GM-FREEIRELAND : NEWS





				NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • December 2007 Archives 2007: Jan• Feb • March • April • May • June • July • Aug • Sept • Oct • Nov 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 December 2007 New Zealand: Safety of GE corn queried by scientist The Press, 31 December 2007 Uncertainty over the safety of genetically engineered (GE) corn has not been reflected in Government announcements, a leading gene scientist believes. Five days before Christmas, the Government approved high-lysine GE corn intended for animals as safe for New Zealanders to eat. This was despite concerns from some that it may cause cancer, diabetes or Alzheimer's disease if it accidentally entered the human food chain. Food Safety Minister Lianne Dalziel gazetted the Monsanto LY038 GE corn after a nearly six-month delay, which the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) said was not due to safety concerns. But University of Canterbury scientist Dr Jack Heinemann, the director of the university's Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI), has taken issue with the NZFSA. He said the authority had made some "interesting comments" in its public statements that were inconsistent with the expert opinion it had sought from crown research institute ESR (Environmental Science and Research) on a report by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). The NZFSA is already being reviewed for its controversial handling of the milk safety issue and the way it portrayed findings publicly -- by drawing conclusions that contradicted a report and releasing the report when the reviewer was unavailable to talk publicly about it. INBI had objected to approving the corn for human consumption because the new protein introduced into the GE corn had not been laboratory tested to see how it reacted to cooking. When cooked, the high level of lysine combines with sugars to form chemicals called advanced glycation endproducts (Ages), strongly implicated in diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, cancer and forms of heart disease. Heinemann said his main concern was with the NZFSA's press release, which said: "The New Zealand Food Safety Authority also reviewed the FSANZ safety assessment and agreed with its conclusions. In addition, NZFSA commissioned ESR to provide an expert opinion on the safety assessment. ESR also agreed with the FSANZ conclusions." Heinemann said he had a different impression after reading a copy of FSANZ's final risk assessment report with comments by ESR, released under the Official Information Act. "To my reading, the ESR report is not entirely consistent with the view expressed by the NZFSA. "ESR stated in January 2007 that 'the (FSANZ) assertion that LY038 corn, cooked as part of a normal diet, would not make a substantial change to dietary Age intake' is unsupported." "In many places, ESR stops short of endorsing the FSANZ conclusions. ESR used the cautionary phrasing 'arguments presented by FSANZ seem logical'. "I think that ESR has not provided a report that is inconsistent with the FSANZ assessment, but to say that ESR found none of the same problems with the assessment -- that would have to be a gross overstatement," Heinemann said. He was also concerned ESR had stated it had no-one "with the appropriate background to comment on the technical validity" of his submission, dealing with the safety of the GE corn and Ages. Instead, the ESR reviewer said consultation "would suggest" scientific evidence to support Heinemann's view was "not strong". A genetic modification (GM) supporter, former Life Sciences Network chairman Dr William Rolleston, claimed Heinemann's INBI laboratory "stands to gain from increased testing on GM". But Heinemann said Rolleston was wrong. "My lab is a university lab -- publicly funded to do basic research. We have nothing to gain, privately or commercially." _______________________ South Korea: Korea Times, 31 December 2007. By Cho Jin-seo A number of government agencies will collectively be in charge of monitoring the research and development of genetically-modified crops and animals, which may cause confusion and inefficiency in the regulating system. The Ministry of Science and Technology announced Friday that the research, development, import, export and distribution of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), or living modified organisms (LMO), will require prior approval from different government agencies from Jan. 1, depending on the safety level of the materials and the type of possible hazard it has for the environment or for people. GMOs are plants or animals that have their genes altered by genetic engineering techniques. Many global food companies, especially those based in North America, are producing and exporting GMO products, such as high-yield rice, maize and soybeans that are tolerant to herbicides. Many countries have been establishing regulations on the import and sale of the GMOs as worries of possible environmental and health damage have arisen. The Korean government's new reporting process looks as complicated as the gene modifying technique itself. The government separated the GMOs into four categories by hazard level, but only with vague, subjective guidelines: The level 1 and 2 facilities should be reported to the Ministry of Science and Technology, while level 3 and 4 are subjected to the Ministry of Health and Welfare, except those can ``possibly damage the environment'' that again belong to the science ministry. Even if an R& D facility is approved by one administrative body, it is required to get separate permission for each crop and animal that has ``high risk.'' For example, GMOs used in farming or forestry should get approval from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. For ecological use, the Ministry of Environment is in charge of the GMO vetting. For maritime organisms, the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries will grant permission. Meanwhile, some of the ministries are expected to be merged next year by incoming President Lee Myung-bak as they have been criticized for overlapping administrative control. Genetically engineered crops have been thought to create economic risks that have been overlooked in the past. In the U.S. rice market in 2006, illegal varieties of genetically modified rice were found contaminating the rice supply, causing as much as $1.2 billion in damages and additional costs to the industry. The modification of some crops to improve their resistance to herbicides is also believed to produce herbicide-resistant weeds, which has led to more herbicide use. _______________________ 28 December 2007 EU decision on GMO testing opens door for U.S. rice Chicago (Reuters) - A decision to stop testing U.S. rice for genetically modified traits when it arrives at its destination should help restore trade with the European Union, which has virtually stopped since August 2006, said U.S. rice traders on Thursday. The EU Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health made the decision on on Thursday and it could take effect as early as mid-January. [ID:nL20887446] "It is a good sign. There's been a bit of a pickup in shipments going there," said Neauman Coleman, an analyst and rice broker in Brinkley, Arkansas. "It's all proven to be GMO free. This is another positive step." The discovery in August 2006 of the LibertyLink trait, developed by Bayer CropScience, a division of Bayer (BAYG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research), in commercial supplies triggered a disaster for the U.S. rice industry. The industry quickly moved to stop planting of the varieties identified as having the GMO trait, which resulted in less than 0.5 percent of this year's crop being affected, according to USA Rice Federation, a trade organization. "The decision opens the door," said David Coia, spokesman for USA Rice. "Now, another layer of work begins where we have to begin to rebuild the market. This certainly helps tremendously." A U.S. government investigation was unable to determine how the biotech rice entered the commercial supply chain. The GMO strain has gotten U.S. approval but no GMO rice is authorized for import or sale in the 25-member European Union. Most countries test at origin Most countries allow exporters to test the rice for GMO traits before it leaves port. The EU's requirement to test at destination made sales extremely risky for sellers. If the rice tested positive, they would encounter hefty charges Before the incident, the European Union bought about 282,000 tonnes of U.S. rice in the 2005/06 marketing year. Exports fell to 50,000 tonnes in 2006/07. "It's been a black cloud over the market for the past year and a half," said Ed Taylor, an analyst with Firstgrain.com, a market advisory service. "It's a big deal," he said. "It means you no longer have the risk if you ship it over there of having it rejected once it gets there." _______________________ Thailand: Tests in research stations make a mockery of GM ban Bangkok Post, Dec 28 2007. Commentary: Vasana Chinvarakorn. [Vasana Chinvarakorn is a senior writer for Outlook, Bangkok Post] The tussle is over wording, but the implications will not be limited to paper only. The cabinet's resolution on Christmas Day to ''amend'' the 2001 ban on all field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops seems to be playing with the definition of the key phrase in the legislation: ''field trials''. As a year-end gift to Thai citizens, the Surayud government has decided that the term ''field trials'' does not apply to experiments conducted in state-run compounds. In other words, GM papaya, cotton, maize, and so on will be able to germinate in the soil at research stations belonging to the Department of Agriculture or in universities, be they in Khon Kaen, Nakhon Pathom or Pathum Thani. The news of Tuesday's cabinet meeting caught the environmental NGOs and supporters of organic agriculture completely off guard. After a series of campaigns urging the military-appointed government not to revoke or revise the historic ban of April 3, 2001, the anti-GMO camp is now at a loss. Two days after the general election, the interim cabinet hastily dealt with 51 items on its agenda, of which the GM crop issue was item No. 42. Almost as an afterthought, the powers-that-be have added the stipulation that, in light of the absence of national bio-safety laws, the state agency in charge of GM testing must ensure that maximum precautionary measures are implemented to prevent contamination, and to conduct an environmental impact assessment study for the immediate research site and surrounding areas. Some form of ''public hearing'' with the local residents and stakeholders must also be arranged in compliance with Article 67 of the 2007 Constitution - or so it has been reported in the news. According to the anti-GMO groups, these add-on clauses are not adequate enough to allay their apprehension. They argue that the ''public hearing'' is likely to be a charade of consensus: a number of farmers will likely be contacted by the biotechnology industry (and its bureaucratic allies) and sent on study visits to local and foreign GM labs and fields; in short, they will be groomed to think positively vis-a-vis the GMO technology. Over the past couple of years, a few self-appointed representatives of farmers in the Central and Northeast regions have come out to push for a lifting of the ban on field trials of GM papaya _ which incidentally is the same line adopted by the biotech business and researchers. One should also note that field tests are but a step away from the commercialisation of GM crops. The writing is on the wall. Also, the dismal track record pertaining to state-run testing of GM cotton and papaya, where numerous GM seeds have been leaked to farmers living hundreds of kilometres away, makes one question the efficacy of these ''precautionary measures''. (The latest incident, involving the discovery of GM maize in Phitsanulok, serves to strengthen these doubts.) Intriguingly, no culprit has ever been caught, nor has any attempt been made to explain how the contamination occurred and the ways in which the damage may be corrected. In contrast, three activists who exposed the contaminations have been tried in court, and one has been penalised for defamation (against a former senior technocrat who continues to push actively for the introduction of GM crops in Thailand). Following the announcement of the Christmas resolution, the anti-GMO camp has announced they will seek an emergency halt of all field trials of GM crops from the Administrative Court early next year. A new era of contest thus begins. It promises to be fierce, relentless _ and probably gloomy. The latest legal development reflects the Thai ingenuity in word-play; shall we call it semantic acrobatics? It also reveals the priorities of a government that supposedly prides itself on following His Majesty the King's sufficiency philosophy: a government that allows open field tests when even a public environmental agency has admitted as recently as last month to our inability to ''clean up'' this genetic crop contamination. Last but not least, it reveals a shameless indiscipline on the part of our leaders. Past mistakes, especially of those at the top, are conveniently absolved by new laws, or are swept under the carpet and eventually forgotten. To some, this latest episode in the saga of GM field testing in Thailand may appear to be a tussle over wording, but the implications reach down to the very roots of our sustenance. _______________________ 26 December 2007 USA: Seed controversy sprouts Some say USDA's insurance break for Monsanto customers unfair Chicago Tribune, December 26, 2007. By Stephen J. Hedges -- While the federal government doesn't usually endorse products, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has struck an unusual arrangement with agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. that gives farmers in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota a break on federal crop insurance premiums if they plant Monsanto-brand seed corn this spring. The arrangement has raised some eyebrows, particularly among organic farm groups that argue the government agency should not be promoting corn that contains an herbicide; the Monsanto brands contain chemicals that kill weeds and insects. Monsanto's deal is legal, note USDA officials who point out that such arrangements were encouraged in a 2000 crop insurance law that Congress enthusiastically passed. The idea is to give farmers a break on their insurance premiums if they use corn seeds that are higher yield and shown to resist insects and other threats. USDA officials said they are aware of the appearance of favoritism toward one of the nation's largest ag companies. "We knew it would look that way," said Shirley Pugh, a spokeswoman for USDA's Risk Management Agency, which administers federal crop insurance. "But other companies can come and do the same thing. We are making the discount available because the corn has shown the traits necessary to reduce the risk." Pugh said the arrangement benefits not just farmers, but also taxpayers, since USDA pays a portion of each farmer's insurance premium. Farm groups said the timing of the USDA-Monsanto agreement will help farmers who face higher crop insurance premiums because of elevated corn prices. "We're very supportive of the concept," said Ron Litterer, president of the National Corn Growers Association, and a farmer in Greene, Iowa. "Not only for Monsanto but for any biotechnology company that can make the case that by using those products, it lowers the risk of providing a corn crop." The deal with St. Louis-based Monsanto occurred under a provision called the Biotech Yield Endorsement program, which is part of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000. No other companies have taken advantage of the program, Pugh said. The insurance premium benefit to farmers, according to USDA, will be about $2 per acre, or $2,000 for a typical 1,000-acre farm. Crop insurance prices have skyrocketed for farmers as corn prices have reached near-record highs in recent months. Today, corn trades at about $4 a bushel, double the price of about two years ago. Those prices have continued to stay high because of increased demand from the ethanol industry, which uses the grain to make fuel, as well as increased corn exports and demands from cattle-feeding businesses. Crop insurance rates can be as high as $50 an acre, according to Kurt Koester, a vice president and co-owner at AgriSource Inc., a crop insurance agency in West Des Moines, Iowa, involved in the pilot program. Several years ago, Koester said premiums were about $15 to $20 an acre. "Farmers are going to face some really tough decisions here," Koester said. 'They've got this high-value corn sitting out in their fields. When you take the cost of this crop insurance, even with government subsidies, there's going to be sticker shock." The pilot program with Monsanto covers the country's four most productive corn states. It involves corn that contains YieldGard Plus with Roundup Ready Corn 2 or YieldGard VT Triple technology from Monsanto, the company said. The deal with the Agriculture Department was finalized this month. The corn grown is generally used as cattle feed and as raw material for ethanol plants. Monsanto won the BYE designation by providing three years' worth of research that convinced the USDA's Federal Crop Insurance Corporation board that its triple-stack corn variety produces higher yields under difficult conditions, such as weeds and corn borer. "It really bore out what we've heard from our farmers, saying over and over again that these triple-stack technologies in the corn plant help protect against weeds and root worms," said Darren Wallis, a Monsanto spokesman. "What this does is reduce the risk for the farmers." Monsanto, however, has earned the wrath of organic agriculture and environmental groups, mostly for promoting the growth of genetically altered crops. The presence of Roundup in its corn seed has also drawn criticism. Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association, characterized the USDA-Monsanto BYE arrangement as one of many examples in which the department has sided with big agribusinesses instead of smaller farmers and farm groups. He said the BYE program will leave farmers with little choice but to buy Monsanto seed. "We definitely have a problem with all the benefits that [Monsanto] gets," Cummins said. "If you really look at our crop subsidy program and what's given to farmers, you really see a lot of those subsidies going to purchase genetically engineered crops." Cummins also said that the USDA-Monsanto arrangement excludes organic farmers. Most of the corn acreage in the four states involved is insured, according to USDA figures. Of the 11 million acres planted in corn in 2006 in Illinois, about 9 million acres, or 79 percent, had federal crop insurance, according to USDA. In Indiana, 68 percent of corn acres were insured, in Iowa, 87 percent and in Minnesota, 89 percent. _______________________ EU: Both Sides Cite Science to Address Altered Corn New York Times, December 26 2007. By Elisabeth Rosenthal. BRUSSELS - A proposal that Europe's top environment official made last month, to ban the planting of a genetically modified corn strain, sets up a bitter war within the European Union, where politicians have done their best to dance around the issue. The environmental commissioner, Stavros Dimas, said he had based his decision squarely on scientific studies suggesting that long-term uncertainties and risks remain in planting the so-called Bt corn. But when the full European Commission takes up the matter in the next couple of months, commissioners will have to decide what mix of science, politics and trade to apply. And they will face the ambiguous limits of science when it is applied to public policy. For a decade, the European Union has maintained itself as the last big swath of land that is mostly free of genetically modified organisms, largely by sidestepping tough questions. It kept a moratorium on the planting of crops made from genetically altered seeds while making promises of further scientific studies. But Europe has been under increasing pressure from the World Trade Organization and the United States, which contend that there is plenty of research to show such products do not harm the environment. Therefore, they insist, normal trade rules must apply. Science does not provide a definitive answer to the question of safety, experts say, just as science could not determine beyond a doubt how computer clocks would fare at the turn of the millennium. "Science is being utterly abused by all sides for nonscientific purposes," said Benedikt Haerlin, head of Save Our Seeds, an environmental group in Berlin and a former member of the European Parliament. "The illusion that science will answer this overburdens it completely." He added, "It would be helpful if all sides could be frank about their social, political and economic agendas." Mr. Dimas, a lawyer and the minister from Greece, looked at the advice provided by the European Union's scientific advisory body - which found that the corn was "unlikely" to pose a risk - but he decided there were nevertheless too many doubts to permit the modified corn. "Commissioner Dimas has the utmost faith in science," said Barbara Helfferich, spokeswoman for the environment department. "But there are times when diverging scientific views are on the table." She added that Mr. Dimas was acting as a "risk manager." Within the European scientific community, there are passionate divisions about how to apply the growing body of research concerning genetically modified crops, and in particular Bt corn. That strain is based on the naturally occurring soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis and mimics its production of a toxin to kill pests. The vast majority of research into such crops is conducted by, or financed by, the companies that make seeds for genetically modified organisms. "Where everything gets polarized is the interpretation of results and how they might translate into different scenarios for the future," said Angelika Hilbeck, an ecologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, whose skeptical scientific work on Bt corn was cited by Mr. Dimas. "Is the glass half-empty or half-full?" she asked. Ms. Hilbeck says that company-financed studies do not devote adequate attention to broad ripple effects that modified plants might cause, like changes to bird species or the effect of all farmers planting a single biotechnology crop. She said producers of modified organisms, like Syngenta and Monsanto, have rejected repeated requests to release seeds to researchers like herself to conduct independent studies on their effect on the environment. In his decision, Mr. Dimas cited a dozen scientific papers in finding potential hazards in the Bt corn to butterflies and other insects. But the European Federation of Biotechnology, an industry group, contends that the great majority of these papers show that Bt corn does not pose any environmental risk. Many plant researchers say that Mr. Dimas ignored scientific conclusions, including those of several researchers who advised the European Union that the new corn was safe. "We are seeing 'advice-resistant' politicians pursuing their own agendas," said one researcher, who like others asked not to be identified because of his advisory role. But Karen S. Oberhauser, a leading specialist on monarch butterflies at the University of Minnesota, said that debate and further study of Bt corn was appropriate, particularly for Europe. "We don't really know for sure if it's having an effect" on ecosystems in the United States, she said, and it is hard to predict future problems. About 40 percent of corn in the United States is now the Bt variety, and it has been planted for about a decade. "Whether Bt corn is a problem depends totally on the ecosystem - what plants are near the corn field and what insects feed on them," Ms. Oberhauser said. "So it's really, really important to have careful studies." Bt crops produce a toxin that kills pests but is also toxic to related insects, notably monarch butterflies and a number of water insects. The butterflies do not feed on corn itself, but they might feed nearby, on plants like milkweed. Because corn pollen is carried in the wind, such plants can become coated with Bt pollen. Ms. Oberhauser said she had been worried about the effect of Bt corn on monarch butterflies in the United States after her studies showed that populations of the insect dipped from 2002 to 2004. But they have rebounded in the last three years, and she has concluded that, in the American Corn Belt, Bt corn has probably not hurt monarch butterflies. Still, she said there was disagreement about that as well as broader causes for worry. Monarch butterflies may have been saved in the United States, she said, by a fluke of local farming practices. Year by year, farmers alternate Bt corn with a genetically modified soy seed that requires the use of a weed killer. That weed killer, Monsanto�s Roundup, eliminated milkweed - the monarch's favored meal - in and around corn fields, so the butterflies went elsewhere and were no longer exposed to Bt. "It's a problem for milkweed, but it made the risk for monarchs very small," she said. Still, she said, other effects could emerge with time and in farming regions with other practices. For example, Bt toxin slows the maturation of butterfly caterpillars, which leaves them exposed to predators for longer periods. "Sure, time will give you answers on these questions - and maybe show you mistakes that you should have thought about earlier," she said. For ecologists and entomologists, a major concern is that insects could quickly become resistant to the toxin built into the corn if all farmers in a region used that corn, just as microbes affecting humans become resistant to antibiotics that are prescribed often. The pests that are killed by modified corn are only a sporadic problem and could be treated by other means. Scientists also worry about collateral damage because Bt toxin is in wind-borne pollen. Most pollens "are highly nutritious, as they are designed to attract," Ms. Hilbeck said, wondering how a toxic pollen would affect bees, for example. Having reviewed the science, insurance companies have been unwilling to insure Bt planting because the risks to people and the environment are too uncertain, said Duncan Currie, an international lawyer in Christchurch, New Zealand, who studies the subject. In the United States, where almost all crops are now genetically modified, the debate is largely closed. "I'm not saying there are no more questions to pursue, but whether it's good or bad to plant Bt corn - I think we're beyond that," said Richard L. Hellmich, a plant scientist with the Agriculture Department who is based at Iowa State University. He noted that hundreds of studies had been done and that Bt corn could help "feed the world." But the scientific equation may look different in Europe, with its increasing green consciousness and strong agricultural traditions. "Science doesn't say on its own what to do," said Catherine Geslain-Laneelle, executive director of the European Food Safety Authority. She noted that while her agency had advised Mr. Dimas that Bt corn was "unlikely" to cause harm, it was still working to improve its assessment of the long-term risk to the environment. Part of the reason that science is central to the current debate is that European law and World Trade Organization rules make it much easier for a country or a region to exclude genetically modified seeds if new scientific evidence indicates a risk. Lacking that kind of justification, a move to bar the plants would be regarded as an unfair barrier to trade, leaving the European Union open to penalties. But the science probably will not be clear-cut enough to let the European ministers avoid that risk. Simon Butler at the University of Reading in Britain is using computer models to predict the long-term effect of altered crops on birds and other species. But should the ministers reject Bt and other genetically modified corn? "My work is not to judge whether G.M. is right or wrong," he said. "It's just to get the data out there." _______________________ Mexicans Campaign against NAFTA Prensa Latina, Dec 26 2007 Mexico - Mexican farmer and social organizations have kicked off a campaign to collect one million signatures to demand that corn and beans be removed from the list of products whose imports will be tariff free as of January 1, 2008. The National Campaign in Defense of Food Sovereignty and the Reactivation of Mexican Countryside called on the people to sign the document, which also states the need to establish a Congress-controlled permanent mechanism to administer imports and exports of corn and beans, as well as their byproducts. The campaigners also demand banning transgenic corn, protecting and improving the genetic heritage of that food, which is fundamental in Mexicans' diet, and boosting production. Other demands are that the House of Deputies approves the Constitutional Right to Food and the Act on Agricultural and Nutritional Sovereignty and Security. The signatories will back the struggle against monopolies in the agricultural sector and fight hoarding, speculation and deceitful advertisement of junk food. The declaration also proposes that corn and the cultural expressions linked to it be included in the UNESCO's List of Humankind's Oral and Intangible Heritage. The campaign is part of a series of mobilizations against the controversial North American Free Trade Agreement, signed by Mexico, the United States and Canada. _______________________ Potential Socio-Economic, Cultural and Ethical Impacts of GMOs: Prospects for Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Dear Friends and colleagues, RE: New Book on Socio-economic Considerations Available Online The recently published book by TWN entitled "Potential Socio-Economic, Cultural and Ethical Impacts of GMOs: Prospects for Socio-Economic Impact Assessment" by Elenita C Dano is now available online for downloading at: http://www.biosafety-info.net/pubart.php?pid=34 Orders for the hardcopy of the book can also be made at our online bookstore: http://www.twnside.org.sg, or from Third World Network at 131 Jalan Macalister, 10400 Penang, Malaysia. Tel: 604-2266159; Fax: 604-2264505; email: twnet@po.jaring.my. With best wishes, Third World Network http://www.twnside.org.sg New Book Release TWN Biotechnology & Biosafety Series 8 Potential Socio-Economic, Cultural and Ethical Impacts of GMOs: Prospects for Socio-Economic Impact Assessment By Elenita C Dano Publisher: TWN (ISBN: 978-983-2729-23-5) Year: 2007 No. of pages: 32 ABOUT THE BOOK Socio-economic, cultural and ethical considerations related to the use and release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are important aspects but have received less attention than the risks to the environment, health and biodiversity. This paper identifies some of the potential socio-economic impacts of GMOs and argues that they have to be taken into account as they have serious and far-reaching consequences. The author calls for the use of socio-economic impact assessment as a tool to guide decisions on research, development, use and release of GMOs, before and during their introduction. This is a participatory and interdisciplinary assessment tool which maps local knowledge in a particular societal context where new technology will be introduced, to help decision-makers weigh the potential benefits and risks of GMOs to different socio-economic spheres. In order to be an effective tool for decision-making, socio-economic impact assessment should be integrated into biosafety policies and processes. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Elenita C Dano is an independent researcher based in Davao City, Philippines who has extensive experience in development work, especially on issues affecting community-based conservation and development of plant genetic resources in South-East Asia. She is currently employed as an Associate of Third World Network on a part-time basis, working mainly on sustainable agriculture, biodiversity and biosafety issues. Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 2. TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY 3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS �DEFINED� 4. IMPORTANCE OF ASSESSING SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF GMOs 4.1 Socio-Economic Considerations in Relation to GMOs: Legal Recognition 4.2 Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) 5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS: WHAT TO ASSESS? 5.1 Economic Considerations 5.2 Social Considerations 6. INSTITUTIONALISING THE SEIA 7. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT: GUIDING PRINCIPLES REFERENCES PRICE US$8.00 for First World countries US$6.00 for Third World countries RM8.00 for Malaysia Prices are inclusive of postage costs by airmail. How to Order the Book Order your copy from our online bookstore: http://www.twnside.org.sg or Contact Third World Network at 131 Jalan Macalister, 10400 Penang, Malaysia. Tel: 604-2266159 Fax: 604-2264505 Email: twnet@po.jaring.my for further information _______________________ 23 December 2007 Monsanto busted for contempt of Advertising Authority in South Africa Mathaba News: 2007/12/23 Monsanto is found guilty again this time of breaching the previous ruling on its false advertising claim of "safe" Monsanto genetically modified produce. Will other legislators take note and resist Monsanto bribery? This Mathaba exclusive report from South Africa. By Trevor Wells On 26 June 2006 Mathaba News published an article headlined "Monsanto tells a pack of lies in South Africa". That article exposed how Monsanto had told the South African Advertising Authority (ASA) that MON 863 was not their product. MON 863 was in fact their product and had been found to cause damage to to rats in independent trials in Europe. Monsanto had in fact made an application for this product to be released in South Africa. The ASA ordered Monsanto SA to withdraw its advert which depicted a mother with two children in a kitchen looking at a cake. Among other false claims the advert stated "no substantiated scientific or medical negative reactions to GM foods have ever been reported". The advert also falsely claimed that genetically modified foods contained enhanced proteins, vitamins and anti-oxidants and removed allergens. Whilst there was an uproar from responsible parenting organisations and in fact proof that no commercial GM products had ever been commercially released with the enhanced claims, the ASA found it unnecessary to deal with those aspects. It ordered the removal of the advert based on the false claim that "No substantiated scientific or medical to GM foods have ever been reported." During the hearing, Monsanto attempted to distract the worthy panel of arbitrators, headed by Justice King, a no non-sense judge who rose to fame as the doyen of "Corporate Governance", by arguing the merits of GM products as against the truthfulness of their claims. They produced a letter from Covance Laboratories in the USA, which claimed that they were an independent laboratory and which "praised the benefits of GM Corn." Justice King ruled that the benefits of GM corn had nothing to do with the case in front of them. Covance Laboratories have a history of abuse and have been fined on several occasions in Europe and the USA for the appalling conditions under which experiments are conducted and for outright vicious treatment of laboratory animals. Their track record is second only to Monsanto's long history of convictions for racketeering, bribery and corruption. Monsanto clearly lives under the misconception that South African judges are stupid, because apart from the serious submissions mentioned above they would otherwise not have presented Covance Laboratories as an "independent" source in order to verify their safety claim. Covance USA's support of Monsanto is even more surprising given the fact that European researchers employed by Covance Laboratories (Europe) discovered and reported numerous biological effects on rats fed MON863, i.e. blood stream anomalies that varied by sex (increase in white blood cell levels and lymphocytes in males, decrease in new red blood cells in females, increase in female blood sugar levels, in addition to renal lesions (inflammations, kidney stones) and variations in kidney weight. The ink on the judgement ordering the withdrawal of this false advert had hardly dried when, on 21 August 2007, Kobus Steenkamp, Marketing Manager for Monsanto, issued a statement headed: "ASA accepts Monsanto's 'GM Is Safe' advertisement" and Steenkamp added: "The Advertising Standards Authority has now approved this advertisement and accepts that the facts have been verified by independent and reliable sources." He added "The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has accepted the revised wording from Monsanto, which states, "no substantiated scientific or medical negative reactions to GM foods have ever been reported". According to the article "Another spin by GM Giant Monsanto" published by The South African NGO net, the Advertising Standards Authority categorically denied Monsanto's statement. Monsanto however went ahead and published their advert with the same picture and wording except for the added "No substantiated medical or scientific..." part. Mark Wells, the organic farmer, and founder member of Farmers Legal Action Group, South Africa who was the successful applicant in the previous incident, once more challenged the advert. On 19 December 2007 Judge King of the ASA ruled that despite the amended wording not being exactly the same, the overall communication remains unchanged. A hypothetical reasonable person would interpret the claim to mean that tests were conducted in this regard and no negative reactions were found. The Respondent, Monsanto, is therefore found guilty of breaching the previous ruling. -- Readers may contact Trevor Wells of the Farmers Legal Action Group-South Africa for PDF copies of the full decision. _______________________ 22 December 2007 African Agroecological Alternatives to the Green Revolution Food First, 22 December 2007 Meetings on Climate Change, Hunger, Rural Development and Agroecological Alternatives to the Green Revolution held in Mali, Africa November 26th � December 2nd 2007 Food First collaborated with other organizations to bring more than 150 participants from 25 African countries and 10 non-African countries. Attendees including farmers, pastoralists, environmentalists, women, youth and development organizations, gathered at the Ny�l�ni Center in Selingue, Mali from November 26th to December 2nd. Field trips to area farms helped to inform the discussion on: -- Climate change and agriculture, fisheries and pastoralism in Africa -- The fight against hunger -- Development aid for agriculture and rural development in Africa -- African Agroecological Alternatives to the Green Revolution. Documents from the meetings are available at www.moreandbetter.org View a YouTube short report by Eric Holt-Gim�nez at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz3CWWz6XwY The two-day conference organized by Food First focused on African Agroecological Alternatives to the Green Revolution. A number of initiatives from multinational companies, foundations and politicians are pushing a �new green revolution� in Africa. One of them is Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). In 2006, The Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced a joint $150 million Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to save Africa from hunger. AGRA is actually breaking ground for a larger network of chemical, seed, fertilizer companies and Green Revolution institutions seeking to industrialize African agriculture as they have already done in the U.S. and in large parts of Latin America and Asia. AGRA�s high-profile campaign for a new Green Revolution, headed by Kofi Annan, is designed to attract private investment, enroll African governments, and convince African farmers to buy hybrid seeds and chemical fertilizers. AGRA is laying the foundation for researchers, institutions, and African farmers to introduce GMO crops�not only for rice, wheat and maize, but also for cassava, plantain and other African food crops. The AGRA-led Green Revolution not only threatens the richness of African traditional agriculture, it ignores (and is attempting to co-opt) the many successful African agricultural alternatives including sustainable agriculture, agro-forestry, pastoralism, integrated pest management, farmer-led plant breeding, sustainable watershed management and many other agroecological approaches. Because AGRA is but one-highly visible component of a wider industrial push, attendees realized that they need to decide where to put their energies, and be prepared for the divisive nature of involvement with AGRA. The participants declared " We commit ourselves to: 1. advancing a campaign for African traditional, sustainable and agroecological alternatives to the Green Revolution 2. providing information and promoting public debate at local and national levels about the push for a "new Green Revolution" 3. demanding transparency and accountability from all Green Revolution institutions and seed, chemical and fertilizer companies." For more on the conference including a brief history of the Green Revolution go to http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1807. _______________________ 21 December 2007 USA: Green products can sustain price premium, report FoodNavigator.com, 21 December 2007. By Lorraine Heller. Americans will be willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products in 2008, despite an overall decline in consumer spending, reveals a new study. Results of a survey conducted between December 11-14 2007 indicate that people who purchase natural and organic products would fork out an extra premium, and are particularly interested in supporting the 'green' practices of companies. "The study revealed that consumer interest in healthy, organic and sustainable products is on the rise, showing a commitment to organic foods and green products not only for personal health benefits but also for the environment," according to the report. Conducted by Mambo Sprouts Marketing, a natural and organic direct marketing company, the survey tracked the buying habits of 1,000 natural product consumers and forecasted their expected purchases of 2008. Soaring energy costs and a deterioration in the housing market are expected to contribute next year to an overall decline in consumer spending, however seven in ten of the 'natural' consumers surveyed said they would remain willing to pay 20 percent more for environmentally friendly products. Produce remained top of the priority list for organic products, with 60 percent of respondents indicating they would purchase these. Some 54 percent said they would opt for organic dairy products, while 50 percent would purchase organic child and baby food products Only one in four or fewer felt it was very important to buy organic in the categories of beer and wine (10 percent) and desserts and snacks (23 percent). But in addition to the product categories they choose, consumers are also increasingly supporting the concept behind organic and natural. "Consumers aren't just scrutinizing the products they buy, but want to support businesses and retail stores that have green sustainable practices," said the report. Over 70 percent indicated it was important to do business with companies that were environmentally responsible. For the coming year, while price was the overriding factor in decisions as to where to shop, cited by 60 percent of respondents, one in two or more consumers also identified the selection of healthy organic products (56 percent) and availability of organic produce (49 percent) as key factors as well. Earlier this year, Mambo Sprouts Marketing conducted another survey that revealed that consumers remain confused about the use of organic product claims. The survey revealed a mistrust of the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) organic seal, and concerns that the agency's organic standards were declining or weaker than they would like. The findings reinforced the importance of easy-to-understand labels and consumer education, as confusion or hesitation in the supermarket aisle will ultimately impact purchasing decisions. _______________________ Transgenic Maize Knocking at the Door Inter Press Service, Dec 21 2007. By Diego Cevallos. MEXICO CITY, Dec 21 (IPS) - Mexico's first experimental trials of genetically modified maize will take place next year, a government official has announced. The news has put environmental and campesino (small farmer) organisations, still hoping that this will not happen, on the alert. The country will be dealt a severe cultural, environmental and economic blow if synthetic species of maize are allowed in, opponents of genetically modified (GM) crops warn. On the other hand, companies selling transgenic seeds and some scientists claim that the field trials are nothing to be afraid of, and are confident that they will demonstrate the benefits of the technology. The Agriculture Ministry�s coordinator of International Affairs, V�ctor Villalobos, informed local journalists that the permits are ready to be granted. IPS also learned that the corporations that promote the use of GM crops are certain that their applications for experimental trials, rejected three times in the last two years, will at last be accepted. Silvia Ribeiro, Latin America spokeswoman for the non-governmental Canadian-based Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group), told IPS that if permission to sow GM maize is enacted in practice, the authorities will face "enormous social resistance." She added that opponents of GM crops still hope that the authorisation will not be granted. Villalobos, who does not hide his support for the use of transgenics in agricultural production, had already reported in the past that GM maize would be sown in Mexico soon, but subsequently nothing happened, the activist said. "The government has not called for any dialogue on the issue," said Ribeiro. "However, GM crops may finally be imposed on the country, because we know that the authorities are in favour of them. That would be a terrible thing for Mexico." The possibility that transgenic maize will be sown in Mexico, albeit experimentally, raises hackles among opponents of GM crops. Maize is the staple food for the majority of the country�s 109 million people, and in addition has enormous cultural significance, as it was first domesticated here 9,000 years ago. Mexico produces 19 million tonnes of maize annually, on 8.5 million hectares of land. More than three million local campesinos, most of whom are living below the poverty line, grow maize from wild strains or native seeds improved by breeding methods very different from the direct genetic manipulation techniques involved in producing transgenic seeds. In the United States, both transgenic and traditional maize is grown on 32 million hectares that yield 300 million tonnes a year. Mexico has been buying increasing amounts of maize from the U.S. to cover its growing deficit. Environmental groups claim that transgenic maize is entering the country as part of those imports, and that the authorities are doing nothing to prevent it. In 2001, transgenic maize contamination was discovered in cornfields in several Mexican states, in spite of GM crops being expressly banned by law. Scientists believe that campesinos obtained the seeds from U.S. imports and sowed them without knowing they were transgenic. The finding generated a fierce debate between activists and scientists, because there are no conclusive studies or evidence to indicate the potential impact of GM crops on an environment as rich in biodiversity as Mexico�s. Furthermore, activists complain that transnational corporations force farmers to sign agreements to cultivate only the original company seeds, and forbid them to save the patented seeds from the harvest for sowing the next season. This is completely alien to most Mexican campesinos, who customarily take their next seed from the harvest, and also exchange seeds with neighbours. The U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, the world market leader in transgenic seeds, has been pressuring for years for permission to grow its synthetic maize in Mexico, at least on an experimental basis. As scientific results become available, it will be possible to demonstrate that transgenic maize is more productive than traditional varieties, and poses no danger to the environment, says the company, which has sold fertilisers and traditional seeds in Mexico for several years. But Ribeiro said the trials proposed in Mexico would not yield useful results. The GM maize "will be grown in conditions of isolation, so the experiments will produce no results to indicate its impact on the real environment," she said. "What powerful biotech companies like Monsanto want is to justify their claims and impose transgenic maize on Mexico at all costs," she said. Campesinos and social activists argue that transgenic crops are a danger to health and an instrument of domination by transnational corporations. The companies retort that their seeds are being grown on millions of hectares worldwide without causing any problems, and that they have no interest in controlling farmers. Mexican scientist Luis Herrera, regarded as one of the "fathers" of biogenetics, maintains that in spite of the fierce debate, introduction of transgenic crops is irreversible, globally as well as in Mexico. Rural organisations in northern Mexico, representing the country�s wealthiest farmers, want the government of President Felipe Calder�n to approve the use of transgenic seeds as soon as possible, because in their view the GM varieties will help them produce more and better maize. Transgenic maize has had genetic material from other species added to its own, which can make it resistant to certain pests or herbicides, increase its yield or make it more adaptable to a variety of climatic and soil conditions. In pre-Columbian traditions, the gods made the first human beings out of maize. Now a related species made by human beings in laboratories is about to win official approval in Mexico, the birthplace of maize. _______________________ Mexico Approves Field Trials of GM Corn Soyatech.com/news, 21 December 2007. Author: Diego Cevallos . MEXICO CITY, Mexico, Dec. 21, 2007 -- (IPS/GIN) -- The Mexican government has put environmental and campesino organizations on edge with its announcement that the country's first experimental trials of genetically modified maize will take place next year. Opponents of genetically modified crops, who are still hoping to avert the experimental trials, have predicted that the country will suffer a severe cultural, environmental and economic blow if synthetic species of maize are planted. Companies selling transgenic seeds and some scientists, however, have claimed that the field trials are nothing to be afraid of and have sought to assure skeptics that the trials will demonstrate the benefits of the technology. The Agriculture Ministry's coordinator of International Affairs, V�ctor Villalobos, informed local journalists that the permits are ready to be granted. Representatives of the corporations that promote the use of genetically modified crops also told IPS that they are certain that their applications for experimental trials -- which were rejected three times in the last two years -- will at last be accepted. Silvia Ribeiro, the Latin America spokeswoman for the nongovernmental Canadian-based Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, said that if permission to sow genetically modified maize is enacted in practice, the authorities will face "enormous social resistance." She added that opponents of genetically modified crops still hope that the authorization will not be granted. Villalobos, who does not hide his support for the use of transgenic seeds in agricultural production, had previously reported that genetically modified (GM) maize would be sown in Mexico soon, but subsequently nothing happened, the activist said. "The government has not called for any dialogue on the issue," Ribeiro said. "However, GM crops may finally be imposed on the country, because we know that the authorities are in favor of them. That would be a terrible thing for Mexico." The possibility that transgenic maize will be sown in Mexico, albeit experimentally, has sparked a controversy in this country, where maize serves as the staple food for the majority of the national population of 109 million. Maize also has enormous cultural significance, as it was first domesticated here 9,000 years ago. According to pre-Columbian traditions, the gods made the first human beings out of maize. Mexico produces 19 million metric tons of maize annually on 8.5 million hectares of land. More than 3 million local campesinos (peasant farmers), most of whom are living below the poverty line, grow maize from wild strains or native seeds improved by breeding methods very different from the direct genetic manipulation techniques involved in producing transgenic seeds. In the United States, both transgenic and traditional maize is grown on 32 million hectares that yield 300 million metric tons a year. Mexico has been buying increasing amounts of maize from the U.S. to cover its growing deficit. Environmental groups claim that transgenic maize is entering the country as part of those imports, and have accused the authorities of doing nothing to prevent it. In 2001, transgenic maize contamination was discovered in cornfields in several Mexican states, in spite of genetically modified crops being expressly banned by law. Scientists believe that campesinos obtained the seeds from U.S. imports and sowed them without knowing they were transgenic. The finding generated a fierce debate between activists and scientists, because there are no conclusive studies or evidence to indicate the potential impact of genetically modified crops on an environment as rich in biodiversity as Mexico's. Furthermore, activists complain that transnational corporations force farmers to sign agreements to cultivate only the original company seeds and forbid them to save the patented seeds from the harvest for sowing the next season. These types of agreements are completely alien to most Mexican campesinos, who customarily take their next seeds from the harvest and exchange seeds with neighbors. The U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, the world market leader in transgenic seeds, has been pressuring for years for permission to grow its synthetic maize in Mexico, at least on an experimental basis. The company, which has sold fertilizers and traditional seeds in Mexico for several years, has claimed that the trials will serve to demonstrate that transgenic maize is more productive than traditional varieties and to show that it poses no danger to the environment. But Ribeiro said the trials proposed in Mexico will not yield useful results. The genetically modified maize "will be grown in conditions of isolation, so the experiments will produce no results to indicate its impact on the real environment," she said. "What powerful biotech companies like Monsanto want is to justify their claims and impose transgenic maize on Mexico at all costs," she said. Campesinos and social activists argue that transgenic crops are a danger to health and an instrument of domination by transnational corporations. The companies retort that their seeds are being grown on millions of hectares worldwide without causing any problems, and that they have no interest in controlling farmers. Mexican scientist Luis Herrera, who is regarded as a "father" of biogenetics, maintains that in spite of the fierce debate, the introduction of transgenic crops is irreversible, globally as well as in Mexico. Rural organizations in northern Mexico, representing the country's wealthiest farmers, want the government of President Felipe Calder�n to approve the use of transgenic seeds as soon as possible, because in their view the genetically modified varieties will help them produce more and better maize. Transgenic crops are those that include genetic material from other species. The material is generally added to make the plants resistant to certain pests or herbicides, to increase their yields or to make them more adaptable to a variety of climatic and soil conditions. _______________________ Thailand: Samples of GM maize found at deserted farm Bangkok Post, Dec 21 2007. By Kultida Samabuddhi. Genetically-modified maize has been found at a local farm near agribusiness giant Monsanto's maize farm in Phitsanulok province, bringing the leakage of transgenic crops in the country to three. The GM maize contamination was exposed yesterday by Biothai, a non-government organisation working on organic farming. The group collected 19 samples of maize, soybean and cotton from local plantations and farm shops in Phitsanulok, Nakhon Sawan and Sukhothai late last month and sent them for testing at Chulalongkorn University's food research and testing laboratory. Test results of the first two samples, collected from a deserted farm in Phitsanulok's Wang Thong district, confirmed they are genetically-engineered maize, said Biothai director Witoon Lianchamroon. Results of tests on the remaining samples were expected to arrive soon, he added. Commercial planting of transgenic crops is banned in Thailand. Experimental cultivation is allowed at laboratory and contained greenhouse levels. Mr Witoon said the contaminated maize farm was located only a few hundred metres from Monsanto's plantations. However, it could not be confirmed at the moment if the GM maize spread from the firm's plantation. According to the Agriculture Department's records, Monsanto obtained permission to import five kilogrammes of the maize from the United States in 1999 to plant on an isolated farm for experimental purposes. ''Clean up and containment operations are urgently needed to prevent the GM crop spreading further,'' said Mr Witoon. ''This case is much more serious than the previous two GM crop leakages because corn is one of the country's top export produce while its pollen can spread very far and easily breed with conventional corn varieties.'' He recalled the spread of GM cotton in Loei province in 1999 and the leakage of GM papaya from the Agriculture Department's experimental field in Khon Kaen in 2004. Once the GM maize spreads to sweet corn and baby corn farms, the country's corn exports, which generate about five billion baht in revenue per year, would be badly affected as Thai corn might be banned by the European Union (EU) and Japan, where consumers are strongly against GMOs, Mr Witoon said. The detection of GM maize in a local farm came as farmers groups and biodiversity advocates are protesting against the Agriculture and Cooperatives Ministry's push to lift a ban on field trials of GM crops. ''[The spread of GM maize] reflects flaws in the government's control of transgenic crop plantations, therefore the ban should be maintained,'' said Mr Witoon. The group yesterday petitioned Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont to instruct the Agriculture Department to investigate the GM maize leakage and contain the contamination immediately. Jirakorn Kosaisawe, deputy chief of the Agriculture Department, said he would send officials to collect maize samples from the area soon to verify the group's findings. Director of Monsanto's commercial acceptance for Southeast Asia, Shanti Shamdasani, said in a statement the company would cooperate fully with Thai authorities to determine the circumstances of the matter. _______________________ 20 December 2007 France says to extend GMO ban unless proven safe Reuters, 20 December, 2007. By Sybille de La Hamaide PARIS - France will extend its ban on the use and sale of the only genetically modified crop grown in the country unless a newly set-up committee on GMOs can prove it is safe, senior government officials said on Wednesday. France said this month it was suspending the commercial use of maize seeds using MON 810 technology developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto (MON.N: Quote, Profile, Research) until Feb. 9. This would give it time to look into the environmental and health implications of its use. � Concrete results, expected ahead of schedule, on Jan. 11 would shape government decisions on the use of MON 810, French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo told a news conference. � If doubts over safety lingered, France would extend its ban by using the so-called safeguard clause which allows European Union members to refrain from applying EU laws on the basis they may put the local population at risk, government officials said. � But if the findings proved extremely positive, France would once again allow farmers to cultivate MON 810 maize, which has been cleared for use by the EU, they said. � "The decree to suspend (GMO use) will shift to a safeguard clause if opinion reflects reservations," said Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, the secretary of state for ecology. � "Otherwise, the decree will be lifted if opinion proves extremely positive in favour of the (MON) 810." � Germany lifted its own ban on use of the MON 810 technology on the day France announced its suspension. Germany's move came after Monsanto agreed to additional monitoring of its use. � Just 22,000 hectares - or 1.5 percent of France's cultivated land - was sown with Monsanto GMO maize last year. Some farmers have urged greater use of GMOs to boost yields. � Borloo said a new law outlining a framework for GMO use in France would be submitted to parliament in early 2008, when a High Authority overseeing GMOs would also be set up. � The proposed law, adopted by French ministers on Wednesday, requires farmers growing GMO crops to take steps to avoid the dissemination of GMO seeds in the wider environment. � Farmers will also need to take out insurance to compensate for any financial losses linked to traces of GMOs in another farmer's field, according to the proposed legislation. � Anti-GMO lobby groups in France have decried the proposed law, saying it effectively legalises the dissemination of GMOs. � Radical French farmer, Jose Bove, who made global headlines for his campaign against junk food, said last week that he would stage a hunger strike to try and secure a one-year ban on GMOs. � (Additional reporting by Mathilde Cru; Editing by Tamora Vidaillet and Chris Johnson) � _______________________ 20 December 2007 Duty-free U.S. corn imports force Mexico GMO debate Reuters, 21 December 2007. SAN SALVADOR EL SECO, Mexico (Reuters) - Cheap U.S. corn will flood into Mexico in January when trade barriers are lifted, pitting local farmers against each other over how to protect the crop that has fed Mexico for thousands of years. Mexico is to scrap import duties of U.S. corn on January 1, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, in a move that will allow the world's No. 1 producer to expand its market in the country that claims to have discovered corn. Mexican growers are debating whether to turn to genetically modified strains of corn to resist the U.S. challenge, or to mechanize production but keep local corn strains GMO-free. Either way, millions of Mexican farmers, many of them living just above subsistence, will struggle to compete with heavily subsidized U.S. corn despite high international corn prices. "All the inequalities leave us unprepared for the opening," said Carlos Salazar the head of a national corn growers' association who works with farmers in the eastern town of San Salvador El Seco, where flat fields of corn and cactus stretch for miles below three snow-capped volcanoes. Corn tariffs have gradually been phased out since the trade deal was implemented in 1994, and imports of yellow corn from the United States to Mexico have skyrocketed by about 240 percent compared to the decade before NAFTA. Mexico imported over 7 million metric tons of U.S. yellow corn in 2006. Imported yellow corn, mostly used for animal feed, now accounts for close to 35 percent of local consumption and is likely to increase next year. The biggest worry for Mexican farmers is that zero barriers could give U.S. producers incentives to grow more white corn, Mexico's principal crop, which is used to make tortillas and other famed foods.� GMO vs. wils corn Those who want to introduce bioengineered corn in Mexico appear to be gaining an upper hand. A law to allow experimental planting of GMO strains in northern Mexico was passed two years ago but was never signed. Agriculture Minister Alberto Cardenas said this week the law could go into effect in a matter of weeks. "We don't want to be behind. We have to start testing now," said Catalino Flores, a geneticist working with Salazar's organization in San Salvador El Seco. Corn yields in the United States can be more than three times those in Mexico, according to Mexican growers. "There will be drought resistant corn in 5 to 10 years. If you don't plant something like that when everyone else is, you'll be down the drain," Flores said. About half of U.S. yellow corn sent to Mexico comes from genetically modified seeds. Mexico's agriculture minister reckons GMO seeds smuggled in from the United States are already being planted in northern Mexican states. But some farmers worry introducing that GMO seeds could contaminate hundreds of wild blue, red and multicolored corn varieties planted for centuries in Mexico. "The farmers who want to plant transgenic corn are irresponsible, they don't care if the are putting the genetic heritage of Mexico at risk," said Victor Suarez head of a small farmers' group that wants keep trade protections for corn and beans. elieved the gods made men from maize. The plant was adopted over 500 years ago by Spanish conquerors and spread to the rest of the world. However the debate plays out, the radical changes to the landscape of rural Mexico are already well underway. Some 2 million farm jobs have been lost since NAFTA was signed, according to Mexico's National Employment Survey. Many farmers around San Salvador El Seco have left the land and emigrated. "Now we are saving a lot of time but we are also losing a lot of jobs," said Martin Rodriguez, 57, marveling at a new machine recently brought to San Salvador El Seco that can harvest in one day what it would take a dozen workers two weeks to pick. (Editing by Marguerita Choy) _______________________ 18 December 2007 Pandora's Box of ills: soybeans in Paraguay Radio Netherlands, 18 Dec 2007, 18 December 2007. by Charles Lane and Dheera Sujan http://www.radionetherlands.nl/radioprogrammes/earthbeat/071218-soybeans-paraguay As the world's hunger for meat increases because of expanding middle classes and changing tastes, feeding the animals to feed that hunger is having a significant impact on our planet's agriculture - nowhere more so than Latin America where forests are giving way to soybean empires. Paraguay is the world's fastest growing soy producer; its eastern region - 2 ? million hectares of it - is devoted to the crop that has brought wealth and development to one of the poorest countries in South American. But the soybean monoculture has also opened a Pandora's Box of ills - environmental damage to the land, and ill health to its most vulnerable people. Thanks to genetically modified seeds, soybeans are now the country's largest export, worth a billion dollars annually. The cost to the landcsape The 300 or so multinationals that have flocked to Paraguay are responsible for the giant storage silos that dot the landscape and the brand new towns conjured almost out of thin air; towns where designer stores and youngsters with iPods give the impression of wealth and development. But the soybean landscape has come at a cost: The Atlantic Rainforest once covered nearly 400,000 square miles from the Brazilian coast through eastern Paraguay toward the centre of the continent. Now, 90% of it is gone. It's a worry to environmentalists not only for the loss of trees and their role in CO2 exchange, but also because forest cover had helped protect the country's river supplies from contamination by the agrichemicals used to grow soybeans. Javiera Rulli, is a biologist for Bases, an NGO vehemently opposed to farming soybeans in Paraguay. She says "When you have forest around you can hunt, you can fish you make timber firewood and medicine. People used to live isolated but they had their own natural resources." Guarani protests For Paraguay's indigenous people, the Guarani, the world's growing demand for soy has been disastrous. As they lose their land to industrial soy farms they've taken to camping in the center of Paraguay's capital, Asuncion, as a way to protest. In a park surrounded by high rise buildings with cars and pedestrians whizzing by, Guarani children beat their laundry against the sidewalk while women cook donated noodles over an open fire. Benito Rivarola a local leader says: "Yes then they came, Brazilians and other foreigners and they started growing soy and they started spraying a lot of toxins and we ran away. Unfortunately we had to come here to get more land. And we have to beg for money so we can eat. The situation is really sad." Death and illness His wife Beatriz tells the tale of her five month old baby daughter who sickened and died from what she believes are the fumes and toxins of the agrichemicals used on the soy farms. There are other reports of people getting ill from agrichemicals, despite the fact that most of the chemicals that are used have been given the stamp of safety by the US Environmental Protection agency. This anomaly could be due to the fact that many of the smaller farmers haven't been instructed as to their proper handling. Good governance would solve many of the ills that the soybean monoculture has brought to Paraguay, but for now it's a goal that remains out of reach. _______________________ Korea buying GM-free soya CattleNetwork.com (USA), 18 December 2007. MIke Roberts: Corn prices due for break, beef production cuts [Extracts] South Korea issued a tender to buy up to 165,000 tonnes (6.5 mi bu) of non-Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) corn. South Korea sought to buy 150,000 tonnes (5.1 mi bu) of non-GMO soybeans. _______________________ UK: Scientist who claimed GM crops could solve Third World hunger admits he got it wrong The Daily Mail, 18th December 2007. By Sean Poulter. A claim that GM technology is helping deliver higher crop yields in Africa was wrong, the Government's chief scientist has been forced to admit. Professor Sir David King recently caused uproar with his assertion that GM crops could help feed the hungry of the Third World. He called on the Government to campaign for the adoption of GM technology and said the Daily Mail's campaigning stance against it was holding up progress. Yesterday however he was accused of "letting off blasts of hot and sometimes rancid air" after it emerged his latest GM crop claims were wildly innaccurate. Dr Richard Horton, the editor of medical journal The Lancet said Sir David took his faith in science into "the realms of totalitarian paranoia". Writing in his online blog he said: 'If he lost the debate on GM, it was because his arguments failed to convince people. "King seems biased and even antidemocratic. It seems he would prefer the media not to exist at all. That is a troubling position for the Government's chief scientist to adopt." Critics of Sir David suggest he has become "demob happy" following his decision to stand down. Since the announcement, he has taken a more outspoken line on controversial issues such as GM, global warming and the need to innoculate children with the MMR vaccine. Dr Horton said Sir David was "letting off blasts of hot and sometimes rancid air to relieve the dyspeptic frustrations of seven years in the most uncomfortable job in science". The chief scientist had used the example of crop trials around Lake Victoria in Kenya to boast how useful GM farming could be in feeding the Third World. He claimed scientists had discovered the identity of a chemical in food plants that attract pests such as root borers. Sir David suggested it had been possible to "snip" the gene responsible for this chemical out of the food crop and then insert it into grass that is grown alongside it. He said the pests then eat the grass rather than the food. He told Radio Four's Today programme: "You interplant the grass with the grain and it turns out the crop yield goes up 40-50 per cent. A very big advantage." The only problem is Sir David failed to accurately describe the research in Africa, which did not involve the use of any GM technology at all. The research actually involved finding plants that can be cultivated alongside food crops and provide a natural solution to boosting yields. Researchers identified one set of plants that naturally deters parastic weeds, while another set, a species of grass, attracts the pests. The net result of this "push and pull" regime is that the food crop can grow more easily and produce a much higher yield. Green pressure groups are demanding a public apology from Sir David, whose credibility has been shaken by the error. Director of the GM Freeze campaign, Pete Riley, said: "We find it quite staggering that Professor King made such misleading comments. "The 'push pull' project in fact illustrates how the problem pest and weeds which plague farmers in the Global South can be tackled by well researched crop management techniques. "These have the advantage of being cheap to apply and being free of the potential environmental and health impacts of GM crops or pesticide usage. "If Africa is to become more self reliant in food supply without locking farmers into very expensive GM seeds and their associated herbicides then the Government need to be funding more projects like 'push pull'." A spokesman for the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills admitted Sir David simply got it wrong. He said: "Sir David has said this was an honest mistake." Sir David has described the Daily Mail's campaigning stance on GM food as "brilliant journalism". However, he complained it had held up the introduction of GM technology. This line has been rejected by Dr Horton. Dr Horton praised Sir David for his "boldness" in persuading the Government to take climate change seriously. However, he criticised his outspoken attacks on the media as "a sorrowful end to a not undistinguished term of office". _______________________ Thailand: Lifing GMO ban can trigger a deadly blow to environment and agriculture Greepeace press release, 18 December 2007. Bangkok - Greenpeace activists today staged the plight of a dying farmer in front of the Government House to symbolize the dangers posed by genetically modified organisms and to warn the military-installed cabinet that lifting the ban on open field trials of GMO can trigger a deadly blow to Thailand agriculture and environment. "Thais will face this type of threats if GMOs are released in the open as they will irreversibly contaminate our crops and the environment, endangering human health and livelihoods of farmers," said Natwipha Ewasakul Genetica Engineering Campaigner of Greenpeace Southeast Asia. Greenpeace has constantly warned the government to uphold the GMO field trial ban. Recently, volunteers from the environment organization marched to the Government House to deliver a petition, signed by more than 10,000 Thai consumers and farmers, against genetically modified organisms. "The cabinet must reject all attempts by the Ministry of Agriculture into making a rushed decision of lifting the GMO ban. Lifting the ban would likely mean GMO contamination and adverse effect to crops and the environment," she added. "The Ministry of Agriculture's insistence on repealing the ban at this crucial period before the elections exposes the aggressive agenda being pursued by GMO pushers in the current government." Greenpeace maintains that the genetic modification of food crops endangers human health, harms the environment, and jeopardizes farmers' livelihoods. GMO crops further cause genetic contamination. Once GMOs are released into the environment, usually via open field trials, it is almost impossible to recall them and the process is irreverible. Economic losses associated with GMO contamination are massive. The US rice industry suffered losses expected to exceed USD 1.2 billion due to GMO rice contamination. Illegal contamination of Thailand's papaya crops from GMO field trials in 2004 also led to considerable losses as market confidence on Thai papaya exports faltered.Greenpeace campaigns for GE-free crop and for food production that is grounded in the principles of sustainability, protection of biodiversity and providing all people access to safe and nutritious food. Genetic engineering is an unnecessary and unwanted technology that contaminates the environment, threatens biodiversity and poses unacceptable risks to health. For more information: Natwipha Ewasakul, Genetic Engineering Campaigner Tel: 085-843-7300 Wiriya Kingwatcharapong, Media Campaigner Tel: 089-487-0678 or 02-357-1921#115 _______________________ Australia: Isolating GM canola not possible, growers told The Age, December 18 2007. By Orietta Guerrera. It is virtually impossible to segregate genetically modified canola crops from traditional varieties, Australian growers have been warned. Terry Boehm, vice-president of Canada's National Farmers Union, said yesterday he was puzzled by last month's decision by the Victorian and NSW governments to lift their bans on the commercial production of the controversial crops. "To lose GM-free canola status is to lose a very big advantage," he said. Mr Boehm said GM canola varieties had not produced significantly increased yields and cases of contamination had led to lengthy court battles. The country's canola growers had also lost customers in key export markets: China, Europe and Japan. "Anyone that thinks they'll be able to maintain for very long GM-free canola is fooling themselves," Mr Boehm said. Today, Greenpeace will release a report on Canada's 12 years of experience with GM canola, saying it shows contamination of fields is inevitable and premiers Morris Iemma and John Brumby must rethink their decisions. Farmers in Victoria and NSW are free to plant GM canola from early next year. A spokeswoman for Victorian Agriculture Minister Joe Helper said the state's review into the economic and trade implications of GM canola considered segregation and the organics sector. It recommended the ban be lifted. "It identified the capacity of the grain sector to segregate and noted cross-contamination by pollen was extremely low," the spokeswoman said. _______________________ Australia: Academy endorses GM crops The Age, December 18 2007. By Jewel Topsfield. Genetically modified crops will play a critical role in alleviating malnutrition, combating climate change and removing allergens from food - and the technology must be embraced in Australia, according to Australia's top scientists. The prestigious Australian Academy of Science has released a statement strongly endorsing the controversial crops and claiming state-based legislation should be consistent with the national system. "Sometimes the lack of full certainty, in an environment of manageable risk, should not be used as the reason to postpone measures where genetic modification can legitimately be used to address environmental or public health issues," the statement says. The endorsement comes a month after Victoria and NSW announced farmers would be free to plant genetically modified canola from early next year, despite appeals from Western Australia and Tasmania not to lift the bans. The Victorian Government yesterday said it "welcomed the support of mainstream science in the responsible use of gene technologies". But anti-GM activists branded the statement a "bunch of lies", compiled by scientists who were not independent or objective and merely wanted to be able to continue with their research. And the Australian Greens called on the Rudd Government to override NSW and Victoria's decision to allow genetically modified canola, saying the crops had not been proven to be safe and could not be controlled. Australian Academy of Science spokesman T. J. Higgins told The Age the majority of scientists were comfortable with genetically modified plants. He said Western Australia and Tasmania's opposition to the technology was political rather than scientific. "From a scientific perspective, we have been eating food from genetically modified products for at least 10 years and there are no known risks associated with that," Dr Higgins said. "Foods made from genetically modified products are probably safer than some conventional products because they undergo so much more scrutiny during the testing." The academy's statement said gene technology would play a critical part in Australia's response to the challenges it faced over coming decades, including climate change. But Bob Phelps, of Gene Ethics, said the report was biased and a "bunch of lies". He said there were no drought-tolerant GM crops, so the technology could not combat climate change, and herbicide-resistant species meant crops were sprayed with more chemicals. Premier John Brumby said removing the ban would deliver greater choice to farmers and consumers and generate $115 million in economic activity in Victoria over eight years. Greens senator Rachel Siewert said concerns about genetically modified crops included the potential for increased chemical usage, cross-contamination, environmental weeds, loss of markets and increased immune and allergic reactions. Comment from GM Watch: The Academy's spokesman on the safety of GM crops etc. is TJ Higgins, a GM scientist with no expertise on nutritional/toxicological testing of GM crops. Higgins is also a leading light of CSIRO's Plant Industries, which has contractual relations with GM companies like Monsanto. His previous promotion of GM crops has been called either disingenuous or dishonest: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5348. _______________________ 17 December 2007 UK: EFSA failing to protect public health - expert Note from GM Watch: The following very clear statement on the issues surrounding the European Food Standards Agency's approval of Monsanto's GM Maize MON 863 was sent to Members of the European Parliament by John Verrall, a pharmaceutical chemist with over 35 years experience in the pharmaceutical industry, working with both human and veterinary medicines. In addition to being a member of the UK's Veterinary Products Committee (VPC), a former Chairman of the Farm and Food Society, and a member of The Food Ethics Council, John Verral is on the Codex Consumer Group of the Food Standards Agency and also represents the Council at Consumer and Stakeholders' Liaison meetings with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. He also attends the recently formed UK government committee concerned with Animal Health and Welfare chaired by the Chief Veterinary Officer. EXTRACT: After Aspartame and bovine somatotropin (rbst), GM maize Mon 863 is the third product of Monsanto, which has been shown by independent scientists, to present a potential hazard to human health. It would appear that both the EFSA as well as the UK FSA have not conducted any safety studies of their own and have accepted the company's safety studies, which in all probability have never been peer-reviewed. _______________________ GM MAIZE (MON 863) --- EFSA APPROVAL Executive Summary There is a real prospect of inadequately tested GM foods and products produced with the aid of GM technology being approved for consumption, within the EU in 2008 as a result of the WTO's challenge on GM crops and foods. Scientific studies have demonstrated a significant risk of liver and kidney toxicity when GM Maize (Mon 863) is fed to rats It seems that the EU may be forgetting the "Precautionary Principle" and now, like the US, would appear to regard international trade as taking precedence over human health and safety of its 490 million people. The EU have a deadline in January 2008 to respond to the WTO's proposals. It is essential that MPs and MEPs should, in both The House of Commons and The European Parliament, express their opposition to inadequately tested GM foods and in particular GM Maize MON 863. Background Information During March this year the European Food Standards Agency (EFSA) announced that the European Commission had requested a review of the French CRIIGEN study on GM maize (maize is the only GM product that to date has been authorised in the EU), as the results of the CRIIGEN study had indicated that there was liver and kidney toxicity in rats fed GM maize. This problem had previously been identified in other French and German studies. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8570 Maize Mon 863 received EU approval for use in animal feed in 2005 and for human consumption in 2006. It is worth noting that Pusztai's experiment (1999), when GM potatoes were fed to rats which led to changes in the linings of their stomachs, was rubbished by some other scientists, but the experiment was never repeated � although the cost would have been minimal -- a drop in the ocean of the GBP39.3m Government grant to the BBSRC and an additional GBP12.6m to DEFRA in 2005-6 - for research into "agricultural biotechnology". Yet Pusztai's experiments were of sufficient concern for the Editor of The Lancet to publish details. The CRIIGEN study raises very serious doubts about the safety of GM Maize Mon 863 and in effect provides evidence to confirm Pusztai's hypothesis that chemical analysis and "substantial equivalence" do not provide an adequate basis for assessing the safety of GM foods The EFSA review of the CRIIGEN study has now been published and it has concluded that maize MON 863 is still safe: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178621165358.htm It could be that the comments of the UK government's Chief Scientist (at the beginning of the month - just before his retirement) urging the Government to proceed with GM science to feed the world - was planned to coincide with the EFSA report. Apparently no more experiments have been undertaken to confirm or deny the CRIIGEN study and the EFSA review seems to consist of a re-affirmation of their original statement made some years ago based on the absence of science. In view of the CRIIGEN study one would have expected a decision based on the "Precautionary Principle" (i.e. if in any doubt, err on the side of caution) until further studies based on the French findings could be undertaken. It has recently been announced that the EU has until January 11th 2008 to respond to the WTO's challenge on GM crops and foods. It is important, that objections to the EFSA's findings also originate from Member States' Governments, particularly the UK Government which historically (through its employed scientists) has indicated that it favours GM technology. DG Enterprise and Trade (An EU Commission Directorate) has recently put forward proposals to "Replace and Repeal Council Regulation 2377/90" which concerns pharmacologically active substances in food producing animals. It is proposed that we should allow the extrapolation of scientific physiological results from one species to another when determining safety standards (which can only be regarded as both illogical and unscientific) in order to, amongst other things, facilitate international trade It does seem that now there is a move by the EU towards the US attitude where International trade is considered to be paramount and the health and safety of EU citizens a matter of secondary importance. After Aspartame and bovine somatotropin (rbst), GM maize Mon 863 is the third product of Monsanto, which has been shown by independent scientists, to present a potential hazard to human health. It would appear that both the EFSA as well as the UK FSA have not conducted any safety studies of their own and have accepted the company's safety studies, which in all probability have never been peer- reviewed. With regard to bovine somatotropin (injected into cows to make them produce more milk) its human safety and that of animal health and welfare was assured by Monsanto in 1994. However when subsequently assessed by the UK Veterinary Products Committee (following years of consumer agitation and Canadian trials) the VPC announced in its 1999 report under "conclusions": "The likely increase of IGF1 in the gut lumen, from milk produced by rbst treated cows, raises concerns about enhanced cell proliferation of the gut mucosa and therefore increased prevalence of carcinoma in the large bowel" and "Treatment with rbst causes welfare problems, notably levels of mastitis, lameness and injection site lesions." It is ironical that the FSA (followed by the EFSA) was established after Mad Cow Disease to promote public confidence and was created as "the independent watchdog established to protect the public's health and consumer interests in relation to food safety". The evidence indicates that both the FSA and the EFSA are failing to properly protect public health. John Verrall MRPS DBA 17th Dec.2007 _______________________ Rice on Canadian store shelves contaminated Government fails to detect illegal, genetically engineered variety NewsWire.ca / CNW / Telbec, 17 December 2007. MONTREAL and VANCOUVER, Dec. 17 /CNW Telbec/ - An independent investigation by Greenpeace has found rice sold in Canadian supermarkets to be contaminated with an experimental, genetically engineered variety accidentally released into the environment. Greenpeace is demanding that all long grain rice imported from the United States be removed from store shelves in Canada after independent testing confirmed that rice purchased at two supermarkets in Vancouver and Montreal was contaminated with a variety of genetically engineered rice not approved for human consumption by Health Canada. "There are no assurances that this genetically engineered rice is safe for people to eat," said Josh Brandon, agriculture campaigner with Greenpeace. "Even if genetically engineered food was labelled, which it isn't anywhere in Canada, we would not know about the presence of this variety because of lax testing on the part of the authorities." The rice entered the American food chain sometime after 2001 following field trials at nine sites in Arkansas and Louisiana conducted by Bayer, the German multinational chemical corporation, which designed the rice to tolerate its brand of herbicide. Bayer only disclosed the contamination last year. Many countries took immediate steps to identify contaminated shipments. Rice exports from the United States to Europe were suspended, while Japan tested all U.S. rice imports. So far, contamination has been confirmed in 30 countries, costing farmers, governments and the rice industry, Greenpeace estimates, more than a billion dollars. The Canadian government waited several months before implementing a very weak testing program, and then discontinued testing altogether last fall after failing to detect the presence of the experimental rice. Recognizing that the testing was inadequate, Greenpeace last month sent rice purchased at Provigo at 50 Ave Mont-Royal in Montreal and at Buy Low Foods in the Kingsgate Mall at 370 East Broadway in Vancouver to Genetic ID, an independent testing facility in Fairfield, Iowa. The presence of the experimental GE rice, LLRICE601, was found in both samples. "If the Canadian government had taken the kinds of measures adopted by countries such as the UK, Russia or the Philippines, they would have found this experimental rice long ago, and it would not be found on store shelves across Canada today," continued Brandon. "Instead, Canadians are being experimented with, as this country becomes a dumping ground for genetically engineered rice that the rest of the world has already rejected." Contaminated Rice samples: - No Name brand, long grain white rice, imported by Loblaws, product code 166J2, bar code, 60383 00833. - Western Family brand, imported by Overwaitea, best before date: 09 07 16, bar code 62639 17323 For further information: Josh Brandon, Greenpeace agriculture campaigner, (604) 721-7493; Jane Story, Greenpeace communications officer, (416) 930-9055 _______________________ USA: Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms Washington Post, December 17 2007. By Rick Weiss. It has been 50 years since scientists first created DNA in a test tube, stitching ordinary chemical ingredients together to make life's most extraordinary molecule. Until recently, however, even the most sophisticated laboratories could make only small snippets of DNA -- an extra gene or two to be inserted into corn plants, for example, to help the plants ward off insects or tolerate drought. Now researchers are poised to cross a dramatic barrier: the creation of life forms driven by completely artificial DNA. Scientists in Maryland have already built the world's first entirely handcrafted chromosome -- a large looping strand of DNA made from scratch in a laboratory, containing all the instructions a microbe needs to live and reproduce. In the coming year, they hope to transplant it into a cell, where it is expected to "boot itself up," like software downloaded from the Internet, and cajole the waiting cell to do its bidding. And while the first synthetic chromosome is a plagiarized version of a natural one, others that code for life forms that have never existed before are already under construction. The cobbling together of life from synthetic DNA, scientists and philosophers agree, will be a watershed event, blurring the line between biological and artificial -- and forcing a rethinking of what it means for a thing to be alive. "This raises a range of big questions about what nature is and what it could be," said Paul Rabinow, an anthropologist at the University of California at Berkeley who studies science's effects on society. "Evolutionary processes are no longer seen as sacred or inviolable. People in labs are figuring them out so they can improve upon them for different purposes." That unprecedented degree of control over creation raises more than philosophical questions, however. What kinds of organisms will scientists, terrorists and other creative individuals make? How will these self-replicating entities be contained? And who might end up owning the patent rights to the basic tools for synthesizing life? Some experts are worried that a few maverick companies are already gaining monopoly control over the core "operating system" for artificial life and are poised to become the Microsofts of synthetic biology. That could stifle competition, they say, and place enormous power in a few people's hands. "We're heading into an era where people will be writing DNA programs like the early days of computer programming, but who will own these programs?" asked Drew Endy, a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At the core of synthetic biology's new ascendance are high-speed DNA synthesizers that can produce very long strands of genetic material from basic chemical building blocks: sugars, nitrogen-based compounds and phosphates. Today a scientist can write a long genetic program on a computer just as a maestro might compose a musical score, then use a synthesizer to convert that digital code into actual DNA. Experiments with "natural" DNA indicate that when a faux chromosome gets plopped into a cell, it will be able to direct the destruction of the cell's old DNA and become its new "brain" -- telling the cell to start making a valuable chemical, for example, or a medicine or a toxin, or a bio-based gasoline substitute. Unlike conventional biotechnology, in which scientists induce modest genetic changes in cells to make them serve industrial purposes, synthetic biology involves the large-scale rewriting of genetic codes to create metabolic machines with singular purposes. "I see a cell as a chassis and power supply for the artificial systems we are putting together," said Tom Knight of MIT, who likes to compare the state of cell biology today to that of mechanical engineering in 1864. That is when the United States began to adopt standardized thread sizes for nuts and bolts, an advance that allowed the construction of complex devices from simple, interchangeable parts. If biology is to morph into an engineering discipline, it is going to need similarly standardized parts, Knight said. So he and colleagues have started a collection of hundreds of interchangeable genetic components they call BioBricks, which students and others are already popping into cells like Lego pieces. So far, synthetic biology is still semi-synthetic, involving single-cell organisms such as bacteria and yeast that have a blend of natural and synthetic DNA. The cells can reproduce, a defining trait of life. But in many cases that urge has been genetically suppressed, along with other "distracting" biological functions, to maximize productivity. "Most cells go about life like we do, with the intention to make more of themselves after eating," said John Pierce, a vice president at DuPont in Wilmington, Del., a leader in the field. "But what we want them to do is make stuff we want." J. Craig Venter, chief executive of Synthetic Genomics in Rockville, knows what he wants his cells to make: ethanol, hydrogen and other exotic fuels for vehicles, to fill a market that has been estimated to be worth $1 trillion. In a big step toward that goal, Venter has now built the first fully artificial chromosome, a strand of DNA many times longer than anything made by others and laden with all the genetic components a microbe needs to get by. Details of the process are under wraps until the work is published, probably early next year. But Venter has already shown that he can insert a "natural" chromosome into a cell and bring it to life. If a synthetic chromosome works the same way, as expected, the first living cells with fully artificial genomes could be growing in dishes by the end of 2008. The plan is to mass-produce a plain genetic platform able to direct the basic functions of life, then attach custom-designed DNA modules that can compel cells to make synthetic fuels or other products. It will be a challenge to cultivate fuel-spewing microbes, Venter acknowledged. Among other problems, he said, is that unless the fuel is constantly removed, "the bugs will basically pickle themselves." But the hurdles are not insurmountable. LS9 Inc., a company in San Carlos, Calif., is already using E. coli bacteria that have been reprogrammed with synthetic DNA to produce a fuel alternative from a diet of corn syrup and sugar cane. So efficient are the bugs' synthetic metabolisms that LS9 predicts it will be able to sell the fuel for just $1.25 a gallon. At a DuPont plant in Tennessee, other semi-synthetic bacteria are living on cornstarch and making the chemical 1,3 propanediol, or PDO. Millions of pounds of the stuff are being spun and woven into high-tech fabrics (DuPont's chief executive wears a pinstripe suit made of it), putting the bug-begotten chemical on track to become the first $1 billion biotech product that is not a pharmaceutical. Engineers at DuPont studied blueprints of E. coli's metabolism and used synthetic DNA to help the bacteria make PDO far more efficiently than could have been done with ordinary genetic engineering. "If you want to sell it at a dollar a gallon . . . you need every bit of efficiency you can muster," said DuPont's Pierce. "So we're running these bugs to their limits." Yet another application is in medicine, where synthetic DNA is allowing bacteria and yeast to produce the malaria drug artemisinin far more efficiently than it is made in plants, its natural source. Bugs such as these will seem quaint, scientists say, once fully synthetic organisms are brought on line to work 24/7 on a range of tasks, from industrial production to chemical cleanups. But the prospect of a flourishing synbio economy has many wondering who will own the valuable rights to that life. In the past year, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been flooded with aggressive synthetic-biology claims. Some of Venter's applications, in particular, "are breathtaking in their scope," said Knight. And with Venter's company openly hoping to develop "an operating system for biologically-based software," some fear it is seeking synthetic hegemony. "We've asked our patent lawyers to be reasonable and not to be overreaching," Venter said. But competitors such as DuPont, he said, "have just blanketed the field with patent applications." Safety concerns also loom large. Already a few scientists have made viruses from scratch. The pending ability to make bacteria -- which, unlike viruses, can live and reproduce in the environment outside of a living body -- raises new concerns about contamination, contagion and the potential for mischief. "Ultimately synthetic biology means cheaper and widely accessible tools to build bioweapons, virulent pathogens and artificial organisms that could pose grave threats to people and the planet," concluded a recent report by the Ottawa-based ETC Group, one of dozens of advocacy groups that want a ban on releasing synthetic organisms pending wider societal debate and regulation. "The danger is not just bio-terror but bio-error," the report says. Many scientists say the threat has been overblown. Venter notes that his synthetic genomes are spiked with special genes that make the microbes dependent on a rare nutrient not available in nature. And Pierce, of DuPont, says the company's bugs are too spoiled to survive outdoors. "They are designed to grow in a cosseted environment with very high food levels," Pierce said. "You throw this guy out on the ground, he just can't compete. He's toast." "We've heard that before," said Jim Thomas, ETC Group's program manager, noting that genes engineered into crops have often found their way into other plants despite assurances to the contrary. "The fact is, you can build viruses, and soon bacteria, from downloaded instructions on the Internet," Thomas said. "Where's the governance and oversight?" In fact, government controls on trade in dangerous microbes do not apply to the bits of DNA that can be used to create them. And while some industry groups have talked about policing the field themselves, the technology is quickly becoming so simple, experts say, that it will not be long before "bio hackers" working in garages will be downloading genetic programs and making them into novel life forms. "The cat is out of the bag," said Jay Keasling, chief of synthetic biology at the University of California at Berkeley. Andrew Light, an environmental ethicist at the University of Washington in Seattle, said synthetic biology poses a conundrum because of its double-edged ability to both wreak biological havoc and perhaps wean civilization from dirty 20th-century technologies and petroleum-based fuels. "For the environmental community, I think this is going to be a really hard choice," Light said. Depending on how people adjust to the idea of man-made life -- and on how useful the first products prove to be -- the field could go either way, Light said. "It could be that synthetic biology is going to be like cellphones: so overwhelming and ubiquitous that no one notices it anymore. Or it could be like abortion -- the kind of deep disagreement that will not go away." The question, if the abortion model holds, is which side of the synthetic biology debate will get to call itself "pro-life." _______________________ Hawai'i: GMO debate brings LaDuke to Molokai Molokai Times, 17 Dec 2007. By Kate Gardiner. Former vice-presidential candidate Winona LaDuke will visit Molokai on Jan. 12 (Mitchell Pau'ole Ccenter, 6 p.m.). LaDuke and her 'Corn Warriors' will come to the island to discuss genetically modified organisms (GMOs), linking the ongoing debates about genetically-modified corn and wild rice to the Hawaiian debate about genetically-modified taro and GMOs in general. LaDuke graduated from Harvard and began her career as a high school principal. She is the founder of the White Earth Land Recovery Project in Minnesota, an organization that has reclaimed thousands of acres of ancestral lands for the Ojibwe reservation in the northern reaches of the state. LaDuke was inducted to the National Women's Hall of Fame in September. Other guests will include Louie Hena, a permaculture design consultant and educator on traditional land management systems; Paula Garcia, the executive director of New Mexico Acequia Association, a grassroots organization of communal irrigation systems that works to sustain a land-based way of life, protect water as a community resource, and strengthen agricultural traditions; and Wild Rice Campaign Coordinator for the White Earth Project, Andrea Hanks. The Molokai debate will begin Jan. 9 (Kulana �Oiwi, 6 p.m.) with a community meeting about GMOs and culminate with a trip to Honolulu to protest GMOs at the opening of the State Legislature Jan. 16. _______________________ UK: Chief Scientist must apologise for misleading GM claims GM Freeze calls for a public apology GM Freeze press release, 17 December 2007. GM Freeze has written to retiring Government Chief Scientist Professor David King calling upon him to make a public apology after making a "grossly misleading" comments comment about GM crops on the BBC's Today Programme on 27th November. [1] Professor King finished the interview with the following: "I wonder if I could give you one example and this is the use of intercrop planting in Africa which has increased grain yields already around Lake Victoria very substantially. And this is done by discovering what the pheromone in the root of the grain plant that attracts root borers and destroys them. And if you snip that gene into the grass so that the grass attracts root borers , the root borers does not feed well on the grass and dies. You interplant the grass with the grain and it turns out the crop yield goes up 40-50%. Very big advantage." GM Freeze have pointed out to Professor King that the "push pull" project [2] he described does not involve GM crops at all. In an article in the Independent on Sunday (16th December) [3], Professor King is quoted as saying his comments were "an honest mistake". In their letter to Professor King [4] GM Freeze point out that the Push Pull project is an excellent example of how scientists have found solutions to a major weed and a significant pest of maize in Kenya without the use of pesticides or GM crops. Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said "We find it quite staggering that Professor King made such misleading comments on prime time radio. The "push pull" project in fact illustrates how the problem pest and weeds, which plague farmers in the Global South can be tackled by well researched crop management techniques. These have the advantage of being cheap to apply and being free of the potential environmental and health impacts of GM crops or pesticide usage. If Africa is to become more self reliant in food supply without locking farmer into very expensive GM seeds and their associated herbicides then the Government need to be funding more projects like "push pull". In view of the grossly misleading nature of what he said we call upon Professor King to make a public apology". ENDS Calls to Pete Riley + 44 7903 341065 Notes for editors: 1.Interview with Sarah Montague, 27th November 2007, BBC Today Programme. 2. http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/bch/CEGroup/ChemEcolGroupArea6.html and http://www.push-pull.net. 3. http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3255701.ece 4. Letter available on request to pete@gmfreeze.org [see next item below] _______________________ UK: GM Freeze letter to King Professor David King Government Chief Scientist Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform 1 Victoria St London, SW1H OET, UK 17th December 2007 Dear Professor King, Interview with Sir David King Today Programme 27th November 2007 During your interview on 27th November's Today Programme, you made a series of comments regarding the merits of GM crops which we consider to be either seriously inaccurate or a gross exaggeration of the progress being made. You finished this interview with the following: "I wonder if I could give you one example and this is the use of intercrop planting in Africa which has increased grain yields already around Lake Victoria very substantially. And this is done by discovering what the pheromone in the root of the grain plant that attracts root borers and destroys them. And if you snip that gene into the grass so that the grass attracts root borers , the root borers does not feed well on the grass and dies. You interplant the grass with the grain and it turns out the crop yield goes up 40-50%. Very big advantage." The impression you gave is that this is a working example in Africa of GM crops delivering higher yields. Nothing could be further from the truth because this project does not involve GM crops at all. It is a classic example of companion planting which diverts pest species away from crop plants or to suppress weeds. The grass (napier grass) is actually grown around the borders of corn plot, whilst desmodium (a small legume) is intercropped. This is part of the "push pull" project which is lead by International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) at Lake Victoria in Keya and Rothamsted in the UK. Full details of the project can be seen at http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/bch/CEGroup/ChemEcolGroupArea6.html and http://www.push-pull.net. The key contacts are Professor John Pickett at Rothamsted and Zeyaur Rahman Khan at ICIPE who can be contacted on john.pickett@bbsrc.ac.uk and zkhan@icipe.org or zkhan@mbita.mimcom.net. We find it quite staggering that you should make such misleading comments on prime time radio. The "push pull" project in fact illustrates how the problem pest and weeds which plague farmers in the Global South can be tackled by well researched crop management techniques. These have the advantage of being cheap to apply and being free of the potential environmental and health impacts of GM crops or pesticide usage. If Africa is to become more self reliant in food supply without locking farmer into very expensive GM seeds and their associated herbicides then the Government need to be funding more projects like "push pull". In view of the grossly misleading nature of what you said, may we respectfully suggest that you make a public apology. You also made a number of other claims about GM. For instance that food could be made safer by "snipping out" allergenic proteins and that GM will be able to produce "more crop per drop" implying that GM crops would some how allow crops to thrive in drier conditions. Both claims greatly exaggerate the progress achieved so far in genetically modifying crops. As you know the removal of allergens was covered by the GM Science review (which Professor King chaired) in 2003. This quote deals with the problem of removing allergenic protein from peanuts. "Efforts to remove the allergen from peanuts would be beneficial to a substantial fraction of the population whose sensitivity to the protein can expose them to life threatening situations and work to this end is underway (Bannon et al.2001). Although this would be beneficial, it is not simple to achieve. Peanut contains potentially more than 20 allergenic proteins. The removal of one or two of them are unlikely to make the peanut safe to eat for all peanut allergy sufferers." http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/pdf/gmsci-report1-pt3.pdf, Paragraph 5.3. The snipping of gluten genes from wheat, as you will know, would greatly damage the bread making quality of wheat and therefore would be unlikely to be economically viable even if it was effective From the perspective of the allergy sufferer the existence of a non allergenic GM version of the crop would not necessarily lead them to eat this product given the high risk of cross contamination with conventional products all along the food chain from seeds to plate. This would be particularly true of people who suffer nut allergies because reactions can be triggered by very limited exposure to the allergenic proteins. You also spoke about rainfall patterns and getting more "crop per drop", which implied that GM provided the answer to growing food crops in very dry areas. This is misleading because seeds (GM and others) will not germinate in the absence of soil moisture. Secondly it implies that the production of drought tolerant crops is close to being achieved. Your views are in marked contract to those of one practitioner in this field who feels that GM drought tolerant crops will take much longer - Professor Ossama El-Tayeb, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Industrial Biotechnology at the University of Cairo" "I read with interest and respect Friderike Oehler's message (nr. 56) and fully appreciate her concerns and am similarly convinced of the potential of "alternatives". I wish to add that transgenicity for drought tolerance and other environmental stresses (or, for that matter, biological nitrogen fixation) are too complex to be attainable in the foreseeable future, taking into consideration our extremely limited knowledge of biological systems and how genetic/metabolic functions operate. Those who propagate the ideas that any biological function could be genetically manipulated are optimists who are probably victims of a consortium of "arrogant" scientists and greedy business who have strong control on policy making and the media. Having said that, I feel we should not lose hope of reaching such noble goals and should continue to fund such research whose fruits may be reaped by a future generation. These goals have been used by the proponents of currently available genetically modified organisms (GMOs) under the control of big business, who propose that GM crops will alleviate poverty soon while in fact currently available ones mostly contribute negatively to poverty alleviation and food security and positively to the stock market. The holders of intellectual property rights for present day GM crops keep teasing us about the potential of GMOs resistant to abiotic stresses and the like while doing nothing about developing such crops for this generation. These are simply not easily exploitable in a business market and are accordingly not on their agenda. Basic research in this area is being funded almost exclusively by public funds." See http://www.fao.org/biotech/logs/C14/280307.htm. I look forward to hearing from you on how you intend to address righting the inaccurate and misleading information which was broadcast on 27th November 2007. Yours sincerely Pete Riley Campaign Director GM Freeze _______________________ Australia: GM will 'taint' natural canola crop The Age, December 17 2007 It is inevitable that genetically modified (GM) canola will contaminate Australia's canola crops, according to a report released by Greenpeace. The report examines the experience of farmers in Canada, where segregation of GM and non-GM canola crops failed after a few years, causing the collapse of both industries, canola farmer and Canadian National Farmers Union vice-president Terry Boehm said. The report comes days after a group of Canadian canola farmers failed in a six-year legal battle to obtain class action status, to enable them to sue Monsanto and Bayer Crop Science for losses caused by the contamination. The NSW and Victorian governments must reverse the decision to allow commercial GM canola crops until it can be shown that GM canola can be safely segregated and poses no environmental threat, Greenpeace genetic engineering campaigner Louise Sales said. "All the evidence from Canada suggests that neither is the case," she said in a statement. "It is also important that the state governments introduce liability legislation, so that biotech companies are held accountable for the environmental and economic damage caused by genetic engineering contamination." _______________________ India: GM foods: Label and tell Sify (Business), 17 December 2007 Confusion and delays have marked the process of mandating the labelling of genetically modified (GM) foods, whether domestically produced or imported. In September, the Ministry of Environment gave up its responsibility of regulating the import of GM foods under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 by notifying the exemption of such foods from the regulatory approval processes. Who will now regulate GM food? The Health Ministry is far from ready. This lackadaisical approach does little to protect consumer interest or allow consumers to make an informed choice. A sizeable proportion of processed food imports contains products of GM crops (mainly corn, soyabean and cotton or their derivative products such as oil). As most of the supplier countries (the US, for instance) do not segregate GM and non-GM varieties or insist on labelling, the suspicion is that imported goods are routinely cleared, despite the law that mandates permission from the Centre for import of GM foods. Currently, when goods reach Indian shores, there is no mechanism for the government to ascertain the nature of the ingredients used. Also, the country's borders are porous and clearance procedures at various entry points are far from strict. Quarantine and Port Health Offices are inadequately equipped with testing instruments and human resources. The only way consumers can get information on ingredients used in a food product, and make an informed purchase is through the declaration of contents, including ingredients, on the labels of food items on the store shelves. The sooner this labelling requirement is enforced the better. Ironically, it is not only imported food, but also domestically produced GM food that is not labelled. For instance, the country produces over 6 lakh tonnes of cottonseed oil, over half of which is from GM seed. Soyabean oil (15-20 lakh tonnes a year) is imported from countries that are known t