NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • August 2007

Archives 2007: Jan • Feb • March • April • May • June • July• August • September
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

31 August 2007

Australia: GM companies refuse to supply seed for trials

Farm Weekly, 31 August 2007

WA's first broad-scale field trial of genetically modified canola has been placed on hold after becoming entangled in a political battle between the State Government and the seed companies which own the technology.

State Agriculture Minister Kim Chance advised his Ministerial GM Reference Group meeting last Friday that the GM trials, scheduled for Esperance next year, were now in grave danger of not going ahead.

Mr Chance confirmed that the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association (SEPWA), which he approved to conduct the trials, has hit a brick wall in its attempts to source GM seed from Monsanto and Bayer, the companies who own the plant breeding rights to the controversial technology.

Network of Concerned Farmers WA spokesperson, Julie Newman, claimed the lack of seed availability was an admission from GM crop supporters that the Esperance trials would reveal GM canola offered nothing better than the varieties already used by WA growers.

"At last those pushing GM crops have admitted that GM canola cannot out-perform the canola we already grow," Ms Newman said.

"And the GM companies are obviously afraid that the truth would be revealed with independence performance trials.

"It is obvious that those pushing GM crops would prefer that farmers rely on misleading hype because farmers would not be supporting GM crops if they knew the facts."

Ms Newman said the GM companies' reluctance to provide seed for the trials would now raise serious doubts from those farmers and farming groups who were hoping that the SEPWA trials would provide clear and independent evidence that GM performed better than conventional varieties.

SEPWA vice president, Andrew Fowler, said the indications from Monsanto and Bayer were that they did not see the up-side to releasing the GM seed for the trial.

Mr Fowler said the companies saw little value in investing in WA, and envisioned that they would soon see commercial action in NSW, Victoria and maybe NSW, if the moratoria on GM commercial crop production were lifted, as soon as next year.

USA: Healthy eating means no GMOs

Food Consumer.org. By Jeffrey M. Smith.

[Extracts only. See full article at http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/G_eneral_H_ealth_34/083010292007_Healthy_Eating_Means_No_GMOs.shtml

You may have heard that genetically modified (GM) foods are safe, properly tested, and necessary to feed a hungry world. UNTRUE! Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), introduced into our food supply in the mid-1990s, are one of history's most dangerous and radical changes in our diet. These largely unregulated ingredients are in 60-70% of the foods in theÝUS, but are well worth efforts to avoid them.

Fortunately, health-conscious retailers, distributors, manufacturers, and growers are now participating in The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, which will eliminate GMOs from thousands of products. This will make it easier for you to feed your family a healthier Ïnon-GMOÓ diet and may even end the genetic engineering of the entireÝUS food supply. This industry-wide rejection of GMOs can be achieved by a "tipping point," in which a sufficient number of shoppers in the US avoiding GM ingredients force the major food companies to stop using them.

Informed European Shoppers Say No to GMOs

EuropeÝreached the tipping point in April 1999 and within a single week, virtually all major manufacturers publicly committed to stop using GM ingredients in their European brands. This consumer-led revolt against GMOs in the EU was generated by a February 1999 media firestorm after a top GMO safety researcher, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, was "ungagged by Parliament" and able to tell this alarming story to the press.

India: PestÝattack: Punjab Bt cotton crop may be set back by 25%

The Wall Street Journal, 31 August 2007. By Padmaparna Ghosh.

After a bumper cotton crop last year, this year has come has a shock to Punjab farmers, especially since 80% of the cotton acreage in Punjab falls under Bt crop

New Delhi: The cotton crop in Punjab, grown from the Bt cotton seed, has suffered a setback following attacks by a pest known as the mealy bug.

"According to the (Punjab) agriculture department, even though more area is under the cotton crop this year, production will be approximately 20-25% less," says a government official who did not wish to be identified.

After a bumper cotton crop last year, this year has come has a shock to Punjab farmers, especially since 80% of the cotton acreage in Punjab falls under Bt crop. Bt cotton seed is genetically modified to repel attacks by bollworms, a common cotton pest.

The districts of Mansa, Bhatinda, Muktsar and Ferozepur are the worst-hit by this pinhead sized insect, which feeds on plant sap. The last major attack of mealy bug was in 1978 with few and sporadic attacks since then.

Meanwhile, many of the farmers who didnÇt plant Bt crop this year appear to be unaffected.

"The reason has nothing to do with Bt or non-Bt crop," said A.K. Dhawan, cotton expert at the Punjab Agricultural University. "The reason is organic farmers (those who use indigenous seed varieties) practice multi-cropping. Mealy bugs donÇt fly. They attack row after row of cotton crop. In multi-cropping, various vegetables and cereals are sown in rows next to each other so mealy bugs die when they hit another crop row."

Some organic farmers are glad. "I have five acres and I sow maize, lobia, soybean, cotton and vegetables. Though my neighbourÇs crop (also five acres) has been badly affected by the insect, my crop is intact," says Amarjeet Sharma, an organic farmer.

Agricultural experts agree that when the focus is on controlling one pest, secondary pests can take over. "There have been numerous cases in China of such attacks on Bt cotton," says Kavitha Kuruganti of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, a lobby group for organic farmers. "In Gujarat, the agriculture department has even set up a committee to look into the matter of attacks of mealy bugs and other pests on Bt cotton. The crop also requires high amounts of fertilizer inputs, which increases sugar content, thereby attracting sucking pests."

Meanwhile, an association that represents seed sellers such as Monsanto-Mahyco Biotech Ltd, Rashi and Ankur notes that the problem is "not Bt related. Bt is only specific for bollworms. This has taken farmers by surprise. Not that they are not aware that they need to use pesticides with Bt cotton seed," said R.K. Sinha, executive director, All India Crop Biotechnology Association, the umbrella organization for manufacturers of genetically modified seeds.

"It has been observed that when 100% of a region goes under Bt cultivation, it becomes susceptible to pests," says a pesticide company official who did not wish to be identified. "The best example is Gujarat. We expected this to happen in Punjab too as more than 80% is under Bt and it did."

This year's attack will not only reduce cotton yield but it has pushed up input costs of farmers as well. "The cost to farmers has increased by Rs2,500 per acre on account of pesticides to contain the attack," the pesticide official said. He added that because of this attack, his company had in the last few weeks sold additional pesticide worth Rs300 crore. Input costs for Bt cotton farmers is higher to begin with as each seed packet costs around Rs750. Moreover, Bt can be grown only in intensively irrigated areas as opposed to indigenous seeds, which are hardier. Irrigation pulls up input costs for farmers because they have to run pumps.

30 August 2007

Greenpeace defends Poland against challenge by European Commission

European Environmental Bureau / Greenpeace press release, 30 August 2007.

Greenpeace yesterday made a legal submission to the European Commission arguing that Polandís draft national legislation on the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) is fully consistent with EU law. Greenpeace made its submission in the context of a formal European Commission notification procedure on the draft Polish law. This procedure could represent the first step of a challenge by the EU Executive of the Polish national GMO law.

The Greenpeace submission was written by EU Environmental Law Professor Ludwig Krämer. According to Professor Krämer Poland has the right to restrict the use of GMOs in its territory in order to protect its environment. The fact that a genetically modified seed or plant or animal has been authorised at EU level does not mean that member states have no further rights to regulate the use of such genetically engineered living beings in their territory.

"The fact that a car has been authorised for sale and circulation in the EU does not mean that it can be driven without restriction everywhere in all member states. EU member states certainly have the right to regulate the use of cars and restrict it to designated roads. EU law similarly applies to the case of genetically modified organisms - member states have the right to regulate and restrict the use of GMO seeds, plants and animals in their specific environments. Poland is right on this one." said Professor Kr”mer.

"The Commission's interpretation of the provisions set out in Directive 2001/18/EC, according to which member states are not allowed to regulate the use of GMOs in their territory, is flawed" Professor Kr”mer added. "This interpretation is based upon the false assumption by the Commission that the concepts of 'placing on the market' and of 'use' are equal in EU law" he concluded.

Greenpeace urges the European Commission to recognise the right of Poland and all EU Member States to restrict the use of GMOs in their territories in order to protect their citizens and the environment from the serious and irreversible risks posed by the cultivation of GMOs.

"The Commission should correct its flawed interpretation of EU law and stop trying to interfere with Poland's national law on the use of genetically modified organism in Polish agriculture" said Marco Contiero, GMO policy director of Greenpeace European Unit.

Note: Greenpeace European Unit is based in Brussels, where we monitor and analyse the work of the institutions of the European Union (EU), expose deficient EU policies and laws, and challenge decision-makers to implement progressive solutions.

Switzerland: Bt Corn Is More Susceptible to Aphids, Swiss Researchers Report

Public Library of Science press Release -- Aug 29 2007

The environmental consequences of transgenic crops are the focus of numerous investigations, such as the one published in the journal PloS ONE, which was carried out by Cristina Faria and her colleagues, under the supervision of Ted Turlings, professor in chemical ecology at the University of Neuch’tel. The researchers observed that most transgenic maize lines were significantly more susceptible to the aphid Rhopalosiphum maidis than their conventional equivalents. "We have studied six lines of Bt maize containing an insecticidal gene derived from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis. The toxin produced by these genes is very specific and only affects the caterpillars feeding on the plants, not the aphids. Five of the lines contained up to twice the number of aphids", states Cristina Faria. She does, however, go on to clarify what seems, at a first glance, detrimental to the plant.

"It all depends on the economic threshold for aphids in the region where maize is being grown. If these insects are not a major problem, then it is rather good news." In fact, aphids produce honeydew, a sugar-rich substance that can be used as a food source by beneficial insects, such as the parasitic wasp Cotesia marginiventris. This parasitoid helps the plant when it is attacked by caterpillars. It kills these pests by laying its eggs in them. In cages with aphid-infested Bt maize, Cotesia wasps lived almost twice as long and parasitized 37.5% more caterpillars. Hence, an increase in the number of aphids might help to control caterpillars in areas where these are a major problem. "However, in regions where aphids are considered to be a pest, growing Bt maize could be problematic," adds the biologist. Aphids mainly damage plants by transmitting viruses and using Bt maize might amplify this problem.

So where does this unexpected difference between conventional and Bt maize come from? The insertion of the Bt gene could have an effect on other genes, but the NCCR Plant Survival researchers rather think that by producing Bt toxin the plant's chemistry is otherwise altered. In Bt plants, they measured slightly higher concentrations of amino acids, which are essential nutrients for aphids. Moreover, the plant may mobilise energy resources for the production of the Bt toxin at the cost of producing substances that it normally uses in defence against aphids.

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

Disclaimer

The above press release refers to an upcoming article in PLoS ONE. The release has been provided by the article authors and/or their institutions. Any opinions expressed in this are the personal views of the contributors, and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of PLoS. PLoS expressly disclaims any and all warranties and liability in connection with the information found in the release and article and your use of such information.

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

Contact:

Igor Chlebny, igor.chlebny@unine.ch, 41-327-182-507, Public Library of Science

Citation: Faria CA, W”ckers FL, Pritchard J, Barrett DA, Turlings TC (2007) High Susceptibility of Bt Maize to Aphids Enhances the Performance of Parasitoids of Lepidopteran Pests. PLoS ONE 2(7): e600.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000600

The published article may be found at: http://www.plosone.org/doi/pone.0000600

Australia: GM seeds to be prohibited: Chance

WA Business News, August 30 2007

Genetically modified seed will be prohibited for cultivation, sale or import in Western Australia under new laws introduced this week by Agriculture minister Kim Chance.

The full text of a ministerial announcement is pasted below

Agriculture and Food Minister Kim Chance this week introduced legislation into the Western Australian Parliament designed to further protect the State's moratorium on the growing of Genetically Modified (GM) crops.

The Seeds Amendment Bill 2007 will allow the Minister to declare GM seed to be 'prohibited seed'.

"Under the proposed changes, it will be an offence to import, sell or be in possession of prohibited seed in WA for the purposes of cultivation," Mr Chance said.

"This legislation is designed to protect WA's GM-free cropping systems from intentional or inadvertent GM contamination."

The Minister said that traces of GM contamination had been previously detected in the State's canola crop, despite the fact that all canola-growing States of Australia had a moratorium in place.

Testing of canola within WA had revealed no further traces of GM canola lines. The Department of Agriculture and Food continues to test for contamination of seed lines and harvested canola as an ongoing activity.

"WA's GM-free status is providing benefits to WA farmers in terms of price premiums for food grade non-GM canola and continued market access to discerning markets in Europe, Japan, India and China," Mr Chance said.

"The legislation will help to protect and maintain the market advantage currently enjoyed by WA farmers because of our GM-free status in the local and international marketplace."

The Minister said the risks to the State's GM-free canola cropping and grain handling systems could be further increased if other States lifted their moratorium in 2008. WA had a moratorium in place until 2009.

Mr Chance established a Ministerial Reference group to prepare a discussion paper for public consultation on the risk s and benefits of GM canola to farmers and markets.

The discussion paper should be available for public comment in early 2008.

Ireland: Your organic sustainable future

Irish Examiner (Farming supplement), 30 August 2007.

Creating a future for yourself and your children that is sustainable is becoming an important part in many of our lives.

All the experts agree that oil and gas prices are set to rise steeply in the coming years as demand starts to out-strip supply. This will have a profound effect on our society which is dependent on oil and gas for everything from transport and medicines to packaging and food. For every one calorie of food that we eat it has taken ten calories of oil to grow it, and that's before packaging and transport have been taken into account! The days of well stocked supermarkets full of cheap food may be limited.

Organic growing, and an understanding of how to live a practical sustainable life are set to become essential skills in the years to come. Organic farming is the fastest growing agricultural sector in most of Europe, and sustainability is the buzz-word every government wants to include in its policies. Not only does organic growing remove the need for oil-based agrochemicals, ...[remainder of article to be added later].

The Philippines: Negros Occidental bans GMO

Philippine Information Agency, 30 August 2007.

Bacolod City (30 August) -- The province of Negros Occ. has banned the entry of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) into the province as officials asked for the cooperation of businessmen and the citizens to declare truthfully the nature of the products they are bringing in Negros Occ.

Provincial Ordinance No.007 sealed the stand of the province to go full swing into organic farming and become the organic capital of the country and of Asia.

The law prohibits not only the entry of GMO into Negros Occ. but also its experimentation and field-testing.

During the recent public forum on this ordinance, Negros Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Foundation (NISARD) Executive Director Patrick Belisario said a big challenge is set before them in the implementation of the P.O. 007 especially in the aspect of regulation.

He admitted that instruments to test the veracity of declared products may not yet be readily available to effectively implement the law but the province, in the end, will have to acquire them.

Meantime, the law will definitely be imposed and other concerns will be dealt with accordingly as they come. "We have to start somewhere," he said.

Belisario said initial talks with the business sector yielded fruitful results as they pledged to cooperate with the provincial government.

29 August 2007

USA: Rice farmer claims research contaminated crop

Beauregard Daily News, August 29 2007. By Hattie Sherrick-Burton.

A Beauregard Parish rice farmer is suing the board of supervisors of Louisiana State University and Bayer CropScience, the developer of genetically modified rice, for allegedly contaminating the U.S. rice crop and causing harm to his farm.

Farmer Kenneth Habetz is seeking compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

Habetz filed his suit in 36th Judicial District Court on Aug. 17. It claims negligence, nuisance and trespassing following the contamination of the U.S. rice supply by the genetically modified, long-grain "LLRICE" or Liberty Rice.

According to the suit, the board of supervisors contracted with Bayer to field test the rice, which is grown to be resistant to the active ingredient in the Bayer product Liberty@Herbicide, at an LSU-operated Rice Research Station two miles east of Crowley.

The suit alleges that during field-testing from 1998 through 2001, LSU and Bayer failed to take action to prevent the contamination of conventional rice with "LLRICE" through cross-pollination or commingling during planting, harvesting, handling, storage, transportation and disposal, resulting in the contamination of the entire U.S. supply.

Genetically engineered rice has been modified so that it is resistant to herbicide. On Aug. 18, 2006, an announcement was made to U.S. rice farmers that trace amounts of genetically engineered rice had been found throughout the Southern U.S.

It was concluded at the time, however, that there was no health, food safety or environmental concerns associated with the U.S. rice.

According to the suit, while all biotechnology products in the country are required to undergo testing by the USDA and other food safety agencies, such approval was not sought by Bayer until more than one strain of the rice was confirmed by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to be found in rice supplies destined for human consumption and export.

Habetz claims that his farming operation suffered as a result of the contamination.

He alleges that he and other farmers were faced with increased costs due to the need to maintain the integrity of their rice supply, and for their efforts to keep "LLRICE" from further entering supplies.

According to USDA estimates for the 2006 crop year, rice production in the U.S. was valued at $1.88 billion, approximately half of which was expected to be exported.

The U.S. also provides about 12 percent of the world rice trade.

Habetz grew rice on approximately 600 acres of Beauregard Parish farmland during the relevant time periods and, according to the suit, has never knowingly grown "LLRICE."

According to the USDA, Louisiana has the second largest area devoted to long-grain rice production, accounting for about 20 percent of the acreage devoted to long-grain rice production, as well as 16 percent of the long-grain production in the U.S.

According to the U.S. Rice Federation, Bayer CropScience has developed many genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant products with the protein called "Liberty Link," including corn, soybeans, canola and cotton, some of which are grown in the U.S. Bayer has developed three rice products, two of which have been thoroughly evaluated and declared safe for use in food, safe in the environment and approved for production. Neither of these rice products have been commercialized.

USDA considering new regulations for GMOs

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is considering the adoption of new regulations for genetically engineered organisms. They have released an extensive Environmental Impact Statement describing the proposed changes that are being considered. The proposed changes to the failing federal GE regulatory system provide us with a unique and important opportunity to make our voices heard.

One of the options under consideration is to ban the open-air production of food and feed crops that produce pharmaceutical drugs and industrial compounds. This is a policy that has been advocated by mainstream food industry representatives such as the powerful Grocery Manufacturers Association and many conventional agriculture organizations.

However, USDA has made a preliminary recommendation for a much lower standard of protection that would allow food crops to be produced outdoors, so it is important that they hear from us demanding that they do better!

Take action

Comments are due by Sept. 11th

The Union of Concerned Scientists has prepared a sample letter http://rs6.net/...F that makes it easy for you to send your comments to USDA, urging them to ban the outdoor production of drugs in food crops.

Help Build the California GE-Free Network

As one of the largest agricultural economies in the world, California has the opportunity to become a leader in safeguarding our public and private lands, fisheries, forests, schools, gardens and nurseries from GE contamination.

If GE is an issue that you are concerned about and you are not already a member, sign on to the Cal GE-Free list serve http://rs6.net/tn... to receive this newsletter.

USA: Hormone-free milk ads not misleading

Chicago Tribune, August 29 2007

The Federal Trade Commission has rejected Monsanto's claim that milk ads using the terms "free of artifical growth hormones" or "rBGH-free" are misleading, according to the Associated Press.

The decision was announced in the same week that Starbucks agreed to stop using Monsanto's genetically engineered supplement, which is used to boost milk production in cows by 10 percent. Major grocery chains have already switched to milk free of synthetic hormones, including Safeway and Kroger Co.

This is bad news for Monsanto, which markets the hormone under the brand name Posilac. While the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug's use in 1993 and says its safe, it's banned in Europe and Canada in part because it leaves cows more prone to illness.

The ruling means ads like the one below from Borden, did not make any misleading claims about the safety of the growth hormone, called recombinant bovine somatrotropin, or rBST. (It's also known as recombinant bovine growth hormone or rBGH).

"We work exclusively with farmers that supply 100 percent of our milk from cows that haven't been treated with artificial hormones," the Borden ad says. "So, who do you trust when it comes to your family's milk?"

Monsanto argues that this type of advertising has created an artificial demand and higher consumer prices for milk from cows that have not been injected with the growth hormone," the AP reported.

"Mike Lormore, dairy industry affairs director for Monsanto in St. Louis, said the issue is 'accuracy in labeling.' He said moves by retailers could limit long-term demand for the hormone, but has not had a "significant impact" on current sales.

Under FDA policy, food companies are allowed to make claims on labels that they do not use rBST, as long they do not 'mislead consumers" to believe milk from cows without rBST is safer or of higher quality."

USA: Fox News Reporters Fired For Being Too Tough on Monsanto Milk

In 1997, the investigative reporting duo of Steve Wilson and Jane Akre cracked a story about Monsanto's conspiracy to push bovine growth hormone while ignoring the potential risks to its "end users." Unfortunately, they worked for Fox News. The channel was extremely reticent, to say the least, to run the story after coming under pressure by Monsanto.

After being fired, the couple successfully sued under Florida's whistleblower laws. However, Fox won on appeal as courts found FCC regulations against news falsification was a policy, and not a law. Fox then countersued in 2004 for court fees and legal costs.

We raise our glass of milk to you, oh Monsanto! We knew there were even more good reasons for you to contend in our Worst Company in America contest! [via The Field Report http://www.consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-america/...].

Thailand: Minister backs off

Bangkok Post, 29 August 2007

The Agriculture and Cooperatives Ministry retreated from its plan to seek cabinet approval yesterday for the lifting of the ban on field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops.

Agriculture Minister Thira Sutabutra said the decision followed the fierce protests since he announced the plan earlier this month.

"It's hard to press ahead with this, but I will not give up because lifting the ban would benefit the country," he said.

Mr Thira reaffirmed that he still intended to ask the cabinet soon to revoke the April 13 resolution prohibiting GM crop field trials.

Witoon Lianchamroon, of the farm community rights group Biothai, said the ministry had underestimated public opposition to GM crops. Public Health Minister Mongkol na Songkhla had also publicly opposed lifting the ban, he added.

France: Monsanto stays course despite French GMO attacks

Reuters, August 29 2007. By Tamora Vidaillet.

PARIS (Reuters) - Fresh attacks on Monsanto's French test sites for genetically modified (GMO) maize have not put it off research in France, the U.S. biotech giant said on Wednesday.

In recent years, biotech firms given the green light to carry out GMO tests in France have done so under threat that protesters may trample fields and wreck months of research.

This pushed Bayer CropScience to end field tests in France in 2004 and has prompted fears among scientists that others may shift at least part of their research efforts abroad.

Still, Missouri-based Monsanto, creator of the only GMO technology currently in commercial use in France, a corn called YieldGard MON-810, remains committed to field trials.

"Monsanto wishes to continue its research in biotechnology and its field trials in France despite illegal destructions because the best adapted varieties for farmers' specific needs are created at the local level," said Jean-Michel Duhamel, Monsanto's director for southern Europe.

"As the sharp rise in prices of raw food in France shows that an abundance of food cannot be taken for granted anymore, it is necessary to develop all tools to strengthen efficiency and sustainability of agriculture including biotechs," he said.

Monsanto has issued two separate complaints against protesters this month following attacks on GMO test sites that it says caused losses totaling 100,000 euros ($135,900).

In 2004, 45 percent of all Monsanto's field trials on GMO seeds suffered damage from activists. In 2005, 55 percent suffered such damage and in 2006, 65 percent did.

Heated debate has surrounded the use of GMO products across Europe and in France, a country which takes special pride in the quality of its food and where many consumers and green groups doubt the safety of GMO products.

While GMO technologies are more widely used in the United States, analysts say it could take years before such solutions are welcome with open arms in Europe.

Monsanto said it derives around 50 percent of its revenues in France from the sale of herbicides and most of the remainder from sales of conventional, non-biotech seeds.

While the number of hectares sown with maize incorporating Monsanto's MON-810 technology has swelled to more than 20,000 hectares this season from 5,000 in 2006, GMO-derived business accounts for less than one percent of its turnover in France.

Monsanto has given about eight seed companies the right to use its MON-810 technology in France.

This season around 40 percent of the area sown with GMO maize was directly using Monsanto seeds. The other 60 percent was made up of maize produced by French firms or cooperatives which have negotiated the right to use Monsanto's technology.

Who sells GMO's in Romania?

Hot News (Romania), 29 August 2007.

[Extract:]

Most Romanians (67%) refuse to consume genetically modified food with the highest rates of rejection reported in the southern regions of Oltenia, Muntenia and Dobrogea, according to a recent survey commanded by Greenpeace Romania.

Regardless of the fact that the Romanian law requires that all the food products containing more than 0.9% GMOs should be labeled as such, and that some supermarket chains in Romania claim they're not selling such products, the sale of GMO products is not excluded.

Read the article: http://english.hotnews.ro/Who-sells-GMO's-in-Romania-articol_45761.htm

Thailand: Let rationality decide GMO debate
The bio-safety law must be enacted before field trials on genetically modified crops can resume

The Nation (Thailand), 29 August 2007.

[Extract:]

The Agriculture Ministry has said it would, at a later date, submit a proposal to the Surayud Cabinet to lift the ban on field trials of genetically modified organisms (GMO), which has been in force for the past six years. The ministry, which was earlier scheduled to table the proposal at yesterday's Cabinet meeting, withheld it without giving a reason why. Officials at the ministry insisted that Thailand, one of the world's major food producers, must restart field tests of genetically modified crops to keep up with advances in global research and to maintain the country's competitiveness.

Read the article: http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/08/29/opinion/opinion_30046911.php

The Philippines: Help enforce GMO ban, Negrenses urged

The Visayan Daily Star, 29 August 2007. By Nanette Guadalquiver.

The Province of Negros Occidental, together with the Negros Island Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Foundation, is urging Negrenses to take part in the enforcement of the ban on living genetically-modified organisms in the province, a policy vital to its goal to make the island the "Organic Food Basket of Asia."

"We want to give notice to the whole world, to the entire country that we ban GMOs in Negros Occidental," Aleta NuÒez of the Provincial Legal Office said at the orientation on the GMO ban ordinance at the Capitol Social Hall in Bacolod City yesterday.

GMO is an organism whose natural genetic material has been modified with synthetic material inserted into it.

NuÒez, who presented the features of Provincial Ordinance No. 007-2007, said that, for now, the important thing is to disseminate the information on the policy of Negros Occidental to prohibit living GMOs within its jurisdiction.

"The first value of this ordinance is to provide information and to insulate the island from any GMO activities," she said. The key LMO bans under the ordinance are: entry of living GMOs and experimentation and/or field testing related to it, as well as planting or growing and selling or trading of living GMOs. Part of the information campaign is the installation of "notice to the public" billboards in 30 strategic locations across the province.

Patrick Belisario, executive director of NISARD, said only patches of agriculture areas in Negros Occidental use GMOs, and these are still unverified.

With the ordinance, they are focusing on the non-entry of living GMOs for the first year.

For now, non-living GMOs, which are usually found in animal feeds, will still be allowed in the province, he said. Living GMOs specifically banned are crops, including corn which, so far, has 23 GMO varieties.

Aside from corn, also included in the Initial Watch List are:, six varieties of cotton, three varieties of potato, two varieties of sugarbeet as well soybean 40-3-2, canola RT73, and Alfalfa Events J101 and J163.

Majority of these living GMOs have been developed by Monsanto, particularly corn, soybean, cotton, potato, sugarbeet, canola and alfalfa while other corn varieties are by Pioneer, Syngenta, and Bayar Cropscience.

"It's no joke implementing this ban. We don't want to be like the other provinces (which also did this), only to fail. We're realistic so we we start with the living GMOs, those that can be easily propagated," Belisario said.

Phase-out The ordinance states that all persons in Negros Occidental who have already planted living GMOs, in whatever quantity or stage at the time of the effectivity of the ban, are given the remaining growing period of 120 days from July 19, 2007, when the ordinance took effect, to completely and permanently terminate the growing of living GMOs. They will also dispose of the living GMOs harvested outside the province.

Persons engaged in planting or trading of living GMOs are also required to make full disclosure of their activity to the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist and Office of the Provincial Veterinarian.

Those who are engaged in the selling or trading of living GMOs are given 30 days to dispose of their products.

Propaganda, Fraud and Libel - a response (part 1)

GM Watch, 28 August 2007.

An article about the recent row involving the Canadian Government bureaucrat, Shane Morris, ourselves and GM-free Ireland, recently topped the daily bulletin of AgBioWorld's listserv - AgBioView - and was subsequently posted onto websites run by the Hudson Institute and Monsanto, as well as another pro-GM list, Doug Powell's Agnet.
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/Anti-biotech%20wactivists%20082307

Under the title Propaganda, Fraud and Libel, the author - Andrew Apel - paints a picture of Shane Morris as a scientist beset by "Irish activists" who according to Apel, "Apparently, cannot distinguish between scientific opinion, propaganda, fraud and libel".

There is considerable irony in such an accusation from such a source. Andrew Apel was formerly editor of the biotech industry newsletter, AgBiotech Reporter, but these days he is the "guest editor" of AgBioView. This listserv was in the forefront of the notorious campaign to smear the Berkeley scientists David Quist and Ignacio Chapela over their research on Mexican maize contamination.

The AgBioWorld campaign was initiated and fuelled by "anonymous" e-mail attacks on the integrity of the researchers. The attacks were subsequently shown to have been posted out of Monsanto and its Internet PR firm, Bivings. Bivings, it turned out, were also providing AgBioWorld with undisclosed support.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,715153,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,723899,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,842999,00.html

The accusations included the suggestion that the research had been constructed by Dr Chapela in collusion with activists for propaganda purposes, and there was even a call posted on AgBioView by Prof Anthony Trewavas that UC Berkeley should be pressed to dismiss Dr Chapela if he failed to give in to demands that he hand over his maize samples for independent scrutiny.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=153
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1691

Another Monsanto PR attack posted on AgBioView was aimed at Greenpeace UK and its then head, Peter Melchett. When this AgBioView material ended up being published in a Scottish newspaper under the name of Prof Trewavas, it resulted in a successful libel action.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=153

Andrew Apel's personal contributions to AgBioView have also been highly controversial. Following September 11th, for instance, he made an extraordinary attack on two GM critical scientists: "Vandana Shiva has blood on her hands, so does Mae-Wan Ho. So do others of their ilk."
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2001/Sep/msg00154.html

A few months later Apel sought to link GM Watch founder, Jonathan Matthews, to terrorism, claiming, "He takes money from Greenpeace and has been associated with at least one terrorist group."
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2002/May/msg00245.html
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=49&page=1

Shane Morris and his supporters have also repeatedly attacked Matthews and GM Watch, as well as Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland, in highly personal terms, accusing them, for example, of "FAKE information and Lies!!!". And while Apel seems to regard GM Watch as "Irish activists", Morris has even sought to link GM Watch to the colonial suppression of Ireland!
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6330

Morris and his co-author Doug Powell appear to have a history of aggressive attacks. After a press piece about the Royal Society of Canada's expert report on GM, an editorial in a Canadian farming paper accused them of "offensive" propaganda marked by "irrational views" and "virulent attacks on respected scientists." (Rude Science, John W. Morris, The Manitoba Co-operator, June 21 2001)

According to Apel's article, however, it is the "activists" who engage in aggressive propaganda and libel.

----------

For more on the research at the centre of the row: http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

See our story "Canada attacks Ireland's GM policy" at www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/.

27 August 2007

USA: Monday morning corn comment

The Linn Group Inc., 27 August 2007.

[Extract:]

Exports remain very strong and many cash traders are saying that European buyers are chasing every type of non-GMO feed grain, which will make US corn more in demand from new sources.

Read the article: http://www.etvfutures.com/futures/Text/ShowStory.jsp?id=12792

France: GMOs: let us finally make room for a democratic and calmed-down debate

Le Figaro, 27 August 2007. Commentary by Agriculture and Fisheries Minister Michel Barnier:

Recent events have thrown a tragic light on the debate over genetically modified organisms [GMOs]. Nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies the death of a sincere man who respected the law. This tragedy proves once again how difficult, necessary, and awaited this debate is. It will take place - the president of the republic has committed himself to it - but it will take place only in an atmosphere of serenity, dignity, and respect for the principles of the rule of law. Because it concerns our future and our vital functions - feeding ourselves, looking after our health - and because it raises questions and disquiet on the part of our compatriots the debate is a legitimate one and must be held without taboos and in total transparency. Ý

The national debate on the environment in the fall offers a real opportunity to discuss and compare points of view with a view to all the participants listening to one another. That is why within the course of this major debate I will be particularly following the question of GMOs. Ý

What, then, is the reality of GMOs? They form part of a long history of innovation and modernization of agriculture in order to respond to our demand for food. The domestication of soft wheat even goes back more than 9,000 years! GMOs are one of the extensions of that history. Ý

You have actually to distinguish two realities in this area: scientific research on the one hand, marketing on the other. Both exist in France. Ý

We have authorized research on GMOs because we have to know specifically whether our knowledge of genes and the living world enables us to improve the properties of the plants which we need. GMOs hold out great promise, whether it be greater resistance to parasites or drought permitting better yields, or progress in nutritional matters. Moreover, GMOs have industrial applications: a poplar containing less lignin reduces the pulp and paper industry's water pollution. GMOs could then make it possible to reconcile the increasing needs for agricultural products with environmental demands. Lastly, let us not neglect the medical stakes involved, with the prospect of new therapies for diseases like cystic fibrosis. Ý

For marketing, only MON810 maize has been grown in France since 1998. Our country has in all 20,000 hectares cultivated, that is to say, 0.75 per cent of the total surface area under maize. That is not a lot. In the world more than 100 million hectares of GMOs are cultivated by 24 countries, including five in Europe, out of a total of 100,000 hectares [as published]. Our continent is then still at the beginnings in this area! Because GMOs in France, as in Europe, are extremely controlled and regulated on account of the precautionary principle, to which I am personally very attached: I was the first in France to introduce it into law, in February 1995. In fact, all licenses for a GMO trial to be set up or for placing it on the market are issued only after an evaluation of the potential risks to the environment and health. Surveillance is exercised over the crops by the Ministry of Agriculture's departments and by the license-holders, particularly over the risks of accidental dispersal. Lastly, to guarantee transparency, the European Union requires that member states inform the public, particularly by appropriate labelling of GMO products or those containing them. Ý

Within the European framework the states can invoke safeguard clauses enabling them to ban or limit the cultivation or placing on the market of a product, albeit authorized by the community bodies. France has activated these clauses on transgenic colzas [i.e. oilseed rape] insofar as the licence issued did not contain sufficient precautions. Ý

Moreover, we have set up supervision of the scientific trials according to a very strict procedure which includes several visits to each plot of land, town hall briefings, and public consultations. For all the crops we have imposed a declaration of the plots of land which has made it possible to draw up a register which can be consulted by absolutely everyone on the interministerial site. Lastly, checking for the accidental presence of GMOs was established in 2004 by the departments of the General Directorate for Competition, Consumption, and Prevention of Fraud in order to avoid the importing of nonauthorized GMOs into France. All these measures mean that we know precisely where GMOs are being grown and can sanction operators who illegally import GMOs. That is what is meant by traceability. And rarely will a technological innovation have been so tightly supervised. Ý

These precautions having been taken, it is imperative and a matter of priority that research should continue. Otherwise, the United States and China will dominate world agriculture and future research and development, placing us in a situation of dependency. Ý

Europe, independent and self-sufficient thanks to the Common Agricultural Policy, cannot afford, 50 years on, to put the process into reverse. Ý

The national conference on the environment will be a high point of debate and democracy regarding these issues and will, I am sure, enable us to provide answers to the legitimate questions of everyone in an atmosphere of serenity and respect for the rules. That is our whole ambition for our agriculture.

France: Police tear-gas farmers in clash over French GM crops

The Independent (UK), 27 August 2007. By John Lichfield in Paris

Growing tensions in France between opponents and supporters of genetically modified crops have led to violent confrontations.

Gendarmes used tear gas and batons to prevent pro-GM farmers from invading a picnic for militant opponents of genetically modified maize at the town of Verdun-sur-Garonne in south-west France over the weekend.

Hardly a day has gone by this summer without opponents of GM maize - both environmental campaigners and small farmers - invading fields and trampling or cutting down crops. The protesters, led by the small farmers' leader, José Bové, claim a citizens' right to destroy crops which, they say, threaten ecological calamity and the subjection of farmers to the whims of agro-industrial, multinational companies.

Tempers have risen to boiling point since the suicide earlier this month of a farmer in the Lot département who had agreed to plant a small section of GM maize. He took his life a few days after he had been warned that anti-GM protesters planned to hold a picnic on his fields.

The largest French farmers' federation, the FNSEA, called for Saturday's demonstration to protest against attacks on crops and alleged government inaction. Gendarmes used tear gas to prevent the farmers from crossing a bridge to the site of the anti-GM picnic, which was addressed by the extravagantly moustachioed M. Bové.

"If Bové keeps on cutting down our crops, we're going to shave his moustache," said one protester.

Michel Masson, head of the FNSEA in the central area of France, said: "There has already been one death and I can tell you that many farmers, rather than hang themselves from a tree, are now ready to take their rifles off the wall."

The confrontation is partly between town and country. It is also a confrontation between two different approaches to agriculture. The FNSEA supports a "scientific" and highly productive approach to agriculture. M. Bové and his supporters argue for a traditional, small-scale approach.

Successive governments have shied away from legislating clearly on GM crops. Most types are banned but farmers have been allowed to plant, experimentally, a variety of maize called MON810, developed by the US company, Monsanto, which is said to be immune to insect attack.

Thailand: NGOs protest against GMO crops

Bangkok Post, 27 August 2007.

Nine tonnes of papaya were dumped at the gates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives on the capital's stately Rajdamnoen Avenue Monday in protest of the ministry's plan to promote fruit allegedly grown as genetically modified organisms (GMO).

Led by Nutthawipa Iwsakun, a Greenpeace Southeast Asia coordinator, a group of NGO demonstrators and other activists unloaded the papaya from trucks at the ministry's gates and called on Agriculture Minister Thira Sutabutr to stop pushing for a cabinet waiver on a nationwide ban on GMO farming.

The agriculture minister reportedly planned to seek a waiver of the ban on genetically-modified fruit in a cabinet meeting Tuesday.

Ms. Nutthawipa charged the ministry's promotion of GMO papaya was merely aimed to help a few firms at the cost of the country's fruit exports, because world markets will not accept GMO products.

Though the Agriculture Ministry had destroyed genetically-modified papaya trees at a demonstrative farm in Khon Kaen, others have been grown in Kalasin, Maha Sarakham, Chaiyaphum, Kamphaengphet and Rayong provinces while papaya seed from the GMO demonstration farm in Khon Kaen had been distributed to more than 2,600 farmers in 37 provinces, the activist said.

Greenpeace Southeast Asia earlier litigated at the Administrative Court against the Agriculture Department for failing to keep papaya a GMO-free fruit.

Meanwhile, Deputy Commerce Minister Oranuch Osathanonda said she disagreed with the government plans to promote genetically-modified papaya farming because importing countries would cut back their orders for fruit and other farm products from Thailand.

Mrs. Oranuch commented that experimental GMO projects should be terminated, because, she said, their output might otherwise be leaked to farmers.

Rice Exporters Association chief Chukiat Ophatwong urged the government to call off all research and development projects on any GMO product because it would impact rice and other farm commodities bound for world export markets. (TNA)

Ireland: GM foods are demonised by the media without any real evidence

Irish Medical News, 27 August 2007.
Letter to the Editor from Prof. Vivian Moses
Chairman, CropGen

Dr Elizabeth Cullen (IMN 9/7/07) should take more heed of the quality of the reports she favours.

Her "good news" - that "female rats fed genetically modified soya produced excessive numbers of severely stunted pups with over half the litter dying within three weeks, and the surviving pups being sterile" -is, alas, no news at all.

The accepted way of assessing evidence lies through peer review in which reputable and experienced scientists anonymously scrutinise incoming manuscripts. Most reports purporting to show deleterious consequences of GM foods are not peer reviewed.

It is obvious why: they would not have passed.

There have been three or four major attempts to show that GM foods have undesirable health effects. The first, mooted on UK television in 1998 and eventually published against the advice of reviewers, was an incomplete and later wholly discredited claim that rat intestinal disorders were caused specifically by biotech potatoes.

Some time later came an assertion at a Manila news conference that Philippine farmers living near GM-maize plantations had contracted a mystery illness caused by those very crops. No supporting evidence has ever appeared; the local medical authorities diagnosed influenza.

A couple of years ago, a paper from Russia claimed effects in rats fed GM-soya. The paper, substantially devoid of detail, was delivered at a conference and then appeared without peer review on an activist website. That is hardly surprising as the quality of those experiments was, in my opinion, so poor, and the statistics so dubious, that no credence could or can be given to the conclusions.

Most recently we had a "reevaluation" of GM-maize MON 863, already approved for cultivation in North America and for import into a number of major countries and regions, including the EU; part of the approval process was scrutiny by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

The new re-evaluation suffered once more from severe statistical shortcomings and its condusions have been specifically dismissed by EFSAfor that reason.

We must not forget that approved GM foods have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people for more than a decade without a single confirmed adverse health effect. At the same time GM fodder has been and is being fed to millions of animals worldwide, again with no problems.

Dr Cullen's arguments on the difficulties of establishing food safety notwithstanding it was kind of her to quote from the report Mike Brannan and I assembled in 2001 (readers might like to see it for themselves at http//^AA/wv.cropgeRorg/GM_Bio safety.pdf, pages 19-20).

That report was written in 2001, what we said then about food safety has been amply confirmed by more years of experience.

She goes on to make further unsupported allegations: supposed uncharacterised damage from genetic recombination but not a word about unknown and untested for genetic effects from conventional crossings or from mutation breeding; and"... a GM food supplement which almost certainly resulted in the deaths of almost 100 people, and illness in thousands."

Really? Peer-reviewed evidence, please, that it was the fact of producing tryptophan in a GM bacterium rather than a processing failure that was the problem. Would a doctor withhold GM- insulin and growth hormone from his or her patients on similar doctrinaire grounds?

She seems unaware that the lowered content of fumonisins in Bt-maize in particular comes about because of better insect control and hence less fungal infection.

Nor does she appear to recognise that more than 10 million farmers across the world have taken to GM crops, their numbers increasing by 10 to 20 per cent annually.

Dr Cullen may like to know that the view from my "London office" is fortunately not unpleasant Though it may not compare with parts of the Kildare countryside, she is welcome to come and judge for herself. I too, have a school within view and earshot - 150 yards away at a guess.

What have either to do with food safety?

Profile of Vivian Moses published by GM Watch:

[Extracts: (for complete profile with hyperlinks, see http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=91&page=M)]

Prof. Vivian Moses has worked tirelessly to promote GM crops and food in the UK, most notably through his role as Chairman of the panel of scientists of CropGen, the biotech-industry funded lobby group. He is also on the advisory panel of Sense About Science, as well as being a Scientific Advisory Forum member of the Scientific Alliance...

Several of Moses' publications display considerably more candor about the essential purpose of biotechnology. This is perhaps evident even from their titles, which include From Cells to Sales, Entrepreneurial professors, Exploiting biotechnology and Biotechnology: the science and the business, which he edited with Ronald Cape.

In their introductory chapter, Moses and Cape describe many definitions of biotechnology as unrealistic and 'rather noble in character, expressing lofty aspirations' while failing to convey that 'biotechnology is not some academic activity, a kind of consequence of innovative laboratory experimentation or a kind of social crusade, but is itself an intensely industrial and commercial matter'. Moses and Cape add, 'Perhaps if pushed, we might describe biotechnology as making money with biology..' (p.1; emphasis in original). Biotechnology, they emphasise, 'is about selling'. (p.2)

In another of his books, 'Exploiting Biotechnology', Moses describes biotechnology similarly, as 'fundamentally about making money with biology'. Alternative definitions are described as both 'elaborate' and 'a bit woolly'.

He is equally frank in Exploiting Biotechnology about the extraordinary extent of the commercialisation of biology: 'By the end of the1970s a number of commercial companies were already working directly to generate saleable products based on the new knowledge'. Their corporate laboratories, Moses tells us, 'were almost indistinguishable from the best in the universities... And the scientists, too, were indistinguishable, hardly surprising as most had joined from university laboratories and many who remained professors accepted part-time consultancies with the companies.' (p.2) At no point does Moses appear to consider that this situation may in any way be problematic.

_______________________

26 August 2007

USA: Banned strain of alfalfa planted in 43 Michigan counties

The Associated Press, 26 August 2007.

BAY CITY, Mich. (AP) ó A genetically engineered strain of alfalfa that was banned nationwide until the government can adequately study the crop's potential impact already has been planted in 43 Michigan counties.

In May, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer in California made permanent a temporary ban he ordered in March on alfalfa with genetic material from bacteria that makes the crop resistant to the popular weed killer Roundup.

Breyer said the U.S. Department of Agriculture must conduct a detailed scientific study of Roundup Ready alfalfa's effect on the environment and other alfalfa varieties before deciding whether to approve it.

The USDA recently released a list of counties in which the alfalfa is grown that includes the Michigan counties, The Bay City Times reported.

The Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C., had sued on behalf of farmers who argued that the genetically engineered seed could contaminate organic and conventional alfalfa varieties.

"There's a lot of farmers who don't want to use genetically engineered alfalfa for a variety of reasons," said Joseph Mendelson, the center's legal director. "When their fields essentially get polluted with this crop, it can have negative effects on them in the market."

Dean Kirkpatrick, a dairy farmer in Kinde, grows 150 acres of traditional alfalfa. He scoffs at worries about the Roundup Ready variety.

"I believe a lot of this stuff is blown way out of proportion," Kirkpatrick said. "The same story went around when it came to Roundup Ready corn and then ... soybeans. Every time we come around with a new technology, somebody is going to make a fuss about it."

Nationwide, about 220,000 acres of genetically engineered alfalfa were planted this year before the judge's ban went into effect. The judge ordered those farmers to ensure their crops do not contaminate adjacent fields of alfalfa.

About 2,000 acres of the seed were planted in Michigan last year, according to the Michigan Farm Bureau.

Portugal: GM controversy explodes in the Algarve
Movimento Verde Eufemia mows first GM Field in South Portugal

Verde Eufemia, 26 August 2007.

On the 17th of August the Movimento Verde Eufemia went into action of civil disobedience, targeting the first transgenic field in the Algarve GMO Free Zone in South Portugal. 65 mowers entered the field and were able to mow a hectare of GM corn in less than 20 minutes. The action received support from a parade of an extra 60 people.

Political background

This year the first GMO field ever has been planted in the Algarve Region in Portugal. Already years before the planting of his GM corn there has been strong opposition from civil society against the cultivation of GMOs in the Algarve. This includes social and environmental organisations, farmers and a public opinion (which) is in general against the cultivation and consumption of GM crops. Also from the political field opposition was made. As a result the Algarve was the first GMO free zone in Portugal declared by the Junta Metropolitana do Algarve already in 2004. On the level of the municipalities over time motions have been passed rejecting the cultivation of GM crops on their territory.

Despite the strong opposition within layers of civil society and from local authorities against GMOs, the policies of the Portuguese Government and the European Commission constantly disrespect the moral and democratic right of those opposing actors to ban GMOs from their fields and their plates.

Movimento Verde Eufemia

For reasons described in the previous paragraph, an informal group of peasants, ecologists and concerned citizens have gathered to take direct action with the aim to re-establish the democratic, moral and ecological order. The movement that we are now starting will go under the name Movimento Verde Eufemia, in homage to the peasant struggle against the former portuguese fascist regime.

The struggle of Caterina Eufemia and the peasant movement of which she was part aimed at defending the rights and the well-being of peasant communities. Our movement will continue this struggle in the context of new appearing threats, namely the agro-biotechnology sector and their powerful lobby.

The action

The direct action involved 65 mowers, destroying 1 hectare of the 50 hectare GM corn field in less than 20 minutes around midday. The activists took the well considered risk to announce the action beforehand in the media. This was done for reasons of receiving the highest media coverage for the largest direct action since the post revolutionary period in Portugal. However, the activists were aware of risks of compromise that this decision would bring along.

After 10 minutes, the owner and his colleagues noticed the action. About 8 farmers attacked the group of mowers using physical violence. The mowers took a defensive stand by using their higher number but did not use violence in return. One farmer fired shots from an alarm pistol and the activists were threatened with poison sprayers. One police patrol arrived shortly after. All mowers aborted the action after 20 minutes and moved on the public road to mix up in the parade. The 10 police officers that were in the area could not do anything else but regulating the traffic for the parade then counting more than 120 people, moving towards the nearest village of Poco Barreto. 3 identifications were made by the police, this involved the police speakers and the media spokesperson. The whole group was picked up by busses and the action ended in all order.

Knowing that the activist were hitting the property of a farmer, even though it was a big one they announced that they would provide compensation for the damage inflicted. In the end the activists intended no harm towards the farmer himself who for one or another reason choose to cultivate GM crops. The activists proposed that they would provide the farmer with organic seeds for the surface (50 hectares) which is currently being planted with GM corn.

The aftermath

Now, five days after the action, the name Movimento Verde Eufemia is still frontpage news. All television stations and radio stations give continuous updates on the case. Major political party leaders are now involved in the debate. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Internal Administration are main actors in the debate while the President has commented on the issue as well on television.

The discourse from the Minister of Agriculture is one that mainly evolves around statements confirming support towards the farmer in the legal prosecution of the activists and pointing out that the activists hit a 'poor farmer' and they should be punished for trespassing and destruction of private property. An estimation from the Ministry after the minister visited the field under huge media attention, he came to the conclusion that the damage counts up to around 4000 euros. However the Order of Lawyers issued a press release yesterday stating that that delivery of legal financial support to from the ministry would be an illegal act as it would mean governmental interference in a civil court case. As a reply to that the ministry back off stating that "obviously" they meant to support the farmer win the paper work and in the development of his legal discourse in the court. Next to that, the minister of agriculture takes a completely outbalanced pro-GMO position, saying that: "There is no problem, this is scientifically proven". This can be considered as a complete invalid statement since the scientific world is at least very divided on the matter of GMOs.

The discourse of the Ministry of Internal Adminstration, being the head of police, develops mainly around the goal to criminalize Movimento Verde Eufemia and its last action. On one of the main television stations in a news studio interview he labelled the action as "soft" eco terrorism. The discourse of the minister receives additionally a lot of support from the President.

However it is not all bad news. Now that the media have almost exhausted all variations on head titles stretching over two pages, they also start to go more in detail, covering the different opinions and position on GMOs and explain for example the status of GMO Free Zones. Through their press releases, MVE has invited all associations in Portugal to use the media space created to voice their arguments against GMOs. In a reaction to that, some main actors in the GMO debate, who initially distanced themselves from the action, and still do, they have now taken up the opportunity to voice their concerns on GMOs. For that reason and other reactions that the action has provoked from the political field the MVE has expressed their content seeing that their action has resulted in an opening of the debate on GMOs.

Investigation

Now, for the activists involved in the action it is clear that they should be very careful in their current steps. The minister of Internal Administration himself is, as announced in the media, involved in the coordination of the investigation carried out by the Information and Security Service (SIS) and the Police Justice Department (PJ). Their aim is to uncover the networks of activists that were involved in the action in order to run legal prosecution.

Know more

MVE has currently a blog where you can follow up on the development of the case. The link is http://eufemia.ecobytes.net.

25 August 2007

Qatar: Boycott of firms dealing in 'tainted' goods urged

Gulf Times (Qatar), 25 August 2007.

PROMINENT scholar Ali Mohyeedin al-Qurradaghi has called upon dealers and consumers to boycott companies trading in tainted commodities and genetically modified foodstuff, saying that cheating in these goods is a "crime against humanity" that should be strictly dealt with.

Al-Qurradaghi, a professor of Shariah at Qatar University, has also called for a stricter law and monitoring of the local market to deter companies dealing in foodstuff or commodities that can constitute a threat to health.

He also blamed the rise in cancer cases around the world on what he called "commercial cheating", saying that those involved in such cheating should be punished as stated in the Holy Qur'an. "According to the Holy Qur'an, cheats who aim to ruin the health of others by their harmful practices should be put to death in public," he said in a Friday sermon at a Doha mosque.

"Today's vegetables are not like vegetables of the past. They contain substances which are harmful to health and can cause serious diseases," he said.

He also called for taking a cue from the US and Europe where dealers are required to put labels on foodstuff showing whether they contain genetically modified ingredients. "I have visited the American markets and noticed that naturally produced vegetables and genetically modified ones are kept in separate places," he said.

The scholar also called on consumers to act as inspectors when shopping. Instances of such commodities being sold should be reported to the authorities, he said.

He also referred to reports in the local and international media about cases of foodstuff and other commodities like toys which proved to be harmful to health.

"I have read that some 332 types of foodstuff were confiscated from the Kuwaiti market for being unfit for human consumption," he said. The phenomenon had spread to the drug industry, he added.

He also accused Chinese producers of applying specific techniques to manufacture "low quality goods and medications". "China and some other Asian countries are applying some Western technologies to cheat," he said.

Ireland: Why our European neighbours are saying no to GM feeds

The Irish Farmers Journal, 25 August 2007 (published 23 August).

Letter to the Editor from Cornelius Traas
Chairman,
Apple Growers Committee
Irish Farmers Association

Dear Sir,

Over the past few weeks, I note that there is much negative comment in the Farmers Journal on the potential implications of a restriction on the availability of GM feeds, for livestock producers especially.

While I don't know how accurate these reports may be, I do feel that it may be worth pointing out to readers why the eventual consumers of these products in Europe, who after all are our customers, do not want to purchase GM foods or increasingly, livestock fed on foods containing GM ingredients.

While a complete list of the concerns of consumers would be too long for a letter, or even for a substantial article, I would appreci- ate the space to give five examples of what has very many consumers concerned, and in my own opinion, rightly so.

If I may first point out what a GM plant is. It is a plant whose DNA (Genetic information) has been altered, normally by the addition of a gene or genes that originate in another plant, or that originate in animals or bacteria, or genes that are 'made' in the laboratory.

Obviously, it is a fact that GM plants created using genes from animals or bacteria (or genes made in a laboratory) could not be created by conventional plant breeders or nature, so this breeding technology is not like anything that has been used heretofore.

The first example of a concern with GM plants is the presence of antibiotic resistance marker genes (Arms) in the cells of some GM plants. The presence of these genes in plants means that the crop contains genes that code for resistance to antibiotics.

Risk factor

The risk for humans or animals is that the bacteria, naturally present in our guts, could incorporate this DNA into their own DNA, creating bacteria in our guts that are anti- biotic-resistant. That such incorporation of foreign genes is possible was demonstrated by a study conducted by the British Food Stan- dards Agency, where 19 volunteers were fed a single meal of a burger and shake containing GM soya.

Seven of the volunteers had incomplete digestive tracts, and in three of these, it was found that bacteria in their guts had taken up genes from the soya.

The implication of this is that any gene in any GM food could be taken up by any bacteria (good or bad) in the gut of a human (or plausibly a farm animal), and, if that gene is advantageous to the bacteria, then that bacteria will replace others that are present. The implications of this are, as of yet, unknown, but could quite conceivably be very negative. The second example is to do with allergens.

In one case, soybeans were modified by the addition of a protein from Brazil nut, which resulted in the soya containing extra methionine (a desirable trait). However, the modified soybean produced immunological reactions in people usually allergic to Brazil nut. (The trial was stopped and the soybeans destroyed). Another example like this occurred when a pasture-crop field pea was developed, by taking genes from the closely related bean.

Not expected

The result was not as expected however, as the peas containing the gene caused an allergic reaction in mice, even though the beans, in which the gene was naturally present, did not. Now, neither of these two examples led to any problems, as the crops were never released.

However, they highlight a problem, identified by the immunologist who tested the pea who noted that the episode illustrated the need for each new GM food to be carefully evaluated for potential health effects.

While this might seem like a logical thing to do, under the current regulatory framework due to the concept of substantial equivalence there is no legal obligation for such evaluations. This leads to the third reason for consumer concern, and that is this very concept of substantial equivalence. Basically this concept says that genetically modified plants do not need to be tested for safety before they are released, as they are considered substantially equivalent (more or less the same as) plants, produced by conventional breeding.

Thinker, Faker, Spinner, Spy

Thinker, Faker, Spinner, Spy: Corporate PR and the Assault on Democracy
Edited by William Dinan and David Miller
Pluto Press, 2007 (Available at http://www.spinwatch.org)

Book review by Claire Robinson

The premise of Miller and Dinan's book, laid out in the Introduction, is that PR was created to "take the risk" out of democracy. They point out that PR is overwhelmingly carried out for vested interests, mostly corporations, and that it is not open and transparent about its means or its clients. In its drive to persuade the people that the corporate interest is identical with the public interest, it relies on misinformation, lies, and dirty tricks. One common tactic is the "third-party" technique, in which seemingly independent people or organizations are used to spread a corporate message. The third parties do not disclose their funding or affiliations, and much of the public (and, I'd add, much of the media) has a "blind spot" that prevents them from looking behind the mouthpiece to the source.

Miller and Dinan hope that their book will shine a light into some of the dark corners of covert corporate influence. To that end, it brings together 16 chapters by different writers and activists describing some of the ways in which corporations have deceptively used PR and spin to subvert democracy and work against the public interest. Some of these are summarized below:

•

Eveline Lubbers describes how arms company British Aerospace paid spies to infiltrate the NGO Campaign Against the Arms Trade when CAAT was opposing the company's plan to sell jets to Indonesia. CAAT had argued that the Indonesian government would use the jets to crush resistance in East Timor. The infiltrator tried to manipulate CAAT in the direction of more violent protests, a tactic which fortunately did not succeed because of the Quaker pacifist origins of the group. The private company that did the spying boasted back in 1996 that they had a database of 148,900 "known names" of CND members, trade unionists, activists and environmentalists.

•

David Miller tells the story of how industry interests, with their friends in government, twisted and tried to discredit research casting doubt on the food safety of farmed Scottish salmon. The research found that the salmon contained dangerously high levels of toxic PCBs, but the message that reached the public after the corporate spin doctors had done their job was that the salmon was perfectly safe to eat.

•

In his chapter, "Biotech's Fake Persuaders", GM Watch's Jonathan Matthews show how corporate interests are using the poor and disenfranchised as fronts to push the pro-GMO message.

•

Andy Rowell recounts how oil company Exxon paid lobby groups, think-tanks and front organizations (which did not disclose their corporate affiliations and funding) to cast doubt on manmade climate change, thus disrupting the formation of coherent government policy to combat it. Several of these organizations, including the Institute of Economic Affairs and the International Policy Network, will be familiar to GM Watch subscribers as also having promoted GMOs.

•

Olivier Hoedeman tells how Brussels is packed with over 15,000 corporate lobbyists who influence and even write EU policy on matters that affect us all, but who do not have to disclose details of their funding or activities.

•

William Clark gives his account of how from the mid-1980s, the US led a concerted campaign to promote a pro-US, pro-corporate orientation among policy makers in Britain. The campaign involved the setting up of supposedly independent think-tanks that co-opted the principles and rhetoric of the political Left for US and corporate interests. These think-tanks pushed neoconservative free market policies into the traditionally socialist Labour Party. They did an effective job in filleting out Labour's old Left sympathies, to such an extent that before the 1997 election, British voters were treated to the sight of "New Labour" leading lights reassuring the CEOs of major corporations that a Labour government would not rock the boat for big business. The right-wing co-option of Labour created a situation in which British voters have a false choice between one lot of neocons or the other lot of neocons (my conclusion, not Clark's).

Despite such fascinating material, Miller and Dinan's book is a bit of a curate's egg, good in parts but... In some places, for instance, it seems that both the books' sociologist editors and the publisher's in-house editors could have worked harder to bring clarity to over-complex passages. Also, while some of the articles are impeccably referenced (stand up, Miller, Matthews and Rowell), there are some serious omissions which the editors should have picked up on. A case in point is Clark's assertion that Shell is "a major Demos funder". This is sufficiently controversial to deserve a reference.

I also found that one or two of the chapters raised more questions than they seemed to answer. In Lubbers' chapter, for instance, we're told that even after the man who infiltrated CAAT had been exposed as a paid spy, he was still able to go on working for the Disarm DSEi campaign. There's an obvious question here, but seemingly, it wasn't asked. This chapter also left me wanting more information and advice from the spied-upon NGOs themselves. Presumably, they learned bitter lessons from the experience, but we are not told what they are. This would be useful to know since, as Lubbers notes, an all-too-common response to the possibility of infiltration is paralysis.

These are, however, relatively minor cavils given the scope and depth of the investigations carried out by the writers of this book. Without their painstaking research, much of what is detailed here would have remained, as it was always intended to be, hidden from public view.

Miller and Dinan conclude their book by calling for an end to privileged access to government by corporate interests. To this end, they want legislation enforcing transparency for lobby groups of all persuasions. Corporations would have to declare which think-tanks, institutes, and front groups they fund. "Third-party" lobbying would be made illegal. Exposing the truth about corporate spin and deception, point out Miller and Dinan, will roll back corporate power and lead to democratic renewal.

Claire Robinson is an editor at GM Watch - wwww.gmwatch.org

The Fake Parade

by Jonathan Matthews, Founder of GM Watch and Corporate Watch. http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.php?id=254

Excerpted from the biotech chapter of the book
Thinker, Faker, Spinner, Spy: Corporate PR and the Assault on Democracy
Edited by William Dinan and David Miller
Pluto Press, 2007 (Available at http://www.spinwatch.org)

"Carrying his placard the man in front of me was clearly one of the poorest of the poor. His shoes were not only threadbare, they were tattered, merely rags barely being held together."

So begins a graphic description of a demonstration that took place at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg. The protesters were "mainly poor, virtually all black, and mostly women... street traders and farmers" with an unpalatable message. As an article in a South African periodical put it, "Surely this must have been the environmentalists' worst nightmare. Real poor people marching in the streets and demanding development while opposing the eco-agenda of the Green Left."

And seldom can the views of the poor, in this case a few hundred demonstrators, have been paid so much attention. Articles highlighting the Johannesburg march popped up the world over, in Africa, North America, India, Australia and Israel. In Britain even The Times ran a commentary, under the heading, "I do not need white NGOs to speak for me".

With the summit's passing, the Johannesburg march, far from fading from view, has taken on a still deeper significance. In the November issue of the journal Nature Biotechnology, Val Giddings, a Vice President of the Biotech Industry Organization (BIO), argues that the event marked "something new, something very big" that will make us "look back on Johannesburg as something of a watershed event--a turning point." What made the march so pivotal, he said, was that for the very first time, "real, live, developing-world farmers" were "speaking for themselves" and challenging the "empty arguments of the self-appointed individuals who have professed to speak on their behalf."

To help give them a voice, Giddings singles out the statement of one of the marchers, Chengal Reddy, leader of the Indian Farmers Federation. "Traditional organic farming...," Reddy says, "led to mass starvation in India for centuries... Indian farmers need access to new technologies and especially to biotechnologies."

Giddings also notes that the farmers expressed their contempt for the "empty arguments" of many of the Earth Summiteers by honoring them with a "Bullshit Award" made from two varnished piles of cow dung. The award was given, in particular, to the Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva, for her role in "advancing policies that perpetuate poverty and hunger"

A powerful rebuke, no doubt. But if anyone deserves the cow dung, it is the President of BIO, for almost every element of the spectacle he describes has been carefully contrived and orchestrated. Take, for instance, Chengal Reddy, the "farmer" that Giddings quotes. Reddy is not a poor farmer, nor even the representative of poor farmers. Indeed, there is precious little to suggest he is even well-disposed towards the poor. The "Indian Farmers Federation" that he leads is a lobby of big commercial farmers in Andhra Pradesh. On occasion Reddy has admitted to knowing very little about farming, having never farmed in his life. He is, in reality, a politician and businessman whose family are a prominent right-wing political force in Andhra Pradesh--his father having coined the saying, "There is only one thing Dalits (members of the untouchable caste) are good for, and that is being kicked".

If it seems open to doubt that Reddy was in Johannesburg to help the poor speak for themselves, the identity of the march's organizers is also not a source of confidence. Although the Times' headline said "I do not need white NGOs to speak for me", the media contact on the organizers' press release was "Kendra Okonski", the daughter of a US lumber industrialist who has worked for various right wing anti-regulatory NGOs--all funded and directed, needless to say, by "whites". These include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based "think tank" whose multi-million dollar budget comes from major US corporations, among them BIO member Dow Chemicals. Okonski also runs the website Counterprotest.net, where her specialty is helping right wing lobbyists take to the streets in mimicry of popular protesters.

Given this, it hardly needs saying that Giddings' "Bullshit Award" was far from, as he suggests, the imaginative riposte of impoverished farmers to India's most celebrated environmentalist. It was, in fact, the creation of another right-wing pressure group--the Liberty Institute--based in New Delhi and well known for its fervent support of deregulation, GM crops and Big Tobacco.

The Liberty Institute is part of the same network that organized the rally: the deceptively-named "Sustainable Development Network." In London, the SDN shares offices, along with many of its key personnel--including Okonski--with the International Policy Network, a group whose Washington address just happens to be that of the CEI. The SDN is run by Julian Morris, its ubiquitous director, who also claims the title of Environment and Technology Programme Director for the Institute of Economic Affairs, a think tank that has advocated, amongst other interesting ideas, that African countries be sold off to multinational corporations in the interests of "good government".

The involvement of the likes of Morris, Okonski and Reddy doesn't mean, of course, that no "real poor people," were involved in the Johannesburg march. There were indeed poor people there. James MacKinnon, who reported on the summit for the North American magazine Adbusters, witnessed the march first hand and told of seeing many impoverished street traders, who seemed genuinely aggrieved with the authorities for denying them their usual trading places in the streets around the summit. The flier distributed by the march organizers to recruit these people played on this grievance, and presented the march as a chance to demand, "Freedom to trade". The flier made no mention of "biotechnology" or "development", nor any other issue on the "eco-agenda of the Green Left".

For all that, there were some real farmers present as well. Mackinnon says he spotted some wearing anti-environmentalist t-shirts, with slogans like "Stop Global Whining." This aroused his curiousity, since small-scale African farmers are not normally to be found among those jeering the "bogus science" of climate change. Yet here they were, with slogans on placards and T-shirts: "Save the Planet from Sustainable Development", "Say No To Eco-Imperialism", "Greens: Stop Hurting the Poor" and "Biotechnology for Africa". On approaching the protesters, however, Mackinnon discovered that all of the props had been made available to the marchers by the organizers. When he tried to converse with some of the farmers about their pro-GM T-shirts, "They smiled shyly; none of them could speak or read English."

Another irresistible question is how impoverished farmers--according to Giddings, there were farmers on the march from five different countries--afforded the journey to Johannesburg from lands as far away as the Philippines and India. Here, too, there is reason for suspicion. In late 1999 the New York Times reported that a street protest against genetic engineering outside an FDA public hearing in Washington DC was disrupted by a group of African-Americans carrying placards such as "Biotech saves children's lives" and "Biotech equals jobs." The Times learned that Monsanto's PR company, Burston-Marsteller, had paid a Baptist Church from a poor neighborhood to bus in these "demonstrators" as part of a wider campaign "to get groups of church members, union workers and the elderly to speak in favor of genetically engineered foods."

The industry's fingerprints are all over Johannesburg as well. Chengal Reddy, the "farmer" that the President of BIO singled out as an example of farmers from the poorer world "speaking for themselves", has for at least a decade featured prominently in Monsanto's promotional work in India. Other groups represented on the march, including AfricaBio, have also been closely aligned with Monsanto's lobbying for its products. Reddy is known to have been brought to Johannesburg by AfricaBio.

And here lies the real key to the President of BIO's account of the march, and specifically to the attack on Vandana Shiva. Monsanto and BIO want to project an image of GM crop acceptance with a Southern face. That's why Monsanto's Internet homepage used to be adorned with the faces of smiling Asian children. So when an Indian critic of the biotech industry gets featured, as Shiva was recently, on the cover of Time magazine as an environmental hero, the brand is under attack, and has to be protected.

The counterattack takes place via a contrarian lens, one that projects the attackers' vices onto their target. Thus the problem becomes not Monsanto using questionable tactics to push its products onto a wary South, but malevolent agents of the rich world obstructing Monsanto's acceptance in a welcoming Third World. For this reason the press release for the "Bullshit Award" accuses Shiva, amongst other things, of being "a mouthpiece of western eco-imperialism". The media contact for this symbolic rejection of neocolonialism? The American, Kendra Okonski. The mouthpiece denouncing an Indian environmentalist as an agent of the West is a...Western mouthpiece.

The careful framing of the messages and the actors in the rally in Johannesburg provides but one particularly gaudy spectacle in a continuing fake parade. In particular, the Internet provides a perfect medium for such showcases, where the gap between the virtual and the real is easily erased.

Take the South-facing website Foodsecurity.net, which promotes itself as "the web's most complete source of news and information about global food security concerns and sustainable agricultural practices". Foodsecurity.net claims to be "an independent, non-profit coalition of people throughout the world". Despite its global reach, however, Foodsecurity.net's only named staff member is its "African Director", Dr. Michael Mbwille, a Tanzanian doctor who's forever penning articles defending Monsanto and attacking the likes of Greenpeace.

The news and information at Foodsecurity.net is largely pro-GM articles, often vituperative in content and boasting headlines like "The Villainous Vandana Shiva" or "Altered Crops Called Boon for Poor". When one penetrates beyond the news pages, the content is very limited. A single message graces the messageboard posted by an myoung@bivwood.com;the domain name of The Bivings Group, an internet PR company that numbers Monsanto among its clients. There's also an event posting from an Andura Smetacek, recently identified in an article in The Guardian as an e-mail front used by Monsanto to run a campaign of character assassination against its scientific and environmental critics.

The site is registered to a Graydon Forrer, currently the managing director of Life Sciences Strategies, a company that specializes in "communications programmes" for the bio-science industries. A piece of information that is not usually disclosed in Graydon Forrer's self-presentation is that he was previously Monsanto's director of executive communications. Indeed, he seems to have been working for the company in 1999--the same year the site of this "independent, non-profit coalition of people throughout the world" was first registered. Foodsecurity's "African Director", Dr. Mbwille, is not, incidentally, in Africa at the moment. He is enjoying a sabbatical observing medical practice in St. Louis, Missouri--the home town, as it happens, of the Monsanto Corporation.

Foodsecurity.net forms but one of a whole series of websites with undisclosed links to biotech industry lobbyists or PR companies, as our previous research has demonstrated. But despite the virtual circus oscillating about him, if the BIO Vice President were really interested in hearing poor "live, developing-world farmers... speaking for themselves", he need look no further than Chengal Reddy's home state of Andhra Pradesh. Here small-scale farmers and landless laborers were consulted as part of a meticulously conducted "citizens' jury" on World Bank-backed proposals to industrialize local agriculture and introduce GM crops. Having heard all sides of the argument, including as it happens the views of Chengal Reddy, the jury unanimously rejected these proposals, which are likely to force more than 100,000 people off the land. Similar citizens' juries on GM crops in Brazil and in the Indian state of Karnataka have come to similar conclusions--something that BIO's Vice President is almost certainly aware of.

But rainchecks on the real views of the poor count for little in a world where "something new, something very big" and "a turning point" in the global march towards our corporate future, turns out to be Monsanto's soapbox behind a black man's face.

France: Monsanto Sues Unnamed French Vandals for Corn Attacks

Bloomberg, August 25 2007. By Heather Smith.

Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Monsanto Co., the world's biggest seed producer, sued unidentified people for destroying corn seeds in two incidents this past week in France.

Monsanto France, a division of the St. Louis-based company, filed a criminal complaint against "X'' for destroying four types of corn the company was testing, it said in an e-mailed statement late yesterday.

No one was arrested during the attack in the night of Aug. 20-21 in Mauroux, southwestern France. On Aug. 18, dozens of vandals were arrested in Poinville, in the nation's center, for destroying experimental corn seeds. Monsanto filed a similar complaint following that attack. It estimated its combined loss at 100,000 euros ($137,000).

The vandals "proved their irrationality'' regarding science by destroying the test seeds, Yann Fichet, Monsanto France's director of external relations, said in the statement.

In both instances, the seeds were created to increase their resistance to pests or to increase their tolerance of herbicides.

Monsanto focuses on corn, cotton and oilseeds, as well as small-acre crops, to develop seeds with genetic makeups that will provide the highest yield while protecting the plants against environmental factors such as disease, insect damage and weed competition, according to the Web site.

The company invests about $1.5 million a day to bring to market technologies beneficial to farmers, Monsanto said on its Web site. The company forecasts that, based on population projections in the next 20 years, per-acre production under cultivation will have to increase by as much as 75 percent.

Monsanto uses plant biotechnology, genomics and molecular breeding to make farms more productive, the Web site said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Heather Smith in Paris at hsmith26@bloomberg.net

24 August 2007

India: Mealy Bug Takes Away Glory of Bt Cotton

Environment News Service, August 24 2007. By Umendra Dutt.

JAITU, Punjab, India, August 24 2007 (ENS) - So, once again it is boom time for the pesticide manufacturing companies in Punjab. Harping on the desperation and fear psychosis among the farmers over the attack of a new pest - the mealy bug - on the cotton crop, the pesticide companies have already sold pesticides worth over Rs 500 crores (US$121.4 million) in Punjab, in the last two months.

Not only making a big hole in the pocket of the already distressed farmer, the mealy bug also has demolished the so-called hype over Bt cotton. While governments and the Bt cotton manufacturing and distribution companies were claiming a panacea for the farmers, claiming there would be no attack of pests on the genetically engineered Bt cotton, the mealy bug has broken the hype and illusion.

As the mealy bug is destroying the cotton crop in the Malwa region of Punjab, in desperation the farmers are intensively spraying the cotton with pesticides, which are toxic and costly.

A major portion of the profit which the farmer hoped to reap from his cotton crop, has already gone into pockets of pesticide companies, making the farmer once again the ultimate loser.

First, he purchased expensive Bollgard Bt seeds, believing in their resistance towards pests, and after the mealy bug made meal of the Bt cotton, the farmer made a huge investment in pesticides.

The seed companies had already cornered the lion's share of the cotton crop by selling the farmers expensive seed and now it is the turn of pesticide companies to squeeze the farmers. Our farmer is surrounded by merchants of Venice; there are Shylocks all around him.

Mobile vans carrying the big banners of pesticide companies are criss-crossing villages to educate farmers about the mealy bug attack. But educating farmers is a money minting exercise for the pesticide companies.

When the farmers were gripped with mealy bug panic, and some of them started ploughing their fields under, the Directorate of Agriculture, Punjab published advertisements in vernacular daily papers with official photos of Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal and Agriculture Minister Sucha Singh Langah, prescribing a list of pesticides to spray for mealy bug control.

Headlined "To Control Mealy Bug Attack on Cotton" and the advertisements list pesticides - Carbryl, Thiodicarb of Carbamate group, Quinalphos, Prosenofos, Chloropyrifos and Acephate of Organophas group. The advertisement even suggests using Holocon nozzles while spraying. This advertisement is look-alike of any advertisement placed by pesticide companies.

It is a tragedy that two years back the Punjab government had published similar advertisements with the photo of then Chief Minister Capt Amarinder Singh, describing the introduction of Bt cotton as a great achievement.

At that time, government advertisements made tall claims about the advantages of Bt cotton, stating an increase in yield by 25 to 28 percent per hectare, and a net increase in income by Rs 10,000 to 15,000 (US$ 242 to 364) per hectare, and a saving on agro-chemicals of up to Rs 1,000 (US$ 24) per hectare.

But, this season, the third year after the introduction of Bt cotton in Punjab, things are going the opposite way.

Surprisingly, Punjab is the only state where one could find government advertisements with the chief minister's photos either for the promotion of Bt cotton or for propagating use of pesticides. Apparently, the agribusiness companies could not find more state patronage than this.

Punjab seems to be heaven for these companies. The agriculture establishments here are advocating all sorts of agrochemicals, hybrid seeds, Bt seeds and a whole lot of poisons even more loudly then the manufacturers.

The government has every right to issue advertisements about its achievements whenever they want to communicate to the people, but how can a government advertisement propagate Bt cotton or pesticides? We have to question the very mind set and thought behind these advertisements.

The agriculture establishments in Punjab are looking for solutions of every problem with the eyes of farm input companies and agribusiness corporations. This indicates the intellectual bankruptcy of the people at the helm of affairs in the state. What could be more ironic than the fact that the solutions which they are suggesting are not only more problematic but also totally unsustainable? These solutions bound to bring more and more devastation.

Those who are prescribing these solutions are not legally bound to any action if their prescription brings any adverse effects after few years. The so-called agriculture experts will go scot-free but the poor farmer will certainly lose his money, land, health and maybe his life too.

Nobody is talking about the loss to farmers. The farmers who sowed Bt cotton seeds are now feeling cheated. Their dreams have turned into nightmares.

The mealy bug has attacked cotton in almost the whole of Malwa. The white sticky bug made cotton fields look as though they were covered with snow. The bugs have even entered house and kitchen gardens.

The bugs attacked cotton last year but the damage was on a limited scale. This year it became so widespread that in hundreds of villages in all pockets of the Cotton Belt, farmer after farmer ploughed their Bt cotton fields under to get rid of the mealy bug.

The government departments pressed the panic button. They worked even on Sundays, discussing which pesticide is better and how to make pesticides available to farmers. They declared war against the mealy bug but the ammunition is being provided by a private company, Syngenta.

The agriculture development officers also have become brand campaigners for Actara, another pesticide manufacturing company.

The entire agriculture establishment of Punjab seeks asylum in poisons only. While promoting pesticides they have also advised farmers to spray herbicides all along the farm to prevent weeds.

This means a greater poison load on the already devastated ecosystem of Punjab.

The chemicalization and monoculturing of agriculture in Punjab has made its agriculture experts bonded royal laborers of the chemical farming paradigm. They cannot think and see beyond that, and they do not want to think and see. They cannot dare to do so, as it does not suit the masters of the present agriculture system.

The "Indian Express" newspaper quoted the head of the Entomology Department of Punjab Agricultural University Dr. N.S. Bhutter, justifying the planting of Bt cotton and the increasing use of pesticides. "Prior to the introduction of Bt cotton, we used to spray the crops with chemicals which killed these pests. Now as the pest umbrella has been lifted because Bt cotton does not need so many sprays, these pests are becoming dominant."

When asked why Punjab Agricultural University didn't think of this attack when it was rooting for Bt cotton as a panacea for the problems of Punjab farmers, his reply reflects that there is some thing seriously wrong with the vision of the Punjab agriculture establishment.

Dr. Bhutter said, "At that time there was no mealy bug, and we were dealing with just American bollworm. With chemicals, we will be able to control this bug too."

The agriculture experts encouraged farmers to spray pesticides, but large number of farmers and labors who were exposed to the deadly pesticides have been hospitalized at several towns in the Cotton Belt. Two deaths were reported due to pesticide exposure.

The mealy bug is giving a lesson to the agriculture establishment and proponents of chemicalized agriculture that their pest control design is faulty. The small insect dares the agriculture scientists to change their view, but who has the guts to do so? Punjab, devastated by ecological crisis, debts, suicides and cancers is waiting for this change.

There is no holistic approach, no farsightedness, no concern about destruction done by chemicals, nor any thought for the ecological, economic and social implications of this highly toxic agriculture.

When lakhs of farmers elsewhere are successfully growing cotton without using any sort of chemicals and even without Bt seeds, why cannot this happen in Punjab?

But our politicians, bureaucrats, scientists and planners all are hypnotized by companies. All Punjab's main parties became mad in the craze for Bt and everyone wants to claim credit for the release of Bt cotton and its further expansion.

Despite the mealy bug attack on Bt cotton, Agriculture Minister Langah announced in his Independence day address at Muktsar on August 15 that his government is proud of distributing 1,535,500 packets of Bt cotton seeds at the rate of Rs 760 per packet.

But question is, who is paying the royalty for these packets? Certainly, neither Mr. chief minister nor the agriculture minister nor the director of agriculture nor Punjab Agricultural University is going to pay.

The farmers of Punjab have already paid some Rs 100 crores (US$ 1 billion) to Monsanto as royalty over last three years and this process will continue until farmers dare to see through the Bt seed deception.

But in this darkness of chemical farming, there is a ray of hope. Natural farming is making inroads in Punjab.

The mealy bug does not worry natural farmers at all. The farmers who are practicing natural farming neither use Bt cotton nor do any pesticide spraying. But still their cotton crops are healthy and free from any destruction caused by mealy bugs.

First of all, they witnessed very mild mealy bug attacks, due to their multiple cropping system. Their cotton fields have as many as eight to 15 crops.

Second, if mealy bugs attacked their crops they controlled the pests with neem, dhatura and cow urine. There are large numbers of farmers who are proud owners of naturally treated farms. These farmers are erecting the foundation for a paradigm shift in Punjab.

A constructive change is taking place - minus experts and the establishment. It is a community initiative and farmer driven movement called Kheti Virasat Mission.

The growing number of farmers practicing natural farming is an indicator that society wants a change in agriculture perspective and paradigm. These farmers have already walked out of the Bt and pesticide trap and are now leading the Punjab towards an imperishable prosperity, free from the exploitation of the farmer as well as Mother Nature.

{Umendra Dutt is executive director of Kheti Virasat Mission, a not-for-profit civil society organization established in March 2005, working in the field of natural farming, sustainable agriculture, conservation of natural resources, environmental health and eco-sustainable technologies. Registered as a charitable trust, KVM is headquartered in the town of Jaitu in the Faridkot District of Punjab. Contact Dutt by email at: umendradutt@gmail.com.}

The Philippines: Capitol sets public forum on GMO ban ordinance

The Visayan Daily Star, 24 August 2007. The Provincial Government of Negros Occidental, in coordination with the Negros Island Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Foundation, will discuss the ordinance banning the entry of genetically modified organism in a forum on August 28 at 8 a.m. , at the Capitol Social Hall in Bacolod City. The forum seeks to strengthen partnership and advocacy in the promotion of sustainable agriculture, clean environment and healthy lifestyle in the province, the Office of the Provincial Agriculture said.

Provincial Ordinance No. 07-2007, or "The Safeguard Against Living Genetically-Modified Organisms," was passed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in April this year. NISARD executive director Patrick Belisario said the ordinance will help bring Negros Island a step closer to its goal of becoming the organic food bowl of Asia.

The ordinance is aimed at instituting stringent measures for 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 in the province.

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, the ordinance states, and if the violator is a corporation organization, the heads of the groups will be held liable.

All Living Modified Organisms brought into Negros Occidental will be seized and destroyed at the expense of the violator, it also says. The ordinance defines LMO as any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology. It also prohibits the planting, growing, selling and trading of living GMOs in Negros Occidental.

Chile Transparency Law just a fig-leaf, says critic

The Santiago Times / El Mercurio, 24 August 2007. By Ashley Pandya (editor@santiagotimes.cl)

Government spokesman Ricardo Lagos Weber announced Wednesday that Chile will soon have a new law guaranteeing citizen access to information. While this may appear to be good news to some, critics of the legislation doubt the law Lagos praised will be very effective.

"Chile is pushing for the new transparency law as part of its bid to join the prestigious Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)," said critic Miguel Fredes, an environmental attorney who is suing Chile's government to get access to public papers. "But if the law is passed as it now stands, the holes and ambiguities in it could benefit both the government and large corporations by giving them transparency in name, but not in practice."

According to Fredes, the law concerns four broad areas: civil society, which has been unsuccessfully requesting information for years; private corporations, which would be like the faÁade of transparency without the corresponding obligations; the government, which approves of the law but does not want to be subject to it; and the judicial branch, which wants to keep some information secret.

"The law creates a Transparency Board, but the chief of the Board, who will oversee the law's provisions, will be appointed by the president without consent of the Senate," Fredes told the Santiago Times. "This means the chief will have very little political independence and that others will be reluctant to challenge him."

Fredes also said the bill allows third parties (i.e. corporations) to refuse information requested by an applicant by arguing their trade secrets and intellectual property could be violated.

Fredes first became interested in Chile's transparency and public access policies when he requested the names of the companies producing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the locations where the GMOs were growing.

"The government refused to give me the information, saying that the names could harm the interest and the secret business policies of the GMO companies," said Fredes. "Names and locations are not intellectual property ‚ if I am an organic farmer, I should have the right to know where GMOs are being grown."

"The information that we would like to make public is already in the hands of public agencies, so clearly the information is not harmful to Chile's national interest," added Fredes. "There is already plenty of legislation that protects trade secrets and intellectual property, so that is not the issue."

Fredes sued and won the case. A national association of GMO producers appealed the case, which is now being reviewed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The decision could be monumental - this case is the first of its kind to be determined by an international body.

Fredes has proposed a number of amendments to the legislation, including the requirement that public bodies conform to obligations of the law and the creation of a single working definition of the word "information."

"There are a number of serious shortcomings in the draft which threaten to defeat the original objective," said Fredes. "I do not think this law will pass or be approved this year."

23 August 2007

Australia: Governments duped over GM food crops

Eureka Street Magazine, 23 August 2007. Charles Rue.

Dr Charles Rue is a Sydney-based priest of the Columban Missionary Society, and co-ordinator of Columban JPIC (Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation).

Most Australian states have started reviews of their 2004 GM Acts which carry a de facto moratorium on growing genetically modified (GM) crops. The pro-GM lobby has responded with an orchestrated campaign.

Liberal insider Guy PearceÇs website, High and Dry, tells how the Howard government's climate change policies became captive to the "greenhouse mafia" because of an ideology of neo-liberal economics. A 'GM mafia' has captured the Federal political scene and is pressuring State GM Reviews.

"In the absence of consumer take-up of its products, selling stocks has become a biotech industry lifeline", stated The Wall Street Journal in 2004. In 'Biotech's dismal bottom line: More than $40 billion in losses', it spelt out the immediate GM agenda.

Australian State governments been caught up in a religious type rapture over biotech promises of silver bullets. They have become naive investors seemingly unaware of biotech economic strategies. Industry lobbyists such the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and its PR arm the Australian Environment Foundation have egged them on.

More importantly, big long-term profits for biotech companies will come through monopoly control of the food industry.

To achieve this, government mechanisms have been white-anted. In Australia, it means implementing the biotech led Trade Related Intellectual Properties (TRIPs) Agreement of the WTO and manipulating both the Office of Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and Food and Safety Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ).

Australia has implemented patenting laws that benefit GM seed companies. These are reinforced by the US-Aus Free Trade Agreement. (Pharmaceuticals are under the same threat). Farmers will be forced to buy GM patented seed and consumers will have no choice but to buy GM food in a monopoly system. The TRIPs office within DFAT has proved reluctant to reveal who forms Australian policy on patenting at WTO meetings.

The next step is to have federal bureaucracies help implement biotech monopoly of the food chain. The OGTR was set up to guarantee health and environmental standards but is headed by Dr Sue Meek who formerly promoted biotech based industries. The OGTR has approved GM crops without regard for the 'precautionary principle'. This lack of caution is evidenced by the GM contamination of Australian canola seed.

GM contamination of the crops of conventional breeders and organic growers suits the long-term economic goals of the biotech companies; to undermine economic rivals. The OGTR is only restrained by State GM Acts of 2004 which have shown at least some concern for the economics of farmers about issues such as seed separation. That is why the State Reviews are under attack.

An aspect deserving attention is the negative effects of GM plants on the genetics of the natural environment. In economic terms it is a mere externality. However, for wheat and other food crops, cross pollination means GM contamination of genetic riches. It will grow worse as Roundup-Ready (glyphosate) crops become ineffective and replaced by Agent Orange related Dicamba-Ready GM crops.

The OGTR does no independent testing about health or environmental impacts. It relies on what the biotech companies tell them. Independent testing by the iconic CSIRO has all but stopped as it has been forced to form profit-oriented commercial partnership with biotech companies. These are bound by confidentiality clauses.

FSANZ, like OGTR, does no independent testing yet controls the approval of foods for consumption and food labelling. Food ingredients under one per cent GM go unlabelled. Even the report of Minister McGauran prepared by ACIL Tasman says that Çconsumers in some countries are not aware they are purchasing and consuming products containing GM foods. It is of note that co-founder of ACIL Tasman, David Trebeck, is on the board of Graincorp.

Information presented in the media has been deliberately limited or given as spin. The reports of Jason Koutsoukis are examples of creating the impression that lifting GM moratoriums is a done deal and consumers are for it. When reporting on a survey on customer attitudes to GM by Biotechnology Australia his article did not explain that key survey questions were prefaced with ÇWhat if?Ç caveats supposing evidence about health safety and benefits.

The Catholic Church in India is responding to the alarming number of suicides among farmers, many because of failed GM cotton crops. It would be good to see Catholic moralists and ethical institutes in Australia venture out of the bedroom and into the kitchen. Morality is about care for God's gift of life in every form. It means addressing what the alliance of the 'GM-mafia' and neo-liberal economics is doing.

Australian Government's GM report 'dishonest': BFA

Rural Press weekly agricultural papers, updated daily on FarmOnline. Thursday, 23 August 2007. By Lucy Skuthorp.

The Federal Government's latest report on genetically modified (GM) crops is "dishonest" and "bordering on hysteria" according to organic farm lobby, Biological Farmers Australia.

While the push is on at a Federal level, to have the State bans on GM crops lifted, Biological Farmers Australia (BFA) says a review of the North American and Canadian experiences with GM canola supports the continuation of the moratoriums.

Earlier this week, BFA lodged a submission with the South Australian, NSW and Victorian governments which said the premiums Australian farmers were receiving for non-GM canola "could not be denied".

They averaged US$68/tonne more over two years than over the previous 10 years.

Federal Minister for Agriculture, Peter McGauran, has launched a third major report on GM crops, on canola, this week, which found GM canola can co-exist with conventional crops.

Mr McGauran said that, with moratoriums currently under review in four States, GM canola could potentially be grown in