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 to produce GM soyabean. Yet, consumers here have no knowledge at all about what they are eating. A draft notification for labelling of GM foods/ingredients under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was published as far back as March 2006 inviting objections and suggestions from the public; but for reasons far from clear, the draft rules were not finalised. In August 2006, an integrated food law in the form of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 was enacted and a final notification on regulations for labelling and disclosing the ingredients of products was issued, to come into effect on August 20, 2007. Now, under pressure from the food industry, which could not comply with the labelling requirement despite a 12-month lead time, the Government has deferred implementation of the provisions till February 20, 2008. So much for consumer protection. _______________________ 16 December 2007 Poland to Be GMO-Free Pierwszy Portal Rolny, December 6, 2007. Translated by Anna Witowska, Food & Water Watch. Poland should be a GMO-free country, said new Polish Minister of Environment Maciej Nowicki during the press conference on December 6, 2007. "I would like to continue the line of the previous Minister of Environment Jana Szyszko with GMO free Poland in mind. My arguments are similar", stressed Mr. Nowicki. He added that Poland is not the only country in Europe that says no to GMOs. Mr. Nowicki emphasized that humanity has started a very risky experiment on a large scale and we cannot predict the results of the experiments with GMOs. The precautionary principle should be a priority, he added. The minister said that usually during discussion on GMOs he is asking GMO proponents whether Europe is suffering from hunger or having food surpluses. "If we were starving, we could think that we are taking a risk of having GM crops in order to avoid death by starvation. However we have food surpluses, so why get involved in experiments, whose consequences for humans and the environment are unpredictable at the moment?" - said Nowicki. He reminded that other EU countries are resistant towards GMO crops. "There are two opposite forces in Europe regarding GMOS. I will be trying to convince those countries who are in favor of GMOs to change their position." he added. The European Commission has warned Poland that two laws "on animal feed and seeds" break the EU regulations. According to the EU officials they ban introduction of new GM products into the Polish market. Since 2002 the Union law allows sales of some GM products in the entire European. Therefore Brussels started a disciplinary procedure against Poland. Regarding the seeds, Poland received a final warning several months ago. In August, the previous Polish government (Law and Justice party) said that it will not get rid of the ban. Commissioner on environmental protection Stavros Dimas, who contrary to other commissioners did not agree to introduce genetically modified potato, now wants to stop growing of GM corn. He has received a lot of support from environmental organizations: in November they collected large number of signatures under the petition to that effect. Within the European Commission are commissioners who are in favor of allowing GM crops in the European Union. According to unofficial information they are: commissioner on trade Peter Mandelson (from Great Britain), German commissioner on industry Guenter Verheugen and commissioner on science Janez Potocznik (from Slovenia). They argue that lack of agreement on growing GM crops is in conflict with the principles of World Trade Organization (WTO), which can start procedure against the European Union. Several years ago USA, Canada and Argentina complained to WTO against the EU moratorium. European Commission lost the first case in 2004. Moratorium ended in 2004 and since then the European Commission started procedures that would gradually allow several M products. Until recently it was boiling down to the import of already harvested products such as corn, and not to grow GM corn. For the most part the European Union is a GMO free with a few exceptions such as the fields of MON810 maize, which were started even before the 1998 moratorium. Spain is a leader here ( with about 70 thousand hectares) but some small amounts of GM MON810 maize is grown in France and Czech Republic. _______________________ USA: Lawsuits still possible in Monsanto dioxin injury case The Charleston Gazette, December 16 2007. By Paul J. Nyden. People who lived near the former Monsanto plant in Nitro that produced dioxins and related chemicals may still sue the company for personal and property damages. So can residents who lived near more than 40 other chemical plants throughout the country that Monsanto once owned and operated. In December 2003, Solutia, a successor to most of Monsanto's chemical plants and assets, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to reorganize its debts, including potential claims alleging dioxin and chemical poisoning. After hearings held by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Prudence C. Beatty in New York City, the parties reached an agreement about ongoing and potential lawsuits on Nov. 29. That agreement permits lawsuits to be pursued and makes "new Monsanto," a company created in 2002, responsible for potential costs. During a July 17 hearing, Beatty stated that a federal jury in Charleston ruled in April 1985 "that the chemical [dioxin] was poisonous and they did make the finding that the parties were harmed by the chemical. "The jury believed the chemical was harmful," Beatty stressed. "It just didn�t believe that there was the intention that was needed, that the [U.S. District] court found was needed, to get around the Workman's Compensation law." During an 11-month trial in 1984-1985, Charleston lawyer Stuart Calwell represented Monsanto chemical workers who alleged they were poisoned and injured on their jobs at the Nitro plant. After the trial, held by U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver, jurors concluded those workers could not collect Workers� Comp benefits because state law required an employer to "intentionally" injure workers before employees could collect compensation for their injuries. Beatty repeatedly stressed that the 1985 jury verdict did not rule out ongoing and future lawsuits alleging poisoning, property damage and negative health effects from pollution by dioxins and related chemicals. Beatty told John C. Longmire, one of Solutia's New York lawyers, that Calwell had "a jury verdict that made a finding in his favor on the chemical issue ... the chemical connection between exposure and illness. "Now you would like to deny that, and obviously it's not evidence," Beatty said during bankruptcy proceedings on April 17. "We thought dioxin claims might be barred in the final Solutia bankruptcy settlement," Calwell told the Sunday Gazette-Mail. "So we got 3,000 people to file forms claiming they were injured with a value of $1 million on each claim. We became big creditors in the case. "We got the language in the bankruptcy settlement that we wanted. Those claims are not going to be dismissed. After a Nov. 29 hearing, the New York bankruptcy court approved a settlement to allow those suits to continue," Calwell said. Glynn Young, a Monsanto spokesman, told the Sunday Gazette-Mail, "Under our spin-off agreement from Pfizer, we agreed to indemnify these claims. "In the event Solutia did not meet its environmental or litigation obligations, it fell to us. We took it over. We will continue to manage tort litigation. We also picked up the jobs of restoring 40-odd [chemical plant] sites and remediation projects." Monsanto and Solutia, Young added, will jointly manage two cleanup projects. "We are assuming complete responsibility for remediation at sites Solutia never really operated after the spinoff. But they did operate [our former] chemical sites in Illinois and Alabama. That is why we will work together with them there," Young said. In 1997, Monsanto owners began reorganizing the company into three new corporations: Solutia Inc. took over most of the chemical business, including the Nitro plant in 1997. Pharmacia took over Monsanto's pharmaceutical business, when Monsanto merged with Pharmacia and Upjohn Co. in 2000. Monsanto disappeared for two years. _______________________ UK: War of the boffins: 'demob-happy' chief scientist under attack The Independent on Sunday, 16 December 2007. By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor. There's never been anything quite like it in the staid world of government science. For weeks Professor Sir David King, the chief scientist who leaves his job at the end of the month, has been giving his views on controversial issues ranging from badger culling to homeopathic medicine. Now critics are accusing him of being "demob-happy" and of "totalitarian paranoia". The editors of two of Britain's top scientific journals have both taken him to task, as have the environmental spokesmen of both main opposition parties. And an environmental group has written to the Prime Minister demanding Professor King issues a public apology. Much the most colourful attack so far has come from Dr Richard Horton, the editor of medical journal The Lancet, who accuses the chief scientist of "letting off blasts of hot and sometimes rancid air to relieve the dyspeptic frustrations of seven years in the most uncomfortable job in science". Praising Professor King for his "boldness" in persuading the Government to take climate change seriously, he condemns his parting shots as "a sorrowful end to a not undistinguished term of office". Writing in his blog, Dr Horton takes issue with an attack earlier this month by Professor King on the BBC's Today programme and The Daily Mail for their coverage of GM crops and the MMR vaccine. The chief scientist said blocking GM crops was "costing us GBP2-4bn a year in lost revenues" to biotech companies and that the vaccine campaign "has potentially led to a situation where we could have 50 or 100 children dying of measles in the UK". Dr Horton responds: "King takes his faith in science into the realms of totalitarian paranoia. If he lost the debate on GM, it was because his arguments failed to convince people. If we failed to shore up public confidence in MMR, we should look at our own failings, not blame others. "King seems biased and even anti-democratic. 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." Dr Horton's onslaught follows a reprimand by Nature, the scientific journal, over his response to a study that advised ministers not to cull badgers to combat the spread of TB in cattle. The study - carried out over a decade by an independent scientific group headed by Professor John Bourne - concluded that killing badgers, which harbour the disease, would not control it and might make it worse. Professor King convened a panel of experts, who, after meeting for just a day and a half and without talking to Professor Bourne's group, issued a report of their own supporting culling in certain circumstances. Professor Bourne responded by calling the report "very superficial" and "very selective". Nature said: "The mishandling of the issue by David King is an example to governments of how not to deal with such advice." Last week Professor King was also attacked by Jayne Thomas, the vice-chair of the Society of Homeopaths, for alleging that "homeopathic so-called medicine" was "a risk to the population" and that "there is not one jot of evidence supporting the notion homeopathic medicines are of any assistance whatsoever". And GM Freeze, a pressure group, has written to the Prime Minister and Professor King demanding an apology for wrongly giving the impression that a successful agricultural project in Africa used GM. Professor King accepts he made an "honest mistake". Yesterday, Peter Ainsworth, the shadow environment secretary said: "It seems Sir David may be a little demob-happy." Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, added: "It is a shame Sir David did not give us some of his more controversial opinions earlier in his career when he would have been in a better position to take part in an ongoing debate." Yesterday, Professor King denied being demob-happy and added: "Explaining the science is what my job is about, not pronouncing." _______________________ 14 December 2007 USA: FDA approval of clones stalled by passage of Mikulski-Specter amendment in Farm Bill Bill Passes by an Overwhelming Majority of 79 to 14 Coalition of Consumer, Farmer, and Animal Welfare Groups Praise the Senate's Action Center for Food Safety press release, 14 December 2007. Washington, DC - A broad coalition of consumer, farmer, and animal welfare organizations today applauded passage of a provision in the Senate's Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) that would delay the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) endorsement of the use of food from cloned animals. This amendment, advanced by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) and co-sponsored by Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), calls for a rigorous and careful review of the human health and economic impacts of bringing cloned food into America's food supply. The senate overwhelmingly passed the bill this afternoon by a vote of 79 to 14. "The passage of this bill with the Mikulski-Specter amendment is like a gift for the holidays," said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety. "The FDA's flawed and cavalier approach to cloned food and its potential impacts called for a truly rigorous scientific assessment. At a time when the FDA has repeatedly failed the public, this amendment will ensure that the American consumer is considered before any special interest." The amendment requires that two rigorous studies be performed before the FDA is able to issue a final decision on food from clones. The amendment directs the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to convene a blue-ribbon panel of leading scientists to review the FDA's initial decision that food from cloned animals is safe. The amendment further requires the NAS to study the potential health impacts of cloned foods entering the nation's food supply, including the possible effects of lessened milk consumption (due to consumer avoidance of cloned food) leading to development of chronic diseases as a result. The bill also directs the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to examine consumer acceptance of cloned foods and the likely impacts they could have on domestic and international markets. "The FDA risk assessment ignored the fact that most clones never make it to adulthood because they die in gestation or shortly after birth, and also failed to consider whether clones might need more drug treatments," said Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist, Consumers Union. "We agree with the Senate that the NAS should take another look at the safety questions." During a public comment period that ended earlier this year, the FDA heard from more than 150,000 consumers rejecting the Agency's proposed plan to introduce clones into the U.S. food supply. In addition, dozens of members of the meat and dairy industries and nonprofit organizations urged the FDA to consider comments from the widest possible sample of Americans in consideration of the untested nature of cloning technology. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/CloningPR5_03_07.cfm "Animal protection advocates support scientific advancement, but cloning lacks any legitimate social value and decreases animal welfare in a dramatic way," said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. "Today, the U.S. Senate slowed down the application of this bad idea, and we hope the House follows its lead." "Polls have repeatedly shown that consumers are wary of food from cloned animals," said Chris Waldrop, Director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America. "We need a much more comprehensive assessment of the potential implications of allowing food from cloned animals into the food supply. The Mikulski-Specter amendment would assure that these important issues are thoroughly reviewed before FDA is allowed to issue its final risk assessment." Passage of this bill with the Mikulski-Specter amendment comes at a time when the public's opposition to food from clones has never been higher. A national survey conducted this year by Consumers Union found that 89 percent of Americans want to see cloned foods labeled, while 69 percent said that they have concerns about cloned meat and dairy products in the food supply. A recent Gallup Poll reported that more than 60 percent of Americans believe that it is immoral to clone animals, while the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that a similar percentage say that, despite FDA approval, they won't buy milk from cloned animals. "The surveys show that the public is morally opposed to cloning. Animals suffer terribly in the cloning process, and the FDA has ignored these issues," said Tracie Letterman, Executive Director of the American Anti-Vivisection Society. "This amendment will allow these discussions to take place." "With the public increasingly concerned about the treatment of farm animals," said Julie Janovsky, Campaign Director for Farm Sanctuary, "the Mikulski- Specter amendment acknowledges the fact that cloning may lead to even harsher conditions for animals used to produce food." In its risk assessment of cloned food, the FDA claims to have evaluated extensive peer reviewed safety studies to support its conclusion, yet a recent report issued by the Center for Food Safety, Not Ready for Prime Time, shows the assessment only references three peer-reviewed food safety studies, all of which focus on the narrow issue of milk from cloned cows. What is even more disturbing is that these studies were partially funded by the same biotech firms that produce clones for profit. None of the studies focus on the safety of meat from cloned cows or pigs, or milk or meat from the offspring of cloned animals, and there was absolutely no data on milk or meat from cloned goats - all major issues critical to determining the safety of the proposal. View the executive summary of the Center for Food Safety's report, Not Ready for Prime Time http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/NotReadyForPrimeTime_ExecSummary.pdf View the full report http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/FINAL_FORMATTEDprime%20time.pdf View the Mikulski - Specter Farm Bill amendment http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/Mikulski-Specter%20Mgr%20Pack%20Amend%20Final%2012-14-07.pdf Contact: Joe Mendelson, Center for Food Safety, 703-244-1724; John Bianchi, Goodman Media, 212-576-2700 Chris Waldrop, Consumer Federation of America, 202-797-8551; Julie Janovsky, Farm Sanctuary, 301 654 2903 Michael Greger, M.D., The Humane Society of the United States, 202-676-2361; Michael Hansen, PhD, Consumers Union, 917-774-3801. _______________________ Canada: Supreme Court won't hear Monsanto case The Leader-Post (Regina), 14 December 2007. By Darren Bernhardt, Saskatchewan News Network SASKATOON -- A six-year battle by a group of Saskatchewan organic farmers to sue a pair of powerful ag-biotech companies has been snuffed out by the Supreme Court of Canada. The farmers, Larry Hoffman and Dale Beaudoin, launched their case against Monsanto Canada and Bayer Crop Science in January 2002. They claim the organic industry has been seriously harmed as a result of genetically modified (GM) canola created by the companies. They sought compensation for losing canola as a crop due to genetic contamination and attempted to stop the production of genetically engineered wheat for the same reason. On Thursday, the country's top court announced it will not hear the case. "We're obviously disappointed," said Saskatoon lawyer Terry Zakreski, who represents the organic farmers. "The ruling by the Supreme Court does not list any reasons, so we couldn't speculate as to why that decision was made." Monsanto spokeswoman Trish Jordan said the company is pleased. "We have always maintained that the claims made by this group lacked merit and that they failed to meet any of the required criteria for certification. It is gratifying to see the Supreme Court of Canada support the strongly worded decisions of the lower courts," she said. Although there are two appellants named in the case, the farmers were represented and financed by the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (SOD) and its organic agriculture protection fund. SOD attempted to pursue a class-action lawsuit on their behalf just after Monsanto applied in December 2002 to the Canadian and American regulatory systems for approval to release Roundup Ready wheat as a commercial crop In order to launch the suit, SOD first needed to acquire class-action certification. Saskatchewan's Court of Queen's Bench denied it, saying the group failed to meet any of the required criteria. SOD appealed but in May 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld the previous ruling, describing SOD's case as "replete with weakness in every respect." Papers were filed in August by SOD for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In his memorandum of argument, Zakreski said the case "seeks to ask whether biotechnology companies incur responsibility when their patented genetically modified seed, pollen and plants infiltrate farmland, causing harm." The Supreme Court's decision is SOD's third strike. But that doesn't mean Hoffman and Beaudoin are out of options, Zakreski said in an interview. "It (Thursday's decision) effectively ends the effort to get certification as a class action, but Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Beaudoin can pursue it individually," he said. "We will weigh that over the next month or so." In a media release from SOD Thursday, Hoffman said: "The fact of GMO contamination and the reality of losses we organic farmers suffer because of it have not gone away. We will continue fighting to protect the right to farm GMO-free and the right to eat GMO-free." _______________________ Canada: Saskatchewan organic group's GMO suit shut down Canadian Cattlemen magazine, 14 December 2007. The Supreme Court of Canada won't hear an appeal from two Saskatchewan farmers looking to mount a class-action suit against Monsanto Canada and Bayer CropScience over genetically modified (GM) canola. The denial of leave to appeal by Canada's top court effectively shuts down the case in its present form, as filed by farmers Larry Hoffman and Dale Beaudoin, with backing by the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (SOD), an umbrella group for organic farmers, end-users and consumers. Hoffman and Beaudoin, with lawyer Terry Zakreski, sought leave to appeal decisions by two Saskatchewan courts that refused to certify the farmers' suit against the two seed and biotech companies as a class action. The suit, if certified, would have sought compensation for the loss of canola as a certified organic crop due to what SOD called "extensive contamination of canola seed and cross-pollination by GMO varieties," specifically those containing Monsanto's Roundup Ready and Bayer's Liberty Link genes. A Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench judge denied class-action certification in May 2005, a ruling upheld at the provincial Court of Appeal in May this year. Justice G.A. Smith, the Queen's Bench judge at the time, had ruled that the plaintiffs' proposed "class" was over-inclusive in some respects, under-inclusive in others, and was not sufficiently related to the causes of action. The lower courts also noted that the organic standards in question were only amended to include GMOs after Roundup Ready and Liberty Link canola had been released, which left "no plausible basis" for supposing negligence by the two companies. The provincial appeal court also noted Smith's view that the two farmers "were not suitable representatives, given the fact they were nominal plaintiffs only and had relinquished control of the action" to SOD. In a class action suit, Smith ruled, representative plaintiffs have a responsibility to prosecute the suit in the interests of the members of the class and must have the knowledge and ability to instruct their counsel. "These are duties that cannot, in my view, be delegated to another party who is not answerable to the Court." Hoffman said in an SOD release in August that the two farmers had to appeal to the Supreme Court because the lower court rulings showed "the bar was set too high for class actions in Saskatchewan." SOD spokesman Arnold Taylor told the Canadian Press news agency on Thursday that the group was disappointed at the Supreme Court's dismissal. However, he noted, the decision to deny class action status doesn't stop the individual farmers from filing their case. Taylor told CP that there likely wouldn't be a decision on whether to file suit on an individual basis until early in the new year. Monsanto Canada spokesperson Trish Jordan said in a release Thursday that it was "gratifying" to see the top court support the lower courts' "strongly worded decisions." _______________________ USA: Joe Sixpack \| Frankenbeer: Up in arms over GMOnster mash Philadelphia Daily News, 14 December 2007. WHAT IF science could make a better beer through genetic engineering? A faster-fermenting Yuengling. A Guinness Stout with a bigger, foamier head. A Heineken that required less grain. A Budweiser that produced no hangover, no matter how much you drank. In fact, scientists are already tinkering with the genetic makeup of beer ingredients - and even as Americans seem largely unconcerned about so-called genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Europeans are gearing up to fight so-called Frankenbeer. In a remarkable show of opposition, about a third of Germany's 1,200-plus breweries have signed a petition to amend the 500-year-old Reinheitsgebot (Germany's beer purity law) to ban the use of genetically modified ingredients. The law - the hallmark of Germany's world-renowned beer industry - states that German beer may be made only with malt, hops, yeast and water. It was established in 1516 to restrict the use of potentially dangerous ingredients (tree bark, poisonous mushrooms) that often found their way into beer. Over the years, Germany's proud brewers have cited the law, and its ban on cheaper adjunct ingredients such as rice and corn, as a symbol of their superior products. Now, GMO opponents say that if German beer is going to remain pure, the law shouldn't permit ingredients that have been artificially enhanced in laboratories. "It's against natural creation," said Thomas Weiss, quality manager of Neumarkter Lammsbrau in Bavaria. "Farmers don't want it. Beer drinkers don't want it. The only people who want GMOs is big industry." (Disclosure: I learned about the anti-GMO petition during a tour of German breweries and hops producers that was sponsored in part by the Bavarian Brewers Association.) Lammsbrau is Germany's oldest organic beer maker, so it's not surprising it would take a stance against genetically modified ingredients. What's surprising is that so many others would join. Many of the breweries backing the petition are old-fashioned operations where the only thing green is their bottles. Even Warsteiner, Germany's third-largest brewer, has signed on, said Weiss. What's so bad about better beer through science? Supporters of GMO crops say they can be more pest-resistant, withstand harsher environmental conditions and have a longer shelf life. They say that, through DNA technology, we can feed more of the world's population. In America, GMOs are hardly a blip in the public consciousness. When Greenpeace earlier this year charged that Anheuser-Busch was using genetically modified rice in Budweiser, for example, it generated few news reports. (A-B called the charge "false and defamatory," and said its rice strain was approved by federal regulators.) In Germany, meanwhile, Greenpeace's allegations were widely reported, partly because of an earlier scare over cross-pollination with domestic crops. There's also a huge political aspect to the debate. To opponents in Europe, GMOs translate to big, bad American capitalism trying to make more money from acres of crops. "We see all these American companies like Monsanto - which was a big supporter of George Bush - changing the entire agricultural system," Weiss said. For example, Weiss said, since genetically modified plants are patented, farmers must pay annual fees to corporations instead of using naturally produced seeds to grow new crops. There also are questions about long-term health consequences, he said. Whether the brewers association amends the Reinheitsgebot is still up in the air. Opponents of the change say it is unneeded because the law already ensures the use of pure ingredients. An association statement on GMOs cries, "Bavarian brewers will have none of this!" The question is how long breweries - especially the big ones - will be able to resist the lure of potentially cheaper and better ingredients. About 10 years ago, when genetic researchers announced they were experimenting with faster-fermenting "turbo" yeast, one of Germany's largest newspapers launched a "Hands Off Our Beer" campaign. The brewers association quickly insisted it had no reason to use genetically modified beer ingredients. Today? Germany is just emerging from a hops crisis brought on by increasing demand and bad weather. What if genetic scientists could develop hardier, more abundant hops vines? "It's important to use every technique to guarantee enough food and crops for everyone in the world," said Johann Pichlmaier, president of the Association of German Hop Growers. Then, straddling the fence, he added, "As long as consumers continue to oppose GMOs, no, we won't use them. . . . But I don't know if we can say 'no' forever." "Joe Sixpack" by Don Russell appears weekly in Big Fat Friday. For more on the beer scene in Philly and beyond, visit www.joesixpack.net. Send e-mail to joesixpack@phillynews.com. _______________________ W.Australia says its canola crop to stay GMO-free Reuters, 14 December 2007. By Michael Byrnes SYDNEY - The Western Australian government said on Friday it will not follow the two main eastern states of New South Wales and Victoria in lifting bans on commercial genetically modified canola crops. "The WA government's attitude to GMOs is clear -- we will remain clean, green and GMO-free unless our consumers tell us otherwise," Western Australia's Agriculture Minister Kim Chance said in a statement. New South Wales and Victoria announced on Nov. 27 that they would end four-year moratoriums on commercial GMO canola crops, to put crops on the same commercial footing as canola produced in the world's biggest exporter, Canada. GMO canola produces increased yields, better weed control, superior oil quality and higher farmer profits, according to the biggest farmers group the New South Wales Farmers Association. A spokeswoman for Chance told Reuters on Friday that bans on GMO canola would remain in place until the next state election, in early 2009, when the decision would be reviewed. Western Australia produces around 30 percent of Australia's average annual canola crop of 1.5 million tonnes a year. On an average of the last five years, Western Australia produced 477,000 tonnes, compared with 420,000 tonnes in New South Wales and 304,000 tonnes in Victoria. Australia's domestic consumption is around 420,000 tonnes a year, leaving over 1 million tonnes for export in a normal year, most of it from Western Australia. This makes Australia the second-biggest canola exporter after Canada. Chance said that by staying GMO-free, Western Australia will retain key overseas markets and a price premium. The Consumers Union of Japan, which has purchased up to 3,500 tonnes of canola a year from New South Wales and Victoria, would switch to buying from Western Australia, Chance said. European and Australian consumers also preferred GMO-free food, he said. But Australian farmers had been missing out on valuable export opportunities because of the failure to adopt GMO canola, NSW Primary Industries Minister Ian Macdonald has said. Chance said Western Australian canola commands a GMO-free price premium of up to A$50 a tonne. Macdonald claims that GMO canola has a gross margin benefit of A$45 a hectare. (Editing by Ben Tan) _______________________ EU: Germany proposes GM approval overhaul FoodNavigator.com, 14 December 2007. By staff reporter. The German agriculture minister has suggested that the EU make decisions to approve genetically-modified plants in Europe purely on the basis of science and do away with political voting on the matter. GM approvals are incredibly slow in Europe, and at present are subjected to votes by the Council of Ministers and by the European Commission. The vast spectrum of views on GM across the bloc, however, mean that it is extremely difficult to get a consensus. The last GM product to be approved for cultivation in Europe was in 1998. Some GM organisms have been approved for import since then, but this has happened only very slowly.� At present, political debate is raging over approval on the cultivation of two GM maizelines, Bt11 and 1507, despite a positive opinion on safety having been delivered by the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA). Horst Seehofer reportedly told news agencies outside last month's meeting of EU agriculture ministers in Brussels that future decisions should be made purely on the basis of science and politics should be kept out of it. He believes that the current procedure should be reassessed, and if found to be lacking a new, science-based system should be drawn up. At present, the science surrounding GM plant safety is assessed by EFSA, which operates under the mandate of the European Commission. But EFSA is a risk assessor, and its opinions are not bound to translate into European law. Indeed, in the case of the maize lines EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas is at odds with EFSA's verdict and has declared he will block approval. Seehofer would like to see a parallel system to that which exists for pharmaceutical products, whereby the decisions are actually made by a competent scientific authority. The role of the European Commission should be limited to setting conditions for the use of GM plants, like GM and non-GM co-existence, and labeling requirements. Until a new procedure has been agreed and implemented, he thinks no new approvals should be granted. However the European Commission has said that a moratorium in order to change the system now would have economic consequences, particularly in pushing up the price of meat. The relative cost of feed grains like maize in the EU compared to the US would further increase the cost burden on farmers, and the financial effects would pass down the food supply chain to consumers. Adeline Farrelly, communications director at EuropaBio, the European Association for Bioindustries, said last week: "There are many products that have gained approval worldwide but that are still stuck in the European system. These are traders' crops and so the slow process causes problems for them and results in a shortage of supplies for Europe." She added: "We believe the Commission should accept its responsibility and sort out the backlog of products waiting for approval." _______________________ Australia: GM foods can be dangerous. But you do the research The Age, December 14 2007. By Mitchell Harper. [Mitchell Harper is a former scientist with research experience in microbiology and immunology, and has taught biology and genetics for more than 30 years] PLEASE don't read this and think all genetically modified applications are bad. Please don't read this and think I am against genetic research. Quite the contrary - I think much good will come from it, particularly in medical research. Now, if you've been following the debate on the lifting of the moratorium on GM crops, you may be bracing yourself for another barrage on how good these crops will be for the economy, farmers, feeding the world, and so on. This is not the case at all. On balance, I have grave reservations about these crops. Farmers are not being told all the risks involved. But you don't have to take my word for it, you can see for yourself. I'll show you how in a moment. When these issues first arose, I looked at the logic behind herbicide-resistant crops and found it compelling. It was every farmer's answer to weed control. When Roundup ready soy was released in the United States, a lot of farmers eagerly adopted the new technology. But they were in for a shock. Their crops curled up and died due to an epidemic of sudden death syndrome. This disease is caused by a soil-borne fungus of the Fusarium family. Robert Kremer, a microbiologist from the US Department of Agriculture, did some tests. He found that every time Roundup was applied to the soil, a spike in the Fusarium population occurred. While he did not find evidence for disease in his trials, every farmer reading this will know the significance of his findings. Fungal diseases need the right environmental conditions to cause disease. The severity of the disease depends on how much fungus is in the soil - the inoculum. A high inoculum means more severe infection and greater losses. And Roundup causes a higher inoculum. When Roundup ready canola was first introduced in Canada, a Fusarium-induced wilt caused major damage. In northern NSW and Queensland, Fusarium is devastating cotton at a cost of about $100 million a year. I wonder how many farmers have been warned of this potential risk? Has there been any testing of local fungal pathogens to find out how they may react? They should find out before they think of planting these crops in March next year. Particularly if we keep having this humid spring weather in the future. They should ask the regulators and advisers if blackleg, for example, has been tested, because we now know that Fusarium is not the only fungus Roundup encourages. They should also ask about trace elements. Our soils are old, and have poorer levels of trace elements, such as copper, iron and manganese. Don Huber, emeritus professor of botany and plant pathology at Purdue University in Indiana, has been concerned with this emerging problem for some time. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, acts like a pair of tiny chemical tweezers and can prevent the plant from using these trace metals. If plants lack these nutrients, anything that consumes them will also receive less. Huber is looking at the knock-on effects of these deficiencies. He writes: "The impact on animal and human health is emerging from micronutrient deficiency - especially in dairy and pork industries." He mentions anaemia, gout, wasting, diarrhoea and young mortality as serious concerns. So why haven't our regulatory authorities picked up on these issues? To be fair, the problems with nutrient deficiency have only begun to emerge - an international symposium on glyphosate-disease interactions was held as recently as September. And the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator is reviewing the literature on genetically modified crops. It would be nice if some clearer direction to farmers arrived before the planting season. It would also be nice if a more reliable estimate of prospective yields were on the table. It is true that in some cases genetically modified crops yield more, but in other cases they yield less than conventional crops. A 2002 report from the USDA says: "Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative." Now, as I said before, you don't have to take my word for all this. You can Google it. Try, for example, "glyphosate fusarium", or "yield of GM crops", or even "use of herbicide in GM crops". Or how about "GM crops the weed problem". You'll find arguments on both sides of the coin, but can refine your searches until you get to the original articles. And you'll certainly get plenty of food for thought. _______________________ 13 December 2007 UK: Genetically Modified Editorial Letter to Philip Campbell Editor of Nature magazine 13th December 2007 To the Editor Genetically Modified Editorial I refer to your Editorial entitled "Europe's handling of applications to grow genetically modified crops amounts to bad governance" -- Nature 450, 921 (13 December 2007) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7172/full/450921a.html [see below under 12 December]. In 2004 Guy Cook referred, in his book "Genetically Modified Language", to the arguments used by GM proponents as "........ illogical, obscure, patronizing and one-sided, populated with false analogies, misleading metaphors, and impenetrable ambiguities.� Such arguments pepper the Editorial which you published in your issue dated 13 December 2007, and it is clear that Nature Publications has now abandoned any pretence of impartiality on the issue of GM crops and foods. So the EU is guilty of "bad governance" because not a single GM crop has been passed for cultivation in the last six years? So Dimas "inappropriately" went against the advice of "his scientific advisers" in indicating that he would turn down the applications for the cultivation of maize lines 1507 and Bt11? So the Commissioner has a "conflicted perspective", has "misused science", and has based his decision on politics rather than science? So what we need is "science based risk assessment" leading to the cultivation of GM crops for the general good? So science indicates one thing and prejudice another, while political expediency stands in the way of sound decision-making? It appears that the Editor of this journal holds to the rather naive idea that science is value-free, and that advisory committees like EFSA are essentially correct if they say that their advice is science- based. He seems to think that GM scientists are virtuous people and that there is no such thing as a true scientist who is motivated to reject GM technology on scientific grounds. So there is no room for uncertainty or precaution, and when nasty politicians reject scientific advice they do it because they do not have sufficient respect for science or because politics and public opinion get in the way. With good training from the Chief Scientist and others, that can probably be put right........ That may or may not be a travesty of what the Editor thinks -- but it may be instructive to look at the quality of the advice which Commissioner Dimas has had to put up with for the past few years. 1. EFSA itself, held up by the Editor as responsible for providing "independent scientific advice", provides advice which is anything but independent. The members of its GMO Panel have been carefully chosen because they are representatives of the GM research community, and because they can be counted upon not to question the essential function of that body, which is to facilitate GM consents. It connives in secrecy and scientific malpractice. It has been heavily criticised for its complacency and arrogance by independent scientists, NGOs and consumer groups, and even by the Commission itself; and (although it will deny this) its "advice" is heavily influenced by commercial and political expediency. In essence, the GMO Panel is not fit for purpose. 2. The dossiers which the regulators and advisory committees examine, in the process of coming to decisions on GM consents, are filled with "advocacy science" assembled (and manipulated) with the specific purpose of demonstrating lack of harm. The dossiers are not peer-reviewed. If the applicants for consent commission any studies which might trigger off health or environmental concerns, they simply leave them out of their dossiers. All sorts of techniques are used to portray matters in the best possible light, including data aggregation, the use of redundant and insensitive measurement techniques, the use of inappropriate statistical analyses, and experimental design which masks rather than reveals physiological or environmental damage. 3. Large parts of these dossiers are unavailable for public scrutiny, because the GM corporations routinely ask for (and obtain) "commercial in confidence" dispensations from the EC and the regulatory bodies. This means that timely peer review of critical data and conclusions is impossible unless lengthy appeals are undertaken in order to access the removed or blanked-out pages. EFSA connives in the blanking out of large sections of material that cannot possibly have any negative impact upon the commercial interests of the GM plant breeders. 4. Most of the science contained in the GM dossiers is strictly non- replicable, and may therefore be fraudulent. There is no way of knowing, since the GM corporations routinely block genuinely independent research by refusing to supply GM reference materials, seeds and meal for bona fide researchers and laboratories. So experiments cannot be replicated or improved, data sets and results cannot be checked, and conclusions cannot be questioned. This is an affront to scientific ethics, and yet the regulators and the advisory bodies refuse to do anything about it. Nobody -- not even EFSA -- should ever accept experiments which cannot be repeated and results that cannot be verified. 5. A considerable amount of the effort that goes into the production of GM dossiers and supporting material is devoted to proving that a GM variety is "substantially equivalent" to the non-GN variety from which it was bred. This is a nonsensical and meaningless term which has no scientific validity -- and yet the regulators and the advisory bodies believe in it as an article of faith. Having examined the workings of EFSA, and its decisions, for some years, I am convinced that its processes are deeply flawed, that it examines and approves much science that could well be fraudulent, and that its conclusions are often at fault. NGOs have accused EFSA's GM Panel on more than one occasion of placing the public at risk, and of criminal negligence. It appears to have forgotten that the key Directives to which it is supposed to work have enshrined within them the application of the Precautionary Principle. Perhaps, dear Editor, you assume that EFSA operates in a state of scientific grace and that Commissioner Dimas is involved in grubby politics, bowing under pressure from an ill-informed and emotional public? Think again. Commissioner Dimas has perhaps stumbled upon something many of us have known for a very long time -- that the EFSA advice he receives is not worth the paper it is written on. If EFSA wants to convince us otherwise, it had better start now, by addressing the five issues raised above. Dr Brian John Trefelin, Cilgwyn, Newport, Pembs SA42 0QN Wales, UK Tel + 44 1239-820470 Fax + 44 1239-821245 Comment from GM Watch: Over the weekend a scientist contacted us to say his dream had always been to have a paper published in Nature, but that had changed after seeing the Nature editorial attacking Dimas and the treatment of Dr. Ermakova by Nature Biotechnology. Another scientist, whose research has been published in Nature, told us, "Nature is now doing as much harm to science as Science or the Proceedings of the Natl Academy, who have done nothing but become political outlets for the new owners of our societies, the corporations. In doing so, they have turned the lights out on real critical thinking, and alienated the public away from science - people are not stupid, and it does not take much to see how corrupt the house of Science has become. It is sad to see Nature in such a sorry state." _______________________ 12 December 2007 GMO Seeds: 'MNCs Gaining Total Control Over Farming' IPS News, December 12 2007. By Anil Netto. Food security campaigners are now more concerned than ever that farmers are turning dependent on large multinational corporations (MNCs) for seeds, fertilisers, pesticides and other inputs while also becoming more vulnerable to pressures to produce genetically engineered crops. Gathered here over the weekend, for the Pesticide Action Network (PAN)'s 25th anniversary, many expressed concern over the predatory nature of corporate agriculture and its attempts to corner the entire chain of food production from seeds to sales of food products. PAN is a network of over 600 participating non-governmental organisations, institutions and individuals in over 90 countries working to replace the use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives. Participants said agrichemical sales have become increasingly concentrated in a handful of large MNCs. Syngenta, Bayer, Monsanto, BASF, Dow and DuPont together control 85 percent of the annual pesticide market valued at 30 billion US dollars. Three companies -- Cargill, Archer Daniels and Bunge -- control nearly 90 per cent of global grain trade while DuPont and Monsanto dominate the global seed market. Eleven firms account for about half the world sales of seeds, of which about a quarter are sales of genetically engineered seeds. Genetically engineered seeds are now focussed on soybeans, maize, cotton and oilseed rape (canola). Such concentration of market control in a few firms has been driven by large research-based firms fighting for market control and profits, higher research and development expenditure (roughly 10 percent of sales) and more demands for data for registration and re-registration of products. Campaigners have to contend with more aggressive advertising tactics that promote the impression that pesticides are good and safe to use. Agrichemical lobbyists are trying to convince government officials that the industry is "science-based" and that pesticides are safe to use, said Barbara Dinham, an anti-pesticide campaigner from Britain. Dinham pointed out that the global federation of agrichemical multinational corporations, CropLife International, is now touting itself as representing the 'plant science industry'. "We are committed to the safe and responsible use of the industry's products in order to provide safe and abundant food as well as other benefits back to the consumer," CropLife claims on its website. "Through balancing environmental, economic and societal concerns the plant science industry also contributes significantly to promoting sustainable agriculture." CropLife's annual report for 2007 even makes the breathtaking claim that pesticides are actually good for the environment for a host of reasons, including "lower carbon dioxide emissions associated with the switch to no-till/reduced tillage farming systems, and less frequent pesticide applications made possible by biotech crops fuel savings". Among other claims, it states that increases in agriculture productivity have also protected biodiversity from the encroachment of agriculture. There has been a growing recognition among campaigners that a broader view of the agrichemical and agribusiness challenge is necessary to take into consideration the new power structures in farming and more aggressive and assertive marketing techniques. One of the biggest challenges facing campaigners is the corporate takeover of agriculture through a process of 'vertical integration'. This involves the taking over of the entire food production cycle from the development of proprietary strains of DNA and the sales of seeds to farmers right down to the distribution and retail sales of food products in supermarkets and hypermarkets. One activist who is deeply concerned over vertical integration and the concentration of market control in a handful of large multinational corporations is Javier Souza Casadinho of the Centre for Studies on Appropriate Technologies in Argentina. Casadinho pointed to the 'transnationalisation of capital' and control of the market by a few large companies in Argentina as a worrying development. "The transnational corporations are buying up companies that have the potential to create added value," he said. "They are also entering into contracts with food producers (farmers) that will determine what is produced, how it is produced, for whom it is produced and at what price and quality," he told IPS. "Vertical integration (by the larger companies) thus determines what kind of technology is used in food production and it may be the same companies that are producing the inputs that farmer need," he said, adding that it would also facilitate the adoption of genetically engineered seeds and crops. Such integration is based on the law of efficiency similar to economies of scale, and is aided by globalisation, observes Antonio A Tujan, Jr, international director of the Ibon Foundation Inc, a research and educational institution based in Quezon City, Philippines, specialising in socio-economic issues. Since the global economy as it currently stands favours the multinational corporations and big corporations, vertical integration enhances anti-people and immoral business practices, he pointed out. "Integration destroys the free market as it becomes increasingly dominated by the giants, which are able to dictate profits and what is produced," he said. This turns the market into a sellers' market, and consumers and farmers have little or no choice. Farmers are forced to accept whatever they are asked to use such as seeds and pesticides. A democratic market, in contrast, is a consumers' market, said Tujan. Vertical integration also restructures the production process and leads to a mono-culture. Self-sufficient family farms and individual livelihoods are integrated into corporations through production and market arrangements, giving rise to increasing dependency among farmers for inputs from the larger corporations. "It sounds efficient, but it destroys democracy and is destructive of the genuine free market, which can be found in farmers' markets, hawker centres, and night markets (where everyone is on a level playing field)," Tujan told IPS. Attempts at vertical integration can also be found in Malaysia, which has unveiled a Northern Corridor Economic Region, in which local multinational firm Sime Darby is seeking to wrest control of the entire food chain from seed production and sales right down to retail sales through British multinational supermarket chain Tesco. Sime Darby has a 30 percent stake in Tesco's Malaysian operations. New strategies are now needed to counter these changing power structures, say activists. "Adapting sustainable/organic farming systems is necessary to stop the dependence on TNCs for inputs and regain control over the seeds and technology," said Rafael Mariano, the national chairperson of the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), a nationwide federation of Philippine organisations of peasants, small farmers and farm workers and subsistence fisherfolk. Tujan, for his part, suggested that consumers should not just 'buy national' or even 'buy local', but 'buy small'. They could buy directly from farmers through farmers' markets, which are expanding in the Philippines and parts of Europe. "People should be sensitive about how foods are processed and consumers should make a choice." _______________________ Showdown for Europe Nature 450, 928-929 (2007), 12 December 2007. By Alison Abbott & Quirin Schiermeier. The European Union is set to make a landmark decision on genetically modified crops, as Alison Abbott and Quirin Schiermeier report. A mammoth bureaucratic battle is looming between senior European Commission officials and national governments that could affect the long-term prospects for the cultivation of genetically modified crops on the continent. Genetically modified maize makes up almost 2% of the crop grown in Europe. Late last month, the European Commission's environment commissioner Stavros Dimas said that he plans to reject applications from Syngenta and Pioneer Hi-Bred International for approval to grow two transgenic strains of maize (corn), on the grounds that the crops could adversely affect the environment. Dimas's position has been welcomed by environmental groups and attacked by industry lobbyists. And researchers point out that it ignores the recommendation Dimas received from his own scientific advisers. But the environment commissioner's move is far from the end of the matter. Behind-the-scenes battles are under way inside the commission, where a powerful faction wants Europe to accept genetically modified crops. That would avoid further conflict with the United States, which has complained to the World Trade Organization (WTO) that European reluctance to approve the crops amounts to protectionism. In particular, the commissioners who are respectively responsible for trade, industry and agriculture - Peter Mandelson, G�nter Verheugen and Mariann Fischer Boel - are trying to overturn Dimas's decision. Observers on both sides of the debate say that, when the dust settles, it is quite possible the European Commission will give the green light to Syngenta's Bt11 maize and Pioneer's 1507 maize, which are genetically engineered to be resistant to both pests and herbicides. At present, only one transgenic crop can be cultivated in Europe: Monsanto's MON810 insect-resistant maize, which now comprises nearly 2% of maize grown in Europe, most of it in Spain and France (see 'Transgenic maize'). MON810 was approved before 2001, when the European Union (EU) agreed a directive setting out complex rules for the future approval of such crops. Getting the directive agreed in the first place took several years, and came with the proviso that there would be no approvals for import or cultivation until water-tight mechanisms for tracing the transgene, labelling transgenic seeds and governing the safe 'coexistence' of conventional and transgenic plants were in place. That took until 2004. Even as they voted for the directive, some countries - Austria, Luxembourg, Greece, France, Denmark and Italy - made it clear that they were still reluctanct to allow the crops in, arguing that the directive should have explicitly taken into account public opinion, which they say is firmly opposed to their cultivation. Under the directive, each candidate strain is assessed for its impact on animal and human health and the environment before a decision is made on whether to approve its cultivation. If a company wants to grow or market a crop in Europe (as food, feed or a derived product), it must apply through a member state. That country can either perform a scientific risk assessment itself for the commission or pass the application to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in Parma, Italy, which organizes an assessment through a panel of 21 outside scientists. The EFSA delivers a scientific opinion to the commission's health directorate within six months. Five applications for the import of transgenic maize and oil-seed rape have been approved by this route since 2004. But if the application includes cultivation of the crop, a more extensive environmental risk analysis must be carried out, and this is incorporated into the final scientific opinion delivered to the commission's directorate for the environment. The commission should make a decision within three months. And this is the point where Bt11 and 1507 maize have got stuck. EFSA scientific reports on both varieties concluded that neither would have "an adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment" in the contexts proposed. Both reports were ready by April 2005, and were updated in November 2006. But it wasn't until last month that a draft decision was circulated inside the European Commission saying that neither crop should be approved for cultivation. It refers to 11 papers published since the EFSA's update that it says cast doubt on the crops' long-term environmental safety. Environment commissioner Stavros Dimas plans to reject applications to cultivate two transgenic crops. The publications include studies claiming that insecticidal molecules from the plant may persist in water or sediments draining from a cultivated field, and may disturb downstream ecosystems. The environment commissioner did not ask the EFSA panel for an opinion on these additional papers. Garlich von Essen, secretary-general of the European Seed Association, says that this shows "disdain" for both the EFSA and its advisory system. Marc Van Montagu, a plant geneticist and president of the European Federation of Biotechnology, says the commission has cherry-picked publications claiming possible dangers, and he questions the quality of the selected papers. Environment-commission officials respond that their risk-management process is supposed to reach beyond the EFSA's findings. Once the commission's decision has been finalized, it will go to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, which comprises scientists and officials from member states. The standing committee will vote on each proposal using a system - called the qualified majority vote - that reflects the size and population of each member state. If the voting is at odds with the commission's position, the dossiers are passed to the EU Environment Council of environment ministers of each member state, who must also vote on each case. But with populous nations such as Spain and the United Kingdom supporting approval, and Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joining some of the original dissenters, neither side is likely to obtain the two-thirds majority needed to decide the issue. If that happens, under EU rules the final decision will be thrown back to the commission itself. On 26 November, the German agriculture minister Horst Seehofer proposed that this tortuous approval process should be abandoned and a regulatory authority be created with full responsibility for analysing the science and drawing conclusions. "The reservations of the public are not being sufficiently considered," he said. "Until such an authority is created, there should be a moratorium on granting new approvals". Such reservations are exemplified by the continued resistance of some nations to cultivating MON810 maize, which is grown in only six EU countries. Austria actually banned the import of the maize in 1997, and has since resisted strong pressure to lift the ban, which is illegal under the 2001 directive. In October, France's president Nicolas Sarkozy announced a suspension of the cultivation of transgenic maize until new national rules have been worked out. Sarkozy, who has recently laid out plans for far-reaching environmental improvements in France, seems willing to risk a dispute with the commission (and the WTO) over the issue. Meanwhile, the WTO is putting increasing pressure on the EU, giving it until 11 January to end national moratoriums. The commission says it expects to make its decision on the two maize varieties in January as well, although an exact date has not been set. "This is a real test case," says Adrian Bebb, a Brussels-based campaigner for Friends of the Earth. "But we fear that Dimas's chances of winning are slim." _______________________ Mexico: Indigenous Groups Defend Mexican Corn Frontera NorteSur (FNS), December 12 2007. In recent months, the introduction of GM corn has become a hot issue in northern Mexican border states. Opponents fear that GM products will contaminate native corn species, as has already happened in different parts of Mexico, and with unpredictable, long-term environmental consequences. Pro-GM farmers think increased yields from the news crops will help them survive the Jan. 1, 2008 elimination of corn tariffs under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Meeting in Chihuahua's Sierra Tarahumara, representatives of more than 20 indigenous Raramuri and Tepehuan communities vowed to defend the traditional corn that nourishes their cultures and livelihoods. At the Third Annual Corn Fair held in Ejido Bacabureachi the weekend of Dec. 1, indigenous leaders agreed to implement measures aimed at protecting their corn from genetically modified (GM) varieties. Among the proposals considered was a demand to require that any corn entering the Sierra Tarahumara for any purpose have a certificate of origin. Maria Teresa Guerrero, director of the Chihuahua City-based Community Technical Consultants, a non-governmental environmental and indigenous rights advocacy organization, said indigenous leaders also agreed that more effective lobbying was needed to goad Mexican federal authorities into taking protective actions on behalf of indigenous communities. "Until now, (authorities) have only shown commitments with businessmen," Guerrero said. In recent months, the introduction of GM corn has become a hot issue in northern Mexican border states. Opponents fear that GM products will contaminate native corn species, as has already happened in different parts of Mexico, and with unpredictable, long-term environmental consequences. On the other hand, a large group of corn producers in the states of Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila and Chihuahua is seriously mulling the massive planting of GM crops. The pro-GM farmers view the new crops as beacons of progress and promise that will help them survive the Jan. 1, 2008 elimination of corn tariffs under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Reportedly, GM corn produces a much greater per-acre yield than traditional species. According to Perfecto Solis, president of the Tamaulipas Corn Producers Council, farmers are growing frustrated by regulatory delays at the federal level in Mexico. Since 1999, Mexico has followed an official moratorium on the commercial planting of GM corn. "We can't wait five years more, especially when we have been placed at a competitive disadvantage with US corn producers," Solis said. "With or without regulation, we will begin to plant transgenic corn and, if necessary, we will recur to the use of force to defend our crops." But indigenous corn growers in Chihuahua, who cultivate small plots less than seven acres in size, maintain that the agricultural future still rests with the old corn varieties adapted to the high and dry environmental conditions of the Sierra Tarahumara. Persistent drought in the region remains a major challenge for small farmers who rely on the rains. Speaking at the corn fair, Marcelino Moreno of Ejido Las Lajas affirmed that traditional farming wasn't a mystery. "With the moon, as we always have done, as our elders did it, without chemicals and with a lot of work," Moreno advised. Other fair participants stressed organic fertilization and crop rotation as essential farming methods to ensure healthy harvests. Bacabureachi resident Luz Maria said preserving native corn was indispensable for the survival of indigenous culture. "Don't let them do away with corn," Luz Maria appealed, "because if corn is finished, so are the people." On a related note, the environmental group Greenpeace Mexico collected samples in Chihuahua in late November to test for the presence of genetically-modified organisms. Greenpeace's sampling took place in corn-growing districts of the municipalities of Namiquipa, Nuevo Casas Grandes, Buenaventura and Cuahtemoc. Sources: La Jornada, November 13 and December 2, 2007. Articles by Matilde Perez U. and Miroslava Breach Velducea. Americaspolicy.org, December 3, 2007. Article by Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero. Frontera NorteSur (FNS): on-line, U.S.-Mexico border news Center for Latin American and Border Studies New Mexico State University Las Cruces, New Mexico For a free electronic subscription email fnsnews@nmsu.edu _______________________ EU: Directive action required Editorial, Nature 450, 921 (13 December 2007) \| doi:10.1038/450921a; Published online 12 December 2007 Europe's handling of applications to grow genetically modified crops amounts to bad governance. It took many years of acrimonious debate for the European Union (EU) to agree a directive regulating the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops. In many member countries, the public was ready to accept genetic technologies in the service of medicine but not, as they saw it, in the service of the agricultural industry. That industry, aggressively in favour of GM crops, continues to be powerful and influential. European publics remain strongly opposed. There was extensive consultation in formulating the directive, and science was recruited in support of each side. But six years after it was passed, not a single application has been approved for cultivation. Many EU countries are showing their continuing distaste for GM crops by refusing to grow the only one currently approved (authorized before the new rules came into effect), Monsanto's MON810 insect-resistant maize (corn). And last month, environment commissioner Stavros Dimas prepared to reject applications for two varieties of insect- and herbicide-resistant maize, from Syngenta and Pioneer Hi-Bred International, by inappropriately overturning the recommendation of his scientific advisers (see page 928 [next article below on this web page]) This all highlights the problematic framework within the EU bodies. The approval process calls on the commission to make a science-based decision, gives member states the chance to decide politically on that science- based decision and then, if they can't agree, leaves the final decision entirely up to the commission. In the current cases, the commission is at war with itself, with powerful commissioners such as those for agriculture and industry trying to get Dimas to change his mind and recommend approval of the two crop varieties. Dimas has misused science to tip the balance of his analysis of risks and benefits with which he justified his decision. Central to the process is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which operates independently of the commission and the member states, and is mandated with securing independent scientific advice for them. Dimas is free to seek further, or even alternative, scientific advice. But his draft decision cites 11 papers purportedly demonstrating environmental risk that were published during the shamefully long period that the EFSA's report sat on his desk, without evaluating them in the context of the body of scientific literature. He has declined to respond to questions about how this selection of publications was made. This is neither in the letter nor the spirit of the directive. His decision to say 'no', where the EFSA said 'yes', is a political, not a scientific, move. At this point, whatever the commission proposes in terms of these two crop applications, the member states are unlikely to be able to decide with the necessary majority one way or the other. And so the infighting commission will make the final decision. The directive needs to be revised to ensure that the checks and balances put in place to reassure opponents, while not crushing innovation, cannot be abused by the political motives of one side. Most importantly, scientific input must be handled appropriately. So the proposal of German agriculture minister Horst Seehofer for a single agency dedicated to such tasks, which makes decisions based only on science and does not need to send every application for individual political approval, makes sense. This won't happen soon given the politics, but there is every reason to support the idea. Scientists and others cannot reiterate too often that crops optimized to particular environments by genetic enhancement will be of significant benefit to societies in rich and poor countries, for example by increasing yields, allowing crops to grow in poorly fertile regions and reducing the amount of external chemical control required to maintain a healthy crop. The available evidence indicates that their potential for damaging the environment is small. Rigorous science-based risk assessment is likely to favour the cultivation of GM crops, subject to appropriate surveillance. But whatever science indicates, member states want to protect their veto rights on crop applications because of opposition to GM crops by their publics. Benefits from the technology can be expected to become more apparent, for example in cheaper and better foods, or locally grown foods that help prevent famine. Until that time, advocates will need to persist against a strong political tide. Meanwhile, a directive that makes the fate of such crops dependent on the conflicted perspectives of individual commissioners is failing and needs repair. Comment from GM Watch: This editorial from Nature, by insisting that EU Commissioners merely kowtow to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in their decison making on GMOs, sidesteps the vital question of regulatory capture. There has been a lot of concern among EU member states about EFSA - both about the assumptions it uses in its assessments of GMOs, and about its failure to insist on accurate declarations of interest from members of its GMO Panel - a Panel which is perceived as dominated by scientists with a powerful vested interest in the continuation of the GM enterprise. It is not only EU Commissioners who, in the words of the editorial, can suffer from "conflicted perspectives". And when Nature bangs on about science-based decision-making independent fo the Commission, its editor fails to acknowledge the problem of whether EFSA's advice is sufficiently independent of the academic-biotechnology complex that he himself has previously warned against. The editor was, of course, himself heavily criticised for succumbing to pressure from vested interests over the Quist and Chapela paper on Mexican maize contamination, and since then he seems to have lost any pretence of objectivity, as is all too apparent from the language of the editorial. Take, for instance, his use of the term "genetic enhancement" for "genetic engineering" - the implicit non-scientific value judgement could not be plainer. The same goes for his assumption about "genetic enhancement" being "of significant benefit to societies in rich and poor countries". And how about this for an assumption: "Rigorous science-based risk assessment is likely to favour the cultivation of GM crops"? Wouldn't it be best to actually do the science-based risk assessment first and discover what it favoured? There's also another problem about the editorial's denigration of the "political", as against the "scientific". In the end, it's up to society and its representatives to determine our technological future. That's a decision-making process within which scientific advisors have their place but, as Winston Churchill once said: "scientists should be on tap, not on top." _______________________ 11 December 2007 Canada: Ontario Grower Ordered to Pay Monsanto $160 Per Acre for Violating Patent Rights on Roundup Ready Soybeans Monsanto press release, Dec 11 2007 WINNIPEG, MANITOBA--(Marketwire - Dec. 11, 2007) - The Federal Court of Canada has issued a judgment against Mr. Paul Beneteau of Amherstburg, Ontario for patent infringement pertaining to the Roundup Ready gene in soybeans. In a judgment dated Nov. 27, 2007, the Honourable Mr. Chief Justice Lutfy determined that Mr. Beneteau had infringed certain claims of Monsanto's patent by growing, harvesting and selling 55 acres of soybeans which he "knew contained genes and cells as claimed in the said claims of the Patent." The Court has ordered Mr. Beneteau to pay damages to Monsanto fixed at $8,800, which is an award to Monsanto of $160.00 per acre on the 55 acres in question. This judgment follows an earlier successful court judgment against Mr. Eddie Wouters of Northspruce Farms Ltd. in which the Court awarded Monsanto over $107,000 or $274.00 per acre on the 392 acres of Roundup Ready soybeans planted by Mr. Wouters without Monsanto's permission. "We have a duty to protect our intellectual property and keep the playing field level for all growers who are purchasing Monsanto patented technologies," said Trish Jordan, Monsanto Canada spokesperson. "It is through the use of patents that we recoup our research investments, which allows us to continue to invest significant dollars in our research pipeline so that Canadian corn, soybean and canola growers will continue to have access to beneficial technologies in the future." Monsanto originally filed a Statement of Claim in the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, against Mr. Beneteau in the fall of 2007 for allegedly planting, growing, harvesting and selling harvesting Roundup Ready soybeans without a required license. All these actions infringed upon Monsanto's patent rights pertaining to the Roundup Ready gene and cell. Samples of crops collected by Monsanto under a Court Order confirmed the presence of the Roundup Ready trait in soybeans planted on land that was owned, leased or under the control of Mr. Beneteau. In addition to the monetary award, Mr. Beneteau is prohibited from further planting, growing, cultivating, harvesting, or selling any plants grown from Roundup Ready soybean seed. He has also been ordered to deliver up all seeds and plants in his possession which may contain the Roundup Ready gene or cell. Monsanto is committed to pursuing patent infringement actions against other farmers who have planted Roundup Ready soybeans without Monsanto's permission. In this regard, Monsanto is currently pursuing litigation with three other parties in Ontario related to patent infringement. Roundup Ready® is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC, Monsanto Canada Inc. licensee. For more information, please contact Monsanto Canada Trish Jordan (204) 985-1005 _______________________ USA: Shareholder Proposal Revisits Fiduciary Duty at Agribusiness Goliath, Monsanto Harrington Investments press release, 11 December 2007. Napa, California -- Harrington Investments, Inc., (HII) a socially responsible investment advisory firm, has announced the introduction of a binding amendment to Monsanto Corporation's corporate bylaws that could bar corporate indemnification of directors who fail to adequately oversee corporate activities that cause "harm to the natural environment, public health, or human rights." "The idea behind this resolution is that by increasing the personal accountability of corporate directors, our proposed bylaw amendment would encourage these fiduciaries to better represent the shareholders of the corporation � and to serve as better guardians of the public interest," said John Harrington, President and CEO of Harrington Investments. The new vehicle for improving corporate governance will be on the proxy for the January 16, 2008 shareholder meeting at Monsanto (MON). "We chose Monsanto as our target for this new approach, because we view this company as facing significant legal and reputational liabilities that might have been prevented with better board oversight. These include allegations of selling potentially dangerous products abroad, bribing foreign government officials, and releasing genetically engineered products that have not been proven safe for human consumption or the natural environment. Such activities are bad for our company�s reputation, and could lead to substantial liabilities," said Harrington. As recent legal actions against the company demonstrate, failure of the management to oversee these issues can lead to significant liabilities. In 2005, Monsanto was forced to pay a $1.5 million fine to settle allegations that employees bribed Indonesian officials to bypass environmental laws. In January of this year, a French court fined Monsanto Agriculture France SAS and Monsanto's French distributor, Scotts France, after a former chairman of Monsanto Agriculture France was found guilty of false advertising. Then, in February of this year, it was reported that the British Environment Agency had begun an investigation into "one of the most contaminated sites in Wales" - a former Monsanto dump that could cost more than $200 million to clean up according to a reported estimate. In October of this year, Monsanto was sued by dozens of West Virginians alleging that pollution from a now-defunct Monsanto factory caused them to contract various types of cancer; they are seeking $5 million each in compensatory damages and $300 million in punitive damages. This lawsuit is particularly worrisome to investors because it is reminiscent of a 2002 settlement in which the company agreed to pay the preponderance of a $700 million settlement to offset damages to human health and the natural environment in Anniston, Alabama. The management of Monsanto, in its statement opposing the resolution, has asserted that the amendment would increase the vulnerability of board members to lawsuits. But according to Harrington, the board members would still have ample protection under existing law, since the courts generally would not hold board members personally liable where they exercise reasonable business judgment and oversight. The bylaw amendment does not change that, but seeks to create new indemnity rules applicable to directors who may have failed to carefully oversee environmental, human rights or public health matters. In egregious cases, Harrington believes directors, as fiduciaries, and not the shareholders, should bear these liabilities. Harrington cited a written public statement by Hugh Grant, Monsanto's CEO, in which Grant wrote that "an unwavering commitment to integrity in all business operations is at the core of our corporate behavior. We must never take this commitment for granted� Integrity means doing what is right even when we are faced with situations not governed by any specific law or regulation. Sometimes the right thing to do is not clear, but at Monsanto our job is to seek and find the right answer in every business situation." Harrington challenged Grant's statement, "I have the impression that it is mostly 'noise' and has little to do with the reality of Monsanto's continuing egregious corporate conduct." Harrington added: "At least our proposal would add a concrete mechanism to encourage directors and officers to act as true fiduciaries in considering the interests of all stakeholders � including shareholders - who may be impacted by Monsanto's operations." Monsanto steers itself into controversies in many of the areas where they operate. Recently, Monsanto Corporation has been the focal point of widespread protests about potential dangers to public health and the natural environment posed by promulgation of genetically modified organisms (GMO). Media reports have linked thousands of farmer suicides in India to use of Monsanto products. Additionally, due to concerns that the technology would threaten the livelihood of poor farmers worldwide, the United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity voted overwhelmingly in 2006 to uphold an international moratorium on Monsanto�s "Terminator" seeds. Monsanto's introduction of rBGH, which is injected into cows to increase milk production, has been the subject of much controversy. This resolution is the latest in Harrington Investments� longstanding ownership-advocacy relationship with Monsanto management. For instance, a 2005 resolution called for the formation of an ethics oversight committee in response to Monsanto being fined for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. However, Monsanto omitted the resolution from the ballot asserting that it related to the company�s "ordinary business." For the past 30 years, Harrington Investments, Inc. and John Harrington have been pioneers in socially responsible investing and shareholder advocacy. HII manages approximately $200 million in assets for institutional and individual investors concerned with social and environmental, as well as financial performance. In addition to Monsanto, Harrington has introduced several other binding corporate bylaw amendment resolutions this year. If approved, these bylaw proposals would result in such innovations as the creation of board level human rights or sustainability committees. Contact: Jack Ucciferri 1 (707) 252-6166 Voice 1 (707) 257-7923 Fax _______________________ BASF calls for EU approval of biotech "hot potato" Reuters, December 11 2007. By Jeremy Smith. BRUSSELS, Dec 11 (Reuters) - German chemicals group BASF aims to secure European Union approval in the next few weeks for farmers to grow its genetically modified (GMO) potato in April, the first EU approval for GMO cultivation in a decade. EU governments have not managed to agree on biotech foods and crops for many years and repeatedly clash on the issue. No new GMO crop has received an approval for growing since 1998. The European Commission -- the EU's executive arm -- has authorised a series of GMO products for import since 2004, but only thanks to a legal procedure that gives it the legal power to issue a rubberstamp approval when EU states fail to agree. GMO cultivation is far more controversial and the EU now stands on the brink of approving BASF's potato for growing, by that same legal procedure. The problem is, the EU's environment chief, in charge of the dossier, seems unwilling to approve it. For BASF, that rubberstamp approval must come quickly if farmers are to be able to plant its potato for the 2008 harvest. Normally, the Commission acts fairly quickly in such cases. But the company has been waiting since July, when EU ministers failed to agree either to approve or reject its application. "We still look forward to approval next year in time for commercial cultivation," Hans Kast, president and CEO of BASF Plant Science, told reporters in Brussels on Tuesday. "April is the time when we need to get it into the ground. Our farmers need to make up their minds soon after Christmas," he said. Potatoes are usually harvested in Europe in September or October. Known as Amflora, the potato is engineered to yield high amounts of starch, eliminating the viscous gel-like substance amylose so it contains only one starch ingredient: amylopectin. It is not intended for human consumption but rather for industrial use; for example, in the paper industry to make glossy magazine coatings, in textiles for yarn sizing and as an additive in adhesive or sprayable concrete. The main markets for Amflora were likely to be France, Germany and the Netherlands, Kast said. Legal action The biotech industry, which insists that its products are as safe as non-GMO equivalents, has long vented its frustration over what it sees as the EU's delay in approving GMOs, saying it loses time and money in not being allowed access to EU markets. That frustration has been expressed in legal challenges, which have also encouraged the European Commission to re-examine its internal policy on biotech crops and foods. The most famous example was when Argentina, Canada and the United States filed against the EU executive at the World Trade Organisation over the EU's de facto moratorium on new GMO authorisations, which ran for some six years and ended in 2004. The WTO found that the EU's effective blockade on new GMO imports constituted "undue delay" and violated trade rules. More recently, in May, Pioneer Hi-Bred International -- a subsidiary of DuPont Co -- filed a lawsuit against the Commission over its alleged delay in submitting the company's application for EU approval of its modified 1507 maize product. Kast declined to be drawn over whether BASF might pursue a similar path if the Commission delayed further in authorising the potato and effectively prevented a 2008 harvest of Amflora. "If we don't get it (authorisation) in time, we will review the situation," he said. "It would be a tremendous loss to BASF and to farmers. And the starch industry is very competitive." (Editing by Michael Roddy) _______________________ France: Activist escapes jail Agence France-Presse (AFP), Dec 11 2007 MILLAU, France - French farmer-activist José Bové said he had been spared four months in prison on charges of ripping up genetically modified (GM) crops, after a judge converted his sentence to a fine. Bove, the 54-year-old hero of France's anti-globalisation movement, was convicted on appeal earlier this year of destroying GM crops in the southern region of Haute-Garonne in July 2004. But the prosecutor and judge setting the detail of his sentence agreed to convert it to a fine, whose amount was to be fixed later this month, Bove told reporters outside the courtroom. The mustachioed sheep farmer shot to worldwide fame in 1999 after trashing a half-built McDonald's outlet in southern France and backs a moratorium on GM crops as part of his campaign against what he calls "malbouffe", or bad food. Bové ran as a candidate of the anti-capitalist far-left in May presidential elections, gathering 1.3 percent of votes, and briefly faced the prospect of campaigning for a jail cell. The farmer-activist told reporters he planned to launch a hunger strike from January 3 to protest at the French government's failure to decree a year-long moratorium on GM crops at an environmental summit in October. The government suspended use of MON810, a brand of maize developed by the US agrochemical giant Monsanto and the only GM crop authorised in France, until February pending new legislation on the matter. Bové's activism has already earned him three spells in prison, for the McDonald's incident in 1999, and in 2001 and 2003 for ripping up GM crops. Bové turned his back on city life in the 1970s, setting up as a sheep farmer in the countryside near Millau. In 1987 he founded the radical Small Farmers Confederation to champion the cause of small producers, launching a crusade against fast-food and GM crops. _______________________ GM Soy in Brazil Will Kill the Amazon and Boost Global Warming by 50% BrazilMag.com, 11 December 2007. By Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero. As genetically modified soybeans take over vast tracts in Brazil and all over South America and reports flow in of genetic contamination of local corn in Mesoamerica, grassroots resistance to biotech crops has also grown. The protests form part of people's movements across the hemisphere that tie together a rejection of neoliberalism and agribusiness, and call for land reform, food sovereignty, and sustainable agriculture. Genetically Modified Crops: Myth and Reality It is a common misconception that genetically modified (GM) crops were created to fight world hunger. In reality, the great majority were developed not for increased yields or enhanced nutritional value but for herbicide resistance. This type of agriculture destroys plant diversity - most of the land area in the world devoted to GM crops is planted with only one crop: soy. And this GM soy has been developed by a single corporation, U.S.-based Monsanto, with a single trait in mind: resistance to Monsanto's own Roundup herbicide - hence its name, Roundup Ready. Put another way, GM crops, which have been planted commercially since the mid-1990's, have been developed for the most part with the sole purpose of increasing Monsanto's sales of its seeds and herbicide by allowing it to sell both as an integrated package. Most of this soy is fed not to people in poor countries but to feedlot cattle in the United States, Western Europe, and China, to make beef that the world's poor cannot afford. The remainder is channeled mostly to industrial uses, such as the manufacture of ink, soap, and glue. The little that's left ends up as soy additives found in over half of all processed foods, such as bread, chocolate, and mayonnaise. Now an increasing portion of the worldwide soy crop is being used to make biodiesel. Monsanto has very few competitors. The global seed business has become so concentrated in the last two decades that less than half a dozen corporations in the world present any substantial competition. These include the U.S.-based DuPont and Dow Agroscience, and European corporations Syngenta and Bayer Cropscience. Monsanto is not only the biggest corporate player in the GM seed business, it recently became the world's biggest seed company, trailed closely by DuPont. In the mid 1970's there were around 7,000 seed companies and not one of them had even 0.5% of the world market. Nowadays 10 corporations control 49% of the world seed market, and all of them are in the race to develop and commercialize GM varieties. Nowhere in the world have the effects of GM crops been felt as intensely as in South America. Soybeans currently take up over 16 million hectares (61,776 square miles) of farmland in Argentina - more than 10 times the area of the state of Connecticut, and over 20 million hectares (77,220 sq. mi.) in Brazil (just over one-fifth of Brazil's total cultivated land and almost a third of the state of Texas). Bolivia and Paraguay together account for at least three million hectares of soy (11,583 sq. mi.) . Soybeans are also making significant inroads into Uruguayan agriculture. Almost all of the soy grown in South America is Roundup Ready. The reason for this has to do with the technological and biological realities of soy farming. Massive soy monocultures are made viable and cost-effective by no-till direct seeding machinery. However, no-till farming creates an ideal environment for weeds, which is why soy monocultures are herbicide-intensive. The development of genetically engineered RR soy seeds allows farm workers to apply Monsanto's Roundup herbicide without worrying about it damaging the soy crop. Therefore, the GM herbicide resistance trait makes soy monocultures commercially viable. Roundup's Toxicity Although the biotech companies assure that herbicides should not pose public health or environmental hazards if used properly, researchers Miguel Altieri and Walter Pengue state that in practice it is a different story. In large-scale herbicide-resistant GM crops, herbicide is sprayed from airplanes and much of what is sprayed is wasted through drift and leaching. Research shows that glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, caused retarded development of the fetal skeleton in laboratory rats; it also inhibits the synthesis of steroids, and is genotoxic in mammals, fish, and frogs. Field dose exposure of earthworms caused at least 50% mortality and significant intestinal damage among surviving worms. As for human health effects, Roundup has been found to cause dysfunctional cell division that may be linked to cancers, and children born to users of glyphosate had elevated neurobehavioral defects. In Ontario, Canada, epidemiological research found that glyphosate exposure almost doubles the risk of miscarriages in advanced pregnancies. And a French team led by Caen University biochemist Gilles-Eric Seralini discovered that human placental cells are very sensitive to Roundup, and that even in very low doses glyphosate can disrupt the endocrine system. Social and Environmental Costs The soy boom, lauded as a success story by landowners, agribusiness, biotechnology corporations, and South American governments, has come at an enormous environmental and social cost. "Large-scale soybean monocultures have rendered Amazonian soils unusable," according to professors Miguel Altieri and Walter Pengue of the Universities of California and Buenos Aires respectively. "The production of herbicide-resistant soybean leads to environmental problems such as deforestation, soil degradation, and pesticide and genetic contamination." "Soy means monoculture and huge mechanized farms," informs GRAIN, an international NGO that advocates the sustainable use of biodiversity. "As a result, soy has done enormous environmental damage, causing the destruction of 21 million hectares of forest in Brazil, 14 million in Argentina, and two million in Paraguay." The effect of soy farming on soil fertility is severe. In areas of poor soils, fertilizers and lime have to be applied heavily within two years of soy cultivation, say Altieri and Pengue. Throughout the continent, spreading soy production affects land use, environment, and society. Bolivia "In Bolivia, soybean production is expanding toward the East, and in many areas soils are already compacted and suffering severe soil degradation. One hundred thousand hectares of soybean-exhausted soils were abandoned for cattle grazing, which in turn further degrades the land. As land is abandoned, farmers move to other areas where they again plant soybeans and repeat the vicious cycle of soil degradation," Altieri and Pengue elaborate in their report. The expansion of soy in Bolivia over the past 15 years has caused the deforestation of over one million hectares, informs the Network for a GM-free Bolivia (Red por una Bolivia Libre de Transgénicos). According to a 2006 document by the Network, which was endorsed by over two dozen civil society organizations, the deforestation rate for soybean planting in Bolivia is almost 60,000 hectares (231 sq. mi.) a year. "If this deforestation rate continues, the forests in the soy zones run the risk of disappearing. Such is the case of San Julián, one of the main soy-producing municipalities in (the department of) Santa Cruz, where - if the current deforestation continues - its forests will become extinct in less than nine years." The Amazon Basin GM soy cultivation also endangers the Amazon region, with its wealth of planetary biodiversity. GRAIN issued a dire warning in 2007: "Unless the Brazilian government takes decisive action to prevent it, soy is likely to take over most of the Amazon basin over the next decade. Within just a few years the relentless advance of the agricultural frontier into the Amazon basin is likely to push the tropical forest over the critical 'tipping point' so that it starts to dry out and turn into savannah. Then, indeed, there will be no stopping the farmers, who will see no reason at all for not making economic use of the moribund forest. The group points out that loss of the Amazon to soy deforestation contributes heavily to global warming. "As the forest dies, hundreds of thousands of river dwellers, peasant families, and indigenous people will be disinherited, and the world will lose an extraordinary biomass, which plays a key role in regulating the global climate. Just as serious, the destruction of the Amazon forest will release some 90 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere, enough by itself to increase the rate of global warming by 50%. " Paraguay Protesters in Paraguay hold up a sign reading "Soy Kills" in response to the huge monocultures in their country, one of the world's biggest soy producers. The human cost of GM soy's "success" has been particularly extreme for the Paraguayan peasantry. Paraguay is the world's fourth largest exporter of soy - soy production quadruped from 1989 to 2006. Soybeans are planted on two million hectares (almost two-thirds of the country's farmland), and soy cultivation is expanding at an estimated annual rate of 250,000 hectares a year (965 sq. mi.). The Paraguay soy boom came about at the expense of around 90,000 families of peasants and indigenous peoples that were forced off their lands. Those displaced by soy farms end up living in shantytowns on the outer edges of major cities, or squatting in private lands, or resisting eviction. The country can hardly afford to displace and marginalize more people; 85% of Paraguayans live in poverty while 80% of the land is in the hands of the richest 1% of the population. The government and land owners have responded to the social havoc caused by the expansion of soy with paramilitary violence carried out by the so-called "citizen guard." This extra-official force is composed of approximately 13,000 trained and armed members, and their illegal practices include "break-ins, torture, and detention of those who do not accept the new illegal order that they impose through terror and violence," said the Grupo de Reflexión Rural (GRR), an NGO that tracks and documents the impacts of industrial agriculture, particularly GM crops. "The citizen guard, which works with the complicity of the interior ministry, is linked to land owners and soy growers ... and has as its main objective the persecution of campesino leaders." "Given that the agrarian reform is not enforced, many landless peasants exercise their rights through acts of civil disobedience. The state's response has many times been repression and violence, turning protests and grievances into felonies and the poor into delinquents," said Rita Zanotto of Via Campesina, an organization that represents tens of millions of peasants and small farmers worldwide. Argentina In Argentina, the RR soy model has been imposed since the 1990's to generate revenue to pay the foreign debt and to supply the demand of European countries and China for livestock feed. The GRR reports, "With this model, Argentina, which once claimed to be the world's granary, today has become a forage republic and doesn't have the capacity to feed its own population, and it cannot solve its huge unemployment problem because its economy is designed to favor the export of raw materials. "The soy model has depopulated the territory, liquidated rural populations, and destroyed the tradition, culture, and attachment of millions of Argentines to the land. This model has turned our cities into unsafe megalopolises on the verge of collapse. It has razed our native forests, polluted the main basins with toxic agrochemicals, has deteriorated the soils, and is a grave threat to our biodiversity and our phytogenetic heritage." Venezuela Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is the only Latin American head of state opposed to GM crops, a stance that accompanies the Chavez government's land reform program. Chavez has proposed the Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas (ALBA), an anti-imperialist alternative to the neoliberal Free Trade Area of the Americas and regional and bilateral trade agreements pushed by the United States. The Chavez government has consulted with internationally renowned agroecologists such as Miguel Altieri, and fully supports the concept of food sovereignty championed by Via Campesina and articulated in the 2007 World Forum on Food Sovereignty in Africa. However, in apparent contradiction with the above, Chavez is an avid supporter of soy monocultures. During a trip to Paraguay in 2006 he proposed a united South American front for the production and consumption of soy. "In some of our countries (soy) grows with ease and is an important oilseed from which one can produce beef, oil, milk, and yogurt, among other foodstuffs," said the Venezuelan president in Asunción, Paraguay's capital. "We must stimulate our own production because the United States subsidizes their crop." Argentina and Venezuela have an agreement by which Argentina acquires Venezuelan oil in exchange for farm machinery and agricultural technical expertise provided by Argentina's National Institute for Agricultural Research (INTA). The GRR has been closely watching Venezuela's flirtation with soy, and has repeatedly warned that soybean monocultures are incompatible with land reform, food sovereignty, and environmental protection, and make penetration by GM seed practically inevitable. The organization points out that INTA was formed after the 1955 coup that overthrew Perón to promote U.S.-style industrial agriculture along with associated inputs such as pesticides, synthetic fertilizer, and more recently, GM seeds. GRR notes the prominent role of Argentinean soybean czar Gustavo Grobocopatel in selling Chávez the "soy miracle." Grobocopatel, president of Grupo Los Grobo, Argentina's leading agribusiness corporation, frequently travels to Venezuela and organized the Expo Barinas farm equipment fair there in 2005. "We are convinced that the technologies that Argentina takes to [Venezuela] through INTA and agribusiness personalities, are elements that will end up favoring and empowering the sectors that are most reactionary, and antagonistic to the agrarian revolution, and its orientation toward local and peasant production," declared GRR in April 2007. "That a person such as Grobocopatel proclaims his links to the Bolivarian revolution is enough motive for us to worry and raise our voice in defense of Venezuela and its people and our common future." The GRR has repeatedly tried to communicate its concerns to the Venezuelan government but to no avail so far. Costa Rican "GM-Free Zones" Three cantons (municipalities) in Costa Rica have declared themselves GM-free zones. These GM-free declarations are the product of "the brave decision of municipal councils and the valuable work of community organizations," said Fabián Pacheco of the Central American Alliance for Biodiversity Protection. "[This] work goes beyond resisting the introduction of GM organisms to make a profound call for the promotion of agroecological practices, of good nutrition, and the construction of communities truly free of corporate conceits that try to control everything, free to choose what's best for the inhabitants of the region." Pacheco added that "The struggle against GM organisms permits us to build the bases of the resistance against the new agroindustrial model that destroys the food sovereignty of local communities." Food Sovereignty Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts the aspirations and needs of those who produce, distribute, and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations. It defends the interests and inclusion of the next generation. It offers a strategy to resist and dismantle the current corporate trade and food regime, and directions for food, farming, pastoral, and fisheries systems determined by local producers and users. Food sovereignty prioritizes local and national economies and markets and empowers peasant and family farmer-driven agriculture, artisanal fishing, pastoralist-led grazing, and food production, distribution, and consumption based on environmental, social, and economic sustainability. Food sovereignty promotes transparent trade that guarantees just incomes to all peoples as well as the rights of consumers to control their food and nutrition. It ensures that the rights to use and manage lands, territories, waters, seeds, livestock, and biodiversity are in the hands of those of us who produce food. Food sovereignty implies new social relations free of oppression and inequality between men and women, peoples, racial groups, social and economic classes, and generations. Mexico: The GM Invasion Since the 1990's many scientists had warned that GM crops cannot be contained. Once planted in the open, they said, these would uncontrollably spread either through pollination or seed dispersal, with potentially unpredictable and irreversible consequences. "Seeds will be our only recourse if the prevailing belief in the safety of genetic engineering proves wrong," advised the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Heedlessly allowing the contamination of traditional plant varieties with genetically engineered sequences amounts to a huge wager on our ability to understand a complicated technology that manipulates life at the most elemental level. Unless some part of our seed supply is preserved free of genetically engineered sequences, our ability to change course if genetic engineering goes awry will be severely hampered." Biotech companies repeatedly assured that such genetic contamination would never happen. But in 2001, University of California researchers Ignacio Chapela and David Quist reported in the scientific journal Nature that traditional varieties of corn in rural southern Mexico had been genetically contaminated with GM corn traits. The main culprit was the North America Free Trade Agreement, which entered into effect in 1994. NAFTA turned Mexico into a net importer of corn, with almost all imports coming from the United States. From being self-sufficient in corn, the country went on to become the United States' second biggest corn importer, buying 11% of its exports in 2000. Approximately 75% of the U.S. corn harvest is genetically modified. GM corn began to be planted commercially in the United States soon after NAFTA came into effect. Mexican environmentalists and scientists worried that the flood of corn coming from across the border contained GM seeds, which could contaminate their country's invaluable agricultural seed heritage. The Mexican government responded to these concerns in 1998 by imposing a moratorium on the planting of GM corn. The following year it formed CIBIOGEM, an interagency committee to enforce the moratorium and investigate any issues related to GM crops. But the ban did not prohibit importing GM corn. In 1999 Greenpeace activists took samples of U.S. corn shipments being unloaded in Mexican docks. Lab tests turned out positive for GM content. Corn covers one-fifth of U.S. crop land, far more than any other crop. According to the U.S. Grains Council, the United States produces about 44% of the world's corn - more than China, the European Union, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico combined. Iowa alone produces about as much as the European Union. Corn also receives far more federal subsidies than any other crop. One-fifth of the U.S. corn harvest is sold abroad, and according to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, sells internationally at 13% below the cost of production, undercutting foreign producers. According to Oaxacan indigenous leader Aldo González, "The contamination of corn is a sad fact that we cannot ignore. It is a deep wound that puts all of humanity at risk and only benefits large transnational corporations that want to impose on us a model of consumption that privileges their interests ... For the indigenous peoples of Mesoamerica, corn is our blood. Without corn we are nothing." "The pollution was no chance act, but a well thought-out and conscious strategy which simply took a little while to play itself out," accused GRAIN. "None could deny that the natural course of any seed is inevitably to spread. That is what makes a seed a seed. Nor could anyone deny that maize is naturally an open pollinator. Any farmer knows that. Put a genetically-modified maize variety into a highly diverse, maize-intensive small-farmer area and it will be just a matter of time for the new variety to join the pool and for contamination to occur." In view of the genetic contamination of Mexican corn, biotech industry consultant Don Westfall spoke perhaps a little too candidly when he let out that "The hope of industry is that over time the market is so flooded that there's nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender." The industry and its advocates engaged in a persistent and prolonged campaign to discredit Chapela and Quist and to pressure Nature magazine, where their study was published, to retract it. Faced with a barrage of criticism from pro-industry scientists, Nature published in its April 4, 2002 issue, an editorial note on the Chapela-Quist study stating that "evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper." Biotech advocates celebrated the editorial note but they neglected to mention the editorial in Nature's June 27, 2002 issue, which said that the Chapela-Quist study "was not formally retracted by its authors or by Nature." The Mexican government moratorium on GM corn planting has remained in place, but biotechnology corporations and their local allies, like Agrobio, are pressuring for the approval of plantings for "experimental purposes." Their rationale is contained in a proposal called the Teacher of Corn Project. Critics allege that this project is deeply flawed and scientifically unsound, as the proposed studies do not cover controversial subjects like GM corn's effect on biodiversity or local corn varieties. They point out that the experiments in question would take place in carefully controlled experimental settings that bear no relation to real world situations. The studies "do not even take into account the enormous multiplicity of factors that exist in the real environment of Mexico or its enormous cultural diversity," says Silvia Ribeiro. Furthermore, they claim that the proposed measures to prevent contamination are so complicated, cumbersome, and hard to verify that they would not be viable in actual corn production situations. According to Ribeiro, the real agenda of the Teacher of Corn Project is to accelerate and further the process of genetic contamination and to use the "experiments" as a stepping stone to approval for commercial GM corn production. "There is no country in the world with GM crops that has not been contaminated. The contamination is inevitable and therefore intentional. It serves corporate interests by creating de facto situations so that everyone has to accept GM crops." Are Bt Crops Reliable and Safe? The GM corn in the market today is either herbicide-tolerant (Roundup Ready), or of the insect-resistant Bt variety, or of stacked-gene varieties that combine both Roundup Ready and Bt genes. Bt crops, which also include cotton, contain a gene, taken from the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacterium, that codifies the secretion of an insecticidal toxin. Farmers planting Bt crops are supposed to benefit, as they would not need to spray pesticides for pests like the corn borer. But, are these crops performing as advertised? Are they environmentally safe? The data available are cause for concern. A USDA Economic Research Service study carried out in 1999 showed no statistically significant difference in pesticide use between Bt and non-Bt crops. In fact, it found that in the Mississippi Delta, significantly more pesticides were sprayed on Bt crops. But the greatest problem is the development of pest resistance to the Bt toxin, warns UC Professor Miguel Altieri, "No serious entomologist questions whether resistance will develop or not. The question is, how fast?" Bt crops can also harm beneficial insects and adversely affect soil ecology. The harmful effects of Bt crops on beneficial insects were documented at least as far back as 1999, when research led by Charles Losey of Cornell University discovered that Bt corn pollen was toxic to monarch butterflies under laboratory conditions. Losey came under withering attack by pro-industry scientists, but his critics ignore that subsequent research confirmed that Bt crops are indeed hazardous to "non-target" species. "The potential of Bt toxins moving through insect food chains poses serious implications," warns Altieri. "Recent evidence shows that the Bt toxin can affect beneficial insect predators that feed on insect pests present on Bt crops ... the toxins produced by the Bt plants may be passed on to predators and parasitoids via pollen. No one has analyzed the consequences of such transfers on the myriad of natural enemies that depend on pollen for reproduction and longevity. "Research has shown that Bt crops adversely affect ladybugs that eat Colorado potato beetles, a major potato pest, and lacewing larvae that fed on pests that were fed Bt corn had a strikingly high mortality rate. Furthermore, the Bt toxin persists in the soil for months, by binding to clay and soil particles. It has been found to persist for as long as 234 days." Biotech Industry Praises Puerto Rico Governor The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) named Puerto Rico governor Aníbal Acevedo-Vilá "Governor of the Year" during its 2006 annual convention, held in Chicago. "Among his recent achievements, Gov. Acevedo-Vilá signed an Executive Order making the promotion and development of the biotechnology industry a public policy priority; instituted an inter-agency task force to address permitting issues for biotechnology companies on a fast-track basis; and, signed a proclamation creating the first annual biotechnology week," gushed the BIO in a press release. "Acevedo-Vilá and his administration have been champions of building a strong bioscience industry presence in Puerto Rico," said BIO Vice President Patrick Kelly. "Not only does Puerto Rico have the third largest biologic manufacturing capacity in the world, but the Commonwealth also has a significant agricultural industry presence. (His) administration has been successful in creating an environment that will lead Puerto Rico into the forefront of the bioscience industry development well into the new millennium." Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that Puerto Rico has more open-air GM crop experiments per square mile than any jurisdiction in the United States, with the possible exception of Hawaii. "These are outdoor, uncontrolled experiments," said Bill Freese, of Friends of the Earth USA. "These experimental GE (genetically engineered) traits are almost certainly contaminating conventional crops just as the commercialized GE traits are. And the experimental GE crops aren't even subject to the cursory rubber-stamp 'approval' process that commercialized GE crops go through - so I think the high concentration of experimental GE crop trials in Puerto Rico is definitely cause for concern." Small Farmers Fight Back In March 2005, an international multistakeholder conference on the impacts of soy monocultures took place in the Brazilian city of Foz do Igua�u, near the Paraguayan and Argentinean borders. The conference, organized by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), had the full participation of agribusiness interests and sought not to counter the expansion of soy but to establish sustainability criteria for increased production. Its organizers intended to put these environmental guidelines to the test in Argentina's "100 million-ton harvest" project, an initiative of Fundación Vida Silvestre, WWF's local chapter in Argentina. A harvest that large would require 10 million additional hectares (38,610 sq. mi.) to be added to soy production. Hundreds of protesters from Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay convened outside the hotel where the "Sustainable Soy Roundtable" was taking place and denounced the initiative as a farce intended to greenwash massive soybean production that could never be made sustainable. Under the pretext of conserving regions high in biodiversity, WWF seeks to "legitimize the expansion of industrial monocultures of GM soy and the introduction of feedlot cattle and dairy production," accused the protesters in an open letter. The signers described the roundtable as a strategy of "green" capitalism to satisfy market demand abroad and service the illegitimate external debt, while ignoring domestic food demand. The letter goes on to denounce the "100 million-ton harvest" for implying "war against indigenous and campesino communities that are resisting the advance of industrial corporate agriculture." The Roundtable continues to meet in various locations in the Southern Cone, although its organizers now call their concept "Responsible Soy." They aim to formulate a system of certification for the environmentally and socially responsible production of soy. Their objectives include improvement of labor conditions, responsible use of agrochemicals, respect for the land rights of local peoples, and to make soy production compatible with the conservation of biodiversity, water, and soil. But so far the Roundtable has yet to come up with concrete proposals. "The Roundtable is one grand publicity bluff," said Javiera Rulli of Base Investigaciones Sociales, a Paraguayan NGO. "They have been at it for almost three years and they have achieved nothing." Terminating Terminator Seed: Victory in Curitiba The biotechnology lobby had a major setback in a series of United Nations meetings that took place in southern Brazil in March 2006. The first of these was the Conference on Agrarian Reform and Local Development in Porto Alegre, which was followed shortly by the conference of the Biodiversity Convention and the meeting of the Biosafety Protocol, both in the city of Curitiba. These UN meetings addressed - directly or indirectly - the issues of control over seeds and land. Furthermore, Biosafety Protocol specifically addresses the liabilities and hazards of GM organisms and products. The biggest bone of contention at Curitiba was the use of so-called "Terminator seeds." These seeds produce sterile plants, leaving farmers with no recourse but to buy seed every year. The Biodiversity Convention had a de facto prohibition on the use of this technology since 2000, but GM seed companies hoped to overturn the ban at the Curitiba meeting. "Terminator technology is an assault on the traditional knowledge, innovation, and practices of indigenous and local communities," said Debra Harry of the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, and member of an expert group that examined the potential impacts of Terminator seed on indigenous peoples, smallholder farmers, and farmers' rights. Harry added, "Field testing or commercial use of sterile seed technology is a fundamental violation of the human rights of indigenous peoples, a breach of the right of self-determination." "Terminator poses a threat to our welfare and food sovereignty and constitutes a violation of our human right of self-determination," asserted Mariano Marcos Terena of Brazil on behalf of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity in January 2006. A month before the UN meetings in Brazil, over 300 organizations declared their support for a global ban on Terminator technology, asserting that sterile seeds threaten biodiversity and will destroy the livelihoods and cultures of the 1.4 billion people who depend on farm-saved seed. The organizations, from every region of the world, included peasant movements and farm organizations, indigenous peoples' organizations, civil society and environmental groups, unions, faith communities, international development organizations, women's movements, consumer organizations, and youth networks. The Curitiba and Porto Alegre meetings turned into a fiasco for the biotech lobby because both locations were swamped by protesters. "Without asking permission, the 'wretched of the earth,' through the voices of thousands of Brazilian peasants, landless rural workers, people displaced by dams, and those affected by timber and GM soybean plantations, took to the stage at the UN conferences held in Porto Alegre and Curitiba," said Silvia Ribeiro of the ETC Group, a Canada-based NGO. "With the serenity and strength of those who have truth on their side, armed with seeds, maize, banners, and songs, these people astounded the diplomats of the world, reminding them that there is a real world out there beyond the negotiating tables, and enraged the directors and lobbyists of transnational corporations." The days were marked by militant direct action and civil disobedience. Women of Via Campesina celebrated March 8, International Women's Day, by destroying a laboratory and nursery of cloned pines of the Aracruz corporation in protest against encroaching tree plantations. Tree plantations cause social and environmental damage similar to those of soy monocultures. As meetings and protests took place in Curitiba, activists of Via Campesina and the MST, Brazil's landless people's movement, seized a farm in Santa Tereza do Oeste, in the state of Paraná, where Syngenta had illegally planted GM corn and soybeans in the buffer zone of the Igua�u National Park. Violence Erupts in Paraná The saga of the MST's occupation of the Syngenta illegal GM farm in Santa Tereza do Oeste continued for many months after the March 2006 UN meetings. MST militants and anti-GMO activists celebrated when IBAMA, Brazil's environmental agency, fined Syngenta US$ 500,000 for violating the country's biosafety law. The law forbids planting GM crops within 10 kilometers of a natural protected area, in this case the Foz do Igua�u national park. Via Campesina proposed turning the field into a center for research and production of agroecological seeds. Paraná governor Roberto Requi�o supported the occupation and ordered the expropriation of Syngenta to establish there an agroecology research facility. The company turned to the courts and got a temporary injunction against the expropriation plus an eviction order against the squatters. Then on October 21, 2007, armed gunmen allegedly hired by Syngenta violently evicted them. In the process they wounded many and murdered 34-year-old Valmir "Keno" Mota de Oliveira, father of three. The MST, Via Campesina, and countless civil society organizations in Brazil have condemned these deeds and are demanding that Syngenta take responsibility for the killing, that it be held accountable for its environmental crimes, that it give up its experimental plot, and leave the country. Meanwhile in Porto Alegre, protesters cut off access to the Agrarian Reform Conference for four hours and succeeded in getting their declaration, "Land, Territory, and Dignity," included as an officially endorsed conference document. At one point in the Biodiversity Convention a procession of women of Via Campesina entered the plenary hall carrying signs in different languages demanding a ban on Terminator. An enraged Delta & Pine biotechnology company employee called on security guards to intervene but the chairman announced that the protesters' concerns would be taken into account. The vast majority of the plenary session participants rose and applauded the women. In the end, civil society held the upper hand, as the moratorium on Terminator technology was maintained and upheld, much to the consternation of the biotech industry and its lobbyists. "The rainbow of daily protests by Via Campesina at the entrance to the convention center, the simultaneous events in Brazil and other countries by hundreds of civil society organizations coordinated by the international Ban Terminator Campaign, the speeches by youth and indigenous leaders (including delegates sent by the Huichol people of Mexico and the Guambiano people of Colombia specifically to speak on the issue), the parallel events held by the Brazilian NGO and Social Movements' Forum, all together finally overturned [the pro-Terminator push], to the despair of the transnational corporations and the countries committed to ending the moratorium, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand," said Ribeiro. "This is a momentous day for the 1.4 billion poor people worldwide who depend on farmer-saved seeds," said Chilean peasant leader Francisca Rodriguez of Via Campesina. "Terminator seeds are a weapon of mass destruction and an assault on our food sovereignty. "Terminator directly threatens our life, our culture, and our identity as indigenous peoples," said Viviana Figueroa of the Ocumazo indigenous community in Argentina on behalf of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity. "Today's decision is a huge step forward for the Brazilian Campaign against GMOs," said Maria Rita Reis from the Brazilian Forum of Social Movements and NGOs, "This reaffirms Brazil's existing ban on Terminator. It sends a clear message to the national government and congress that the world supports a ban on Terminator." The MST and the Via Campesina Seed Campaigns Brazil's Landless People's Movement, the world's biggest land squatters' movement, is in the vanguard of GM-free ecological agriculture in the Americas. Its Bionatur seeds network develops and distributes diverse GM-free seeds and runs community seed banks that preserve agricultural biodiversity and keep germplasm out of the hands of agribusiness corporations. In the words of MST spokesman Jo�o Pedro Stédile, "If we lose our seed heritage, conquering land and capital will not serve us in any way." Bionatur is "a fundamental instrument for the construction of a new agricultural model, based on agroecology, reconstruction of the landscape, promotion of peoples' food security and food sovereignty, and recovery of the productive capacity of soils," according to Informativo do MST, the movement's newspaper. The network was born in 1997 as an outgrowth of COOPERAL, one of the MST's many farming co-operatives, which was seeking alternatives to the corporate-controlled and environmentally unsound industrial agriculture model favored by large "latifundista" landowners. In its two decades of existence, the MST has provided over 22 million hectares of land to two million poor Brazilians. There they have established 5,000 settlements. The movement's land seizures cannot be properly termed civil disobedience or law-breaking, since Brazil's constitution obligates the government to distribute land to the poor. There are currently approximately 150,000 landless Brazilians affiliated with the MST that are living in temporary roadside barracks waiting to get land. As a member of Via Campesina, an international small farmers' movement with millions of members worldwide, the MST is an active participant in its Seeds Campaign. The Campaign "has deep meaning for farmers and indigenous peoples, and it gives a prominent role to women," says Francisca Rodríguez of Chile, one of Via Campesina's founders. "It strengthens the concept of Food Sovereignty and transforms it into a commitment to action. The campaign helps integrate the various aspects of agriculture, but also weaves in issues related to labor, value systems, and campesina culture. That returns some of our humanity to us, providing strength to face the hardship involved in all of this." "Agriculture has been transforming us into machines that work harder than before, suppressing the creativity that used to characterize the farming process. Technology subjugates and annihilates people, and knowledge at the service of capital dehumanizes science. How do we stop this all-encompassing madness, which leads to extermination instead of progress? When I look at the seed campaign, being part of Via Campesina makes more sense: building this alternative way. I see the campaign as part of that great road that we are building around the world." Sources Aguirre, Roberto, "Red Bionatur de semillas. Una herramienta estratégica del MST," 2006, http://www.biodiversidadla.org/content/view/full/24193. Altieri, Miguel & Walter Pengue, "GM Soybean: Latin America's New Colonizer," Seedling, January 2006, http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=421. Ban Terminator Campaign, "Terminator Rejection - A Victory for the People," March 24, 2006, http://www.banterminator.org/News-Updates/News-Updates/Terminator-rejection-a-victory-for-the-people. Ban Terminator Campaign, "Monsanto May Commercialize Terminator: Biotech Giant Revises Pledge on Sterile Seed Technology as Global Alliance Calls for a Ban," February 21, 2006, http://www.banterminator.org/News-Updates/News-Updates/Monsanto-May-Commercialize-Terminator. Ban Terminator Campaign, "Granada's Grim Sowers Plow up Moratorium on Terminator, Clear the Path for its Approval at UN," January 27, 2006, http://www.banterminator.org/News-Updates/News-Updates/ UN-Meeting-Undermines-Moratorium-on-Terminator-Goal-to-Approve-Terminator-is-Now-Clear. Bravo, Elizabeth, "El nuevo colonialismo de los agronegocios. El caso de la soja en el cono sur," http://www.ecoportal.net/content/view/full/73977. Center for Food Safety, "Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers," 2005, http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/Monsantovsusfarmersreport.cfm. ETC Group, "Las diez compañías semilleras más grandes del mundo," October 2007, http://www.etcgroup.org/es/materiales/publicaciones.html?pub_id=657. ETC Group, "Oligopoly Inc. 2005," http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=42. González Rojas, Aldo, "Maíz, Contaminación Transgénica y Resistencia," http://www.ecoportal.net/content/view/full/60197. GRAIN, "Soya Nexus in Latin America," Seedling, July 2007, http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=493. GRAIN, "Sustainable Monocultures? No, Thanks!" June 2006, http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=16. GRAIN, "Poisoning the Well: The Genetic Pollution of Maize," Seedling, January 2003, http://grain.org/seedling/?id=219. Grupo de Reflexión Rural, "Informe Sobre los Intercambios con la Rep�blica Bolivariana de Venezuela, Mar del Plata y el ALCA, el Rol de la Soja y de la Biotecnologia en la Dependencia en la Dependencia de la América Latina," http://www.grr.org.ar/documentos/Informe%20para%20Venezuela.htm. Grupo de Reflexión Rural et al., Joint declaration on the Foz do Igua�u Sustainable Soy Roundtable meeting, February 2005. Grupo de Reflexión Rural, "Se Aprueba en el Senado en el Senado la Ley de Promoción de la Biotecnología y se Legitima el Modelo Neogolonial Agroexportador de la Republiqueta Sojera," February 2006, http://www.ecoportal.net/content/view/full/56526. Independent Science Panel, "The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World," 2003, http://www.indsp.org/ISPreportSummary.php. Indymedia Argentina, "Insumos del Milagro Sojero," July 11, 2006, http://www.causapopular.com.ar/article1053.html. MST, "La Campaña de Semillas del MST: Semillas, Patrimonio de los Pueblos al Servicio de la Humanidad," http://www.biodiversidadla.org/content/view/full/15875. El Nuevo Herald, "Chávez Instó a Formar un Frente Sudamericano para el Cultivo de Soja," http://www.rallt.org/boletin/boletin%20180-240/Bol.%20193_Venezuela.pdf. N�ñez, Miguel Angel, "Prestigiosos Agroecólogos Visitan Venezuela Mientras Chávez se suma a un Tratado contra los Transgénicos," 12V06. Philpott, Tom, "The Corn Supremacy," Grist Magazine, Oct. 25 2007, http://www.grist.org/comments/food/2007/10/25/index.html. Red Bolivia Libre de Transgénicos, "Soya Convencional y Transgénica en Bolivia," http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=29587link. Ribeiro, Silvia, "México: �Cuál experimento?" La Jornada, September 29 2007, http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/09/29/index.php?section=opinion&article=019a1eco. Ribeiro, Silvia, "Maíz Transgénico y Descampesinización," La Jornada, September 1, 2007, http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=56221. Ribeiro, Silvia, "Seeds, Land, and Water: The Ides of March," Seedling, July 2006, http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=427. Ribeiro, Silvia, "Maíz: Contaminación Genética y Moral," La Jornada, December 13, 2001, http://www.etcgroup.org/es/materiales/publicaciones.html?pub_id=512. Rosset, Peter, "Food is Different," Zed Books, 2006. Rulli, Jorge Eduardo, "Chávez, Grobo y el Marxismo Sojero," http://www.actividadonline.com.ar/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1082. Union of Concerned Scientists, "Gone to Seed: Transgenic Contaminants in the Traditional Seed Supply," 2004, http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/gone-to-seed.html. USDA Economic Research Service, "Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the United States," http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/. For More Information Ban Terminator Campaign http://www.banterminator.org Biodiversidad en América Latina http://www.biodiversidadla.org ETC Group http://www.etcgroup.org GRAIN http://www.grain.org Grupo de Reflexión Rural http://www.grr.org.ar Independent Science Panel http://www.indsp.org MST http://www.mstbrazil.org Red por una América Latina Libre de Transgénicos http://rallt.org Soy Kills http://www.lasojamata.org World Forum on Food Sovereignty http://www.nyeleni.org Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero is a Puerto Rican independent environmental journalist and environmental analyst for the Americas Policy Program (www.americaspolicy.org). a fellow of the Oakland Institute and a senior fellow of the Environmental Leadership Program and founder/director of the Puerto Rico Project on Biosafety (bioseguridad.blogspot.com). His bilingual web page (carmeloruiz.blogspot.com) is devoted to global environment and development issues. _______________________ 10 December 2007 Seeds of doubt FT.com, 10 December 2007 Agrochemicals, the pesticides and herbicides that help farmers feed the world, are in vogue. This end of the chemical sector was picked as most likely to outperform over the next 12 months by almost half of investors in a November survey by Morgan Stanley. With prices for food commodities of all stripes going through the roof, this is unsurprising. But how sustainable is expanding demand for crop protection? There is a structural shift in eating habits in emerging markets toward richer diets, and, calorie for calorie, it takes around seven times more grain to produce beef than bread. The distortive effect of bio-fuels � they will take 12 per cent of US corn produced this year � also creates fear of future food shortages, despite serious questions over their long-term viability. A surge in demand in Latin America has provided a fillip for Switzerland�s Syngenta, the largest agrochemical company, German chemicals producer Bayer, which makes about a fifth of operating profit from crop science, and Israeli generic crop protection group MA Industries. _______________________ French activist Bove to go on anti-GMO hunger strike Reuters, 10 December 2007. Toulouse - French radical farmer Jose Bove, who became a worldwide celebrity for his fight against junk food, said on Monday he would go on a hunger strike to win a one-year ban on genetically modified (GMO) crops. Speaking at the Millau Court of Justice in southern France, where his four-month jail sentence for trashing a GMO field in 2004 was commuted to a fine, Bove said he would start his unlimited strike on January 3, along with 10 to 15 other activists. The walrus-mustachioed, pipe-smoking Bove, sometimes dubbed France's Robin Hood, spent six weeks in jail in 2003 for smashing up a McDonald's restaurant in protest at tariffs imposed by the United States in retaliation for a European Union ban on imports of North American hormone-treated beef. While GMO crops are common in the United States, France -- Europe's biggest grain producer -- along with other European nations remain highly suspicious of them. Supporters say it could lead to hardy strains to help feed the world's poor. Opponents, which polls say include a majority of French people, fear they could harm humans and wildlife by triggering an uncontrolled spread of modified genes. In an attempt to calm these concerns, France last week formally suspended the commercial use of GMO seeds until February 9 and ordered a biotech safety study. It also set up a committee charged with assessing the health and environmental implications of using the only GMO seeds used in Europe, which are reliant on the MON 810 technology developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto. "This decree is ridiculous. It is a scarecrow," Bove said. "Everyone knows that there are no sowings during winter. We demand a real pause in GMO use in 2008. It must be a year without GMOs and we are stating this hunger strike to show our determination," he added. (Reporting by Nicolas Fichot in Toulouse; editing by Michael Roddy) _______________________ IFOAM Conference Demands Zero Tolerance Organic-Market.info, 10 December 2007. By Kai Kreuzer. The two-day conference of the IFOAM EU group in Brussels, that attracted a record 270 participants, concluded on 5 December 2007. The aim of the highly successful conference was to discuss the future strategy for implementing organic agriculture in Europe. Various departments of the EU Commission were invited, and a number of officials from the EU administration were clearly impressed by the event, welcoming further proposals and collaboration with the umbrella organisation of organic movements worldwide. � Picture: The large number of participants represented practically every European country The Commissioner for Agriculture Mrs Fischer-Boel announced that the new EU organic logo will be presented by the end of the year. The battle cry of the representatives from many of the EU member states was zero tolerance regarding genetically modified organisms (GMO). At the conference, around 80 lectures were given by experts and were attended by people interested in the various topics. There was a high level of consensus in respect of organic agriculture, but on the subject of GMO and bio-fuels opinions were divided. Representing the EU Commission, officials from the Directorates-General for Agriculture, Research and the Environment attended, and they followed the lectures and discussions very closely. They expressed the position of the Commission on several panels and in working groups. Representing the Directorate-General for Agriculture, Julien Mousnier emphasised that there was strong support in the Commission for organic agriculture: "We are very pleased with the way we are working together with IFOAM." He predicted a very bright future for organic agriculture, which it was a duty to work together to achieve. Timothy Hall, also from the Directorate-General for Agriculture, added that ideas and suggestions from the organic industry would continue to be welcome. His recommendation: "But please make sure that they are supported by the majority of the industry." Hannes Lorenzen from the Green Party in the EU Parliament encouraged active participation in all the processes of the EU. There was also an obligation to combat unfair competition from countries that did not adhere to any ecological or social standards. He suggested this could be done by, for example, import levies. � (Picture from left to right: The EU representatives Ladislav Miko, Julien Mousnier, Timothy Hall. Then Hannes Lorenzen, congress-manager Marco Schl�ter and other panellists) � The Green Party MEP, Friedrich Wilhelm Gräfe zu Baringdorf (picture), demanded that food from outside the EU should not be used as a "strike breaker" in order to lower the prices of producers in Europe. Instead of promoting the research of private GM companies, The EU Commission should expand organic research for the benefit of all people. Timothy Hall stressed that the Commission was already supporting a number of organic projects, the biggest being the QLIF Project (14 million Euros). � Arguments for and against GMO were debated. Helen Holder (picture on left) from Friends of the Earth made a passionate contribution, providing figures and arguments in favour of zero tolerance regarding GMO. Whilst the audience � organic representatives from practically every EU country and adjacent states like Croatia and White Russia � similarly demanded zero tolerance in various forums, the representatives of the Commission presented the current regulation regarding mandatory distance between GMO and non-GMO fields, authorisation procedures and the 0.9 % regulation. They said they had to consider the interests of all the member countries and they advocated the compromise that has been law for some years now. Ladislav Milko, as Head of the Directorate-General for the Environment, was also unwilling to come down on any one side. He called for further research into the effects of GM agricultural practices before they could reach a final conclusion. Benny Härlin, from the action group Save our Seeds demanded real confrontation with the EU institutions in the coming years to ensure that the whole of Europe remained free of GMO. � Mariann Fischer-Boel, the Danish EU Commissioner for Agriculture (picture), came to the opening of the IFOAM Congress. In her speech, she made clear what she expected from the conference � more information about the special benefits of organic agriculture in terms of alleviating climate change and the maintenance of biodiversity. She praised the progress made by the organic industry and spoke about the boom in some of the accession states.�Regarding the new EU Organic Regulation, she said: "We did reach an agreement." The principles had been clearly laid down, and a solution had been found for wine, aquaculture and seaweed. "A huge piece of work is now behind us," she added. She hoped that the organic industry would continue to grow: "Development is being driven by the fact that society is focusing more and more on environmental issues." In the evening before the conference opened, a top level colleague of Mrs Fischer Boel, Dormal Marino (on the right in the picture next to Francis Blake), joined the IFOAM EU Group for drinks. About 50 people taking part in the conference crowded into the four IFOAM offices and took great pleasure in sampling the French wines on offer. � In his detailed lecture, Ladislav Miko, responsible for nature conservation and environmental protection in the Directorate-General for Environment, emphasised the benefits of organic agriculture (picture on right). Tamas Marghescu from the nature conservation organisation IUCN pointed out in his contribution that around half of the excess of CO2 in the atmosphere could be bound up in the soil if there was a wide-scale conversion to organic agriculture. "Nature conservation and biodiversity, that are additional benefits derived from organic agriculture, should feature much more prominently in public discussions in the future." � A large number of talks were held in the five different working groups. The issues presented ranged from creating policy for organic agriculture, supporting research and trade ethics to the new EU Organic Regulation.�GMO was a topic that attracted particular attention. Andrea Ferrante from the Italian Organic Association AIAB reported that the whole of Italy was virtually free of GMO. Because the Farmers� Association Coldiretti, whose influence reached into every village, had declared its opposition to GMO, and because many regions had joined the anti-GMO movement, the controversial technology would not be used. Austria has a law that guarantees that seed is free of GMO. � The Chairman of the Soil Association, Patrick Holden, focused on the topic of energy. He said that when oil reaches its tipping point, it will totally disrupt all the energy-dependent market economies. It was quite possible that that point would be reached in three years, when half of all available oil had been used up. "Escalating energy prices are forcing the world to think about sustainable agriculture," he said. In his view, the moment has come to convert to low-energy farming methods. He was definitely against the use of bio-fuels. "Bio-fuels are a catastrophe because they create competition with food crops for land, and they are causing rainforests to be chopped down." He expressed these views during a panel discussion (picture) that was followed by a gala dinner. His views are in clear contradiction to the views of the EU Commission on bio-fuels. The Commissioner for Agriculture said that bio-fuels could contribute to solving the problem of climate change, "if they were correctly implemented." (Picture from right to left: Patrick Holden, Andrea Caroe, Poul Christofferson, Rasmus Kjeldahl, Tamas Marghescu) � Nicolas Lampkin, from the organic agriculture centre in Wales, asked for organic agriculture to be included in the so-called first pillar of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), instead of being only in the second pillar that attracted much less funding. Francis Blake, Chairman of the IFOAM EU Group, said at the conclusion of the very successful conference that, although there were still topics to be discussed, organic agriculture could demonstrate great success. "We have already reached the top of the hill, from which we can see the mountains that we still have to scale." _______________________ Brazil's landless peasants occupy Syngenta plants Reuters, 10 December 2007 BRASILIA - Brazilian landless peasants occupied two production facilities of agrochemical producer Syngenta on Monday, demanding the Swiss company leave the South American farm export giant. Hundreds of activists broke into a Swiss-owned Syngenta agrochemical plant in the state of Sao Paulo, expelling 50 employees and shutting down production, a company spokeswoman told Reuters. Members of the Landless Rural Workers' Movement, or MST, and the allied group Via Campesina also destroyed genetically-modified corn and soy seedlings at a Syngenta farm in the northeastern state of Ceara, the groups said. The groups demand Syngenta leave Brazil, accusing the company of attacking landless workers and violating environmental laws. One landless activist was shot dead in October during protests at a Syngenta farm in the southern Parana state. The MST said the farm illegally produced genetically modified crops within an environmental protection zone around the internationally-acclaimed Iguacu water falls. Syngenta, the world's largest agrochemical company, said in a statement that it was dismayed by the occupations and that it had no participation in the October death. The company said it was awaiting a decision from public prosecutors based on police investigations into the shooting of Valmir Mota de Oliveira. Activists accused private security guards at the farm for shooting Oliveira. The MST and similar groups frequently occupy farms, block highways, torch crops and stage rallies to pressure the government to give more land to the poor. Landowners often hire armed guards and hit squads to repel invasions. Landless militants have twice blocked a railroad operated by Brazilian mining giant Vale since October and interrupted the flow of iron ore to foreign markets. Industry and farm lobbies have urged the government to get tougher on the landless movements, saying they undermine investment conditions in Brazil. _______________________ 9 December 2007 EU: Science and policy collide in EU over genetically modified crops International Herald Tribune (Europe), 9 December 2007. By Elisabeth Rosenthal. A proposal that Europe's top environment official made last month to ban the planting of a genetically modified corn strain across the bloc sets the stage for a bitter war within European Union, where politicians have done their best to dance around the issue. The EU's environmental commissioner, Stavros Dimas, said he based his decision squarely on scientific studies suggesting that there remain long-term uncertainties and risks 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 major largely GMO-free swath of land left in the world, largely by sidestepping these tough questions; it kept a moratorium on the planting of crops made from genetically modified organisms while making promises of further scientific studies. But Europe has been under increasing pressure from the World Trade Organization and the United States, which argue that there is plenty of research to show such products do not harm the environment. Therefore, they insist, normal trade rules must apply. In fact science does not provide a definitive answer to the question of safety, experts say, just as science could not know for sure whether the Year 2000 computer bug would be a problem. "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." 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 Commission. "But, there are times when diverging scientific views are on the table." She added that 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 the one known as Bt corn, which is based on the naturally occurring soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, a toxin that is genetically inserted in the corn to kill pests. The vast majority of that research is conducted by, or financed by, the companies that make seeds of 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 Dimas. "Is the glass half empty or half full?" she asked. Hilbeck says that company-funded 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. Hilbeck said producers of modified organisms, like Syngenta and Monsanto, have rejected repeated requests to release seeds to researchers like herself to conduct independent studies of the environmental impact of the products. In his decision, 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, argues that the great majority of these papers show that Bt corn does not pose any environmental risk. Many plant researchers say that Dimas actually ignored science, including that of several researchers who advised the EU that the new corn was safe. "We are seeing 'advice-resistant' politicians pursuing their own agendas," said one researcher, who like others said he could not be quoted by name because of his advisory role. But Karen 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 U.S. corn 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," Oberhauser said. "So it's really, really important to have careful studies." While Bt crops produce a toxin that kills a winged pest and its caterpillar but is also toxic to related insects, notably Monarch butterflies, but also a number of water insects. The butterflies do not feed on corn itself, but on nearby plants, like milkweed; but since corn pollen is carried in the wind, such plants can also become coated with Bt pollen. 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 until 2004. But they have rebounded in the last three years, and she has concluded that, in the U.S. corn belt, Bt corn has probably not hurt Monarch butterflies. Still, she said there was still disagreement and broader causes for worry. U.S. Monarch butterflies may have been saved by a bit of dumb luck, she said, 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, killed off the 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. Time will tell if there is a real problem. "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 human microbes become resistant to antibiotics that are overused. The pests that are killed by modified corn are only a sporadic problem, which could be treated by other means. They worry, too, that Bt toxin is present in wind-borne pollen. It is extremely unusual for pollen to contain poison. Most pollens "are highly nutritious, as they are designed to attract," 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 of collateral damage to health or 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 Hellmich, a plant scientist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture who is based at Iowa State University, who noted that hundreds of studies had been done. Bt corn could help "feed the world," Hellmich said. 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," Catherine Geslain-Lan�elle, executive director of the European Food Safety Agency. She noted that while her agency had advised 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 EU law as well as WTO rules make it much easier for a country or a region to exclude genetically modified seeds in the case of new scientific evidence showing danger. 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 help the EU ministers dodge the bullet. Simon Butler at the University of Reading in Britain is using computer models to predict the long-term effect of genetically modified crops on birds and other species. But should the ministers should reject Bt corn? "My work is not to judge whether GM is right or wrong," he said. "It's just to get the data out there." _______________________ Synthia Gets a Shotgun - Goodbye genetic engineering? ETC. Blog, Dec 9 2007. By Jim Thomas. What do ocean-going yachts, space-traveling bacteria and synthetic life have in common? J. Craig Venter, of course. The self-styled genome tycoon has been busy pushing the boundaries on what may appear at first glance to be unrelated enterprises. Nothing could be further from the truth. A suite of recently uncovered patent applications lodged by Venter and his colleagues reveal not only an attempt to grab ownership over much of synthetic biology (see news release ) but also a breathtakingly bold business plan for producing millions of new synthetic organisms per day. At the heart of this are plans for a new, automated process enabling rapid assembly of complete synthetic genomes - plans that, if realised, could render current genetic engineering techniques quaint and obsolete. Venter calls it "homologous in vitro recombination" or "combinatorial genomics." ETC suggests it might be properly dubbed "shotgun synthesis" and it has the potential to blast apart current biotech practice. These days genetic engineering, the standard practice of transferring a piece of DNA from one organism to another, is a routine, plodding and rather old-fashioned lab technique. There are several steps involved - ranging from identifying suitable DNA, cutting it out of its host organism, transforming it into a circular strand of DNA (a plasmid) and then somehow lodging it in the genome of the organism you intend to alter using a virus or a gene gun method. For some years synthetic biology has promised to speed up the front end of that process (the acquiring DNA bit) since it's now possible to specify on the Internet exactly what DNA you want. Within a fortnight of clicking the order button, DNA synthesis foundries such as GENEART or Blue Heron can cheaply provide a custom-made plasmid ready for genetic engineering. At present most synthetic biologists engineer their synthetic DNA into trusty lab microbes such as E. coli or yeast in order to see if their designer gene sequences "work." Consider a simplistic computing analogy - the E. coli genome is the equivalent of an operating system such as Windows or OSX and the circular engineered strand of synthetic DNA is a programme that the researcher hopes will carry out some task such as making a protein or altering behavior of the organism. Of course biology is much messier than computing but that over-simplified metaphor is nonetheless a basic conceit of synthetic biology. Venter's quest to create a novel organism with a minimal genome ( which we call "Synthia") is an attempt to create a stripped-down operating system that's leaner and meaner than E. coli and on which synthetic DNA programmes could be implemented. Venter's recently published portfolio of patent applications seeks to own this operating system and the method of adding extra synthetic DNA to it. Surprisingly, however, Venter's approach does away with genetic engineering altogether. Instead of constructing a plasmid and blasting it into the existing genome of a living organism, Venter and his colleagues will place the entire synthetic genome into a bacterial cell and make that cell "boot up." Significantly, they have broken down the entire minimal genome into 101 short fragments of DNA or "gene cassettes." Any one of these cassettes can be removed and replaced by a synthetically altered cassette or, indeed, extra synthetic cassettes could be added (so let's say there might be 102 or 103 fragments rather than the original 101). The patent applications then describe a method by which all of those fragments are mixed in a reaction chamber and assemble themselves in one go into a complete genome. The inspiration for this miraculous assembly is a favourite bug of Venter's - an almost un-killable microbe called Deinococcus radiodurans that is thought to be able to travel in outer space because it can survive radiation doses that are three to five thousand times the lethal dose for humans. Even though radiation bombardment shatters the genome of Deinococcus radiodurans into tiny fragments, the bug uses "repair proteins" (specialised enzymes) to piece its genome back together again. Like magic, it can be fully functioning again within 24 hours. Craig Venter has called D. radiodurans "the ultimate genome assembly machine". E. coli, in fact, has similar repair proteins. By using these in a purified form along with a mix of other enzymes Venter's patent applications suggests that it's possible to swiftly assemble the fragments of the Synthia genome, including extra gene cassettes, into a complete genome. Theoretically, it's a new, fast method of engineering new DNA into the genome. For those familiar with Venter's past work this "fragment-then-piece-back-together-again" approach might sound oddly familiar. It's the principle behind his 'shotgun sequencing� method, which his private team at Celera used to decode the human genome faster than the U.S. government project. In shotgun sequencing the genome of an organism is blasted into small fragments that are rapidly sequenced in parallel and then reassembled inside a computer into one complete digital sequence. In this new method, Venter is once again fragmenting the genome and re-assembling his fragments, this time in vitro - not in a computer - and with some extra DNA fragments deliberately thrown into the mix. The inventor of shotgun sequencing appears to be developing "shotgun synthesis" and his ambitions for this new technique are far from modest. Not content with creating a faster method of genetic engineering, Venter is looking to emulate the robotic methods used in drug discovery to further speed up the creation of new life forms. In the patent applications his team describe a process that Venter calls "combinatorial genomics." This precisely matches a process described in a Wired magazine interview several years ago: "If you want to find the role of 100,000 genes, Venter says, the trick is to find a way of doing 100,000 experiments at once. All you would need that's not already available is a synthetic genome, a sort of all-purpose template onto which you could attach any gene you wished, like inserting a blade onto a handle. You could then test the resulting concoction to see if it performed a specific vital task, such as metabolizing sugar or transporting energy. Using existing robotic technologies, you could do thousands of such experiments at once, in much the same way that a combinatorial chemist tests thousands of chemical compounds simultaneously to see if they have the desired effect on a target molecule. Most will not. But the ones that do can be investigated further. "I call it combinatorial genomics"� Venter tells me. "It's one of my better ideas if it works. In fact, it's one of my better ideas if it doesn�t work." In fact, the recently published patent applications claim that this process should enable the automatic production of not just thousands but "millions of different genomes" - a claim that Venter also made recently in this TED talk where he outlined his combinatorial genomics vision. Specifically, the patent applications describe a robotic system that rapidly assembles and tests synthetic genomes in a fast throughput model either by "installing" them into cells or by making them express themselves in a "cell-free environment� comprising the necessary transcriptional and translational machinery to express genes" - probably something similar to these microfluidic chips developed by David Kong of MIT which mix cellular contents in tiny silicon chambers. If Craig Venter does indeed develop the capacity to create millions of new synthetic organisms per day he will also need a ready supply of thousands of new unexamined genes to test in his Synthia operating system. Here, too, his team is already way out in front. His Sorcerer II Expedition spent 2 years trawling the world's oceans collecting organisms in seawater samples to be rapidly sequenced in the new field of metagenomics. Metagenomics takes the study of genomes to the level of entire ecosystems. Ignoring the messy boundaries of individual species, metagenomic sequencing faithfully records all the genes found at a particular location without trying to ascribe them to this, that, or another organism. In effect the whole genetic material of an ecosystem is presented as a soup. Geneticists can then comb through the gene sequences in this undifferentiated soup to identify genes with similar structures and properties. Earlier this year Venter's team announced they had so far identified 6.12 million new proteins uncovered from 7.7 million genetic sequences from the first phase of the Sorcerer II's voyage. Within this wider dataset are hundreds of thousands of similar genes - photoreceptors, for example, that might be used to engineer synthetic organisms that convert sunlight to hydrogen. Attempting to engineer those genes one at a time into an existing microbe would be a daunting challenge with conventional genetic engineering techniques, but with the "shotgun synthesis" and combinatorial genomics approach, such a challenge is - at least theoretically - more do-able. Venter hopes it may yield hundreds, maybe thousands of industrially useful proteins. Venter's metagenomics prospecting doesn�t stop at sea, his Institute is also sampling airborne bacteria in downtown Manhattan and Venter half-jokes that he hopes to create "Whole Earth Gene Catalog" which sounds not unlike proposals Venter made to Google to make all the genes in the world Googlable. Indeed Venter's ambitions don�t stop at Earth - rumours are that Venter has also talked of sampling bacteria from the edge of the atmosphere in the hope of finding DNA from outer space. In our report, Extreme Genetic Engineering, we joked that the ability to digitise and beam back life forms could create a new form of "star trek biopiracy." Little did we realise how literally Craig Venter would boldly go there. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=665 _______________________ 8 December 2007 UK: Nature Biotech's Ermakova "set-up" Editor admits to serious errors of judgement GM Free Cymru (Wales) press release, 8 December 2007. December's on-line edition of "Nature Biotechnology" contains an extraordinary admission by the Editor, Andrew Marshall, that he made a series of very serious errors of judgement which effectively allowed four pro-GM scientists to make a premeditated attack on Russian scientist Irina Ermakova (1). In the September 2007 edition the journal published a "feature" which gave Bruce Chassy, Vivian Moses, Val Giddings and Alan McHughen free space to attack the work of Irina Ermakova, whose findings (on the deleterious effects of GM soy on rats involved in feeding experiments) had caused profound concern in the GM industry and across the world (2). In certain quarters the decision was taken to "shoot the messenger." Ermakova was invited by the Editor to answer a set of questions about her research methods and her findings, and she willingly agreed to this, assuming that this would be "her" article. She was even sent a dummy proof which had her name on it as author. She was never told the names of the four men who were intent upon attacking her work, and never given sight of their comments. Most of Ermakova's references were removed, and replaced with references chosen by her critics to bolster their case. What is more, when the article appeared in print it had Andrew Marshall's name on it as author. GM Free Cymru has described the full sequence of events very carefully (3), and is in no doubt that this was a cynical "set-up" by a journal which fell far short of the standards to be expected of mainstream academic publishing (4). Following the publication of the article there was a storm of protest relating largely to the unethical practices employed by the journal in its treatment of Ermakova, and letters poured in not only to the Editor of "Nature Biotechnology" but also to senior personnel in the Nature / Macmillan publications empire. The editor was forced to accept a full defence of her science by Ermakova and a series of direct criticisms by her relating to the manner in which she had been treated. He also had to agree to publish five out of the twenty or so critical letters which he received, and to print a rather feeble "justification" concerning his ill-fated "publication experiment." This went on-line on the Nature Biotechnology web site on 7th December 2007 (5). In his article (6) Marshall has now admitted that his removal of Ermakova's references did indeed give the impression to readers that her work was "inferior and unsupported by the literature"; that the dummy proof should never have been sent with her name on it; that she was indeed misled into the belief that the article would be hers; that she was not fully informed as to the publication process or the intention of the feature article; that he, as Editor, should never have accepted comments made jointly by the four critics, and for which no one individual would accept responsibility; that he published criticisms relating to a perceived lack of data in her answers without giving her an opportunity to provide that data; and that he deliberately withheld from Ermakova the names and the comments of the four critics, since he viewed the article as an exercise in journalism rather than an exercise in scientific publishing. Critics of the behaviour of the journal in this "set-up" are by no means placated, since there is no proper apology in Marshall's statement, and since he has given yet more space to the group of four critics to respond to Ermakova's self-defence (7). So effectively they have the "last word" in this issue of the journal, which no doubt gives those four doughty defenders of the GM cause a degree of satisfaction, as well as indicating (if there was any doubt about it) the journal's position in this particular debate. Marshall also criticizes the writers of the five new letters (8) for failing to address any of the scientific issues either in Ermakova's paper or in the criticisms of the "group of four". In doing this, he fails to appreciate that all of them refrained from detailed scientific comment in order to concentrate on the matter of publication ethics. Scientific analysis will no doubt follow. There are other issues too that Marshall evades or glosses over, including his "choice" of Chassy, Giddings, McHughen and Moses on the grounds that they were "established independent scientists working in the field". However established or independent they may be, they certainly do not represent a fair cross-section of expert scientists working in the field of animal nutrition, and it does not help the journal's cause when we now learn that "Chassy also consulted with an expert in the field of animal toxicology." Who was this mysterious expert, and why is he or she not named? Marshall has not denied the accusation made by GM Free Cymru that the group of "experts" was self-selected, and that far from them being invited by the Editor to participate in this little game, they were the ones who put the idea to him in the first place (9). Referring to the new Correspondence published in the December issue of the journal, GM Free Cymru spokesman Dr Brian John said: "We are satisfied that Nature Biotechnology has now accepted that it made serious mistakes in the publication of this feature article in September 2007, and that the Editor has promised never to make the same mistakes again. However, there are still aspects of this affair that are very disturbing, and these relate to a serious decline in publication ethics. We are used to seeing the proponents of GM crops and foods setting out in the pages of GM promotional magazines to "shoot the messenger" whenever they see something in the literature of which they do not approve; but it is a new and sinister development when a mainstream scientific journal connives in giving a free platform to a self-selected group of scientists who wish to criticize another scientist working in a field about which they themselves know relatively little." Contact: Brian John GM Free Cymru Tel + 44 (0)1239-820470 Notes (1) http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n9/abs/nbt0907-981.html (2) http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/ermakova.htm http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=298 http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/monsanto2.htm http://www.greenplanet.net/Articolo9833.html (3) http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/rottweiler.htm (4) http://www.woz.ch/artikel/inhalt/2007/nr44/Wissen/15584.html The Excommunication of a Heretic, by Roland Fischer, 13th November 2007 Translated from the German-language Swiss weekly newspaper WOZ and published originally on 1st November 2007 http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/excommunication.htm (5) http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n12/index.html#cr (6) http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n12/full/nbt1207-1359.html (7) http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n12/full/nbt1207-1356b.html (8) Brian John, Mae-wan Ho and Peter Saunders, Carlo Leifert, Jack Heinemann and Terje Traavik, and Joe Cummins. (9) The Editor of the journal wrote to Ermakova on 25th June 2007: "I am writing to you because the journal has been approached by a group of authors wishing to critique the results of your work that have been discussed in public forums." _______________________ USA: GMO Crops: A Growing Concern Genetically modified organisms, such as certain strains of corn, soybeans, and other farm fare, aren't as safe as proponents would have the public believe. Pro or con? Business Week, 8 December 2007. Pro: suspect practice by Gillian Madill and Ian Illuminato, Friends of the Earth. Genetically modified crops have been hailed as a way to make agricultural products safer and more affordable, but they have accomplished neither of these goals. One persistent danger lies in the prospect of crops unapproved for human consumption becoming mixed with the food supply. In 2000, Friends of the Earth and other groups discovered an unapproved strain of genetically modified corn on grocery store shelves. StarLink corn, which had been deemed safe only for animal consumption because of human allergen concerns, was showing up in Kraft (KFT) taco shells. The discovery led to recalls, mill closures, halts in exports, and buybacks of contaminated corn. Safety concerns related to genetically engineered crops can also create larger-scale economic risk. Just look at what happened to the U.S. rice market in 2006, when illegal varieties of genetically modified rice were found contaminating the U.S. rice supply. Some estimates indicate that this incident caused more than $1.2 billion in damages and additional costs to the U.S. rice industry, whose export sales dropped dramatically. Another problem: The modification of some crops to improve their resistance to herbicides has given rise to a rapidly growing population of herbicide-resistant weeds, which has led to more herbicide use. This can cause economic hardship for farmers who find it harder to grow crops and have to spend more for herbicides. It also results in more chemical runoff into streams and rivers. Furthermore, increased herbicide use threatens humans, because it means potentially higher levels of toxic chemicals in our food. Americans concerned about food safety and economic stability would be well advised to take a cue from their neighbors in Europe, and demand more stringent oversight in regard to the genetic modification of crops. Con: safe and abundant sustenance by Jim Greenwood, the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Today Americans enjoy one of the safest and most abundant food supplies in the world's history. But access to healthful and nutritious food is not enjoyed by everyone. According to the United Nations, more than 850 million people worldwide suffer from malnutrition. This situation will likely worsen by 2050, when the world's population will increase by 50% and the cultivable land will decrease by 50%, placing new pressures on global agriculture. How do we address this international crisis? While there is no easy and singular solution to starvation, we know that biotechnology can expand and enhance the global food supply. Over the past decade agricultural biotechnology has improved plant productivity and crop quality, increased farmer income, supported stewardship of the land, and contributed to a safe food supply. Biotech crops constitute part of the diet of billions of people around the world without one single documented health problem. In the U.S., biotech crops receive scrutiny from three separate federal agencies�the Agriculture Dept., the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration. There they undergo intensive safety review, from the research lab to field trials and ultimately to commercial plantings by farmers. No conventional or organic crops undergo this level of premarket testing, review, and regulation. This safety record is backed by a broad range of international scientific organizations�the American Medical Assn., the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Dietetic Assn., the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization, and the World Health Organization�who all endorse biotech crops as safe. Sometimes, biotech crops are actually safer than conventional or organic crops. An Iowa State University study found that biotech corn contains substantially lower levels of cancer-causing compounds and mycotoxins linked to cases of spina bifida. In the future, consumers will likely have access to nutrient-enhanced biotech foods, which could serve as powerful tools in combating famine and malnutrition in developing countries. _______________________ 7 December 2007 France bans use of genetically modified seeds TheStar.com (Canada), 7 December 2007. PARIS�France has formally suspended the commercial use of genetically modified seeds in the country until early February and ordered a biotech safety study. The future of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, has long been the subject of heated debate in France, Europe's top grain producer. France's reluctance to use GMO crops compares starkly with Canada and the United States, which are far more tolerant of the technology. The French agriculture ministry said it had charged a newly set-up committee with assessing the environmental and health implications of using GMO corn reliant on the MON 810 seed technology developed by Monsanto Corp. Monsanto said it "thinks that such a decision is a scandal bereft of scientific foundation." _______________________ EU: Labelling : Making the Non-GM Alternative Possible Euro Coop Statement, 6 December 2007. The European Commission will not accede to the request of one million EU citizens who had signed Greenpeace's petition calling for the labelling of products such as eggs, meat and milk produced from animals fed with GM feed (See press-releases ). It has indeed decided to maintain the current EU labelling regime for GM food and feed, on the grounds of EFSA's scientific opinion] on the incorporation of transgenes into animal tissues or products when fed with GMOs. While Euro Coop acknowledges that EU policies should be science-based, it regrets that the Commission seems to have looked exclusively at the science without taking into account other legitimate factors that should underlie risk-management decisions. Euro Coop reminds that besides health concerns, there are many ethical reasons for not wanting to consume GMOs or GM-derived food. European consumers deserve the right to know and should always have the right to choose in any case. Against this background, consumer cooperatives across Europe are committed to offering consumers that freedom of choice. They are striving to adapt their food supply so that it reflects the concerns, values and convictions of their consumer-members. Despite the cost and complexity involved, some cooperatives have totally eliminated GMOs from their own brand products, instructing suppliers to use certified GM-free feed and providing clear labels as a result. Euro Coop therefore encourages voluntary GM-free labelling as a valuable tool to: Inform, protect consumers and enable them to make safe and ethical choices ; Help economic operators differentiate their non-GM products on the market, and allow them to reap the rewards of efforts engaged in securing GM-free supply ; Ultimately to ensure the sustainability of a European farming model based on quality and biodiversity, which is currently under threat. These objectives will only be achieved if the political and economic context in Europe allows it. Consequently Euro Coop calls on consumers, farmers and responsible businesses to join efforts and use their clout to make the non-GM alternative possible. It also asks EU institutions to put stronger political will and concrete efforts into securing a non-GM feed supply in Europe. EURO COOP is the European Community of Consumer Cooperatives, whose members are the national organisations of consumer cooperatives in 17 European countries. Created in 1957, EURO COOP today represents over 3,200 local and regional cooperatives, the members of which amount to more than 22 million consumers across Europe. For more information please contact: Laura Street, Food Policy Officer, Euro Coop Tel: +32 (0)2 285 00 74 E-mail: lstreet@eurocoop.coop Rosita Zilli, Policy Officer, Euro Coop Tel: +32 (0)2 285 00 72 E-mail: rzilli@eurocoop.coop _______________________ EU caught in quandary over GMO animal feed imports Reuters, December 7 2007. By Jeremy Smith. BRUSSELS- Europe faces a stark choice between empty supermarket shelves or feeding its animals so long as it keeps up a slow rate of approving new genetically modified (GMO) crops suitable for feed use, industry sources warn. EU feedmakers have long complained of problems sourcing raw material, warning that the consequences of Europe's extreme caution and "zero tolerance" of unauthorised GMOs, even in tiny amounts, could be catastrophic for the food and feed sectors. "Consumers may have to face empty shelves as certain food ingredients used in many processed foodstuffs ... could become unavailable," EU industry body FEFAC said on its website. "EU livestock producers could be out of business overnight should soybean meal become unavailable due to the presence of such traces, with no alternative supplies," it said. With world grain prices soaring and the EU's livestock and animal feed sectors facing supply shortages, pressure has mounted for the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, to do something about the speed at which the EU approves new GMOs. Commission agriculture experts say the EU takes a minimum of 2.5 years, and often much longer, to complete new GMO approvals compared with an average of 15 months in the United States. A main issue is that EU law allows no tolerance threshold for the accidental presence of unauthorised GMOs that have been approved in exporter countries. So trade flows can be disrupted by import bans if an EU-bound cargo is found to contain them. Green groups, which are lobbying hard for the EU not to change its position on unauthorised GMOs, say such dire warnings are little more than industry scaremongering designed to push more biotech products onto European markets. "The animal feed and biotech industries are deliberately spreading panic that the EU's tough GMO standards are threatening Europe's ability to feed its livestock," said Helen Holder of Friends of the Earth Europe. "But these arguments are fatally flawed. The real reasons animal feeds are becoming scarce are that land is being used to grow agrofuels and countries such as China are increasing their consumption of meat," she said. China, Brazil key players Still, EU livestock producers do depend heavily on imported soy products -- beans, meal -- as a source of protein-rich and high-quality feed. Nearly all of it comes from Argentina, Brazil and the United States, the world's top three soybean producers. Since these countries mainly grow GMO varieties, non-biotech soy is becoming increasingly difficult to source and is also getting more expensive, particularly from Brazil. With China emerging as a major soybean importer, Argentina and Brazil would become less reliant on European markets for their soybean production in future, EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said recently in her website blog. "China and other emerging countries are now also big importers and do not all share our hesitations about GMOs," she said, adding that many Argentine maize producers were switching to GMO types not authorised in Europe. If this happened on a large scale, Brazil would become the EU's only significant non-GMO supplier. "And who knows how long the Brazilians would hold out?" she asked. At present, Europe's animal industry is unaffected by what green groups call a loophole in EU law whereby meat and dairy products like milk and eggs deriving from animals fed with GMO material do not have to be labelled as GMO themselves. CODEX panel may set standards Europe has long been criticised by major GMO producers like the United States for its reluctance to embrace biotech foods. No new GMOs have been approved for growing in EU countries since 1998, for example, in large part because of huge public resistance to what are sometimes called "Frankenstein foods". Diplomats say the EU executive may now take its cue from the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international panel set up in the 1960s to develop food standards and guidelines. In September, Codex members agreed non-binding voluntary guidelines for evaluating the risk posed by low-level traces of GMOs approved in one country but not in another, with a database containing information on all GMOs approved in their countries. Europe's biotech industry quickly seized on the Codex recommendation, saying it hoped the EU would now revisit its "zero tolerance" policy and speed up the GMO approval processes. "It's unrealistic to think Europe won't have some threshold on adventitious presence of unauthorised GMOs," one industry source said. "The world is not as it was five years ago, with India and China as major agricultural and trade players." "Brazil is calling the EU's bluff as they know they've got a marketplace for their soy elsewhere; they know that China will buy it. So Europe is becoming isolated," he said. (Editing by Michael Roddy) _______________________ EU: New draft law exposes weak EU standards for agrofuels Safeguards fail to protect the poor or environment Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 7 December 2007. Brussels, 7 December 2007 - A leaked copy of a new draft law to regulate the use of agrofuels (biofuels) in Europe reveals that the EU will fail to protect the environment and the world's poor, warned Friends of the Earth Europe today. Adrian Bebb, Agrofuels Campaign Coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe said: "Europe's plan for how to produce agrofuels does nothing to protect the world's poor and pays only scant attention to protecting the environment. This proposal shows that the EU will not be able to guarantee the sustainable production of fuels from crops. Now is the time to abandon this folly and introduce real solutions to the climate crisis." Friends of the Earth Europe has obtained a leaked copy of the proposed Renewables Directive [1], due to be launched early in 2008. The Directive will introduce into EU law a mandatory target that all fuels for transport contain at least 10 percent agrofuels by 2020, and sets out a plan on how to achieve this "sustainably". Friends of the Earth Europe criticises the draft Directive as it:
•	Fails to acknowledge the growing international concerns about the impact of agrofuels on the environment and food security and presses on with a mandatory target.[2]
•	Does not sufficiently address the knock-on effect of rising food prices.
•	Will not prevent agrofuel production from pushing other farming activities (e.g. cattle ranching or other crops) into rainforests or other important eco-systems. The Commission proposes to just monitor the situation.
•	Provides no criteria to protect people in developing countries from the negative impacts of agrofuel production. Land disputes, forced evictions, human rights abuses and poor working conditions occur frequently in many countries producing crops for Europe. The United Nations warned earlier this year that agrofuels could be "especially harmful to farmers who do not own their own land, and to the rural and urban poor who are net buyers of food."[3]
•	Introduces only limited "sustainability criteria" aimed at preventing deforestation and damage to wetlands but ignores other important ecosytems such as threatened biodiversity-rich savannahs (for example, the Brazilian Cerrado). The criteria are only applicable to crops used as fuels in transport but not for the same fuels used to produce electricity.[4]
•	Prevents EU member states from introducing stronger criteria at a national level.
The European Commission is expected to define the greenhouse gas savings that an agrofuel would have to meet - compared to fossil-based fuels - in order to be supported by the EU. However the leaked draft is still missing this figure, indicating continued internal disagreement within the Commission. "Using crops to produce fuel is a false solution to climate change - the real solutions lie in forcing car companies to produce cleaner cars, improving public transport and making our towns and cities more energy efficient," Mr Bebb added. * A Friends of the Earth Europe position paper on agrofuels can be downloaded at: http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels For more information, please contact: Adrian Bebb, Agrofuels Campaign Co-ordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe: Tel: +49 802 599 1951, Mobile : +49 1609 4901163, Email: adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org Rosemary Hall, Communications Officer at Friends of the Earth Europe: Tel: +32 25 42 6105, Mobile: +32 485 930515, Email: rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org Notes: [1] www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/documents/Draft_RE_Directive.pdf [2] A paper this week by the International Food Policy Research Institute concludes that agrofuel production "currently adversely affects the poor through price-level and price-volatility effects" and that if countries implemented their agrofuel targets then there will be a resulting decrease in food-calorie consumption across all world regions. ( http://www.ifpri.org/media/20071204agm.asp) For more warnings see: www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/warnings.html [3] http://esa.un.org/un-energy/pdf/susdev.Biofuels.FAO.pdf [4] For example, more palm oil is used in electricity production in Europe than in cars. _______________________ 6 December 2007 France suspends commercial GMO seed use, studies safety Reuters, 6 December 2007. By Tamora Vidaillet and Valerie Parent Paris - France formally suspended on Thursday the commercial use of genetically modified (GMO) seeds in the country until early February and ordered a biotech safety study. The future of GMOs has long been the subject of heated debate in France -- Europe's top grain producer -- and the country's reluctance to use GMO crops compares starkly with the United States, which is far more tolerant of the technology. The French agriculture ministry said it had charged a newly set-up committee with assessing the environmental and health implications of using GMO seeds reliant on the MON 810 technology developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto. "As a result, there is a need to suspend the end-use of MON 810 maize seeds and related sales while awaiting the results of this mission," it said in a circular. Thursday's formal suspension until February 9 at the latest, when parliament is slated to vote on a new biotech law, only concerns MON 810 maize, as it is the sole GMO technology permitted for cultivation in France and the European Union. Stressing that the suspension was temporary, Monsanto slammed France's action. "While remembering its desire to respect French law, Monsanto thinks that such a decision is a scandal bereft of scientific foundation and incoherent with the environmental benefits of this technology," the company said. Seed makers also decried the move in a statement, echoing Monsanto's complaint that there was no scientific justification. No immediate impact France's move came as Germany announced it had lifted a temporary sales ban on MON 810 technology after Monsanto agreed to additional monitoring of its cultivation in Germany. France's suspension will have no immediate impact on farmers using the pest resistant GMO seeds given that the country's maize harvest is in its final stages and new sowings will not take place until April, 2008. Pro-GMO farmers have urged Paris to speed up plans to create a higher GMO authority and pass a biotech law well before April in the hope that the dispute can be settled and MON 810 seeds can be bought well in time for the next sowings. Those harboring fears over the potential impact of GMO crops on peoples' health and the country's bio-diversity hope a new authority will find ways to counter European Union decisions on GMO and permanently ban their use in France. _______________________ Oceania at Risk from Biotechnology Exploitation and Genetically-Modified Food Pacific Magazine, December 6 2007 The biodiversity of Oceania is at high risk of exploitation by Biotechnology companies and Pacific Islanders maybe on the horizon of a major food security risk from genetically modified food, says Rev. James Bhagwan. Rev. Bhagwan who is representing the Pacific Conference of Churches at a Global Consultation on Genetics and New Biotechnologies and the Ministry of the Church in Johannesburg, South Africa believes that while economic development is important for the nations of Pacific; governments and churches need to examine the possible negative social, economic and health implications of the introduction of farming of genetically-modified crops for export or local consumption. He said that looking at the devastation of communities, local economies and cultures by the actions of Biotechnology companies involved in Genetically-Modified crop farming such as Monsanto, in Mexico, Paraguay and Latin America, but also the impact of large-scale GM farming on small farmers in North America, the Pacific needs to heed the "writing on the wall" and be proactive in this area. "The danger of overlooking the health and social implications and focusing on the immediate economic benefits for a few, when looking to introduce the planting of GM crops, is real," said Bhagwan. "Already we have heard of the States of Victoria and New South Wales in Australia, not renewing the ban on growing genetically-modified crops. This has direct implications on Pacific Islanders as many of our countries import food products from Australia." Genetically Modified Foods, Plants, Animals, Additives, Body Products, Fish, Crops and Trees have had their genes manipulated, changed, and put into other species that normally they would not mate with, blend with, consume, or grow in. Incredible combinations have been produced, and have been found to have mutations, diseases, abnormalities and trigger other diseases that otherwise may have remained dormant. 14 South Pacific countries - American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu - have recommended a moratorium on the import of GMOs pending the implementation of appropriate national risk assessment and risk management procedures. However, no firm actions have been taken although, Bhagwan noted, some local consumer councils have called for the labeling of products containing Genetically-Modified material. "As the sugar industry in Fiji continues to struggle, the possibility that the industry may turn to GM sugarcane for increased sugar quantity must be accepted and addressed. With the continuing exploitation of the biodiversity of Oceania and the repeated attempts by biotechnology companies to use Pacific Islanders as research subjects, as in the Cook Islands, and acquire rights to their DNA, as in Tonga, there is a need for Churches to provide ethical and theological advice to Governments in the region." Bhagwan called for Churches to be included in advisory committees within Environment and Agricultural departments and ministries dealing with biodiversity and the implementation of new technology. _______________________ India: Sowing a bitter harvest By deregulating GM food imports, the goverment has endangered public health Daily News & Analysis, December 6 2007, Suman Sahai. One outcome of the Indo-US deal on Agriculture appears to be the deregulation of the GM (genetically modified) foods sector. The Ministry of Environment and Forests has through a notification withdrawn the requirement that importers of GM foods must first take permission from the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), India's premier regulatory body in the sector of genetic engineering. This means that a variety of genetically engineered food products would have entered the market after September 11, 2007, when the notification came into force. The US is the major producer and exporter of processed GM foods. Such products would be primarily be those containing soybean, corn, cotton seed oil and mustard, unless they come in from China, in which case, they could include some vegetables. The government notification is a significant departure from the standing Indian policy in this field. Until now, in view of the known health risks that are associated with GE (genetically engineered) foods, the government guidelines had required that import of GE foods could take place only after intervention by national agencies and any handling of GM foods was to be done only after these were labeled as such. The regulatory oversight that existed prior to the government's new notification was necessary and appropriate since it had allowed India to monitor the entry of food products produced by a new technology that is known to produce toxic and allergic compounds. The Indian regulations which made it necessary for permission to be taken from national agencies, allowed government to monitor the entry of GM products into the country. These regulations had also allowed India to check that food products rejected by other countries in Europe, Africa and Middle East were not being dumped on us. The arbitrary withdrawal of the regulatory oversight without any scientific reason and without any consultation with a range of stakeholders that are engaged with GE technology and policies associated with it, is a dangerous development. It will benefit the producers and exporters of GM foods and pose health dangers to the Indian population. Such a move is inexplicable, especially at a time when scientific evidence is mounting from laboratory tests in various parts of the world, that genetically engineered foods can cause serious damage to health. Consequently, we need to upgrade our food testing systems and make them more stringent and comprehensive, not dismantle them, as the government is doing. Instead of strengthening our systems to ensure that no foods reach the market that have the potential to damage health, the government seems to have decided to withdraw all opportunities to test and regulate novel and controversial foods. It is also a matter of considerable concern that unfettered access to unknown foodstuffs is being allowed in the absence of a legal regime for liability and redress. India has still not introduced a law on liability for this sector, even though it is required to do so by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. This means there is no law in the country that can fix responsibility and allow compensation claims if something should go wrong with the environment or with animal and human health , from the cultivation and consumption of genetically engineered crops and foods. The new notification will in effect provide unrestricted entry to untested foods of dubious origins, especially since the imported GM food does not have to be labeled. This denies consumers the right to exercise free choice in the matter of the food they wish to eat. This unfortunate move is therefore in violation of the Consumer Protection Act of India that grants consumers the right of informed choice. The government's notification also goes against India's long standing commitment to mandatory labeling of GE foods, a position the Indian delegation has consistently maintained in international negotiations, particularly at the WHO-FAO led Codex Committee on Food Labeling. These developments, both the dilution of India's position on mandatory labeling and the deregulation of the GM food sector, appear to be curious in light of recent political events. Is the move to deregulate the GM crops and foods sector linked to the pressures brought by the Indo-US deal on Agriculture? It is ironic that the future of the Indo-US nuclear deal, the reason why India gave concessions in the agriculture sector and entered into the iniquitous deal with the Americans, is uncertain, but the agriculture deal is moving ahead, at the cost of public health in India. The writer is founder, Gene Campaign _______________________ Germany ends ban on Monsanto GMO maize type Reuters, 6 December 2007. Hamburg, Dec 6 - A temporary sales ban on U.S. biotech giant Monsanto Co.'s genetically modified (GMO) MON810 maize was lifted after the company agreed to extra crop monitoring in Germany, German authorities said on Thursday. Germany had in May this year imposed a temporary ban on commercial sales of MON810 citing concerns about safety of the maize (corn), which is resistant to several types of butterflies which are pests to the grain in Europe. The German government's consumer protection and food safety agency said in a statement on Thursday the ban had been ended after Monsanto had agreed and submitted an additional monitoring plan for commercial cultivation of the maize in Germany. A spokesman said the decision had immediate effect. Monsanto had also agreed to end legal action against the government's decision in May, the spokesman said. MON810 has already been approved as safe for commercial use by the European Union but several countries including Germany have expressed concern about its safety. Monsanto's German unit Monsanto Agrar Deutschland said in a statement the agency's decision underlined the safety of the MON810 product. It said German farmers had planted 2,680 hectares of GMO maize for commercial use in 2007. A considerable increase was expected for the 2008 crop, said Monsanto Agrar Deutschland chief executive Ursula Luettmer-Ouazane. (Reporting by Michael Hogan; Editing by Peter Blackburn) _______________________ Australia: The hidden truth about GM The Herald Sun, December 6 2007. By Jeffrey Smith. AUSTRALIA is witnessing the vicious "attack and disinform" tactics used to divert attention from evidence that GM foods are dangerous to health and bad for the economy. Andrew Bolt's rambling and bizarre personal attack on me on these pages on November 30 follows 15 years of victimisation of those who identify the dangers that threaten biotech profits. Consider Dr Arpad Pusztai, the world's leading scientist in his field, who inadvertently discovered in 1998 that unpredictable changes in GM crops caused massive damage in rats. He went public with his concerns and was a hero at his prestigious institute for all of two days. The director of the institute received two phone calls, allegedly from the UK prime minister's office, and Dr Pusztai was fired after 35 years and silenced with threats of a lawsuit. False statements were circulated to trash his reputation and these statements are being repeated by Australian GM advocates today. According to University of California professor Ignacio Chapela, when he was about to publish evidence that GM corn contaminated Mexico's indigenous varieties, a senior Mexican government official threatened him. "We know where your children go to school," he was told. In Russia, Dr Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences, fed female rats GM soy. She was stunned to discover that more than half their offspring died within three weeks, compared with only 10 per cent from mothers fed non-GM soy. Without funding to extend her analysis, Dr Ermakova labelled her work "preliminary" and published it in a Russian journal. She implored the scientific community to repeat the study. Two years later no one has done this. A New Zealand MP testified at the 2001 Royal Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification: "I have been contacted by telephone and email by a number of scientists who have serious concerns . . . but who are convinced that if they express these fears publicly . . . or even if they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out of their institution." Prof Christian Velot raised difficult questions on genetically modified organisms at public conferences and his 2008 research funds were confiscated. Antagonists in Australia are particularly vicious, paying no heed to facts or decency. Similarly, Andrew Bolt gives false and misleading information about my personal beliefs and about the laboratory I worked at seven years ago. And he confuses a rat study, showing that GM corn can produce herbicides inside their gut, with a human study. He claims that herbicide-tolerant crops decrease the use of herbicides, but, according to government data, it is substantially increased. All these cases are in my book, but apparently Bolt is too busy trying to discredit the book to actually read it. Bolt's rhetoric attempts to persuade politicians to distance themselves from those of us who have the facts. It doesn't work. One parliamentarian, who hosted my talk some time ago, received a call asking: "Are you aware of what Jeffrey Smith failed to disclose?" The parliamentarian replied: "What, that he practices meditation?" She then burst out laughing and said: "You've got to do better than that." Indeed, with GM products linked to thousands of toxic and allergic reactions, thousands of sick, sterile and dead livestock and damage to virtually every organ studied, you've got to do way better than that. Jeffrey Smith is author of Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception and executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology _______________________ Australia: GM laws cause confusion ABC, 6 December 2007 The Food and Grocery Council says Australia needs consistency on its rules governing genetically modified crops. New South Wales and Victoria have decided to lift their bans on GM crops, but the Federal Government is refusing to intervene in state decisions. The council says allowing a patchwork of GM and non-GM crop growing states is leading to confusion in countries which buy our food. Chief executive Dick Wells says processors will face extra costs to segregate the two crop varieties, which will lead to higher food costs. "For companies operating nationally, sourcing product and so on from different places and different requirements, in different states, all cost money, and at the end of the day, the consumer pays for it," he says. "I mean the traceability requirements, those sorts of things, will all put costs on and that's going to be increasingly difficult in a market where you have both". _______________________ Australia: Head of GM panel in conflict claims The Age, December 6 2007. By Ben Cubby. SIR Gustav Nossal, the former Australian of the Year chosen to head the Victorian Government's panel that recommended lifting bans on some genetically modified crops, is the founder of a business designed to reap commercial gain from biotechnology. The connection creates a potential conflict of interest, say some farming groups and GM food opponents. But Sir Gustav dismissed suggestions that his business interests meant he was disqualified from making an independent assessment. "If they want to run this tortuous argument that somewhere, somehow we might get a contract with Monsanto then let them run with it," said Sir Gustav. "Our process on the panel was completely open and my position on the benefits of some GM crops - including the big benefits for the Third World - has never been a secret." But Sir Gustav's role as a founder and director of Foursight, a consultancy that links bioscience research with commerce, has provided ammunition for his critics in the war of words over GM food. "It should have been on the public record," said a spokesman for the Biological Farmers of Australia, Scott Kinnear. "He's the director of a commercial company which could stand to benefit from the lifting of the ban. He's not independent." Sir Gustav, an eminent scientist and Companion of the Order of Australia, is listed as one of four directors of Foursight, along with Dr Graham Mitchell, Professor David Penington, and Dr David Stocker. The Victorian Government has backed its Chief Scientist, saying it considers his advice on the commercial development of GM canola to be impartial. "The Victorian Government was aware of Sir Gustav's role in Foursight when it approached him to head the report into the economic issues around lifting the moratorium on GM canola," said a spokesman for Victoria's Agriculture Minister, Joe Helper. "Sir Gustav is one of Australia's most respected scientists and we believe that as such he was an appropriate person to conduct this review." Mr Kinnear, along with other GM opponents such as Greenpeace, called for the Victorian Government to review the decision and install a new panel to examine the issue. He predicted that public and business opposition to GM foodstuffs would make them unviable over the next five years. Sir Gustav said he expected opposition to fade "within the next decade, as people begin to appreciate the benefits". The NSW upper house passed the State Government's GM crop bill late on Tuesday night - while the parliamentary press gallery's Christmas party took place. Two types of herbicide-resistant canola, both approved as safe by the Federal Government's Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, can now be sown in NSW. _______________________ Australia: WA farmers 'benefit' from non-GM trade The Age, December 6 2007 Western Australian farmers are reaping financial benefits and trade advantages by maintaining its moratorium on growing genetically modified crops, WA Agriculture Minister Kim Chance says. Mr Chance said the Consumers Union of Japan announced it would cease buying canola from Victoria and NSW during a recent Australian visit. It would instead buy WA's GM free canola. The Japanese cooperative currently buys up to 3,500 tonnes of canola from NSW and Victoria. "These companies know what their consumers want - clearly, that is a preference for GM-free foods," Mr Chance said. "The state government's disappointment with the Victorian and NSW governments has been shared by Japanese consumers." A preference by consumers for GM-free food was not just a Japanese phenomenon and was mirrored in Australia, Europe and worldwide, Mr Chance said. WA farmers were receiving substantial price premiums for their GM-free canola and it made no sense to jeopardise the state's strong market position and begin growing commercial GM crops, the minister said. "The WA government's attitude to GMs is clear - we will remain clean, green and GM-free unless our consumers tell us otherwise," Mr Chance said. _______________________ USA: Monsanto: Winning the Ground War How the company turned the tide in the battle over genetically modified crops Business Week, December 6 2007. By Brian Hindo. When Hugh Grant took the top job at Monsanto (MON) in May, 2003, the company's nickname in some quarters was "Mutanto." A growing chorus of critics warned that Monsanto's genetically modified plant seeds would wipe out the monarch butterfly, give people virulent new allergies, and reduce the planet's agricultural diversity. Author Jeremy Rifkin predicted that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) would turn out to be "the single greatest failure in the history of capitalism." Paul McCartney urged the world to "say no to GMO." Prince Charles wrote an editorial arguing that genetic engineering takes "mankind into realms that belong to God and to God alone." During the 12 months preceding Grant's elevation, Monsanto's stock price fell nearly 50% to $8 a share. In 2002, the prior fiscal year, the company lost $1.7 billion. "We were pretty financially fragile," recalls Grant, 49, who speaks with the lilt of his native Scotland. Fewer than five years later, Monsanto is thriving. The St. Louis company's net income leaped 44% last year, to $993 million, on $8.5 billion in revenue. Monsanto shares, which closed at $104.81 on Dec. 5, have risen more than 1,000% during Grant's tenure. At 58.6, the company's price-to-earnings ratio is about two points higher than Google's (GOOG). These numbers reflect a broader story: that Monsanto has quietly turned the tide in the war over genetically modified foods. While a vocal band of opponents is still protesting biotech crops, a growing multitude of farmers around the world is planting them. The reason is no mystery: Monsanto seeds contain genes that kill bugs and tolerate weed-killing pesticides. So they are much easier and cheaper to grow than traditional seeds. More than half the crops grown in the U.S., including nearly all the soybeans and 70% of the corn, are genetically modified. Just five years ago, China, India, and Brazil planted virtually no genetically engineered crops. Now Brazil can barely build roads fast enough to get all of its biotech soybeans from the fertile interior Mato Grosso state out to ports. Farmers in China and India, meanwhile, planted more than 17 million acres of biotech crops last year. These three countries are now three of the six largest GMO-planting nations in the world, as measured by area planted. At a time when organic food is more popular than ever, about 7% of the world's entire farmland acreage is now planted with genetically modified crops-the ultimate anti-organic food. "When you're more than 1 billion acres planted," says Grant, "I think the conversation moves from what if' to what is.'" The battle over genetically modified food is being won not in scientific journals but on the ground. Global demand for food and fuel have made farmers ever eager to squeeze more yield from an acre of dirt. And the undeniable fact is that during the 12 years since the first biotech seeds were planted, the most dire predictions of Monsanto's opponents have so far failed to come true. That's prompted some swaggering at company headquarters. In interviews with BusinessWeek, Monsanto executives variously described the safety objections of adversaries as "scare tactics," "Chicken Little theatrics, "mischief," and "misinformation." Managers at the company display a near-religious conviction about the GMO cause. In the days when fear of so-called Frankenfoods was at its peak, Grant and his team made a risky decision to stand firm. They insisted on holding research and development spending to 10% of sales. Grant also made a crucial strategic decision to pare down the products Monsanto sold. No longer would Monsanto sell seeds for produce destined directly for the dinner plate. Instead Grant focused exclusively on seeds for agribusiness, ones that produced such goods as animal feed, ethanol, and corn syrup. That has helped deflate the opposition. But if the fears of GMO opponents ever do come true, Monsanto will take a far bigger fall than any of its more diversified rivals. Today, Monsanto gets 60% of its revenue from biotech seeds, in contrast to about 20% at Syngenta, for example, and less than 10% at diverse chemicals company Dow (DOW). The company's confident leaders are essentially making an enormous unhedged bet on their technology. While Monsanto executives don't believe they are gambling, there are still plenty of doubters. In August, Kroger (KR) became the latest U.S. grocery chain to stop selling milk with a GMO bovine growth hormone that increases production, which Monsanto first started selling in 1994. All summer, activists in France trampled fields of biotech crops. Hostility toward GMO foods continues to be widespread in Africa and parts of Asia and Western Europe. This type of persistent opposition is one reason why the investment research firm Innovest Strategic Value Advisors, which gives companies a type of credit rating based on their strategic risk profile, assigns Monsanto a "CCC" grade-its lowest possible mark. "Monsanto is basically saying that its products are very well regulated and therefore safe," says Heather Langsner, director of research for Innovest. "It's a lot more murky than that." Inauspiciouss beginnings On Wall Street, however, such skeptics are hard to find. Monsanto is minting money, its business vision is clear, and shares are on a tear. But that was far from the case in 2000, when the latest chapter in the 106-year-old company's history began. That's the year Monsanto, then a large chemicals conglomerate with a relatively small agriculture division, was bought by Pharmacia & Upjohn. During the acquisition, some analysts valued the biotech business at less than zero. Pharmacia certainly did not have much interest in the future of genetically modified seeds. It snatched up Monsanto for the drug compound that would eventually become Celebrex. In 2002, Pharmacia spun off Monsanto as an independent company focused totally on agriculture. But the move came at the height of the GMO debate and at a time when farmers in Latin America, a key market, were having one of their worst years ever. Moreover, Roundup, Monsanto's chemical herbicide and at the time the source of 65% of its sales, had just come off patent. By the end of 2002, total sales had dropped 14%, and operating income fell by half. Then-CEO Hendrik A. Verfaillie was shown the door in December. Verfaillie's successor, Grant, came up through Monsanto's ranks as a salesman. In contrast to previous CEOs, who had been more aloof, say analysts and Monsanto managers, he presented a friendlier face to the outside world. While chief operating officer, Grant was the go-to company spokesman for a 2000 PBS Frontline special titled "Harvest of Fear," which described the debate about GMOs. When Grant took the helm, there was bad news in every direction. Despite billions of dollars of investment over two decades, Monsanto's genetically engineered seed business still hadn't earned a penny. All of these challenges seemed particularly daunting to the newly independent company because "no parent [was] going to bail you out," recalls Carl Casale, executive vice-president for strategy and operations. There was "no other division you could rely on." To create a sense of urgency, Grant relocated the members of the leadership team, who had been scattered across the company's campus, to the same floor of the "A" building as his office. They all reported directly to Grant, who was by then the president, CEO, and chairman of the board. And Grant turned the group's traditional 8 a.m. Monday meeting from a casual session into an intense three-hour operational review. Managers came away from each meeting with a to-do list in hand. Grant says that his goal at the time was "building a team that was completely, no-kidding accountable." He also ditched the traditional annual strategic planning meeting-"death by PowerPoints," Grant says-and replace it with offsite, half-day strategy reviews every six weeks. At these sessions, over a period of months, Grant and Co. implemented a new strategy for Monsanto. Grant's plan revolved around three big decisions. The first was to cut costs aggressively in the herbicide business. The second was to maintain Monsanto's overall investment in biotechnology. And the third-the most important one, in retrospect-was to focus that investment largely on just four commodity crops: corn, soybeans, cotton, and canola. All of these crops are harvested mostly for industrial uses, going from the farmer to a processing plant where they become animal feed or biodiesel fuel. The consumer never directly encounters them at the store. Diners, in fact, would spit out Monsanto corn, which, unlike sweet corn, is inedible off the cob. Grant's decision caught many of Monsanto's scientists off guard: Several research programs aimed at producing things people eat were axed over the course of the year, among them biotech wheat, an extra-durable tomato, blight-resistant potatoes, and bananas bred with an innate defense against virus. He acknowledges the pain: "The science was brilliant," Grant says. "The technology we had in wheat was probably amongst our best." Now, Monsanto GMOs still enter the human food supply, but only indirectly, in the form of processed grain products such as cornstarch, corn syrup, or cooking oil. In fact, in the U.S., about 60% to 70% of all "formulated foods"-processed food with more than one ingredient-contain GMOs, according to the Grocery Manufacturers Assn. That means, essentially, if you see it in a box or a can at a U.S. grocery store, there's a strong likelihood that it has at least a small quantity of biotech ingredients. The lone table-ready GMO food Monsanto sells is virus-resistant squash, a product it inherited in 2005 with its acquisition of vegetable seed company Seminis. The company says it has no plans at the moment to make more GMO veggies. In recounting this chapter of the company's history, Monsanto executives emphasize that they were investing in the part of the market they thought would grow; they deny bowing to activist pressure. But managers were clearly mindful of consumer fears. In a speech at Washington University in St. Louis just a week before his December, 2002, departure, Verfaillie acknowledged that the company had underestimated the effectiveness of the opposition groups like Greenpeace. David Stark, who directs global industry partnerships for Monsanto, recalls that some food industry executives wouldn't schedule a meeting with him. "They didn't even want to be seen talking with me," he says. "I felt like I was contagious." Last year, by contrast, Stark spoke at a food conference in Britain, an anti-GMO bastion. "Four or five years ago, I probably would not have been invited," says Stark. So Monsanto basically became a business-to-business technology company, producing raw materials to supply the industrial food giants. This move is one of the key reasons consumer opposition to biotech seeds has died down. It's much easier, after all, to get the average grocery shopper riled up about a mutant tomato than an herbicide-tolerant soybean he'll never see. The GMO debate "is clearly not as high up on the radar screen," says Gregory Jaffe, a lawyer at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group that has been critical of Monsanto. "There haven't been a lot of new things to fight." Some activists, in fact, consider Monsanto's retreat from consumer biotech a significant victory. Softening its stance Even if ordinary food buyers lost interest in the issue, of course, Monsanto's critics did not forget about it. But the company has tried to soften the opposition by taking a less defensive stance toward critics. Where the company had once protected its internal research papers like state secrets, it began publishing some of them in refereed scientific journals. "What you see with Hugh, I think, is a more conciliatory tone toward the opponents of GMOs," says Robert Koort, a Goldman Sachs (GS) analyst who has followed Monsanto since the late 1990s. "It wasn't so much, The science is right, and we're going to just shove it through.'" Grant's stance took shape, he says, when he was still COO. An executive from Royal Dutch Shell spoke to a handful of Monsanto executives about his experience on the receiving end of heated criticism from Greenpeace over the fate of a decommissioned offshore oil rig. Shell ended up following Greenpeace's advice about how to deconstruct the rig. The Shell executive "talked about societal shift," says Grant. The message was clear: "Trust me' doesn't work anymore." The change hasn't gone unnoticed. At academic conferences in the early '90s, "Anyone who talked about risks would get really hostile questions...from industry people," says Allison A. Snow, a botanist at Ohio State University who has sparred with other biotech companies over her research, which shows that transgenic plants can spread in the wild and end up promoting the growth of stronger weeds. These days, she says, Monsanto and other companies in the industry are much "more respectful and interested in what we are doing." These types of conciliatory words were once rarely uttered by company critics. Over the years, Monsanto has been involved in a series of controversies that have given it a hard-nosed reputation. In 2005, for instance, the Justice Dept. fined the company $1.5 million for bribing an Indonesian official (the company says the bribes were contrary to corporate policy). The company has a long history of suing farmers for unauthorized use of its seeds, a strategy that has prompted adversaries to label it a corporate bully. But the initial wave of seeds has not yet created any immunological or ecological disasters, and that has assuaged some skeptics. Margaret Mellon, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, like many of her peers, has come to the conclusion that currently available GMO seeds are probably safe to eat. But she points out that researchers often spot risks for potential allergies and for environmental contamination. She argues that seeds must receive more rigorous testing. "There are many things about the technology that are reassuring," says Mellon. "[But] we don't really have a good way of testing whether there are going to be human allergies." Productivity persuades As the debate quiets down, demand for genetically modified crops has exploded. The economic emergence of China and India lifted income levels for billions, who, like their wealthier middle-class counterparts in the West, are now eating meat several times a day. That has driven a surge in demand for animal feed. Although Monsanto seeds cost several dollars more per bag than conventional ones, farmers buy them because they are much easier to cultivate. Monsanto's latest corn seed, for instance, has three special genetic traits: pesticide to kill the European corn borer, a caterpillar that eats through the top of a stalk; pesticide to kill the rootworm, a beetle that eats the roots of a cornstalk; and resistance to Roundup weed killer. A farmer spends, on average, up to $36 more per acre for Monsanto's three-trait corn seed. But the company says he can save twice that on chemical insecticides and herbicide. These types of productivity improvements are a big reason farmers in Brazil seem to have fallen in love with Monsanto soybeans. It's quite a reversal: During President Luiz In�cio Lula da Silva's 2002 run for office, his agriculture policy adviser told reporters, "We want to establish a reputation as GM-free. We get premium prices that our competitors-the U.S. and Argentina-don't because they plant GM." At the time, however, biotech soy seeds were already being spirited across the border from Argentina into southern Brazil. Usage exploded, and the government, which had no policy on GMO seeds, had no choice but to legalize them because the country was going to lose its biotech-free status in any event. "The amount of [GM] crops being planted was so big that they couldn't stop GM's expansion," says Marcelo Duarte, the executive director of Aprosoja, a soy growers' association in Mato Grosso. "It wasn't really even a choice." Monsanto said that it was upset about the smuggling, which it considers piracy. But the company also began taking legislators on "fact-finding trips" to learn more about GMO products, says David Fleischer, a professor in Brasilia. By 2005, Brazil's legislature opened the country to GMO adoption. Monsanto has remained an effective lobbyist in Brazil. This February, Greenpeace fought a proposal that would allow new GM technologies to be approved by a simple majority of Brazil's biotech advisory board, rather than two-thirds. After a long battle to be heard by high-ranking officials, activists won an audience with the powerful Casa Civil, or Executive Office. Gabriela Vuolo, who heads Greenpeace's GMO campaign in Brazil, says Greenpeacers "almost literally" crossed in the hallway with Monsanto reps who, minutes before, had their own meeting with the same officials. Vuolo says the meeting was marred by the sensation that the pro-GM camp "got there first," and that they seemed to have swayed Executive Office officials in favor of easing restrictions on GM. The new Biosecurity Law passed with President Lula's approval the next month. Today, Monsanto executives consider universal adoption of GMO seeds simply a matter of time. Even in hostile climes like Germany, France, and Portugal, Monsanto seeds have started to be planted after a moratorium on GMO plantings was lifted by the EU in 2004. As for the organic movement, it is "not going to replace how the vast majority of food and produce is grown," says Monsanto strategist Casale. "Quite frankly, it can't. There are not enough cities to tear down to bring the extra land into production that we would need to farm with those practices to feed this country and this planet." Today, more than 90% of the genetically modified seeds in the world are sold either by Monsanto or by competitors that license Monsanto genes in their own seeds. And Monsanto has no intention of giving up its lead. Around the world, 3,000 company research scientists are coming out with the next generation of genetically modified seeds. Much of the fruits of their labor was on display at the annual Farm Progress Show, held in August in Decatur, Ill. Squared off by a barbed-wire fence, Monsanto showed off what it auspiciously called its "Golden Acre"-a panoply of experimental crops, from soybeans that produce omega-3 fatty acids to drought-tolerant corn. It was the company's research pipeline in plant form. In a speech during the show, chief technologist Robb Fraley described the coming "step change in yield." In 1970, the average corn harvest yielded 70 bushels an acre. In 2006 the average yield was 150 bushels an acre. And by 2030, Fraley predicts, yields will push 300 bushels an acre. Monsanto is now working on a super-seed that will have eight specific biological traits baked into it, set to hit the market in 2010. Although the debate over genetically modified foods still has plenty of years to run, Grant is confident this little grain will be his best weapon in it. "Once farmers see this stuff," he says, "they don't want to go back." Links GMO and Hunger Friends of the Earth International, an environmental organization, released a report in January titled "Who Benefits from GM Crops?" In a critique of GMOs, FOEI argues that, despite promises from the biotech industry, "GM crops have done nothing to tackle hunger." Burden of Proof In a Sept. 24 research note, analyst Mark Gulley of Soleil-Gulley & Associates argues that "given 12 years of ag biotech cultivation...we think the burden of proof is beginning to shift to the critics." Gulley, who rates Monsanto (MON) shares a buy, contends GM crops support renewable fuel production. "Think of U.S. corn fields as a giant solar energy collection device," he writes. Comment from GM Watch: Here's the world according to Monsanto, but read in between all the hubris and you discover that Monsanto's abandoned GM 'food' crops, just as it has had to beat a tactical retreat - or remains almost completely excluded - from many parts of the globe. And it's betting its shirt entirely on its animal feed/food processing/agrofuel crops. That strategy is working fine financially for the moment, particularly given the ethanol boom. But how sustainable is an agrofuel boom that threatens both food sovereignty and environmental devastation? And where does Monsanto go when even in its American heartland, its GM product - rBGH - is already in serious trouble, while a whole series of US presidential candidates are starting to commit to GM food labelling? _______________________ 5 December 2007 Switzerland: GM feed imports decreasing Agrarbericht 2007 (Swiss Agriculture Report), 5 December 2007. Feed imports into Switzerland containing or having been produced with GMOs have further significantly decreased. In 2006, only 0.02% of imported feed contained GMOs. (In 2002, the share of GM feed was 0.8%). _______________________ European Biotech Industry Goes on GMO Offensive SoyaTech.com, 12 December 2007. BioWorld International -- December 5, 2007 -- BRUSSELS, Belgium -- The European biotech industry has thrown the first punch in a developing row over genetically modified products. Perturbed by rumors that the European Union is planning to ban genetically modified corn seeds, the European Federation of Biotechnology has delivered a high-profile message straight to the heart of the Brussels bureaucracy. A delegation of scientists from the federation handed a letter to the EU's top environment official, Commissioner Stavros Dimas, warning him against making decisions "based on discredited scientific arguments." Dimas' staff have prepared a draft opinion that recommends rejection of two Bt maize product submissions on grounds of environmental safety, invoking in particular risks to butterfly species and other insects. But EFB said the evidence for that view just doesn't stack up, describing it as "sloppy and not meriting peer reviewed publication." The products in question are made by Pioneer Hi-Bred, Dow Agrosciences and Syngenta. Although the EU has a distinctly checkered history in its acceptance of GM products, it has never formally rejected an application. The rejection of these products would mark a new departure that the biotech industry deeply fears. Such a decision "would be setting a precedent for EU officials to reject products based on nonverified scientific data," said a spokesperson for industry association EuropaBio. "We consider that the draft decisions do not have a scientific basis and seem to be made without considering the consequences for Europe or the fact that similar varieties have been growing in Europe for the past nine years with high adoption rates with no adverse environmental effects and in coexistence with conventional and organic farming," said the scientists at the EFB, which brings research institutes together with industrialists. It described the draft decisions as "totally unacceptable, not only for European farmers and consumers, but also set a terrible example for other parts of the world that presently draft guidelines for the cultivation of GM crops, since they look to Europe as an example." Johan Vanhemelrijck, secretary general of EuropaBio, said: "Commissioner Dimas is recycling old and already refuted arguments and proposing the rejection of two products that have been comprehensively evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority. He is attempting to undermine the entire EU safety assessment process across a broad range of innovative activities and products to come." EU officials offered a muted response, underlining that no decision had been taken on the case and defending the operation of the precautionary principle in reaching decisions. A ruling from the EU is expected in the new year. Meanwhile, in a separate move on a related subject, the World Trade Organization has extended until January the deadline for the EU to end blockages on imports of GM corn after it was found to be in breach of international trade rules by allowing its member states to refuse entry to duly authorized products. By Peter O'Donnell, BioWorld International Correspondent. _______________________ South Africa: No GM organisms for local wineries Decision taken on application for genetically enhanced yeast Grape News, 5 December 2007. The Department of Agriculture's GMO Executive Council has denied an an application for the release of genetically modified yeast for use in commercial wine. Biowatch South Africa, one of the main opponents of such introductions, reports that the decision is contained in minutes of the Council's September meeting, available on the Department of Agriculture's website. The introduction of a 'genetically enhanced malolactic yeast' was widely opposed within the wine industry, with numerous winery owners and winemakers coming out against the application. So too did the SA Wine Council � although it seemed not to take a position against the field trials of genetically modified grapevines, plans for which were announced at about the same time. No decision has yet been made with regard to the application from Stellenbosch University's Biotechnology Institute for permission to go ahead with the GM vineyard. Biowatch SA, welcoming the decision not to allow the GM yeast, expreses the hope that the GMO Executive Council 'will exercise the same caution' with regard to that application. _______________________ EU: GM rice unlikely to pose health threats, says EFSA FoodNavigator.com, 5 December 2007. The genetically modified LLRice62 poses no evident harm to humans, animals or the environment, according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). German chemicals company Bayer CropScience applied for the placing of the GM rice on the market for food and feed uses, but not for cultivation, in August 2004. Following extensive scientific assessment, the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms has now released its opinion. "LLRice62 is unlikely to have any adverse effect on human and animal health or on the environment in the context of its intended uses," said the report. The European Commission will now put the decision on whether the rice will be made available on the European market in the hands of the relevant committee. The genetic modification intends to provide tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium. The EFSA board concluded that the labelling proposal in the application is also in line with the EU requirements, saying that GM LLRice62 is compositionally and phenotypically equivalent to its non-genetic equivalent except for the introduced traits. Spokesperson for Bayer, Annette Josten, told FoodNavigator.com: "We are pleased with the recent announcement. We believe that our herbicide-tolerant rice could contribute significantly to increasing rice productivity in certain global markets, both in terms of quality and yield." Despite the opinion from EFSA, it may be some time before the rice appears on the market - if at all. Adeline Farrelly, communications director at EuropaBio, the European Association for Bioindustries, said that such decision-making processes can prove lengthy. She said: "There are many products that have gained approval worldwide but that are still stuck in the European system. These are traders' crops and so the slow process causes problems for them and results in a shortage of supplies for Europe." It is already approved for import and cultivation in the US and Canada, but has not been commercialised there. The committees often have difficulties reaching a majority decision, as with the issue on the European Commission proposal to lift Austria's restrictions on the import and processing two types on GM maize - MON 810 and T25. The last GM product to be approved for cultivation in Europe was in 1998. Some genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been approved since then for import, but only very slowly. Farelly added: "We believe the Commission should accept its responsibility and sort out the backlog of products waiting for approval."� Earlier this year, Greenpeace filed a petition against the use of Bayer's LLRice62 for food, animal feed and processing. Green agencies have concerns about the unknown impact GMOs may have on the environment, particularly in regards to cross-contamination. "The long term effects of GM crops have not been properly researched and, by cross-pollinating with non-GM crops and wild plants, they replicate themselves and contaminate the environment with genetic pollution that is impossible to clean up," said Greenpeace. Friends of the Earth Food campaigner Richard Hines said: "Time and time again consumers have made it clear that they don't want to eat GM food. But if Bayer's LLRice62 is given approval, people across Europe will face the prospect of finding GM rice on their plates." He added: "Switching to GM has been disastrous for many farmers, but a green light in Europe would give Bayer the go-ahead to push for GM rice cultivation in the developing world. It is therefore vital that Commission doesn't forget the worldwide health, environmental and social impacts of their decision." _______________________ Australia: WA won't relax GM ban ABC, 5 December 2007. Western Australian premier Alan Carpenter says his government's policy on genetically-modified canola won't be influenced by decisions in the east. Last week, Victorian and New South Wales Governments announced an end to their moratoriums on GM-canola. But Mr Carpenter says he'll ignore calls for an early review of WA's G-M status. "We've carved out a reputation in Western Australia for being GM-free, for being environmentally friendly, for being very good at managing major resource and agriculture projects and I intend that to stay exactly as it is," he says. "Put it this way - we gave a commitment at the last election that there'd be no change to our GM free food status. And there won't be." _______________________ Australia: State governments provoke GM crops outrage The Guardian (Australia), 5 December 2007. By Peter Mac Last week the Victorian and NSW governments decided to allow cultivation of genetically modified (GM) canola. The decision was greeted with amazement and anger by other state governments, farmers and environmental groups. In Queensland cultivating GM canola is legal, but has not proceeded, while other states have banned the practice. However, what was in effect a national ban has now been overturned by the decisions of the NSW and Victorian Governments. The case against GM GM cotton is grown in Australia, and certainly has advantages for growers. The amount of chemicals needed to eliminate insects and weeds is minimised, and the new GM varieties resist drought and produce high yields. However, cultivation of GM crops for textile production has less serious implications than the production of GM grain, such as canola, for human consumption. GM opponents point out that there has been inadequate study of the effects of GM products on human health. Scientists have experienced difficulty in gaining seed for testing from seed companies, but one Russian study found that laboratory animals fed on GM grain food had low growth rates, reduced life spans and infertile progeny. Scientist Dr Rachel McFadyen has also pointed out that there is a potential for herbicide resistance characteristics to cross from GM crops into adjacent weed species, which would become "super weeds". GM proponents have claimed that great economic benefits would flow from the production of GM canola, which is used in the manufacture of margarine. and other food. However, canola growers would lose access to markets in nations which have banned GM canola, including China, Japan and the EEC. Victorian Premier John Brumby has claimed that his decision would give more choice to farmers. But farmers who do not want GM crop contamination have been given no choice at all in the matter - nor have consumers. How the decisions were made The NSW and Victorian Governments appear to have relied only on evidence provided by the commercial plant industry. GM technology has been endorsed by Sir Gustav Nossell, the Victorian Chief Scientist, and Dr Jim Peacock, the Commonwealth Chief Scientist. Nonetheless, on other environmental issues such as climate change Dr Peacock's advice has corresponded closely to the line being promoted by major industry groups. The decision by Commonwealth food, pesticide and gene technology regulators to approve the release of two GM canola varieties three years ago is questionable, because of the malignant influence of the Howard government. CSIRO officials have endorsed the use of GM crops, but under the Howard government they were pressured to achieve commercial objectives, and to work closely with major industrial corporations. Former CSIRO staff have now spoken out against the commercialisation of the organisation and against GM crop cultivation. Unlike its Victorian counterpart, the NSW government has said it would re-impose a ban on GM canola production if the industry failed to satisfy an expert government subcommittee investigating the issue. However, the subcommittee appears to be primarily concerned with determining whether GM canola seed can be transported without contaminating other crops, not whether food from GM crops is safe for human consumption. It's a national issue As the Canadian experience has clearly demonstrated, GM grains sown in one area will inevitably spread to the others, so the crops grown in NSW and Victoria will spread to other states, and many grain markets will be lost to Australia. South Australian MP Ian Gilfilan commented: "Canola has proved physically impossible to segregate. In three to four years it will be impossible to market genetically engineered-free product. This is a point of no return." The unilateral decisions by the NSW and Victorian governments have enormous commercial and legal implications, arising from the potential loss of markets and contamination of non-GM crops. After Canada began producing GM canola it lost its access to markets in the EEC and Japan, which ban the import of GM canola. The agricultural organisation, the Network of Concerned Farmers, claims that the NSW/Victoria decisions would cost Australian canola farmers $143 million per annum, and $65 million of that burden would be carried by non-GM producers. A recent poll found that more than 52 percent of farmers oppose the introduction of GM grain crops, and only 27.6 percent supported it. Nevertheless, the NSW and Victorian governments are in lock-step with the biotechnology industry, which stands to make a fortune from the cultivation of GM grain crops in Australia. The Rudd Government has stressed the overwhelming importance of the environment and climate change by creating two separate ministries to deal with each of these issues. However, it remains to be seen whether Rudd will step in and overturn the decisions of the NSW and Victorian governments to allow GM grain production. It's doubtful. The nation should watch the actions of these governments very closely on this issue, and make its voice heard. _______________________ Australia: Farmers fearful over GM crop 'risk' The Northern Rivers Echo, 5 December 2007. By Luis Feliu. Organic food farmers and consumers on the Northern Rivers hold grave fears for the organic food industry after the controversial lifting of a ban on genetically modified (GM) food crops. The NSW and Victorian governments announced late last month they would allow the growing of GM canola crops from next year, with NSW Primary Industries Minister, Ian Macdonald, saying farmers had been missing out on export opportunities to the US and Canada because of the failure to adopt GM canola. Opponents have labelled the move as "letting the genie out of the bottle" with fears that the wide use of GM crops will lead to irreversible contamination of non-GM crops including organic food. "It's crazy and not worth the risk" - that's how health-conscious mum and organic food consumer Susie Godden, of Koonorigan, described the lifting of bans on GM food crops. Ms Godden, a regular customer at the Rainbow Region Organic Market in Lismore - the first certified organic food market in Australia - said the precedent-setting decision was "disgusting" because once GM crops are grown in the country "you cannot stop it getting into (contaminating) organic or non-GM crops". "We have no idea what on earth it's going to do to us - the politicians and scientists who made the decision only talk about its economic benefits," she said. "It seems few countries want it - in Europe people want to become GM free but the European Union is holding them back. It's government and big business pushing it. "It makes more sense if Australia is completely GM free. We're so far away from the rest of the world, so it's an ideal place because there's no chance of GM seeds drifting in." David Roby, a member of the Tweed Richmond Organic Producers Organisation (TROPO) who grows organic vegetables on his farm at Alstonville, said that once GM crops started growing "they will be everywhere as they won�t recognise fence lines". "For people that want it, that's fine, but for people who don't, they have lost their choice," he said. "An example of the risk of contamination are the canola harvester. They are sub-contracted and it's not necessary for farmers to tell contractors when they are working on a GM crop, so there will always be residues or seeds left on the harvester," he said. "There is also supposed to be a one-metre buffer zone around GM crops but the seeds will carry all the way over to New Zealand, so a couple of metres is pointless." Mr Roby said in the case of GM food it was better to err on the side of caution. "Eventually GM could be a technology of great value to us, given another 20 years of trial and error," he said. "GM means they can spray a crop with herbicides/pesticides without killing the crop so they�ll use more of them, not less. If it was used to rid us of cane toads or fruit fly, people may be more happy about it." Queensland allows GM crops and Tasmania is currently reviewing the ban. South Australia's current ban is due to expire in April next year while the rest of the states and territories retain bans. The NSW Farmers Association says the end of the four-year moratorium on GM canola crops was a win for the "future prosperity of agriculture". Association president Jock Laurie said giving farmers the choice of using GM technology was the key to the sector remaining internationally competitive. Mr Laurie claimed it was a win for the environment with GM crops "potentially meaning fewer emissions and less chemical use, healthier soil and more sustainable farming practices". Biological Farmers of Australia (BFA) spokesman Scott Kinnear said the planting of genetically-engineered (GE) canola was a major affront to the organic food industry. "Unless farmers undertake expensive tests they will not know if they have been contaminated," Mr Kinnear said. "Organic and non-GE food processors will be burdened with additional requirements for tests of grains and oils to manage and eliminate contamination risk - the support for GE canola flies in the face of significant evidence of costs to the economy, health and environment presented to the panels in both Victoria and NSW. "The organic food industry is the global good news food story - it is growing at 15-20 per cent per year. Governments would reap benefits for the environment and public health by supporting more organic food production rather than GE foods," Mr Kinnear said. He told The Echo that canola grain was "the worst of the worst" in terms of contamination. "It's the most promiscuous - insects love it, its flowers are very beautiful, so pollen will be easily spread," he said. North Coast-based Upper House Greens MP Ian Cohen said there was widespread opposition to GM foods in Australia, with the nation's largest Australia-owned food company Goodman-Fielder and retailer Coles Supermarkets calling on state governments "to save our food from genetic engineering". Opponents also say that allowing GM crops in Australia meant handing over control of much of the food supply to foreign multinationals like Monsanto and the Bayer group, as they own the patents on GM seeds. Genethics Network director Bob Phelps said the largest importer of Australian canola, Japan, wanted GM-free canola as did Coles and other food suppliers. Mr Phelps said canola would cause "weedy relatives" to spread including pesticide-resilient radish and turnip. "Why grow it, it just doesn't make sense," he said. _______________________ Australia: Staying clean and green a better choice than GM crops The Canberra Times, 5 December 2007. Nicholas Montgomery. Three years ago, the state governments around Australia wisely introduced a moratorium on genetically modified food crops because of concerns within industry, the farming sector and regional communities about the impact of GM crops on Australia's clean and green markets. Now the Victorian GM ban has been scrapped by the Brumby Government. The NSW Government has done likewise and GM canola is set to be cropped next season. Now South Australia is considering releasing the GM genie. Renewed enthusiasm for GM hasn't pleased Tasmania, Western Australia and the ACT, the respective governments of which oppose GM crops because of fears that GM will harm GM-free exports. Along with canola, at risk are more than $820million in clean canola exports. Most vocal about protecting its farmers, the West Australian Government is yet to be convinced that GM will not harm Australia's clean and green export markets. Nor is the Network of Concerned Farmers or agricultural giant Goodman Fielder (manufacturers of Meadow Lea margarine). As Goodman Fielder puts it, "Australia's current status as a GM-free producer gives the company an essential international competitive advantage." The concern shown isn't one based on emotive environmentalism but informed by a series of mainstream agro-economics reports which highlight the increasing importance of premium markets for Australian farmers. Economists consistently find that GM-free export produce frequently commands a higher price than North American GM produce. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, for instance, documents Australian canola prices regularly exceeding GM Canadian prices by about $50 a tonne. Last year Australian canola commanded a whopping $115 a tonne premium. When making an economic case for the decision, the Victorian Government claimed overall GM canola would bring farmers $115million over eight years. That's only about $15million a year; a very small gain, for a very large risk. But it's not as small as the predicted yield gains of about 5-8 per cent from GM canola that the Victorian Government says will outweigh any GM-free premiums. In reality, GM may only bring a 2-4per cent yield increase since GM canola crops designed for North American conditions won't fair any better then non-GM under Australian drought conditions. According to figures from Biotech Corporation Monsanto, some Australian trials of GM canola produced yields 16 per cent below the national GM-free average. In the end increasing yields won't matter much as broader market access and restriction issues determine the value of GM. The global current trends point towards more GM restrictions. The European Union moratorium already restricts about 400,000 tonnes of canola GM from Canada but the EU imports 38 per cent of all Australia's clean canola. Japan is considering injecting tighter controls into already tough GM import regulations. Stricter Japanese GM laws could have an impact on 41 per cent (300,000 tonnes) of Australian canola exports. Back in 2005, Australian canola growers received a caution from Japanese quarantine when shipments of Australian canola went over the 1 per cent of GM contamination levels allowed under Japanese GM laws. The pro-GM lobby talks up GM segregation but the fact is trials of GM canola still managed to contaminate Australia's canola. If it were at all possible, segregation on both sides of the fence would cost farmers tens of millions a year. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics alone estimates the cost to non-GM farmers at 5-15 per cent of the farm gate value of their crop. Then there are the potential billions in liability and insurance costs. Last year, a GM rice scandal cost the United States $US1.2 billion ($A1.4 billion) after 30 countries returned US rice stocks contaminated by GM trials. Farmers and European business subsequently sued for economic losses. Little wonder no commercial GM wheat or rice varieties are grown anywhere in the world. The long list of economic risks and unknowns continues with climate change and the decreasing availability of clean and green produce. As the fallout of toxic pollution from China becomes more visible, the emergent Asian middle-class consumers are clamouring for uncontaminated food. If Australia suddenly found itself holding some of the world's last remaining clean produce, right now it makes more economic sense to invest in promoting Australian produce as "clean and green" rather than investing in GM crops. The Rudd Government should impose a nationwide moratorium on GM. _______________________ 4 December 2007 French union urges farmers not to buy GMO seeds Reuters, December 4 2007. Reporting by Sybille de La Hamaide; Editing by Jon Boyle PARIS, Dec 4 (Reuters) - France's largest farm union, FNSEA, urged farmers on Tuesday to refrain from buying genetically modified (GMO) seeds based on U.S. giant Monsanto technology ahead of a biotech law expected in February. After an environmental policy conference in October, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he would draft a new law on GMOs, notably on how farmers may grow the only GMO crop allowed in France, an insect-resistant maize developed by Monsanto. The new law, due to launch a "high authority" on GMOs, requiring farmers to declare their GMO plantings and making them financially liable for any contamination, was sent last week to the Council of State and is due to be adopted by Feb. 9. The Council of State vets French laws to ensure they conform with the constitution. "In response to (the government's) willingness to do the right thing well and clarify matters, the FNSEA is asking farmers not to buy MON 810 GMO seeds before Feb. 9, 2008, when the parliamentary session is due to end and the vote on the bill," the union said in a statement. Sarkozy suspended the planting of GMO pest-resistant crops late October until the results of a review by the new authority on GMOs. The ban did not affect maize production in France as sowings do not take place until spring. Other maize seed makers use Monsanto's technology, which is designed to resist the European corn borer, a pest that attacks maize stalks and thrives in warmer climates in southern EU countries. Monsanto says the protein contained in its maize has selective toxicity but is harmless to humans, fish and wildlife. Just 22,000 hectares -- 1.5 percent of France's cultivated maize land -- have been sown with GMO maize this year but some farmers have urged greater use of GMO crops to boost yields. _______________________ EU: CRIIGEN slams complacency, connivance and "defective understanding" of GM advisory bodies** Press notice, GM Free Cymru, 4 December 2007. When CRIIGEN (Comit� de Recherche et d�Information Ind�pendantes sur le G�nie G�n�tique) published its statistical analysis of the MON863 dossier earlier this year (1), its two basic conclusions -- that the statistical methods used by Monsanto were defective, and that the feeding studies demonstrated harm to animals that was directly attributable to the GM maize -- attracted widespread publicity. CRIIGEN hoped that the advisory bodies which work with the GM regulators in Europe and elsewhere would take its new findings seriously -- but all that happened was that there was a closing of ranks as these bodies sought to justify their previously published opinions and sought to belittle the importance of the French study (2). There has already been one spat between EFSA and CRIIGEN (3), with the latter accusing the former (very politely!) of bias, complacency and stubbornness. Now Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini and his colleagues have come out fighting again, with a letter to FSANZ which accuses the advisory bodies of hiding behind each others' coat-tails, seeking to defend indefensible positions, refusing to admit mistakes, and failing to understand key scientific and statistical methods. The letter just sent to FSANZ (4) is reproduced below.
	Answer to "Food Standards Australia New Zealand" (FSANZ). On the review of the paper on MON863 entitled "New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity" from CRIIGEN published in Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. (2007) 52 (4) 596-602. Different advisory bodies have already reviewed this CRIIGEN international peer-reviewed paper on the toxicology of a GMO, which remains the most detailed published toxicological analysis of a commercialized GMO. These bodies, each one waiting for the advice of the others (AFSSA, CGB, EFSA), have developed similar arguments. CRIIGEN has already answered them (www.criigen.org), and we ask that our critique should be read and considered first. FSANZ was in any case waiting for the EFSA opinion, as indicated, before giving its own. We underline that all these bodies had reviewed the same crude data as we did in our paper, and had concluded that MON863 was safe, with each one waiting for the confirmation of the others. Publishing our study and concluding that MON863 might not be safe, we knew that these bodies would be questioned again. Their approvals of this GMO could not be taken to confirm the absence of possible signs of toxicity anyway. Our paper has demonstrated undoubtedly significant effects of GMOs on health parameters that cannot be denied. However, the relevance of these significant effects can be discussed as appropriate. In any case, our paper has not only taken into account differences between test and control groups as claimed by FSANZ. The so-called "reference groups" added by Monsanto (formed by rats eating diets of several different chemical compositions) are considered in our Table 2. This criticism of our work in the FSANZ executive summary is completely wrong and reveals a defective understanding of our paper. On the other hand, it is absolutely clear that we consider that the gross composition analysis of a food and a chemical characterization of a new protein cannot lead to a prediction of all possible signs of toxicity following consumption. In our view the subchronic and chronic consumptions of this GMO, with following studies of all the organs of the animals, are the only way to really approach the safety of a product. This is true overall if the product is designed to synthesize a new kind of insecticide in a food or a feed, as is the case for this MON863 maize. FSANZ then again publishes scientific mistakes, for example on p.2, l.12. Of course the GM maize may be part of the usual diet of mammals today (including farm and laboratory animals) as it is in the experiment analyzed (11 or 33%). We recall that it is an equilibrated diet. And of course, for pesticides or drugs, subchronic or chronic toxicity studies represent the best means (with pre-clinical or epidemiological studies) for discovering their physiological effects. All these scientific considerations create an immediate gulf between our views and those of FSANZ, CGB, AFSSA and EFSA. Statistical matters have been discussed in our previous answers, and we confirm the validity of our statistical approach in comparison to the approach used by Monsanto, which was a faulty one in spite of being approved by some bodies such as FSANZ. For instance, if the number of crude reticulocytes and their relative number are simultaneously changed in GM fed animals, this reduces the risk that this effect could have arisen by chance alone, and does not increase it. On the other hand, to take into account only a dose-related effect (overall with two doses chosen a priori) is stupid, for instance in hormonology. Moreover a subchronic or chronic toxic effect of a chemical is rarely identical in males and females, since the detoxification organs and hormonal glands function differently. The body weight changes that we have found (and as confirmed by a CGB report at least for females) may be important even if < 5%. Sexual hormones have not been measured in the Monsanto experiment and they would be the first indicators of hormonal disruption before any histopathology. This possible histopathology cannot always, in any case, be related to metabolic changes. We interpreted the significant effects as signs of toxicity if the parameters measured were different between GMO treated rats and controls, and coherent (for instance in females increases of blood sugar and fat, liver weight, and body weight, plus kidney problems shown by urine composition disruptions). Moreover we checked that this was not the case when we compared all the six normal diets together, and that there were still effects when we compared the GMO-eating group to all other groups. FSANZ said it was not a problem because the values were not outside "historical" values, without defining those. This cannot be a scientific argument for us. Of course we agree that all signs of liver and renal toxicities are not lighted on; a beginning effect that could be amplified after 3 months would be rather like that. There is no rule in physiology which says that at one given step an unknown product should modify a particular parameter rather than another one, and to argue the contrary would be foolish. The expected modification of all the parameters cited by FSANZ as being necessary before admitting any toxicity is not scientific, and does not follow the appropriate rules for the protection of the consumer. The argument (6) developed by FSANZ is wrong even according to Hammond et al. from Monsanto that describe the contrary: the GM-fed rats had a chronic progressive nephropathy (index 18/20) in comparison to controls (14/20). This has to be related to the disrupted urine chemical composition of the GM group. FSANZ has not considered the file in detail. In conclusion we consider that the toxicological interpretation strategies described by FSANZ are highly questionable, and we refute their arguments. Notes (1) http://www.criigen.org/cp_march2007.pdf http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7638 http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/monsanto2.htm http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice14March2007.htm (2) EFSA reaffirms its risk assessment of genetically modified maize MON 863, Parma, June 28 2007. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/press_room/press_release/pr_efsa_maizemon863... (3) http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8093 CRIIGEN answers to European Food Safety Authority critique of MON 863 study July 2007 (4) Comité de Recherche et d'Information Independantes sur le Génie Génetique Siege Social : 40, rue de Monceau 75008 Paris e-mail : criigen@unicaen.fr
_______________________ Australia: Tasmanian green groups want to keep GM ban ABC, 4 Dec 2007 A coalition of environment groups will push for Tasmania's genetically modified organism (GMO) free status to be maintained. A Select Parliamentary Committee chaired by the Primary Industries Minister is to investigate whether to lift Tasmania's ban on GM crops early next year. The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association has indicated it will ask for the ban to be lifted. Environment Tasmania's Phil Pullinger says environment groups will make a submission urging the Government to keep the ban on GM crops. "Tasmania does have a very good reputation around the world for its wilderness its clean water its clean air and its fresh produce," he said. "But it is critically important that that branding and that image that Tasmania has is a genuine reflection of what's going on on the ground in Tassie." _______________________ Qatar to label GMO products The Peninsula (Qatar), 4 December 2007. Doha -- Qatar will soon introduce labeling system for the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). This will help customers protect their right to choose a GMO or natural food product from the market. Qatar's decision is followed by Decree No.11/2007 issued by the Heir Apparent HH Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, who is also the Chairperson of Supreme Council for Environment and Natural Reserves (SCENR), to constitute a National Committee for Biosafety to uphold the spirit of Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, to which Qatar is a party. The National Committee, chaired by Khaled Ghanim Al Ali, Secretary-General of SCENR, will draw up a national policy regarding the labeling of GMOs. The nominees of National Health Authority, Qatar General Organisation for Standards and Metrology, Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Agriculture, Customs and Ports General Authority and Central Municipal Council are among other members of the committee. The panel will meet at least once in three months. A scientific committee, comprising members from Qatar University, Qatar Foundation and NHA will assist and advise the National Committee on Biosafety. The Biosafety Protocol is an agreement designed to regulate the international trade, handling and use of any GMO that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health. "There has been no long term testing on the effects of the genetically engineered foods. So no one can claim they are safe. The long term implications on human health of eating GE food products are also not known and have not been investigated. However, a lot of arguments are going on between the experts on the issue. And as a precaution, and under the pressure from internationally reputed green groups, several nations have decided to offer an option to the customers to select their choice by introducing a labeling system", said Ghanem Mohammed Al Abdullah, Director, Wildlife Conservation, SCENR. Studies carried out by international agencies have proved that GM food products are available in Qatari markets. Now, through labeling, customers can distinguish GMO products with non-GMO products, he added. Qatar is the second country in the GCC to join Cartagena Protocol. It became the party in June 2007. Oman became the first country in the region to join the protocol when they signed the pact in 2003. Saudi Arabia became the member in November 2007. _______________________ UK: What is Nature Biotechnology good for? The case of Irina Ermakova The Bioscience Resource Project, Dec 4 2007 Quite likely it surprised many regular readers of Nature Biotechnology that for the September (2007) issue their journal had invented a new article format specifically in order to describe, and then extensively criticise, the work of a researcher that most of them had never heard of before (1). That surprise will only increase if they read the translation, featured on our website, of a Nov 1st article (The excommunication of a heretic) in the Swiss Newspaper WOZ. Readers who thought this new format was simply a curious, if rather aggressive, literary innovation, can now see that this was a story with a disturbing history. Even more interesting however than the ethical shenanigans behind the publication of the interview with Dr Ermakova, is a point not raised by the Swiss newspaper article. In science, opinions may differ, but it is not usual to attempt to embarrass opponents with overt public criticism. The existence (or imminent prospect) of reproducible data that will settle the issue is usually sufficient to ensure that most disputes never reach the printed page. So why has this dispute followed a different course? Roundup Ready Soybeans, all of which are derived from a single transgene insertion event (40-3-2), have been on the market for approximately twelve years. They have been grown on millions of hectares and passed regulatory safety assessments in many countries. If a researcher makes a seemingly anomalous finding that RR Soy harms rats then surely all that should be necessary is for their critics to reach for the multitude of studies already in existence for a handy refutation? For RR Soy however, such a body of incontestable data does not exist. It is this remarkable data gap that seems to be behind the Nature Biotechnology interview with Dr Ermakova and quite probably it is for this reason that her unpublished study so alarms the biotech industry. In the case of RR Soy, there is a single broadly comparable (i.e. multi-generational) study that examines similar endpoints in rodents (in this case mice) fed RR Soy and that also supports the contention that mice are unaffected by RR soy (Brake and Evenson 2004). The problem however is that this is only a single small study and, although published in a peer reviewed journal, it suffers from as many flaws as does the study carried out by Dr Ermakova. For those interested, we can recommend applying the Nature Biotechnology criticisms of Dr Ermakovas' study, to the Brake and Evenson study. For example, Dr Ermakova is criticised in the interview for having bought her seeds from ADM Netherlands, even though she says she tested to confirm that they contained the RR transgene. Brake and Evenson in contrast report that they relied on an unnamed seed dealer taking them to a single field of RR soy and a single non-transgenic field, where they obtained soybeans from unspecified cultivars. Brake and Evenson report no attempt to verify the dealers' identification of the soybeans as transgenic or otherwise (Brake and Evenson 2004). It is therefore hard to understand why Brake and Evenson's should be considered a superior method for obtaining samples. There is one further published study, not mentioned by the Nature Biotechnology critics, that is comparable (in the sense of being multigenerational) to those of Ermakova and Brake and Evenson. It reports histological studies on the offspring of mice fed RR soy (Malatesta et al 2002a). These authors reported ultrastructural alterations to hepatocytes of the offspring of pregnant mice fed RR Soy but no other differences (Malatesta et al 2002a). A further paper from the same laboratory reported biochemical (but not visible) alterations to pancreatic cells of mice fed RR soy for up to 8 months after weaning (Malatesta 2002b). These two papers arguably offer some support for Dr Ermakova's work in that effects of RR soy were observed, although the effects seen were not the same. For example, no effects on offspring body weight or mortality were noted. Perhaps the most important general point about all these multigenerational studies is that none of them used near-isogenic soybeans grown side-by-side, which is a prerequisite for a properly controlled test of the question that we all want answered: whether the 40-3-2 transformation event can be responsible for altered toxicological or nutritional properties of soybeans. The critics' challenges to Dr Ermakova's work are mostly reasonable (2). They rest on demonstrating flaws in her methodology and also on the assertion that her work is further contradicted by four mammalian feeding studies of RR soy, even though, unlike Dr Ermakova's, all of these are single generation studies (Zhu et al 2004; Teshima et al 2000; Cromwell et al 2002; Hammond et al 1996). As in their comparison with the Brake and Evenson work however, the criticisms create the impression that these papers do not themselves suffer from the flaws noted in Dr Ermakova's work. This is not the case however and from a toxicological perspective, the limitations of all these studies (summarised in Tables A and B) are strikingly similar to those pointed out by Dr Ermakova's critics. Table A details for each study the preparation and selection of soybeans for consumption (e.g. whether RR and control soybeans were grown under the same conditions, whether isogenic lines were used, whether the presence/absence of the transgene was ascertained, etc.) while Table B details key attributes of the feeding studies themselves (such as how many animals were used, what percent soy was included in the diet etc). Looking at Tables A and B it is plain to see that, as a result of their collective limitations (which include short study durations, small numbers of animals and lack of replication), while no adverse effects were reported (though see footnote 3), their individual and collective limitations are highly significant. [http://www.bioscienceresource.org/docs/BRS-TableA.doc http://www.bioscienceresource.org/docs/BRS-TableB.doc] These inadequacies, which are fundamental to any discussion about whether Dr Ermakova's data are in conflict with the published literature, appear to have been missed entirely by the Nature Biotechnology critics. It is not the only mistake they make however. They seem to have been unaware of the Malatesta papers, they cite Teshima et al and Zhu et al in stating that "Previous reports in the literature have shown no effects of RR soy on birth weights or pup mortality" (p983) yet neither paper studied birth weights, pregnant rats or pregnant mice. In fact, Teshima et al started their study on rats and mice that were both seven weeks old and Zhu et al started theirs on 28 day old rats. None of these are trivial errors and they make the question - raised by Roland Fischer of WOZ - of why Nature Biotechnology failed to use truly expert referees, a highly pertinent one. Ultimately, more important than any misrepresentation of the evidence by these four critics, is a question that is central for regulators who are asked to approve and consumers who are offered RR Soy: does the existence of these seven flawed studies tell us anything useful about the safety or otherwise of RR soy? This question is also an interesting one purely from a scientific perspective because current scientific understandings (especially in regulatory science) are very frequently constructed from small numbers of highly imperfect studies. The answer would seem to depend on at least three parameters, all of which are mutually dependent. Firstly, the precise nature of those flaws, because some, such as failing to positively determine the presence of the transgene in the treatments, and equally its absence from the controls, ought to invalidate any experiment regardless of the subsequent quality of data collected (4). The second significant parameter is whether the flaws in each paper are the same or overlapping. Flaws in one paper, and usually these will be data gaps, can sometimes be made up for by the results of another. Lastly, an experiment may be perfectly useful, but nevertheless not support the conclusions which the authors draw. Failure to use isogenic lines and/or to grow them side-by-side means that, whatever the title of a paper may imply, any effect seen in the treatment group cannot be attributed specifically to presence of the RR transgene. Using these criteria, any conclusions about the safety of RR soy based on these data must be extremely limited and highly provisional, and consequently deeply unsatisfactory. All of which raises an issue for Nature Biotechnology as a scientific journal. The safety or otherwise of RR Soy is a matter of great public health significance. New research suggesting that it might not be safe, especially when the prior research is inconclusive at best, should be a matter of significant concern. Yet Nature Biotechnology saw Dr Ermakovas' work only as an industry threat and publicised her work seemingly only in order to dismiss it. There is no difference at all between what Nature Biotechnology has done to Irina Ermakova and what Fox news did to Marion Nestle when they hired Steven Milloy, then at the Cato Institute, to review her book Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. And if there is no difference in behaviour between Fox News and Nature Biotechnology, what is the value of Nature Biotechnology as a journal of science? It seems to us that this interview is part of a pattern and that Nature Biotechnology has for some time been unclear where the line that traditionally separates trade magazines from science journals lies (5). Its owner, Nature Publishing Group no doubt finds that publishing a magazine that does double duty as a science journal and as a trade journal is a highly profitable combination, but equally it is never going to be one that encourages disinterested science (6). Consider what Nature Biotechnology could have done to address the question of transgenic soya biosafety: it could have invited Dr Ermakova to submit her work formally and, whether it was accepted or rejected, it could have written an editorial calling for appropriately controlled high quality independent research to fill the data gaps. It could have pointed out that, if anything the existing data provides hints that there is a need for such experiments. The fact that Nature Biotechnology did none of these should be of deep concern to all its readers. Notes: 1) Marshall, A. (2007) Nature Biotechnology 25: 981-98 2) Not all of their points are fair though. For example, Dr Ermakova is criticised for not double-blinding her experiments, yet none of the studies discussed in Nature Biotechnology or in this commentary were double-blinded. 3) Interestingly, though Zhu et al make no mention of it, for all time points tested and for both sexes their results show an almost perfect correlation of decreasing white blood cell counts as RR soya replaces conventional soya in the diet fed to their rats. 4) Although the fact that in some papers the developers of RR Soy were also the experimenters might be considered to mitigate this defect (Table A). Equally however, their collaborators might have tested for their own satisfaction. 5) Compare the treatment of non-target effects of Bt in the review by Romeis et al (2006) in Nature Biotechnology 24: 63-71 with that of Lovei and Arpaia (2005) in Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 114: 1-14 or Hilbeck and Schmidt (2006) in Biopesticides International 2: 1-50 6) It is also interesting to note that, unlike most journals, NPG journals have no association with any scientific societies and no independent editorial board. References: Brake, D. G. and Evenson, D. (2004) Food Chem. Toxicol. 42 29-36 Cromwell, G.L. et al (2002) J. Anim. Sci. 80: 708-715 Hammond, B.G. et al (1996 J. Nutr. 126: 717-727 Malatesta,M. et al (2002a) Cell Struct. Funct. 27: 173-180 Malatesta, M. et al (2002b) J. Anat. 201: 409-446 Teshima, R. et al (2000) J. Food Hyg. Soc. Japan 41: 188-193 Zhu, Y. et al (2004) Arch. Anim. Nutr. 58: 295-310 _______________________ "Doomsday Seed Vault" in the Arctic Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don't Global Research, December 4, 2007. By F. William Engdahl. One thing Microsoft founder Bill Gates can't be accused of is sloth. He was already programming at 14, founded Microsoft at age 20 while still a student at Harvard. By 1995 he had been listed by Forbes as the world's richest man from being the largest shareholder in his Microsoft, a company which his relentless drive built into a de facto monopoly in software systems for personal computers. In 2006 when most people in such a situation might think of retiring to a quiet Pacific island, Bill Gates decided to devote his energies to his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world's largest 'transparent' private foundation as it says, with a whopping $34.6 billion endowment and a legal necessity to spend $1.5 billion a year on charitable projects around the world to maintain its tax free charitable status. A gift from friend and business associate, mega-investor Warren Buffett in 2006, of some $30 billion worth of shares in Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway put the Gates' foundation into the league where it spends almost the amount of the entire annual budget of the United Nations' World Health Organization. So when Bill Gates decides through the Gates Foundation to invest some $30 million of their hard earned money in a project, it is worth looking at. No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the world's most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole. Svalbard is a barren piece of rock claimed by Norway and ceded in 1925 by international treaty (see map). On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the 'doomsday seed bank.' Officially the project is named the Svalbard Global Seed Vault on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard island group. The seed bank is being built inside a mountain on Spitsbergen Island near the small village of Longyearbyen. It's almost ready for 'business' according to their releases. The bank will have dual blast-proof doors with motion sensors, two airlocks, and walls of steel-reinforced concrete one meter thick. It will contain up to three million different varieties of seeds from the entire world, 'so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future,' according to the Norwegian government. Seeds will be specially wrapped to exclude moisture. There will be no full-time staff, but the vault's relative inaccessibility will facilitate monitoring any possible human activity. Did we miss something here? Their press release stated, 'so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future.' What future do the seed bank's sponsors foresee, that would threaten the global availability of current seeds, almost all of which are already well protected in designated seed banks around the world? Anytime Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto and Syngenta get together on a common project, it's worth digging a bit deeper behind the rocks on Spitsbergen. When we do we find some fascinating things. The first notable point is who is sponsoring the doomsday seed vault. Here joining the Norwegians are, as noted, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; the US agribusiness giant DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of the world's largest owners of patented genetically-modified (GMO) plant seeds and related agrichemicals; Syngenta, the Swiss-based major GMO seed and agrichemicals company through its Syngenta Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation, the private group who created the "gene revolution with over $100 million of seed money since the 1970's; CGIAR, the global network created by the Rockefeller Foundation to promote its ideal of genetic purity through agriculture change. CGIAR and 'The Project' As I detailled in the book, Seeds of Destruction1, in 1960 the Rockefeller Foundation, John D. Rockefeller III's Agriculture Development Council and the Ford Foundation joined forces to create the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Ba�os, the Philippines. By 1971, the Rockefeller Foundation's IRRI, along with their Mexico-based International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center and two other Rockefeller and Ford Foundation-created international research centers, the IITA for tropical agriculture, Nigeria, and IRRI for rice, Philippines, combined to form a global Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR). CGIAR was shaped at a series of private conferences held at the Rockefeller Foundation's conference center in Bellagio, Italy. Key participants at the Bellagio talks were the Rockefeller Foundation's George Harrar, Ford Foundation's Forrest Hill, Robert McNamara of the World Bank and Maurice Strong, the Rockefeller family's international environmental organizer, who, as a Rockefeller Foundation Trustee, organized the UN Earth Summit in Stockholm in 1972. It was part of the foundation's decades long focus to turn science to the service of eugenics, a hideous version of racial purity, what has been called The Project. To ensure maximum impact, CGIAR drew in the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN Development Program and the World Bank.�Thus, through a carefully-planned leverage of its initial funds, the Rockefeller Foundation by the beginning of the 1970's was in a position to shape global agriculture policy. And shape it did. Financed by generous Rockefeller and Ford Foundation study grants, CGIAR saw to it that leading Third World agriculture scientists and agronomists were brought to the US to 'master' the concepts of modern agribusiness production, in order to carry it back to their homeland. In the process they created an invaluable network of influence for US agribusiness promotion in those countries, most especially promotion of the GMO 'Gene Revolution' in developing countries, all in the name of science and efficient, free market agriculture. Genetically engineering a master race? Now the Svalbard Seed Bank begins to become interesting. But it gets better. 'The Project' I referred to is the project of the Rockefeller Foundation and powerful financial interests since the 1920's to use eugenics, later renamed genetics, to justify creation of a genetically-engineered Master Race. Hitler and the Nazis called it the Ayran Master Race. The eugenics of Hitler were financed to a major extent by the same Rockefeller Foundation which today is building a doomsday seed vault to preserve samples of every seed on our planet. Now this is getting really intriguing. The same Rockefeller Foundation created the pseudo-science discipline of molecular biology in their relentless pursuit of reducing human life down to the 'defining gene sequence' which, they hoped, could then be modified in order to change human traits at will. Hitler's eugenics scientists, many of whom were quietly brought to the United States after the War to continue their biological eugenics research, laid much of the groundwork of genetic engineering of various life forms, much of it supported openly until well into the Third Reich by Rockefeller Foundation generous grants.2 The same Rockefeller Foundation created the so-called Green Revolution, out of a trip to Mexico in 1946 by Nelson Rockefeller and former New Deal Secretary of Agriculture and founder of the Pioneer Hi-Bred Seed Company, Henry Wallace. The Green Revolution purported to solve the world hunger problem to a major degree in Mexico, India and other select countries where Rockefeller worked. Rockefeller Foundation agronomist, Norman Borlaug, won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work, hardly something to boast about with the likes of Henry Kissinger sharing the same. In reality, as it years later emerged, the Green Revolution was a brilliant Rockefeller family scheme to develop a globalized agribusiness which they then could monopolize just as they had done in the world oil industry beginning a half century before. As Henry Kissinger declared in the 1970's, 'If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population.' Agribusiness and the Rockefeller Green Revolution went hand-in-hand. They were part of a grand strategy which included Rockefeller Foundation financing of research for the development of genetic engineering of plants and animals a few years later. John H. Davis had been Assistant Agriculture Secretary under President Dwight Eisenhower in the early 1950's. He left Washington in 1955 and went to the Harvard Graduate School of Business, an unusual place for an agriculture expert in those days. He had a clear strategy. In 1956, Davis wrote an article in the Harvard Business Review in which he declared that "the only way to solve the so-called farm problem once and for all, and avoid cumbersome government programs, is to progress from agriculture to agribusiness." He knew precisely what he had in mind, though few others had a clue back then--- a revolution in agriculture production that would concentrate control of the food chain in corporate multinational hands, away from the traditional family farmer. 3 A crucial aspect driving the interest of the Rockefeller Foundation and US agribusiness companies was the fact that the Green Revolution was based on proliferation of new hybrid seeds in developing markets. One vital aspect of hybrid seeds was their lack of reproductive capacity. Hybrids had a built in protection against multiplication. Unlike normal open pollinated species whose seed gave yields similar to its parents, the yield of the seed borne by hybrid plants was significantly lower than that of the first generation. That declining yield characteristic of hybrids meant farmers must normally buy seed every year in order to obtain high yields. Moreover, the lower yield of the second generation eliminated the trade in seed that was often done by seed producers without the breeder's authorization. It prevented the redistribution of the commercial crop seed by middlemen. If the large multinational seed companies were able to control the parental seed lines in house, no competitor or farmer would be able to produce the hybrid. The global concentration of hybrid seed patents into a handful of giant seed companies, led by DuPont's Pioneer Hi-Bred and Monsanto's Dekalb laid the ground for the later GMO seed revolution. 4 In effect, the introduction of modern American agricultural technology, chemical fertilizers and commercial hybrid seeds all made local farmers in developing countries, particularly the larger more established ones, dependent on foreign, mostly US agribusiness and petro-chemical company inputs. It was a first step in what was to be a decades-long, carefully planned process. Under the Green Revolution Agribusiness was making major inroads into markets which were previously of limited access to US exporters. The trend was later dubbed "market-oriented agriculture." In reality it was agribusiness-controlled agriculture. Through the Green Revolution, the Rockefeller Foundation and later Ford Foundation worked hand-in-hand shaping and supporting the foreign policy goals of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and of the CIA. One major effect of the Green Revolution was to depopulate the countryside of peasants who were forced to flee into shantytown slums around the cities in desperate search for work. That was no accident; it was part of the plan to create cheap labor pools for forthcoming US multinational manufactures, the 'globalization' of recent years. When the self-promotion around the Green Revolution died down, the results were quite different from what had been promised. Problems had arisen from indiscriminate use of the new chemical pesticides, often with serious health consequences. The mono-culture cultivation of new hybrid seed varieties decreased soil fertility and yields over time. The first results were impressive: double or even triple yields for some crops such as wheat and later corn in Mexico. That soon faded. The Green Revolution was typically accompanied by large irrigation projects which often included World Bank loans to construct huge new dams, and flood previously settled areas and fertile farmland in the process. Also, super-wheat produced greater yields by saturating the soil with huge amounts of fertilizer per acre, the fertilizer being the product of nitrates and petroleum, commodities controlled by the Rockefeller-dominated Seven Sisters major oil companies. Huge quantities of herbicides and pesticides were also used, creating additional markets for the oil and chemical giants. As one analyst put it, in effect, the Green Revolution was merely a chemical revolution. At no point could developing nations pay for the huge amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. They would get the credit courtesy of the World Bank and special loans by Chase Bank and other large New York banks, backed by US Government guarantees. Applied in a large number of developing countries, those loans went mostly to the large landowners. For the smaller peasants the situation worked differently. Small peasant farmers could not afford the chemical and other modern inputs and had to borrow money. Initially various government programs tried to provide some loans to farmers so that they could purchase seeds and fertilizers. Farmers who could not participate in this kind of program had to borrow from the private sector. Because of the exorbitant interest rates for informal loans, many small farmers did not even get the benefits of the initial higher yields. After harvest, they had to sell most if not all of their produce to pay off loans and interest. They became dependent on money-lenders and traders and often lost their land. Even with soft loans from government agencies, growing subsistence crops gave way to the production of cash crops.5 Since decades the same interests including the Rockefeller Foundation which backed the initial Green Revolution, have worked to promote a second 'Gene Revolution' as Rockefeller Foundation President Gordon Conway termed it several years ago, the spread of industrial agriculture and commercial inputs including GMO patented seeds.� Gates, Rockefeller and a Green Revolution in Africa With the true background of the 1950's Rockefeller Foundation Green Revolution clear in mind, it becomes especially curious that the same Rockefeller Foundation along with the Gates Foundation which are now investing millions of dollars in preserving every seed against a possible "doomsday" scenario are also investing millions in a project called The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. AGRA, as it calls itself, is an alliance again with the same Rockefeller Foundation which created the "Gene Revolution." A look at the AGRA Board of Directors confirms this. It includes none other than former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as chairman. In his acceptance speech in a World Economic Forum event in Cape Town South Africa in June 2007, Kofi Annan stated, 'I accept this challenge with gratitude to the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and all others who support our African campaign.' In addition the AGRA board numbers a South African, Strive Masiyiwa who�is a Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation. It includes Sylvia M. Mathews of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Mamphela Ramphele, former Managing Director of the World Bank (2000 � 2006); Rajiv J. Shah of the Gates Foundation; Nadya K. Shmavonian of the Rockefeller Foundation; Roy Steiner of the Gates Foundation. In addition, an Alliance for AGRA includes Gary Toenniessen the Managing Director of the Rockefeller Foundation and Akinwumi Adesina, Associate Director, Rockefeller Foundation. To fill out the lineup, the Programmes for AGRA includes Peter Matlon, Managing Director, Rockefeller Foundation; Joseph De Vries, Director of the Programme for Africa's Seed Systems and Associate Director, Rockefeller foundation; Akinwumi Adesina, Associate Director, Rockefeller Foundation. Like the old failed Green Revolution in India and Mexico, the new Africa Green Revolution is clearly a high priority of the Rockefeller Foundation. While to date they are keeping a low profile, Monsanto and the major GMO agribusiness giants are believed at the heart of using Kofi Annan's AGRA to spread their patented GMO seeds across Africa under the deceptive label, 'bio-technology,' the new euphemism for genetically engineered patented seeds. To date South Africa is the only African country permitting legal planting of GMO crops. In 2003 Burkina Faso authorized GMO trials. In 2005 Kofi Annan's Ghana drafted bio-safety legislation and key officials expressed their intentions to pursue research into GMO crops. Africa is the next target in the US-government campaign to spread GMO worldwide. Its rich soils make it an ideal candidate. Not surprisingly many African governments suspect the worst from the GMO sponsors as a multitude of genetic engineering and biosafety projects have been initiated in Africa, with the aim of introducing GMOs into Africa's agricultural systems. These include sponsorships offered by the US government to train African scientists in genetic engineering in the US, biosafety projects funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the World Bank; GMO research involving African indigenous food crops. The Rockefeller Foundation has been working for years to promote, largely without success, projects to introduce GMOs into the fields of Africa. They have backed research that supports the applicability of GMO cotton in the Makhathini Flats in South Africa. Monsanto, who has a strong foothold in South Africa's seed industry, both GMO and hybrid, has conceived of an ingenious smallholders' programme known as the 'Seeds of Hope' Campaign, which is introducing a green revolution package to small scale poor farmers, followed, of course, by Monsanto's patented GMO seeds. 6 Syngenta AG of Switzerland, one of the 'Four Horsemen of the GMO Apocalypse' is pouring millions of dollars into a new greenhouse facility in Nairobi, to develop GMO insect resistant maize. Syngenta is a part of CGIAR as well.7 Move on to Svalbard Now is it simply philosophical sloppiness? What leads the Gates and Rockefeller foundations to at one and the same time to back proliferation of patented and soon-to-be Terminator patented seeds across Africa, a process which, as it has in every other place on earth, destroys the plant seed varieties as monoculture industrialized agribusiness is introduced? At the same time they invest tens of millions of dollars to preserve every seed variety known in a bomb-proof doomsday vault near the remote Arctic Circle 'so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future' to restate their official release? It is no accident that the Rockefeller and Gates foundations are teaming up to push a GMO-style Green Revolution in Africa at the same time they are quietly financing the 'doomsday seed vault' on Svalbard. The GMO agribusiness giants are up to their ears in the Svalbard project. Indeed, the entire Svalbard enterprise and the people involved call up the worst catastrophe images of the Michael Crichton bestseller, Andromeda Strain, a sci-fi thriller where a deadly disease of extraterrestrial origin causes rapid, fatal clotting of the blood threatening the entire human species. In Svalbard, the future world's most secure seed repository will be guarded by the policemen of the GMO Green Revolution--the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, Syngenta, DuPont and CGIAR. The Svalbard project will be run by an organization called the Global Crop Diversity Trust (GCDT). Who are they to hold such an awesome trust over the planet's entire seed varieties?�The GCDT was founded by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Bioversity International (formerly the International Plant Genetic Research Institute), an offshoot of the CGIAR. The Global Crop Diversity Trust is based in Rome. Its Board is chaired by Margaret Catley-Carlson a Canadian also on the advisory board of Group Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, one of the world's largest private water companies. Catley-Carlson was also president until 1998 of the New York-based Population Council, John D. Rockefeller's population reduction organization, set up in 1952 to advance the Rockefeller family's eugenics program under the cover of promoting "family planning," birth control devices, sterilization and "population control" in developing countries. Other GCDT board members include former Bank of America executive presently head of the Hollywood DreamWorks Animation, Lewis Coleman. Coleman is also the lead Board Director of Northrup Grumman Corporation, one of America's largest military industry Pentagon contractors. Jorio Dauster (Brazil) is also Board Chairman of Brasil Ecodiesel. He is a former Ambassador of Brazil to the European Union, and Chief Negotiator of Brazil's foreign debt for the Ministry of Finance. Dauster has also served as President of the Brazilian Coffee Institute and as Coordinator of the Project for the Modernization of Brazil's Patent System, which involves legalizing patents on seeds which are genetically modified, something until recently forbidden by Brazil's laws.� � Cary Fowler is the Trust's Executive Director. Fowler was Professor and Director of Research in the Department for International Environment & Development Studies at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. He was also a Senior Advisor to the Director General of Bioversity International. There he represented the Future Harvest Centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in negotiations on the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. In the 1990s, he headed the International Program on Plant Genetic Resources at the FAO. He drafted and supervised negotiations of FAO's Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources, adopted by 150 countries in 1996. He is a past-member of the National Plant Genetic Resources Board of the US and the Board of Trustees of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico, another Rockefeller Foundation and CGIAR project. � GCDT board member Dr. Mangala Rai of India is the Secretary of India's Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE), and Director General of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR). He is also a Board Member of the Rockefeller Foundation's International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), which promoted the world's first major GMO experiment, the much-hyped 'Golden Rice' which proved a failure. Rai has served as Board Member for CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center), and a Member of the Executive Council of the CGIAR. Global Crop Diversity Trust Donors or financial angels include as well, in the words of the Humphrey Bogart Casablanca classic, 'all the usual suspects.' As well as the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, the Donors include GMO giants DuPont-Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta of Basle Switzerland, CGIAR and the State Department's energetically pro-GMO agency for development aid, USAID. Indeed it seems we have the GMO and population reduction foxes guarding the hen-house of mankind, the global seed diversity store in Svalbard. 8 Why now Svalbard? We can legitimately ask why Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation along with the major genetic engineering agribusiness giants such as DuPont and Syngenta, along with CGIAR are building the Doomsday Seed Vault in the Arctic. Who uses such a seed bank in the first place? Plant breeders and researchers are the major users of gene banks. Today's largest plant breeders are Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Dow Chemical, the global plant-patenting GMO giants. Since early in 2007 Monsanto holds world patent rights together with the United States Government for plant so-called 'Terminator' or Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT). Terminator is an ominous technology by which a patented commercial seed commits 'suicide' after one harvest. Control by private seed companies is total. Such control and power over the food chain has never before in the history of mankind existed. This clever genetically engineered terminator trait forces farmers to return every year to Monsanto or other GMO seed suppliers to get new seeds for rice, soybeans, corn, wheat whatever major crops they need to feed their population. If broadly introduced around the world, it could within perhaps a decade or so make the world's majority of food producers new feudal serfs in bondage to three or four giant seed companies such as Monsanto or DuPont or Dow Chemical. That, of course, could also open the door to have those private companies, perhaps under orders from their host government, Washington, deny seeds to one or another developing country whose politics happened to go against Washington's. Those who say 'It can't happen here' should look more closely at current global events. The mere existence of that concentration of power in three or four private US-based agribusiness giants is grounds for legally banning all GMO crops even were their harvest gains real, which they manifestly are not. � These private companies, Monsato, DuPont, Dow Chemical hardly have an unsullied record in terms of stewardship of human life. They developed and proliferated such innovations as dioxin, PCBs, Agent Orange. They covered up for decades clear evidence of carcinogenic and other severe human health consequences of use of the toxic chemicals. They have buried serious scientific reports that the world's most widespread herbicide, glyphosate, the essential ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide that is tied to purchase of most Monsanto genetically engineered seeds, is toxic when it seeps into drinking water.9 Denmark banned glyphosate in 2003 when it confirmed it has contaminated the country's groundwater.10 The diversity stored in seed gene banks is the raw material for plant breeding and for a great deal of basic biological research. Several hundred thousand samples are distributed annually for such purposes. The UN's FAO lists some 1400 seed banks around the world, the largest being held by the United States Government. Other large banks are held by China, Russia, Japan, India, South Korea, Germany and Canada in descending order of size. In addition, CGIAR operates a chain of seed banks in select centers around the world. CGIAR, set up in 1972 by the Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation to spread their Green Revolution agribusiness model, controls most of the private seed banks from the Philippines to Syria to Kenya. In all these present seed banks hold more than six and a half million seed varieties, almost two million of which are 'distinct.' Svalbard's Doomsday Vault will have a capacity to house four and a half million different seeds. GMO as a weapon of biowarfare? Now we come to the heart of the danger and the potential for misuse inherent in the Svalbard project of Bill Gates and the Rockefeller foundation. Can the development of patented seeds for most of the world's major sustenance crops such as rice, corn, wheat, and feed grains such as soybeans ultimately be used in a horrible form of biological warfare? The explicit aim of the eugenics lobby funded by wealthy elite families such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman and others since the 1920's, has embodied what they termed 'negative eugenics,' the systematic killing off of undesired bloodlines. Margaret Sanger, a rapid eugenicist, the founder of Planned Parenthood International and an intimate of the Rockefeller family, created something called The Negro Project in 1939, based in Harlem, which as she confided in a letter to a friend, was all about the fact that, as she put it, 'we want to exterminate the Negro population.' 11 A small California biotech company, Epicyte, in 2001 announced the development of genetically engineered corn which contained a spermicide which made the semen of men who ate it sterile. At the time Epicyte had a joint venture agreement to spread its technology with DuPont and Syngenta, two of the sponsors of the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault. Epicyte was since acquired by a North Carolina biotech company. Astonishing to learn was that Epicyte had developed its spermicidal GMO corn with research funds from the US Department of Agriculture, the same USDA which, despite worldwide opposition, continued to finance the development of Terminator technology, now held by Monsanto. In the 1990's the UN's World Health Organization launched a campaign to vaccinate millions of women in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines between the ages of 15 and 45, allegedly against Tentanus, a sickness arising from such things as stepping on a rusty nail. The vaccine was not given to men or boys, despite the fact they are presumably equally liable to step on rusty nails as women. Because of that curious anomaly, Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization became suspicious and had vaccine samples tested. The tests revealed that the Tetanus vaccine being spread by the WHO only to women of child-bearing age contained human Chorionic Gonadotrophin or hCG, a natural hormone which when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier stimulated antibodies rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy. None of the women vaccinated were told. It later came out that the Rockefeller Foundation along with the Rockefeller's Population Council, the World Bank (home to CGIAR), and the United States' National Institutes of Health had been involved in a 20-year-long project begun in 1972 to develop the concealed abortion vaccine with a tetanus carrier for WHO. In addition, the Government of Norway, the host to the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault, donated $41 million to develop the special abortive Tetanus vaccine. 12 Is it a coincidence that these same organizations, from Norway to the Rockefeller Foundation to the World Bank are also involved in the Svalbard seed bank project? According to Prof. Francis Boyle who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by the US Congress, the Pentagon is 'now gearing up to fight and win biological warfare' as part of two Bush national strategy directives adopted, he notes, 'without public knowledge and review' in 2002. Boyle adds that in 2001-2004 alone the US Federal Government spent $14.5 billion for civilian bio-warfare-related work, a staggering sum. Rutgers University biologist Richard Ebright estimates that over 300 scientific institutions and some 12,000 individuals in the USA today have access to pathogens suitable for biowarfare. Alone there are 497 US Government NIH grants for research into infectious diseases with biowarfare potential. Of course this is being justified under the rubric of defending against possible terror attack as so much is today. Many of the US Government dollars spent on biowarfare research involve genetic engineering. MIT biology professor Jonathan King says that the 'growing bio-terror programs represent a significant emerging danger to our own population.' King adds, 'while such programs are always called defensive, with biological weapons, defensive and offensive programs overlap almost completely.' 13 Time will tell whether, God Forbid, the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Bank of Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation is part of another Final Solution, this involving the extinction of the Late, Great Planet Earth. F. William Engdahl is the author of Seeds of Destruction, the Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation just released by Global Research.�He also the author�of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, Pluto Press Ltd.. To contact by e-mail: info@engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.� William Engdahl is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).�His writings can be consulted on�www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net�and on Global Research. _______________________ Australia: Non-GM farmers call for strict liability on GM crops Network of Concerned Farmers press release, 4 December 2007. The Network of Concerned Farmers are calling for strict liability legislation to be introduced to protect non-GM farmers from the inevitable economic losses that will occur if genetically modified (GM) canola is introduced in New South Wales. The National Party and the Greens are both expected to introduce strict liability amendments to the Government's Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Amendment Bill when it is discussed in NSW Parliament today. Juliet McFarlane, a canola grower and the New South Wales spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers said "Non-GM farmers should be given a fair go. They should not have to bear economic losses as a result of the inevitable contamination of non-GM canola crops that will occur if GM canola is introduced in New South Wales." A report by the Network of Concerned Farmers released last week, concluded that Australian canola farmers will be hundreds of million dollars a year worse off if GM canola is introduced (1). Strict liability legislation would mean that biotechnology companies would have to pay for any damage caused by their products. This would mean that if a non-GM farmer's field was contaminated with GM canola, resulting in economic or environmental damage, they would be able to claim compensation from the company. Arthur Bowman, a canola grower from Molong, said "In North America Monsanto is sueing farmers who have had their land contaminated with GM crops for patent infringement. We can't let the same thing happen in Australia. I'm appalled with the misinformation given by key people in this debate." As of October 26, 2007, Monsanto had filed 112 lawsuits against farmers in the US for alleged violations of its Technology Agreement and/or its patents on genetically modified seeds. These cases have involved 372 farmers and 49 small farm businesses. Sums awarded to Monsanto in 57 recorded judgments against farmers total US$21,583,431.99 (2). "If industry is confident that it can effectively segregate then we expect it to support strict liability legislation. Non-GM farmers should not have to suffer as the result of the introduction of a technology that they do not want and do not need," said Mrs McFarlane. Recent polls show that only 27.6% of Australian farmers want to grow GM crops and the majority of Australian consumers don't want to eat them (3). Over 250 Australian companies have recently spoken out against GM crops including Australia's biggest lamb exporter, Tatiara meats and Australia's largest end user of canola Goodman Fielder. Contacts: Juliet McFarlane, Young NSW, (02) 6382 2509 Arthur Bowman, (02) 6366 8229; 0427 455 707 Notes: (1) The report: The Economics of Genetically Modified Canola can be viewed at: http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/documents/GM%20Canola%20report-full.pdf (2) Center for Food Safety (2007) Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers: November 2007 Update, www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/Monsanto%20November%202007%20update.pdf (3) Sources: Rural Press National News Service, Parliament House Bureau, Canberra, cited in: Skuthorp, L (2007) FARM POLL: Mandate ethanol, but give GM a miss, 4/10/07, http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=45891; Swinburne University (2007) Media release: Australians more relaxed about wind farms than the Internet, 24/10/07, http://www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/marketing/mediacentre/core/releases_article.php?releaseid=996 _______________________ 3 December 2007 EU Threatens Poland With Lawsuits, Fines Over GMO Ban AllHeadlineNews.com, 3 December 2007. Bu Vittorio Hernandez - AHN News Writer Warsaw, Poland (AHN) - Poland continues to defy the European Commission's law on genetically modified products by banning the entry of GMO goods into the country. It has only 20 days to respond to EC's accusation that the country's laws violate EC regulations. The continued ban may result in fines of as much as $381,407 (260,000 euro) a day. A ruling by the EU court that Poland violated the law will also expose Warsaw to lawsuits GMO trading firms may file against the Polish government. The previous Polish Environment Ministers banned GMO items because surveys showed almost 80 percent of the country isn't willing to buy GMO goods. Michal Milewski, acting spokesperson of the Environment Ministry, said, "There is no final opinion from the new minister yet. As a general rule, we do not want to admit genetically modified crops in Poland, as they threaten biodiversity." The EC is not against banning certain GMO crops if is is scientifically justified and crop-specific. EU Agricultural Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel explained, "We might have to consider excluding an individual GM product from a given area if, for scientific reasons, it genuinely could not co-exist with non-GM crops in that area." Boel added, "But... we cannot simply ban all GM crops from an entire region because of hostility to GM products per se. Where a product has been shown not to be harmful, in principle the rules of the free internal EU market apply." Previously the EU's Court of First Instance had ruled against Austria which proposed a regional GMO ban, and warned Italy of legal consequences for passing a law banning GMO crops until all regions have come up with legislation how farmers should separate GMO crops from organic and traditional plants. _______________________ Poland faces lawsuits and fines over GMO ban CheckBiotech.org, 3 December 2007. There are only 20 days left for the government to reply to European Commission accusations that Poland's regulations on genetically modified products are in breach of European law. According to polls, almost 80% of the public do not want to purchase GMO products. The previous government's Environment Minister refused to allow such products onto the market. According to the calculations of the Office of the Committee for the European Integration (UKIE), if Poland continues to ban GMO foods, it can face a fine of from EUR 4,300 to EUR 260,000 per each day of delay. However, if the EU court rules that Poland has violated EU law, then companies trading GMO products will be able to flood the country with lawsuits. "There is no final opinion from the new minister yet. As a general rule, we do not want to admit genetically modified crops in Poland, as they threaten bio-diversity," said Micha? Milewski, acting spokesperson of the Environment Ministry. _______________________ Australia: Farmers concerned about GM technology Young News, 3 December 2007. By Amy Robinson. NSW Farmers Association welcome the state government's decision to end the four year moratorium on Genetically Modified (GM) canola crops, saying it is a win for the future prosperity of agriculture. President Jock Laurie said this will offer farmers a choice on using GM technology, putting them on a level playing field with overseas farmers. "NSW farmers now have a choice as to whether they want to grow GM canola or not and customers will be able to decide whether or not they want to buy them - this is all about informed choice," he said. Local canola grower and member of the Network of Concerned Farmers Juliet McFarlane says this decision will be a financial disaster for farmers and will remove choice for growers and consumers. "I don't understand how Mr Laurie can possibly suggest we will be on a level playing field with overseas farmers who are so heavily subsidised," she said. "You have to wonder why subsidies are necessary in Canada, our main export competition, if the GM technology is so good. We will not be given a choice as there is no suitable on ground test for farmers to detect the GM content of their canola. "Growers will be expected to guess as to whether their canola contains less than 0.9 per cent for non GM at delivery point. If farmers guess incorrectly they will be liable for any inadvertent contamination from neighbouring GM crops and residual GM canola left in harvesters." She said that segregation protocols have been developed by the GM industry without any input from growers and said she was surprised these protocols have given all the costs and liabilities to non GM growers. She said this will make it too difficult and too expensive to segregate and thereby forcing all growers to sell on a highly competitive GM market. "We will lose our premiums or up to $60 per tonne as well as our unrestricted market access. It is quite disgraceful for the NSW Farmers Association to be promoting an unproven technology where there is such widespread farmer and consumer resistance. They have now kow-towed to the GM industries resistance on a pathway to market without any demonstration of worth. What other industry is expected to accept a new irreversible product without knowing any costs on performance," she said. Mr Laurie said the decision to end the four year moratorium on GM canola crops is a win for the environment, potentially meaning fewer emissions and less chemical use, healthier soil and more sustainable farming practices. Ms McFarlane said in the long run, the occurrence of herbicide resistant canola will not be less negative to the environment at all. "The chemical company Nufarm, which has purchased Monsanto's are Round Up Ready (RR) GM canola distribution rights in Australia says that the only agronomic difference between RR GM canola and traditional varieties is the inability to kill RR canola with Round Up," she said. "Despite this clear message agricultural leaders and scientists are claiming greater yield and increased oil content, which is highly misleading. The increased use of Round Up under a GM regime will hasten the increase of resistance in weeds and jeopardise its long term use. It will also mean farmers will have to return to using older and more dangerous chemicals such as Diovat, Paraquat and 24-D to kill unwanted GM canola volunteers." She said these chemicals make the users have bleeding noses and cause nausea and are much harsher on the natural environment than Round Up. "This is not a healthy legacy to be passing on to the next generation of young farmers. Neither Monsanto's RR GM canola or Bayers Invigor canola will control our most problematic weed in canola, wild radish, only non GM TT canola will do that." Member for Burrinjuck Katrina Hodgkinson is seeking comments from residents across the Burrinjuck electorate regarding proposed amendments. "I am seeking urgent responses as the time line is short with the Bill, which was only seen by the state opposition for the first time on Tuesday, due for debate when Parliament resumes tomorrow," she said. _______________________ 2 December 2007 USA: Ethics is real issue behind milk-labeling controversy Patriot News, December 2 2007. By Brian Snyder, Leslie Zuck and Timothy LaSalle. On its face, the recent decision by the state Department of Agriculture to crack down on what it considers to be false or misleading claims on dairy product labels might seem to be in everyone's best interest. Consumers are protected from misinformation; farmers are protected from dairy co-ops wishing to dictate how they should farm; and, of course, the Monsanto Corp. is protected from taking a huge loss on one of its most controversial products. As is often the case in situations such as this, however, what's really being protected is the status quo in an industry that is sorely in need of progressive change and an infusion of visionary thinking. The essential question to ask is, "What's really in everyone's best interest over the long term?" In our opinion, it is not an example of visionary insight to assert that anyone involved in the dairy industry will benefit in the long run by withholding information from members of the public, making it more difficult for them to discern how their food is being produced. Effective food labeling will work to reveal, not conceal, the essential facts of interest to consumers. But it's important to understand that the entire labeling controversy is only a sideshow to the real issues involved here, which have more to do with ethics and the industry-perceived need for the use of performance-enhancing drugs in livestock production. The use of artificial growth hormones (rBST or rBGH) is certainly not the only example of such drugs being used on farms today. In fact, the majority of antibiotics sold in America are used in livestock production as growth-promoting agents, not as treatment for disease in humans or animals as many uninformed, potentially confused consumers might assume. What's so wrong if an individual farmer or group of them working together wishes to advertise, even on a label, the choice made not to use such drugs at all, or at least not unless clinically indicated? While we are so busy debating when and how it is proper to put an absence claim on food labels, when do we get to consider the value of being completely forthcoming with consumers and letting them make informed choices? It is our belief that the agricultural community in Pennsylvania -- and in America -- might be missing the visionary opportunity of a lifetime to make complete disclosure its primary operating principle. Why are we even debating the proper labeling of performance-enhancing drugs used in food production, when the world would beat a path to our door if we banned them altogether? The history of science and technology is full of examples where particular accomplishments have helped to improve life on earth as we know it. But much of modern science is now dedicated to the work of undoing the problems caused by previous advances. By all means, it makes perfect sense to employ the "precautionary principle" when research on any aspect of food production is not conclusive -- in doing so, the countries of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all 25 members of the European Union have already banned the use of rBST/rBHG in the production of milk. Why would we in this country stake the future of our farms on anything less than production of the highest quality food products possible? We have an opportunity to recognize not only the responsibility, but the power we have in the agricultural community to make more careful choices for the future, and to fully involve our paying customers as partners in that process, as well. The food labeling decisions being made on our behalf, whether as farmers or consumers, are poorly conceived and shortsighted and will serve only to continue the seemingly unending cycle of dim hopes and dashed dreams that have characterized family farms in America for the last half century. In contrast to this bleak picture, consumers worldwide are waking up to the promise of more informed choices and an agriculture that works with nature instead of against it. Let's give them what they want and deserve, and ensure the future viability of our farms in the process. _______________________ 1 December 2007 UK: Of wormy corn and websites Who pulled the plug on the GM Watch website? The Ecologist, December 2007 / January 2008 issue (published 30 November) dated 1 December 2007) Campaign group GM Watch had the plug pulled on its website recently, following a complaint of defamation from a Canadian Government bureaucrat. Shane Morris expressed outrage at the choice of 'Award for a Fraud' as the headline for an article about an award-winning scientific paper he'd helped co-author. GM Watch agreed to change the title to get back online, but the row didn't stop there. As Morris continued to pepper its web host with legal threats about 'defamatory untruths', GM Watch brought forward new evidence and won powerful expert support. The controversy began in 2003 with the publication by the British Food Journal of a paper entitled 'Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweetcorn', by Doug Powell, Shane Morris and two other authors. The paper reported on research at a Canadian farm store in late summer 2000, involving shoppers being offered a choice between GM and non-GM sweetcorn. The research showed they chose the GM corn by a factor of three to two. In 2004, the journal honoured the paper with its Award for Excellence for Most Outstanding Paper. But questions began to be asked in April 2006 when the GM Watch website published a photograph taken at the farm store. It showed a handwritten sign above the non-GM crop that asked shoppers, 'Would you eat wormy sweetcorn?'. The sign above the GM corn, by contrast, referred to 'quality sweetcorn'. GM Watch pointed out that the award-winning paper made no reference to either sign. After this was flagged up, New Scientist reported that Dr Richard Jennings, a leading expert in scientific ethics at the University of Cambridge, was calling for the research to be retracted. The editor of the British Food Journal refused to do so, but did agree to publish a letter from Joe Cummins, Professor Emeritus at the University of Western Ontario, demanding the research and award be withdrawn. Prof Cummins wrote, 'the cornerstone of science is full and honest reporting, and this experiment and its controls do not appear to have been reported either fully or honestly.' In his reply, Doug Powell - the study's lead author - conceded that the 'wormy corn' sign had been present on 30 August 2000 (the day the sales research started), but claimed, 'The handwritten signs were changed the following week'. On his blog, Shane Morris also claimed the sign had quickly come down, and that well before he himself had first gone to the farm store on 27 September 2000. He also posted two photographs he said conclusively proved the sign had been removed. One of the pictures - dated 27 September 2000 - also showed a Greenpeace campaigner, Michael Khoo, whom Morris claimed could confirm there was no 'wormy corn' sign on display. After GM Watch had its site disabled, it contacted Khoo to ask him to confirm Morris's claim. 'I could have seen [the sign] when I was there,' Khoo revealed, but he couldn't say for certain because 'it's a little while ago'. With him at the store that day was Toronto-based independent food policy consultant Dr Rod MacRae, however, who told GM Watch that he had seen the sign. 'I can state categorically that the sign was there the day Michael and I attended,' he said. Dr MacRae also confirmed the date: 27 September 2000. Shane Morris responded by suggesting GM Watch had 'bought lies in Canada', but by now the controversy had attracted the interest of a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales, Dr Tim Lambert, who undertook a meticulous examination of the two low-resolution images Morris had posted on his blog. Lambert was able to establish that a hard-to-read sign visible in both pictures was none other than the 'wormy corn' sign. According to Lambert, science would have been served better if Morris and Powell had acknowledged the flaws in their study, 'rather than making untrue statements about the "wormy corn" sign being removed.' Dr Richard Jennings, an ethics expert, has commented that the 'Award for a Fraud' title is justified: 'I think the paper is fraudulent,' he said. 'The presence of the "wormy corn" sign is crucial data and failure to include it in the paper constitutes falsification - in this case falsification through omission.' Comment from GM-free Ireland Shane Morris, who is an Irish citizen, also made a failed attempt to shut down the GM-free Ireland web site and to stifle public awareness of the dangers of GM food and farming in Ireland. For details see www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/. _______________________ Ireland: Feed industry raises concerns over genetic modification The Irish Farmers Journal, 1 December (published 29 November) 2007. By Pat O'Toole. [Photo caption: "Ireland depends on imported nutrition sources such as soy and maize (above), and with an increasing number of countries growing GM crops it is no surprise that GM food and feed ingredients have been legally on the market in Ireland for some years. Graphic caption: The EU's slow, complex system of approving GMs for feed and food use] Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are both an emotive and a complex topic. This makes it very difficult to sort out the key issues and assess them clinically or logically. The Irish Grain and Feed Association (IGFA) held a seminar last week to explore some of the issues. Overview Even defining GMOs is not that simple. We all learned in school about Gregor Mendel, the medieval monk and his experiments in genetic breed improvement. This heralded a revolution in agriculture, and made breed and seed development possible. Breeds with traits fo prolificy, milk output, and growth rate; seeds suitable for soil type, climatic conditions, and resistance to disease and pest threats were developed. Genetic modification is a special set of technologies that alter the genetic makeup of such living organisms as animals, plants or bacteria. When we hear people discuss and debate GMs, they are usually talking of transgenic mutation, where genetic information from one species is isolated and transferred to another, possibly completely diverse, organism. In 2006 a total of 252 million acres of GM crops were planted. Over ten million farmers in 22 countries grew GMO crops. The majority of these crops were herbicide- or insect-resistant soybeans, maize, cotton, canola, and alfalfa. In 2006, the United States grew over half (53%) of the global GM crop. Argentina (17%), Brazil (11%), Canada (6%), India (4%), and China (3%), are the other major users of GM crops. Europe At the IGFA seminar, Pat O'Mahony, Chief Specialist in Biotechnology at the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI), explained that the majority of GM crops currently in cultivation are not consumer orientated, but posess herbicide tolerance and pest resistant traits that are of agronomic and commercial benefit only. He stated that the European opposition to the use of GM technology in food production appears to be ideologically and politically driven, with disregard for any potential benefits. "A small number of EU Member States are vehemently opposed to the use of GMOs in food and feed production, and have even questioned the integrity of the safety assessments carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) - an independent science-based EU body set up to carry out risk assessments," said O'Mahony. Despite this resistance to the use of GMOs in Europe, he explained that regular checks carried out by the FSAI and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF) have shown that GM food and feed ingredients have been legally on the market for some years. This presence in the Irish food supply demonstrates the global nature of the food and feed supplies, and highlights Ireland's dependence on imported nutrition sources such as soy and maize, according to O'Mahony. He explained how the extremely complex system of control of GM crops in the European Union works. The graph above explains why years go by before a GM product receives certification for use in Europe. Meanwhile, as technology develops, the certification falls further behind. O'Mahony highlighted how the Green Party entered into coalition this summer with an agreed programme for Government that sought to establish an all-Ireland GMO-free area. We still have to see just what that means. O'Mahony closed his address with the following conclusions:
•	The FSAI experience is that GM food does not appear to be any higher on the list of consumer concerns.
•	While most food manufacturers avoid GM ingredients for marketing reasons, the majority of the maize- and soya-based feed sold in Ireland is GM.
•	The animal feed industry has serious concerns with regard to the security of supplies of GM maize and soy products, due to the EU approach to GMOs and the emerging bioethanol industry.
•	The FSAI does not have safety concerns relating to GM foods authorised in the EU.
However, recent problems experienced in the segregation of GM and non-GM crops in exporting countries is a cause for concern particularly in relation to the use of food crops, such as rice and maize, in the production of non-food substances, including pharmaceuticals, medicines and industrial chemicals. _______________________ Ireland: Golf ball flights, boarders' lives, sweet potatoes and GM foods... Just some of the eight Athlone projects geared up for Young Scientists [Shortened] Eight local entrants from South Westmeath are set to battle it out with over 3,500 other competitors for a place in the 2008 BT Young Scientist and Technology Exhibition in the RDS [Royal Dublin Society] next January. Students from Athlone Community College, the Marist College, Moate Community School and Our Lady's Bower will take part in this year's competition which has recorded a phenomenal increase in entries with 1,416 projects submitted for entry - 138 More than last year The projects from local students will cover the categories of: Biological and Ecological Sciences, Social and Chemical, Physical and Mathematical Sciences. Five hundred of the projects submitted will qualify to compete in the finals in the RDS, Dublin, next January. The overall winner will be named the BT Young Scientist(s) of the Year, and receive a Waterford Crystal trophy together with a cheque for €5,000 (...). "Frankenfoods" by Bronwyn Reid-McDermott and Ciara O'Neil aims to investigate and compare the nutrional value of genetically modified foods to naturally grown foods using a series of chemical tests. _______________________ UK: How the Environment Agency is gagging the one eyewitness to what is potentially the biggest environmental crime to occur in the UK The Ecologist magazine, December 2007 / January 2008 issue, 1 December 2007. An Ecologist special investigation by Jon Hughes and Pat Thomas. The Environment Agency (EA) is within weeks of letting Monsanto escape its liability for knowingly dumping thousands of tonnes of cancer-causing chemicals � including all the ingredients of the DDT defoliant Agent Orange � in two quarries in Wales. Unless a claim and 'adversary action' is lodged with the US bankruptcy courts (USBC) within around four weeks, the UK taxpayer faces picking up a bill for hundreds of millions of pounds to safeguard the environment and public health. Yet for the past few months the Agency has stonewalled the one remaining eyewitness to events as they unfolded in 1967 onwards, and who is prepared to speak out. This man, who now carries a panic button at all times, also has a dedicated police protection officer supervising protective devices installed at his house because of the threats that he has received. From 1967 to 1974, Douglas Gowan represented farmers in the Taff area of South Wales, primarily as a legal adviser with an expertise in toxicology, having first gone to the area to investigate mysterious cattle and sheep deaths, and the abortions occurring in livestock, as a field officer for the National Farmers Union (NFU). He traced the likely cause of the deaths and abortions back to the Monsanto chemical plant in nearby Newport, where significant amounts of waste were being hauled daily to a nearby limestone landfill site operated by Purle Brothers. The Monsanto plant, having been exposed for dumping thousands of tonnes of chemical wastes into the River Severn and public waterways and sewerage system, was now dumping its wastes in Brofiscin Quarry, and Maendy Quarry, which are sited above the farms where the mysterious livestock deaths were occurring. Documents seen by the Ecologist and shared by Gowan with the EA say that as much as 80,000 tonnes of waste contaminated by chlorinated hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were dumped into Brofiscin Quarry, and 42,000 tonnes into Maendy Quarry. Tests commissioned by Gowan and the NFU between 1968 and 1974 revealed these wastes to include at least 12 types of PCBs, marketed as Aroclor: tetrachlorophenol; pentachlorophenol; naphthalene; benzene; dioxin; dibenzofurans; and other carcinogens. Samples were shared with the relevant authorities, including the Department of the Environment; Glamorgan River Authority; the Government Chemist; Ministry of Agriculture; and Welsh Office, and were undertaken by ICI Laboratories in Brixham; Pick Everard Keay and Gimson in Leicester; the Royal Veterinary College; and the National Water Quality Laboratory in Duluth, USA. All these documents and reports are now reportedly missing. Much of the evidence Gowan secured formed the basis of a three-year Sunday Times Insight investigation and helped cause a subsequent change in the law through the Control of Pollution Act 1974. The late 60s and early 70s were a difficult time for Monsanto. Its main PCB production plant in Anniston, Alabama, had been exposed for routinely dumping and flushing away thousands of tonnes of PCB wastes into the public waterways and holes in the ground. Monsanto was forced to release thousands of documents revealing that the company had known the public health risks from these compounds � which were used in the manufacture of paper, paints, electrical conductors, capacitors, and transformers � for around 30 years. The production process meant that as much as 25 per cent of the chemicals used in the process often ended up as a spill, residue or as waste. The Anniston and other scandals led to the banning of PCB production in America in 1971. During that period � and up until 1977, when the UK government reluctantly followed suit � PCB production was ramped up at Newport, creating even more wastes. While Brofiscin and Maendy quarries took the bulk of these, five other quarries across Wales and into the north of England were also used as Monsanto dumping grounds. It is not clear that any were prepared (lined and sealed) to accept such wastes. Both Brofiscin and Maendy certainly weren't and both are porous: Brofiscin being limestone, and Maendy sandstone, which means that the wastes slowly and inevitably leach into the waterways, groundwater, and major aquifers. Of particular concern today is that Brofiscin stands above an underground reservoir that might well in the future be used as a public water supply. On 1 February 1972, Monsanto and its waste disposal firm Redland-Purle (the successor to Purle Brothers) convened a meeting on site, and admitted to dumping the bulk of the wastes at Brofiscin. Legal memoranda were drawn up stating their joint liability for a remediation plan to be put in place by 31 December 1972. Those present at the announcement included Gowan; Robin Geldard CBE; Tony Morgan of Redland-Purle; his counsel, Richard Hawkins; the Welsh Office; the Glamorgan River Authority; Herbert Vodden of Monsanto; and representatives of the Department of Environment and Mininstry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (the forerunner of Defra). All should have copies of the agreement � produced the next day by the lawyers Freshfields � in their archives, but requests for them under Freedom of Information legislation by Gowan and Friends of the Earth have proved fruitless to date. This state of affairs has never been contested by Monsanto or the Environment Agency. It was also corroborated by Dr William Papageorge, in December 1972. He was the chemical giants' then toxicologist, who was known at the time as the 'PCB Czar'. Gowan presented all his evidence to the Agency in early September 2006, supported by sworn affidavits, in response to a public appeal issued by the EA, for people with knowledge of the site to come forward. Initially he was welcomed with open arms and invited by the EA chairman Sir John Harman to assist the EA in technical analysis and as to determining accountability. It was the Agency's good fortune that Gowan had spent more than 20 years in corporate finance in the US, and more than a decade as an Examiner and Trustee in the USBC. Then inexplicably, and seemingly because from his experience in the US courts he strongly disagreed with the Environment Agency's strategy, Gowan found himself being shunned and stonewalled by its officers. While they refuse to speak to him, either by phone or in person, or respond to letters or emails, in an extraordinary development the Agency's lead officer on the case, Graham Hillier, went public in the letters pages of the Western Mail, after the paper published a leading article on the growing controversy surrounding Brofiscin. Hillier's letter read:
	SIR - I am writing to clarify a number of points in your report on Brofiscin quarry at Groesfaen (March 8). We have been working closely with a range of organisations and individuals to ensure a thorough examination of the site. I would like to stress that all investigations to date have confirmed that there is no identifiable harm or immediate danger to human health. Your article states that we have declined to submit a claim to the court in America. In fact, we have made written representations to the US bankruptcy court in New York, requesting that specific provision be made for any liabilities identified as the responsibility of Solutia UK Limited (previously Monsanto). Initial studies show that any actual clean-up cost, far from costing hundreds of millions of pounds, as quoted in your article, is actually likely to cost significantly less than �100m. Our aim is to fully understand the current risks to ground and surface waters and to determine the most cost-effective way forward to protect the local environment and, if applicable, to recover costs from those liable. Graham Hillier Area Manager South East, Environment Agency Wales
To which Gowan responded:
	Brofiscin questions SIR - In my view the public is being misled. 1. Mr Hillier does not mention animal or livestock health. Why? What about the food chain? Cattle have died and had abortions at Brofiscin Farm. They ingested the contaminated pasture and groundwater. PCBs were found in their tissue. Mice fed the same water died or developed tumours in research studies at two different major laboratories that were retained as advisers to the UK and US governments. 2. The Environment Agency's own consultants, Atkins, in their report dated December 2005, state the following about Brofiscin Quarry: 'Pollution of controlled water is occurring... The waste and ground water have recently been shown to contain significant quantities of poisonous, noxious and polluting material... and additional entry (into the environment) will therefore take place.' 3. These chemicals are now reaching a Major Aquifer. They are not water-soluble but are slow acting, and they concentrate and accumulate in the fatty tissues in the body. I have 600 ng/fat of combined PCBs and dioxins in my own body as a result of my seven years of exposure at Brofiscin, and it is now causing immune system interference. 4. Solutia UK (formerly Monsanto) is indeed a Solutia subsidiary NOT included in the reorganization filing in the US. The USBC cannot grant the relief that Mr Hillier says he and the EAW have now sought. This is highly embarrassing for the UK. I made the Environment Agency aware of this fact early in 2006. The public purse is now exposed to needless risk. I am a former trustee at the USBC. I have offered the EAW my advice and help, free of charge, as well as my detailed evidence about what was dumped where in the Brofiscin and Maendy quarries. Mr Hillier has refused that help. I believe very serious questions arise as to what on earth is going on, and as to whether the public interest is in safe hands. Douglas Gowan
The situation pertaining to Monsanto's liability is complicated because the chemical giant broke into three in 1997, creating new Monsanto � today known for its GM activity; Pharmacia, which is now part of Pfizer; and Solutia Inc, which took over the chemicals division and any liabilities, such as Brofiscin. As part of the deal, new Monsanto undertook to indemnify any liabilities outstanding against Solutia Inc. Since 2003, Solutia has been seeking to be declared bankrupt and papers before the USBC show its negative net worth to be S1.417 billion. Current assets are $848 million, and current liabilities $1.124 billion. A significant deficit. Any recognised claim from the UK would mean the company's liabilities would far exceed its assets. This would probably force the court to break up Solutia and sell what parts it can for as much as it can, as a going concern. Under these particular circumstances, the Brofiscin and similar liabilities would pass to new Monsanto. New Monsanto is increasingly troubled by boycotts of its GM products, such as that recently launched by Mexico. Its recent announcement that it is to share GM research and development of products with German multinational BASF, gives an indication of the company's precipitous position. It will take around two weeks for the EA to file any claim or adversary action with the court and the Judge has indicated that unless Solutia present her with a cogent plan for finalising its reorganisation imminently - within around four weeks - she will likely rule how the company is to conclude its business in the summer. It is baffling in these circumstances that, rather than utilising Gowan's expertise as both a former lawyer and toxicology expert, who was also active as the original events unfolded, the Environment Agency is seemingly choosing ignore him, or even block his testimony and advice. The Atkins report to which Hillier refers is not due to be presented until May, way past the USBC deadline for any claims in the USA. Hillier's claim that the quarry 'presents no immediate danger to public health' is also contrary to a pamphlet issued by the EA on the long-lasting dangers of PCBs leaching into sub-surface and waterways and aquifers. PCBs are persistent in both the environment and in humans and other animals, where they accumulate in fat. Exposure even to small amounts of these hormone-disrupting compounds has been linked with depressed immunity, reduced IQ in children, hypothyroidism, infertility, reproductive disorders and low birthweights, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, liver damage, asthma and arthritis. Another indication of the stonewalling that has been occurring is the Agency's failure to share Gowan's evidence and witness statements with the local council, which would be party to making a claim. Gowan gave permission in August 2006 for these documents to be shared. But in March 2007, the Agency wrote to him saying they hadn't been shared under the Data Protection Act, and they wouldn't be unless Gowan gave express permission. Which he did. Yet a statement to the Ecologist from the Environment Agency states: 'Local authorities have the primary responsibility for identifying contaminated land sites. If it appears a potentially contaminated land site is also a special site, the Environment Agency would be asked to investigate on behalf of the local authority. The Environment Agency in Wales has been working closely with a range of organisations � including local authority Rhondda Cynon Taf � and individuals, to ensure that a thorough examination of the Brofiscin site has been undertaken. All investigations to date have confirmed that there is no immediate danger to human health. The thorough approach being taken by the Environment Agency in Wales aims to understand the possible risks to ground and surface waters and the most appropriate remediation, including potential monitoring of the situation. The Environment Agency is also investigating what remediation is necessary and who is responsible for it. It would be premature for the Environment Agency to comment further at this stage of our investigation.' The possible risks are manifest from what we know unfolded at Anniston, and from what the Agency warns us of in its own sub-surface document (An Illustrated Handbook of DNAPL Transport and Fate in the Subsurface). As the Agency seems to be confused about which company to hold liable, so it seems confused about the nature of PCBs � that they are slow-motion poisons that are long-living in the environment and food chain. Whether it's a cock-up, conspiracy or confederacy of dunces, there is something strange going on at the Agency. Potentially it could cost many hundreds of millions of pounds to remediate the sites in question, as the only seeming way to clear them would be to excavate, in part or in whole. Yet even that would not protect the water table, aquifers and surrounding environment in the medium term, as the contamination has a 40-year start. The Environment Agency website says that one of its core aims is to make the polluter pay. To do that requires action. PDQ. Four weeks� and the clocks are ticking. Jon Hughes is the deputy editor of the Ecologist. Pat Thomas is the Ecologist's Health Editor. Comment from GM-free Ireland: Prof Amyan McFadden, who lived in Coleraine, Northern Ireland, from 1967 until 2006, has informed us that Monsanto owned a chemical factory (originally called Chemstrand) in that area for many years. He said "When they departed some of the site was developed for housing. Tests of the ground were made and residents in the area were instructed (and it was inserted in their deeds) that no vegetables were to be grown there in perpetuity." If this is correct, Monsanto probably contaminated the site of the housing estate in Coleraine with cancer-causing chemicals, like the two sites in Wales. _______________________ Japan has problem with biotech crops The Jamestown Sun (USA), 1 December 2007. By Mike Krueger. Genetically modified or GMO crops have been in the news again recently because of The European Union's decision to allow some GMO corn and sugar beets to be imported. It didn't make that decision because it changed its opinion and now likes GMO crops and products. The members changed their decision because the union is suffering a major shortage of feed grains. The European Union and Japan have been dead set against allowing genetically modified anything into their countries for human consumption. There was also a recent story about a biotech crop problem in Japan. Japan may be facing a public relations problem as a result of a report that biotech or genetically modified rapeseed has been found growing wild in a number of its geographic regions. This isn't good in a country that is so adamant against biotech crops of any sort. It's believed that some of the biotech rapeseed imported from Canada for processing in to livestock feed was either spilled at the port facilities and crushing plants while being unloaded or by trucks transporting it to processing plants. Some was also found growing near feed mills. None of the varieties are approved for planting in Japan. As expected, Greenpeace and other anti-biotech groups have jumped all over this biotech discovery. They cite this as a reason Japan shouldn't import any biotech crops, even those used for livestock feed, like rapeseed. The groups claim that pollen from the wild biotech rapeseed could cross with other non-biotech crops in Japan like mustard, Chinese cabbage, and turnips. This could be an interesting one to watch. One of the fears of biotech crops has been the inability to control their spread in the wild and how to control that spread when it happens.? _______________________ Australia: Clean, green prospects take a whack The Geelong Advertiser, 1 Dec 07. Nicholas Montgomery. THREE years ago, State governments around Australia placed a moratorium on GM food crops because of concerns in industry, the farming sector and regional communities about the impact on Australia's clean and green markets. Now the Victorian GM ban has been scrapped by the Brumby Government. The NSW Government has done likewise and GM canola is set to be cropped next season. This hasn't pleased Tasmania and Western Australia, opposed to GM crops, or the Network of Concerned Farmers or agricultural giant Goodman Fielder (Meadow Lea). The concern shown isn't based on emotive environmentalism but a series of mainstream agro-economics reports which highlight the increasing importance of premium markets for Australian farmers. Economists consistently find Australian GM-free produce commands a higher price than North American GM produce. Governmental body ABARE documents Australian canola prices regularly exceeding GM Canadian prices by some $50 a tonne. Last year, Australian canola commanded a whopping $115 tonne premium. The Victorian Government claims overall GM canola will bring farmers $115 million over eight years. That's a very small gain for a very large risk. But it's not as small as the predicted yield gains of around 5 to 8 per cent from GM canola the Government says will outweigh any GM-free premiums. In reality, GM may only bring a 2 to 4 per cent yield increase since GM canola crops designed for North American conditions won't fare any better than non-GM under Australian drought conditions. According to figures from biotech corporation Monsanto, some Australian trials of GM canola produced yields 16 per cent below the national GM-free average. In the end, increasing yields won't matter much as broader market access and restriction issues determine the value of GM. The global current trends point towards evermore GM restrictions. The EU moratorium already restricts some 400,000 tonnes of GM canola from Canada but imports 38 per cent of all Australia's clean canola. Japan is considering injecting tighter controls into already tough GM import regulations. Stricter Japanese GM laws could impact 41 per cent, (300,000 tonnes) of Australian canola exports. The long list of risks and unknowns continues with climate change and the decreasing availability of clean and green produce. As the fallout of toxic pollution from China becomes more visible, Asian consumers are clamouring for uncontaminated food. If Australia suddenly found itself holding some of the world's last remaining clean produce, right now it makes more economical sense to invest in promoting Australian produce as clean and green rather than investing in GM crops. Victoria should reinstall the moratorium on GM canola or the Federal Government should impose a nationwide moratorium on GM. Nicholas Montgomery is a media adviser with Greenpeace. _______________________ Australia: Seeds of dissent: farmers split over GM canola move The Age, December 1 2007. By Chee Chee Leung and Orietta Guerrera. [image caption: Canola grower Bob Mackley fears the loss of Victoria's "clean image".] IT SEEMS an unusual comparison, but Victorian canola farmer Bob Mackley reckons the debate over genetically modified crops is "almost like religion or politics". "It's an issue that's quite divisive in country communities," says the fourth-generation farmer, north-west of Horsham. "You just don't talk about it. It's very bad etiquette." But even his suggestion that GM is dividing farmers is in itself splitting opinions, with advocates playing down concerns over the technology. "The majority of people I know are happy with it," says grains farmer Peter Tuohey. "The only ones I've heard complain are the ones on the wireless or TV." Since Premier John Brumby's announcement on Tuesday that Victoria would lift its ban on commercial G