indeed, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) admits that there is insufficient data on LL601 to be able to guarantee its safety.[4]

For more information, please contact:

Helen Holder, GM Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: +32 25 42 0182; Mobile: +32 474 857638; email: helen.holder@foeeurope.org

Rosemary Hall, Communications Office at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: +32 25 42 6105; Mobile: +32 485 930515, email: rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org

Notes:

[1] European Commission press briefing, 12:16, 21st September 2006:
http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/ebs/schedule.cfm

[2] European Commission press release, 23rd August 2006. Attention, long link may be broken! Please copy and paste both lines into browser: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?
reference=IP/06/1120&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

[3] European Commission press release 11th September 2006 http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1175

[4] EFSA press release 15th September 2006 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press_room/press_release/llrice601.html

EU to boost checks on U.S. rice imports after Dutch report more illegal shipments

Associated Press, September 22 2006

BRUSSELS - The European Union said Thursday it would reinforce controls on U.S. long grain rice imports, after Dutch officials found an unauthorized genetically modified variety in shipments that arrived in the port of Rotterdam last month.

EU spokesman Philip Tod said the European Commission has alerted officials in Britain, France and Germany that some of the genetically modified long-grain rice may have entered their nations.

He said the imports of long-grain rice were certified as genetically unmanipulated. Yet spot checks by Dutch officials found traces of Liberty Link Rice 601, a genetically modified variety developed by Bayer CropScience AG in the United States, he said.

Tod said one shipment had been impounded in the Netherlands, another in Belgium. He could not say how much rice was involved or how much may have ended up in Britain, France, Germany and, possibly, other EU nations.

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

LLRice 601 is not among them. Bayer never asked for the authorization to market LL601 in the U.S.

The onus to certify that imports comply with EU norms lies with any company that places foreign goods on the EU market.

The environmental group Greenpeace urged the EU to tell Washington "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."

In the last two weeks, EU officials have twice reported illegal imports of genetically modified American rice. Last week, it said 33 out of 162 samples of rice imports contained the presence of LL Rice 601.

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

Tod said the EU wants to know from Dutch authorities how rice certified as "negative for the presence of LLRICE601" could show positive in counter-tests.

He also said the EU would contact U.S. authorities. "We will be following up with them as soon as the situation in the Netherlands is clarified," he said.

Tod said the European Commission "intends to take further action to strengthen" the testing of imports of long grain rice for the presence of the 601 strain. He gave no details.

On Aug. 23, the Commission said that with immediate effect U.S. long grain rice imports must be tested by accredited laboratories and certified they are free of traces of LL Rice 601.

While the EU head office insists on a recall of the illegal imports it has said the presence of LLRICE601 poses no immediate health risk to humans or animals based on a review of incomplete data provided by the U.S. government and the maker of the rice variety.

EU chases GMO-tainted rice strain in four countries

Reuters News Service, Sep 21 2006. By Jeremy Smith.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Europe's problems with shipments of unauthorized genetically modified (GMO) rice have taken a turn for the worse as two U.S. shipments tested positive for an illegal biotech strain, the EU executive said.

The Belgian food safety agency said it was likely that some of the rice had been eaten by consumers but the food did not constitute an "imminent threat to public health."

The two bargeloads within a 20,000-tonne cargo that had passed through the Dutch port of Rotterdam in August had first tested negative for the LL Rice 601 strain, developed by Germany's Bayer AG as resistant to a herbicide.

But Dutch counter-tests contradicted those first results, European Commission spokesman Philip Tod told a news briefing on Thursday, adding that EU procedures for testing U.S. long-grain rice imports would now be strengthened.

"In the light of these developments, the European Commission intends to take further action to strengthen the measure ... requiring the testing of U.S. long-grain rice imports for LL 601," he said, declining to specify what action was envisaged.

In August, the EU tightened requirements on U.S. long-grain rice imports to prove the absence of LL Rice 601. Its decision followed the discovery by U.S. authorities of trace amounts of LL Rice 601 in long-grain samples targeted for commercial use.

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

Then, EU authorities were informed about a shipment loaded in New Orleans that arrived in Rotterdam in late August carrying the equivalent of one month's average EU imports of U.S. long-grain rice.

Later, one EU official said France, Britain, Germany and Belgium had been asked to conduct checks to trace any rice from the bargeloads. That was because the shipments were accompanied by certificates showing they were GMO-free, he said.

One of the two consignments that the Dutch tests revealed as carrying the LL Rice 601 strain is still under the control of the Dutch authorities. The other was sent to Belgium, where it is also being held by the national authorities.

A further 11 consignments that were initially certified as GMO-free were sent to Britain, France and Germany, he said.

"We have asked the authorities in those countries to carry out counter-tests," he told reporters.

"There are a lot of questions to which we don't have answers," he said. "All we know is that they were in possession of valid certificates and that is why they were released."

The Rotterdam cargo was split into 30 consignments each equating to the volume of one barge. In 2005, EU states imported 300,000 tonnes of U.S. rice, of which 85 percent was long grain.

EFSA safety statement was issued without sight of crucial GM rice data

Press Notice from GM Free Cymru, 21st September 2006

It has been revealed today that the statement issued by the European Food Safety Authority on 15 September relating to the safety of GM contaminated rice was scientifically irresponsible. It was based only upon highly selective data provided to it by Bayer CropScience, with large sections of the key scientific documentation blanked out.

The EFSA statement (1) was carefully worded, implying that they were not satisfied that they had sufficient data for a full scientific assessment of LLRICE 601, the offending variety. They said: "According to the Statement of the Panel issued today there is insufficient data to provide a full risk assessment in accordance with EFSA's GM guidance."

Nevertheless, the GMO Panel and EFSA effectively endorsed LL601 as safe to eat, with the words: "........ on the basis of the available molecular and compositional data and on the toxicological profile of PAT proteins, EFSA considers that the consumption of imported long grain rice containing trace levels of LLRICE601 is not likely to pose an imminent safety concern to humans or animals." As EFSA must have anticipated, these latter words were flashed around the world, summarised and simplified, and built into countless press releases as a confirmation that LL601 is safe to eat.

Documentation seen today by GM Free Cymru reveals that Bayer CropScience has withheld crucial data on the molecular characterization of LL601 and on other crucial characteristics from the European regulatory bodies, while at the same time asking for the variety to be authorized retrospectively. The Bayer dossier (2) has about 30 pages blanked out on the grounds that the information is CBI or "confidential business information."

It appears that EFSA's GMO Panel might have asked Bayer for the crucial evidence prior to its meeting on 14th September, but it is now clear that it had not received it when it released its 15th September statement.

To compound the deceit, the EFSA statement cites two "positive scientific assessments" of LLRICE601 in support of its conclusion that the variety will not be harmful if consumed in small quantities. On investigation, it is clear that these assessments are both worthless. One of those was an "informal assessment" made by unnamed members of the ACNFP to the UK Food Standards Agency and never published. That off-the-record advice is entirely unacceptable from a scientific point of view. It has caused a storm of protest from NGOs, and is one of the grounds for the legal action which FoE is taking against FSA. The other "positive assessment" was submitted on 13th September by RIKILT (Institute of Food Safety, Univ of Wegeningen, Netherlands), which is the institute run by the Chairman of EFSA's GMO Panel, Prof Harry Kuiper. That is one cause for concern, but much more important is the fact (admitted by the report's authors) they they have not seen the "censored" material in the Bayer dossier either (4) (5).

Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: "We are staggered by these revelations. They show that EFSA had no scientific basis for issuing its statement on the safety of LL601 rice. Bayer has simply refused to give EFSA and the other regulatory bodies key information that might well show that LL601 is unstable and dangerous. We know already that it is failed variety that was discontinued for unspecified reasons in 2001. EFSA should NOT have issued any statement at all in the circumstances, and it should have instructed Bayer to make full release of all the scientific data in its possession. This is another example of a giant GM corporation riding roughshod through the European regulatory process, and another example of the incompetence and corruption of those who are supposed to be looking after the health of the European consumer."

Contact

Brian John
Tel +44 1239 820470

Notes

(1) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/gmo/statements0/ efsa_statement_gmo_LLrice601.html

(2) The Bayer petition can be accessed via EFSA:
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/gmo/statements/ gmo_llrice601.Par.0001.File.dat/efsa_statement_gmo_LLrice601.pdf

(3) The Dutch assessment is here:

http://www2.vwa.nl/portal/page? _pageid=35,1554101&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_file_id=12446

http://www2.vwa.nl/CDL/files/1/1004/12446%20Front_Office_rijst.pdf

(4) Translation from the Dutch on page 3: "Bayer's summary points to several appendixes of which some have not been delivered due to their confidential nature".

(5) Not even the EU governments have seen the "secret" data. In the conclusion of the Dutch report it says this: "Bayer has collected several data, especially a molecular characterisation of the genetic modification and an analysis of the composition of the kernels and fenotypical and agronomic features of LL601 in comparison with conventional rice. An extensive summary of these data and the judgment of these data by USDA has been spread to EU member states through the permanent committee in Brussels."

First Minister refused to uphold the law as GM rice continues to be sold in Scottish Supermarkets

Green MSP media release, 21 September 2006.

The First Minister admitted today that he backed the untenable Food Standards Agency position on illegal sale of GM rice in Scotland. The Food Standards Agency have advised government that there is no need to order the removal of the products from shelves, despite it being illegal for the products to be there.

Unbelievably, the First Minister said it was up to supermarkets to decide whether to remove the products from sale or not. Yet the Food Standards Agency is on the record as saying "we suggested to the industry that we didn't expect them to withdraw products..."(1)

Mark Ruskell MSP challenged Jack McConnell at First Minister's Questions today and received an answer that backed the illegal sale of the products to unwitting consumers. GM rice, which is unapproved for sale anywhere in the EU and for which no safety data has been made public, has contaminated US rice imports and is available across the country for sale without it being labelled as GM contaminated.

Greens want the First Minister to uphold the law and order the FSA to recommend that the law be adhered to. Ruskell said it was 'absurd' for lawmakers to sanction lawbreaking, and questioned the integrity of the First Minister on the matter. (2)

Mark Ruskell MSP, Green Speaker on the Environment, said: "Why isn't the government watchdog that is in charge of food safety ordering the removal of these blatantly illegal GM products from the shelves. The First Minister thinks that we don't need a food standards agency and that supermarkets should police themselves, which is another example of the privatisation of public accountability. It confirms yet again that Mr McConnell will be happy to have GM crops grown in Scotland with the support of his Libdem partners, and for the contamination of the food chain to occur without any government intervention."

Notes to editors

1. Press release from Food Standard Agency Scotland confirming the failure of the agency to uphold the law attached.

2. Link to Food Standards Agency website Q&A page on GM contaminated rice incident: http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/faq/llrice/.

George Baxter
Head of Media and Communications
Scottish Green MSPs
Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh EH99 1SP

Biotech chief held in honours probe

Press Association, Thursday September 21, 2006

The third person arrested in connection with the cash-for-honours inquiry was Sir Christopher Evans, a leader in the biotechnology industry, sources said.

Sir Christopher was questioned by officers from the Metropolitan Police's Specialist Crime Directorate on Wednesday night at a police station outside London.

He was later bailed to return at a future date pending further inquiries.

A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said: "A man was arrested by police officers in connection with alleged offences under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925.

"He was taken to a police station outside London where he was interviewed and later bailed to return pending further inquiries."

Sir Christopher founded Merlin Biosciences in 1996 and has more than 25 years' experience in life sciences.

The move came after officers re-interviewed Labour's chief fundraiser, Lord Levy.

Prime Minister Tony Blair's controversial Middle East envoy, who was first arrested in July, was questioned when he answered bail at a London police station.

He was re-bailed following questioning pending further inquiries.

Three people have now been arrested since April in connection with the investigation into whether peerages were offered in return for financial support to parties.

Gene-Altered Profit-Killer
A Slight Taint of Biotech Rice Puts Farmers' Overseas Sales in Peril

Washington Post, 21 September 2006. By Rick Weiss.

The disclosure last month that American long-grain rice has become widely contaminated with traces of an experimental, gene-altered rice has provoked an economic crisis for farmers and reignited a long-smoldering debate over the adequacy of U.S. oversight of biotech food.

Already, Japan has banned U.S. long-grain imports, noting, as have other countries, that the genetically altered variety never passed regulatory muster. Stores in Germany, Switzerland and France have pulled American rice off their shelves. And at least one ship last week remained quarantined in Rotterdam, awaiting word of whether its contents would be diverted or destroyed.

"Until this happened, it looked like rice farmers were finally going to make a profit this year," said Greg Yielding, executive director of the Arkansas Rice Growers Association. Instead, U.S. rice prices have slumped about 10 percent, and some expect market losses to reach $150 million.

Scientists are just now figuring out how LLRICE601 made its way into the nation's commercial rice supply. The company that developed it, Bayer CropScience of Research Triangle Park, N.C., says it abandoned the project in 2001.

The unapproved rice poses no threat to human or animal health, federal officials have assured the public. And the level of contamination is minuscule, on the order of just six genetically engineered grains in every 10,000.

But the growing economic fallout from LL601's unwanted and illegal reappearance -- including a handful of lawsuits against Bayer -- is a reminder that when it comes to food, public perception is as important as scientific assurances.

"We've been warning for years that something like this could happen," Yielding said, citing a December 2005 report from the Agriculture Department's inspector general that lambasted the government for not keeping a closer eye on companies developing new crops. "This is one of those deals where you hate to be right."

Genetically engineered crops are common in the United States, where 60 to 90 percent of the corn, soybean and cotton plants are enhanced with genes from bacteria and other organisms. Most of the added genes allow the plants to make their own insecticides or, as in LLRICE601, confer resistance to commonly used weedkillers.

But motivated by scientific, cultural and economic concerns, most countries around the world are finicky about biotech crops and allow relatively few in. That, in turn, has created tension for U.S. agriculture.

Although U.S. farmers say they favor, in theory, further development of the crops, many have called for delays in field testing or marketing until other countries agree to accept them. With few mechanisms in place to segregate engineered from conventional varieties, and wide availability of tests able to detect minute quantities of foreign DNA, they say it is not worth the risk that shipments will become contaminated and rejected.

"Once it's in the pipeline, it's very hard to get it out," said Jeffrey Barach, a vice president at the Food Products Association, a D.C. trade group.

Concerns have been especially high among rice growers, who sell big portions of their harvests to Kellogg for Rice Krispies, Anheuser-Busch for beer and Gerber for baby food, said Eric Wailes, an agricultural economist at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville.

"These are companies with huge brand equity," Wailes said, and are unwilling to risk their reputations.

In fact, many experts suspect that pressure from the food industry was a major reason why Bayer mysteriously dropped LL601 five years ago without seeking USDA approval for it. The company has refused to answer questions about its biotech rice program, which produced two other varieties. The Agriculture Department deemed those two safe for sale, but Bayer opted not to market them.

In recent weeks, tests by researchers in Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana have begun to unveil how LL601 persisted even after Bayer quit. The rice had been grown in several test locations, including Louisiana State University's rice research station near Crowley from 1999 to 2001.

Analyses in the past two weeks of samples of other rice varieties that were grown over the years at the same research station found that at least one -- a long-grain rice known as Cheniere -- was contaminated with LL601 at least as far back as 2003.

Records indicate that the affected plot of Cheniere rice, which was used to grow "foundation stock" from which much larger amounts were produced over the next few years, was located at least 160 feet from the LL601 plot, farther apart than what USDA required, said LSU spokeswoman Frankie Gould.

Exactly how and when the crossover of the genetically altered rice occurred remains uncertain. It could be, experts said, that some grains of LL601 got mixed inadvertently with grains of Cheniere, so that future plantings of Cheniere were really plantings of both. That could have gone unnoticed for years until someone tested for the errant gene -- which is how Riceland Foods Inc. of Stuttgart, Ark., happened upon the problem this year.

Or it may be that LL601 plants fertilized some Cheniere plants, creating a gene-enhanced Cheniere. Rice pollen does not usually go far afield, but it can.

Tests on more than a dozen other LSU varieties have come up negative for the LL601 gene, as have tests from Texas and Arkansas plots; results from Mississippi are pending. But because many varieties of rice are mixed in huge bins after harvest, it could be difficult to rid the U.S. rice crop of the illegal variety.

"The damage has been done and it is still being done," said Adam J. Levitt, a partner in the Chicago office of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, who led a class action lawsuit that won $110 million for farmers after gene-altered and unapproved StarLink corn appeared in food in 2000. "They've really in a very substantial way poisoned the well."

How Bayer will deal with the international ramifications of LL601's escape is uncertain. But its domestic strategy became clear on Aug. 18, the day Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns announced the problem. That day Bayer filed a petition seeking USDA approval -- or "deregulation" -- of LL601.

If the petition is successful, the variety's presence would no longer violate U.S. regulations -- but the strategy has raised some hackles.

"Post hoc approval strikes us as really cynical," said Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the District-based Center for Food Safety. "Bayer has no intention of bringing this rice to market. Clearly this is an effort to avoid liability."

Last week Freese's group filed a petition asking USDA to reject Bayer's request and to rescind its earlier approval of the company's other two engineered rice varieties.

The petition argues that the herbicide resistance trait is sure to make its way into red rice, a weedy wild relative of white rice that is already rice growers' biggest pest. Any advance likely to make red rice herbicide-resistant, the petition claims, would force farmers to turn to more potent weedkillers and violate the Plant Protection Act.

Even if Bayer succeeds in deregulating LL601, farmers will still face international rejection -- a potentially major hit, since most rice profits are from overseas sales.

On Friday the European Commission said the rice "is not likely to pose an imminent safety concern." But it also made plain that the rice is illegal and offered no hints it would soften its stance.

Of even greater concern is whether Central American nations -- the biggest foreign buyers of U.S. rice -- and Mexico, the second biggest, will adhere to their strict rules on engineered foods. Talks were underway late last week, Yielding said.

The December inspector general report scolded USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for failing to conduct required inspections of test plots and in some cases not even knowing where experiments it had approved were being conducted.

APHIS spokeswoman Rachel Iadicicco said the shortcomings cited in that report have been remedied.

20 September 2006

French farmers protest over GMO attacks, water curbs

Reuters, 20 September 2006.

BORDEAUX, France, Sept 20 (Reuters) - At least several hundred French farmers marched through the south-west town of Pau on Wednesday to protest against attacks on genetically modified (GMO) crops, bans on pesticides and irrigation curbs.

The head of France's maize (corn) producers' group AGPM Christophe Terrain said the aim was "to channel the anger felt by some farmers" faced with a threat to their livelihoods.

Organisers said some 2,500 farmers were expected at the rally but police put the number of marchers at 800.

The south-west is France's main maize growing area and farms in the region have been targeted by anti-GMO protesters for growing test fields of biotech strains.

In August, some 200 activists destroyed six hectares of commercially grown maize at a farm near Toulouse, the first attack on a field of commercial maize, approved for EU growing.

Terrain also said maize farmers in France faced curbs on the use of pesticides that were allowed elsewhere. Farmers in the region have also been under pressure to switch away from growing irrigated maize because of its high water consumption.

The protesters presented a petition to the local authorities, demanding government support in areas such as food quality, irrigation, research, biofuels and new technologies.

The country's main farm union FNSEA this week issued an open letter to candidates in France's 2007 presidential election, demanding that agriculture be put at the heart of policies.

Monsanto on trial in France

GM Watch news alert, 20 September 2006.

Today, 20 September 2006, Monsanto is on trial in Carcassonne, France, for having allegedly illegally imported, in 1999, 100 tonnes of soya seed contaminated with GM varieties. 50 tonnes were sold to 23 farmers by local agriculture suppliers. 50 tonnes were sent back to the USA.

Groups including Confédération Paysanne, Volunteer Reapers (Faucheurs Volontaires), Greenpeace, Greens, etc will be meeting outside the courtroom and there will be activities throughout the day including a march, debates, music and food. The program for the day can be seen here (in French): http://www.monde-solidaire.org/spip/article.php3?id_article=3365.

The flier can be found here (in French): http://www.onpeutlefaire.com/forum/evenement-1295.

Monsanto has a production plant at Trebes, near to Carcassonne, which has been the target of a number of occupations and seed inspections.

GM Watch comment:

Monsanto's in court today - and not for the first time, of course. Most famously, Monsanto lost 'a series of court decisions resulting in US$700 million in damages being awarded to thousands of residents of the town of Anniston, Alabama that had been polluted over a period of years by Monsanto's PCB byproducts.

'Though the PCB production was outlawed in 1976 Monsanto dragged the lawsuit out for nearly three decades. It was settled with the following judgement. On February 22, 2002, Monsanto was found guilty of "negligence, wantonness, suppression of truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage." Under Alabama law the rare claim of outrage requires "conduct so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and intolerable in civilized society".' See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

Safety net failed to halt sale of GM rice

Daily Mail (Ireland), 20 September 2006. By Petrina Vousden.

Fury erupted last night after illegal GM rice slipped through both EU and national food safety checks and onto Irish supermarket shelves.

It is illegal to sell genetically modified rice in the EU because it has never been cleared, or even tested, for human consumption.

Even more alarmingly, however, the GM rice strain that was found in Tesco American rice has not been cleared for human consumption in the more lenient U.S.

All existing stocks of the rice have been withdrawn by Tesco and the quantities found were small.

However, the discovery sparked outrage last night and there were demands for an inquiry into how it entered the Irish food chain.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) confirmed that samples taken from own-brand American rice on sale at Tesco stores had tested positive.

Tesco rice fields are believed to have been contaminated by pollen from nearby GM rice testing sites.

Although American food authorities are much more lenient in approving genetically modified foodstuffs, this particular rice strain - known as LL Rice 601 - has not yet been approved or even assessed for human consumption there.

In the EU it is currently illegal to grow, sell, or market any gene-altered rice as research continues into whether unauthorised biotech varieties pose a risk to people's health.

The FSAI Biotechnology chief specialist, Dr. Pat O'Mahony said: "Six samples were sent to the State Laboratory and Tesco's own-brand long grain rice tested positive. The GM rice was found in minute quantities mixed in with other rice. We have notified the EU Rapid Alert System of the discovery."

Dr. O'Mahony said the FSAI will continue to monitor rice on sale to Irish consumers. "Tesco is withdrawing those batches. There are no safety implications. Two other versions of the herbicide tolerant GM rice lines have been tested and authorised for the U.S. market in 1999."

And he insisted: "While there are no immediate food safety issues associated with the presence of this GM rice in the food chain, this GM rice has not been authorised either in the U.S. or the EU and therefore should not be on the market."

The revelation follows an announcement by Tesco on Monday that it was withdrawing as a "precautionary measure" its own American long-grain rice.

"Whilst this is not a food safety issue we, of course, take it very seriously. We are working with our suppliers and ther relevant authorities and as a precaution we've withdrawn previous stock of Tesco American long grain rice in 500g and 1kg packs."

The company refused to reveal how many bags of the rice had been sold and how long the rice was being sold to Irish customers.

We need an explanation

Green Party chairman John Gormley TD said: "It's unacceptable and the Food Safety Authority needs to be far more vigilant. The whole thing about GM food is we don't know if it's safe. We don't expect people to show any immediate negative signs but there may be consequences in the long term."

"We need to have a proper explanation as to how this occurred. We ought to at all times adopt caution."

Spokesman for the group GM-free Ireland, Michael O'Callaghan, said independent scientists believe all GM foods are unsafe.

He said: "Irish consumers have obviously been eating it and don't know how long for".

"There is no scientific evidence to show this is safe for consumption. The long-term health risk of GM foods is unknown."

"GM crops are made by taking DNA from other species. Typically they take DNA from a species that has a trait they want to give to a modified crop. For example, when a company wanted to make tomatoes and strawberries that were frost resistant they took DNA from a fish which has a natural anti-freeze."

"So you have tomatoes with fish genes and you even have potatoes in existence with spider genes."

"Seventy per cent of Europeans are opposed to GM foods. But the Government has continually played a leading role in promoting GM food in the EU."

The controversial rice line was engineered by the Bayer Corporation in the U.S. to tolerate a herbicide in experimental trials.

A foolish gamble

Daily Mail (Ireland) Comment, 20 September 2006.

The great myth about GM crops - and one that is enthusiastically promulgated by the huge biotech corprations that have invested billions in this Brave New World that nobody else appears to want - is that they are so carefully controlled and monitored that there is no danger or impacting on the wider environment.

The reality, of course, is that in the open countryside it is virtually impossible to prevent cross-fertilisation. Proof, if proof were needed, came with yesterday's confirmation by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, that traces of a GM strain of rice had been found in American rice harvested from non-modified crops.

There is, of course, no proof that this genetically modified rice is in any way harmful. But equally nobody - not even in the U.S. where the authorities are markedly more lenient on this issue - has said that it is not. And most alarmingly of all, it ended up in the Irish food chain without anybody knowing it was here.

Man interferes with nature at his own peril. In the case of GM foods, we are doing so without any real reason other than to fuel the profits of U.S. conglomerates. The world is awash with food surpluses; yes, there are millions starving, but the problem is not growing food but getting it to them. GM crops are not going to solve that.

Meanwhile, in order to keep the moguls of Wall Street happy, we risk creating a biological desert, with our countryside denuded of butterflies, bees, beetles and songbirds and in which new super-weeds could require more herbicide to control.

For the short term gain of a few, we run the risk of creating monopolies in food production, damaging small farmers, making a mockery of consumer choice, and abusing nature. And tragically, the ecological consequences of this reckless folly may be with us forever.

Cover Up of GM Rice Contamination a Scandal

GE Free New Zealand press release, 20 September 2006

The UK Independent newspaper's report of an official cover-up of contamination of rice by an illegal GE variant has serious implications for maintaining the integrity of the food supply in New Zealand and overseas.

The Independent has revealed that while some countries have banned sales of US long-grain rice because of illegal GE contamination, others have decided to turn a blind eye and allow it to be sold.

It is possible that contaminated long-grain rice remains on sale in New Zealand despite the contaminating variant being untested and unapproved by any authority in any country. "The situation for New Zealand consumers remains unclear as Authorities have deemed information about their action-plan as falling under the Official Information Act," says Jon Carapiet from GE Free NZ in food and environment. Until the information is released New Zealand shoppers should consider avoiding any US long-grain rice, and should return unopened packs to the shop for a refund.

Overseas supermarkets have been asked to remove potentially contaminated products from the shelves, and in some countries they have done so.Official assurances that this GE rice variant is safe are not supported by scientists who are demanding more data be released in order to assess the rice.

But a more serious issue is the breakdown of the global system to control where GE products enter the food chain and refusal by some authorities to take action to remove illegal product when it is found. The international community is facing a serious breakdown in regulation of the food system. It is vital action is taken to uphold the law and remove illegal foods from the system. Acceptance of illegal contamination is a slippery slope that will delay establishing a proper monitoring and recall-system.

As time goes on this failure puts millions of people at risk from contamination of previously safe and familiar foods.

UK Royal Society blasts its pals

GM Watch Daily, 20 September 2006.

Comment on article in The Guardian by David Adam at http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html

The Royal Society has taken issue with Exxon over its funding of lobby groups which engage in climate change denial. Among the groups mentioned in the article are the the International Policy Network (IPN) and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

The article notes that senior figures in the CEI "have described global warming as a myth" while the IPN "jointly published a report with the UK group the Scientific Alliance which claimed that global temperature rises were not related to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere."

The Royal Society's letter is said by The Guardian to reflect "mounting concern about the activities of lobby groups that try to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence that emissions are linked to climate change."

The joke is of course that many of those involved in these lobby groups have been amongst the Royal Society's staunchest allies in the GM debate.

The CEI, for instance, actually co-founded CS Prakash's AgBioWorld campaign and the CEI's Greg Conko serves as AgBioWorld's Vice-President.

The climate-change denying Scientific Alliance has an Advisory Forum that is dominated by fervent GM supporters, eg Anthony Trewavas, who is a Fellow of the Royal Society, and Vivian Moses, who is the Chair of the biotech industry backed lobby group CropGen, and who like Trewavas is on the Advisory Council of Sense About Science - a lobby group which has worked hand in glove with the Royal Society. http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=151.

Moses and Trewavas also get quoted in Science Media Centre press releases on GM. And the SMC's director, Fiona Fox, connects to the climate change denying network behind LM, Spiked and the Institute of Ideas. Many of the individuals and organisations listed above also regularly turn up at events run by and at the Royal Institution, which hosts the SMC http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=162.

Others on the Scientific Alliance Advisory Forum include:

Sir Colin Berry
Queen Mary, University of London

Bill Durodie
Department of Defence Management, Cranfield University

Mick Fuller
Department of Agriculture & Food Studies, University of Plymouth

and Tom Addiscott
Rothamsted Research http://www.scientific-alliance.com/about_us_advisory_forum.htm.

Amongst those previously sitting on the Alliance's Advisory Forum are such well known GM supporters as Mike Wilson, Philip Stott, and Martin Livermore - a PR consultant formerly with Dupont, who is also a Fellow of the climate-change denying International Policy Network http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=136.

Julian Morris who directs the Exxon-backed IPN has lobbied for GM crops via a whole series of front groups, including the Institute of Economic Affairs, the European Science and Environment Forum, and the so-called Sustainable Development Network, which organised a pro-GM conference in Johannesburg only last month and which also helped organise the notorious Fake Parade http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6981.

In the Royal Society's letter to Exxon the RS's Bob Ward writes, "I would be grateful if you could let me know which organisations in the UK and other European countries have been receiving funding so that I can work out which of these have been similarly providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public."

Interestingly, the Royal Society itself has had no hesitation in accepting substantial funding from transnational corporations in the biotech and nuclear sectors. http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=113.

Profiles of all of the individuals and organisations mentioned here, including the Royal Society, can be found in the GM Watch directory: http://www.gmwatch.org/profile.asp.

For more on the Exxon funded lobbyists see George Monbiot's new book 'Heat' or this unedited extract in The Guardian, 'The denial industry': http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html

19 September 2006

EFSA's GMO Panel provides reply to European Commission request on GM rice LLRICE601

TruthAboutTrade.org, 19 September 2006.

The GMO Panel has evaluated the available scientific data on LLRICE601. According to the Statement of the Panel issued today there is insufficient data to provide a full risk assessment in accordance with EFSA's GM guidance[1]. On the basis of the available molecular and compositional data and the toxicological profile of a newly introduced protein[2], the Panel considers that the consumption of imported long grain rice containing trace levels of LLRICE601 is not likely to pose an imminent safety concern to humans or animals. The Panel Statement will now be forwarded to the European Commission and Member States who are responsible for risk management measures in relation to LLRICE601.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was asked by the European Commission to provide scientific support concerning the safety of the long grain GM rice LLRICE601 which had been inadvertently released in the United States (US) and exported to the European Union (EU). EFSA was asked to examine the scientific data available and inform the European Commission if these data were sufficient to carry out a safety assessment according to EU legislation.

EFSA's Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) met on 13th and 14th September 2006 to consider the request of the European Commission and examine the available scientific data on the LLRICE601 issue. EFSA's Panel took into consideration all relevant scientific information, including data from Bayer Crop Science (the company which has developed LLRICE601), existing scientific data on a very similar GMO rice strain[3] and risk assessments carried out by the US authorities.

The EFSA GMO Panel has issued a Statement which says that the available data[4] 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. However, based on the available scientific data, EFSA's GMO Panel has come to the following conclusions:

• The data package indicates the presence of a newly introduced protein, called PAT. EFSA's GMO Panel has previously assessed other PAT proteins and concluded that these do not pose any health concern.

• With respect to morphology, agronomic performance and compositional analysis LLRICE601 does not differ significantly from conventional rice (except for the PAT protein), however, at present there is a lack of data to verify this assumption.

• Exposure levels to LLRICE601 in the EU Member States cannot be estimated accurately from the data provided and little is known with respect to the extent of LLRICE601 in the rice supply. However, US data[5] suggests the low inadvertent presence of LLRICE601.

• Based on the available data, EFSA's GMO Panel considers that the consumption of imported long grain rice containing trace levels of LLRICE601 is not likely to pose an imminent safety concern to humans or animals.

Bayer Still Investigating GMO Rice

The Associated Press, 19 September 2006.

FRANKFURT, Germany ó Chemical and pharmaceutical company Bayer AG said Tuesday it still is not clear how its genetically modified rice contaminated regular rice in the United States, but it is investigating the incident.

"The reason why LL601 was discovered to be present in commercial rice samples in the USA is not clear," said Friedrich Berschauer, the head of Bayer's CropScience unit.

Berschauer said that the U.S. Department of Agriculture was examining the case and that he could not comment about lawsuits filed against Bayer CropScience.

Some farmers sued the company after news of the contamination was made public, causing rice prices to drop.

"We believe that Bayer acted responsibly and in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations in this matter and will vigorously defend ourselves against these claims," Berschauer said.

On Aug. 31, researchers at Louisiana State University said they found trace amounts of Liberty Link Rice 601 in the 2003 foundation seed of one of their long-grain rice varieties. The university had been U.S. conducting field trials with LL601 rice.

LL601 was developed by Aventis CropScience, which was taken over by Bayer in 2002 and renamed Bayer CropScience.

Trace levels of the modified rice, which is illegal in the European Union, were reported Sept. 11 by the environmental group Greenpeace, which said its tests had found LL601 rice in stores of one of Germany's leading supermarket chains, Aldi Nord.

The German Agriculture Ministry later confirmed that the rice contained LL601.

Aldi Nord said it had removed the Bon-Ri rice brand from its shelves.

The USDA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, along with food regulators in Britain, the Netherlands and Canada, have all said that LL601 poses no harm to human health.

Rice farmers hold tight to crop after GMO woes

Reuters, 19 September 2006. By Christine Stebbins.

CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. farmers are keeping a tight hold on their freshly harvested rice crop, waiting for prices to recover after an unapproved biotech variety was found in regular supplies, trade sources said.

Prices have begun moving up, but they remain lower than they were before government officials said on August 18 that an unapproved genetically modified long grain rice had been detected in storage bins in several southern states.

"The GMO thing has turned everyone into a tailspin because farmers were hoping that the price was on the increase," said John Alter, president of the Arkansas Rice Growers Association, a group of rice farmers.

"I think more people are planning to hold a little longer" to their crop, said Alter, a fifth-generation farmer from De Witt, Arkansas.

Farmers are waiting for prices to reach at least $10 per hundredweight, a level they saw just a month ago.

U.S. rice prices sank about $1.40 last month after the GMO news hit the markets. They have recovered some since then with Chicago Board of Trade rice for November delivery rising about 90 cents since its August low. CBOT November rice closed at $9.66 on Tuesday, up 15 cents from the day before.

The industry remains on edge. The GMO rice discovery sparked Japan to stop importing U.S. long grain rice. The European Union, a big U.S. rice buyer, decided to test every shipment from the United States for the unapproved GMO strain, LL Rice 601.

"They like to see rice prices coming back like they have in the last several days," said Thomas Wynn, marketing director for the U.S. Rice Producers, a national farm group.

Farmers were hoping for higher prices to help pay soaring costs, especially for diesel fuel to run irrigation pumps.

This year's crop is yielding better than most in the industry had expected despite a hot summer.

With more than half of the crop off the field in the top rice state of Arkansas yields appear to be above a year ago, crop specialists said.

"Last year the state average was about 149 (bushels/acre). The record was set two years ago at 155 and I think we're going to fall somewhere in between -- 152 something like that," said Chuck Wilson, state agronomist with the University of Arkansas.

The U.S. Agriculture Department is forecasting that U.S. farmers will harvest 193 million cwt of rice this fall, a 13 percent drop from 2005 due fewer plantings.

SEGREGATING NEWLY HARVESTED RICE

Farmers with storage are being advised by some grower groups to segregate the harvest by variety to prevent contamination of the new supply with the unapproved LL Rice 601 strain.

Since only one rice variety, 2003 Cheniere, planted this spring has tested positive for the unapproved GMO Liberty Link trait, it should make it easier for farmers to separate.

"When the smoke clears and the dust settles I think there will be a good measure of this 2006 crop that will certify not having the LL601," Alter said.

Tesco long grain rice withdrawn after GM claims

The Irish Times, 19 September 2006.

Tesco Ireland has withdrawn some of their own brand American long grain rice products as a precautionary measure following the withdrawal of two products in the UK that allegedly contained unauthorised genetically modified (GMO) rice.

A spokesman for Tesco Ireland last night indicated that any American long grain rice to be packed for Tesco in future is to be tested and verified as GM-free.

"Whilst this is not a food safety issue we of course take it very seriously. We are working with our suppliers and the relevant authorities and as a precaution we've withdrawn previous stock of Tesco American long grain rice in 500g and 1kg packs," he said.

Currently, it is forbidden to grow, sell or market any gene-altered rice in the European Union as research continues into whether unauthorised biotech varieties pose any risk to people's health.

The withdrawal of the Tesco products follows claims by the UK-based environmental group, Friends of the Earth, that the GMO strain had been found in two samples of rice in the supermarket group, Morrisons.

This followed the organisation's submission of a number of rice samples for testing after reports in the US that long grain rice had been contaminated by a type of GM rice - Bayer CropScience's LLRICE 601 - grown in experimental trials in August.

The EU reported last week that traces of LL601 had been found in 33 out of 162 samples tested by the European rice industry.

Note: the above article claims the illegal rice was grown in August 2006. In reality it was grown from 1998 to 2001, and has probably contaminated our food chain for the past eight years!

Take US rice off sale, urges watchdog

Western Mail, Sep 19 2006. By Madeleine Brindley.

A WATCHDOG is calling on ministers to intervene to stop the illegal sale of GM-contaminated rice in Wales.

GM Free Cymru wants Health Minister Dr Brian Gibbons to advise the public not to eat American long grain rice.

And it also wants the minister to take disciplinary action against the Food Standards Agency for failing to prevent the sale of such rice, after it was discovered that US imports had been contaminated with a strain of genetically modified rice.

It is currently illegal for any GM rice to be sold to the public in the UK or Europe - no GM rice has yet been authorised for human consumption.

But tests by Friends of the Earth found that packets of Morrison's rice had been contaminated with the strain, which was developed in the US, but never put into full production.

Dr Brian John, a member of GM Free Cymru's liaison group, said, "A few days ago it emerged that the FSA has advised supermarkets to leave this stuff on their shelves and, even if they found the product to be contaminated, they shouldn't bother to do anything.

"The FSA's advice comes on the basis of virtually no evidence that this stuff is safe to eat.

"We want the Welsh public advised not to eat this rice and supermarkets told to take these products off their shelves as a precautionary measure.

"But we also think Dr Gibbons should take disciplinary action against the FSA board in Wales, because they did not do their duty."

It emerged a month ago that rice produced in the US had become contaminated with a GM strain, called LLRICE601.

It was developed by Bayer CropScience to tolerate weed killer and was tested on US farms between 1998 and 2001.

The company decided not to market it and withdrew it, but it has since been discovered in US rice, possibly because pollen from the GM rice spread to conventional crops.

Bayer CropScience asked the US Food and Drug Administration to approve the GM rice for sale at the end of July, as a means of showing that it wasn't dangerous.

But despite the approval in the US, the European Food Safety Agency has refused to give it safety clearance.

At the start of this month, the FSA announced that it was taking action to ensure that testing and monitoring is carried out on all consignments of American long grain rice in the UK.

Dr Andrew Wadge, FSA director of food safety said, at the time, "The presence of this GM material in rice on sale in the UK is illegal under European health law, even at extremely low levels. This is why we are taking steps to test American long grain rice and ensure future imports are GM free."

But it emerged this weekend that Claire Baynton, a senior FSA official, had met major retailers and manufacturers on September 5 and said the agency did not expect companies to trace products and withdraw them.

Peter Ainsworth, the Conservative's Shadow Environment Secretary in Parliament, said on Sunday that he would be asking for an official investigation into whether the FSA broke the law.

And Friends of the Earth said it had taken the first step in bringing a judicial review against the FSA.

A spokeswoman for the FSA said, "The agency has not condoned the selling of any product that is known to contain unauthorised GM material.

"We would expect any food operator not to sell products which they know to be illegal.

"At a meeting held on September 5, the FSA made clear to retailers and food manufacturers that it was for them to decide on the action they wished to take, taking into account their legal responsibilities.

"However, because there is no risk to the health of consumers, and given the very low levels of GM rice, we suggested to industry that we didn't expect them to withdraw products on food safety grounds, based on the information available to us and the extremely low levels of GM rice which might be present."

18 September 2006

New Board Member Appointed to the FSAI

Food Safety Authority of Ireland press release, 18 September 2006.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) today announced the appointment of Ms Anne Nolan, Chief Executive of the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association (IPHA), to its Board. Ms Nolan has over 25 years experience in the healthcare industry, with particular expertise in the pharmaceutical sector. She has held a number of key industry positions including Healthcare Group Director and Company Secretary with the Federation of Irish Chemical Industries.

Ms. Nolan is currently serving on the board of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Association (EFPIA) and the Association of the European Self-Medication Industry (AESGP), and is a council member of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland (PSI) and the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA).

In addition to her board commitments in the healthcare sector, Ms. Nolan also currently serves on the board of the Irish Aviation Authority, Smurfit Business School and KPL Limited.

Ms. Nolan is a lecturer in the School of Pharmacy at Trinity College Dublin. A qualified pharmacist and member of the PSI since 1983, she holds a Masters Degree in Business Administration from University College Dublin.

Commenting on the new appointment Dr Daniel O'Hare, Chairman, FSAI welcomed Ms Nolan to the Board, stating that she will make a valuable contribution to the workings of the FSAI.

"We are delighted that Ms Nolan has accepted the invitation to join the Board. She brings with her in-depth knowledge of the healthcare sector that will be hugely beneficial to the FSAI. Ms. Nolan's broad experience will compliment the combined skill set of our Board and we look forward to drawing upon her expertise in the future."

Euro regulators are party to GM rice cover-up

Press Notice from GM Free Cymru, 18 September 2006.

It has now been revealed that the European Food Safety Authority, the body responsible for food safety issues across the EU, is involved in the GM rice cover-up which was revealed in the media over the weekend (1).

Thus far, most of the criticism from NGOs, consumer groups and the UK media has been aimed at the Food Standards Agency, which is supposed to implement European food safety laws in the UK. It is claimed that it has shown criminal negligence in failing to protect the public from the contaminated rice, and FoE has signalled that it is taking legal action against it for failing to act in accordance with its own governing documents (2).

Now it is evident that the cover-up extends much further, into the heart of the EC. On Friday 15th September, the day on which EFSA issued its "qualified statement" indicating that GM-contaminated rice might be safe to eat (3), the Authority also wrote to GM Free Cymru confirming that it would not release 30 pages of information about LLRICE601 (the offending rice variety) contained in the dossier submitted by the seed owner, Bayer CropScience.

GM Free Cymru has reacted with fury, and has immediately entered a protest (4) on the grounds that EFSA has made a "safety judgement" on the basis of secret information which should be in the public domain. Spokesman Dr Brian John says: "This is yet another outrage. Scientists want to see this information about the DNA of this illegal and unsafe GM rice variety -- but they are prevented from doing so because of EFSA's obsession with secrecy. The variety known as LL601 is an old and failed GM variety which Bayer CropScience has no intention of commercializing or marketing. It may well be unstable and non-uniform. The company stopped working on it five years ago. So there can be no possible justification for a "Commercial Business Information" classification in this case.

"If EFSA will not show us the scientific basis for the advice it issued last week, we will simply not accept it. We will assume that there is something very dodgy about LL601 rice, as already indicated by the fact that 2,000 tonnes of it were dumped into a landfill in Texas in 2001 (5). The EC is supposed to have zero tolerance of illegal GM contamination (6), but now appears that EFSA is seeking to undermine the words of one of its own Commissioners. We will not accept EFSA's involvement in this cover-up, which serves only to protect a powerful GM corporation and to place at risk the health of European consumers."

It appears that EFSA has learnt nothing from last year's ruling by a German court, in the case of the GM maize line known as MON863, which effectively said that there is no justification for a CBI classification on research and DNA information where there is public health concern. In that case, after many months of delay, EFSA was shown to have acted against the public interest, and Monsanto was forced to open up its research dossier for public scrutiny.

ENDS

Contact:

Brian John GM Free Cymru Tel 01239820470

Notes

(1) Media coverage over the past two days:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1604094.ece

http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article1604111.ece

www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,,1874894,00.html

http://www.sundayherald.com/58013

www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=1773724

www.kamcity.com/namnews/asp/newsarticle.asp?newsid=29076

(2) http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/food_standard_agency_faces_18092006.html


(3) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press_room/press_release/ llrice601.html

(4) GM Free Protest against the EFSA decision to withhold LL601 data from the public:

Open letter

EFSA Public Access
European Food Safety Authority
Parma, Italy

16th September 2006

Dear EFSA,

Protest re EFSA's refusal of full disclosure of information on LLRICE601

Thank you for sending some documentation relating to LLRICE601 on 15th September 2006 -- I note that it came on the same day that your GMO Panel put its press statement about the "safety" of this variety onto the EFSA web site. We have of course seen all of this material before (except Robert Madelin's letter), since it is available publicly from the APHIS web site and elsewhere in the USA.

We note that you are withholding all of the 30 or so pages and diagrams classified by APHIS as CBI, presumably because you have been asked by Bayer to do so. You inform us that this material will be treated as secret for at least another 15 days. We hereby object to this decision on the grounds that it is against the public interest, and ask you to release this material IMMEDIATELY.

We remind you that there is virtually nothing in the Bayer / USDA documents which can properly be referred to as a scientific case relating to the safety of LL601 for human or animal consumption. There are no safety tests or feeding trials. The documentation relates almost entirely to environmental impacts and agronomic performance, which is why it was submitted by Bayer to USDA and not to FDA. While we congratulate EFSA for declaring that the GMO Panel has inadequate data for "a full risk assessment in accordance with EFSA's GM guidance", we still find it extraordinary that the Panel felt able to make a positive "provisional assessment" about the safety of LL601 on the basis of so little evidence.

The similarity between LL601 and LL62 is cited as a reason for this confident assertion, but we remind you that LL62 is being assessed by EFSA for animal feed use only, and not for human consumption. Work on that variety is far from complete, and it is extraordinary and slapdash to use that variety as the basis for a judgement on a failed and discontinued variety like LL601. It is disingenuous of you to pretend that because you have looked at PAT proteins in other varieties, and decided that they are relatively safe, therefore the synthetic PAT protein and molecular characteristics peculiar to LL601 are no cause for concern. There is something seriously wrong with LL601, which is presumably why 2,000 tonnes of it were dumped into a hole in the ground in Texas in 2001. And it does appear, from the data which colleagues have been able to examine, that it is a low- yielding variety and is subject to shattering on a much greater scale than the other LL lines tested. Does that tell us why contamination has occurred on such a vast scale in the USA? Does that tell us that there is some genetic instability or defect in LL601 which is currently being kept under wraps?

It is in the public interest that the answers to these questions must be discovered as soon as possible. If the GMO Panel will not do that, other scientists should be given the opportunity. After all, this illegal contaminant is out there at this moment, on supermarket shelves and in people's diets. And EFSA appears, not for the first time, to be set on protecting a GM corporation (in this case, Bayer CropScience) rather than protecting the consumer.

It now appears that we are seeing a precise repeat of what happened with MON863. In that case, you hid important research information just because Monsanto asked you to, until you were forced by a German court ruling to accept that the public interest and the "right to know" override the commercial interests of a seed owner. You have a precedent there, and a court ruling that should give you guidance in this case, but you are apparently dismissing it as irrelevant.

Even more to the point here, we are dealing with a seed owner which has broken the law, which has allowed an illegal variety of rice to contaminate food supplies both in the US and in Europe, and which has a history of "contamination incidents" behind it. Bayer CropScience has clearly learnt nothing from the Starlink fiasco. So why do you now protect the company and effectively promote its interests?

We therefore ask you to remove all CBI classification from the documents in your possession IMMEDIATELY, and to send us the full version of Bayer's LL601 Revised Extension Petition.

Because this is a matter of the greatest possible public interest, we are treating this as an Open Letter, which we will place on our web site and circulate within the scientific community.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Brian John
GM Free Cymru
16th September 2006

-------------------------------

(5) Bayer buried over 2,000 tonnes of failed GM rice in 2001
Date: 3 September 2006 11:52:57 BDT
gm-action@foe.co.uk

(6) Markos Kyprianou, Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, said "We have strict legislation in place in the EU to ensure that any GM product put on the European market has undergone a thorough authorisation procedure based on scientific assessment. There is no flexibility for unauthorised GMOs - these cannot enter the EU food and feed chain under any circumstances." EC statement issued on http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/
06/1120&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
(Copy and paste both lines into browser)

Consumer group urges USDA not to approve GMO rice

Reuters, 18 September 2006. By Christopher Doering.

Washington (Reuters) - A controversial genetically modified rice strain found in commercial supplies last month should not be approved by the U.S. Agriculture Department, which a consumer group said on Thursday has failed to adequately protect farmers and consumers.

The Center for Food Safety filed a petition with USDA asking it to instead regulate the rice as a "plant pest" under the Plant Protection Act. The center said the rice, known as LLRICE 601, could further contaminate commercial rice, damage trade, create herbicide resistant weeds and increase chemical residue on rice.

"USDA's stamp of approval to genetically engineered rice after it has illegally contaminated the food supply would set a dangerous precedent, rewarding the biotech industry's negligence and thereby making similar contamination episodes more likely in the future," said Miyoko Sakashita, an attorney at Center for Food Safety and lead author of the petition.

The Food and Drug Administration and USDA notified the public on August 18 that testing by Bayer CropScience, a division of Bayer AG, found the genetically modified rice in bins in Arkansas and Missouri.

USDA has said there are no environmental or health concerns with the genetically modified rice and it does not plan to recall or destroy the contaminated commercial product.

In order for a product to be sold commercially, the genetically modified crop must be tested extensively by the manufacturer before the application is reviewed by USDA. The department is collecting public comments on LLRICE 601 until October 10.

"The purpose of this process is to invite public comment and we welcome any science-based information that might be relevant to the final assessment of the product," said Kristin Scuderi, USDA's deputy press secretary. "We will carefully review all comments submitted during this process before making a final determination."

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. There are two other Bayer CropScience genetically modified rice lines with Liberty Link that have been confirmed safe for use in food and the environment, but they have not been commercialized.

After the discovery in August, Japan banned imports of U.S. long grain rice. The European Union, which confirmed the unauthorized strain earlier this week, requires certification that long grain rice from the United States is free of the unapproved crop.

EU ministers deadlocked over GMO rapeseed imports

Reuters, 18 September 2006.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - EU farm ministers fell short of a consensus agreement on Monday to allow imports of various genetically modified (GMO) rapeseed types, again revealing their deep differences on biotech crops and foods, officials said.

The import application, submitted by German drugs and chemicals group Bayer, will now be sent to the European Commission -- the EU's executive arm -- for a default approval that will be for a 10-year period.

"There was no qualified majority either for or against. It now goes back to the Commission," one EU official told Reuters.

Bayer's application relates to industrial processing, which includes use in animal feed, for rapeseed types Ms8, Rf3 and hybrids of these two -- all engineered to resist the glufosinate-ammonium herbicide. It does not involve cultivation.

For many years, EU states have not been able to secure the weighted majority needed to vote through a new GMO approval.

EU votes on GM canola seed approval
A certain type of Canadian canola seed could be approved today for import into the European Union by spring 2007.

FoodNavigator.com, 18 September 2006. By Anthony Fletcher.

The European Union's Agricultural Council is voting today whether or not to approve the Bayer CropScience InVigor event, a genetically modified seed that represents 39 per cent of Canada's canola crop.

Canola is a genetic variation of B. napus with low levels of the natural rapeseed toxins glucosinolate and erucic acid, developed through conventional plant breeding. Canola is grown for its seed, which represents a major source of edible vegetable oil and is also used in livestock feeds.

Reuters reports that the ruling could have a major significance. Canada is already the largest exporter of canola, into Europe for industrial use, but it is not permitted to export the seed until all genetically modified canola events are approved.

The issue of GM approval within the EU is one of the most contentious in agriculture. The recent announcement that US authorities had traced amounts of unapproved genetically modified (GM) food in samples of rice prompted the EU to clamp down on all imports from the US.

The immediacy of this action illustrated the stringent controls the EU has in place to guard against unauthorised products entering the food chain, and also reflected consumer fears over the technology.

But the possibility of certain GM foods gaining market acceptance is slowly improving, as evidenced by today's vote. Bayer expects that the vote will result in neither a qualified majority for nor against the issue, but that the debate will pass onto the European Commission where the decision will be made on the recommendation of EFSA.

Other GM products are also edging closer to achieving market acceptance. Biotech giant Monsanto's GMO Roundup Ready canola for example is now in the post-approval process.

Many Member States, and millions of European consumers, remain steadfastly against the introduction of GM food. But despite the stringent controls in place, it is becoming harder for Europe's regulatory authorities to deny market access to certain GM products.

The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back was the WTO decision earlier this year that the EU and six member states had broken trade rules by barring entry to GM crops and foods.

The world trade organisation agreed with the United States, Argentina and Canada that an effective moratorium on GMO imports between June 1999 and August 2003 had been put in place. And although Brussels again began authorising imports of GMOs in May 2004, only seven crops and foods were the green light. Further bans were imposed by France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Luxembourg and Greece.

The pro-GM nations argued these prohibitions were not scientifically justified and thus contrary to WTO rules. The US food industry has persistently said that the EU ban has cost them some $300 million a year in lost sales.

It is clear that Member States still need to be convinced that introducing genetically modified ingredients into food production is acceptable. The Commission has asked EU members over ten times to vote on authorising a GMO food or feed product, but in the large majority of cases, there was no agreement or simple deadlock.

Luxembourg, Greece and Austria consistently vote against GMO approvals.

EU member states reject two European Commission GMO proposals

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 18th September 2006

Brussels, September 18th 2006 - Friends of the Earth Europe has called on the European Commission to respect EU member states' wishes and refuse authorisation of a genetically modified (GM) oilseed rape. At an Agriculture Council meeting today, only a small minority of EU Farm Ministers voted in favour of importing the GM oilseed rape into the EU.[1]

Helen Holder, GM Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, said, "Most member states are not happy for this genetically modified oilseed rape to be allowed into the EU. The European Commission must listen to these national concerns and refuse to authorise the crop."

Under EU decision-making rules, the European Commission makes the final decision whether the GM crop will be authorised. Friends of the Earth Europe has expressed concern because in previous cases, the pro-biotech Commission has systematically authorised genetically modified organisms (GMOs) regardless of the general voting pattern by national Ministers.[2]

The oilseed rape in question is genetically modified to be tolerant to herbicides. It is produced by the multinational Bayer ‚ the company at the centre of the recent GM rice contamination scandal.[3]

Genetically modified oilseed rape has been surrounded by controversy in the past. In Japan, there have been several cases of imported GM oilseed rape growing wild around port areas. It is suspected that seeds were spilled during unloading and transportation and then sprouted.[4] In another incident, conventional oilseed rape in Australia was found to be contaminated with a GM variant.[5]

"There is a risk that oilseed rape will sprout up wherever seeds are spilled during transit. Even if we only imported the herbicide-resistant GM oilseed rape, it could end up growing on EU soil and then crossing with related native species. We would then be faced with weeds that have a resistance to herbicides." Ms Holder added.

Oilseed rape is a member of the cabbage family, which includes hundreds of different species commonly found in Europe. EU funded research has found that oilseed rape can potentially cross with a variety of wild relatives.[6] UK government research reported in 2005 on oilseed rape "superweed" ‚ the result of GM oilseed rape cross breeding with a common weed, called charlock.[7]

In a separate GMO meeting today, representatives from member states did not support a Commission proposal to force Hungary to lift its ban on Monsanto's MON810 maize. [8] Although the maize is approved by the EU, Hungary prohibited the use, sale, production and import of Monsanto's MON810 maize seeds in January 2005, due to safety concerns.[9] The Commission will now put the vote to EU member states at an upcoming Council meeting.

Helen Holder, GM Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe: "It is outrageous that the European Commission should bully Hungary into dropping its ban of a genetically modified maize. This maize is designed to produce a toxin, which may well have detrimental effects on the environment. Hungary is well within its rights to act with caution and ban it at this stage."

For more information, please contact:

Helen Holder, GM Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: +32 25 42 01 82, Mobile: +32 474 857638, Email: helen.holder@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 application concerns oilseed rape lines Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3. Two out of three of these lines are fertile; therefore contamination by pollen is possible.

The application concerns import of oilseed rape products including kernels (seeds), for use in animal feed. The same oilseed rape is already authorized for oil (1829/2003). The oil then can be used for human consumption or animal feed material.

Results of the vote in the Agriculture Council meeting, Sept 18th:

For import of GM OSR: Portugal, Germany, Finland, UK, Netherlands, Belgium

Against import of GM OSR: France, Slovenia, Austria, Estonia, Malta, Latvia, Italy, Greece, Lithuania, Cyprus, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Luxembourg

Abstention: Spain, Sweden, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ireland

[2] For example, in August 2005, the European Commission approved the import of a controversial genetically modified (GM) maize, MON863, for use as animal feed, even though the majority of member states had either abstained or voted against import.

[3] http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/AB_21_Aug_US_rice.html
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/AB_22_Aug_US_rice.html
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/AB_23_Aug_US_rice.html
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/CO_01_Sept_Bayer_fund_testing.htm
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/HH_17_Sept_Morrisons_rice.html

[4] Attention: long link may be broken - please copy and paste both lines into browser
http://www.saveourseeds.org/downloads/oilseed_rape_in_japanese_ports_2005.pdf
#search=%22oilseed%20rape%20spread%20ports%22

[5] www.gmcontaminationregister.org/index.php?
content=re_detail&gw_id=92®=0&inc=1&con=1&cof=2&year=0&handle2_page
(Copy and paste both lines into browser)

[6] http://www.saskorganic.com/oapf/index.html

[7] http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/publications/Biotech_November05.pdf

[8] The result of the vote was a simple majority against the Commission's proposal to lift the ban, but there was no qualified majority.

[9] http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/HUban_Press_briefing_final130906.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
http://www.foeeurope.org

Tesco also finds GM contamination in American rice

GM Free Cymru Press Notice, 18 September 2006.

It has been confirmed today that one of Tesco's suppliers has found LL601 contamination in American long-grain rice. The contamination is present in two pack sizes of Tesco dried American Long Grain Rice (500g and 1kg). These products have been withdrawn from sale, and according to Tesco Chief executive Terry Leahy they will be replaced in due course by "new certified product."

From last week, Tesco has required all American Long Grain Rice packed for it to be tested and verified as GM free.

This follows confirmation at the weekend that two samples of rice from Morrisons superstores collected by FoE had tested positive for GM contamination (1). It is believed that these products have been removed from shelves -- presumably because Morrisons knows that ANY contamination by GM -- whether or not the offending variety is LL601 -- renders the product illegal.

Last week, the European Union reported that traces of LL601 had been found in 33 out of 162 samples tested by the European rice industry. Contaminated rice has been thus far been detected in Germany, France, Sweden, Switzerland and The Netherlands. In some cases, products have been taken from shelves.

It is interesting that the supermarkets appear to be taking the contamination incident very seriously -- in spite of the advice given them "off the record" by FSA to the effect that contaminated rice on shelves doesn't matter and does not need to be tested or withdrawn. This is covered in Geoff Lean's article in the Independent on Sunday and other info (2).

FoE is now taking legal action against FSA for its woeful and inadequate actions and failure to protect the public. GM Free Cymru has today asked the Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, to take disciplinary action against the FSA Board on the grounds that it has been criminally negligent and has encouraged food retailers to break the law.

Contact:

Brian John
+ 44 1239 820470

South Australian Govt defends planned GM crop ban extension

ABC, September 18 2006

The South Australian Government has defended its plan to extend a moratorium on growing genetically modified (GM) crops, saying it has benefits in the global market.

A ban is in place until 2007, but the Government wants to extend it by a year to bring the state in line with the rest of the country.

The former head of the South Australian Farmer's Federation, John Lush, has called for the ban to be overturned.

He says drought-resistant GM crops could save farmers millions of dollars.

"We have the technology that we could increase the potential of that crop by about three-fold on a year like this and it would be a viable crop and we're not using that technology," he said.

Agriculture Minister Rory McEwen says being GM-free opens up markets.

"We must not put markets at risk and that is very important, that Australia continue to build a clean green image," he said.

"It might be the differentiation we need in a global market place, that gives us the extra returns.

"There actually might be significant market benefits by being the odd one out."

Centre for Plant Functional Genomics plant geneticist Mark Tester says the ban makes no sense.

"The Canadian farmers don't have any [problems] selling their GM crops," he said.

"The US farmers have no problems exporting their GM crops and I think the Australian farmer is seeing that.

"If there are markets out there to purchase GM crops ... we will be able to sell GM crops. There's a clear benefit."

17 September 2006

GMO rice found in Britain-Friends of the Earth

Reuters, 17 September 2006.

LONDON (Reuters) - Chain Morrison Supermarkets said on Sunday it had withdrawn two rice products after an environmental group said they contained unauthorised genetically modified (GMO) rice.

Environmental group Friends of the Earth said in a statement the GMO strain had been found in two samples of rice from Morrisons stores. At present it is forbidden to grow, sell or market any biotech rice in the European Union's 25 countries.

"The discovery of GMO-contaminated rice on supermarket shelves is extremely worrying," Helen Holder, from Friends of the Earth Europe, said in Brussels.

"GM rice is illegal, it has not even been properly investigated and there is no guarantee that it is safe for human consumption," she said.

Morrisons said it had taken the products off its shelves.

"Based of the information received about tests carried out by Friends of the Earth we have withdrawn the two products implicated," a spokeswoman said.

Friends of the Earth named the affected products as Morrisons American Long Grain Rice 500g, with a best before date of May 2008, and Morrisons American Long Grain Brown Rice 1kg, with a best before date of July 2008.

The European Commission confirmed on Monday the presence of unauthorised LL601 rice strain in 33 samples carried out by the industry although it did not specify that any had been found in Morrisons' products.

A spokeswoman for Friends of the Earth said it was not clear yet if the GMO rice found in Britain was of that type.

Friends of the Earth said it sent a number of samples to be tested after the European Commission decided in August to tighten requirements on U.S. long-grain rice.

France and Sweden have also detected the presence of GMO rice, a European Union diplomat said on Tuesday. Three bargeloads of U.S. rice have tested positive in Rotterdam.

(Additional reporting by Ingrid Melander in Brussels)

GM: The cover-up
Revealed: Government food watchdog gave green light to supermarkets to sell 'illegal' genetically modified rice

The Independent on Sunday, 17 September 2006. By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor.

Britain's official food safety watchdog has privately told supermarkets that it will not stop them selling an illegal GM rice to the public.

Documents seen by this newspaper show that the Food Standards Agency assured major manufacturers and retailers 10 days ago that it would not make them withdraw the rice - at the same time as it was telling the public it should not be allowed to go on sale.

The environmental group Friends of the Earth has already found GM material in two types of own-brand rice sold in Morrisons supermarkets - in direct contravention of food safety regulations - and believes the GM rice is likely to be widespread throughout Britain.

But the agency has not carried out its own tests for modified rice in products on the market, and has not instructed retailers to do so. It says that the rice is safe, but some scientists disagree.

Last night, Peter Ainsworth, the shadow Environment Secretary, described the agency's conduct as "a massive scandal" and said it "smelt of a cover-up". He said he would be asking for an official investigation into whether the agency had broken the law.

Legally, no GM material is allowed to go on sale in Britain or any other EU country. But last month the Bush administration admitted it had found a modified material, which had not even received safety clearance in the US, in long-grain rice intended for export.

The unauthorised rice, which is listed as LLRICE601, was developed by Bayer CropScience to tolerate weedkiller, and tested on US farms between 1998 and 2001. The company decided not to market it. Nevertheless it has turned up widely in US rice, possibly because pollen from the tested rice spread to conventional crops. The European Commission says that it has been found in 33 of 162 samples of rice imported from the US.

The EC last month banned any further imports unless they could be proved to be clear of the GM rice, and instructed governments to test products already on the market to make sure that they did not contain it.

The European health and consumer protection commissioner, Markos Kyprianou, said it should not be allowed to enter the food chain "in any circumstances".

Two big Swiss supermarket chains have already banned all US long-grain rice from sale.

The Food Standards Agency publicly announced that "the presence of this GM material in rice on sale in the UK is illegal under European food law", adding: "Food retailers are responsible for ensuring the food they sell does not contain unauthorised GM material."

But on 5 September, a senior agency official, Claire Baynton, privately met major retailers and food manufacturers. According to records of the meeting seen by The Independent on Sunday, she said the agency did not expect companies to trace products and withdraw them.

The agency says it told the companies at the meeting that it was their responsibility to ensure that the food they sold did not contain GM material, but that it would not "require" them to test for it or withdraw products if found.

It says that it has "not carried out tests of products on the market" and "has not issued any instructions to retailers" to do so. The agency says that modified rice does not present a safety concern and is advising people who may have US rice at home to continue to eat it. But some scientists say it could give cause for "concern over its potential allergenicity".

Friends of the Earth has found GM material in two samples of Morrisons American long-grain rice and American long-grain brown rice, although it was not able to verify that it was LLRICE601. Morrisons accepts that selling any GM rice is illegal. It cleared its shelves of the products "as a precautionary measure" immediately after being informed of the findings.

Clare Oxborrow, GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said: "The discovery of illegal GM ingredients is very worrying. The Food Standards Agency has failed to take action to identify and withdraw contaminated food, so it is likely that more illegal rice will reach the plates of unsuspecting customers.

"Instead of down-playing this contamination incident, and delaying action, the agency should be taking urgent steps to prevent illegal GM rice from being sold in our shops."

Leading article: Time to guard the shelves

The Independent on Sunday, 17 September 2006

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The question of who will guard the guards is raised again by our revelation today that the Food Standards Agency has privately told food manufacturers and retailers that it will not stop them selling an illegal GM rice. The Agency has already, in its short life, done much to undermine public confidence in its competence and impartiality, taking a seemingly uncritical approach to GM food despite evidence of cause for concern. It has lost no opportunity to attack organic produce. Even a review of its own performance last year found the "vast majority" of its stakeholders considered it biased.

There were signs that the agency might have begun to change its ways, but today's news shows that it is, in fact, worse than ever. The safety, or otherwise, of the GM rice is irrelevant. The point is that it is illegal to sell it in Britain. Yet the Agency is making no real effort to find out whether it is on the shelves, or to make sure that retailers do likewise. It has also indicated that it will not force companies to withdraw the rice if it is found. That is a scandal. It is high time the Agency assumed its proper role at last - putting the interests of consumers above those of the industry.

Friends of the Earth finds illegal US GM rice in UK supermarket
EU Member States not doing enough to detect GM contamination

Friends of the Earth press release, 17 September 2006.

Brussels, 17 September 2006 ‚ Illegal US genetically modified (GM) rice has been found on the shelves of a big UK supermarket, Friends of the Earth Europe revealed today. The environmental campaign group is calling for a full product recall and is mounting a legal challenge over the UK Food Standards Agency's woeful response to the contamination incident.

Helen Holder, GMO Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said, "The discovery of GMO-contaminated rice on supermarket shelves is extremely worrying. GM rice is illegal, it has not even been properly investigated and there is no guarantee that it is safe for human consumption. Any supermarket that discovers that its rice is contaminated must take immediate action and remove the products from its shelves."

Genetically modified material has been found in two samples of rice from the store Morrisons ‚ the fourth largest supermarket chain in the UK, with nine million customers a week.[1]

Friends of the Earth sent a number of samples to be tested following August's food scandal, in which rice stocks in the US were found to be contaminated with an illegal GM strain. This GM variant is an experimental Bayer CropScience rice called LL601 that was grown at outdoor test sites in the US between 1999 and 2001. The rice has not been authorised for human consumption anywhere in the world. Indeed, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) admits that there is insufficient data on LL601 to be able to guarantee its safety.[3]

In response to the crisis last month, the European Commission introduced emergency measures to prevent imports of contaminated rice from the US from entering the EU, stressing that unauthorised GMOs must not enter the EU food and feed chain under any circumstances.[4] However, Friends of the Earth Europe has criticised the weak enforcement of these measures at a member state level.

The European Commission advised member states to carry out controls on products already on the market, but little testing of rice already in shops has actually taken place. In the UK, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has even advised the food industry that this is not a health and safety issue and has indicated that it does not expect the food industry to test for contaminated rice, or to remove any contaminated rice from its shelves. [5] The response of the FSA to the crisis is so inadequate that Friends of the Earth in the UK is mounting a legal challenge against it. Friends of the Earth has written a formal legal letter to the FSA, which is the first step of legal action.[6]

"National food safety authorities and food companies should be rigorously testing samples at each stage of the supply chain, in order to detect all incidences of contamination with genetically modified rice. It should not be left to civil society groups like Friends of the Earth to raise the alert." Ms Holder added.

Friends of the Earth Europe would like detailed information about the exact testing that is being conducted in each member state and insists that this information should made publicly available. The environmental group also suggests that any positive contamination results should be publicised immediately.

"This latest contamination incident highlights that the biotechnology industry is unable to keep its crops under control. The EU must respect the Polluter Pays principle and make industry cover the costs of testing and product recalls. It is not up to consumers and taxpayers to foot the bill for illegal contamination." Ms Holder concluded.

For more information, please contact:

Helen Holder, GMO Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: 32 474 857 638, Email: Helen.holder@foeeurope.org

Rosemary Hall, Communications Officer at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: 32 485 930515, Email: rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org

Notes:

[1] http://www.nfuonline.com/x9464.xml, http://www.morrisons.co.uk/40.asp

[2] Testing was carried out by an independent laboratory. It reveals that two Morrisons samples are contaminated with GM traits. There is no GM rice approved in the EU, so any presence of GM rice is illegal. The test does not confirm that the GM contamination is LL601.

The affected products are: Morrisons American Long Grain Rice 500g, Best before May 2008
Morrisons American Long Grain Brown Rice 1kg, Best before: Jul 2008

[2] Letter available from Friends of the Earth

[3] http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press_room/press_release/llrice601.html

[4] Attention! Long link may be broken - copy and paste both lines into browser: http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/
06/1120&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

[5] Statement from Tilda rice - available from Friends of the Earth Europe

[6] Letter available from Friends of the Earth Europe

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

Sale of illegal GM rice in Scotland sanctioned by food safety watchdog

The Sunday Herald, 17 September 2006. By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor.

Rice that has been illegally contaminated with genetically modified (GM) organisms from the United States is being sold in Scotland because the government's food safety watchdog has failed to recommend the product's withdrawal.

A number of supermarkets are following the advice of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and leaving suspect GM rice on their shelves. Others, however, have said they are withdrawing the rice due to consumer concerns.

The FSA's stance has been strongly criticised by a former GM adviser to the US government's Food and Drug Administration, Doug Gurian-Sherman. "We should be taking a more cautious approach," he told the Sunday Herald.

"Risks should not be taken with public health for the convenience of companies or of government. It sets a very bad precedent to make safety assessments based on data that is incomplete."

According to Gurian-Sherman, now with the Centre for Food Safety in Washington DC, there simply was not enough evidence to judge whether the contaminated rice was safe or not. "I wouldn't eat it myself," he said.

The Bush administration told European governments last month that US long grain rice had been contaminated by a GM strain known as LL601. The cause is still under investigation, but the gene is thought to have leaked from field trials of GM rice in the southern states more than five years ago.

Last week, the European Union reported that traces of LL601 had been found in 33 out of 162 samples tested by the European rice industry. Contaminated rice has been detected in Germany, France, Sweden, Switzerland and The Netherlands.

In the UK, however, the FSA is not expecting test results for two weeks. But the agency accepted that rice on sale in the UK is likely to be contaminated with LL601, as did the rice industry.

"US long grain rice containing low levels of GM could already have been imported into the UK, including Scotland," said an FSA spokeswoman. "The presence of the GM rice is illegal at any level."

But the FSA insisted that the rice was safe to eat. "Given the very low levels of GM rice, we suggested to the industry that we didn't expect them to withdraw products on food safety grounds," she added.

The FSA is, however, working with the rice industry to prevent any more contaminated rice from entering the country. "The material will undoubtedly be in the food chain, though at very low levels," said Alex Waugh of the Rice Association, which represents UK rice millers.

The UK's biggest supermarket chain, Tesco, said on Friday that it had withdrawn Tesco American long grain rice in 500g and one-kilo bags as a precaution "pending further investigations".

Though Sainsbury's had stopped buying American long grain rice, it was still contained in products on sale. "If any of our customers are uncomfortable eating the rice, they can take it back to their nearest Sainsbury's store where a full refund will be offered," said a spokeswoman for the company.

Waitrose said only that it was "following FSA advice on this issue". The Co-op said its suppliers had confirmed that none of the supermarket's long grain rice products were "implicated". The FSA's stance has been condemned by environmental groups, who are calling for suspect stocks of US rice to be withdrawn.

"It is outrageous, and quite probably illegal, that the FSA is doing nothing to protect consumers from this unauthorised GM rice," said Anthony Jackson of anti-GM campaign group, the Munlochy GM Vigil.

"The FSA has known about this for nearly a month, the US authorities since January, and imports may have been arriving for the last few years. The cover-up attempt must stop now."

The Green MSP Mark Ruskell said: "I cannot understand how it can be deemed acceptable to just leave contaminated illegal products on the shelves."

He voiced concerns that the Scottish Executive was about to introduce a "coexistence" regime allowing GM crops to be grown alongside conventional and organic crops. This would "let the GM genie out of the bottle," Ruskell warned.

More farmers sue over release of altered rice

Southeast Missourian, Sunday, September 17, 2006. By Rudi Keller.

The unapproved rice somehow escaped test plots and made it into the food supply. More than 200 Missouri and Arkansas rice farmers have joined forces to sue Bayer Cropscience over the release of a genetically altered rice variety into the food supply.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in St. Louis, brings together 229 farmers who will harvest more than 125,000 acres of rice this year. The lawsuit charges that the North Carolina-based agricultural company failed to control field tests of a variety designed to resist a Bayer-produced herbicide.

The lawsuit will seek to discover how the rice variety, which has not been approved for crop production, escaped test plots, said Don Downing, a St. Louis attorney with Gray, Ritter and Graham.

"This is a catastrophe for Missouri rice farmers," Downing said. "To the extent that Missouri and Arkansas rice farmers lost money, we intend to hold Bayer accountable."

Bayer has maintained that the rice poses no threat to health, is similar to varieties that have been approved for crop use and promised to cooperate with investigations by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The lawsuit is the second filed in Missouri and the sixth filed nationwide against Bayer. After the modified rice was discovered in shipments to overseas purchasers from Riceland, a farmer cooperative, Japan suspended imports of U.S. long-grain rice and the European Union started requiring expensive testing of every shipment.

Bayer has declined to comment on any of the lawsuits.

Prices farmers can expect for their rice dropped more than $1 per 100 pounds after discovery of the modified rice in late August.

The lawsuit seeks to recover both the lost income from rice sales due to lower prices and any expenses farmers incur to test their rice to certify it as free from any of the modified strain of rice, Downing said.

Missouri is one of the smaller rice producing states. U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates indicate Missouri farmers expect to harvest about 1.5 billion pounds of rice this year.

The harvest is underway now in southern areas of the rice-growing region, which extends along the Mississippi River to Louisiana and into Texas.

The lawsuit mirrors one filed last week by Cape Girardeau attorney Michael Ponder on behalf of three area farmers. Downing said his lawsuit seeks compensation under 11 different Missouri laws.

The lawsuit also seeks to discover how extensive the release of modified rice has become.

"We don't know which farmers have contaminated crops and which ones don't," Downing said. "It will require segregation of the crops and that will cost a lot of money."

16 September 2006

Rice farming: Grains of doubt

The Economist, 16 September 2006.

GENETICALLY altered crops slipping into the food chain; foreign countries placing restrictions on imports; farmers in rural America panicking. It has happened before, with corn. Now America's rice-farmers are facing a similar drama.

In late July, American agriculture officials and food safety authorities learned that unapproved rice had been found in commercial bins in Arkansas and Missouri. The rice--known as LLRICE601--had been genetically modified to resist certain herbicides by Bayer CropScience, which is based in Germany.

As a result, the European Union is demanding proof that long-grain imports are not contaminated with LLRICE601, which was tested between 1998 and 2001 in the United States but never marketed. The EU now wants rice tested by an accredited laboratory using "a validated testing method" and accompanied by a certificate. Japan has banned all imports of American long-grain rice.

This is bad news for Arkansas, where rice paddies cover around 1.5m acres. It is the state's main farm export, adding about $1.55 billion yearly to the economy and generating an estimated 20,000 jobs: quite a few of them at Riceland Rice, the world's largest miller and marketer of the stuff.

Riceland became aware of the genetically altered rice in January, when a customer alerted the 9,000 farmer-member co-operative about possible contamination. Riceland sent a sample for testing to a laboratory; it tested positive for the herbicide-resistant trait. Further tests confirmed it, and in June Riceland contacted Bayer.

Little Mermaid's modified sister

The Times (London), 16 September 2006.

Prince Henrik of Denmark has unveiled a sculpture of a little mermaid that its creator described as a genetically modified sister to Copenhagen's most famous landmark.

The new bronze, by Bjoern Noergaard, stands about 400 metres from the original Little Mermaid statue, and is part of a sculpture group dubbed "The Paradise Genetically Altered". The new mermaid has twisted features and extremely long and skeletal limbs. (AP)

15 September 2006

EU to Vote on GMO Rapeseed, Hungarian Biotech Ban

Reuters, 15 September 2006. By Jeremy Smith.

BRUSSELS - EU governments face two key decisions next week on genetically modified (GMO) foods, against a backdrop of rising concern that unauthorised biotech varieties have found their way into Europe, officials said on Thursday.

The most controversial debate comes on Monday in a committee of EU-25 biotech experts where the main agenda item is a draft order from the European Commission for Hungary to lift its ban on a GMO maize made by US biotech giant Monsanto. Hungary, one of the EU's biggest grain producers, became the first country in eastern Europe to ban GMO crops or foods when it outlawed the planting of MON 810 maize seeds in January 2005.

The precedent for national GMO bans was first set in 1997.

Between that year and 2000, five EU countries banned specific GMOs on their territory, focusing on three maize and two rapeseed types that were approved shortly before the start of the EU's six-year moratorium on new biotech authorisations.

Then, in June 2005, the European Commission tried to get all the bans scrapped but had a stinging rebuff from EU environment ministers, who rejected proposals for the five -- Austria, France, Germany, Greece and Luxembourg -- to lift their bans.

Since then, little has changed in the division of EU-25 opinion so the chances of Hungary being ordered to lift its GMO ban are fairly slim, diplomats say.

This would delight green groups, which have long campaigned for EU governments to be able to ban a specific GMO food or crop on national territory if they have doubts about its safety.

Such bans are permitted under EU law provided that they can be scientifically justified. If the Commission disagrees with the justification, however, it can try to get the ban lifted.

"It is outrageous that the European Commission should bully Hungary into dropping its ban of a genetically modified maize," said Helen Holder, campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe.

"This maize is designed to produce a toxin which may well have detrimental effects on the environment," she said.

New GMO approval on agenda

Some countries may choose to be warier than usual about GMO foods next week given the EU's recent findings of unauthorised GMO rice coming from China and the United States, diplomats say.

Last week, France and Sweden detected the presence of an experimental GMO rice originating in the United States, and the same strain -- LL Rice 601 -- was also found within a cargo of US rice being tested in the Dutch port of Rotterdam.

Environment group Greenpeace, which earlier in the month said it had found GMO rice from China in rice stick noodles and vermicelli in products sold in three EU countries, added to the storm by announcing it had also found LL Rice 601 being sold in branches of a German supermarket chain.

At present, no modified rice may be grown or sold in the EU.

The other GMO decision, to be faced by EU agriculture ministers on the same day, relates to a new GMO authorisation.

For many years, EU states have not been able to secure the weighted majority needed to vote through a new GMO approval. This application is for imports of various biotech rapeseed types made by German drugs and chemicals group Bayer.

Bayer's application relates to industrial processing, which includes use in animal feed, for rapeseed types Ms8, Rf3 and hybrids of these two -- all engineered to resist the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium herbicide. It would not be for cultivation.

"I don't think it (authorisation) will happen," one EU diplomat told reporters. "There's not a qualified majority either for or against. If the council (of EU ministers) doesn't achieve a decision, it will go back to the Commission."

If that happened, EU law empowers the Commission to issue a import authorisation for these products for a 10-year period.

EFSA: 'Insufficient data' for full GM risk assessment

Food Navigator, 15 September 2006

15/09/2006 - EFSA's GMO Panel has said there is 'insufficient data to provide a full risk assessment' on GM rice LLRICE601.

The European food safety authority was replying to the European Commission's request for an evaluation of the unauthorised GM rice LLRICE601, which was found in samples of commercial rice on the US market. This prompted the EU to clamp down on all imports from the US, with stringent import procedures put in place.

The GMO panel has now evaluated the available scientific data on LLRICE601. And according to a statement issued by the panel on Friday, there is "insufficient data" to provide a full risk assessment.

However, on the basis of the available molecular and compositional data and the toxicological profile of a newly introduced protein, the panel considered that the consumption of imported long grain rice containing trace levels of LLRICE601 would not likely pose an imminent safety concern to humans or animals.

LLRICE601 does not differ significantly from conventional rice (except for the PAT protein). However, the panel said there was a lack of data available at present to verify this assumption.

The panel statement will now be forwarded to the European Commission and Member States who are responsible for risk management measures in relation to LLRICE601.

EFSA was asked to examine the scientific data available and inform the European Commission if these data were sufficient to carry out a safety assessment according to EU legislation. EFSAs panel on genetically modified organisms (GMO) met on 13th and 14th September 2006 to consider the request of the European Commission and examine the available scientific data on the LLRICE601 issue.

EFSA's panel took into consideration all relevant scientific information, including data from Bayer Crop Science (the company which has developed LLRICE601), existing scientific data on a very similar GMO rice strain3 and risk assessments carried out by the US authorities.

EFSA is also currently carrying out a risk assessment on GM rice from Bayer Crop Science (LLRICE62), which is very similar to LLRICE601.

GMO rice strain unlikely to pose health risk

Reuters, 15 September 2006.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Europe's leading food safety agency advised consumers on Friday that eating rice with trace amounts of an unauthorised genetically modified (GMO) strain was unlikely to pose a health risk to humans or animals.

" ... the panel considers that the consumption of imported long grain rice containing trace levels of LL RICE 601 is not likely to pose an imminent safety concern to humans or animals," the European Food Safety Authority said in a statement.

But the Parma-based agency said there was insufficient data to provide a full risk assessment, adding that its conclusions were based on available molecular and compositional data and the toxicological profile of a newly introduced protein.

In August, the European Commission tightened requirements on U.S. long-grain rice imports 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.

Last week, France and Sweden detected the presence of LL RICE 601 originating in the United States and the same strain was also found within a cargo of U.S. rice being tested in the Dutch port of Rotterdam.

Tests in Germany have so far proved negative, despite claims by environment group Greenpeace International that the strain had been found in branches of a discount supermarket chain.

At present, no biotech rice is allowed to be grown, sold or marketed in the 25 countries of the European Union.

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. But that development was discontinued in 2001, the company says.

Farmers from Missouri, Arkansas sue Bayer over rice prices

KWMU, 15 September 2006. By Robert Frederick, KWMU science reporter.

ST. LOUIS, MO (2006-09-14) A group of Missouri and Arkansas rice farmers filed a lawsuit this week against Bayer CropScience. They claim the company's actions led to the price of rice dropping fifteen percent since August.

During that month, the Department of Agriculture announced that the U.S. rice supply had been contaminated with genetically modified rice. While the Food and Drug Administration wasn't concerned, prices fell as many countries imposed import restrictions.

"The Missouri and Arkansas farmers that I represent are very concerned that this fifteen percent loss in the price of rice will be permanent," said St. Louis attorney Don Downing, who is representing the farmers. "And the only way to recoup these losses are from Bayer."

Bayer Cropscience, the defendant, acquired the genetically modified strain of rice when it bought Adventis Cropscience in 2002.

Representatives of Bayer Cropscience could not be reached for comment.

Euro Scientists refuse safety clearance for GM rice

GM Free Cymru Press Statement 15th September 2006

In a statement just released by the GMO Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (1), the Euro scientists pointedly refuse to give a safety clearance for the unauthorised GM rice variety named LL601, which has contaminated Southern US rice products on a substantial scale (2).

Rice cargoes are "frozen" at European ports and rice mills while sampling and testing for the illegal rice variety proceeds. Thus far, at least 33 food samples have proved positive for the GM rice, and food has been taken off shelves in Germany and Switzerland following positive test results. In the Southern Unites States, where most long grain rice is grown, it appears that almost all the rice in storage from the 2005 harvest is contaminated. No test results are being published in the US, and the Department of Agriculture is involved in a massive "reassurance" campaign, with diplomatic pressure being exerted on all importing nations to accept rice stocks whether contaminated or not. In Europe, the EC has put a precautionary measure in place, demanding that all American rice consignments entering the EU have to be accompanied by certification proving that no GM rice is present.

The key statement in the EFSA press release is this: "According to the Statement of the Panel issued today there is insufficient data to provide a full risk assessment in accordance with EFSA's GM guidance." The statement then goes on to explain that the Panel examined the "data available" and data on a "very similar GMO rice strain" before coming to the provisional view that "the consumption of imported long grain rice containing trace levels of LLRICE601 is not likely to pose an imminent safety concern to humans or animals."

NGOs have given a cautious welcome to the EFSA Statement, and have noted that it is clearly designed to give scientific support for the EC policy of precaution and import-point testing. Dr Brian John of GM Free Cymru says; "We do not agree with the provisional finding that contaminated rice is unlikely to cause a safety concern, since that finding is based upon assumptions, extrapolations and an admitted shortage of hard data about LL601. But for the first time we see a commendable caution in what EFSA is saying. What is even more interesting is the choice of words. EFSA is clearly furious with Bayer CropScience -- the company which has committed the contamination offence -- for failing to provide adequate data for a proper assessment to take place, and it is also not amused by being bounced into a hasty statement without adequate time for deliberation.

"The significant thing here is that this is NOT an endorsement for LL601 rice. The contamination event, which has been hushed up for months in America, is still a crime, and a retrospective provisional assessment like this does not suddenly make everything all right. Rice containing LL601 was illegal yesterday, and it is still illegal today. It is still illegal to stock it or sell it, and in our view American long-grain rice should still be taken off shelves as a prudent and precautionary measure."

ENDS

Contact:

Brian John
Tel + 44 1239 820 470

(1) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/press_room/ press_release/pr_gmo_llrice601.Par.0001.File.dat/pr_gmo_rice601_en.pdf

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press_room/press_release/llrice601.html

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) - Largo N. Palli 5/a, I-43100
Parma
www.efsa.europa.eu
European Food Safety Authority
Parma, 15 September 2006
PRESS RELEASE

EFSA's GMO Panel provides reply to European Commission request on GM rice LLRICE601

(2) This variety was tested by Bayer CropScience in the United States in the period 1998 - 2001. It was one of a number of GM varieties developed for resistance to the herbicide called Liberty. It must have been defective in some way, since the one crop grown with commercialization in mind, in Texas in the year 2000, was suddenly dumped into a landfill site in 2001. The variety was then discontinued, and it has never been brought forward for commercialization or authorization either in the USA or in Europe.

EFSA's GMO Panel provides reply to European Commission request on GM rice LLRICE601

European Food Safety Authority press release, 15 September 2006.

The GMO Panel has evaluated the available scientific data on LLRICE601. According to the Statement of the Panel issued today there is insufficient data to provide a full risk assessment in accordance with EFSA's GM guidance[1]. On the basis of the available molecular and compositional data and the toxicological profile of a newly introduced protein[2], the Panel considers that the consumption of imported long grain rice containing trace levels of LLRICE601 is not likely to pose an imminent safety concern to humans or animals. The Panel Statement will now be forwarded to the European Commission and Member States who are responsible for risk management measures in relation to LLRICE601.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was asked by the European Commission to provide scientific support concerning the safety of the long grain GM rice LLRICE601 which had been inadvertently released in the United States (US) and exported to the European Union (EU). EFSA was asked to examine the scientific data available and inform the European Commission if these data were sufficient to carry out a safety assessment according to EU legislation.

EFSA's Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) met on 13th and 14th September 2006 to consider the request of the European Commission and examine the available scientific data on the LLRICE601 issue. EFSA's Panel took into consideration all relevant scientific information, including data from Bayer Crop Science (the company which has developed LLRICE601), existing scientific data on a very similar GMO rice strain[3] and risk assessments carried out by the US authorities.

The EFSA GMO Panel has issued a Statement which says that the available data[4] 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. However, based on the available scientific data, EFSA's GMO Panel has come to the following conclusions:

• The data package indicates the presence of a newly introduced protein, called PAT. EFSA's GMO Panel has previously assessed other PAT proteins and concluded that these do not pose any health concern.

• With respect to morphology, agronomic performance and compositional analysis LLRICE601 does not differ significantly from conventional rice (except for the PAT protein), however, at present there is a lack of data to verify this assumption.

• Exposure levels to LLRICE601 in the EU Member States cannot be estimated accurately from the data provided and little is known with respect to the extent of LLRICE601 in the rice supply. However, US data[5] suggests the low inadvertent presence of LLRICE601.

• Based on the available data, EFSA's GMO Panel considers that the consumption of imported long grain rice containing trace levels of LLRICE601 is not likely to pose an imminent safety concern to humans or animals.

USDA verifies 2nd test for unapproved GMO rice

Reuters, 15 September 2006.

Washington - The U.S. Agriculture Department said on Friday it verified a second rapid strip kit that can detect the unapproved genetically engineered Liberty Link rice protein in 15 minutes.

The Food and Drug Administration and USDA notified the public on August 18 that testing by Bayer CropScience, a division of Bayer AG, found the genetically modified rice known as LLRICE 601 in commercial rice bins in Arkansas and Missouri.

The finding led Japan to shut down imports of U.S. long grain rice and the European Union to require certification that long grain rice from the United States is free of the unapproved crop.

USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration said the kit can detect the presence of Liberty Link "at a detection limit of 1.33 percent sensitivity level."

This test was validated at the request of EnviroLogix, Inc.

Earlier this month, USDA verified a rapid strip kit for Strategic Diagnostics Inc. that takes 10 minutes to complete.

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.

There are two other Bayer CropScience genetically modified rice lines with Liberty Link that have been confirmed safe for use in food and the environment, but they have not been commercialized.

EU experts to debate approving GMO carnation import

Reuters, 15 September 2006.

BRUSSELS - EU biotech experts will debate next week whether to allow imports of carnations whose color has been genetically modified, possibly the first new approval of a GMO plant in eight years, officials said on Friday.

If approval is granted, the carnations would be permitted to enter EU-25 markets as cut flowers for distribution and sale to the general public. They would not be allowed to be grown.

The application for EU approval was filed to the European Commission by Florigene, one of Australia's first biotechnology companies and part of the privately owned Suntory group.

Marketed as Florigene Moonlite, the flowers are modified to produce blue pigment and also carry a herbicide-resistant gene.

Experts representing the EU's 25 national governments will discuss and possibly vote on Florigene's application, submitted via the Netherlands, on Monday.

The same day, EU agriculture ministers will discuss another GMO application for imports of modified rapeseed products marketed by German drugs and chemicals group Bayer. The application is for use in animal feed, not for cultivation.

Ironically, carnations were the EU's last two GMO plant authorizations before the bloc began its six-year moratorium on new biotech approvals. The carnation types were modified to alter flower color and "improve vase life."

Since then, even after the EU's unofficial moratorium ended in early 2004 because of a default legal rubberstamp from the executive Commission, the bloc's member states have consistently clashed on new GMO authorizations and failed to reach consensus.

Both GMO carnations were submitted by Florigene and received EU import approval in October 1998.

According to its website, Florigene developed the world's first mauve-colored carnation in 1996 and devotes much research on developing flowers that lack the blue color, specifically roses, carnations and chrysanthemums.

14 September 2006

Dairy processors make hormone-free switch

Dairy Reporter, 14 September 2006. By Sean Roach.

America's dairy processors are increasingly seeking rBST-free dairy supplies, as the demand for additive-free foods begins to exert its influence on the market.

Last month Dean Foods, the largest processor and distributor of milk and dairy products in the country, became the latest company to offer rBST-free milk products. The company will launch the products in New England.

According to industry analyst Organic Monitor, consumers are buying more and more organic and hormone-free food and drink products as they are seen to be healthier and more natural. This includes a demand from consumers for hormone-free dairy products.

BST or bovine somatotropin is a naturally occurring protein hormone in the pituitary gland of cattle. However, a sythetic version produced by Monsanto, rBST, is a growth hormone that is injected into a cow to increase milk production.

rBST is widely used around America. Monsanto estimates about one third of dairy cattle are given rBST, but the practice is banned in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and most of the EU [actually, all of the EU - ed].

Some scientific studies indicated that rBST might be implicated in causing sterility, infertility, birth defects, cancer and immunological derangements in humans. In cows, it is thought to increase infections in cow udders, leading to more pus ending up in retail milk.

However, it is not the controversy or scientific research that is contributing to rBST's downfall, it is the consumers who are pushing more towards organic alternatives in their food products.

Demand has been particularly noticable in the northeastern US. The success of smaller dairy companies has spurred the larger Northeastern dairy companies to join the hormone-free movement.

However, a spokesperson for Dean Foods, Marguerite Copel, said that the regional trend would not affect Dean Foods' national dairy strategy. The company plans to remains as a supplier of a diverse range of rBST and rBST-free products.

"It's all about consumer demand. In places like California they have had rBST-free milk for awhile", Copel said. "Right now we are looking at the supply that is available so we can make this an additional offering to our consumers in those regions."

Dean Foods is following the success of Vermont-based H P Hood-Booth Brothers Dairy, a wholesaler and processor of fluid milk, cream and dairy products.

H P Hood-Booth labels its milk as rBST-free and operates plants in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine and is expected to move to rBST-free products at its Massachusetts plant.

However, industry insiders believe that any full rollout of rBST-free products on a national scale would require a thorough analysis on the impact of farmers. Farmers often use rBST to level the playing field between themselves and producers around the country with lower milk production costs.

Doug Dimento, a spokesperson for the North East's largest dairy farmer cooperative Agri-Mark, said that consumer trends were pushing processors to seek out rBST-free supplies, but that the costs to farmers were also being considered.

"Many of the Class I handlers (bottlers of milk) are looking for rBST-free milk supplies," said Dimento. "Very few of our farmers use it, but those who do are often the larger ones that are important to the efficiency of our hauling routes", he said. "We are trying to determine what type of extra hauling costs we would incur if we had to supply our Class I customers with rBST-free milk so we can try and recover those costs from customers."

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made rBST legal in November 1993, despite objections from consumer groups. The FDA and agriculture department do not require the labelling of rBST on dairy products. However, some organic producers have begun using "rBST-free" labelling to promote their brands and distance themselves from the artificial hormone.

World needs clearer rules to avert trade rows: UN

The Washington Post, 14 September 2006.

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO (Reuters) - The world needs clearer rules to judge when trade curbs on environmental or health grounds are justified or are simply protectionist, a U.N. study said on Thursday.

Transatlantic trade tensions could worsen without a common understanding of a "precautionary principle" in environmental law that is often invoked to allow trade barriers such as the European Union ban on U.S. genetically modified food, it said.

"The seriousness of these disputes and the importance of the technology threaten great damage to international cooperation and law," said A.H. Zakri, director of the U.N. University's Japan-based Institute for Advanced Studies.

Countries sometimes use a "precautionary principle" to justify measures to prevent serious or irreversible harm even if the feared damage is not certain to happen. But the principle has no accepted definition worldwide.

Most industrial nations, for instance, are capping emissions of industrial greenhouse gases under the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, fearing that inaction could lead to global warming that could cause catastrophic changes such as rising sea levels.

"What is lacking is a uniform description of the precautionary principle," the report said, adding that trade restrictions based on safety worries might sometimes be protectionism in disguise.

It urged governments to work out a common threshold of acceptable risk or at least "a common practice of risk assessment" to help tackle disputes.

The World Trade Organization ruled this year that the EU and six members states broke trade rules by barring entry to genetically modified foods, due to worries about their safety, after a case brought by the United States, Canada and Argentina.

RICE

The 25 nation EU bans GMO rice, for instance, amid public fears about "Frankenfoods." The biotech industry says the products pose no threat. Since 2004, the EU has sanctioned imports of about 10 GMO products, including rapeseed and maize.

Other food disputes have included U.S. bans on unpasteurized European cheeses, EU barriers to U.S. hormone-fed beef and a Zambian refusal to accept U.S. GMO corn because of worries it could jeopardize Zambia's GMO-free status in exports to the EU.

"The collapse of the Doha Round (of global trade talks) means that more of these type of clashes are likely to end up in the WTO," the report said.

In environmental law, the precautionary principle is built into several treaties apart from the Kyoto Protocol.

Precaution underpins a U.N. ban on a "dirty dozen" chemicals including pesticides and industrial toxins and the U.N.'s Montreal Protocol outlawing refrigerants that destroy the protective ozone layer.

Past WTO rulings have established that a lack of "absolute certainty" about the safety of GMO foods, for instance, cannot be used to justify trade restrictions.

"The EU is much more enthusiastic about the precautionary principle" than the United States, Risa Schwartz, a co-author of the U.N. study who works for the Ontario government in Canada, told Reuters. _______________________

Letterkenny A GMO Free Zone

Donegal Democrat, 14 September 2006

Letterkenny Town Council has passed a motion declaring that the town become a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) free zone.

Councillors passed the motion from Green Party councillor Neil Clarke by a majority at the September meeting of the council. Only Fianna F…il's Clr. Dessie Larkin did not support the motion saying he did not know enough about the subject to support the motion.

Clr. Clarke called on the council to support his motion after similar pledges had been made by local authorities on both sides of the border. GMO foods are now prohibited by councils in Cavan, Clare, Meath, Fermanagh, Kerry, Monaghan, Westmeath, Bantry, Bray, Kerry, Galway Navan, Newry Mourne and Clonakilty, he said.

"Large multinationals are tampering with plants and food for profit," he said. "There is no real demand for genetically modified foods because they are banned by 60 per cent of the largest food companies and 70 per cent of European homes won't eat them. I want the ministers to take our objections to this on board".

Supporting the motion Clr. Gerry McMonagle suggested that the council write to the government calling on a ban on GMO foods to become government policy. "We have a good country here that can grow good crops and we should be supporting people who organically grow their food. It is important that this issue goes to the county council as well and we should send a letter to all the councils in the State saying that we won't support GMO foods."

Clr. Larkin said that he wanted it put on the record that he was not supporting the motion saying that he did not have the authority or the knowledge to support it. "Big supermarkets have made the decision not to go forward with GM foods and I think organic foods is going to come forward as a market issue. But surely there has to be some positives."

Clr. Damien Blake said that there needed to be stricter instructions on food labelling.

Clr. Jean Crossan said that the public was not as aware of the issue as it should be.

French tests reveal banned GMO in US rice imports

Agence France Presse, September 14, 2006

AFP: France has discovered traces of a banned genetically modified strain of rice in imports from the US, French market and consumer regulator DGCCRF has said.

The regulator said Thursday that traces of the LL601 strain of rice, which has been banned by the 25-nation European Union, had been detected in seven out of 19 samples tested.

"At this stage, the results reveal the absence of GMO in 12 samples and the presence of the LL601 strain of rice, at a level less than 0.1 percent, in seven samples," the regulator said in a statement.

The results are from samples taken from French importers accounting for more than 90 percent of rice imports from the United States.

The DGCCRF was alerted by the European Commission, which in turn had been informed by US authorities about the risk of a possible contamination.

USDA Urged to Deny Approval of Illegal Genetically Engineered Rice Found in Food Chain
Legal Petition Calls for Banning All 'LibertyLink' Rice as Plant Pests

Center for Food Safety press release, 14 September 2006

Today, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a legal petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that seeks to prevent the post hoc approval of an illegal genetically engineered rice recently found in the world's food supply. On August 22nd, Bayer CropScience sought an after-the-fact USDA rubber stamp for the illegal rice, known as LLRICE601. The contamination episode has triggered major disruptions to U.S. rice exports, caused substantial losses to farmers as rice prices plummet, and exposed consumers to an inadequately tested genetically engineered crop. The CFS petition presents both legal and scientific grounds as to why USDA should deny Bayer's request.

Granting the petition would also force USDA to rescind approvals already granted to two similar LibertyLink rice varieties, LLRICE06 and LLRICE62. CFS demonstrates that these varieties as well as LLRICE601 should be deemed "plant pests" because they will contaminate conventional and organic rice, create difficult-to-control weeds, lead to increased chemical residues on rice, and cause economic harm to U.S. rice farmers. Though approved by USDA in 1999, LLRICE06 and LLRICE62 are not (knowingly) grown anywhere in the world due to universal opposition from the rice and food industries.

"USDA's failure to protect farmers and consumers from the risks of gene-spliced rice has already caused massive problems for the U.S. rice industry," said Miyoko Sakashita, staff attorney at Center for Food Safety and lead author of the petition.

Last month, the U.S. rice industry was jolted by news of illegal LLRICE601 in the food supply. In response, Japan banned all long-grain rice from the U.S., while the European Union now tests U.S. rice shipments and rejects any contaminated with LLRICE601. The Secretary of the Arkansas Agriculture Department recently stated that "almost all" tested samples of long-grain rice, grown in the Southern rice belt, were turning up positive for LLRICE601 [1]. The European Union recently announced that 33 of 162 rice samples have tested positive for LLRICE601. Louisiana State University has found LLRICE601 contaminating a publicly-developed foundation seed line. Foundation seed is the genetically pure breeder stock from which all commercial lines of the same variety are derived.

"The only chance of preventing a repeat of the LLRICE601 contamination debacle is for USDA to grant the requests in our petition," said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director of CFS. "Rejection of our petition by USDA would represent a betrayal of U.S. rice farmers and American agriculture."

LibertyLink rice is engineered with a bacterial gene to survive application of glufosinate, the active ingredient in Bayer's proprietary Liberty herbicide. The inevitable transfer of the glufosinate-resistance gene to weedy red rice - already among the worst weeds in the Southern rice belt - via cross-pollination threatens creation of "superweeds." Glufosinate-resistant weeds would also be created by the increased use of Liberty anticipated with commercial plantings of LibertyLink rice.

Contamination of the rice supply with any variety of LibertyLink rice would likely trigger the same market rejection and economic losses just experienced with LLRICE601, as no LibertyLink varieties are approved anywhere in the world outside of the U.S. Even the threat of contamination of conventional and organic rice could cause further huge export losses for U.S. rice farmers.

The petition also notes that increased use of Liberty would mean more chemical residues in rice, citing a 2003 decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to permit glufosinate residues on transgenic rice, a decision taken in response to a petition by Bayer CropScience. Finally, the petition notes that no variety of LibertyLink rice has been adequately tested to detect potentially hazardous side effects of genetic engineering.

"European and international food safety agencies acknowledge the need for comprehensive testing of genetically engineered foods for hazardous side effects, including animal feeding trials with the GE crop," said Mendelson. "Only the U.S. government discounts these risks, letting industry pollute the food supply while requiring virtually nothing to protect the public from these risky experimental foods," he added.

"USDA's stamp of approval to genetically engineered rice after it has illegally contaminated the food supply would set a dangerous precedent, rewarding the biotech industry's negligence and thereby making similar contamination episodes more likely in the future," said Sakashita.

Note to editors:

[1] "Arkansas Secretary of Agriculture addresses GMO rice situation," Delta Farm Press, August 29, 2006. http://deltafarmpress.com/news/060829-arkansas-gmo/

The full petition and an executive summary are available at:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/LLRice_ExecSum9.13.06.pdf and
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/LLRice_Petition_9.13.06.pdf

Contacts:

Miyoko Sakashita, + 1 415 826 2770 ext. 303
Joe Mendelson, + 1 202 547 9359 ext. 12

Consumer group urges USDA not to approve GMO rice

Reuters News Service, Sep 14, 2006. By Christopher Doering

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A controversial genetically modified rice strain found in commercial supplies last month should not be approved by the U.S. Agriculture Department, which a consumer group said on Thursday has failed to adequately protect farmers and consumers.

The Center for Food Safety filed a petition with USDA asking it to instead regulate the rice as a "plant pest" under the Plant Protection Act. The center said the rice, known as LLRICE 601, could further contaminate commercial rice, damage trade, create herbicide resistant weeds and increase chemical residue on rice.

"USDA's stamp of approval to genetically engineered rice after it has illegally contaminated the food supply would set a dangerous precedent, rewarding the biotech industry's negligence and thereby making similar contamination episodes more likely in the future," said Miyoko Sakashita, an attorney at Center for Food Safety and lead author of the petition.

The Food and Drug Administration and USDA notified the public on August 18 that testing by Bayer CropScience, a division of Bayer AG, found the genetically modified rice in bins in Arkansas and Missouri.

USDA has said there are no environmental or health concerns with the genetically modified rice and it does not plan to recall or destroy the contaminated commercial product.

In order for a product to be sold commercially, the genetically modified crop must be tested extensively by the manufacturer before the application is reviewed by USDA. The department is collecting public comments on LLRICE 601 until October 10.

"The purpose of this process is to invite public comment and we welcome any science-based information that might be relevant to the final assessment of the product," said Kristin Scuderi, USDA's deputy press secretary. "We will carefully review all comments submitted during this process before making a final determination."

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. There are two other Bayer CropScience genetically modified rice lines with Liberty Link that have been confirmed safe for use in food and the environment, but they have not been commercialized.

After the discovery in August, Japan banned imports of U.S. long grain rice. The European Union, which confirmed the unauthorized strain earlier this week, requires certification that long grain rice from the United States is free of the unapproved crop.

Leading scientists concerned about potential allergenicity of (Chinese) GM rice

Scientists' statement from:

Professor Ian F. Pryme
Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini
Dr. Christian Velot

5 September 2006

Statement on the potential allergenicity of the Bt toxin, Cry1Ac

We, the undersigned, note with concern the recent discoveries of contamination of rice [1] and rice products, including baby food [2], with an experimental genetically engineered (GE) rice. The GE rice contains a gene for the Cry1Ac protein, or possibly for a fusion Cry1Ab/Cry1Ac protein with similar immunogenic properties to Cry1Ac3.

Cry1Ac has not been approved for human consumption in any food crop and there is concern over its potential allergenicity.

Research [4] into the gene for Cry1Ac has found that

1. Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent immunogen.

2. The protoxin is immunogenic by both the intraperitoneal (injected) and intragastric (ingested) route.

3. The immune response to the protoxin is both systemic and mucosal.

4. Cry1Ac protoxin binds to surface proteins in the mouse small intestine, and this could induce mid or long-term effects on mammalian health.

Therefore, we urge the developers and regulatory authorities of this GE rice to proceed with caution with the use of the gene for the Cry1Ac in any part of the genetic construct within the GE rice. It is possible that humans, in particular sub-populations such as infants and small children could be exposed to immunogenically-significant amounts of Cry proteins contained in foods.

A thorough evaluation of its food safety prior to any import, consumption, approval or further development of this GE rice would be necessary as rice is a staple food crop. Studies following the steps recommended by the FAO/WHO expert consultation [5] to evaluate allergenicity should be conducted by independent scientists, and their results published in peer-reviewed journals to allow evaluation of food safety. In addition, further studies into the potential allergenicity of Cry1Ac and other Bt proteins should be undertaken as a matter of the utmost urgency.

Signed

Pr. Gilles-Eric Seralini
President du Conseil Scientifique du CRII GEN
Universite de Caen
France

Pr. Ian F.Pryme
Dept. of Biomedicine
University of Bergen
Norway

Dr. Christian Velot
Conseil Scientifique du CRII GEN
Institut de Genetique et Microbiologie
Universite Paris-Sud
France

Notes:

1. Zi, X. (2005) GM rice forges ahead in China amid concerns over illegal planting. Nature Biotechnology 23: 637.

2. http://www.greenpeace.org/china/en/press/releases/20060314-heinz-rice-cereal.

3. Tu, J., Zhang, G., Datta, K., Xu, C., He, Y. Zhang, O., Khush, G. & Datta, S.K. (2000) Field performance of transgenic elite commercial hybrid rice expressing Bacillus thuringiensis-endotoxin. Nature Biotechnology 18: 1101-1104.

4 Moreno-Fierros, L. Garcia, N. Gutierrez, R. Lopez-Revilla, & R. Vazquez-Padron, RI.(2000) Intranasal, rectal and intraperitoneal immunization with protoxin Cry1Ac from Bacillus thuringiensis induces compartmentalized serum, intestinal, vaginal and pulmonary immune responses in Balb/c mice. Microbes Infect 2: 885-90; Vazquez-Padron, R.I, Moreno-Fierros, L. Neri-Bazan, L, de la Riva, G.A & Lopez-Revilla, R. (1999) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant. Scand J Immunol 49: 578-584; Vazquez-Padron, R.I Moreno-Fierros, L. Neri-Bazan, L, de la Riva, G.A & Lopez-Revilla, R. (1999) Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice. Life Sciences 64: 1897-1912; Vazquez-Padron, R. I., Moreno-Fierros, L. Neri-Bazan. L. MartÌnez-Gil, A.F., de la Riva, G.A. & Lopez-Revilla, R. (2000) Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Braz J Med Biol Res 33: 147-155; Vazquez-Padron, R. I., Gonzales-Cabrera, J., Garcia-Tovar, C. Neri-Bazan, L., Lopez-Revilla, R., Hernandez, M., Moreno-Fierros, L. & de la Riva.G.A. (2000) Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis sp. kurstaki HD73 binds to surface proteins in the mouse small intestine. Biochem Biophys Res Comms 271: 54-58. Guerrero, G. G., Dean, D.H. & Moreno-Fierros, L. (2004) Structural implication of the induced immune response by Bacillus thuringiensis Cry proteins: role of the N-terminal region. Molecular Immunology 41: 1177‚1183.

5. FAO/WHO 2001. Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified foods. Report of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation on allergenicity of foods derived from biotechnology, 22 ‚ 25 January 2001. Rome, Italy.

Agency tests Irish stores for contaminated rice

Irish Examiner, 14 September 2006. By Ann Cahill, Europe Correspondent

THE Irish Food Safety Authority is testing supermarket products for illegal genetically modified rice that has turned up in other EU countries.

A fifth of recent imports of US long-grain rice into Europe were contaminated with the GM strain according to the European Commission.

But testing has not yet begun for a potentially more dangerous form of GM rice from China discovered by Greenpeace in Britain, Germany and France last month.

Scientists warn it caused serious allergic reactions in mice and would be dangerous for babies and young children.

Biotech rice is banned from being grown, sold or marketed in the EU. Greenpeace says the fact that two forms of illegal GM rice were discovered in Europe is proof that the industry is out of control.

Most of Europe's rice comes from the US where just one variety of GM rice has been approved, but has not yet been grown by farmers.

Liberty Link Rice 601, a strain developed in the US by the German chemical giant Bayer which has not been approved for human consumption, appears to have been mixed with a non GM crop.

"We are told this was human error", said an expert.

After being alerted last month by US authorities' 163 batches of rice that arrived in Rotterdam were tested by the Federation of European Rice Millers and 33 were contaminated.

Greenpeace said tests carried out at a respected and independent laboratory found traces of the GM rice in some Aldi Bon-Ri brand products sold in Germany.

The Swedes say initial tests have discovered traces of GM rice and the French authorities say seven of 20 samples tested positive.

Dr Pat O'Mahony, chief biotechnology specialist with the FSAI, said 14,500 kilos were imported into the country from the US in the last four months.

Most of this was destined for restaurants and hotels and had been consumed by now. They found one batch and are testing it together with some rice bought in a supermarket last week.

"The first results will be known later this week or next week and then there will have to be further tests," he said.

Dr O'Mahony said he believed the GM rice was not a health risk since it was closely related to the single variety that has been approved for human use.

WA Parliament votes down commercial GM trials

ABC News, September 14 2006

A Western Australia (WA) Liberal Party proposal to allow commercial trials of genetically modified canola has been defeated in Parliament.

The Opposition wants GM canola grown in a pilot program next year with a view to full commercial release.

However, the Government does not support lifting the moratorium on GM crops, saying WA farmers are able to attract higher prices for their crops because international markets have reservations about genetically modified food.

The Nationals leader Brendon Grylls has told Parliament he cannot accept the argument that all GM crops should be banned so a few tonnes of canola can be sold at premium prices.

"Ten per cent of the canola exported from Western Australia is sold into that market," he said.

"We're not talking about enough to rule out GM cotton in the north, about the expansion of the oil feed industry into biofuels, and the other gains that could be made with frost-tolerant and salt-tolerant crops going into the future."

Mr Grylls has called for the area around Esperance to be used as a natural biosphere in which GM crops are tested.

"I think that you should make a biosphere around Esperance because Esperance is separated from the rest of the agricultural region," he said.

"That way the rest of the state could get a clear indication of what GMO [genetically modified organisms] could do in that particular region, on a full size commercial scale, and then we'd actually be having a debate on what had actually happened, rather than what might happen."

13 September 2006

Alarm over tainted GMO rice

TradeArabia.com, 13 September 2006.

France and Sweden have detected the presence of an unauthorised strain of genetically modified rice, a European Union diplomat said.

'The two countries which have detected the GMO rice are France and Sweden,' he told reporters before adding that neither country had used validated testing methods.

The announcement comes after the European Commission, the EU executive, confirmed earlier that 33 out of 162 results of rice samples carried out by members of the European Federation of Rice Millers tested positive for the strain.

It said three bargeloads within a 20,000-tonne US rice cargo detained in Rotterdam had tested positive, while 20 other bargeloads had tested negative.

However, tests in Germany had proved negative, the diplomat said on Tuesday, despite claims by environment group Greenpeace International that a strain of LL601 rice had been found in branches of discount supermarket Aldi Nord in Germany. Aldi said no GMO rice had been found at its Aldi Nord operations.

Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for Bayer in Frankfurt said the company did not sell or produce LL Rice 601. She said the strain was developed by Aventis CropScience, a company bought by Bayer in 2002, but that development had been discontinued in 2001.

At present, no biotech rice at all is allowed to be grown, sold or marketed in the 25 countries of the EU.

In August, the European Commission tightened requirements on US long-grain rice imports to prove the absence of biotech rice strain LL601, which it said was marketed by Germany's Bayer and produced in the US.

The Commission's August decision followed the discovery by US authorities of trace amounts of LL601, engineered to resist a herbicide, in long-grain samples that were targeted for commercial use

EU strives to find GMO needle in rice haystack

Euractiv.com, 13 September 2006.

In Short:

Almost one in five samples of imported rice is contaminated with the unauthorised, genetically manipulated LL601, European rice-traders told the Commission.

Background:

The Commission was informed on 18 August 2006 by US Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns that traces of non-authorised genetically modified rice had been detected in samples of commercial long-grain rice from the US. The source of the contamination appears to be an experimental GM rice called LL601, produced by the German-based biotech company Bayer. LL rice is not approved for food or cultivation anywhere in the world except for the United States and Canada.

Following the disclosure, the Commission decided to impose stricter national border controls (see EurActiv, 24 August 2006) to make sure that unauthorised GMO rice be kept off European markets.

On 5 September 2006, NGOs Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace found traces of either the Cry1Ac protein or a fusion Cry1Ab/Cry1Ac protein in rice sticks and rice vermicelli of five different brands sold in the three countries (see EurActiv, 6 September 2006).

Issues:

In a hearing on 11 September 2006, the Commission Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health heard a presentation by the European Federation of Rice Millers, which represents about 90% of the rice trade in the EU. The trade association reported that out of 162 samples of rice tested by its members so far, 33 had been tested positive for the LL601 variant.

Rice samples taken from the market and tested in Sweden and France have also been tested positive for LL601. The two countries are so far the only to use two newly developed methods for LL601 testing, which produce much more accurate results. It is expected that once the new method is applied in other member states, which will take another one to two weeks, more samples will test positive for LL601.

20,000 tons of imported rice from the US are currently blocked in the port of Rotterdam, after three out of 23 barges have been tested positive for LL601. The barges tested positive will either be sent back to the US or destroyed.

Positions:

On 11 September, the Commission reminded the industry "of their legal obligation to inform Member State authorities when a consignment on their markets is found to contain an unauthorised GMO". At the same time, the Commission urged Member States "to intensify testing of products on the market as soon as possible and to provide an extensive report back on the results".

Latest & next steps:

On 12 September 2006, the Germany-based discount chain Aldi Nord, which operates around 3,500 shops in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, France, Spain and Portugal, decided to take its 'Bon-Ri' rice brand off the shelves, following a claim by NGO Greenpeace that rice of the brand had tested positive for LL601. The discounter contested the Greenpeace tests and said that it would carry out its own tests.

* Also on 12 September 2006, Swiss supermarket chain Migros confirmed finding traces of LL601, saying it was unclear whether any of the rice actually went on sale.

Links

EU official documents

Commission - Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCFCAH): GM Food & Environmental Risk (Portal)

Commission (Memo): GM rice situation reviewed at the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health

Industry federations and trade unions

AG bios: GM database

EuropaBio: Press room

NGOs

Greenpeace: US illegal GE rice contamination spreads further into Europe

Friends of the Earth Europe: Bayer, not taxpayers, must pay for GM rice testing in Europe

Press articles

Deutsche Welle: Genetically Modified Rice Found in German Supermarkets (12 September 2006)

Reuters: EU confirms presence of tainted GMO rice (11 September 2006)

Forbes: Presence of unapproved GM rice in Europe alarms food industry (12 September 2006)

Easy Bourse: EU Reports 33 Positive Tests For Illegal Biotech Rice (11 September 2006)

SwissInfo: Genetically modified rice hits Switzerland (12 September 2006)

Nouvel Observateur: Du riz gÈnÈtiquement modifiÈ non autorisÈ retrouvÈ dans les rayons d'un supermarchÈ, selon Greenpeace (12 September 2006)

L'Express: Du riz amÈricain gÈnÈtiquement modifiÈ trouvÈ ý Rotterdam (11 September 2006)

La Libre Belgique: Du riz aux OGM, cadeau de l'Oncle Sam (13 September 2006)

Le Temps: Le riz transgénique déjà' dans nos assiettes (13 September 2006)

S¸ddeutsche Zeitung: Die Spur der K–rner (12 September 2006)

Financial Times Deutschland: Reisproduzenten f¸rchten Imageschaden (13 September 2006)

ARD: "LL601" auch in Frankreich und Schweden (12 September 2006)

Swiss Retailers Block Sale of U.S. Rice

Associated Press, September 13 2006

ZURICH, Switzerland (AP) - The largest supermarket chain in Switzerland has blocked the sale of U.S. long grain rice after traces of an illegal genetically modified strain were found, a spokeswoman said Wednesday.

Retailer Migros detected small amounts of the strain LL 601 over the weekend in shipments of long grain rice coming from the United States, said spokeswoman Martina Bosshard. Swiss law prohibits the sale of genetically modified food without special authorization.

As a result, the company decided to hold back its entire stock of U.S. long grain rice and recall six products already sold to consumers, Bosshard said. Migros imports between 4,000 and 5,000 tons (4,400 and 5,500 U.S. tons) of the rice each year.

"We are now waiting for a definitive analysis before we proceed," Bosshard said, adding that the contaminated shipment had come from a single supplier, which she refused to identify.

The European Union, of which Switzerland is not a member, already imposed strict certification requirements on U.S. rice shipments in August because it had found traces of the illegal biotech strain.

On Tuesday, the European Commission said 33 of 162 samples of U.S. rice imports tested by European rice millers contained illegal genetically altered strains and had been recalled or withheld from the market.

Migros' rival in Swiss retailing, Coop, banned American long grain rice last week, blocking 10 silos containing about 800 tons (880 U.S. tons) as a precautionary measure, spokeswoman Liselotte Dolder said.

"We are blocking the rice until we have certainty and we are now working hard to test all our rice," Dolder told The Associated Press. She said the company was determined to prevent genetically modified goods from hitting its shelves.

The Swiss health ministry has yet to take any measures against U.S. long grain rice imports, but spokesman Martin Schrott said illegal LL 601 contamination would not be tolerated.

"We have taken note of Migros' and Coop's decisions, but we have not yet received any lab results from the relevant cantonal (state) authorities," Schrott said. If traces of the strain are found, he said the rice would be banned from sale.

Switzerland recommends importers obtain a certification that goods are free from biotech products when purchasing foreign suppliers. The EU requires such certification.

Concerns about the safety of biotech foods for consumers and the environment have led many Europeans to resist the introduction of such products, even if their use is widespread in the United States and other countries.

Governments in Germany and France, neighbors of Switzerland and two of Europe's largest economies, both have imposed national bans on products they deem unsafe.

Imports of Glufosinate-tolerant Rice LL62 from Bayer CropScience

Open Letter to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 13 September 2006.

Imports of Glufosinate-tolerant Rice LL62 from Bayer CropScience

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

We are concerned about the application for a marketing approval for Bayer's glufosinate tolerant rice LL 62.

In the US a similar type of genetically engineered rice, LL 601, has been found in samples of supplies destined for human consumption. Bayer field tested the LL 601 variety between 1998 and 2001, but it is unclear how the present contamination occured. Like LL 62 this rice trait is tolerant to Bayer¥s weedkiller Liberty Link. LL Rice 601 has not been tested for safety for human consumption and was never authorised by regulators.

Nevertheless LL Rice 601 now found its way into the European Union's retail food sector and appeared for sale at branches of the German discount supermarket Aldi. So even after more than 10 years of trials, the biotech industry is not able to guarantee the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops. The incident shows that risks linked with modified rice can't be controlled in the long term. Bayer's environmental risk assessment and monitoring plan for LL Rice 62 do not give sufficient consideration to the possibility of the escape of this GM organism through accidental spillage of grains in southern Europe, where rice could grow and contaminate non GM crops.

An authorization would not only be a threat to European consumers but also to farmers and the environment in developing countries. Rice is the staple food for more than one-half of the world's population. The decision by the European Union with respect to this GM rice will be extremely influential in countries with limited resources to undertake their own regulatory review.

A European approval of GM rice would allow Bayer to promote GM rice cultivation in developing countries, especially in Asia. This could lead to genetic contamination of existing rice cultivation in the centres of origin and diversity and could jeopardise biodiversity and thus the principal food source in the developing world. The negative impact would fall most heavily on the most vulnerable, the rural poor.

Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament states that EU member countries must "ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment which might arise from the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs." Therefore we call for the stringent application of the precautionary principle with regard to GM rice. We urge you not to approve LL Rice 62 for imports to the EU. There is insufficient evidence that Liberty Link Rice will not cause adverse effects to human health and the environment.

With regards,

Philipp Mimkes

Coalition against BAYER dangers (Germany)

Additional information:

Open Letter to the 25 EU Member States: Reject Bayer's application to import genetically modified rice into the EU http://www.cbgnetwork.com/300.html

12 September 2006

New analysis needed for GM 'food risk', says scientist

Food Navigator, 12/09/2006. By Anthony Fletcher

A new approach to resolving GM trade conflict, one that drops the use of the word 'risk', is needed, according to new research.

The findings of the five-year study, which was carried out at the University of Sussex and will be presented at a conference in Brighton today, suggest there are serious limits to using the idea of 'risk' to describe the potential problems associated with new developments in science and technology.

"Its all too easy to make the mistake of using quantitative risk assessment techniques to try to understand unknowns that are really uncertainties, when it is impossible for us to work out the probability that something will happen," said Dr Adrian Ely, a research fellow at the University of Sussex'SPRU.

This has often been the complaint about European assessments of GM food. Many US scientists have challenged GM food regulation as having little theoretical basis and pandering to the fears and prejudices of its citizens.

At the IFT conference on global acceptance and sustainability of GM food this summer, Francis Smith from the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington DC gave an interesting American perspective of EU regulations governing GM food. She said that, fundamentally, there is an underlying fear of new technology in Europe, largely absent in the US.

Americans, she said, tended to look at the benefits. In comparison to Europeans, US consumers tended to express less fear and less distrust.

The EU, and its food safety body EFSA, therefore behaves differently. Its precautionary principle, which rules that regulators should err on the side of caution, assumes that a prevention strategy is always appropriate.

"There is little theoretical basis for this approach," argued Smith. "We're talking about regulations addressing perceptions and fears."

This is not the point that the University of Sussex study is making. Its point is that potential risk should be viewed as distinct from issues such as uncertainly and ambiguity. But its implications could alter the manner in which food safety bodies approach GM regulations.

In order to understand this point better, Ely plans to highlight a typology developed by professor Andy Stirling during his speech in Brighton. A typology, said Ely, is simply a way of understanding that things belong to different categories, and that we should distinguish between them.

Ely said that by considering the issues associated with risk, uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance separately, Stirling has been able to make sense of events in a way that could be useful to policymakers internationally.

"When people talk about risks, they are usually talking about aspects of risk, uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance," he said. "I use this typology to understand the government's decisions around GM crops and foods."

Ely argues that most policy problems - for example, climate change, GM crops or nanotechnology - involve a situation in which we don't have a full understanding of the science in question.

"There are so many complicated questions at play," said Ely. "Using a tool such as this helps us to break them down into manageable parts.

"The USA and Europe have assessed the risks from GM crops in different ways. This has led to divergent policies internationally, with bitter trade disputes as a result. This research can help us to understand the sources of the trade conflict and to move towards ways of resolving them."

Adrian Ely is Research Fellow at SPRU Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Sussex. He is presenting his paper 'Typologies of incertitude as tools for policy analysis and policy making' today at SPRU's 40th Anniversary Conference.

Presence of unapproved GM rice in Europe alarms food industry

AFX News, 12 September 2006

FRANKFURT (AFX) - The existence of unapproved genetically modified rice in Europe has shaken the food industry, the Financial Times has reported.

Aldi Nord has removed the brand Bon-Ri rice from its shelves after Greenpeace discovered it contains traces of unapproved genetically-modified rice, the newspaper said.

It added that, according to the European Commission, the Association of Rice Mills in Europe has found 33 cases of unapproved genetically modified rice in 162 samples of rice imported from the US.

The association was mainly looking for traces of the rice LL 601, which was field-tested by Aventis Cropscience between 1998 and 2001.

Bayer AG bought Aventis Cropscience in 2002 and is legally responsible for the problem, the newspaper said.

The US Food and Drug Administration said the LL 601 rice poses no risk to human health and does not raise any food, feed safety or environmental concerns.

US Poised to Approve Illegal GM Rice

Third World Network Biosafety Information Service, 12 September 2006.

We wish to bring to your attention that the US government has set into motion plans to deregulate LL601, the unapproved genetically engineered rice produced by Bayer. The company has asked the US Department of Agriculture to grant retroactive market approval of the illegal rice which was found to have contaminated the rice supply in the US as well as rice products in a couple of European countries. Though LL601 is illegally present in rice supplies, the US authorities have failed to recall LL601-contaminated rice supplies or food products but instead plan to approve it.

Nonetheless, this rice event has yet to gain approval or undergo a risk assessment process in importing countries. Countries which have zero tolerance for unapproved GMOs must remain vigilant as should LL601 be found in rice imports, the product is still unauthorized and appropriate action should be taken. As in the case of Japan, it has suspended US long-grain rice imports, while the European Union is requiring all US long-grain rice shipments to be accompanied by a certificate declaring that they are free of LL601.

Letterkenny Town Council considers GMO ban

Highland Radio (Ireland), 12 September 2006.

A Green Party Cllr has called for Letterkenny to be designated as an area free from genetically modified crops.

Cllr. Neil Clarke raised the issue at last evening's Town Council meeting.

He claims GM foods could destabilize homegrown produce if there is any contamination, and says it's time for Letterkenny and Donegal to take a clear stance on the issue.

US still gauging how much GMO rice entered market

Reuters News Service, 12 September 2006. By Christopher Doering.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Agriculture Department said on Monday it is too soon to determine how much of an unapproved genetically modified rice strain has entered the food supply after tests in the European Union and Germany detected traces of the rice.

"We simply didn't have any way to gauge the extent to which this genetically engineered rice might be in the marketplace" when it was first discovered, said USDA chief spokeswoman Terri Teuber.

"In terms of where it might be and where it might not be I don't think USDA is equipped in any way to assess or predict where that might be."

USDA has said the department will get a better sense of how much genetically modified rice is out there through testing done by the marketplace.

The European Commission said on Monday the genetically modified rice known as LLRICE 601 was found in 33 out of 162 rice samples. Three bargeloads with a 20,000-tonne U.S. rice cargo detained in Rotterdam had tested positive, while 20 other bargeloads had tested negative.

In a separate round of tests, environmental group Greenpeace said the GMO rice found its way into the European Union's retail food sector and appeared for sale at branches of discount supermarket Aldi.

The Food and Drug Administration and USDA notified the public on Aug. 18 that testing by Bayer CropScience, a division of Bayer AG (BAYG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research), found LLRICE 601 in rice bins in Arkansas and Missouri.

The finding led to Japan shutting down imports of U.S. long grain rice, and the European Union requiring certification that long grain rice from the United States is free of the unapproved crop.

The EU "has not indicated they would take a different course from that," said Teuber, who added USDA is in contact with all its rice trading partners.

The U.S. government and rice industry has said there are no environmental, human health or food safety concerns with the GMO rice.

David Coia, a spokesman for the USA Rice Federation, which markets and promotes U.S. rice, said while most of the rice tests are coming back negative, the organization is closely watching the testing in EU and other areas.

"We understand the EU sensibilities are a little different than the United States but nonetheless the product is a safe one," said Coia.

The United States is expected to produce a rice crop valued at $1.88 billion in 2006, about half of which is expected to be exported, according to USDA. U.S. rice growers are responsible for about 12 percent of world rice trade.

FSA tells food industry chiefs they can sell illegal GM rice as contamination hits supermarkets

GM Free Cymru press release, 12th September 2006.

It has been revealed that the UK's food regulator, the Food Standards Agency, has encouraged food industry chiefs to break EU and British law by continuing to sell contaminated rice products which may be present on supermarket shelves.

At a secret meeting held on 5th September, FSA officials encouraged retailers (off the record) to disregard warnings about the safety of rice products contaminated with the illegal variety called LL601, and to continue to sell packages of American long-grain rice whether contaminated or not. They also advised the retail trade not to test their rice products for GM contamination, on the grounds that "there are no health or safety risks". In other words they advised them: "Don't look -- don't find." Finally, they advised the trade that there was no need to withdraw contaminated rice products from sale, and no need to take products down from shelves.

The revelations are contained in a statement prepared by Tilda Rice of Essex (1), which identified GM contamination in at least one of its American rice consignments prior to the 5th September meeting. GM Free Cymru, which has seen the Tilda Rice statement, says the GM contamination of rice in the food chain is illegal at any level, and that the EC has decided -- on the record -- upon a zero tolerance policy (2). Any retailer who sells an illegal product is therefore acting unlawfully and should be prosecuted.

Speaking for the Group, Dr Brian john says: "These revelations are profoundly worrying. We now know that GM-contaminated rice is on sale in Aldi supermarkets in Germany, and that at least 33 samples of American long-grain rice held by the millers have also tested positive for LL601 contamination (3) (4). And yet the FSA is advising the retail trade, behind closed doors, to sell illegal products to British consumers. Let's be clear about this -- rice products contaminated with GM are illegal and are dangerous and unfit for human consumption (5) (6). It is unlawful to stock these contaminated products or to sell them."

"FSA should itself now be prosecuted for encouraging unlawful activity and for endangering the health of UK consumers. It knows that contaminated products have been on sale in the UK for at least 8 months (7). We are writing to the Commission with a demand that action should now be taken against FSA before it can do any more cosy deals behind closed doors and do more harm to the public."

Contact: Dr Brian John
GM Free Cymru
Tel +44 1239-820470


Notes

(1) Tilda response to GM Rice Alert, Sept 6th 2006 Tilda Ltd, Coldharbour Lane, Rainham, Essex RM15 9YQ. Email: post@tilda.com

(2) Shortly after the news of the contamination incident broke, Commissioner Kyprianou said this: "We have strict legislation in place in the EU to ensure that any GM product put on the European market has undergone a thorough authorization procedure based on scientific assessment. There is no flexibility for unauthorized GMOs - these cannot enter the EU food and feed chain under any circumstances." Even the FSA Director of Food Safety, Dr Andrew Wadge, has said: "The presence of this GM material in rice on sale in the UK is illegal under European health law, even at extremely low levels." This means, quite simply, zero tolerance of illegal GMO components in human food, in accordance with EU law.
http://www.euractiv.com/en/biotech/eu-restricts-rice-imports-us/...
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2006/sep/gmricetest

(3) Reuters Reports 11th September 2006 http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx? type=scienceNews&storyID=2006... EU confirms presence of tainted GMO rice. Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:57 PM BST144 BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Commission confirmed on Monday the presence of an unauthorized genetically modified (GMO) strain of rice. Thirty-three out of 162 results of rice samples carried out by members of the European Federation of Rice Millers tested positive for the LL601 strain, the European Commission said in a statement.

(4) US Illegal GE Rice Contamination Spreads Further into Europe Bayer's illegal GE rice found in major German supermarket SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0911-03.htm.

(5) The illegal rice variety called LL601 has never been tested for safety, and neither has the novel GM protein contained within it. It may well be unstable and non-uniform, and it may have mutated in the five years since it was discontinued in 2001. The data needed by scientists to assess the variety has been censored out of publicly accessible documents in America on the grounds that it is "confidential business information."

(6) Ironically, the group of consumers who may be most at risk from rice contaminated by the illegal GM variety are those who eat wholegrain and organic food diets. This is because brown or wholegrain rice is not milled or processed in the same way as white rice. The GM components of such foods are not broken down in the same way as they are in parboiled or processed food products.

(7) Confirmed by Steve Dube, Western Mail, 12 September 2006, farming section.

GM food -- blessing or curse?

Western Mail (Wales), 12th August 2006. By Steve Dube.

Opinion is divided over whether genetically modified crops are a potential blessing or a new curse on farming and humanity.

Both sides are passionate, but no one knows the long term effects on the environment - or on the health of man or beast that eats GM food.

Few of us realise that most processed food and all non-organic commercial livestock feeds already contain GM material.

Now the Food Standards Agency admits that rice from America contaminated with an illegal gene has been on shop shelves across Europe since January.

The FSA says it may be illegal but it is safe to eat, although the developer, Bayer CropScience refuses to reveal why it abruptly stopped trials of the GM rice and buried all the seed five years ago.

The contamination, presumably from pollen, has made American rice unsaleable. The price has plummeted and farmers are suing Bayer.

In the face of a ruined GBP1bn American rice market, the authorities now want to legalise the rogue gene.

If that fails thousands of farmers in the country that provides 12% of the world's rice will have to find another way of earning a living.

Genetically modified rice hits Switzerland

Swiss Info, September 12, 2006

The country's largest retailer Migros has confirmed finding traces of genetically modified rice, supplied from the United States, that is banned in Switzerland.

Migros says the storage silos containing the LL 601 rice have now been sealed but it is unclear whether any of the rice actually went on sale. Both Migros and rival Coop have suspended sales of long-grain rice from the US.

Migros spokesman Monica Glisenti said that traces of the unapproved rice were found after laboratory tests, adding that the concentration level was 0.01 per cent.

The legal tolerance permitted for genetically modified organisms is 0.9 per cent. However, no genetically modified rice is permitted in Switzerland, so the level is of no relevance.

Glisenti said that the LL 601 rice was found in a shipment of 1,500 tons. Long-grain rice from other countries is to remain on the shelves, she said.

She noted that examination had only been possible this week because the tests had only just become available.

As a result, it could not be ruled out that banned rice had already been sold in Switzerland.

Coop, which receives its rice from the same supplier as Migros, said it had found no traces of LL 601.

But it has also withdrawn long-grain rice from the US from the shelves, noting in a statement that contamination could not be excluded completely.

Advice

The two retailers are now waiting for advice from the Swiss Federal Health Office in Bern before taking further action. Decisions are also expected from the European Union, which has also been affected by the LL 601 rice.

The EU Commission urged EU member states and the food industry to carry out tests following the discovery of unauthorised GM rice imports in Europe.

Thirty-three out of 162 results of rice samples carried out by members of the European Federation of Rice Millers tested positive for the LL 601 strain, the European Commission said in a statement.

It also said that three bargeloads within a 20,000 metric ton US rice cargo detained in Rotterdam had tested positive, while 20 other bargeloads had tested negative.

The consignments which tested negative for the unauthorised GMO have now been allowed to proceed to their final destination, while those which tested positive continue to be detained in Rotterdam and will either be returned to the US or destroyed," the EC said.

Tighter rules

In August, the EC tightened requirements on US long-grain rice imports to prove the absence of biotech rice strain LL 601, which it said was marketed by the Bayer company of Germany and produced in the US.

The Commission's decision followed the discovery by US authorities of trace amounts of LL 601, engineered to resist a herbicide, in long-grain samples that were targeted for commercial use.

On Monday, environmental group Greenpeace International said a strain of LL 601 rice had been found in branches of discount supermarket Aldi Nord in Germany.

Context

Swiss voters in November accepted a proposal for a five-year blanket ban on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Swiss agriculture.

The result is forcing the Swiss government to put in place some of the toughest legislation on GMOs in Europe.

The European Union, of which Switzerland is not a member, ended a six-year moratorium on accepting applications for new genetically modified foods in May 2004.

But Germany and France, two of Switzerland's neighbours, have both voted to uphold national bans on products they deem unsafe.

Philippines at serious risk from illegal GMO rice contamination

Infoshop.org, Tuesday, September 12 2006

The Philippines is at serious risk from illegal GE (genetically-engineered) rice contamination as the international scandal around genetically-manipulated rice varieties which have not been commercially approved for human consumption grows bigger, Greenpeace warned today in a press briefing in Quezon City.

Recent Greenpeace tests reveal that illegal GE rice from the US has contaminated products on supermarket shelves in Germany. The results came a week after an earlier round of tests proved that illegal GE rice from China, which poses a potential health risk, was found present in rice products on European shelves(1). Greenpeace International has notified authorities that illegal GE rice poses health and environmental risks and called upon governments to take immediate action to protect consumers.

"The illegal GE rice scandal, however, may not be limited to Europe. In Southeast Asia rice is the staple diet. The Philippines is among the countries most at risk because we import rice and rice products from both the US and China," said Greenpeace Southeast Asia GE campaigner Daniel Ocampo.

"Greenpeace is therefore calling on the government to protect Filipino consumers by implementing strong measures to nip in the bud what may turn out to be a similar case of serious contamination in our country. These measures should include testing of rice and rice products, the immediate recall of those found positive for contamination, and demanding GE free certification for food from countries that grow and produce GE crops," Ocampo added.

Many US and Chinese rice products which are available in Philippine markets and supermarket shelves may be affected by contamination. These products can range from rice noodles to breakfast cereals to baby food. The country also imports sacks of rice from US and China, and receives several tons of US surplus rice regularly under a food aid program, PL-480.

The recent rice contamination in China began with field trials of GE rice not currently approved for commercial growing because of mounting concerns over its safety. The illegal GE rice, genetically engineered to be resistant to insects, contains a protein or fused protein (Cry1Ac) that has reportedly induced allergic-like reactions in mice. Three independent scientists with expertise in the field of GE and health have issued a statement backing the health concerns raised by Greenpeace International(2). Yet an investigation by Greenpeace in 2005 showed that research institutes and seed companies in China had been illegally selling unapproved GE rice seeds to farmers(3). Processed rice products found in supermarkets in France, UK and Germany were revealed last week to have been contaminated with ChinaÇs illegal GE rice.

New test results by an independent laboratory released in a statement yesterday by Greenpeace Germany have also confirmed the presence of Bayer's Liberty Link rice in US parboiled long grain rice sold in a major German supermarket chain which has 700 outlets throughout France. BayerÇs LL GE rice is not approved for food or cultivation anywhere in the world except within the United States and Canada. In addition, an experimental variety of LL GE rice, LL601, was found recently to be contaminating US rice.

"These findings are shocking and should trigger high-level responses. Consumers should not be left swallowing experimental GE rice that is risky to their health and the environment," said Dr. Janet Cotter from Greenpeace International's Science Unit. "Once illegal GE crops are in the food chain, removing them takes enormous effort and cost. It is easier to prevent contamination in the first place and stop any plans to commercialize GE rice."

Ocampo concluded: "The Philippines, which is signatory to the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety should moreover use the precautionary principle by not importing GMO rice and rice products. The country should also stop planting GMO rice, even in experimental plots, so that contamination is halted at all levels."

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

Notes to Editor

(1) All tests were conducted by an accredited and independent laboratory. Details available in background briefing 'Illegal experimental GE Rice from China: Now entering Europe's Food chain'. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/IllegalChinaGErice

(2) Scientists statement from Pr. Ian F.Pryme, Dept. of Biomedicine, University of Bergen, Norway. Pr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, PrÈsident du Conseil Scientifique, du CRII GEN, Universite de Caen, France. Dr. Christian Velot, Conseil Scientifique du CRII GEN, Institut de Genetique et, Microbiologie, Universite Paris-Sud, France.available at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/ScientistStatementHealthConcernsGErice

(3) Further testing indicated that the whole food chain had been contaminated, with the most recent case being the contaminated Heinz rice cereal products in Beijing, Guangzhou and Hongkong. The Chinese government, in the wake of the situation, reportedly punished seed companies and destroyed illegally grown GE rice.

Genetically Modified Rice Found in German Supermarkets

Deutsche Welle, 12 September 2006

The European Commission has confirmed that EU imports of long-grain rice contain traces of genetically modified material. According to Greenpeace, some of it made it to the shelves of a German supermarket chain.

The European Federation of Rice Millers tested 162 shipments of rice imported from the United States. 33 of them tested positive for the genetically modified rice type known as LL-601, the European Commission said in a statement on Monday.

"Any consignments which tested positive have already been recalled or withheld from the market and the Federation's members have committed to continuing such withdrawals for any positive findings," the commission said.

Biotech rice is not allowed to be grown, sold or marketed in the EU.

German consumers affected

The EU confirmation followed an announcement by environmental group Greenpeace that its tests in Germany had detected traces of genetically modified rice in products sold at the Aldi Nord chain of supermarkets.

Greenpeace genetics expert Ulrike Brendel said that the Aldi products, sold under the Bon-Ri brand, had been contaminated with a strain of rice developed by German industrial giant Bayer and tested in the United States.

"We tested the samples at a respected and independent laboratory," Brendel said. "The results show some of the rice has been modified using a method developed and published by Bayer --there's no doubt about it."

A tainted biotech product

Rice found in eight of Aldi Nord's 35 sales areas contained traces of LL-601-- a rice strain engineered by Bayer to resist certain Bayer herbicides.

Aldi Nord said documentation for the rice imports showed no signs of shipments containing genetically modified rice, but it removed the affected products from its shelves and was testing the countries of origins of other similar products.

The European Commission's findings suggested GM material had been finding its way into the European market for some time. Considering that Germany imports about one quarter of its rice from the US, Brendel thought it was inevitable that a number of products and supermarket chains would be affected.

"This modified strain of rice was planted in the US in 2001, but only as a test crop," Brendel said. "The fact we're finding it here in imports shows that industry isn't capable of controlling genetically modified crops. We don't know what human health or environmental risks involved. If we want to keep food sources free of genetically modified material, then we can't afford to plant GM crops."

Declaring war on biotech rice

Last month the European Commission slapped stringent testing requirements on rice imports from the US to try and stop genetically modified varieties from entering the 25 country-bloc.

At the end of August, Germany's federal ministry of consumer protection ordered state-level authorities to step up their detection efforts.

France and Sweden have also discovered traces of a banned genetically modified substance in imported US rice, in tests which must be confirmed by EU laboratories, a European Commission source said Tuesday.

"Two member states, France and Sweden, have found, by their own methods, positive samples of GMO," the official said. "These remain to be verified by the Commission's testing methods."

In France, seven samples out of 20 tested were found to include the unauthorized LL601 strain, the official said, on condition of anonymity.

Committee passes GMO Amendment Bill despite concerns

Green Clippings (South Africa), 12 September 2006

South African watchdog organisations have criticized the Parliamentary Committee for passing the Genetically Modified Organisms Amendment Bill without addressing serious flaws highlighted at a previous hearing.

At a meeting on the Bill in June the Parliament's Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs told the Department of Agriculture that it could not pass the genetically modified organisms (GMO) Bill until its key concerns were addressed.

But now the bill has been passed without addressing these concerns. Instead the Committee said it would continue to engage the Department of Agriculture and look at how it could address its outstanding concerns in regulations to the Bill.

Concerns raised by the committee that were not dealt with are:

• The regulator was not obliged to take public objections into account when considering a permit application for GM crops.

• The Bill did not adequately specify who will be liable should damage arise from GM crops. In its current form, it seemed likely that the bill would hold the farmer liable and not the producers of the GM seeds.

• The Bill did not specify how costs for harmful impacts of GM crops would be recovered at a later stage.

• The Bill did not Adequately deal with cross-pollination from GM crops and the resultant contamination of non-GM crops.

Environmental watchdog Biowatch criticized the bill for allowing permits to be submitted without independent review, and for allowing applicants to monitor their own compliance. This amounted to self-regulation by the GMO industry.

Biowatch warned that since the bill did not mention mandatory labelling of products containing genetically modified organisations, the ability to monitor for negative human health impacts was limited.

They also expressed concern that the bill failed to provide for the incorporation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety into South Africa's regulatory system, particularly with reference to the crucial precautionary approach to decision-making.

11 September 2006

EU confirms presence of tainted GMO rice

Reuters, 11 September 2006.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Commission confirmed on Monday the presence of an unauthorized genetically modified (GMO) strain of rice.

Thirty-three out of 162 results of rice samples carried out by members of the European Federation of Rice Millers tested positive for the LL601 strain, the European Commission said in a statement.

"Any consignments which tested positive have already been recalled or withheld from the market and the Federation's members have committed to continuing such withdrawals for any positive findings," the European Commission said.

It also said that three bargeloads within a 20,000 metric ton U.S. rice cargo detained in Rotterdam had tested positive, while 20 other bargeloads had tested negative.

"The consignments which tested negative for the unauthorized GMO have now been allowed to proceed to their final destination, while those which tested positive continue to be detained in Rotterdam and will either be returned to the USA or destroyed," the European Commission said.

At present, no biotech rice at all is allowed to be grown, sold or marketed in the 25 countries of the EU.

In August, the European Commission tightened requirements on U.S. long-grain rice imports to prove the absence of biotech rice strain LL601, which it said was marketed by Germany's Bayer AG and produced in the United States.

The Commission's August decision followed the discovery by U.S. authorities of trace amounts of LL601, engineered to resist a herbicide, in long-grain samples that were targeted for commercial use.

Earlier on Monday environmental group Greenpeace International said a strain of LL601 rice had been found in branches of discount supermarket Aldi Nord in Germany.

However, Aldi said no GMO rice had yet been found at its Aldi Nord operations.

In Frankfurt, a spokeswoman for Bayer said the company did not sell or produce LL Rice 601. She said the strain was developed by Aventis CropScience, a company bought by Bayer in 2002, but that development had been discontinued in 2001.

US Illegal GE Rice Contamination Spreads Further into Europe
Bayer's illegal GE rice found in major German supermarket

Greenpeace press release, 11 September 2006.

NEW YORK - September 11 - The scandal around illegal genetically engineered (GE) rice entering European food outlets has grown today as Greenpeace tests reveal illegal rice from the US has contaminated rice on supermarket shelves in Germany. Last week Greenpeace revealed illegal GE rice from China, which poses a potential health risk, had ended up in rice products on European shelves. (1) The European Food Safety Committee meets today to determine the EU response to the potentially widespread contamination of rice and rice products and Greenpeace is calling on the EU to implement strong measures to stop further contamination.

Tests conducted by an independent laboratory have confirmed the presence of Bayer's Liberty Link rice in US parboiled long grain rice sold in Aldi Nord a major German supermarket chain which also has 700 outlets throughout France. Bayers LL GE rice is not approved for food or cultivation anywhere in the world except for the United States and Canada.

"The first question we are asking to both US and European authorities is how widespread is this contamination in products already on grocery store shelves?" said Doreen Stabinsky, Greenpeace GE campaigner. "The second question is what are they doing to protect consumers?" Greenpeace is demanding global testing of consumer products by the rice products industry and a European recall of contaminated US rice products.

Greenpeace is also calling on US authorities and food companies to protect US consumers. "We know that food products in Europe are contaminated. What about the rice products that US consumers are buying, like Uncle Ben's and Rice Krispies? We haven't heard a peep from the US food industry. What assurance are companies such as Kellogg's providing to consumers that their products sold in US supermarkets do not contain illegal GMOs?" added Stabinsky.

Greenpeace followed the announcement of contamination with a letter to US Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, calling on the agency to test all rice exports, regardless of destination. Other important export markets for US long grain rice and rice products include Mexico and the Middle East, where countries such as Saudi Arabia have strict laws regulating GE food products. Greenpeace is urging governments around the world to protect consumers in their countries and test rice products on supermarket shelves that originate from the United States.

For the past two years, US rice producers have refused to grow GE rice commercially because of lack of consumer acceptance around the world. The US rice industry, already reeling under widespread contamination and multiple lawsuits as a result of falling rice prices, is now likely to face an even larger global backlash.

"We know from experience in the Starlink case that the initial contamination finding is just the tip of the iceberg. Once illegal GE crops are in the food chain, removing them takes enormous effort and cost. It is easier to prevent contamination in the first place and stop any plans to commercialise GE rice," concluded Jeremy Tager, GE rice campaigner with Greenpeace International. "This is a clear message to the global rice industry - stay away from GE rice or you risk serious long-term economic damage to your market."

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

Contacts:

In the US: Doreen Stabinsky, Greenpeace International GE campaigner, +1-202-285-7398

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

Images are available of the contaminated rice products

Contact the Greenpeace International picture desk +31 20 718 2058

Doubts over cassava project

East African Magazine, 11 September 2006

Researchers have admitted that varieties of the genetically-modified cassava that they had declared to be disease-resistant were actually vulnerable to the devastating cassava mosaic disease. Dagi Kimani reports

CONTROVERSY HAS deepened over a multi-million dollar USAid-supported cassava research programme, which proponents had said would help boost East Africa's food security, but which critics have dismissed as an attempt by the United States to develop alternative sources of "renewable" energy.

In the latest twist, a leading American research facility, the Donald Danforth Plant Science Centre, has admitted that varieties of genetically-modified cassava that it had declared to be disease-resistant are actually vulnerable to the devastating cassava mosaic disease (CMD), the leading cause of farm losses for the crop.

CMD routinely leads to losses of over 30 per cent of the cassava harvest in some farms. A statement by the centre dated May 26, 2006, says that though resistance to CMD had been established through genetic engineering seven years ago, "the resistance was subsequently lost, and [changes to] the plant's DNA had taken place."

Revelations of the resistance failure came even as plans were at an advanced stage to have the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (Kari) test the transgenic cassava plants under natural field conditions as a preamble to its release to farmers.

The GM cassava varieties were developed through the Disease-Resistant Cassava for Kenya Project, which is funded by USAid, whose stated goal was "to develop and deliver transgenic, disease-resistant cassava planting materials to farmers in Kenya to increase their harvests and improve their food security."

Critics of the cassava-research programme, however, say that the objectives of the project go beyond food security, and touch on the search by the United States of a cheap source of starch other than maize to manufacture ethanol to help wean it from oil. The development of a GM cassava would also help break down resistance to the introduction of genetically-modified crops across the region.

According to the critics, a senior scientist at Danforth Centre, Dr Claude Fauquet, admitted as such when he said in a briefing paper that the "acquisition of the cassava genome sequence will provide a platform to explore the vast biodiversity within cassava wild species. Ultimately, these activities will position cassava as a valuable source of renewable bio-energy."

Together with several other US research facilities, the Danforth Centre, has in addition to being involved in the effort to develop disease-resistant varieties of cassava been contracted by the US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (DOE-JGI) to sequence the plant's entire genome.

The DOE-JGI itself acknowledges that cassava is an excellent energy source which "is grown worldwide as a source of food for approximately one billion people, raising the possibility that it could be used globally to alleviate dependence on fossil fuels."

According to the South African-based African Centre for Biosafety, these admissions mark a "dramatic about-turn from previous commitments to address hunger and the nutritional needs of people in developing countries."

Proponents of the research programme, however, contend that its critics are opposed to it purely because of the fact that it involves genetic-modification, a controversial issue in most African countries outside South Africa.

Before the latest announcements of setbacks, the Danforth Centre had released an elaborate programme in which the disease resistant varieties would be rolled out across East Africa, starting with the distribution of the region's most popular cassava variety - Ebwanatareka - for adoption by 32,000 Kenyan farming families.

"Successful achievement of the project goal will help 200,000 Kenyan cassava farmers and their family members increase their food security by controlling CMD and increasing their cassava harvests by 50 per cent on a sustainable basis," the Danforth Centre says in its website. "A 50 per cent increase in yield for these families will generate an additional 63,000 tonnes of food each year."

The Ebwanatareka variety would then be distributed to Uganda, where it was projected to substantially raise the country's cassava out-put.

"By deploying the same transgenic variety in Uganda, annual production of cassava in that country will increase by over 600,000 tonnes, and the total number of beneficiaries in both countries will increase to over one million persons," says the Danforth Centre's statement.

Tainted biotech rice found in Germany - Greenpeace

Reuters, 11 September 2006.

BRUSSELS, Sept 11 (Reuters) - An unauthorised genetically modified (GMO) rice has found its way into the European Union's retail food sector and appeared for sale at branches of discount supermarket Aldi, environment group Greenpeace said on Monday.

The biotech rice strain, known as LL Rice 601, was found in Aldi branches in Germany, Greenpeace International said in a report. At present, no biotech rice at all is allowed to be grown, sold or marketed in the 25 countries of the EU.

"Tests conducted by an independent accredited laboratory have confirmed the presence of Bayer's Liberty Link rice in U.S. parboiled long grain rice sold in Aldi Nord, a major German supermarket chain," it said in a statement.

Officials at Aldi Nord were not immediately available for comment.

In August, the EU tightened requirements on U.S. long-grain rice imports to prove the absence of LL Rice 601, marketed by Germany's Bayer AG (BAYG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) and produced in the United States.

Its decision followed the discovery by U.S. authorities of trace amounts of LL Rice 601, engineered to resist a herbicide, in long-grain samples that were targeted for commercial use.

The only other evidence so far of the presence of LL Rice 601 in the EU-25 has been in the Netherlands, where Dutch authorities have been testing a 20,000-tonne U.S. rice cargo that was partly destined for Britain and partly for Germany.

As of last Friday, two-thirds of the cargo -- held in Rotterdam -- had been tested but no positive trace was found, European Commission officials said. The shipment equates to one month's average EU imports of U.S. long-grain rice.

USDA to Rubber-Stamp Contamination of Food with Illegal, Genetically Engineered Rice Banned in Japan and Europe

U.S. Dismantles Regulation of Genetically Engineered Crops to Serve Interests of Biotechnology Industry

Center for Food Safety Press Release, 11 September 2006.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today initiated fast-track market approval of an illegal, genetically-engineered (GE) rice variety that has contaminated long-grain rice throughout the South, throwing rice markets into turmoil and potentially causing harm to consumers and the environment. Bayer CropScience developed the rice, known as LL601. Bayer field-tested LL601 from 1998-2001, but for unknown reasons never applied to USDA for market approval.

Though LL601 is illegally present in rice supplies, and has not undergone meaningful reviews for potential health or environmental impacts, U.S. authorities have failed to recall LL601-contaminated rice supplies or food products. In contrast, Japan has banned U.S. long-grain rice imports, and the European Union is testing all U.S. rice shipments and rejecting those that contain LL601.

Bayer is now asking USDA to grant retroactive market approval of the illegal rice, even though the company gave up plans to market LL601 in 2001 and it remains untested.

"Illegal, potentially hazardous rice in grain bins, on supermarket shelves, in cereal, beer, baby foods, and all rice products. It should be a no-brainer ‚ recall this stuff to make sure no one eats it," said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety. "Instead, USDA plans to rush through 'market approval' of a genetically engineered rice that Bayer itself decided was unfit for commerce. Why? To free Bayer from liability."

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

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

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

"USDA's bid to approve - rather than recall ‚ an illegal, genetically engineered contaminant in the food supply is the clearest sign yet that U.S. authorities are intent upon dismantling federal regulation of GE crops in the interests of the biotechnology industry," said Mendelson.

LL601 was first detected in U.S. rice by an export customer of Arkansas-based Riceland Foods in January 2006. According to Arkansas Secretary of Agriculture Richard Bell, LL601 has been detected in virtually all milled long-grain rice supplies that have been tested. USDA announced the contamination debacle seven months later, on August 18th, when U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns professed ignorance as to how much rice was contaminated, which rice products were involved, or where the contaminated rice was found.

In 2001, Bayer purchased Aventis CropScience, the company responsible for multimillion dollar food recalls due to massive contamination of U.S corn supplies with genetically engineered StarLink corn. StarLink was unapproved for human consumption due to concerns it could cause food allergies.

Since 1996, the USDA has granted at least 48 permits authorizing Bayer or companies it has since acquired (Aventis, AgrEvo) to plant over 4,000 acres of experimental, genetically engineered (GE) rice. The extent to which pollen or grains from these field trials have contaminated commercial rice or related weedy species such as red rice is unknown. USDA policies do not provide for the testing of fields adjacent to field test sites to detect possible contamination with the experimental genetically engineered crop.

Contacts:

Joe Mendelson, 202-547-9359 x12
Bill Freese, 202-547-9359 x14

USDA seeks public comment on deregulation of genetically engineered rice

USDA press release no 0345.06

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8, 2006 - The U.S. Department of Agriculture is seeking public comment on a petition to deregulate a rice genetically engineered (GE) to be tolerant to herbicides marketed under the brand name LibertyLink. In 1999, after thorough safety evaluations, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) deregulated two similar LibertyLink rice lines. Under petition, APHIS would extend its deregulation from the original two lines to include the rice line known as LLRICE601.

On Aug. 18, USDA announced that trace amounts of this regulated GE rice were detected in samples taken from commercial long grain rice. A review of the scientific data by USDA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded that there were no human health, food safety or environmental concerns associated with this GE rice.

The petition for deregulation, submitted by Bayer CropScience, is in accordance with APHIS' regulations concerning the introduction of GE organisms and products. APHIS has prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) for LLRICE601. The scientific evidence indicates there are no environmental, human health or food safety concerns associated with this GE rice.

Notice of this action is scheduled for publication in today's Federal Register. USDA is seeking comment on the petition and invites comments on the EA. Consideration will be given to comments received on or before Oct. 10. Send an original and three copies of comments to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0140, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, Md. 20737-1238. Comments may be submitted via the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/.

Comments are posted on the regulations.gov web site and may also be viewed at USDA, Room 1141, South Building, 14th St. and Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C., between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. To facilitate entry into the comment reading room, please call (202) 690-2817.

Contact:

Rachel Iadicicco (301) 734-3255
Kristin Scuderi (202) 720-4623

10 September 2006

Genetically modified wheat still shunned

Billings Gazette, 10 September 2006

FARGO, N.D. - An eminent agricultural economist has looked at it again: The world still is against genetically modified wheat.

Robert Wisner of Iowa State University in Ames, offering an annual update of his 2003 study "Market Risks of Genetically Modified Wheat," said introducing genetically modified wheat won't turn around the trend of declining wheat acres in the United States, as some proponents suggest.

Wisner, updating the study on behalf of the Western Organization and its seven state groups - including the Dakota Resource Council - found that introducing genetically modified wheat still would risk the loss of a quarter of U.S. hard red spring and wheat durum export markets and would cut prices about one-third, as earlier reports have concluded. "Nothing new," said Todd Leake of Emerado, N.D., a commercial farmer and chairman of the DRC's Food Safety Task Force, which deals with genetically modified wheat issues.

Plans shelved

The issue was heavily in the news until 2004, when Monsanto announced it would shelve its Roundup Ready plans until markets and farmers would accept it. Syngenta and others are continuing to develop genetically modified wheat that would protect a crop from Fusarium head blight, or scab.

Wisner concluded that the market makes no distinction between genetically modified crops for scab resistance vs. herbicide resistance.

Leake, who grew 1,200 acres of wheat in 2006, called scab "yesterday's problem," noting the success of North Dakota State University's Alsen wheat variety with its "excellent Fusarium resistance." He said success of conventional techniques is something proponents of genetic modification "publicly ignore."

"Fusarium head blight is not an important enough issue anymore to warrant the market risks of a GMO wheat introduction," he said, noting it would drop U.S. wheat prices to about $2 a bushel, which is the rough price for Canadian feed wheat.

WTO and ag issues

Leake said the fact that World Trade Organization talks are faltering on ag issues is an indication that the European Union is less likely to drop its restrictions on GMO crops.

Leake said the report's message is made even stronger by a separate event. Japan suspended imports of U.S. rice and the European Union imposed mandatory testing of all imported rice after the Bayer Corp. announced that traces of Liberty Link rice, a genetically modified rice, had been detected in commercial supplies.

"This is a warning," Leke said. "If we had contamination of a GMO in wheat, from everything they've said, they wouldn't import the wheat. Even if Japanese or European food agencies would relinquish a bit, that doesn't mean the milling industry is going to buy it. The paradigm hasn't changed."

Leake said the study runs counter to claims that if wheat can be genetically modified for weed protection, disease protection or for other consumer traits, the crop will be more able to compete against soybeans and corn for acres.

Wisner concludes that wheat acreage is declining because of more favorable U.S. farm support policies and because of expanding demand for ethanol and biodiesel.

9 September 2006

EPA asked to withdraw consent for GM potato trial
after global contamination of rice with illegal Bayer GM rice

Cavan Leitrim Environmental Awareness Network press release, 9 September 2006.

CLEAN (Cavan Leitrim Environmental Network) Ltd has written to the EPA requesting that it withdraws the consent from Bayer Crop Science for field testing of GM potatoes in County Meath.[1] This move was taken after it emerged that Bayer Crop Science is responsible for the world wide contamination of rice with an unauthorisedÝ variety of genetically modified (GM) long-grain rice from experiments carried out by the company in the USA from 1998 to 2001

The illegal GM rice, called Liberty Link (LL Rice 601) was developed by Bayer CropScience, a subsidiary of the world's largest chemicals company BASF which has been given consent from the EPA for a fieldÝ experiment with 450,000 GMO potatoes in Co. Meath earlier this year. The experiment was postponed by the company to start in 2007.[2] Ý

Although no GM rice of any kind is authorised for import, cultivation, or sale as food or animal feed in the European Union, member states did import 300,000 tonnes of U.S. rice in 2005.

The GM rice contamination was first discovered in January of this year.

Bayer waited until 31 July before reporting the problem to the US authorities. But the Bush administration then waited a further three weeks before announcing the contamination on 18 August.

The EC was formally informed about the contamination incident on 18th August, and it responded four days later on 24 August by placing a ban on all future imports of American long-grain rice unless they are accompanied by export-point certification confirming that they are free of LL601 contaminants.

On 30 August The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI)Ý stated it is to implement a ban on the import of certain long grain rice products from the US unless they are accompanied by certificates declaring them to be free of unauthorised GM rice.

This case of GM contamination follows a similar incident in March last year in which the biotech company Syngenta admitted to selling the experimental and illegal GM maize variety BT10 to US farmers for four years.[3]

Also recently a genetically modified grass designed for use on golf courses has been found growing three miles from its test site in central Oregon.[4]

Some of the plants found outside the test site, reports New Scientist, had grown from seeds produced by the GM parent. Others were hybrids derived from a non-GM plant being pollinated by one of the modified specimens.

Meanwhile Greenpeace International, citing the results of laboratory tests, said last Tuesday an illegal Chinese GM rice modified to resist certain insects had been detected in samples of rice stick noodles in France and Germany, and also in rice vermicelli in Britain.[5]

China did not deny this when it responded on Thursday to these reports "China has not approved commercial growing of any genetically modified rice," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang, adding that China's growing of GMO rice on experimental fields was for scientific research and regulated by law.[6] All this shows that widespread contamination can result from field trials, in some cases only detected years after they were undertaken, despite regulation and conditions imposed on such trials..

Contact:

Christine Raab-Heine, phone: 071 96 43034, email: chheine@iolfree.ie

Notes:

1. Text of CLEAN's letter to EPA:

5/09/06
Re: GMO Register entry 208, request for withdrawal

A chara,

The EPA will be aware of the global contamination of rice from field trials, undertakenÝ by Bayer Crop Science from 1998 to 2001.

This latest case of global GM contamination follows a similar incident in March last year in which the biotech company Syngenta admitted to selling the experimental and illegal GM maize variety BT10 to US farmers for four years.

Also recently a genetically modified grass designed for use on golf courses has been found growing three miles from its test site in central Oregon.

This shows that widespread contamination can result from field trials years after they were undertaken, despite regulation and conditions imposed.

We are aware that the EPA has put strict conditions on Bayer Crop Science for their field trial of GM potatoes when consenting to it. Bayer Crop Science apparently was not in a position to fulfill them and cancelled the experiment for this year.

In light of this, and in light of the recent rice contamination caused by Bayer Crop Science, and for the fact that the company informed authorities only months after it had detected the contamination, and that further the EU was not satisfied with the information it got from the company, and that lastly it is still not clear how this contamination could happen, we feel that Bayer Crop Science clearly has shown gross misconduct and can not be trusted with regard to the potato trials they plan in County Meath.

We therefore hereby request that the EPA withdraws the consent for the GM potato trial in Co. Meath from Bayer Crop Science.

2. BASF Plant Science GmbH postponed its plans for a controversial patented GMO potato experiment in Co. Meath in April this year. Bayer said it made the decision because of the conditions imposed in the provisional consent given by the Environmental Protection Agency on 8 May. These included obligations for the company to reduce the risk of cross-contamination of neighbouring farmers and wildlife, and to pay the costs of an independent monitoring of health and environmental impacts. BASF complained that such conditions had not been imposed for similar experiments in Sweden. The cancellation may also have been influenced by nationwide opposition from more than 100 farm and food industry groups, resistance by TDs from all the parties, two motions passed unanimously by Meath Co. Council, and the threat of further legal action on planning and constitutional grounds. Days later, BASF CEO Hans Kast (who also chairs the biotech lobby Europa-Bio), said that all the European countries which oppose GM food and crops should "get out of the EU"!

3. An article in Nature on 22 March 2005 revealed that between 2001 and 2004 biotech company Syngenta sold several hundred tones of a GM maize seed, called BT10, to US farmers, mistaking it for another GM maize, BT11, which was approved by the EU the year before. BT10, however, has never been approved anywhere in the world. Bt 10 contains the amp gene, which confers resistance to the ampicillin family of antibiotics. Around 1000 tonnes of the maize were imported into Europe. Whereas the US was informed about this in December 2004, the rest of the world only learned about it through the article in Nature four months later. Syngenta first claimed that BT10 was identical to BT11, but finally admitted that it contains the controversial antibiotic resistance gene.

4.Ýhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2306060,00.html.ÝÝÝÝÝ

5. http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/sep2006/gb20060905_212791.htm?....ÝÝÝÝÝÝ

6. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK68053.htm

8 September 2006

Technology - Redesigning Crops to Harvest Fuel

New York Times, 8 September 2006.

More miles to the bushel.

That is the new mission of crop scientists. In an era of $3-a-gallon gasoline and growing concern about global warming from fossil fuels, seed and biotechnology companies see a big new opportunity in developing corn and other crops tailored for use in ethanol and other biofuels.

Syngenta, for instance, hopes in 2008 to begin selling a genetically engineered corn designed to help convert itself into ethanol. Each kernel of this self-processing corn contains an enzyme that must otherwise be added separately at the ethanol factory.

Just last week, DuPont and Bunge announced that their existing joint venture to improve soybeans for food would also start designing beans for biodiesel fuel and other industrial uses.

And Ceres, a plant genetics company in California, is at work on turning switch grass, a Prairie States native, into an energy crop.

"You could turn Oklahoma into an OPEC member by converting all its farmland to switch grass," said Richard W. Hamilton, the Ceres chief executive.

Developing energy crops could mean new applications of genetic engineering, which for years has been aimed at making plants resistant to insects and herbicides, but would now include altering their fundamental structure. One goal, for example, is to reduce the amount of lignin, a substance that gives plants the stiffness to stand upright but interferes with turning a plant's cellulose into ethanol.

Such prospects are starting to alarm some environmentalists, who worry that altered plants will cross-pollinate in the wild, resulting in forests that practically droop for want of lignin. And some oppose the notion of altering corn to feed the nation's addiction to automobiles.

"I don't think people want extra enzymes in the food supply put there to better fit the crops for energy production," said Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

But proponents of designer fuel crops argue that the risks are small compared with the threat of dependence on foreign oil. Some studies also suggest that ethanol use could help fight global warming because the crops that help produce ethanol absorb carbon dioxide.

So far, much of the attention on bioenergy has focused on improving the chemical processes for turning crops into ethanol. But experts say that if biofuels are to make a significant dent in the nation's petroleum consumption, the crops themselves must be improved to provide more energy from an acre.

And new agricultural sources beyond corn must be developed, they say. Even if the nation's entire corn crop were converted to ethanol production, it would replace only about 15 percent of petroleum use, according to an Energy Department report.

"Half the improvement we make over the next 10 to 15 years will come from improving the feedstocks," said Gerald A. Tuskan, a biofuel expert in the department, referring to the crops fed into the ethanol factories.

Some of the work will not necessarily involve genetic engineering. Notably, Monsanto, the leader by far in crop biotechnology, says that its biofuel development will focus on conventional breeding, which it says is quicker.

Monsanto has tested its existing corn varieties to determine which ones are better for ethanol production. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, the DuPont subsidiary that is Monsanto's rival in the corn-seed business, is doing the same.

The companies say that the designated varieties, which have higher fermentable starch content, can increase ethanol production 2 to 5 percent over other corn. And some factories are starting to request certain types of corn or to pay a premium for more desirable corn, said Pradip Das, head of crop analytics at Monsanto.

Still, some ethanol factory operators say they do not really care which corn they get. The factories are so hungry that they take "pretty much all the commercial corn you can get your hands on," said David Nelson, chairman of Midwest Grain Processors, which runs an ethanol plant in Lakota, Iowa.

William S. Niebur, vice president for crop genetics research and development at DuPont, said the demands of ethanol production would require extremely hardy corn.

"The demand for this corn grain could be so dramatic," he said, "that it would change farming practices." Instead of rotating corn with other crops, he said, farmers would be pressed to grow corn year after year, which could strain the soil and allow the buildup of insects and disease.

Many of the traits needed for energy corn - high yield as well as tolerance to disease, insects and drought - would also be desirable in corn used for human and animal food. That is not the case, though, with Syngenta's enzyme corn, which would be specifically for energy production.

Generally, the enzyme, known as amylase, is made in vats of bacteria. Ethanol manufacturers add the enzyme to corn to break down starch into sugar, which can be fermented into ethanol.

To get corn to produce its own amylase, Syngenta inserted a gene borrowed from a type of microbe called archaea that live near hot-water vents on the floor of the ocean.

The gene - actually a composite of three amylase genes - was developed with the help of Diversa, a San Diego company that specializes in finding chemicals in organisms that inhabit extreme environments.

Diversa says that because its enzyme is derived from a heat-loving microbe, ethanol factories can operate at higher temperatures and under more acidic conditions, improving efficiency.

Some people in the biofuel industry question what the advantage is of having the enzyme in the corn rather than just buying the very similar amylase that Diversa is already selling.

While Syngenta's corn is meant for industrial use in the United States, it is almost inevitable that some of it will get into human and animal food supplies, including exports, because of cross-pollination or seed intermingling. That is what happened in 2000 with Aventis CropScience's StarLink corn, which was approved only for animal use, yet ended up in human food, forcing recalls and disrupting exports.

To prevent such liability, Syngenta is seeking approval of the corn for human and animal food use, not only in the United States but in Europe, South Africa and elsewhere. Syngenta says the amylase enzyme is safe, noting that these enzymes are found in saliva.

But Bill Freese of the Center for Food Safety, an advocacy group in Washington opposed to biotechnology crops, said that this particular amylase is from a little-studied exotic microbe and that some amylase induces allergy.

The Agriculture Department has asked Syngenta for more information on its application.

Regardless of what is done to corn, some experts say that starch alone will not provide enough ethanol. The new frontier is to produce ethanol from cellulose, the fibrous material in all plants. Cellulose is made of complex carbohydrates that can be broken down by enzymes into simpler sugars for fermenting into ethanol.

While some of the cellulose for biofuels could come from agricultural residue like corn stalks, there will probably be a need for other crops grown specifically for energy production - in particular, perennial plants like grasses that require far less energy-consuming irrigation and fertilization than crops like corn that have to be replanted each year.

That is why Ceres, a privately owned supplier of genetics technology to Monsanto, sees a future in switch grass. The company's greenhouses are filled with versions of tall, gangly grass plants, some developed by conventional breeding and some by genetic engineering.

The grasses are meant to have higher yields, to withstand drought or to break down easily in the ethanol factory - "the energy crop that melts in your mouth, if you will," Mr. Hamilton said.

Ceres, based in Thousand Oaks, Calif., is not working with Monsanto on switch grass but is collaborating with the Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation in Ardmore, Okla., a leading research institute on forage grasses. Mr. Hamilton said the partners were already testing conventionally bred switch grass varieties that yield eight or nine tons of biomass an acre, compared with about five tons for typical switch grass.

Mendel Biotechnology, based in Hayward, Calif., is looking more at miscanthus, a perennial grass native to China, where Mendel has set up an operation.

The company said miscanthus could produce well over 20 tons an acre each year. "No planting, no fertilizing, no irrigation," said its chief executive, Chris Somerville, who is also the director of plant biology at the Carnegie Institution and a Stanford University professor. "You can just cut it every year for 10 years."

Another cellulose candidate is poplar, which recently became the first tree to have its entire genome sequenced, an effort led by the Energy Department.

At first, significantly higher-yielding cellulose sources can come from conventional breeding, experts say. But later, genetic engineering may be needed. That could raise concerns because trees and grasses live longer and spread more easily than currently engineered crops like corn and soybeans.

And yet, energy crops may also be an opportunity for the industry to burnish its public image.

"After all," the journal Nature Biotechnology said in a recent editorial, "it's difficult to oppose a technology that's helping to save the planet."

Ethanol could leave the world hungry
One tankful of the latest craze in alternative energy could feed one person for a year, Lester Brown tells Fortune.

Fortune Magazine, August 16 2006. By Lester Brown.

The growing myth that corn is a cure-all for our energy woes is leading us toward a potentially dangerous global fight for food. While crop-based ethanol -the latest craze in alternative energy - promises a guilt-free way to keep our gas tanks full, the reality is that overuse of our agricultural resources could have consequences even more drastic than, say, being deprived of our SUVs. It could leave much of the world hungry.

We are facing an epic competition between the 800 million motorists who want to protect their mobility and the two billion poorest people in the world who simply want to survive. In effect, supermarkets and service stations are now competing for the same resources.

This year cars, not people, will claim most of the increase in world grain consumption. The problem is simple: It takes a whole lot of agricultural produce to create a modest amount of automotive fuel.

The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol, for instance, could feed one person for a year. If today's entire U.S. grain harvest were converted into fuel for cars, it would still satisfy less than one-sixth of U.S. demand.

Worldwide increase in grain consumption

The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that world grain consumption will increase by 20 million tons this year, roughly 1%. Of that, 14 million tons will be used to fuel cars in the U.S., leaving only six million tons to cover the world's growing food needs.

Already commodity prices are rising. Sugar prices have doubled over the past 18 months (driven in part by Brazil's use of sugar cane for fuel), and world corn and wheat prices are up one-fourth so far this year.

For the world's poorest people, many of whom spend half or more of their income on food, rising grain prices can quickly become life threatening.

Once stimulated solely by government subsidies, biofuel production is now being driven largely by the runaway price of oil. Many food commodities, including corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, and sugar cane, can be converted into fuel; thus the food and energy economies are beginning to merge.

The market is setting the price for farm commodities at their oil-equivalent value. As the price of oil climbs, so will the price of food.

In some U.S. Cornbelt states, ethanol distilleries are taking over the corn supply. In Iowa, 25 ethanol plants are operating, four are under construction, and another 26 are planned.

Iowa State University economist Bob Wisner observes that if all those plants are built, distilleries would use the entire Iowa corn harvest. In South Dakota, ethanol distilleries are already claiming over half that state's crop.

The key to lessening demand for grain is to commercialize ethanol production from cellulosic materials such as switchgrass or poplar trees, a prospect that is at least five years away.

Malaysia, the leading exporter of palm oil, is emerging as the biofuel leader in Asia. But after approving 32 biodiesel refineries within the past 15 months, it recently suspended further licensing while it assesses the adequacy of its palm oil supplies. Fast-rising global demand for palm oil for both food and biodiesel purposes, coupled with rising domestic needs, has the government concerned that there will not be enough to go around.

Less costly alternatives

There are truly guilt-free alternatives to using food-based fuels. The equivalent of the 3% of U.S. automotive fuel supplies coming from ethanol could be achieved several times over - and at a fraction of the cost - by raising auto fuel-efficiency standards by 20%. (Unfortunately Detroit has resisted this, preferring to produce flex-fuel vehicles that will burn either gasoline or ethanol.)

Or what if we shifted to gas-electric hybrid plug-in cars over the next decade, powering short-distance driving, such as the daily commute or grocery shopping, with electricity?

By investing not in hundreds of wind farms, as we now are, but rather in thousands of them to feed cheap electricity into the grid, the U.S. could have cars running primarily on wind energy, and at the gasoline equivalent of less than $1 a gallon.

Clearly, solutions exist. The world desperately needs a strategy to deal with the emerging food-fuel battle. As the world's leading grain producer and exporter, as well as its largest producer of ethanol, the U.S. is in the driver's seat.

Lester R. Brown is president of the Earth Policy Institute and author of "Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble."

GMO cotton wilting

Andra Pradesh Coalition In Defence of Diversity (APCIDD) press release, 8 Sept. 2006.

Hyderabad, India -- Farmers in Nalgonda, who planted Bt Cotton with their own hands in their fields have started uprooting them, unable to watch the plants dying due to severe wilt.

This was bound to happen. Since the beginning of Bt cotton cultivation in AP, every year disasters have visited it. In the first year, it was a disaster, yielding 35% less than the non Bt cotton even while costing four times more than the non Bt cotton. In the third year, new diseases spread for the soils and the plant. Cattle which grazed Bt cotton plants started dying.

And this year, Bt plants have started wilting forcing farmers to harden their heart and uproot them.

In village Mustyalapally in the Bhongir mandal of Nalgonda farmers have uprooted Bt cotton from 41 acres out of the 51 acres planted. Nearly 80% of the planted area. Besides Mustyalpalli, the disease has spread to nearby vilages of Cheemala Konduru, Sikendernagar, Cholleru and Moota Kinduru villages of Bhongir and Yadagirigutta mandals, spreading panic among farmers.

Farmers complain that, the plants are slowly dying one after another because the root system is severy decomposed without any secondary and tertiary roots on the main root system. Even the bolls formed on these wilted plants did not bear any seeds. Hence farmers decided to uproot this crop and make the the best use of the remaining part of the agricultural season by sowing coriander with the onset of rains.

The Bt cotton farmers who had alredy spent Rs 5000 to 7000 per acre on various operations like land preparation, seed & fertilizer costs, and plant protection costs to save their crops from sucking pests. Initially they felt the problem was due to prolonged drought in the month of July for about 27 days. But to their surprise, the problem intensified after they had received rains in August month.

Mr M A Qayum, formerly a retired Joint Director of Agriculture who has visited these fields in Mustyalapalli to assess the extent of damage, says that the disease is caused by a soil borne fungus called "Rhizoctonia", which severly affects the root system causing the plant to wilt from top to down. Hitherto cotton farmers in Andhra Pradesh had never faced this problem. Even the uprooted Bt cotton stalks are not relished by the cattle. Last year shepherds of the area had complained that more than 10,000 sheep had died by grazinging the stubbles in the Bt cotton fields after the final harvest.

On the invitation of APCIDD, a team of Agricultural Scientists from Acharya NG Ranga Agricutltural University from Lam farm had visited the fields in Cholleru village on 25th July 2006. The team confirmed the presence of low to moderate incidence of thrips in Bt cotton fields and dry root rot and Bacterial Leaf Blight on cotton fields. They even anticipated spreading of the BLB and root rot in cotton with the receipt of rains and recommended drenching of areas where the symptom were observed with Copper Oxy Chloride solution @ 3g/litre and spraying of 3g of COC + 100mg of Streptocyclin in one litre of water thrice at 15 days interval.

In the wake the reports from other countries that point to the toxic effect of the root exudates from the Bt cotton plants on the beneficial soil fauna, APCIDD demads that the Government of Andhra Pradesh order a detailed scientific inquiry into these disease, and order the Bt seed producers to compensate the loss to the farmers, soil and the environment.

The APCIDD warns that any delay in responding to this situation would lead to severe loss to cotton growing farmers.

P.V. Satheesh
Convenor
AP Coalition In Defence of Diversity
101, Kishan Residency, St.No.5,
Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016,. India
Tel: 27764577

7 September 2006

Flap Over Modified Rice Weighs on Food Importers

Wall Street Journal, 7 September 2006. By Julianne von Reppert-Bismarck.

Brussels - When commercial rice stored in Missouri and Arkansas turned up traces of an illegal biotech strain last month, Britain's largest food importer said it was looking for a new supplier.

Now, Associated British Foods PLC -- a food empire with sales of £5.6 billion ($10.6 billion) last year -- may have to change suppliers again, this time to replace some of the foods it buys from China.

Environmental groups Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth this week said they found an illegal genetically engineered strain in rice-based products sold in Asian supermarkets in the U.K., France and Germany. European Union officials responded with strong language, telling food importers they could be sued if they failed to keep unauthorized foods out of Europe. The EU has yet to confirm the findings of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

The rice scare underlines problems facing food companies and biotech firms world-wide. Many genetically modified strains are banned in Europe. But techniques for stopping biotech crops crossing into the food chain by accident are imperfect. Companies are struggling to find reliable suppliers and to avoid legal suits by testing their product lines.

"We'll comply with European food law as best we can," Associated British Foods spokesman Geoff Lancaster said. Hours after the environmental groups announced their findings, Mr. Lancaster's company started isolating and testing several goods it suspected of containing Chinese rice ingredients that might include the illegal strain.

Farmers, importers and biotech firms are beginning to feel the sting. The U.S. Agriculture Department said on Aug. 18 that Arkansas and Missouri commercial-rice stocks had turned up traces of Liberty Link rice, an experimental and unauthorized modified strain. After the announcement, September rice-futures prices on the Chicago Board of Trade sank 14% to $8.47 a hundredweight. Japan banned U.S. long-grain rice. American farmers say Europe's strict screening rules on all long-grain-rice imports from the U.S. are pinching profits.

Looking for compensation, U.S. farmers have filed at least three legal actions against German chemicals company Bayer AG, which owns the patent to Liberty Link rice. Such court cases can be costly: Swiss agrochemicals company Syngenta AG last year put aside about $50 million to fund tests of U.S. corn-gluten exports to the EU following the discovery that Syngenta accidentally had sold an unauthorized corn strain to farmers exporting to Europe.

At the same time, food importers may face costly legal challenges in Europe. The European Commission has written to governments reminding them to take a hard line against companies that allow biotech crops to be sold on their territory. While no suits yet have been filed, the commission believes companies "are not doing enough" to comply, according to EU spokesman Philip Tod.

But testing is expensive and difficult. Swiss food empire Nestle AG says it spends a "significant part" of its $1.2 billion research-and-development budget on in-house safety testing.

The amount of the illegal Liberty Link strain found in Arkansas and Missouri was equivalent to six rice grains out of 10,000. Companies without in-house labs are competing for the services of a handful of European labs capable of testing such small quantities.

Large companies say they can follow their ingredients back to their source. But the Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries this week said importers were unsure which rice-based products, such as vermicelli, sauce mixes or rice starch, came from China. Several Chinese regions were found to be using an illegal biotech strain in 2004, and importers say the problem hasn't been rooted out.

"You have to look at the various forms that the rice takes. It takes time for our members to know exactly what rice starch or flour they are using," said Nathalie Lecoq, from the confederation's commercial department.

Environmentalists want to ban all Chinese rice goods or at least require countries farming with genetically engineered grains to label exports according to their biotech content. European experts meet again Monday to assess the biotech situation and may well discuss the question of Chinese rice goods.

China prohibits commercial use of GM rice

Bangkok Post, 7 September 2006.

Beijing (dpa) - China said Thursday that it did not permit the commercial use of genetically modified rice in response to accusations by environmental watchdogs that they had found the illegal modified rice on the European market.

Experimental varieties of rice genetically engineered to be resistant to insects are grown for scientific purposes and are subject to strict supervision, said Qin Gang, foreign ministry spokesman.

"The Chinese government has not approved of any genetically modified rice for commercial production," said Qin.

On Tuesday, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace said they had found the GM contamination in three packets of rice noodles and snacks bought from speciality stores in London's Chinatown and found similar traces in products bought in France and Germany.

Bt-rice, which is still in the experimental phase, uses genes of the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to produce an insect poison. It also contains a protein that might cause allergic reactions.

Greenpeace has demanded that the contaminated products be taken off the shelves.

The European Commission Tuesday strongly criticised food importers for allowing the illegal GM rice from China.

China offers no decisive reply to GMO rice claims

Reuters, 7 September 2006.

BEIJING - China responded on Thursday to reports of Chinese genetically modified (GMO) rice being found in Europe by saying only that it had not approved commercial farming of such crops.

Greenpeace International, citing the results of laboratory tests, said on Tuesday Chinese rice modified to resist certain insects had been detected in samples of rice stick noodles in France and Germany, and also in rice vermicelli in Britain.

"We are aware of the relevant reports," Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told a regular press conference.

"China has not approved commercial growing of any genetically modified rice," said Qin, adding that China's growing of GMO rice on experimental fields was for scientific research and regulated by law.

He did not elaborate.

Chinese quarantine officials reached by Reuters said they were investigating but gave no details.

Greenpeace said in March that illegal Chinese GMO rice had been found in baby food in a southern Chinese city, which was later denied by the Chinese Agriculture Ministry.

GMO in rice: time for level heads to prevail

Delta Farm Express, 7 September 2006.

By Ford L. Baldwin, Pratical Weed Consultants, LLC

Boy, things sure can change in a hurry in agriculture. I have had a number of calls, mostly from farmers, asking my opinion on the LibertyLink rice issue. Primedia Business - Delta Farm Press, Click Here!

I have had several conversations with my contacts at Riceland Foods, Inc., and also with contacts at Bayer CropScience, but I do not know any more than what everyone has read in various articles, news releases and Internet postings.

The questions include: Where did the LL601 gene come from? How did it get into our commercial production? Which varieties is it in? How widespread is it? Is there any way to get it out?

It will take a while for these to be answered by APHIS and other government agencies.

I have some own ideas and suspicions, but they are just speculation. What is really needed right now is a chilling-out period and for level heads to prevail. There are huge amounts of misinformation out in the field and in come cases the "uninformed factor" is running rampant.

What is REALLY needed is for the price to bounce back while the facts are being sorted out.

We do know that the rice is completely safe. If it is any consolation to anyone, our keg was ready to change out right when the news hit. I did not change to a brand without rice in it but went right back and got another keg of Bud Light.

It is my understanding that Bayer is working to deregulate this particular LL601 event. They had actually shelved that event for one they felt had better traits. That later event is fully deregulated and approved and the tolerance is established for Liberty herbicide to be used in it.

LibertyLink rice could be being grown right now, but Bayer has chosen not to introduce the technology until the market will accept it.

A lot of farmers are upset about the sudden and large drop in the rice price at a time when the market was strengthening and things were looking up. Who would not be upset?

However, to me it is a sad day to see advertisements by lawyers in our state-wide newspaper trying to sign up folks to sue when all the facts in this matter are a long way from being established.

LibertyLink rice is being developed as a part of technology moving forward. GMO technology is prevalent in most of our other major crops. Of course, that has led some to say thank goodness it is not in rice.

We are more than 10 years into developing, growing and eating GMO crops. Genetic engineering simply is where the new technology breakthroughs in crops are going to be.

Gosh, in most major universities for the past 20 years, every clod-kicking, muddy boots-type scientist who would retire would be replaced by a "gene jockey." Genetic engineering is prevalent is USDA, in the major universities and in industry.

We have been manipulating genes in plants in different ways ever since the first two plants ever crossed. We are just doing it in a lot of different ways now.

If this LibertyLink event is truly as widespread - although in minute amounts - as it sounds, there may be no getting it back. While that is out of my area of expertise, I can sure see how it could be extremely difficult.

I do not believe for a minute any of the conspiracy theories I have heard. Whatever happened was the result of an honest mistake in the process of trying to develop new technology.

Once it was suspected, there were a lot of steps to go through by a lot of people to know for sure it is real. Sure, the timing may have been terrible, but what timing would not have been?

It may well just be time now to let the regulatory agencies do their thing. They have plenty of expertise to determine which GMO events are safe and which are not.

Time has already proven GMO technology, when properly regulated, is safe. Perhaps it is time to move on with the technology in rice as we have in other crops.

Southern Africa: Boost Capacity for GMO Testing, SADC States Told

The Herald (Harare), September 7, 2006. By Sifelani Tsiko

COUNTRIES in the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) should mobilise resources for their national biosafety systems to enhance their capacity to test for the presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food, stock feed and seed, a Cabinet minister said yesterday.

The Minister of Science and Technology Development, Dr Olivia Muchena, said this was important to help the region safeguard against the unintentional placing of GMOs on the market and the environment.

"To achieve this, there is need for capacity (building for) infrastructure and people to screen (test) food, feed and seed for the presence of GMOs," she said while opening a four-day Sadc GMO testing training course at the Tobacco Research Board (TRB) Centre at Kutsaga.

"We share very porous borders, efforts to screen imports by one country come to nothing if other countries in the region are not doing the same."

A total of 26 participants from Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Malawi, Zambia, Swaziland, Namibia and Zimbabwe attended the course which was jointly run by the TRB and the University of Zimbabwe.

The course was funded by the Regional Agricultural and Environment Initiative (RAEIN-Africa), which is based in Namibia.

RAEIN-Africa director Mrs Doreen Shumba-Mnyulwa said the course was a result of consultative process in which stakeholders within the Sadc region wanted to strengthen their capacity to make and implement policies that govern the safe handling of GMOs.

"In the region, there was a general lack of capacity to test food aid, to verify whether certain food items are GMO or non-GMO.

"Food aid comes as grain and unlabelled. Most countries did not have the capacity to test for GMOs," she said, "and we believe this training course will help address some of the concerns."

The training course aimed to provide participants with skills for testing products for the presence of GMOs, to carry out risk assessment of GMO food, stock feed and seed and to apprise the participants on the status of biotechnology and biosafety in the Sadc region.

Mrs Shumba-Mnyulwa said that the course also sought to provide a platform for sharing experiences in developing and implementing national biosafety frameworks.

Dr Muchena said the region still faced challenges when it came to the development and implementation of appropriate policy, legal, institutional and administrative frameworks that promoted the safe and responsible use of biotechnology in socio-economic development.

She noted that Zimbabwe had made great strides in implementing "more robust systems of ensuring the scientifically sound, economically viable, environmentally friendly and socially acceptable application of biotechnology".

Zimbabwe has a comprehensive biotechnology policy and an Act that enables the country to utilise opportunities brought by the use of biotechnology techniques while at the same time providing frameworks for the management of potentially harmful technologies and other undertakings.

Genetic engineering is a controversial subject, with those against it saying it has potential risks on human health, the environment and biodiversity while its proponents argue that it has a huge potential to increase agricultural production, develop vaccines and drugs and other aspects that help lift the standard of living for the people.

French Fried Reactionary Still Hurting Poor People

Center for Consumer Freedom, September 7 2006

Militant anti-biotechnology activist extraordinaire Jose Bove was back in action this weekend, leading hundreds of protestors in an invasion of a genetically-modified corn field in France on Saturday. Police arrived before the mob could completely destroy the crops and, after a brief scuffle, arrested three people. Bove, who rose to prominence in 1999 after he and his anti-everything confreres literally destroyed a McDonald's, escaped scot-free. But as he told the French press in a self-proclaimed move of solidarity with his captured brethren, "I act with my face uncovered, I take responsibility for my actions."

This sort of brazenly unapologetic rhetoric is typical of Bove, who justified this crime just like he has his others -- by claiming to have uncovered evidence of "genetic pollution" and a "risk of contamination" to nearby organic farms.

If that sounds like spin without any scientific basis, that's because it is. As Bove's detractors (otherwise known as "scientists") point out, genetically modified foods -- which grow faster and are more disease-resistant than their "natural" counterparts -- have saved millions of people from starving to death. As Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution, and former president Jimmy Carter wrote in a 2005 Wall Street Journal column:

"The Green Revolution, as this period came to be known in the developing world, has kept more than one billion people from hunger, starvation, and even death ... [A]t the core was the development and application of new high-yielding, disease- and insect-resistant seeds, new products to restore soil fertility and control pests, and a succession of agricultural machines to ease drudgery and speed everything from planting to harvesting."

Bove's neo-Luddite screeds and revolutionist posturing would be nothing more than a minor annoyance if they were confined to smoke-filled coffee shops and organic-only co-ops. But, as made evident by the recent tizzy over genetically-modified rice in the British food supply, anti-biotech forces have gained a substantial following. And, as noted by Borlaug and Carter, Western blockades of safe GM crops "impede its acceptance in most poor, food-insecure countries."

GM Watch profile of Rick Berman

Rick Berman is the owner of Berman & Company Inc., a public relations firm based in Washington DC which aggressively targets groups seeking to promote controls relating to alcohol, tobacco, food safety, animal rights or the environment.

According to Berman, 'Our offensive strategy is to shoot the messenger... Given the activists' plans to alarm beyond all reason, we've got to attack their credibility as spokepersons.'

Berman & Co. are behind the Center for Consumer Freedom , formerly known as the Guest Choice Network, known to have received a $200,000 donation from Monsanto. The Consumer Freedom campaign smears organic food as dangerous and promotes what it calls 'genetically improved food'.

Berman and his firm paint GM opponents as terrorists, asserting that 'anti-biotech extremists' are part of a 'growing wave of domestic terrorism'. They say the people we need to worry about are not just al-Qa'ida but 'the middle-class kids down the street.' (Terrorists On The March -- In America, USA Today)

Berman & Co. have even declared the charity of the British and Irish churches, Christian Aid, a 'far-left leaning' group that 'flat-out lies about GE foods', hiding 'behind a religious facade to more easily malign farmers, scientists, food companies, and even PR people who deal with GE foods.'.

Berman & Co's internet PR campaign also includes ActivistCash.com which claims to 'root out the funding sources' of 'the most notorious and extreme groups that conspire to restrict the public's food and beverage choices'. However, the Center for Media and Democracy says ActivistCash.com draws on information already largely public and mixes it with distortions and misinformation.

Curiously, Monsanto's $200,000 donation to Berman's PR activities only became public as a result of information from a whistle-blower. And Berman appears to take great exception to attempts to root out his own financial relationship with the various lobby organisations run by Berman & Co. He even threatened a lawsuit for defamation after attention was drawn to his 'funneling millions of corporate dollars - donated to non-profit organizations he runs - right into his own bank accounts. Berman pays himself the cash both directly and personally in the form of salary and benefits for his role as 'Executive Director,' as well as through payments he makes from the non-profits to his own corporation, Berman & Company, Inc., for 'consulting.' '

Berman was also implicated in a cash-for-favors scandal involving Newt Gingrich.

6 September 2006

New hybrids drive Egypt's world-beating rice yield

Food Navigator, September 6, 2006

Egypt achieved the worlds highest national average rice yield in 2005, with production boosted by hybrids developed locally under an FAO-led project.

A yield of 9.5 tonnes per hectare was achieved partly through the introduction of newly-developed hybrid varieties such as SK 2034 and SK 2046, which the FAO claims outperformed the best local varieties by 20 to 30 per cent.

They were selected from more than 200 hybrid varieties under the FAO-led project, intended to help Egypt produce more rice with less water and less land.

The results reflect positively on the FAO's attempts to increase global rice production through innovative breeding programmes. Increasing Egyptian rice output is seen as vital in order to resolve a national production gap stemming from population growth of 2.2 per cent a year combined with increasingly limited land and water resources.

Egypt's population is set to increase from a current 75 million to 100 million inhabitants by 2025. Three million tons of rice will be needed by 2010 compared with current requirements of 2.8 million tonnes.

But despite Egypts success and the progress made towards a new generation of varieties, the FAO is quick to point out that hybrid rice seed production is not a panacea. There are, for example, a number of countries lacking technical skills and infrastructure to carry out hybrid rice seed production programmes.

Executive secretary of the International Rice Commission, Nguu Nguyen, told an international scientific conference on sustainable rice production in Russia this week that in the medium term, increasing rice production in such countries could require a different approach, one based on introduction of better crop management practices.

"The results from pilot tests in developing countries since 2000 have demonstrated that very high yield with existing varieties can be obtained with improved crop management (ICM)," he said.

In the Philippines, for instance, ICM had almost doubled yields of testing farmers from 4.5 tonnes/ha to over 8 tonnes/ha, he added. ICM includes such practices as setting planting dates to expose crops to higher solar radiation, optimising seeding density, balanced plant nutrition and careful water management.

In any case, Egypts appetite for rice mirrors growing international demand for what is already the worlds most widely-consumed food. Rice is the fastest-increasing food crop in Africa for example.

Globally, 618 million tonnes of rice was produced in 2005 but with world population growing by more than 70 million a year, an extra 153 million tonnes will be needed by 2030.

Ferris: Illegal GM Rice imports highlight inadequacy of safeguards

Sinn Féin press release, 6 September, 2006

The Sinn Féin Spokesperson on Agriculture and Food, Martin Ferris TD has said that the latest evidence on illegal genetically modified rice imports, from China, proves the total inadequacy of EU safeguards. A study by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth found traces of a GM protein that has been found to cause allergic reactions, and which is unauthorised for use in any country. On foot of the findings, the EU Commission yesterday accused food importers of not taking sufficient precautions to ensure that such products are not placed on the market. Member states are to report before next Monday on the measures they have in place to step up controls.

The Kerry North TD said: "This study proves a number of things. Firstly, that the alleged safeguards in place within the EU are totally inadequate to prevent the import of GM food products. The presence of the substance in question was discovered by NGOs, not the EU, nor any of the companies importing the products.

"Secondly, that the situation regarding GM rice in China proves that safeguarding against contamination of conventional crops is impossible. Unscrupulous companies have no qualms in deliberately promoting contamination or in attempting to export products which contain substances such as the GM protein that have been conclusively proven to be unsafe for human consumption.

"It is clear, therefore, that the only way in which to prevent the danger both to human health and conventional crops is to institute a ban on the import of GM food products and the growing of GM crops. If the EU is not prepared to re-impose such a ban then the Irish Government should have the courage to follow the example of regional and local authorities throughout Europe, including Ireland, in declaring the territory under its responsibility to be GM free."

Fourteen Types Of Genetically Modified Organisms Registered In Russia

RIA Novosti / Russia-Info Centre, 6 September 2006.

Only 14 types of genetically modified organisms (GMO) have passed the tests and were registered in Russia since 1996, the head of the Nutrition Institute said recently.

Among them there are "three lines of soy beans, three potato kinds, sixteen corn lines, one line of rice and one line of sugar beet", listed the scientist. "Compare mentioned data with the European Union statistics, which reports about 21 type of GMO ‚ one soy beans line, eleven maize lines, four lines of rape and five cotton lines ‚ and with the US ‚ 133 GMO".

If Russia gets over the barrier of GMO, permitted for using in our country (many GMO are prohibited to be used in food products, as well as many transgenic plants are prohibited to be cultivated), then cultivation areas of GMO in Russia will appear. Now Russia has no cultivation areas for genetically modified plants.

EU: Food Cos Risk Legal Action If Import Illegal GMO Crops

The Wall Street Journal, September 6 2006

Brussels -- European Union food companies that import illegal genetically modified foods risk legal action by national governments, the European Commission said Tuesday after environmental groups said an illegal and potentially dangerous biotech strain has been found in Chinese food products sold in the U.K., Germany and France.

Greenpeace International and Friends of the Earth Tuesday said their experts found Chinese rice-based products sold in Asian supermarkets in Germany, the U.K. and France contaminated with an experimental strain of genetically engineered rice that's not been approved for human consumption.

The groups called for an immediate ban on Chinese rice.

The European Commission said the groups should submit their samples and findings to national test centers and the E.U.'s central biotechnology laboratory in Italy.

"The presence of traces of unauthorized GMO food in the E.U. is illegal and it is the responsibility of food operators to ensure that they do not place on the market food that doesn't comply with E.U. law. Food operators are clearly not doing enough," E.U. food and consumer protection spokesman Philip Tod said.

The Commission wrote Friday to food operators telling them "that they are not doing enough" to ensure imports are free of illegal biotech strains, Tod said. European governments should punish companies importing illegal crops.

"We would expect member states to take action against any companies not complying with their obligations under E.U. food law."

The food scare is the second in as many weeks and casts doubt over the ability of biotech companies to control their crops. Late last month Europe imposed strict screeing rules on imports of U.S.-farmed long-grain rice following the discovery of an illegal biotech strain in commercial stocks there.

European food safety experts - who have the power to impose import bans - are meeting in Brussels Tuesday and Wednesday. It is unclear whether the issue will be discussed.

Greenpeace warned the strain "poses serious health risks" and called on European governments to "take immediate action to protect consumers." It said the rice -- which is modified to resist insects -- contains a protein that has reportedly induced allergic-like reactions in mice.

"Five positive samples were found containing an illegal GE not approved anywhere in the world. However, this could be the tip of the iceberg with rice products included in everything from baby food to yoghurt," Greenpeace said in the statement.

Countries that grow and produce biotech crops should be required to certify their exports biotech-free, Greenpeace said. Such certification "is reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary to protect Europe's consumers."

Chinese seed companies have been selling the illegal strain to farmers, Greenpeace said.

Last week authorities in the Dutch port of Rotterdam stopped a shipment of U.S. rice thought to be contaminated with the illegal strain. U.S. authorities have declared the U.S. rice strain safe for human consumption.

Updated Report Says Industry Still Not Ready for Biotech Wheat

Farm Futures, September 6 2006

Segregating biotech and non-biotech wheat supplies in marketing channels is still a major stumbling block in market acceptance of genetically modified wheat, according to an updated analysis from Iowa State University grain market analyst Bob Wisner.

"If a low-cost acceptable segregation system could be developed, that would increase the likelihood of market acceptance of GM wheat. With the low tolerances allowed for GM food ingredients in some foreign markets, effective market segregation to meet those low tolerances would be important if negative impacts on export demand from commercializing GM wheat at this time are to be avoided," Wisner writes in his update to his October 2003 report, Market Risks of Genetically Modified Wheat.

Exports account for 56% of the market for U.S. hard red spring wheat, making export market acceptance vital to the U.S. wheat industry's economic health. Wisner warns introduction of biotech wheat could risk the loss of one-fourth to one-half of U.S. hard red spring and durum wheat export markets and up to a one-third drop in price, as earlier reports have found.

The acreage shift

A number of organizations and businesses associated with the U.S. wheat industry as well as wheat growers have become concerned about the long-term downward trend in U.S. wheat planted acreage and the declining U.S. share of world wheat exports. At a recent industry meeting, these groups made commitments to encourage the development of biotech wheat, with the view that this technology will create technological developments making U.S. wheat more competitive in world markets.

At the same time, the wheat industry participants stressed that careful attention will be given to ensuring that resulting products are accepted by consumers. At this stage, there is no way of knowing for certain whether genetically modified varieties of wheat would halt or reverse the decline in U.S. wheat acres.

"The decline has occurred in response to major government policy changes, as well as accelerated growth in demand for alternative crops and development of varieties of alternative crops more suited to the short growing season of the Northern Plains," Wisner reports. "It also has been influenced by a sharp increase in wheat exports from former Soviet republics. By western standards, wheat yields in these countries are not very impressive. But the shift to a market-oriented economy has encouraged farmers in the region to produce crops for which they have a comparative advantage in world markets."

Comparing to other crops

Wisner says in the next several years, U.S. government incentives for production of biofuels from corn and soybeans almost certainly will cause these crops to provide intense competition with wheat. "Genetic improvements in wheat - if the resulting varieties are acceptable in international markets - could somewhat moderate the intensifying competition," he says.

So far in the September 1, 2005-August 31, 2006 soybean marketing year (through August 17, 2006), U.S. cumulative soybean export sales to the EU were down from the same period a year earlier by 54%. U.S. soybean meal exports to the EU during the same period were down 56% from the previous year's low level and have dropped to almost economically insignificant levels. Historically, the EU has been the largest overseas customer for U.S. soybeans and often has been its largest foreign buyer of soybean meal.

"U.S. soybean exports to the EU in the next few years could be an important lead indicator of potential market acceptance of GMO wheat," Wisner says. "Loss of the U.S. corn export market in EU and the sharp downward trend in US soybean and soybean meal exports to EU are strong cautions to the wheat industry that GM issues in that market should be taken seriously."

The report was prepared by Wisner for the Western Organization of Resources Councils and the Dakota Resource Council. Read the report online at Potential Market Impacts from Commercializing Roundup Ready Wheat, September 2006 Update http://www.worc.org/pdfs/Market%20Risks%20Update%20Final%208-06.pdf

The monarch and the milkweed

The Boston Globe, September 6, 2006. By Roxana Robinson

NEAR MY back door is a tall, straggly plant, with an awkward shape, nearly colorless flowers. If you saw it you'd think it was a weed, and you'd be right. I planted it.

When I put in plants, I hope they'll thrive. I hope they won't be shredded by insects -- which is a risk in my garden. I don't use toxic chemicals, and it's always a race to see which comes first, the end of summer or the end of the garden. I'm tempted by chemicals: a quick misting and the aphids are gone, the walk, weed-free. Still, I don't use them. Their smooth eradicatory sweep makes me uneasy: nature works in messy ebbs and flows, but it's always worked. The wheat farmers of Sicily, for example, breadbasket of the Roman Empire, managed fine without Ortho. In my garden (and many others), plants thrive without chemicals, as they have since the first human planted the first yam.

Synthetic chemicals are newcomers: it's only about 50 years since they've been widely used by backyard gardeners. Now they're everywhere, their cheery labels carrying ominous small-print warnings. No one knows the long-term consequences. On summer evenings children used to run alongside the DDT truck, letting its cool spray coat their arms and legs.

When small green caterpillars attacked my roses, I used Bacillus thuringiensis, a naturally occurring organism that attacks caterpillars' intestines. It doesn't affect vertebrates and breaks down without a trace. It sounds safe.

I hope my homely back-door plant will thrive, but not that the insects will leave it alone: actually, I want it ripped to shreds. The plant is asclepius syriaca, the common milkweed, and the destructive visitor I hope for is Danaus plexippus, the monarch butterfly.

The ember-colored monarch may be the most beautiful of all butterflies; certainly it's the most famous. Every fall, all the monarchs in the Northern Hemisphere make remarkable journeys. The West Coast ones head for California, the East Coasters -- including mine in Maine -- fly to Mexico. No one knows how they survive the buffeting thumps of airplane traffic, or El Nino.

Most monarchs live about six weeks. The last generation, hatching in the fall, is called Methuselah, and lives from six to nine months. The Methuselahs fly to the winter retreat, though no one knows how they find it, since they've never been there.

Milkweeds are the only plants on which monarchs lay eggs. Larvae -- caterpillars -- hatch, and eat the leaves. The caterpillar forms a chrysalis, which forms the butterfly. Every monarch on the planet depends on milkweed.

In the mornings, on my milkweed, there are monarchs. Brilliant, fire-colored, their wings pulse slowly, in and out. On the leaves, the torpid caterpillars eat their way toward splendor.

You used to see milkweeds everywhere -- ditches, fields, empty lots. In the fall, they produce a thick brown pod, tightly packed with seeds, filmy white fibers. You see them seldom now.

We're eradicating milkweed. It produces cardenolide alkaloid, which disagrees with cattle. Cattle farmers dislike it. Crop growers dislike it because it's a weed. Traditionally, weeds were tilled under. It's probably what the Sicilians did. Tilling eliminates most weeds, though some survive. Until now, it wasn't possible to eradicate a plant altogether.

Most monarch/milkweed habitat occurs in farmland, vanishing at nearly 3,000 acres a day. The remaining habitat, mostly owned by agribusiness, increasingly grows genetically modified (GM) corn and soybeans. GM crops resist glyphosphate, the active ingredient in RoundUp. Milkweed cannot. The GM switch meant the loss of 80 million acres of monarch habitat. Roadside milkweeds are eradicated by townships, backyard milkweeds by anyone who uses herbicides. Even organic gardeners are implicated -- remember those tiny caterpillars, and the Bt?

The monarch and the milkweed will vanish. Everyone knows that economics come before beauty, commerce before conservation. Everyone knows that everything legal is safe.

Or maybe we all don't know this. Maybe we think nature, with its messy ebbs and flows, has value. Maybe we're not sure that a few big companies should eradicate whole species. Maybe we're not certain that GM crops should predominate, playing an unknown role in our children's health.

We can write letters, quit using herbicides, reject GM crops. We can plant milkweed. For a while, monarchs will appear, airborne jewels, landing dreamily on our plants as though this were the only place on earth they want to be.

Which it is.

Roxana Robinson is a novelist and nature writer. Her most recent novel is "Sweetwater."

5 September 2006

Market boosts organic while GMOs wane

Arcata Eye, CA, September 5 2006. by Daniel Mintz.

HUMBOLDT - Genetically engineered crops are being upstaged by organic farming in Humboldt, as biotech trends continue to be offset by economic and political forces.

The growing demand for organic products, particularly dairy products, is being met with an increase in local organic farming. With HumboldtÇs organic farming economy ascending, the use of genetically modified crops is believed to be on the wane, as local dairies are increasingly switching from conventional to organic production.

And the local campaign to protect crop integrity through voter-approved legislation will soon re-emerge. The treasurer and co-chair of the Humboldt Green Genes coalition has said that a new anti-GMO (genetically modified organism) ballot measure campaign will focus on the spring 2008 election.

That effort is still viable thanks to the recent rejection of Senate Bill 1056, the so-called "Monsanto law," named after its corporate sponsor, which would have blocked counties and cities from passing GMO bans.

But regulation of a different sort has vaulted the prevalence of organic farming in Humboldt County and the region surrounding it.

"A radical swing"

Market forces have strongly encouraged organic crop production here, as the demand for chemical-free food escalates nationwide.

Corn for livestock feed is the county's primary GMO crop, and Frank Holzberger, the countyÇs senior agricultural inspector, reports that an increase in organic dairies responds to market trends and may reflect a downturn in the local use of high-yield GMOs.

The county's first organic dairy established itself in 2001, Holzberger said, and he guessed that 30 more have come since. "More will soon," he continued. "The needle is going way toward organic."

The reason why is explained by the cornerstone of economics - supply and demand.

"Economics is driving this," said Holzberger. "The demand for organic milk is so strong and supply is so limited, more dairies have gone the organic route."

With the organic food economy becoming more entrenched here, the need to protect it intensifies. One of the reasons why GMO crops are so controversial is concern over cross-pollination and contamination of non-GE crops. Holzberger thinks the advent of organic agriculture will be the ultimate GMO regulator.

"This is going to take care of itself," he said. "Recently, the dairies here have made a radical swing and it was the market that drove that."

Quantifying the trend is hard because its scale is more accurately gauged by numbers of cows rather numbers of diaries. And some conventional producers will continue to lean on GMO crops, but Holzberger thinks the organic upswing will crowd out GE farming.

"That would be a reasonable assumption to make, as the number of organic acres increase, and the numbers of conventional acres and cows decrease," he said.

Organic opportunity

The organic trend is also noted by Len Mayer, general manager of the North Coast Co-op, who said that the attention-getting growth of the organic market is magnetizing food producers.

Mayer said food markets usually match population hikes with two to three percent a year production increases. The growth rate of the organic market far exceeds those expectations, seeing 15 to 20 percent annual increases over the last ten years.

"That is getting everybody's attention," Mayer said. "And that's why even the big guys are entering the organic market."

The market for organic milk is wide open. "For a long time, there's been a surplus of milk in the U.S. and there's also been a shortage of organic milk," Mayer explained.

"Producers see that there is excess milk in the market on the conventional side, and the real opportunity is with organic."

The Ferndale-based Humboldt Creamery produces both its own conventional milk and organic milk for other distributors, but Mayer said the creamery's involvement in the organic market is about to become more evident with the production of organic milk under its own brand name.

"More and more products are going organic, and that is displacing conventional production," said Mayer.

Nevertheless, there will be political action to protect what has become a prized aspect of local economy. Mike Gann, Humboldt Green Genes' treasurer and co chair, said the anti-GMO coalition still has $9,000 left over from its 2004 campaign and will propose another ballot measure for the June 2008 election.

The first effort to pass a local anti-GMO law was dropped due to flaws in its content, but Gann noted the failure of SB1056, which would have exclusively placed all forms of seed and crop regulation with the state. He doesn't doubt that the biotech industry will again encourage legislation against local authority, and said that his coalition "remains steadfast in our commitment to draft a GMO-free ordinance."

And as organic food becomes more popular, the rationale for such an effort has a decidedly economic angle. "To have an anti-GMO measure gives us a record of GMO-free, safe food - and it gives us a market advantage," said Gann, who pointed out that Mendocino County already has a GMO ban and the trend could become regional and define a united organic front.

"We definitely feel that our movement is spreading," Gann said.

Genetic engineering: new law sparks concern

Bangkok Post, 5 September 2006. By Piyaporn Wongruang.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has stepped up its call for the caretaker government to drop the draft biosafety bill for fear the legislation would pave the way for commercialisation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The move was joined by the National Economic and Social Advisory Council (Nesac), which is preparing to seek clarification from the government about the national policy on GMOs.

Buntoon Srethasirote, of the NHRC's sub-panel on biodiversity, said genetic-engineering technology had an immense impact on human health and the environment, so agencies involved should seek a public consensus before going ahead with the development of laws.

However, the drafting committee of the biosafety bill had bypassed the process, resulting in the content of the bill sparking concerns, Mr Buntoon said.

"We agree that laws should be put in place to deal with GMOs, but not in a way that would support the use of GMOs because the public still doubts their benefit," Mr Buntoon told a seminar on the draft biosafety bill yesterday.

He said his panel would work with community and farmer representatives in drafting another version of the bill to counter the government's version.

The alternative version would focus on protection of human health and biodiversity from biotechnology, said Mr Buntoon.

Witoon Lianchamroon, a member of the Nesac's science sub-panel, said the new bill would lead to contradictions in the government's agriculture policy.

He said while the government had been promoting GMO-free organic farming, it was now going to enforce a law that could lead to commercial production of transgenic crops.

Instead of safeguarding the country's biological resources and farmer and consumers' rights from the GMOs, the new bill gives guidelines on how to use the GMOs, he said.

The Nesac member also demanded the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) confirm that the policy to expand organic farming to more than half of the country's farm area would be written down in the 10th national development plan.

Jaroen Compeerapap, vice president of Silpakorn University's Intellectual Property Rights and Traditional Knowledge Faculty, said the draft bill contained several weak points, including the lack of a checks-and-balances system for the use of genetic engineering technology and compensation for damaged parties.

Vithes Srinetr, of the Office of Natural Resources and Environment Policy and Planning, in charge of the drafting process, said the drafting committee would take all the comments into consideration.

It was likely that the draft bill would be revised, he said.

Thailand currently bans commercial production of genetically-modified crops. Field trials of the GM plants are also prohibited.

Biosafety legislation: Activists say govt bill promotes use of GMOs

The Nation, 5 September 2006. By Pennapa Hongthong.

Environmentalists and lawyers yesterday said they would draw up their own draft legislation on biosafety after being disappointed with the one drawn up by a government team.

Witoon Lienchamroon, director of BioThai, a network of academic and community organisations concerned with the importance of biological resources and conserving biological diversity, said the government's draft bill of the Biosafety Law appeared to promote the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) instead of protecting the country's biological resources.

The first draft of the bill, drawn up by a working team appointed by Suwit Khunkitti, who was the Natural Resources and Environmental Minister in 2004, was completed recently.

Witest Srinet of the Office of Natural Resources and Environment Policy and Planning, who headed the team, said the bill aimed to protect biosafety related to the use and distribution of GMOs, but does not promote GMOs as Witoon claimed.

The bill has been strongly criticised by opponents of GMOs. Yesterday was the fourth and final public hearing, and the already heated debate reached a peak as it was the last chance to collect public suggestions for amendments to the draft.

Sairoong Thongplon, manager of the Consumers Federation, said the bill failed to consider the issues of consumer rights or the impact of GMOs on people's health and the environment.

"The issues have been controversial in the country for almost a decade, so why did the bill not focus on it? It seems the government wants to ignore all controversial issues on GMOs so the approval of the bill can be accelerated.

"Once it is enforced, the law will be used to open the country to GMOs," Sairoong said.

Somchai Rattanachaisakul, a law academic at the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, said the bill ignored the so-called precautionary principle accepted as the basis of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, to which Thailand is signatory.

The principle states that when there is reasonable suspicion of harm, lack of scientific certainty or consensus must not be used to postpone preventative action.

Witest said he and his team would review the bill in light of the public's comments and draw up a new draft bill, but Witoon said activists would go ahead with drafting their own version.

"We need a comprehensive law on biosafety, not a separate law that only focuses on GMOs and products thereof," Witoon said.

Witoon said the "people's version" of the Biosafety Law would be submitted for the Parliament's consideration, either through opposition parties or by collecting 50,000 signatures and submitting it directly as prescribed by the Constitution.

GM cassava fails in Africa

Mariam Mayet, African Centre for Biosafety.

The Donald Danforth Plant Science Center (the "Danforth Center"), whose partners include Monsanto Corporation and the Missouri Botanical Garden, has been heavily involved in research on transgenic varieties of cassava for the past seven years. According to the Danforth Center's website, it has been pursuing a Disease-Resistant Cassava for Kenya Project, with funding from USAID, in order to develop and deliver transgenic, disease-resistant cassava planting materials to farmers in Kenya to increase their harvests and improve their food security.

However, on the 26 May 2006, the Danforth Center quietly announced that it had discovered that GM virus-resistant varieties of cassava, first developed seven years ago, had lost resistance to the African cassava mosaic virus (CMVD) and that expert consultants had been asked to review why and how the modified cassava had changed and to assess future plans.[i] This failure underlies the reason why African governments, save for pro-GM South Africa, have adopted the precautionary principle and not allowed Africa to be turned into a laboratory for an unpredictable technology.

According to the Danforth Center press release, the group reviewed the data and concurred with the conclusions that resistance to the African CMVD was achieved in cassava line Y-85, "that the resistance was subsequently lost, and that methylation of the plant's DNA had taken place." This failure undermines the claim on the Danforth Center's website that "transgenic plants developed at the Danforth Center have demonstrated strong resistance to the disease in greenhouse trials over multiple years."[ii]

This turn of events also undermines plans by the Danforth Center's International Programs Office to push Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) to test transgenic cassava plants under natural field conditions. Clearly, the kind of promises held out by the Danforth Center on its website are no longer credible: "virus-resistance technology will initially be deployed in the East African region's most popular cultivar - Ebwanatareka - for adoption by the 22,000 Kenyan farming families.. the project will help 200,000 Kenyan cassava farmers and their families and increase cassava harvests by 50% on a sustainable basis." Similar benefits are promised to neighbouring Uganda and to millions of farmers throughout Africa.

This is not the first time that these kind of false promises have been held out to KARI, which previously ran field trials on a much hyped transgenic sweet potato - part of another USAID supported project. The sweet potato had been touted as high-yielding and virus-resistant, but during three years of field trials KARI discovered the virus resistance was no better than for ordinary varieties and the yields were sometimes less. By contrast, a conventional breeding programme in Uganda successfully produced a high-yielding virus-resistant sweet potato more quickly and more cheaply, without any recourse to genetic engineering.[iii]

The Danforth Center is also involved in sequencing the cassava genome.[iv] In what seems to be a dramatic about turn from its previous commitment to address hunger and the nutritional needs of people in developing countries, Dr Claude Fauquet, of the Danforth Center revealed in a press release, that the "acquisition of the cassava genome sequence will .provide a platform to explore the vast biodiversity within cassava wild species. Ultimately, these activities will position cassava as a valuable source of renewable bio-energy." According to the U.S Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (DOE JGI), funder of the project, the DOE JGI chose to sequence cassava because it is an excellent energy source - "it is grown worldwide as a source of food for approximately 1 billion people, raising the possibility that it could be used globally to alleviate dependence on fossil fuels."[v]

The cassava genome project is spearheaded by a consortium made up of the Danforth Center, the USDA, Washington University in St Louis, the University of Chicago, the Institute of Genomic Research, the Missouri Botanical Garden, the Broad Institute, Ohio State University, the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture, and the Smithsonian Institute.

NOTES

[i] Danforth Center Cassava Viral Resistance Review Update http://www.danforthcentre.org/newsmedia/NewsDetail.asp?nid=121; and Danforth Centre Cassava Update http://www.danfothcentre.org/newsmedia/NewsDetail.asp?nid=119

[ii] http://www.danforthcenter.org

[iii] Monsanto's showcase project in Africa fails, New Scientist, Vol 181 No. 2433, 7 February 2004

[iv] Danforth Center Spearheads Effort to Sequence Cassava at National Research Center
http://www.danforthcentre.org/newsmedia/NewsDetail.asp?nid-122 18 July 2006.

[v] Danforth Center Spearheads Effort to Sequence Cassava at National Research Center
http://www.danforthcentre.org/newsmedia/NewsDetail.asp?nid-122 18 July 2006.

Monsanto gives $15 million to Danforth Plant Science Center

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 5 2006. By Eric Hand

The Donald Danforth Plant Science Center today announced it received a $15 million gift from Monsanto Co., one intended to boost the non-profit center's mission of bringing biotechnology to the developing world.

Half the money will bolster the center's endowment, while the other half will fuel work in Africa.

Monsanto and the Danforth Center, headquartered across the street from each other in Creve Coeur, often share expertise and technology. Monsanto was also a primary donor in establishing the center, which opened its doors in 2001. But they have different goals.

For-profit Monsanto sells genetically-engineered seeds to farmers that can pay for them. Similar to a university, the not-for-profit Danforth Center performs research on crops that may not have a market.

For instance, the center has for seven years worked on cassava. This tropical crop - a tall, leafy plant with a potato-like root - is the most important food security crop in Africa, one that keeps farmers from starvation when the main crop fails.

But in the last decade, a plant virus has swept across eastern Africa and decimated the cassava crop. Danforth Center scientists have engineered a virus-resistant cassava, but have not yet surmounted political hurdles that have kept them from field testing the engineered cassava.

Plant biotechnologist Joel Cohen said that non-profit plant science centers, also referred to as "public-sector" institutes, have been good at doing research but less adept at turning that research into humanitarian products for poor people.

"Public-sector biotechnology has been tremendously underfunded," said Cohen, a Potomac, Md.-based private consultant with a career in the public sector. "They've had a very hard time." Cohen said that the gift could help pay for regulatory costs like field tests and reviews.

Danforth Center spokesman Rob Rose said corn researchers will also get some of the gift money. Researchers are trying to make corn resistant to fungal diseases that reduce yields and produce mycotoxins, which can be a threat to human and animal health.

The gift comes from Monsanto's philanthropic foundation, the Monsanto Fund.

The $7.5 million going to the Danforth Center's endowment is part of a $100 million fundraising campaign that began in 2004. The center has raised about $60 million towards its goal, said Danforth Center spokesman Rob Rose.

Protest over American GM rice

icWales, Sep 5 2006

GM FREE Cymru has lodged a formal complaint and alleged complacency by the Food Standards Agency, over American rice contaminated with an illegal genetically-modified organism.

UK Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt has been told that FSA assurances that the rice is safe to eat were "grossly irresponsible and scientifically indefensible" and amounted to criminal negligence.

GM Free Cymru spokesman, Dr Brian John, said, "We have seen some extraordinary statements from the FSA on GM matters in the past but this takes the biscuit," it is not just incompetent, but it is designed to deceive, and that is a very serious matter indeed."

In its statement the FSA said it would ensure that consignments of American long grain rice in Britain would be tested and monitored for traces of the LL601 GM variety.

This variety was withdrawn without explanation by Bayer CropScience in 2001 but has contaminated commercial rice varieties in the southern States.

Rice farmers are furious and some are suing Bayer CropScience for causing an unprecedented slump in prices.

The US supplies around 12% of the world rice market and exports 20,000 tonnes of long grain rice to Europe every month.

The contamination was discovered in January but only revealed last month, leaving an unknown quantity already for sale on supermarket shelves.

The FSA said retailers were responsible for ensuring they did not sell illegal GM food. Meanwhile all new shipments of American rice are now being held at ports until they can be certified free of contamination.

FSA Director of Food Safety, Dr Andrew Wadge, said, "The presence of this GM material in rice on sale in the UK is illegal even at extremely low levels."

But the US Food and Drug Administration said the rice poses no safety concerns. The European Food Safety Authority, which is responsible for evaluating GM foods across the EU, is expected to give its opinion this week.

Dr Wadge said people with American long grain rice in their kitchens could eat it safely.

But Dr John said telling people it was safe to eat was "complacent and utterly irresponsible" as no safety tests had been conducted.

EU says food importers should do more to keep out genetically modified products

Sidney Morning Herald, September 5 2006.

The European Commission said Tuesday food importers need to do more to keep imports of genetically modified products out of the 25-nation bloc.

The EU's executive office was responding to claims by two environmental groups that some rice imports from China contained illegal genetically modified elements.

Though the European Commission could not confirm the findings of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, spokesman Philip Tod said food "operators are clearly not doing enough" to keep the illegal products out.

Greenpeace said that illegal biotech rice had been found in food products in Britain, Germany and France. It said it was an experimental variety aimed at protecting the rice from pests but might cause allergic reactions in people.

Friends of the Earth demanded an immediate ban on Chinese rice imports.

"The European Commission must react quickly and ban imports from China until consumers can be guaranteed that foods containing rice are safe from contamination," said spokesman Adrian Bebb.

"Chinese foods already in shops should also be immediately tested and products recalled if necessary."

It was the second time environmental groups called for such a ban in a month. Two weeks ago, the EU imposed extra controls on U.S. imports after traces of a banned genetically modified rice variety were found in U.S. long-grain rice.

No GM rice varieties have been cleared for sale in Europe, and EU authorities said they are taking all possible measures to avoid it hitting store shelves.

Illegal GM rice found in the UK

Greenpeace / Friends of the Earth press release, 5 September 2006.

Food products illegally contaminated with genetically modified (GM) rice from China have been discovered in the UK, France and Germany, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace revealed today.

Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have notified authorities of their discovery and are calling on European governments to take urgent action to protect consumers from any health risks posed by the experimental GM rice, which has not been cleared for human consumption and may cause allergic reactions.

This is the second illegal GM contamination incident involving rice to hit Europe over the past few weeks. Last month the European Commission was forced to introduce emergency measures to prevent US rice, contaminated with a different experimental GM strain, from entering the food chain.

The environmental campaign groups bought samples of rice products such as noodles and rice sticks from Asian specialty stores in London. The foods were tested by an independent laboratory. Three rice noodle samples imported from China tested positive for GM rice [1]. Further contaminated products were found in France and Germany [2]. But, this could be the tip of the iceberg with rice products included in everything from baby food to cosmetics.

The illegal GM rice is an experimental variety genetically engineered to produce an insecticide. It is not approved for human consumption or commercial cultivation anywhere in the world. Scientific studies raise concerns about the risk to human health of eating the rice, particularly the potential to cause food allergies [3]. No GM rice is approved in Europe, although Bayer has applied to import GM herbicide resistant rice into the EU.

Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are calling for:

1. The Food Standards Agency to recall products contaminated with the GM rice;

2. The European Union to put in place urgent measures to ensure no further contaminated rice enters the EU and a programme of testing on existing products on the shelves.

3. The introduction of routine testing to ensure that products contaminated with illegal GM material do not enter Europe's food chain;

4. A global ban on field trials and other efforts to commercialise GM rice until effective containment systems and detection regimes are in place.

Friends of the Earth's GM Campaigner Clare Oxborrow said:

"This latest illegal GM contamination scandal shows that the biotech industry cannot be trusted. How many more foods around the world have been contaminated by unlicensed GM crops? Urgent action is needed to tackle this latest incident, and measures must be introduced to prevent illegal GM ingredients entering our food in future."

"This incident also highlights the threat that GM crops would pose to our food, farming and the environment if they are grown in the UK, either commercially or in outdoor trials. The Government must ensure that tough rules are in place before any GM crops get the green light, and sort out who is liable for any contamination that they cause. The simplest solution would be to keep Britain GM-free."

GM campaigner for Greenpeace International, Jeremy Tager said:

"Innocent consumers have again become the victims of the GM industry's 'contamination first' strategy. A group of rogue scientists pushing for the approval of GM rice in China leaked the illegal seeds to the market and have created major genetic contamination. Once illegal GM crops are in the food chain, removing them takes enormous effort and cost. It is easier to prevent contamination in the first place, if the biotech industry and the governments involved genuinely want to do so."

This latest contamination incident stemmed from field trials in China. The GM rice involved is not currently approved for commercial growing, yet an investigation by Greenpeace in 2005 found that research institutes and seed companies in China had been illegally selling unapproved GM rice seeds to farmers [4].

In 2000, a similar contamination case in the US with the unapproved GM maize Starlink led to a global product recall and billion dollar compensation.

Notes to editors

[1] Guangdong Rice Vermicelli, Rice Vermicelli Amoy (Xiamen) and Kongmoon Rice Stick tested positive for Bt insect resistant rice. They were bought from two shops in Chinatown.

[2] See background briefing 'Illegal experimental GE Rice from China: Now entering Europe's Food chain' http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/ge-rice-brief

[3] The toxin detected is either the Cry1Ac protein, or a fusion Cry1Ab/Cry1Ac protein.

- A 1999 study partly sponsored by the US Environmental Protection Agency found evidence to suggest that the Bt protein Cry1Ac can elicit antibody responses consistent with allergic reactions in farm-workers and a series of studies published in 1999 and 2000 by a Cuban researcher Vasquez-Padron on Cry1Ac documented immunogenic responses to which indicate the potential for allergic reactions or other immune system responses http://www.humboldt.org.ni/transgenicos/docs/what_experts_says_human_effects.pdf

Three independent scientists with expertise in the field of GE and health have issued a statement backing the health concerns raised. The statement is available from Greenpeace.

[4] Further testing indicated that the whole food chain had been contaminated, with the most recent case being the contaminated Heinz rice cereal baby food in Beijing, Guangzhou and Hong Kong. The Chinese government, in the wake of the situation, reportedly punished seed companies and destroyed illegally grown GM rice crops. For more information see the background briefing in [2] above.

New food scandal: illegal GM rice from China found in Europe
Friends of the Earth demands ban on Chinese rice imports

Friends of the Earth Europe Press Release, 5 September 2006

Brussels, Tuesday 5 September 2006 - Friends of the Earth Europe has called for an immediate ban on rice imports from China following the discovery by environmental groups that foods on sale in Europe are contaminated with an illegal genetically modified (GM) rice from China.

This is the second illegal GM rice crisis to hit Europe in three weeks. Last month the European Commission introduced emergency measures to prevent US rice, illegally contaminated with a different GM strain, from entering the food chain [1].

Friends of the Earth Europe's GM Campaigner Adrian Bebb said: "It is shocking that contamination with illegal genetically modified rice has occurred for the second time in three weeks. The European Commission must react quickly and ban imports from China until consumers can be guaranteed that foods containing rice are safe from contamination. Chinese foods already in shops should also be immediately tested and products recalled if necessary."

"These incidents must be prevented from happening again. Consumers in Europe deserve better than panic measures each time the latest crisis breaks. We need a radical overhaul of food testing in the EU to stop illegal and potentially unsafe genetically modified foods from entering the food chain."

Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace tested foods in the UK, France and Germany and found rice products to be contaminated with the unauthorized GM rice [2]. The products were found in Asian specialty stores and were imported from China [3]. The illegal rice is an experimental variety genetically engineered to produce an insecticide. It is not approved for human consumption or commercial cultivation anywhere in the world. Scientific studies raise concerns about the risk to human health of eating the rice, particularly the potential to cause food allergies [4].

Both this latest incident and the contamination by Bayer's unauthorised GM rice in the US resulted from outdoor field trials of GM crops. Friends of the Earth Europe has now called for a global moratorium on field trials and a halt to the commercial development of GM rice.

"This latest contamination is further proof that experimental genetically modified crops cannot be contained safely when grown in outdoor trials. Rice is one of the world's most important food crops and every effort should be made to protect it from contamination." Mr Bebb added.

No GM rice is approved in Europe either for import or cultivation. However, Bayer has applied to import herbicide resistant rice into the EU. And since 1991, 35 applications were made for field trials of GM rice in Europe, mainly in Spain and Italy [5].

For more information contact:

Adrian Bebb, GM campaigner, Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel +49 80 25 99 19 51, Mobile +49 1609 4901 163, Email Adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org

Clare Oxborrow, GM campaigner at Friends of the Earth (London):
Tel +44 207 566 1649, Mobile +44 771 2843211, Email clareo@foe.co.uk

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 to editors

[1] linkhttp://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/AB_23_Aug_US_rice.html

[2] The foods testing were bought from Asian stores in Germany, France and the UK. Products testing positive were: Cock Brand Rice Sticks (France)
Swallow Sailing Rice Sticks (Germany)
Brotherhood Rice Vermicelli (UK)
Happiness Rice Vermicelli (UK)
Gold Plum Rice Sticks (UK)

[3] This latest contamination incident stemmed from field trials in China. An investigation by Greenpeace in 2005 found that research institutes and seed companies in China had been illegally selling unapproved GM rice seeds to farmers. Further testing indicated that the whole food chain had been contaminated, with the most recent case being the contaminated Heinz rice cereal products in Beijing, Guangzhou and Hong Kong. The Chinese government, in the wake of the situation, reportedly punished seed companies and destroyed illegal-grown GM rice.

[4] The GM rice contains either the Cry1Ac protein, or a fusion Cry1Ab/Cry1Ac protein. - A 1999 study partly sponsored by the US Environmental Protection Agency found evidence to suggest that the Bt protein Cry1Ac can elicit antibody responses consistent with allergic reactions in farm-workers and a series of studies published in 1999 and 2000 by a Cuban researcher Vasquez-Padron on Cry1Ac documented immunogenic responses to which indicate the potential for allergic reactions or other immune system responses

Attention! Long link may be broken - copy and paste both lines into browser: http://www.humboldt.org.ni/transgenicos/docs/what_experts_says_human_eff ects.pdf

[5] http://biotech.jrc.it/deliberate/dbplants.asp

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

Gene-altered rice from China found in EU

Reuters science news, 5 September 2006

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European consumers are at risk from unauthorized genetically modified (GMO) rice grown in China after evidence of a strain was found in Britain, France and Germany, environment group Greenpeace said on Tuesday.

The Chinese rice, modified to resist certain insects, was found in samples of rice stick noodles in France and Germany, and also in rice vermicelli in Britain, Greenpeace said, citing the results of two rounds of laboratory tests.

Its report did not indicate the possible quantities involved but said the GMO rice had been detected in different product brands found in Asian Specialty stores and Asian restaurants.

"Innocent consumers again become the victims of the GE (genetic engineering) industry's 'contamination first' strategy," Greenpeace International GMO campaigner Jeremy Tager said in a statement.

The Chinese rice contained a protein that might cause allergenic reactions in humans, he said. It was supposed to be used only in field trials and was not approved for commercial growing because of concerns about its safety.

The discovery of the experimental rice comes just a few weeks after the European Union tightened requirements on U.S. long-grain imports to prove the absence of another biotech rice type detected in samples intended for commercial use.

The EU does not yet permit the sale, import or marketing of any biotech rice on the territory of its 25 member countries.

"Once illegal GE crops are in the food chain, removing them takes enormous effort and cost. It is easier to prevent contamination in the first place," Tager said.

Last month, the EU-25 tightened requirements on U.S. long-grain rice imports to prove the absence of the GMO strain LL Rice 601 marketed by Germany's Bayer AG and produced in the United States.

The EU decision followed the discovery by U.S. authorities of trace amounts of LL Rice 601, engineered to resist a herbicide, in long-grain samples targeted for commercial use.

European consumers are well known for their wariness over GMO foods, but the biotech industry says its products are perfectly safe and are no different to conventional foods.

Illegal genetically engineered Chinese rice discovered in Europe
Health risks require immediate recall and import ban

Greenpeace press release, September 5 2006

Amsterdam ‚ Greenpeace International released findings today that show illegal GE (genetically engineered) rice from China has contaminated food products in France, Germany and the UK. Greenpeace International has notified authorities that the illegal GE rice poses serious health risks and calls upon European governments to take immediate actions to protect consumers.

Greenpeace offices tested samples of rice products such as vermicelli, rice sticks and other processed foods found in Asian specialty stores and Asian restaurants. Three positive samples were found containing an illegal GE not approved anywhere in the world. However this could be the tip of the iceberg with rice products included in everything from baby food to yoghurt. (1)

"These findings are shocking and should trigger high-level responses", said Jeremy Tager, GE rice campaigner, Greenpeace International. "Consumers should not be left swallowing experimental GE rice that is risky to their health."

The illegal GE rice, genetically engineered to be resistant to insects, contains a protein or fused protein (Cry1Ac) that has reportedly induced allergenic-like reactions in mice.

Greenpeace International is calling for immediate recall and measures to ensure no further contaminated rice enters the EU. Additionally, we are calling for the urgent implementation of a preventative screening system for countries with high contamination risks. Demanding GE free certification for food from countries that produce GE crops is reasonable, cost effective, and necessary to protect Europe's food.

This recent rice contamination in China began with field trials; the rice is not currently approved for commercial growing because of mounting concerns over its safety. Yet an investigation by Greenpeace in 2005 shows that research institutes and seed companies in China had been illegally selling unapproved GE rice seeds to farmers. (2)

"Innocent consumers again become the victims of the GE industry's 'contamination first' strategy", says Tager. "A group of rogue scientists pushing for the approval of GE rice in China leaked the illegal seeds to the market and have created major genetic contamination. Just two weeks ago, US rice was contaminated with an illegal GE rice developed by Bayer. Once illegal GE crops are in the food chain, removing them takes enormous effort and cost. It is easier to prevent contamination in the first place," concluded Tager.

For more information contact:

Jeremy Tager, Greenpeace International GE rice campaigner +31 646 22 11 85
Suzette Jackson, Greenpeace International communications officer +31 6 4619 7324

Notes to editors:

(1) All tests were conducted by an accredited and independent laboratory. Details in attached background briefing.

(2) Further testing indicated that the whole food chain had been contaminated, with the most recent case being the contaminated Heinz rice cereal products in Beijing, Guangzhou and Hongkong. The Chinese government, in the wake of the situation, reportedly punished seed companies and destroyed illegally grown GE rice.

Do you know what's in your bread?
It's been the staple of the Western diet for centuries... but beware, there's something suspect baking in the dough. Regina Lavelle reports

Irish Independent, 5 September 2006.

Amid all the kerfuffle about Frankenstein foods and GM crops, you'd figure that there would be no cellular skulduggery going on in the humble loaf of bread.

Bread, that linchpin of the Western diet, couldn't be sophisticated or modern enough to warrant any messing around with its genetic structure, could it?

But those of us who naively believed that the simple prehistoric recipe of flour, water, salt and yeast, still holds today are mistaken.

In commercial baking, at least, there's more in your loaf of bread than you might expect. Enzymes are added to the mixture to quicken the fermentation process and to ensure the smooth transition of the dough through the machinery and conveyor belts.

But in a time of nutrition-consciousness bordering on paranoia, how have enzymes have been allowed to permeate our sliced pans with few people any the wiser?

"The old way to bake bread is to add all the ingredients together and leave it for about a day to ferment," says Neil McGowan, regulatory affairs officer with the Food and Drink Industry Ireland (FDII). "But if you think about all the bread that is required, you just wouldn't be able to produce those amounts with that process.

"The Chorleywood Bread Process (CBP) allowed for bakeries to mechanically work the bread in about 12-15 minutes. Then you add in an improver - ascorbic acid - which is vitamin C. And the enzymes are added so the yeast can do its work."

The public is largely ignorant of the use of these enzymes because manufacturers are not obliged to label them.

The enzyme issue didn't seem to interfere with public health but recently questions have been raised about one enzyme - transglutaminase. Concerns have been voiced that this enzyme could prove toxic to those with severe gluten intolerance.

Even those for whom enzymes pose no health risk are increasingly concerned about the use of such additives, particularly where labelling is not required. The term for these additives is 'processing aids' as they are not present in the final product, having been exhausted in the baking process.

It's a position that may have been acceptable back in the early 1960s when the CBP was patented, but in the current food culture most consumers would regard it as deplorable practice. And it's one the EU Commission has set about redressing.

Last month, the Commission accepted a proposal to introduce regulation on the labelling of enzymes. It will mean commercial bakeries have to include each enzyme, and possibly its function. Since 80% of the bread produced in Ireland is made using the CBP, that's a lot of loaves.

Unsurprisingly, the Chorleywood process now has plenty of detractors, but back when it was introduced it was hailed as a breakthrough for bakers.

"It was a miracle on wheels," says Derek O'Brien, head of the National Bakery School at DIT. "Everybody went for it. It made a product that was technically better. The bakers thought it was great. The only problem was that we didn't stop and ask the customer."

The customer, while delighted at this new, long-lasting, inexpensive bread, would not have been so excited to hear about some of the more dodgy additives that were making their way into the mix.

"There have been horrific things put into bread," O'Brien says. "Until 1990 some companies would use potassium bromate, which was found to be a carcinogen. That wasn't discovered until research by Japanese scientists was published."

All the enzymes and additives used in commercial bread-making are legal, but some believe there is a chasm between what is legal and what is healthy.

'The question you have to ask is why are we using them," says O'Brien. "What manufacturers have in mind is the 'squeeze test' which is what consumers do to a loaf in the supermarket.

"They check it for softness and firmness and bakeries spend a large portion of their time ensuring their bread passes this test - even down to the feel of the wax paper. There's research that customers never pick up the first one, and they'll go for the bread on the middle shelf. But inside, all the bread is the same."

O'Brien believes that commercial bakeries have prioritised marketing and product placement ahead of their consumers' welfare. The result has been that all breads have been associated with unhealthiness.

"If you go to your doctor and tell him you want to lose a few pounds, the first thing he'll say is to drop bread. But bread isn't fattening and it's not bad for you. It's high in protein, contains very little fat and rarely any sugar.

"It's just that if you're eating a lot of commercial bread, you might well feel better after you stop. Real bread doesn't contain any additives."

The bad press bread has received in Ireland and the UK might go some way to explaining why we and our nearest neighbours consume the least amount of bread in Europe. But the tide is turning.

Bread baking courses at the National Bakery School at DIT are over-subscribed with members of the public keen to turn over a new loaf.

Meanwhile, a slew of organic bakers are leading the charge to provide assured additive-free bread to a more discerning customer. The FDII is involved with a number of labelling measures, which will ensure that all customers are better equipped with nutritional knowledge.

"As of November last year, new EU legislation meant that all companies were required to label any one of 12 allergens on their packaging.

"The European Food Safety Authority are working to ensure all enzymes used are safe. Work is ongoing to make the list of food ingredients on labels clearer, even down to providing a graph of the ingredients relative to the Guidelines Daily Amount (GDA) so they're in context.

"So steps are being taken to give customers more and more information."

For O'Brien's part, he is hoping to provide a certifying body through the National Bakery School for artisan bakers. The National Bakery School will assess each baker and if successful, certify them for a year, guaranteeing customers that the breads are baked to the highest standard and without unnecessary additives.

"There are Irish bakers who are professionals. They want to produce the best bread. It might be a bit more expensive and after three days it'll be gone hard, but the difference is flavour."

4 September 2006

Suspected unauthorised GMO rice in Netherlands

Reuters, 4 September 2006.

Brussels (Reuters) - A rice shipment suspected of containing an unauthorised GMO strain from the United States arrived in the Netherlands on Saturday but has not entered the market, the European Commission said.

"We do have a suspected positive case in Rotterdam," Commission spokesman Philip Tod told a news conference on Thursday, adding that Dutch authorities were testing the consignment.

"We also have been told by industry of another suspected positive case in New Orleans, but that has not left the U.S."

The shipment in Rotterdam also came from New Orleans and was partly destined for Britain and partly for Germany, he said.

Last week, the EU tightened requirements on U.S. long-grain rice imports to prove the absence of a genetically modified (GMO) strain known as LL Rice 601 marketed by Germany's Bayer AG (BAYG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) and produced in the United States.

The EU decision followed the discovery by U.S. authorities of trace amounts of LL Rice 601, engineered to resist a herbicide, in long-grain samples that were targeted for commercial use -- the first time this had happened.

"To my knowledge, the ship in Rotterdam is the only one which has arrived since adoption of the measure," Tod said.

"We have asked them to urgently conduct the necessary tests using the validated methods which they now have to give us a more accurate picture of this shipment."

The Commission, the executive arm of the 25-country European Union, hopes to have the test results within the next week.

More worrying for Brussels, the presence of the unauthorised strain in the U.S. commercial rice market may date back to early 2006, Tod said.

Last year, EU member states imported 300,000 tonnes of U.S. rice, with 85 percent being long grain.

"We can't rule out the possibility that contaminated rice has been imported into the EU," Tod said.

The EU's executive arm has already complained to Washington about its information policy that caused a near three-week delay in telling Brussels that traces of the unauthorised GMO had been found in the commercial rice.

FSA moves to block illegal GM rice

Food Production Daily, 4 September 2006. By Anthony Fletcher [shortned]

The UK's Food Standards Agency has taken action to ensure that testing and monitoring is carried out on consignments of American long grain rice in the UK.

The announcement follows last week's news that US authorities traced amounts of unapproved genetically modified (GM) food in samples of rice, prompting the EU to clamp down on all imports from the US.

This has had an immediate effect on rice supplies. The USA is one of the major suppliers of rice to the EU - approximately 20,000 tons of long grain husked, semi-milled and wholly-milled rice from the USA arrives in the EU each month.

But the EU has swiftly put into effect a raft of measures including the requirement that all imports of long grain rice must be certified as free from the unauthorised G

MO LL Rice 601. What's more, Member states are responsible for controlling the imports at their borders and for preventing any contaminated consignments from being placed on the market. Ireland's FSAI has implemented a ban on certain US long grain rice products unless they are clearly certified as being free of unauthorised GM rice, and now the UK's FSA has put into effect tough measures to ensure that the UK's food chain remains free from unauthorised GMOs.

At the moment, all imports of long grain rice are being held at ports until they can be certified to be free of GM.

"The presence of this GM material in rice on sale in the UK is illegal under European health law, even at extremely low levels," said FSA director of food safety Dr Andrew Wadge.

Key Questions for FSA on GM Rice Contamination
- new 2% detection limit test condemned

GM Freeze press release, 4 September 2006.

GM Freeze has written to the Food Standards Authority to find out what they intend to do to limit the exposure of UK consumers to GM contaminated rice imported from the USA.

On 21st August, the US Food and Drug Administration announced [1] the widespread contamination of long grain and milled rice with a GM experimental rice called LL601 developed by Bayer Crop Science.

In a new development over last weekend the US FDA verified a new "10 minute" strip test for LL602 rice [2] which has a limit of detection of 2%.

Pete Riley of GM Freeze commented on the new test:

"A two percentage limit of detection is worthless in the present situation - low level but nevertheless illegal contamination would be missed if this method was adopted. Any regulator endorsing its use would be doing the public a gross disfavour and would be helping to cover-up the extent of this serious contamination incident".

So far no cargoes of rice originating in the US have been refused entry or rice on supermarket shelves withdrawn despite reports of widespread contamination in the US [3] and court action against Bayer [4] for failing to prevent the contamination or warn farmers of the dangers.

Key questions GM Freeze want answers to include:

• Can the FSA confirm what levels of contamination have been found in rice and milled rice in the USA to date?

• Which are the main ports of entry into the UK for long grain rice imported directly from the USA or via ports in EU member states (e.g. Rotterdam)?

• To what extent is milled rice imported from the USA and through which ports?

• Has the FSA instigated a monitoring programme for cargoes entering the UK so that only rice free of GM is allowed to enter the market?

• What sampling protocols for cargoes have been recommended and, given that no GM rice currently has approval for marketing in the EU, has PCR testing for generic parts of GM constructs such as Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) promoters been used or considered in the absence of a definitive PCR test for LL601?

• When does the FSA expect to receive a definitive PCR test for LL601 rice from the EC, the US authorities or Bayer CropScience?

• Will the FSA or PHAs hold rice cargoes at port until verification of the GM content has been obtained from a reputable laboratory?

• How many cargoes of rice have arrived from a) the USA direct and b) via other EC member states as trans-shipments from the USA since the LL601 contamination was first announced on 21st August?

• How many cargoes of rice arrived from a) the USA direct and b) via other EC member states as trans-shipments from the USA since the LL601 contamination was first discovered in January 2006?

• What instructions have been given to UK retailers and wholesalers of US rice for testing for GM presence in rice stocks?

• What instructions has the FSA issued to wholesalers and retailers if GM is detected in stocks of US rice?

The UK imports 15-20% of its rice from the USA [5]. 80% of imports are of long grain rice which is believed to be where GM contamination is worse along with milled rice [6]. The contamination has been taking place undetected for several years. No GM rice is approved for marketing in the EU at present. Japan has halted rice imports from the USA as a precautionary measure [7].

In 2005 maize imports from the USA were found to be contaminated with the unapproved GM maize called Bt10. At the time it took the FSA six months to instigate a monitoring programme after the contamination was first revealed [8].

Commenting Pete Riley Director of GM Freeze said:

"We want to see decisive action from the FSA to ensure that no more contaminated rice enters the UK either direct from the USA or via other EU ports. We also want to see a concerted effort to clean up rice stocks already in the food chain in the UK. We do not want a repeat of the 2005 GM maize contamination when the FSA's reaction was tortoise-like. The LL602 rice contamination shows that industry cannot be trusted to protect public health and to keep unwanted GM products out of the food chain. What is more they are very reluctant to accept liability for their negligence. The USA is already experimenting with GM crops designed to produce pharmaceuticals so next time there is a similar contamination incident it could mean drugs in your cornflakes or with your curry".

ENDs

Calls to Pete Riley 07903 341065

1. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biorice.html
2. http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/...
3. Unapproved Rice Strain Found in Wide Area By ANDREW POLLACK New York Times, August 22 2006
4. For example Geeridge Farm Inc. and George G, Watson and others v Bayer CropScience LP District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division.
5. Data obtained from trade Statistics Food Chain Analysis 3 Defra
6. http://deltafarmpress.com/news/060829-arkansas-gmo/
7. http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=44088&lang=fra&NewsRubrique=2
8. See http://www.gmfreeze.org/admin/uploads/report_doc.pdf for details.

Emergency measures regarding the non-authorised genetically modified organism LL RICE 601 in long grain rice products from the US.

Food Safety Authority of Ireland notice, 4 September 2006.

Alert Notification: 2006.08

RASFF NEWS 06-317

04 September 2006

Category ll: For Information

Country of Origin: United States

Product: Long Grain Rice (see below for full details)

Batch Code: All within the designated Customs Codes (see below) Message

Emergency Measures regarding the non-authorised genetically modified organism LL RICE 601 in rice products from the US.

On 23rd August 2006, the European Commission imposed emergency measures, under provisions of Article 53 (1) of Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002, regarding the import of various long grain rice products from the United States owing to the possible presence of genetically modified rice called ëLL RICE 601' which has not been authorised for placing on the market in the European Community.

Commission Decision 2006/578/EC applies to the following products originating from the United States of America:

- husked (brown) rice Parboiled Long A within CN code 1006 20 15,
- husked (brown) rice Parboiled Long B within CN code 1006 20 17,
- husked (brown) rice Long A within CN code 1006 20 96,
- husked (brown) rice Long B within CN code 1006 20 98,
- semi-milled Parboiled Long A within CN code 1006 30 25,
- semi-milled Parboiled Long B within CN code 1006 30 27,
- semi-milled Long A within CN code 1006 30 46,
- semi-milled Long B within CN code 1006 30 48,
- wholly milled Parboiled Long A within CN code 1006 30 65,
- wholly milled Parboiled Long B within CN code 1006 30 67,
- wholly milled Long A within CN code 1006 30 96,
- wholly milled Long B within CN code 1006 30 98,
- broken rice within CN code 1006 40 00 unless it is certified free of long grain.

The Decision requires that the first placing on the market of these products is only permitted where consignments are accompanied by an original analytical report based on a suitable and validated method for detection of genetically modified rice LL RICE 601 and issued by an accredited laboratory certifying that the product does not contain genetically modified rice LL RICE 601.

In the absence of such an analytical report, the food business operator who is responsible for the first placing on the market of the product shall have the products referred to in Article 1 tested to demonstrate that they do not contain genetically modified rice LL RICE 601. Pending availability of the analytical report, the consignment must not be placed on the market.

In addition to checks on imports, the Decision also requires random sampling and analysis of products already on the market in order to verify the absence of genetically modified rice LL RICE 601. The FSAI will be arranging such sampling on products on the market in conjunction with the official agencies.

The full text of the Commission Decision can be found at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_230/l_23020060824en00080010.pdf

No risks to consumer's health have been identified. The action is being taken as the products are not authorised for placing on the market. The European Food Safety Authority is carrying out a full risk assessment on the products.

Jeff Moon

Consumer Protection

2 September 2006

Ark. farmers file 4th lawsuit over genetically engineered rice

Associated Press, September 2 2006 [shortened]

LITTLE ROCK - A fourth lawsuit has been filed against Bayer CropScience LP, accusing the company of negligence after an unapproved, genetically engineered rice was found in the United States.

The latest suit was filed by Ephron H. and Doris S. Lewis of Cross County, Floyd and Genotrice Murrow from Phillips County and Ivory Nealy of Lee County. Their suit, filed Thursday in federal court, is the third federal class-action case against Bayer. This week, a group of rice growers filed suit in Lonoke County Circuit Court against Bayer and Stuttgart-based Riceland Foods Inc. on similar claims.

Read the article: http://www.pbcommercial.com/articles/2006/09/02/ap-state-ar/d8jss4282.txt

1 September 2006

Press statement on GM rice is "grossly irresponsible and scientificaly indefensible"
Formal complaint goes to Health Minister

GM Free Cymru Press Statement, 1 September 2006.

NGOs have reacted with fury to the FSA statement issued today (1) on the GM rice contamination incident which is doing immense damage to US rice growers and which is making news headlines around the world. One of the NGOs keeping a watch on the development of the contamination story has now written to Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt with a formal complaint, stating that the FSA press release is "grossly irresponsible and scientifically indefensible" and asking that it should immediately be withdrawn and replaced with something more in line with the facts.

GM Free Cymru spokesman Dr Brian John said today: "The FSA has a long history of support for the GM industry, and a long history of turning a blind eye to anything that might negatively affect the interests of the GM multinationals. We have seen some extraordinary statements from them on GM matters in the past. But this statement takes the biscuit; it is not just incompetent, but it is designed to deceive, and that is a very serious matter indeed."

In their letter to the Health Secretary, GM Free Cymru has highlighted the following issues:

1. The statement that "trace amounts of GM rice have been found in a sample of rice in the US" is designed to mislead and to minimise the scale and seriousness of the problem. The American and British media have reported, day after day, that many samples of rice, from all over the Southern rice-growing states of the USA, have tested positive for the unauthorised variety LL601.

2 The statement that "GM material has been detected at very low levels" is again deliberately designed to mislead. USDA and the American rice growers, in a number of statements, have reported the level of contamination to be averaging out at around 0.06%. In some samples the level will be much higher. Even if contamination at a very low level were to be found here it would still be totally illegal, since LL601 has never been assessed scientifically, let alone authorised.

3. The statement that "our independent scientific experts have looked at the data on this material and have concluded that there is no food safety risk" is grossly misleading from a scientific point of view. Who are these experts? Neither ACRE nor ACNFP have looked at the information on the molecular characteristics, stability, uniformity or potential toxicity of LL601 -- because nothing has ever been released by Bayer. If certain "experts" have now given off- the-record opinions on LL601 to the FSA, we want to know their names and we want to see their written statements.

4. The statement from the Agency that "it is advising people who have long grain rice from the US at home that they can continue to eat it" is again complacent and utterly irresponsible. No safety tests have ever been conducted on LL601 rice. It may well be unstable and non-uniform, since it was a failed variety which was abandoned by Bayer in 2001. It has never been authorised for consumption in any country, and its presence (even in the minutest quantities) in food supplies cannot be tolerated. For the FSA to say that it is acceptable for consumers (including small babies) to consume an illegal and untested product is in our view criminally negligent.

5. The implication that contaminated rice poses no health or safety concerns because the US Dept of Agriculture says so is disingenuous and even dishonest. The FSA must know that USDA says that ALL genetically modified foods are perfectly safe to eat, and that it is renowned worldwide for its cavalier and complacent approach to GM food safety.

6. The statement conveniently omits to mention that (as widely reported in the media) contaminated supplies of US long grain rice have been coming into the UK at least since last January. This means that packaged rice products already on supermarket shelves must contain LL601 contamination. The only questions remaining to be answered are these: where are the contaminated products, and how serious is the contamination?

7. The statement gives no guarantees that supplies of American long- grain rice already on supermarket shelves will be tested at all. The phrase "consignments of American long grain rice in the UK" could refer simply to bulk supplies currently held in silos or at the ports. Indeed, the FSA says that it will take action "to ensure that future supplies of rice are GM free." That evades the real issue, and it gives no reassurance at all to the thousands of people in the UK who are concerned about what they should or should not eat.

8. Dr Wadge's statement that "food retailers are responsible for ensuring that the food they sell does not contain unauthorised GM material" is another evasion. How are those retailers to know whether their supplies are "clean"? Are they to pay for tests at up to £300 a time while Bayer and the food regulators (including FSA) simply shrug their shoulders and say "Nothing to do with us?" when they are actually culpable? In any case, the food retailers have no information on testing protocols, on what to look for, or on which manifestation of LL601 is likely to be present in their stocked foods. And Bayer will not give them that information, because to do so would be to admit their own incompetence and invite litigation.

In a further comment, Dr John said; "For a statement as dishonest as this to be slid out late on a Friday, in the hope that it would be replicated in the media throughout the world without any critical assessment, is a further disgrace. We have now totally lost faith in the FSA as an organization capable of protecting public health, at least as far as GMOs are concerned. Whoever was responsible for the press release should be severely castigated. And the statement itself should be withdrawn and replaced by something more reliable."

ENDS

Contact: Dr Brian John
GM Free Cymru
Tel 01239-820470

(1) http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2006/sep/gmricetest

USDA verifies 10-minute test for GM rice

Reuters, 1 September 2006

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Agriculture Department said on Friday it verified a strip kit that can detect the unapproved genetically modified Liberty Link rice trait in 10 minutes.

U.S. rice exports were imperiled with discovery of trace amounts of the Liberty Link trait in long grain rice stored in Arkansas and Missouri. Liberty Link was developed by Bayer CropScience, a unit of Bayer AG.

The European Union requires tests for the rice, also called LLRice 601.

In a statement, USDA said its Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration "has verified a strip kit that detects the presence of the Liberty Link 601 protein at a detection limit of 2% sensitivity level. The test takes approximately 10 minutes to complete."

The test was evaluated under GIPSA's Rapid Test Performance Evaluation Program at the request of Strategic Diagnostics Inc.

Testing to be carried out for unauthorised GM rice

UK Food Standards Agency press release, 1st September 2006

The Food Standards Agency will ensure that testing and monitoring will be carried out on consignments of American long grain rice in the UK. This follows the statement by the US authorities that trace amounts of GM rice have been found in a sample of rice in the US. According to information provided by the Rice Association, GM material has been detected at very low levels and could be present in imports in the UK. The Agency is taking this action to ensure that future supplies of rice are GM free.

Although the European Food Safety Authority is doing a detailed evaluation, the Agency has already taken the advice of independent experts in the UK on the safety implications of this rice. They have advised that on the basis of current evidence the presence of low levels of this GM material in the food supply is not a safety concern.

No GM rice has been approved for sale in the EU and therefore GM varieties should not be present in imported rice. All imports of long grain rice are being held at ports until they can be certified to be free of GM. The European Commission is leading discussions with the US authorities to ensure that no further products containing unauthorised GM material are exported to Europe.

FSA Director of Food Safety Dr Andrew Wadge said:

"The presence of this GM material in rice on sale in the UK is illegal even at extremely low levels. This is why we have taken steps to test American long grain rice and ensure future imports are GM free.

"Food retailers are responsible for ensuring that the food they sell does not contain unauthorised GM material.

"Our independent scientific experts have looked at the data on this material and have concluded that there is no food safety risk. Therefore the Agency is advising people who have long grain rice from the US at home that they can continue to eat it."

Notes to Editors

The US Food and Drug Administration have said that the rice poses no safety concerns. The European Food Safety Authority who are responsible for the evaluation of GM foods across the EU are due to give a view on the safety of the GM rice next week.

News contact: 029 2067 8916

Caroline Kitson
Communications Manager
Food Standards Agency - Wales
Tel: + 44 29 2067 8916
Mobile: + 44 7969 668432


VISIT FSA WEBSITES

For consumer nutrition information: http://www.eatwell.gov.u
For information on salt: http://www.salt.gov.uk
For other FSA information: http://www.food.gov.ukwww.food.gov.uk
For FSA Wales information: http://www.food.gov.uk/wales

EU May Order Austria to Lift Ban on GMO Maize Types

Reuters, September 1, 2006

BRUSSELS - Austria may soon face an order to lift its bans on two genetically modified (GMO) types of maize now that its presidency of the 25-country European Union has run its course, diplomats and officials said on Thursday.

Between 1997 and 2000, five EU countries banned specific GMOs on their territory, focusing on three maize and two rapeseed types that were approved shortly before the start of the EU's six-year moratorium on new biotech authorisations.

In June 2005, the European Commission tried to get all the bans scrapped but got a stinging rebuff from EU environment ministers, which rejected proposals for the five -- Austria, France, Germany, Greece and Luxembourg -- to lift their bans.

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has also attacked these "national safeguards", as they are called in Brussels jargon, in a landmark case brought against the EU by Argentina, Canada and the United States for breaking international trade rules.

Austria, which passed the rotating six-month EU presidency to Finland at the end of June 2006, is the only country in the bloc whose bans relate to GMO products still actively marketed.

In the other cases, the companies manufacturing the particular GMO products that were the subject of the original bans have withdawn them from the market.

EU PRESIDENCY

Politically, with Austria no longer the EU president, the Commission -- the bloc's executive arm -- is free to try again to get the bans lifted, hoping to demonstrate to the complainants in the WTO case that it is taking action on GMOs.

"The European Commission is preparing a decision which will then go to Council (of EU ministers)," one EU official told Reuters. "It wouldn't have been good to discuss this during the Austrian presidency."

Austria, where opinion is strongly opposed to biotech foods and there is a strong movement to set up GMO-free zones, consistently votes against applications to authorise new GMOs on EU territory. Finland, on the other hand, votes in favour.

Austria has banned two GMO maize varieties: one in 1997 and the other in 1999. The first was against MON 810 maize made by US biotech giant Monsanto and the second against T25 maize made by German drugs and chemicals group Bayer.

First though, the draft Commission order will be discussed by EU-25 ambassadors at a meeting on Sept. 8. If they agree, or there is enough of a majority in favour, the matter will be put to a vote at a meeting of EU agriculture ministers on Sept. 18.

The ministers may also face another decision on GMOs on the same day, since the Commission is keen to authorise imports of various biotech rapeseed types, also manufactured by Bayer.

Bayer's application relates to industrial processing, which includes use in animal feed, for rapeseed types Ms8, Rf3 and hybrids of these two -- all engineered to resist the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium herbicide. It would not be for cultivation.

Bayer, not taxpayers, must pay for GM rice testing in Europe

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, September 1 2006.

Brussels - Friends of the Earth Europe today demanded that biotech giant Bayer finances all European food testing for its illegal genetically modified (GM) rice. EU member states are obliged to carry out testing of foods on their shelves following contamination of the food chain in the US with Bayer's experimental GM rice [1]. The call comes as European authorities today published on the internet the official protocol for European laboratories to follow when testing foods for the illegal GM rice [2].

The European Commission has left the extent of testing to the discretion of each member state. But countries will have to pay for the testing themselves and each individual test can cost over 200 Euros. Bayer announced this week that its profits in the second quarter of 2006 have risen to over 7 million Euros [3].

Friends of the Earth's GM Campaigner, Clare Oxborrow, said: "Authorities and rice importers throughout Europe must now conduct expensive testing to prevent US rice, contaminated with an illegal GM strain, from entering our food chain. These tests are essential, but European taxpayers must not be made to pay. Instead Bayer, the biotech company responsible for this pollution, must take full responsibility for its incompetence and foot the bill."

"It is clear that the GM industry cannot safely control its activities. When incidents like this happen, the industry must be forced to accept liability".

LL601 is a rice strain that was grown experimentally by Bayer CropScience between 1999 and 2001 in the US. It was not contained effectively, resulting in contamination of rice supplies in the food chain [4]. LL601 is not approved for commercial growing or human consumption, and the health and environmental impacts have not been fully investigated. Currently, no GM rice is allowed to be grown or imported into the EU.

Testing of rice in the United States for the GM strain LL601 has reportedly produced a significant number of positive results [5], indicating that rice imported into the EU from the same supply chain is very likely to also be contaminated. A shipment of rice suspected of containing the illegal GM rice is being held in the Netherlands while Dutch authorities carry out testing.

The multinational giant Bayer is being sued by rice farmers in Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and California, after rice prices dramatically dropped following contamination by the LL601 genetically modified variant. [6]

The protocol for testing has been validated by the EU and circulated to the European Network of GMO Laboratories [7]. Official authorities from the member states as well as private operators are expected to submit samples for testing in the next few days.

For more information, please contact:

Clare Oxborrow, GM Campaigner at Friends of the Earth:
Tel: +44 20 7566 1716; Mobile: +44 7712 843211; Email: clareo@foe.co.uk

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] Attention! Long link may be broken - copy and paste both lines into browser:
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/
06/1120&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

[2] http://gmo-crl.jrc.it/LLRice601update.htm

[3] Attention! Long link may be broken - copy and paste both lines into browser:
http://www.news.bayer.com/BayNews/BayNews.nsf/
id/D839D4CDFDAE65D4C12571D900190384

[4] http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/AB_21_Aug_US_rice.html

[5] http://deltafarmpress.com/news/060829-arkansas-gmo/

[6] Attention! Long link may be broken - copy and paste both lines into browser:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?
view=CN&storyID=2006-08-29T184034Z_01_N29437472_RTRIDST_0_FOOD-BAYER-RICE.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna

[7] European Network of GMO Laboratories: http://engl.jrc.it/

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

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

Archives 2004 • 2003

S