NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • April 2007

Archives 2007: January• February • March • April • May
Archives 2006: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December
Archives 2005: Jan/Feb/Mar • Apr/May/Jun/Jul • Aug/Sept/Oct • Nov/Dec • 2004 • 2003

30 April 2007

Ireland: Illegal GM maize enters EU through Ireland

Greenpeace & GM-free Ireland demand blockade of all US maize shipments
Clouds of GM powder contaminate Dublin Docklands
Fianna Fáil's GM food traceability system in tatters
Irish farmers plan to phase out GM animal feed

GM-free Ireland Network press release, 30 April 2007.

Photos are available for download at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac

The GM-free Ireland Network and Greenpeace International called today for a blockade of US maize imports following laboratory tests on Friday which prove that a shipment of US animal feed intercepted in Dublin Port and later in Rotterdam entered the EU illegally with a cargo contaminated by unauthorised and toxic varieties of genetically modified (GM) maize.

The certified laboratory analysis showed 2.4% contamination for a GM maize variety called Herculex patented by Pioneer / Dow Agrosciences, which is approved in the USA but illegal in the EU. The tests also showed 20% positive for GM maize MON863 patented by Monsanto; the latter is still approved for animal feed and human food in the EU, even though the European Food Safety Authority has been forced to review its approval following allegations of scientific fraud, cover up, and a recent peer-reviewed study by French scientists which found it causes serious liver and kidney damage in laboratory animals.

GM-free Ireland and Greenpeace called for the blockade following their discovery of the contaminated animal feed aboard the Pakrac which arrived in Dublin from New Orleans on 2 April. The cargo unloaded here included distiller's grain probably extracted from a GM maize variety that contains its own pesticide, and hulls from GM soya beans thought to contain high level residues of Monsanto's toxic Roundup weedkiller, which has been found to cause toxicity to human placental cells within hours of exposure, at levels ten times lower than those found in agricultural use. The remainder of the cargo, consisting of GM maize pellets, was unloaded in Rotterdam. [Note: on 1 May the Dept. of Agriculture said maize gluten was also unloaded off the Pakrac in Dublin - the same kind of product that tested positive for illegal and toxic GM contamination in Rotterdam - Ed.]

The ship's captain said he was unaware of the contamination because the US authorities certified the cargo as "non-GMO". Dublin Port Company harbourmaster, Capt. David Dignam said all he knew is that the Pakrak carried 16,000 tonnes of "agricultural products". The Port Company and the receiving agent, S.J. Murphy & Co. Ltd (a subsidiary of R. A. Burke) also said they were unaware of the cargo's specific contents. The importer R & H Hall (Ireland's biggest importer and supplier of animal feed ingredients, and a subsidiary of IAWS Group Plc), claimed the only cargo unloaded in Dublin was GM soya hulls and distiller's grain from GM maize, adding that the latter did not carry a GM label to identify its provenance because the transgenic DNA "would not survive the process used to extract it from the GM maize". The tests commissioned by Greenpeace took two weeks to find the first illegal GM content because the lab did not know what type of GMO maize they had to look for, since neither the ship's captain nor any regulatory body had been informed what possible contamination might have been present. No tests have yet been carried out to find out if the cargo unloaded here is also contaminated by the Herculex and MON863 varieties. Further contamination of farmers, livestock and consumers will occur if these GM products are allowed to enter the market.

Contaminated bankers, brokers and commodity traders

Bankers, brokers, commodity traders and residents around Dublin's Docklands are routinely exposed to clouds of GM powder when contaminated animal feed shipments are unloaded here. GM-free Ireland and Greenpeace obtained photographic evidence of clouds of GM powder being repeatedly blown off a bucket crane, as the Pakrac's cargo was slowly unloaded from the ship at the Odlums silos in Alexandra Basin. The wind carried the powder towards the P&O European Ferries terminal, the Point Depot concert venue, and nearby office buildings. Witnesses said the unloading was still underway on the afternoon of the following day.

Irish meat and dairy produce from GM-fed animals refused by EU retailers

This unauthorised GM maize is the third type of illegal GM food or feed known to have entered the EU through Ireland in the last two years. Three quarters of a million tonnes of illegal and toxic varieties of GM animal feed now routinely enter the EU through Ireland each year, contaminating our food chain without the knowledge of the authorities, farmers or consumers. Most of Ireland's non-organic livestock are fed on GM ingredients. A related loophole in EU law allows the resulting meat and dairy produce to be sold without a GM label. But leading retailers in France, Italy, Russia, Switzerland, and the UK who previously made a voluntary ban on GM food, have recently extended their bans to meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients. As a result, Irish exporters of live cattle and beef, lamb and dairy produce are being excluded from prime EU markets unless accompanied by an accredited certification proving their food chain is GM-free from farm to fork.

Regulatory failure

The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Mary Coughlan claims that, "since April 2004 all feed imports have been subjected to inspection for accuracy of GM labelling and very high levels of compliance have been detected." But Liam Hyde of the Department's Animal Feedingstuffs Section confirmed that imported animal feed is only tested for GM content on a random basis, adding that he was "unaware" of the French scientific study which found that MON863 is toxic to animals. He also said that the Irish government records of GM animal feed imports for 2006 have been irretrievably lost due to the "computer database failure", making traceability and liability impossible in the event of related animal or human health problems.

Fine Gael Agriculture and Food spokesperson Denis Naughten TD said "One third of animal feed consignments imported into Ireland in 2005 were mislabelled as containing no genetically modified material when, in fact, the opposite was the case. Green Party Leader Trevor Sargent, TD said "Under this Minister's watch, the vast majority of feed imports are genetically modified. This shows just how little she cares for the economic future of conventional and organic growers, for the Irish food industry's image on the world market, for consumers and for Ireland's ecosystems".

This total breakdown of our food safety and traceability system is a clear breach of EU regulation 1829/2003. It proves once again that the existing mechanisms of EU legislation concerning GMOs are not effective and can not protect consumers, farmers, companies and the environment from unwanted GE contamination.

Segregated system needed for GM-free imports

The unloading facilities in Dublin Port don't include a dedicated system to segregate GM from conventional and organic food and feed imports, as specified by the Department of Agriculture's proposed rules "to ensure the co-existence" of GM products with conventional and organic agriculture.

The substantial quantities blown off the dockside into the Alexandra basin and the river Liffey probably also contaminate birds, fish, and seals around Dublin Bay, threatening the biodiversity of five Natura 2000 sites in the area.

Call for blockade of US maize shipments

Greenpeace International this morning requested the European Commission to take immediate steps to halt all maize and other food and feed shipments imported from the USA, until a rigorous comprehensive testing programme and traceability system is fully implemented in compliance with EU law.

At today's European Commission daily press conference at lunchtime, an EC spokesperson said they are concerned that an illegal maize variety has entered the EU. They said the Dutch authorities need to act and put the illegal maize on the Rapid Alert System, so that other EU member states can trace it and take it off the market. The Commission spokesperson also said that although Herculex RW maize is indeed illegal in the EU, it received a positive opinion from EFSA on 4 April) and EU member states still have an opportunity to discuss this opinion on 8 June at a meeting of the EC Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. The spokesperson said the EC had no plans to halt all US maize shipments. Greenpeace spokesperson Geert Ritsema said "This is typical for the European Commission's approach to GM contamination scandals so far. They do not go beyond crisis management. They deal with each crisis separately but do not take any meaningful measures to prevent future contamination."

Greenpeace and GM-free Ireland have also requested the Irish Government to explain why the illegal maize was not intercepted in Dublin, to clarify what was unloaded here, and to test the latter for the presence of illegal and toxic GM maize varieties. They have also called for the EU and Irish Government to ban the importation of Monsanto's toxic MON863 maize from being sold on to farmers and contaminating the food chain.

At a media briefing in Brussels today, a Greenpeace spokesperson said "We hold the authorities in all EU member states and the European Commission responsible for protecting EU citizens against the risks of illegal imports of GMOs. They have this obligation under EU law (labelling and traceability regulation 1829/2003). In the case of the Pakrac the controls have failed miserably: both the Irish and the Dutch authorities did not detect the cargo as containing illegal GM maize. It was Greenpeace who found out by doing a random sampling of one ship. The first time we tested a maize ship since many years, we immediately found illegal GMO maize. This clearly indicates that the EU's official traceability and testing system for GMOs is patently unable to detect illegal GMO varieties on time. Therefore Greenpeace demands a blockade of all US maize shipments and other US shipments that are at risk of being contaminated with illegal GMOs until an extensive testing programme is in place to protect consumers, farmers and the environment against the risks of illegal maize imports."

Farmers to phase out use of GM animal feed

GM-free Ireland is currently engaged in discussions with H & R Hall (Ireland's largest importer and supplier of animal feed ingredients), the Kepak Group (which controls over 60% of the market for Irish beef), the Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association (ICMSA) and the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association (ICSA) to explore the feasibility of supplying farmers with certified non-GMO animal feed as soon as possible.

Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland said "the routine use of GM fodder has already damaged the reputation of Irish meat and dairy produce, which would otherwise be considered the best in Europe. We cannot afford to further damage our food exports by continuing to allow illegal and/or toxic varieties of GM animal feed to be sold here, much less the current government's plans 'to ensure the co-existence' of GM crops with conventional and organic faming."

In the UK (Tesco, Sainsburys, Marks & Spencer), France (Carrefour), Italy (Coop Italia), and Switzerland (Migros, Coop) have recently extended their previous ban on GMO ingredients by prohibiting the sale of meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients in their own-brand food products. This follows on an early ban on GM foods by Europe's 60 largest food brands and food retailers in 2005.

Call for reform of the European Food Safety Authority

Greenpeace has urged European Health and Consumer Affairs Commissioner, Marcos Kyprianou, and all European member states to apply the Precautionary Principle by prohibiting the further importation and cultivation of MON863 maize and all other GMOs, since all products on the market suffer from the same lack of proper risk assessment.

The European Environmental Bureau, which serves as an umbrella group for Europe's main Environmental Non-Governmental Organisations, has demanded a radical reform of the European Commission's GMO authorisation procedure, and a review of all risk assessments carried out so far on GM animal feed, food and crops.

Irish General Election

GM-free Ireland spokesperson Michael O'Callaghan said his organisation will soon publish a list of all candidates in the forthcoming General Election, with their response - or lack thereof - to a letter sent to them before Christmas requesting them to state if they support the call for a total ban on GMO seeds and crops in Ireland. He concluded "The General Election provides an opportunity for voters to replace a government that broke its previous pre-election pledge never to allow GM food and crops in this country. Contaminating our food chain with dangerous GM feed and food is unacceptable. We are working with farmers and food exporters to phase out the use of GM animal feed, and urge the government to act before GM crops are legalised for cultivation here. The best thing for the future of our food, faming and tourism sectors is to follow the lead of the nine other EU member states and 236 Regional Governments and declare the whole island of Ireland as a GMO-free zone."

ENDS

Contact:

Michael O'Callaghan - GM-free Ireland Network
tel + 353 (0)404 43 885 o mobile + 353 (0)87 799 4761 email: mail@gmfreeireland.org

Geert Ritsema - Greenpeace International
tel + 31 646 197 328
email: geert.ritsema@int.greenpeace.org

Photos are available for download at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac

Europe: New GM maize find in US shipment to Europe

EU Business, 30 April 2007.

(BRUSSELS) - Environmental group Greenpeace said Monday that an illegal genetically modified maize had been found in a US shipment to Europe, the fourth such case in two years.

Greenpeace said it had analysed cargo that arrived in the port at Rotterdam, the Netherlands on April 10 and found that it contained 2.4 percent of the GMO Herculex, a maize manufactured by the firm Pioneer and not yet legal in the EU.

It said in a statement that the ship carrying the maize had offloaded some cargo in Ireland but the group could not determine whether the GMO had landed there.

The European Commission said it had not been told about the find, but that if it were the case it would be "up to the Dutch authorities to send the maize back to the United States."

Since new authorisation rules were introduced in 2004, about 10 GM strains have been cleared for the EU market, mainly for maize destined for human or animal consumption.

The EU has seen three "major incidences" of unauthorised GM products -- all originating from the United States -- reaching the EU market since the new rules went into force.

Those episodes concerned the discovery of shipments of long-grain GM rice, maize gluten last year, and Hawaiian papaya in 2004 and 2005.

Herculex has received a "positive scientific evaluation" from EU food safety experts and the bloc is expected to decide on June 8 whether it should be allowed in.

Canada: Monsanto's Soybean Monopoly Challenged in Munich
European Patent Office Will Decide Fate of Species-Wide Soybean Patent on 3 May 2007

ETC Group news release, April 30, 2007

On 3 May 2007 ETC Group (a Canadian-based international civil society organization - formerly known as RAFI) together with "No Patents on Life!" and Greenpeace will continue a 13-year legal battle against one of biotech's most notorious patents. At an appeal hearing at the European Patent Office in Munich, civil society organizations will argue that Monsanto's patent (European Patent No. 301-749) on all genetically engineered soybeans - unprecedented in its broad scope - must be revoked. "No patent symbolizes the brokenness of the patent system better than Monsanto's species-wide patent on genetically engineered soybeans," said Hope Shand of ETC Group. "Monsanto's patent is both technically flawed and morally unacceptable," said Shand.

Critics refer to EP 301-749 as a "species-wide" patent because its claims extend to all biotech soybean seeds -- irrespective of the genes used or the genetic engineering technique employed. The patent, initially awarded to US-based biotech company Agracetus in 1994, was acquired by Monsanto when it purchased Agracetus in 1996.

According to industry sources, Monsanto's biotech seeds and traits accounted for almost 90% of the worldwide area planted to genetically modified soybean seeds in 2005. What's more, genetically engineered soybeans reportedly account for almost 60% of the global soybean area - an increasingly dominant share of one of the world's most important food and commodity crops.

"The statistics speak for themselves," said Greenpeace's patent expert Dr. Christoph Then. "A single company has been awarded sweeping monopoly control over one of the world's most important food crops."

ETC Group's Shand asserts, "Monsanto's patent is undermining the economic security of farming communities and jeopardizing access to seeds - the first link in the food chain. Whoever controls the seeds controls the food supply." According to a ranking of the world's largest seed companies released today by ETC Group, Monsanto is the world's largest seed company, with over 20% of the global proprietary seed market. ETC Group's new ranking of the top 10 seed companies is available here:
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=615

The livelihoods of Argentina's soybean farmers are directly affected by Monsanto's species-wide patent because the company is using its exclusive monopoly to deny Argentine soybeans from entering European markets. Monsanto alleges that Argentine farmers aren't paying royalties to Monsanto for using the company's patented soybean seeds.

Critics point out that Monsanto's defense of its patent is not surprising, but it is hugely hypocritical. Before Monsanto acquired the patent in 1996, the company vigorously opposed the patent - which was then owned by Agracetus. In 1994 Monsanto submitted an exhaustive, 292-page opposition statement to the EPO that shredded the technical merits of Agracetus's soybean patent. Monsanto's lawyers wrote that the soybean patent should be "revoked in its entirety," is "not...novel," "lacks an inventive step," and "sufficient disclosure [of scientific method] is woefully lacking." But after Monsanto acquired Agracetus in April 1996, Monsanto withdrew its challenge, reversed its position and announced that it would defend its newly acquired patent!

In 2003 - more than nine years after the patent was first awarded and legally challenged - an EPO patent tribunal heard legal arguments against the notorious patent. Opponents were shocked when EPO upheld Monsanto's monopoly in 2003. Today, nearly two-thirds of the patent's 20-year term has expired. On 3 May 2007 EPO's appeal tribunal will have one last chance to revoke Monsanto's unjust monopoly on one of the world's major food crops.

"If EPO fails to revoke the patent after 13 years of bureaucratic delays it will simply confirm that corporations can use unjust patents to monopolize markets, destroy competition and jeopardize worldwide struggles for food sovereignty," said Hope Shand of ETC Group.

"Case-by-case legal battles against immoral and unjust patents is an unworkable strategy - Europe needs new patent legislation that expressly prohibits patents on life," said Ruth Tippe of "No patents on Life!"

For more information contact:

Hope Shand or Kathy Jo Wetter, ETC Group
Email: hope@etcgroup.org / kjo@etcgroup.org
Tel: +1 919 960-5223

Jim Thomas, ETC Group
jim@etcgroup.org
Tel: +1 514 516-5759

Dr. Ruth Tippe, "No patents on Life", Germany
Tel: 0049 1728963858 http://www.keinpatent.de/

Dr. Christoph Then, Greenpeace, Germany
Tel: 0049 1718780832 http://www.greenpeace.de

ETC Group's 2006 ranking of the world's top 10 seed companies:
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=615

For more information about international campaign against patents on seeds: http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org

Taiwan animal rights group protests 'fluorescent pigs'

DPA (German Press Agency), 30 April 2007

Taipei - An animal rights group on Monday protested Taiwanese scientists' genetically engineering two pink fluorescent pigs, calling the project "absurd" and "meaningless."

"If they are doing it for the happiness of human beings or animals, then maybe it is worthwhile. But I don't see any proper purpose for breeding fluorescent pigs," Chu Tseng-hung, director- general of the Environment and Animal Society of Taiwan.

"If the experiment is only to create sensation and attract media attention, then it is meaningless and should not be encouraged," he said.

On Monday, National Taiwan University (NTU) unveiled its second batch of fluorescent pigs at the Yilan Green Expo in Yilan County, northeast Taiwan.

NTU claimed it used fluorescent cells from coral and injected them into 69 pig embryos, which were implanted into two pigs. One pig had a miscarriage, while the other one gave birth to two fluorescent piglets on April 28.

The two piglets are pink inside and out, and glow in the dark. The Yilan County Government called it a scientific breakthrough because they are the first "pink pigs" in the world.

This is NTU's second success in breeding fluorescent pigs. In January 2006, NTU researchers produced two green fluorescent piglets by adding genetic material from jellyfish into normal pig embryos.

The researchers hoped the pigs could boost Taiwan's stem cell research, as well as helping with the study of human disease.

UK: Down on the pharm

The Guardian, April 30 2007

A new breed of genetically modified crops could provide cheap drugs and vaccines for the developing world. Only one problem: what if they get into the food chain? Environment correspondent David Adam reports on 'pharming', the new GM front line

In a windowless room on the roof of a hospital in south London, the air is being slowly sucked away. It's not enough to notice, but it keeps the sealed laboratory at a slightly lower pressure than the air outside. It's a security measure. The contents of this laboratory are highly controversial, and if anything escaped it would be a public relations disaster for the scientists who work here. The lab holds some of the most controversial plants in the UK, which nearby residents would be less than happy to find drifting on the breeze through their back gardens. Open the door, and air rushes in, not out.

The plants are tobacco, but they are not intended to be smoked. Instead, the scientists who work on them believe they could save lives. Each has been genetically engineered to carry a gene that is usually found in common algae. Inside its cells, the foreign DNA forces the tobacco plant to churn out a protein that is useless to it, but that happens to be a potent drug against HIV. The scientists say the drug, and others like it, could save millions of lives across the developing world. The technique has been dubbed pharmaceutical farming, or pharming, and it is emerging as the latest battleground in the war over genetic modification.

Britain has rejected GM plants once already - a media and consumer backlash persuaded most companies there was little market in the UK for crops that have had their genes tweaked to be resistant to pests or herbicides. But with pharming the battle lines are less clearly defined, as protesters who trashed experimental GM corn plants in France discovered. The crops were making a protein that could be used to treat cystic fibrosis, and when patient groups angrily denounced the action, mainstream green campaigners were forced to deny involvement.

To the scientists developing this new generation of GM plants, the benefits are clear. Conventional ways to make modern medicines are expensive, which means pharmaceutical companies generally target those diseases that affect lots of people who can pay. Plants can be grown, harvested, and the useful medicine purified from them at a fraction of the price, so using them as leafy drug factories saves a fortune, and opens the doors to treating people in poorer countries. Advocates say just 250 acres of GM potato crop could churn out enough hepatitis B vaccine to protect the entire population of south-east Asia from the disease for a year.

But there are concerns too. As with GM food crops, there are fears about whether pharmed plants could breed with wild relatives and disturb the natural gene pool. They could find their way into the food chain - potentially exposing people to uncontrolled doses of potent drugs. And then there is the yuk factor, because the experiments often mingle plant and human genes. The Daily Mail says there are "serious ethical concerns about such a fundamental interference with the building blocks of life".

Professor Julian Ma leads the GM tobacco project at the Centre for Infection at St George's Hospital, in south London, and is responsible for the plants on its roof. He is passionate about the benefits of pharming; he insists they could give hope to millions: "The advantages they offer simply cannot be equalled by any other system. They provide the most promising opportunity open to us to supply low-cost drugs and vaccines to the developing world." Other scientists across the world are growing plants that have been given the genetic instructions to make antibodies, vaccines against disease such as rabies and hepatitis B, and dietary supplements.

The HIV drug produced by the London tobacco plants is called cyanovirin-N, which can help stop the virus entering human cells. Experiments with rhesus macaques, which have a similar reproductive physiology to humans, have suggested that the drug could dramatically cut transmission of the virus during sex, and the St George's team wants to turn it into a cream that could be applied by women in countries where men are resistant to using condoms. "If you're a woman in sub-Saharan Africa, you're not going to pay even a dollar or two a week for this. It has to be pennies, and that means it has to be produced in plants," Ma says. He reckons five tonnes of cyanovirin-N would be needed for 10 million women to have two doses a week - a production scale way beyond the economics and capabilities of conventional drug manufacturing.

He is frustrated by the attitudes to genetic modification in the UK and has little time for the "ethical" arguments against placing human genes into plants because, he says, medicines from GM organisms are nothing new. Growth hormones and insulin, routinely taken by a million diabetes sufferers in Britain, are made by adding the relevant human genes to bacteria and growing the GM bugs in vats to produce the human proteins - a fundamental interference with the building blocks of life that has been widely accepted since the 1980s. (Although a minority of diabetes sufferers do object to GM insulin and request older-style drugs made from animals.)

"From a scientific point of view there really isn't anything special about plants with drugs in them," Ma says. "We can't divorce the science from public attitudes, but life is all about risk assessment and it just isn't feasible to make enough of these medicines in any other way."

Neither is it feasible to make enough from a few plants on a hospital roof, which is why the team is also growing the GM tobacco on a Kent farm, in ultra-secure greenhouses with twin-skin plastic walls strong enough to resist a hurled brick. Ma says these are the botanic equivalent of the containment facilities used by microbiologists to work on biological weapons - a level of security he calls "ridiculous".

Conventional drug manufacturers have shown little interest in pharming technology. With a few exceptions, the big companies do not smell big profits in the vulnerable people or regions of the world that would benefit most. Monsanto, the agrochemical giant behind many GM food crops, closed down its pharming efforts in 2003. The field is now largely the domain of university scientists and small biotechnology companies, several of which have found the financial going too tough and folded. As a result, progress has been slower than expected and no drug produced in a genetically modified plant has yet cleared clinical trials and been given a licence.

When such a medicine comes, it is likely to be in North America, where opposition to GM technology is milder and transgenic crops such as maize and cotton are already grown on a massive scale. The California-based company Ventria Bioscience is developing rice that produces anti-bacterial proteins found in human breast milk and saliva, and recently got permission to grow it across 200 acres of farmland in Kansas. Eventually, the company wants to plant closer to 3,000 acres, which would give it enough drug to conduct the large-scale human trials needed before approval for such a medicine would be granted. It says the proteins in its rice, lactoferrin and lysozyme, could treat children with diarrhoea, a major killer in the developing world.

To some, this rice-growing on open farmland is a step too far. As Helen Wallace of Genewatch, a British campaign group, points out: "If they put these genes into food crops then it is only a matter of time until there is a mix-up and they get into the food chain." And the US agricultural system does have a patchy record on keeping GM and conventional produce separate. Starlink, a variety of GM corn meant only for animal feed, turned up in taco shells sold as snacks across the US in 2000, and Prodigene, a Texas biotech company, was fined $250,000 in 2002 for contaminating a soybean crop with corn engineered to produce an experimental pig vaccine.

In a statement, the USA Rice Federation, an industry body, said: "If Ventria's pharmaceutical rice were to escape into the commercial rice supply, the financial devastation to the US rice industry would likely be absolute. There is no tolerance, either regulatory or in public perception, for a human gene-based pharmaceutical to end up in the world's food supply."

But to the companies developing drugs in plants, food crops such as rice offer a quicker and cheaper route than alternatives such as tobacco. They tend to produce more protein and it stays stable for longer - which means the sensitive medicines do not have to be harvested and processed immediately. Because of this, corn, soybean and wheat have also emerged as popular choices for commercial pharming - to the distress of even previously ardent supporters of GM technology. In an editorial in 2004, Nature Biotechnology, the traditionally pro-industry science journal, said: "It seems an industry in which the PhD is the intellectual norm is either incapable of learning a simple lesson from the past or cannot bring itself to act appropriately, despite what it has learned previously ... This position is not anti GM - we should be concerned about the presence of a potentially toxic substance in food plants. After all, is this really so different from a conventional [drugs] manufacturer packaging its pills in candy wrappers?"

New Scientist magazine has repeatedly pleaded with scientists not to grow drugs in modified food crops, a move it calls "daft". A 2005 editorial said: "Some ideas, no matter how good they look on paper, should never be tried in practice. One of these is producing drugs or vaccines in genetically engineered food crops. The risk of these potent chemicals finding their way into the human food chain is just too high."

To some campaigners, even these statements do not go far enough. They want a ban on any pharmaceutical plant grown outdoors. "It's important not to use food crops and it's important not to grow any GM plant out of containment," Wallace says. "The benefits are still unproven and with any product designed to have an effect on human health, there could also be unforeseen side effects."

Ma argues that such a hardline approach means the main benefit of pharming - scale - will never be fully realised. He says also that different standards are being applied, purely because the technology is labelled as GM. While some farmers in Britain grow rape seed for food, others produce a variety high in a natural chemical called erucic acid, an additive for the plastics industry. "That is much more toxic that anything I grow," he says. Of lysozyme, the saliva protein engineered into Ventria's rice, he says: "If you want to stop that getting into the environment, you need to stop people spitting in the street."

GM scientists now come armed with a battery of new technologies to stop cross-contamination from their plants, he adds. These include growing sterile varieties of the plants, fluorescent markers to identify stray seeds, and genetic tricks to stop the foreign genes appearing in pollen. And, unlike GM food producers, the scientists have a strong interest in keeping their plants isolated. Also, since the aim is to produce medicine, each step of the pharming process is subject to strict regulations. "You have to make sure that people don't walk into your field and have a picnic and mistakenly eat your crop," he says. "But I'm equally concerned that I don't contaminate my plants with food."

Other companies are soon expected to follow Ventria's lead and request permission to plant large amounts of pharmaceutical plants outdoors, and will probably face similar opposition. One enterprising company, Controlled Pharming Ventures, thinks it has a solution: it has converted an old limestone mine in Indiana into an underground drug farm. Experts at nearby Purdue University have already succeeded in producing corn down there, inside a giant illuminated room.

Others think they can find places sufficiently remote to manage the risk of cross-contamination to wild plants - in irrigated plots in arid regions across southern Spain or Africa, for example. The Icelandic company ORF Genetics is producing antibodies and vaccines inside the only barley cultivated anywhere on Iceland (the theory being that whatever it puts in the barley can't jump ship without any other barley to jump to). But to critics of GM technology, even those safeguards are unlikely to be enough, because contamination of food supplies could still occur after the pharma crops have been harvested and processed. (For example, seeds might get mixed up in a factory.)

So Ma and his pharming colleagues around the world are pinning their hopes on an unlikely ally: public opinion. Ma says people opposed to GM crops for food would be much more likely to accept them for medicines because the benefits to society are so much clearer. "The most important thing is to get that first product out there, then people will realise what we can do," he says. Until then, his tobacco plants will remain locked securely away, swaying only in an artificial, heavily filtered breeze.

USA: Genetically modified crops rooted in funding

The Honolulu Advertiser (Hawai'i), 30 April 2007. By Sean Hao.

The University of Hawai'i is conducting genetically modified crop research on bananas, tomatoes, petunias and lettuce in an effort to develop hardier, disease-resistant plants.

Researchers at UH's College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources also are trying to develop sugar cane that's genetically modified to produce a vaccine to protect against rotavirus ó a viral infection that can cause severe diarrhea and vomiting in young children.

The projects have been going on for several years, but have not been widely publicized. Other ongoing transgenic crop research at UH is being conducted on pineapple, orchids, anthuriums, taro, papaya and limes.

Genetically modified, or transgenic, crops are plants that have been altered by the transfer of genetic material from another species.

UH's drive to develop new transgenic crops is driven by economics, said Stephen Ferreira, an assistant specialist for plant and environmental protection sciences at UH.

"There's no question at a federal level ... more funds are being funneled or being targeted to some of these kinds of areas," Ferreira said. "Ten years ago you could hardly find money to do transgenic work." But because the technology is successful and has impact, funds are now available for transgenic research.

UH research into genetically modified papaya resulted in the development of a ringspot-virus resistant papaya, which has helped manage the impact of the virus.

However, UH's work on papaya and taro has caused a backlash among environmentalists and others. Cultural concerns about UH's work on genetically modified Hawaiian taro varieties ultimately forced the university to abandon that effort.

Despite the availability of research money, some scientists are reluctant to go into GMO work because of backlash of environmental and cultural concerns, said C.Y. Hu, associate dean and associate director for research at the UH CTAHR. However, Hu could not provide details such as the number of researchers working on genetically modified crop research or the amount of money spent.

"It's actually going down because we have a lot of faculty saying there's no point in doing this," he said.

That could ultimately hurt Hawai'i farmers, should new diseases surface locally, Hu said.

"If you don't want us to do that, we can accept that," he said. "But if we don't work on this and a disease comes in, it's going to wipe you out."

Apart from papaya, UH's remaining genetic crop research is being conducted in greenhouses or laboratories rather than in open fields, which lowers the risk of environmental exposure.

Opponents of genetic crop research and genetically modified food contend that not enough is known about the long-term impact of such products. They point out that many countries, including Japan, won't import transgenic papaya and that transgenic crops could cross-pollinate with nontransgenic plants and taint Hawai'i's image as a clean and natural environment.

So far UH's efforts have met with mixed success. For example, Hawai'i papaya growers now can grow transgenic papayas despite the presence of the damaging ringspot virus. However, genetically engineered papayas have yet to generate the market acceptance and higher sales prices that nongenetically modified papaya command in some markets. And a UH effort launched in 1995 to design a pineapple resistant to nematodes and mealybugs has yet to yield a marketable fruit.

Other ongoing research projects include transgenic virus-resistant lettuce, tomatoes and petunias and fungal resistant Chinese taro. The university also partners with Hawaii Agriculture Research Center on an effort to develop transgenic sugar cane that's resistant to the yellow leaf virus.

Now it wants to develop a better banana ó one that's engineered to resist infection from the bunchy top virus. Plants infected by the banana bunchy top virus suffer severely stunted growth and produce deformed fruit, or in advanced stages produce no fruit. The disease has been present in Hawai'i since the 1990s.

The project suffered a setback when UH researchers were unable to license genetically altered banana trees from researchers in Australia. As a result, UH researchers now have to develop their own virus-resistant banana, which "is years away," said Hu. "There's been some success, but it takes time."

Meanwhile, critics contend the $1.5 million spent so far on transgenic banana research could be better spent developing nongenetic techniques for managing the bunchy top virus.

"I think it's a big waste of money," said Sarah Sullivan, director for Hawaii Seed, an advocate for sustainable agriculture and a Hawai'i that's free of genetically modified organisms. "It's a good example of how unsuccessful GMO research has been."

Others complain that the university is focusing too much effort on genetic crop research rather than supporting alternative means of addressing pesky bugs. Hector Valenzuela, a UH vegetable extension specialist, said the state could have eliminated the ringspot virus by razing all papaya trees for a year or two.

"It would have been very difficult for farmers but it's a sacrifice for the next 50 years" of papaya growth, he said. "My position is there are many other approaches (that) could have been looked at."

Instead of razing trees, papaya growers opted to plant GMO papayas, which have not been a panacea.

"It's difficult because farmers are in a survival mode," Valenzuela said. "Of course they're going to take" a transgenic solution for ringspot.

Transgenic papaya proponents, which include some UH researchers and farmers, contend that there is no way to control the ringspot or bunchy top viruses without genetic engineering technology.

Cutting down all papaya trees "was the first recommendation that was made, but the decision made by growers was the economic hit was too costly to bear," said Ferreira, the UH assistant specialist. "These sustainable or alternative approaches have not been ignored. They've been studied. There's nothing new they have to offer."

Reach Sean Hao at shao@honoluluadvertiser.com.

Ireland: Teagasc Highlight the Economic Implications of GM Crop Technology in Irish Agriculture

www.teagasc.ie, [Teagasc is the Irish Government's Agriculture & Food Development Authority], 30 April 2007.

A seminar on issues associated with genetically modified (GM) crop technology in Irish agriculture was recently held in Dublin. The event was organised by Teagasc, Rural Economy Research Centre, in association with the Agricultural Economics Society of Ireland and the Agricultural Science Association.

Presently, no GM crops are cultivated in Ireland. However, it is anticipated that the introduction of co-existence guidelines could encourage the uptake of certain GM varieties. Hence, this timely seminar focused on regulatory, management and economic issues that will become increasingly important in the debate on the implications of GM technology for Irish agriculture.

Mr Gerry Lohan, Department of Agriculture and Food, discussed the regulatory issues in relation to GM crop technology and the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops in Irish agriculture, while Dr Ewen Mullins of Teagasc Crops Research Centre, outlined findings from recent research on GM crop technology in Ireland.

Dr Fiona Thorne, Teagasc Rural Economy Centre, presented research findings from an inter-disciplinary project which examined the potential economic implications for Ireland of a voluntary adoption of a GM-free island.

This analysis provides an assessment of the likely impact on profitability of a ban on the use and production of GM crops in Ireland. Dr Thorne said:î From this research it is clear that the likely costs to the livestock industry in particular are significant, when a total ban on the import and cultivation of GM crops is considered. While the net benefit, for crop, livestock and dairy farms, resulting from the growing of GM cereal crops is not as significant as the benefits arising from the use of imported sources of GM soyabean and maize, it is important not to consider these two scenarios in isolation from each other.î

The net economic cost, if Ireland adopted a voluntary ban on the import and cultivation of GM crops is estimated to be approximately §7 million per annum, rising to nearly §40 million per annum when different scenarios were analysed. The cost, for cereal farms and specialist dairy and beef farms was considered in aggregate.

It is important to note that this report does not attempt to forecast changes in market prices or demand, if there were increased levels of GM crop technology adopted by agriculture in Ireland and overseas. Hence, the results of the study cannot be used to forecast either future market prices or the demand for GM and non-GM crops.

29 April 2007

Venezuela: Chavez dumps Monsanto

Eco-farm.org, Sunday, April 29, 2007

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias has announced that the cultivation of genetically modified crops will be prohibited on Venezuelan soil, possibly establishing the most sweeping restrictions on transgenic crops in the western hemisphere.

Though full details of the administration's policy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are still forthcoming, the statement by President Hugo Chavez will lead most immediately to the cancellation of a contract that Venezuela had negotiated with the US-based Monsanto Corporation.

Before a recent international gathering of supporters in Caracas, Chavez admonished genetically engineered crops as contrary to interests and needs of the nation's farmers and farmworkers. He then zeroed in on Monsanto's plans to plant up to 500,000 acres of transgenic soybeans in Venezuela.

"I ordered an end to the project", said Chavez, upon learning that transgenic crops were involved. "This project is terminated."

Chavez emphasised the importance of food sovereignty and security - required by the Venezuelan Constitution - as the basis of his decision. Instead of allowing Monsanto to grow its transgenic crops, these fields will be used to plant yuca, an indigenous crop, Chavez explained. He also announced the creation of a large seed bank facility to maintain indigenous seeds for peasants' movements around the world.

The international peasants' organisation Via Campesina, representing more than 60 million farmers and farmworkers, had brought the issue to the attention of the Chavez administration when it learned of the contract with Monsanto. According to Rafael Alegria, secretary for international operations of Via Campesina, both Monsanto and Cargill are seeking authorisation to produce transgenic soy products in Venezuela.

"The agreement was against the principles of food sovereignty that guide the agricultural policy of Venezuela", said Alegria when informed of the president's decision. "This is a very important thing for the peasants and indigenous people of Latin America and the world."

Alegria has good reason to be concerned. With a long history of social and environmental problems, Monsanto won early international fame with its production of the chemical Agent Orange - the Vietnam War defoliant linked to miscarriages, tremors, and memory loss that more than 1 million people were exposed to. More recently, the company has been criticised for side-effects that its transgenic crops and bovine growth hormone (rBGH) are believed to have on human health and the environment.

Closer to home in Venezuela, Monsanto manufactures the pesticide "glyphosate", which is used by the neighbouring Colombian government as part of its Plan Colombia offensive against coca production and rebel groups. The Colombian government aerially sprays hundreds of thousands of acres, destroying legitimate farms and natural areas like the Putomayo rainforest, and posing a direct threat to human health, including that of indigenous communities.

"If we want to achieve food sovereignty, we cannot rely on transnationals like Monsanto", said Maximilien Arvelaiz, an adviser to Chavez. "We need to strengthen local production, respecting our heritage and diversity."

Alegria hopes that Venezuela's move will serve as encouragement to other nations contemplating how to address the issue of GMOs.

"The people of the United States, of Latin America, and of the world need to follow the example of a Venezuela free of transgenics", he said.

28 April 2007

USA: Colony collapse disorder FAQs

Missourian News, 28 April 2007. By Adeline Ong.

Q The beekeeping industry has experienced heavy losses of colonies in the past. Is this something new?

A Symptoms similar to colony collapse disorder have been described in the past, and heavy losses have been documented. The condition has received many different names over the years including autumn collapse, May disease, spring dwindle, disappearing disease and fall dwindle disease. Whether the current die-off is being caused by the same factors that caused heavy losses in the past or if new factors are involved is not yet clear.

Q What can I do to reduce the likelihood of being affected by colony collapse disorder?

A Keep colonies strong by practicing best management practices. Donít stack dead or weak colonies on strong colonies. Feed colonies fumigillin in the spring.

Q How do I know if a colony has colony collapse disorder?

A Colonies affected by colony collapse disorder have the following characteristics: The complete absence of adult bees in the hive with no or little build-up of dead bees in the hive or at the hive entrances and the presence of food stores, both honey and bee bread, which is not immediately robbed by other bees. Invasion of common hive pests such as wax moth and small hive beetle is noticeably delayed in dead-out equipment left in the field. (In some cases, the 1ueen and a small number of survivor bees are present in the brood nest.)

Q What are the early signs of colony collapse disorder?

A In cases where the colony appears to be actively collapsing: There is an insufficient workforce to maintain the brood that is present; the workforce seems to be made up of young adult bees; the queen is present, appears healthy and is usually still laying eggs; the cluster is reluctant to consume feed provided by the beekeeper, such as sugar syrup and protein supplement; and foraging populations are greatly reduced/nonexistent.

Q What potential causes of colony collapse disorder is the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group investigating?

A The current research priorities under investigation by members of the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group, as well as other cooperators, include, but are not limited to: chemical residue/contamination in the wax, food stores and bees; known and unknown pathogens in the bees and brood; parasite load in the bees and brood; nutritional fitness of the adult bees; level of stress in adult bees as indicated by stress-induced proteins; and lack of genetic diversity and lineage of bees.

Q Is honey from colony collapse disorder colonies safe to eat?

A To date there is no evidence that colony collapse disorder affects honey. The impact of colony collapse disorder appears to be limited to adult bees

Q What are examples of topics that the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group is not currently investigating?

A Genetically modified organism crops: Some GMO crops, specifically Bt Corn, have been suggested as a potential cause of colony collapse disorder. While this possibility has not been ruled out, colony collapse disorder symptoms do not fit what would be expected in Bt-affected organisms. For this reason GMO crops are not a "top" priority at the moment.

Radiation transmitted by cell towers: The distribution of both affected and nonaffected colony collapse disorder apiaries does not make this a likely cause. Also, cell phone service is not available in some areas where affected commercial apiaries are located in the West. For this reason, it is not a top priority.

Source: The Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium at: . http://maarec.cas.psu.edu

UK: Mystery of Disappearing Honeybees

This article compliments of The Institute of Science in Society ISIS website at: http://www.i-sis.org.uk

For some time now, honeybees have been disappearing from farmers' hives without a trace

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins on the trail of possible culprits and explode some myths reported in the mainstream media.

Honeybees vanishing worldwide

The first alarm was sounded in autumn 2006. Honeybees are disappearing across the United States, with half of the States affected, and up to 80 percent of colonies are lost in some areas [1-5]. The problem began two years ago and has intensified in recent months. The bees simply vanish from the hives, leaving behind the queen and a few young. This "colony collapse disorder" (CCD) is particularly devastating for growers of fruits and vegetables, as they depend on insect pollinators.

Since then, CCD has been reported from Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, and the UK [4], where one of the biggest bee keepers reported that 23 of his 40 hives have gone. (But the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) said that "there is absolutely no evidence" of CCD in the UK.).

CCD has baffled scientists, because no one knows what causes it. Viruses, fungal diseases, parasitic mites, pesticides, or chemical designed to control mites have considered by the authorities, as have GM crops [6-7], and mobile phones [4] by others. So how good is the evidence?

Extent and causes of decline both unknown

The United States National Research Council Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America published its report [5] in October 2006, pointing out that the decline in honeybee pollinators was devastating North America, as three quarters of the earth's flowering plants depend on pollinators for propagation. But it was rather thin on data and information on the precise extent of the present decline in honeybees or its causes.

The report discussed introduced parasitic mites, and the bacterial pathogen that causes foul brood disease in detail, as there is extensive scientific literature. But it barely touched on pesticides or GM crops, and did not mention mobile phones at all.

Mites infestations

The introduced parasitic mites, Varroa destructor and Acarapis woodi, began to cause infestation since the late 1980s, and mite infestation became established in the US within a decade. Varroa destructor, an external parasite of the honeybee, has caused dramatic declines in honeybee abundance in North America and throughout the world. During the winter of 1995-1996, northern US beekeepers experienced their larges losses in history, in some states 30 to 80 percent of colonies were lost. These losses have occurred despite heavy used of pesticides to control mite populations. Pesticide resistance has become widespread and many beekeepers are no longer able to use the few registered pesticides for controlling Varroa.

The tracheal mite Acarapis woodi is an internal parasite of the honeybee. It was first detected in the US in 1984, and initially caused serious damage to colonies, but there appear to be heritable resistance to the mite.

Parasitic mites cannot explain colony collapse disorder as there is no evidence that mite infestation is directly involved, although it may contribute indirectly by reducing the immunity of the bees to infections by viruses, bacteria and fungi (see below).

Foul brood disease

Paenibacillus larvae is the most serious pathogen of honeybees. It causes American Foul Brood disease (AFB), a disease of honeybee larvae. It is highly virulent and easily spread among colonies, and generally fatal if untreated. During the first half of the last century AFB was the most serious threat to beekeeping, and caused tremendous loss of colonies. The incidence of AFB was reduced dramatically by the introduction of antibiotics, and by state inspection programme that required the burning of infected hives. However AFB spores are refractory to antibiotics and can persist on contaminated equipment for more than 80 years. Treatment of colonies with active cases of AFB eliminates disease symptoms, but withdrawal of antibiotics is generally followed by disease recurrence. Resistance to antibiotics has also become widespread since 1994. As in the case of parasitic mites, foul brood disease is not associated with colony collapse disorder.

Pesticides

The use of pesticides, especially insecticides on crops is known to kill or weaken thousands of honeybee colonies in the US each year, and local bee kills have occurred sporadically for decades. The NAS report considered it unlikely that this has "contributed significantly" to the recent decline. The report stated [5, p. 79]: "Most pesticide-caused honey bee kills are the result of accidents, careless application, or failure to adhere to label recommendations and warnings." It has obviously ignored sublethal effects that may turn out to be the most significant single factor contributiing to the recent honeybee decline (see later).

Parasites reduce bee immunity

Varroa mites infestation reduces the immune response of the bees, causing them to be prone to infection with virus, bacteria or fungi [8, 9]. A number of viral diseases are enhanced in the parasite infected bee colony, particularly the deformed wing virus disease that causes crippling deformity in the bees [10]. Multiple viruses frequently infect the bees attacked by Varroa parasite. These viruses are spread not only by the parasitem but also vertically from queen to brood [11, 12]. The parasite-infested colonies are frequently treated with a pyrethroid insecticide, fluvalinate, but the parasite has grown resistant to the insecticide [13], and the insecticide may influence the behaviour of the honeybee (see below). Honeybees have 17 gene families involved in immunity [14], only roughly one-third the number of immunity genes in Drosophila and Anopheles mosquitoes. Honeybees seem to have limited immune flexibility, which may make them more sensitive to devastating pathogens.

Pesticides disrupts bee behaviour at sublethal levels

Numerous pesticides have been found to disrupt bee behaviour following sublethal exposures [15]. A wide array of pesticides including fluvalinate (the chemical used to treat hives to eliminate parasites) disrupted the behaviour of honeybees leading to feeding and navigation problems [16]. Bees suffering from sublethal pesticide intoxication resembled the behaviour of bees described by observers of the honeybee disappearance phenomenon. Sublethal doses of fipronil (a veterinary insecticide) impaired the olfactory memory process of honeybees [17]. Spinosad, a prominent and much used natural insecticide fed to bumble bees in pollen slowed down their foraging behaviour while a higher dose of the insecticide caused colony death within two to four weeks [18]. See Requiem for the Honeybee [19] for more evidence that sublethal effects of pesticides may be the single most important factor contributing to disappearing honeybees.

Genetically Modified (GM) crops may have sublethal effects on bees

The possibility that the great distribution of GM crops in North America is contributing to the decline in honeybees was given little consideration by the NRC Committee [5] even though the timing of the honeybee decline appears to coincide with the wide deployment of GM crops. GM crops are modified to tolerate herbicides especially gyphosate or to contain biopesticides (the Bt Cry toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis), or both. The insect resistance toxins produced in GM crops are not highly toxic to bees, but are toxic to butterflies, moths and beetles. Nevertheless, in some instances, the toxins cause bee lethality or behavioural modification.

The Bt toxin Cry1Ab caused reduced foraging activity after bees were fed with syrup containing the toxin. However, the Bt toxin produced less pronounced impacts on bee behaviour than did the chemical pesticides deltamethrin or imidacloprid [20]. Bt bacteria caused mortality in bees when fed in broth cultures or sugar solutions [21].

A number of purified Bt Cry toxins have been studied in the laboratory to determine their toxicity to honey bees and bumble bees. For the most part, those studies showed little threat from the Cry toxins. But, sublethal effects on the bees were not recorded in the experiments [22].

In a series of experiments in Jena, Germany, bees were found not to be affected when fed on a diet of pollen doped with 100 times the concentration of toxin found in the Bt maize pollen; and feeding trials with larvae also showed no effects. In the fields, bee colonies in flight tents were fed with Bt maize pollen to which a 10-fold concentration of Bt toxin had been added. Again, no negative effects were detected until chance infestation by the parasite microsporidia resulted in more significant damage to the Bt-fed colonies. [23]. Transgenic glyphosate-tolerant canola pollen was reported to pose no threat to honeybees [24]. However, when organic, conventional, and herbicide-tolerant canola were compared with regard to pollination by wild bees in Alberta, Canada, the herbicide tolerant canola plots had the greatest pollination deficit, while conventional and organic plots were equally well served by the wild bees [25].

Clearly, the existing evidence calls for fuller investigations on the sublethal impacts of GM crops such as learning and feeding behaviour, and immunity to disease. The potential consequences of pollinator decline on food crops can be staggering and the impact on biodiversity may be irreversible [26].

Mobile phones and bee decline

There has been widespread report in the mainstream media that mobile phones may be responsible for the decline of honeybees [for example, 4, 27]. Scientists at Landau University in Germany were supposed to have shown that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. This turned out to be total fabrication.

In fact, the scientists involved placed the base station of a DECT-mobile phone (which sends out electromagnetic radiation ~ 1 900 MHz) under the beehives. But that had no effect on the bees; the bees did not avoid it, and did not change their behaviour [28, 29]. This is not to say that mobile phones and mobile phone base stations have no effect on bees, as the base station was on standby only, the mobile phone being not in use, so the radiation from the base station was very low; and it was a very limited preliminary experiment. There is evidence that bees are indeed sensitive to weak static magnetic fields, as they use the earth's magnetic field to navigate [30]. The bees' waggle dance on the honeycomb, which tells hive mates where to find food, can also be misdirected by extremely weak pulsed magnetic fields at about 250 Mhz [31], and bees can even learn to detect very low levels of extremely low frequency alternating electromagnetic fields [32]. So the impact of mobile phones and base stations on bees remains an open question.

The mystery remains

The mystery of disappearing honeybees is far from solved. The most likely culprits so far are the pesticides, which are not only sprayed on crops, but used universally to dress seeds in conventional agriculture, including GM agriculture [19]. However, it is likely that sublethal effects due to GM crops, mobile phones, mites infestations and other factors which alter the bees' behaviour, affect their memory and learning process or compromise their immune system will also have a role to play.

Honeybees may be our most sensitive indicator species for all the environmental pollution and dangerous technologies we perpetrate. When honeybees disappear, we too, shall follow.

References

1. "Mystery illness devastates honeybee colonies" Roxanne Khamsi NewScientist.com news service, 14 February 2007, http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11183

2. "Honeybees, gone with the wind, leave crops and keepers in peril" Alexei Barrionuevo, New York Times 27 February 2007. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10B1FF8355A0C748EDDAB0894DF404482)

3. "Bee vanishing act baffles keepers", BBC News, 27 February 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6400179.stm)

4. "Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?" Geoffrey Lean and Harriet Shawcross, the Independent on Sunday, 15 April 2007, http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/wildlife/article2449968.ece

5. Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America American National Research Council,Status of Pollinators in North America 2006 ISBN:978-0-309-10289-6

6. "Are GM crops killing bees?" Gunther Latsch, Der Spiegel, 22 March 2007,http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,473166,00.html

7. "European bees also taking a nosedive ’§" perhaps GM crops?" Craig Mackintosh, Celsias, 29 March 2007 http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/03/29/european-bees-taking-a-nosedive/

8. Yang X and Cox-Foster DL. Impact of an ectoparasite on the immunity and pathology of an invertebrate: evidence for host immunosuppression and viral amplification. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 May 24;102(21):7470-5

9. Yang X and Cox-Foster D. Effects of parasitization by Varroa destructor on survivorship and physiological traits of Apis mellifera in correlation with viral incidence and microbial challenge. Parasitology. 2007, 134(3), 405-12.

10. Yue C and Genersch E. RT-PCR analysis of Deformed wing virus in honeybees (Apis mellifera) and mites (Varroa destructor). J Gen Virol. 2005, 86(12), 3419-24.

11. Chen YP, Pettis JS, Collins A and Feldlaufer MF. Prevalence and transmission of honeybee viruses. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006, 72(1), 606-11.

12. Chen Y, Evans J and Feldlaufer M. Horizontal and vertical transmission of viruses in the honeybee, Apis mellifera,. J Invertebr Pathol. 2006, 92(3), 152-9.

13. Liu Z, Tan J, Huang ZY and Dong K. Effect of a fluvalinate’§Íresistance’§Í associated sodium channel mutation from varroa mites on cockroach sodium channel sensitivity to fluvalinate, a pyrethroid insecticide. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2006, 36(11),:885-9.

14. Evans JD, Aronstein K, Chen YP, Hetru C, Imler JL, Jiang H, Kanost M, Thompson GJ, Zou Z and Hultmark D. Immune pathways and defence mechanisms in honey bees Apis mellifera. Insect Mol Biol. 2006, 15(5), 645-56.

15. Desneux N, Decourtye A and Delpuech JM. The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol. 2007, 52, 81-106.

16. Thompson H. Behavior effects of pesticides in bees - their potential for use in risk assessmernt. Ecotoxicology 2003,12, 317-30.

17. El Hassani AK, Dacher M, Gauthier M and Armengaud C. Effects of sublethal doses of fipronil on the behavior of the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2005, 82, 30-9.

18. Morandin L, Winston M, Franklin M and Abbott VA. Lethal and sub-lethal effects of spinosad on bumble bees (Bombus impatiens Cresson). Pest Management Science, 2005, 61,619-26,

19. Cummins J. Requiem for the honeybee. Science in Society 34 (in press).

20. Ramirez-Romero R, Chaufaux J and Pham-Delègue M. Effects of Cry1Ab protoxin, deltamethrin and imidacloprid on the foraging activity and the learning performances of the honeybee Apis mellifera, a comparative approach Apidologie 2005, 36, 601-11.

21. Hilbeck A and Schmid J. Another view of Bt proteins= How specific are they and what else might they do Biopestic. Int. 2006, 2,1-50.

22. Malone L and Pham-Delègue M. Effects of transgene products on honey bees (Apis mellifera) and bumblebees (Bombus sp.) Apidologie 2001, 32, 287-304.

23. The effects of Bt maize pollen on the honeybee, 2001-2004 Jena University, GMO Safety, Federal Minstry of Education and Research, http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/oilseed_rape/honey_bees/339.docu.html

24. Huang ZY, Hanley AV, Pett WL, Langenberger M. and Duan JJ. Field and semifield evaluation of impacts of transgenic canola pollen on survival and development of worker honey bees. J. Econ Entomol. 2004, 97(5), 1517-23.

25. Morandin L and Winston M. Wild bee abundance and seed production in conventional, organic and genetically modified canola. Ecological Applications 2004,15, 871-81.

26. Allen-Wardell G, Bernhardt P, Bitner R, et al, The potential consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields. Conservation Biology 1998, 12, 8-17.

27. "Are mobile phones killing our bees?" Michael Leapman, Daily Mail 16 April 2007, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=448761&in_page_id=1766

28. Stever H and Khun J. How electromagnetic exposure can influence learning processes - modelling effects of electromagnetic exposure on learning processes. Unpublished ms.

29. Stever H and Kuhn J. Electromagentic exposition as an influencing factor of learning processes - a model of effect in educational informatics. IIAS-Transactions on Systems Research and Cybernetics. International Journal of the International Institute for Advanced Studies in systems Research and Cybernetics 2003, 3, 27-31.

30. Frier HJ, Edwards Em, Smith C, Neale s and Collett TS. Magnetic compass cues and visual pateern learning in honeybees. J Expt Biol 1996, 199, 1353-61.

31. Korall H, leucht T and Martin H. Bursts of magnetic fields induce jumps of misdirection in bees by a mechanism of magnetic resonance. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 1988, 162, 279-84.

32. Kirschvink JL, Padmanabha S, Boyce CK and Oglesy J. Measurement of the threshold sensitivity of honeybees to weak, extremely low-frequency magnetic fields. J Exptl Biol 1997, 200, 1363-8.

The Netherlands: Illegal GM maize found in Rotterdam port

DutchNews, 28 April 2007.

A type of genetically-manipulated maize which is illegal in Europe has been found by Greenpeace scientists in a consignment of maize pellets in Rotterdam port, the environmental organisation confirmed on Saturday.

The crop, Herculex, has been manipulated to produce a poison against a type of insect. Other types of GM maize were also in the pellets, which was described as GM-free on the ship's documents.

The pellets were on board the Croatian-owned bulk carrier Pakrac, which picked up its load in New Orleans, the Volkskrant reported.

Greenpeace also found a consignment of maize flour which contained 1.9% GM crops on board the same ship. The legal limit for contamination is 0.9%.

The organisation criticised the food safety authority VWA for not carrying out enough checks for GM crops. In 2005 the VWA carried out 1,582 tests and inspections on ships for GM contamination; last year it carried out just 175, Greenpeace claimed.

27 April 2007

Greece: Greece continues to ban GM corn for planting

USDA/FAS (GAIN report GR7005), April 27 2007

The Government of Greece (GOG) does not allow GMO seed to be sold or planted. Conventional corn seed can be imported as long as the adventitious presence of transgenic material does not exceed 0.5% (for cotton seed this level is "zero").

Just last week, Deputy Minister of Agriculture Mr. A. Kontos signed a new revision of a January 2006 ministerial decree that prohibits commercialization and usage of GMO hybrid corn seed varieties of the MON 810 series in Greece. This revision raised the number of banned varieties from 31 to 47. The continuing GOG justification for the ban is that these hybrids pose a risk to the environment and to domestic conventional varieties. The research to support these contentions is unknown. Greece has yet to implement any coexistence legislation.

In a separate, but GMO related action last week, the same Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Mr A. Kontos, ordered the confiscation of 88 tons of Chinese rice protein meal at the Greek Customs Port of Pireaus for containing an unapproved GM event (Bt 63). The product was to be used as animal feed. The total tonnage originated with three 3 different shipments of 48, 20 and 20 tons of bagged product. Ministry of Agriculture border authorities will have the product destroyed or re-exported. Reportedly, the EU Alert System has been informed of these GOG actions. The GMO tests were conducted in Germany. Another 90 tons of similar Chinese origin product is being held in Pireaus customs awaiting laboratory test results.

The discovery of the Chinese GM rice has led to the promulgation of a public order to Greek Customs and local agricultural authorities, requiring that all shipments of imported rice be subjected to laboratory testing before clearing through customs, and that entry controls are not to rely only on accompanying documents and certificates.

Mr. Kontos declared to the media that, "We keep our positions fixed against the commercialization and cultivation of GMOs and we are intensifying the implementation of our preventive measures"....

USA: Judge mulls making alfalfa ban permanent

Reuters, April 27 2007. By Michael Kahn.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. judge questioned whether he should lift a ban on the sale and planting of Monsanto Co.'s genetically modified alfalfa without a government study of the crop's potential impact.

U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer on Friday told lawyers defending the use of Monsanto's alfalfa that it was up to the government -- not him -- to determine whether use of the seed posed a potential threat to the environment.

He also said that lifting his preliminary injunction before such a study was complete could lead to greater harm to the environment. He challenged defense lawyers to show him case law establishing a precedent for him to do so.

Breyer, who has already ruled that the government acted illegally in approving the biotech alfalfa, issued the preliminary injunction in March and set April 27 as a date to consider whether to make it permanent. He did not indicate when he might make a final decision on the ban.

"It is not the court's function to do an environmental impact study," Breyer said during the hearing. "That hasn't been done, and I don't know if the court ought to do it. The government ought to do it, and that is what I held.."

In March, Breyer issued a preliminary injunction banning the sale and planting of the alfalfa, which has been genetically altered to tolerate treatments of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

Contamination fears

Many farmers, environmentalists and consumer activists fear the biotech alfalfa will contaminate organic and conventional varieties, create "superweeds" that don't respond to herbicide and damage export business. Alfalfa is a perennial livestock fodder crop and among the most widely grown crops in the United States.

The judge's order in March said the USDA had not done a thorough job in evaluating the potential impact of the crop, and he vacated the USDA's 2005 approval of Monsanto's alfalfa.

His decision marked the first time a federal court overturned USDA approval of a biotech seed and halted planting, according to The Center for Food Safety, among the groups seeking the injunction.

Lawyers defending use of the crop, however, urged the judge to lift his injunction, saying at the hearing on Friday that the important factor was that any likelihood of injury was low and that farmers relying on the seed would be harmed.

"There are some significant environmental and beneficial effects in Roundup Ready Alfalfa," Janice Schneider, a lawyer representing Monsanto, told the judge.

Monsanto has presented testimony from scientists who say there is an "extremely low" risk that Roundup Ready Alfalfa would pollinate conventional crops if "appropriate stewardship measures" were taken.

Monsanto has also argued that a continued ban on Roundup Ready seed would force farmers "to plant lower-yield alfalfa breeds that pose more complicated and costly weed control problems and require the use of more toxic or environmentally problematic herbicides."

The Roundup Ready alfalfa genetic trait was developed by Monsanto and licensed to Forage Genetics International, which produces and markets the seeds.

Canada: Genes For Sale

Living on Earth, April 27 2007: extract from the transcript of a radio programme that includes an interview with Pat Mooney of the ETC. group.

INTERVIEWER: ...of all these things that we've talked about here is there one that you put at the top of your list of concerns?

MOONEY: Can I give two? There are two very specific claims in this field that we find quite scary. One of them is one that Monsanto has where it's claimed the species of soybeans. Any biotech work on the crop of soybeans anywhere in the world is a violation of Monsanto's patent. The idea that you can actually own an entire species of a major crop is simply outrageous.

The second example I give is one by Syngenta, one of the other big company's based in Switzerland, Syngenta has actually got a claim on how a plant flowers. So it's actually the strip of DNA that allows a plant to flower. Ant it's said that this claim applies to 40 different species in the food system including rice and wheat, bananas and so on. So if Syngenta's patent claim is ever accepted, Syngenta would own the world's food supply basically all by itself. We think that if the company got the patent they'd be forced to back off. I think there'd be something of a revolution before that patent would be allowed to be implemented. But it shows the failures of the patent system and the inability of governments to address the questions who owns life and who owns nature.

INTERVIEWER: Is that still the right question? That was the question posed in 1994 in that story, Who Owns Life, are we still asking that question?

MOONEY: We're asking it, but we're, again, it's become more fundamental than that. It's not just life, it is the nature that builds life. In this field of synthetic biology or nano-biotechnology we're now seeing patent claims again that are on the building blocks of life. And that's the scariest thing of all because they're below the radar screen of politicians and policy makers of any kind because they don't seem to be consequential and then the patent is granted and suddenly you realize that you've given away the Garden of Eden.

ETC Group

http://www.etcgroup.org/en/

Full transcript:
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=07-P13-00017&segmentID=3

RealAudio for this story (requires RealPlayer):
http://loe.org/audio/stream.m3u?file=http://stream.loe.org/audio/070427/070427ownslife.mp3 Download this Story (mp3 format):
http://stream.loe.org/audio/070427/070427ownslife.mp3

Poland: Genes are not for sale

Note: This is a report on the ICPPC conference "Genes Are Not For Sale" held last week in Wawel Castle, Krakow in Poland, under the patronage of the City of Krakow, which was amongst the very first authorities in Poland to declare their area a GMO Free Zone. It was a counter-conference to the "First International Biotechnology Conference" held in Krakow at the same time.

The counter-conference was held to strengthen Polish rersistance at a time that Poland's future as Europe's leading "GMO Free Zone" is under increasing threat due to corporate pressures on the Polish government to open the Polish market to the commercial planting of GM crops despite the near universal rejection of GMOs by the Polish people.

From: Fundacja ICPPC
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007
Subject: [icppc] "Genes Are Not For Sale" Krakow anti-GMO counter-conference April 25th

Dear Friends,

Just to keep you up-to-date: Our Krakow Conference 'Genes Are Not for Sale' which was set up to counteract an international Bio-Tech event in Krakow, drew approx 120 people to Wawel Castle and filled the room to capacity. Dr Arpad Pusztai, Percy Smeicher and Michel Dupont were the main international speakers, Prof. Magdalena Jaworska, Dr Zbigniew Ha©ñat main Polish ones. They all hammered home the same message: There can be NO coexistence between GMO and traditional and organic crops; cross-contamination is inevitable - whatever the distance.

Percy Schmeiser informed a rivetted audience that in the whole of Canada there is NO maize or oilseed rape left which is not contaminated by GMO. So it is impossible to grow conventional or organic maize and oilseed rape in Canada now. What is more, he confirmed that Monsanto is now informing him that he no longer even owns his crops. Presumably because the Monsanto corporation owns the patent therefore owns the crops once they are contaminated!! And still some people in Europe are diligently discussing what distance constitutes a 'safety zone' 10 metres? 50 metres? 100 metres?

Dr Pusztai gave a characteristicly thorough review of the 'nonscience' which is applied in the creation of genetically modified organisms. He particularly emphasised the fact that it is the very imprecise methods used to insert foreign genes that lies at the heart of the subsequent loss of control of the final organism.

Michel Dupont reminded everyone that when 'the process of democracy' fails to protect our food, environment and health, it is neccessary to intervene and take control of our future. The French 'reapers' have done just this and have thereby protected France from widespread GMO contamination over the past decade. They fight on ....Vive La France!

The unexpected participation of the vice chairman of the Ministry of the Environment Andrzej Szweda-Lewandowski led to a lively discussion. Participants were not impressed by his intervention on behalf of the recently proposed 'GMO Act'. He unconvincingly attempted to portray the government as 'an honest broker' seeking compromise between European Commission directives calling for enforcement of 'coexistence' measures and the Polish government's wish to remain GMO Free. Vice chairman Andrzej Szweda-Lewandowski was noticeably missing from the main conference proceedings and his message was out of tune with the reality.

Senator Henryk Gorski was presented with an ICPPC petition to the Polish government calling for the proposed new 'GMO Act' not to be ratified. So far there are1,500 signatures of organisations and individuals supporting this call and more are coming in every day. For signing please see http://icppc.pl/pl/gmo/open_letter.php

Proceedings ended with strong suppport from participants to fight-on to keep Poland GMO Free and to support ICPPC's call for a European wide Moratoriun of all GMO. Widespread determination to resist any watering down of the current national GMO ban was also expressed.

A Brother from Benedictine Abbey Tyniec attended the conference. Brother Jan was to be seen long after the conference's conclusion, seated in front of an old oak table, carefully writing a letter to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Lepper.

!!!We want to thank Jean-Louis Gueydon of Fondation pour une Terre Humaine for helping to support the mounting of this conference. Also several traditional and organic farmers/processors who, without charge, provided and prepared a superb spread of delicious eco friendly food for everyones consumption. See photo. http://icppc.pl/pl/gmo/eng_index.php?id=manifestation Smacznego!

best wishes to all, Julian and Jadwiga

ICPPC - International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside
MiÍdzynarodowa Koalicja dla Ochrony Polskiej Wsi
34-146 StryszÛw 156, Poland tel./fax +48 33 8797114
biuro@icppc.pl www.icppc.pl www.gmo.icppc.pl www.eko-cel.pl

USA / Thailand / Philippines: Farmers' Internationale?
Extract from Free Trade vs. Small Farmers. By Walden Bello.

Foreign Policy in Focus, April 27 2007.

The suicide of the Korean farmer Lee Kyung Hae at the barricades in Cancun in September 2003 was a milestone in the development of farmers' resistance globally. Committed under a banner that read "WTO Kills Farmers," Lee's suicide was designed to draw international attention to the number of suicides by farmers in countries subjected to liberalization. He succeeded only too well. The event shocked the WTO delegates, who observed a minute of silence in Lee's memory. By adding to what was already a charged atmosphere, Lee's act was certainly a key factor in the unraveling of the talks.

In December 2005, invoking Lee's sacrifice, hundreds of Korean farmers tried to break through police lines in an effort to storm the Hong Kong Convention Center. Some 900 protesters, the bulk of them Korean farmers, were arrested.

Both Lee and the Korean farmers protesting in Hong Kong were members of Via Campesina, an international federation of farmers established in the mid-1990s. Since its founding, Via Campesina -- literally translated as the Peasants' Path -- has become known as one of the most militant opponents of the WTO and bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements. While there are other international farmers' networks, Via is distinguished by its position that small farmers must not only fight to survive in the current global system of corporate-dominated industrial farming, they should lead the process to transform or replace the current system. Commenting on the vision of Jose Bove the famous French activist who dismantled a MacDonald's restaurant in his hometown of Millau, France and other Via leaders, one progressive journal has described the aim of the organization as the creation of a Farmers' Internationale in much the same way that Communist and Social Democratic groups sought to establish the Communist International and Socialist International to unite workers in the 20th century.

The main battle cry of Via Campesina, whose coordinating center is located in Indonesia, is "WTO Out of Agriculture" and its alternative program is food sovereignty. Food sovereignty means first and foremost the immediate adoption of policies that favor small producers. This would include, according to Indonesian farmer Henry Saragih, Via's coordinator, and Ahmad Ya'kub, Deputy for Policy Studies of the Indonesian Peasant Union Federation (FSPI), "the protection of the domestic market from low-priced imports, remunerative prices for all farmers and fishers, abolition of all direct and indirect export subsidies, and the phasing out of domestic subsidies that promote unsustainable agriculture."

Via's program, however, goes beyond the adoption of pro-smallholder trade policies. It also calls for an end to the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights regime, which allows corporations to patent plant seeds, thus appropriating for private profit what has evolved through the creative interaction of the natural world with human communities over eons. Seeds and all other plant genetic resources should be considered part of the common heritage of humanity, the group believes, and not be subject to privatization.

Agrarian reform, long avoided by landed elites in countries like the Philippines, is a central element in Via's platform, as is sustainable, ecologically sensitive organic or biodynamic farming by small peasant producers. The organization has set itself apart from both the First Green Revolution based on chemical-intensive agriculture and the Second Green Revolution driven by genetic engineering (GE). The disastrous environmental side effects of the first are well known, says Via, which means all the more that the precautionary principle must be rigorously applied to the second, to avoid negative health and environmental outcomes.

The opposition to GE-based agriculture has created a powerful link between farmers and consumers who are angry at corporations for marketing genetically modified commodities without proper labeling, thus denying consumers a choice. In the European Union, a solid alliance of farmers, consumers, and environmentalists prevented the import of GE-modified products from the United States for several years. Although the EU has cautiously allowed in a few GE imports since 2004, 54% of European consumers continue to think GE food is "dangerous." Opposition to other harmful processes such as food irradiation has also contributed to the tightening of ties between farmers and consumers, large numbers of whom now think that public health and environmental impact should be more important determinants of consumer behavior than price.

More and more people are beginning to realize that local production and culinary traditions are intimately related, and that this relationship is threatened by corporate control of food production, processing, marketing, and consumption. This is why Jose Bove's justification for dismantling a MacDonald's resonated widely in Asia: "When we said we would protest by dismantling the half-built McDonald's in our town, everybody understood why -- the symbolism was so strong. It was for proper food against malbouffe [awful standardized food], agricultural workers against multinationals. The extreme right and other nationalists tried to make out it was anti-Americanism, but the vast majority knew it was no such thing. It was a protest against a form of production that wants to dominate the world."

Many economists, technocrats, policymakers, and urban intellectuals have long viewed small farmers as a doomed class. Once regarded as passive objects to be manipulated by elites, they are now resisting the capitalist, socialist, and developmentalist paradigms that would consign them to ruin. They have become what Karl Marx described as a politically conscious "class-for-itself." And even as peasants refuse to "go gently into that good night," to borrow a line from Dylan Thomas, developments in the 21st century are revealing traditional pro-development visions to be deeply flawed. The escalating protests of peasant groups such as Via Campesina, are not a return to the past. As environmental crises multiply and the social dysfunctions of urban-industrial life pile up, the farmers' movement has relevance not only to peasants but to everyone who is threatened by the catastrophic consequences of obsolete modernist paradigms for organizing production, community, and life.

Walden Bello is Executive Director of Focus on the Global South, a Bangkok-based research and advocacy institute, and a Professor of Sociology at the University of the Philippines at Diliman. A longer version of this piece comes out in the April 2007 issue of Global Asia. It is republished with permission.

USA: Time to Re-Name the University

Berkeley Daily Planet 27 April 2007. By Dale Becknell.

In the spirit of cities rolling out the welcome mat for private stadiums, a la Pac Bell Park and McAfee Coliseum, sometimes at the expense of funding such secondary needs as schools, letís have a contest for renaming the UC Berkeley. British Petroleum has made a strong bid for renaming the school the University of British Petroleum. But that's a little over the top-maybe we should just put department names up for sale, and at least keep the UCB acronym for the present.

But in deference to the university PR department (funded by little ol' you and me and the students) working feverishly to get the half-billion-dollar BP contract, perhaps something like "University for Corporate Bidding" would entice more special interests to fund academic freedom, as defined by shill man Randy Scheckman. He's the guy who, in the upstanding tradition of Joseph McCarthy, would misconstrue something a colleague critical of the oil company deal said, and have him fired. Having proclaimed this (according to the Daily Planet's 4-20-07 article) at the Academic Senate meeting rubber stamping the contract with BP, whatever it says, Scheckman reportedly got a round of applause from those faculty heroically defending academic freedom (for those toeing the line anyhow, or "bottom line" from the boardrooms, as it were). It seems Mr. Scheckman took offense at Professor Ignacio Chapela referring to the oil company research deal as prostitution. As a scientist disciplined in reporting data accurately, Scheckman found it more convenient to interpret Mr. Chapela's comment as calling the chancellor a prostitute. I know its been a while since all you rational professors took the SAT, so I looked it up..."prostitution" means "base or unworthy use, as of talent or ability." Let's brush up on our analogies here, too: a person is to selling her/his body as a university is to selling its...? You're right. Not applicable-a "working" person makes no pretense as to what she/he is doing.

Another candidate for renaming would be "University of Corrupt Boneheads." Reportedly it takes about as much energy to convert plants to liquid fuel as it yields, slightly less or even more depending on how comprehensive you choose to be in your analysis. I don't have a PhD, but I was awake during arithmetic class. If we burn one energy unit of oil to make one energy unit of ethanol, we get one minus one, or zero energy gain. Then we can take our unit of ethanol and burn it to make another unit of ethanol, which weíll need to burn to produce another unit, ad infinitum. Is there a quicker way to burn more energy to heat the atmosphere than this? Of course it will require a gargantuan expenditure of capital to get there, but who needs more windmills or solar tech? Then there is the matter of converting food crops to ethanol crops, which will necessitate getting any remaining rain forests out of the way and using any unfarmed waterways for new corporate monocultures of artificially mutated plants. More petrochemical fertilizers will be needed to replenish newly depleted soils, and new roads and fleets of trucks to transport it all. Presumably what microbiologist Scheckman and his new bosses think will make all of this work will be to create genetically engineered bugs that release enzymes that will break down plants far more aggressively than any that nature saw fit to evolve. Thank you, God and independent researchers, but you've done your part, and you're fired! BP and associates will take it from here.

Dale Becknell is a Berkeley resident.

Europe: Environmental groups criticize EU's green policies

EITB Basque News and Information Channel, 27 April 2007.

Ten groups - including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth Europe, WWF and Bird Life International - said their review of the European Commission found that more needed to be done.

Leading European environmental groups criticized the EU's head office on Friday, saying it had failed in its green policies and was not doing enough to promote ecological issues.

Ten groups - including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth Europe, WWF and Bird Life International - said their review of the European Commission found that more needed to be done despite its recent moves to champion Europe's fight against climate change.

While welcoming the Commission's shift on the environment, they said that since Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso took office in November 2004 policies have "clung to the dated notion that what's good for the environment cannot be good for the economy."

The review said the Commission had flunked, giving it a grade of 43 out of 100. The EU got lowest marks for marine and forest policies, each receiving only a 2/10 score.

The groups said the low scores were for the EU's "weak proposals on marine protection and for not addressing the destructive impacts of fisheries,'' and for its "foot-dragging" on policies to ban illegal timber from reaching markets.

The report also chided the EU for allowing new genetically altered crops on the market of the 27-nation bloc. It demanded the Commission suspend the authorization of new GMO crops in wake of claims there are "diverging scientific opinions and scientific uncertainties" over their safety.

It gave highest marks, 7/10, for ambitious plans to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. By then, at least 20 percent of Europe's energy should come from renewable sources such as wind, solar panels, hydroelectricity and energy crops, the EU has said.

The Philippines: Landmark law bans GMOs in Negros Occidental

Daily Star (Philippines), April 27 2007. By Carla Gomez.

The Negros Occidental Sangguniang Panlalawigan passed Wednesday a landmark legislation that bans the entry of genetically modified plants and animals in the province and imposes penalties for its violation.

Provincial Ordinance No. 07, Series of 2007, or "The Safeguard Against Living Genetically-Modified Organisms", was sponsored by Board Member Adolfo Mangao Sr., chairman of the SP Committee on Agriculture.

The ordinance helps bring Negros Island a step closer to its goal of becoming the organic food bowl of Asia, Patrick Belisario, executive director of the Negros Island Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Foundation Inc., said yesterday. In Aug. 24, 2005, Negros Occidental Gov. Joseph MaraÒon and Oriental Negros Gov. George Arnaiz signed a memorandum of agreement committing to 10 percent organic production islandwide by the year 2010 and to the banning of GMOs.

The MOA also committed to both provinces creation of the Negros Island Sustainable Agricultural and Rural Development Foundation (NISARD) to carry out both governors commitment to the islandwide development of organic agriculture.

The ordinance passed by the Negros Occidental SP Wednesday states that it is aimed at "instituting stringent measures towards the protection of biodiversity and attainment of the status of Negros as an Organic Food Island in Asia by banning the entry, importation and introduction of genetically-modified plants and animals within the territorial jurisdiction of the province of Negros Occidental". The legislation partly fulfills the commitment of the two Negros governors to legislate the ban on GMOs in the entire Negros Island, Belisario said.

In due time, the Oriental Negros provincial government is expected to pass a parallel ordinance to complement the efforts achieved in Negros Occidental, he said.

The ordinance states that persons violating the ban on GMOs in Negros Occidental will be fined not more than P5,000 or face imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, at the discretion of the court for each and every defined violation.

Where the violator is a corporation organization, the heads of such groups will be held directly liable, the ordinance adds.

All Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) brought into Negros Occidental will be seized and destroyed at the expense of the violator, the ordinance also states.

The ordinance defines LMO as any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology.

The ordinance also prohibits the planting, growing, selling and trading of living GMOs within the territorial jurisdiction of Negros Occidental.

All persons who have already planted LMOs in Negros Occidental at the time of the effectivity of the ordinance have 120 days to terminate growing them provided that when they are harvested they be disposed of outside the jurisdiction of the province, the ordinance adds.

All those selling and trading LMOs also have 30 days from the effectivity of the ordinance to dispose of their products outside the jurisdiction of Negros Occidental, it states.

Organic farming, as the most sustainable method of agricultural production, addresses multi-dimensional issues on food security, income diversification, food safety, ecological protection and balance, renewable energy and others, Belisario said.

Organic farming regulations around the globe prohibit the use of products derived from genetic modification, Belisario said, adding that some importing countries of organic products are now requiring certification that products are GMO free, aside from the mandatory organic certification.

The ban on GMO creates favorable business environment for groups like NGO's, cooperatives, people's organizations and even agribusiness companies to make available in commercial quantities the supply of organic seeds, fertilizers and botanical pest control, feeds for livestock and poultry and fisheries, he said.

These inputs are needed to support the commitment to devote approximately 80,000 hectares of the agricultural lands to organic production in the entire Negros Island, Belisario said.

Negros is famous for its lone organic export of muscovado sugar product mostly to Europe, which is coping with the growing demand as ingredient for organic chocolate and other confectionery products, he said.

Around the globe, it was estimated in 2005 that the market for organic products have reached the US $30 Billion mark and the area devoted to organic agriculture is approximately over 25 million hectares, he said.

In the Philippines, the organic market is enjoying a higher average growth rate between 30-50 percent annually than the global annual growth between 10-30 percent, he said.

Clearly, the demand for organic products outstrips the existing production supply and Negros Island has much to offer in terms of organic production, Belisario said.

26 April 2007

USA: GE Bill Held Over in Assembly Agriculture Committee (AB541)

Sacramento- Assemblymember Jared Huffman's bill, AB 541, The Food and Farm Protection Act, was tabled in a hearing of the Assembly Agriculture Committee yesterday, after passing out of the Judiciary Committee two weeks ago.

AB 541 addresses the problems arising when genetically engineered plants cross-pollinate or otherwise contaminate non-GE crops. It establishes that the GE crop manufacturer - and not the farmer who planted the GE crop - is the responsible party if contamination occurs and causes economic damages to others. The bill also establishes a notification system for GE crops, and prohibits the open-air production of food crops genetically engineered to produce pharmaceutical drugs, a practice that puts consumers at an unacceptably high risk of inadvertently eating pharmaceutical drugs.

"In proposing this bil l, we are attempting to find a middle ground with this controversial issue," stated Assemblymember Huffman. "There are those who wish the bill went further, and there are those who want no regulation of GE crops at all. I believe that AB 541 puts forward a reasonable and responsible policy that addresses the risk of GE contamination, without banning any crops or restricting access to drugs."

Also testifying at the hearing in support of AB 541 was Greg Massa, Co-Chair of the Rice Producers of California. Referring to a series of GE contamination events that have devastated the Southern U.S. rice industry, Massa said, " Should a similar event occur in California, the rice industry here stands to lose entire markets in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, an estimated value of $200 million annually. The California rice industry as we know it will collapse if GMO contamination occurs. AB 541 provides necessary safeguards for our industry."

This is the third time in three y ears that a bill dealing with GE has stalled in a legislative committee. In 2005, Assemblymember Laird introduced a bill (AB 984) dealing with the liability problem; it failed to get a motion and was later withdrawn. Then in 2006, a Monsanto-backed bill (SB 1056) that would have stripped county rights to pass GE restrictions died in committee in the face of considerable opposition. These bills and other events in California - the narrowly averted planting of pharmaceutical GE rice in 2004, the wave of county bans in 2004 through 2006, and most recently the rice contamination scare - point to the need for statewide policies.

Assemblymember Huffman and the bill's sponsors remain committed to finding a solution to the risks associated with genetic engineering, and will continue to work with members of the Agriculture Committee and the bill's opponents to advance the dialogue. The bill will be taken up again in January of 2008.

AB 541 has the support of all of California's sustainable, organic and family farming organizations, as well as many other groups (including: California Farmers Union, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, California Certified Organic Farmers, Center for Food Safety, Earthbound Farm, Lundberg Family Farms, Occidental Arts and Ecology Center, Rice Producers of California, California Church IMPACT, Consumers Union, Sierra Club California, Planning and Conservation League, and dozens of others). AB 541 is opposed by lobbying groups representing the interests of the chemical biotech industry and conventional industrial agribusiness.

Genetic Engineering Policy Project

California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF), California Church IMPACT, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Earthbound Farm, Environment California, Good Earth Natural Foods, Oakland Institute, Occidental Arts and Ecology Center, Ocean Beach People's Organic Food Co-op, Pesticide Action Network North America, United Natural Foods Inc.

Contact:

Renata Brillinger (707) 874-0316 or info@gepolicyproject.org http://www.gepolicyproject.org _______________________

UK: Unauthorised GM in rice protein for animal feed

Food Standards Agency (UK), 26 April 2007

Animal feed containing unauthorised GM in rice protein has been imported into the UK via the Netherlands.

This came to the Agency's attention via an alert (RASSF) issued by the European Commission on 22 March 2007, following investigations in Cyprus that showed that the GM line Bt63 had been found in rice protein concentrate imported from China via the Netherlands. This GM line has not been authorised in the EU.

Details of the distribution of the feed was provided by the Dutch authorities and a further alert was issued the following day, 23 March. This showed that four businesses in the UK had received consignments of the potentially affected product from January to March 2007.

By 23 April, all four UK businesses had confirmed to the Agency that they had been contacted by the Dutch importer and their quarantined stocks of the feed had been returned for disposal. However, much of the feed had already been used or sold earlier this year before the alert was received.

Businesses in Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain were also named as receiving consignments of the rice protein concentrate. The Commission has contacted the Chinese authorities and expressed its concern over this incident.

Sudan: Row as Sudan blocks 'GM' food aid

Angola Press, April 26 2007. DARFUR, Sudan, 26/04 - The United Nations food agency has criticised Sudan for holding up to 100,000 tonnes of aid meant for Darfur, saying it is genetically modified.

WFP spokeswoman Caroline Hurford said the US sorghum had been tested to show it was not genetically modified, adding GM sorghum did not even exist.

"It's a huge amount of food to be held up and our sub-offices in Darfur must be getting quite worried," she said.

Aid agencies are feeding 2.4m people who have fled the Darfur conflict.

Some aid workers believe that Sudan wants more food aid to be purchased in the country, reports Reuters news agency.

"We do intend to buy some amount of food from Sudan as they had a bumper harvest but there are limits to how much we can purchase because of funding. Most food aid is given to us in kind, as is the case with the US sorghum," Ms Hurford said.

Meanwhile, African Union peacekeepers say that pro-government militias continue to kill and pillage with impunity in Darfur.

The Sudanese government says security is improving in Darfur and has repeatedly pledged to the Arab Janjaweed militias.

Last week, Sudan agreed to let 3,000 UN peacekeepers with helicopter gunships into Darfur to help African Union troops.

But the US wants more than 10,000 UN soldiers to be sent and has threatened to increase sanctions.

At least 200,000 people are estimated to have died in Darfur since rebels took up arms four years.

The US says a genocide is being committed against the region's black African population.

Sudan says the problems are being exaggerated for political reasons.

Canada: Crackdown urged on modified foods
Group wants labelling to become mandatory

The Montreal Gazette, April 26, 2007. By Andy Riga.

Quebec must act quickly to get a handle on genetically modified organisms or risk paying a high price for its inaction in the future, a coalition of anti-GMO consumer, environmental and farmers' groups told a commission studying the future of farming in Quebec yesterday.

The groups urged Quebec to implement mandatory labelling, encourage alternatives to GMOs and make it easier to hold GMO makers legally accountable when their products contaminate non-GMO crops.

"We know from our experiences with chemicals and tobacco that if we don't take early precautionary measures, we might collectively pay the cost later on," Eric Darier, of Greenpeace and part of the coalition, said after the presentation. "Before we go ahead with new products, there should be a fairly solid consensus that those products are safe."

He said the jury is still out on the impact of GMOs - organisms with genetic material that is altered using gene technology - on health and the environment.

An estimated 70 per cent of processed foods on grocery store shelves contain or might contain genetically modified ingredients.

During the 2003 provincial election, Jean Charest's Liberals pledged to bring in a labelling system, a plan that was later abandoned.

About 40 countries, including the European Union countries, already require mandatory labelling of modified foods, said Charles Tanguay, a spokesperson for the Union des consommateurs, which is part of the coalition.

It should not be up to the food industry or governments to decide whether consumers should be told whether GMOs are included in products, Tanguay said, noting surveys show most Canadians in favour of mandatory labelling.

"One of the most fundamental rights of consumers is the right to be informed," Tanguay said.

The provincial Commission sur l'avenir de l'agriculture et de l'agroalimentaire quebecois held hearings in Montreal yesterday. It is to present recommendations to the government in January.

Europe: Dupont submits new GMO soybean seed for EU approval

MarketWatch, 26 April 2007. BRUSSELS -- E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. Thursday submitted its Optimum genetically modified soybean for European Union approval, risking to aggravate the deep divisions on agriculture biotechnology in the E.U.

Dupont made the application through its Pioneer Hi-bred International, Inc. subsidiary.

U.S. regulators approved the soy product last November and Dupont wants E.U. regulators to improve it for import starting in early 2009.

"This is a significant step for Pioneer," said Alejandro MuNoz, vice president, European Operations, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. "Pioneer is pursuing EU approvals of all our biotech products."

Optimum is a proprietary herbicide-tolerance trait that DuPont plans to commercialize in corn, cotton and other crops. It is the first-ever agricultural trait developed through proprietary DuPont gene shuffling technology.

But GMOs are controversial in Europe, raising deep environmental fears. Just last week, E.U. biotech experts Thursday failed to reach a decision on three applications by U.S. companies to sell genetically modified products in the union, underlining its continuing deep divisions on the issue.

Corrected April 26, 2007 12:58 ET (16:58 GMT)

U.S. regulators received Dupont's submission for approval of the soy product last November and Dupont wants E.U. regulators to approve it for import starting in early 2009.

("Dupont Submits New GMO Soybean Seed For EU Approval," published at 1226 GMT, misstated that the U.S. had already approved the product.)

USA: GMO Corn Trait Gets Approval for Sale

The Farmer (Minnesota), 26 April 2007.

Syngenta says the Minnesota Department of Agriculture has informed the company that it can resume sale of the Agrisure RW corn trait.

Syngenta has received approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, but the seed had not been approved for sale by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

The Department of Agriculture had advised farmers not to plant the rootworm-resistant "Agrisure RW MIR 604."

Syngenta's branded seed businesses will proceed immediately to fill grower orders for corn hybrids with Agrisure RW.

Syngenta is requiring all growers throughout the U.S. who purchase seed with Agrisure RW to sign a Stewardship and Grain Use Marketing Commitment Agreement. This stipulates that grain produced from Agrisure RW hybrids must be directed to domestic uses, such as livestock feed and ethanol plants that do not export DDGs.

25 April 2007

UK: Beacon events for GM Global Awareness Month

GM Free Cymru / GM Freeze / FOE announcement, 25 April 2007.

The 8th April to 8th May will be a month of global GM awareness. Countries all over the world will be using their own unique methods to remind their governments, food producers and retailers of the deep universal concerns regarding the release of GM into the general environment and food chain, as well as highlighting the catalogue of irreversible contamination incidents to date.

In the UK, the Government has given BASF the go-ahead to plant GM potato trials this year, plans that are being strongly opposed by local communities and farmers.

Around the country, beacons, which are at once symbolic of national danger and universal human hope, will be lit simultaneously at sundown on bank holiday weekend Sat 5th May.

Campaigners will be using the event to celebrate the passage of another year free of commercially grown GM crops, a luxury sadly not afforded to many countries where GM contamination is now widespread.

If eating food free of Genetically Modified Organisms, and protecting our environment from irreversible genetic pollution is something that concerns you, please join us.

Groups and individuals are invited to light Beacons on the highest points or other prominent hills of their county. We would all aim to light up at sunset on 5 May and photograph our GM-Free Beacon plus suitably worded banner for the local media and issue a press release.

Supported by - GM Free Cymru / GM Freeze / FOE.

For more info contact: Gerald Miles: gm@stdavids.co.uk tel + 44 7879 664703

Website: http://www.gmfreebeacon.org

UK: GM protesters pick wrong field in bid to disrupt potato trial

The Guardian, April 25 2007. By Hugh Muir.

The operation to sabotage the government's GM potato trial was planned with care and under conditions of great secrecy. Two hundred and fifty protesters swooped on the 16-hectare site outside Hull, armed with shovels and filled with indignation.

In less than an hour they had moved to invalidate the trial, planting thousands of organic potatoes. Mission accomplished. If only they had got the right field.

Activists from Mutatoes.org yesterday apologised to farmer David Buckton after it emerged that they wrongly identified his land as the site of the GM trial. The field they planted was sown with beans.

By the time Mr Buckton was alerted to the protesters on his land, it was too late to stop the direct action. The protesters were determined to move quickly on the basis that the land would be rendered unsuitable for the GM trials once other root crops were in the ground.

In a statement Mutatoes.org said: "With the information that we had and the short timescale available to us ... we sincerely believed this to be the correct field. The public were not given sufficient information by the government, who supplied only a four-figure grid reference for the location of the trial."

The group said they conducted extensive investigations within the area specified by the environment department and outside. "While it is regrettable that the wrong site and farmer were targeted, we would also like to make it clear ... that people will continue to disrupt the planting of GM crops despite the difficulties faced by this lack of full disclosure," the group added.

Yesterday Mr Buckton, 54, said the mix-up was the strangest event to have befallen his family in four generations of farming. He said the protesters were accompanied by two police officers on horseback.

"I told the police officers that it was a bean field but they said the protest seemed peaceful so we'd better let them get on with it. The beans are just about peeping through. The protesters should have been able to see that," he said.

Mr Buckton said he had no great enthusiasm for GM crops. "I certainly wouldn't have been giving up my land to test them," he said. The company BASF plans trials of GM potatoes at two sites: Cambridge, which already has government approval, and in the East Riding of Yorkshire.

24 April 2007

UK: Plea to local farmer to pull out of GM trial as local opposition builds
Put your neighbours and your community first and not BASF

Hedon against GM, Press Release, 24 April 2007

Campaigners are today making a final plea to the Hedon farmer due to host BASF's GM potato trial to put the interests of the local community first and pull out of the trial. The call comes as the Government is expected to announce its consent for the GM trial any day, following the deadline for public comments on Friday (20 April).

The Government is expected to approve BASF's plans to trial blight resistant GM potatoes in Hedon. Planting could start within the next two weeks. However, it is understood that the farmer has still not signed the contract to allow the trial to go ahead and is concerned about the impact the trial could have on neighbouring borage farmers.

Hedon Against GM Campaigner Lee-Ann Williams said: "We have been overwhelmed by the opposition to these trials. Neighbouring farmers, Graham Stuart MP, two local councils and the public don't want GM potatoes planted here. BASF have not considered the impacts on our community but we fear that the Government has already made up its mind and will give the GM potatoes the green light. Our main hope now is that the farmer due to host the trial pulls out. We urge him to change his mind and refuse to help BASF trial this product that no-one wants."

Some protesters at the rally on Saturday planted potatoes in a field near the proposed trial site. Hedon Against GM and Friends of the Earth were not involved in this action and were not aware that it was planned.

There is significant opposition to the trial:

* Both East Riding and Hedon Town Councils have voted to object to the trial taking place [1]

* Neighbouring borage farmers fear losing tens of thousands of pounds if beekeepers do not bring their hives into their fields to pollinate the crop because of concerns around GM contamination of honey from the trial.

* Local MP Graham Stuart is backing the farmers and does not believe the trial should go ahead this year.

* Over 800 people have signed a petition objecting to the trial of which 600 are local people.

* Around 150 people joined a rally and GM-free picnic on Saturday to celebrate GM-free food

* The British Potato Council and McCain do not want the trials to go ahead because of concerns over public perception of their products

Notes:

[1] East Riding Council voted to oppose the trial on 4 April. Hedon Town Council responded to the public consultation as follows:

PROPOSAL TO TRIAL GM POTATOES IN A FIELD ON THE BOUNDARY OF HEDON EAST YORKSHIRE - CONSULTATION RESPONSE

This Council, having received information from, and discussed with experts from both sides of the argument, is strongly opposed to agreement being given to a trial of genetically modified potatoes being held in a field in Preston, bordering Hedon, East Yorkshire.

The reasons are that:

1. We cannot accept that there is any need for the development of a genetically modified potato intended to produce a blight free strain. As has rightly been pointed out here are several varieties of blight resistant potatoes existing at present. The growth of a large number of different pot