NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • February 2007

Archives 2007: January • February
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

28 February 2007

UK: BASF announces second UK trial site

GM Watch, 22 February 2007.

BASF has announced the second UK trial site for its GM blight resistant potatoes. It has applied for permission to plant in Hedon, East Riding of Yorkshire (grid ref TA1729).

See Defra press release and links
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070227b.htm

There will be another public consultation - deadline 20 April.

An invitation to make public representations will be posted on the Defra website at
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/regulation/applications/index.htm

East Riding passed a GM free resolution in 2003 so may not be best pleased!

Useful GM Freeze briefing on this GM potato:
http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/GM_Spudsoverview_webbriefing.pdf

UK: GM Spuds - Industry Can't Agree on Blight Costs

GM Freeze press release, 28 February 2007.

BASF, the company wanting to field test GM potatoes in Cambridgeshire and Humberside [1] over the next five years, and the British Potato Council (BPC) cannot agree about the annual costs of blight damage in UK potatoes.

BASF want to test GM potatoes engineered to resist blight. They claim [2] that the annual losses due to blight amount to £50 million per year with GBP20 million needed to pay for fungicides. In contrast, BPC [3] put the cost of damage due to blight at GBP3 million. They agree with BASF on the costs of fungicide spray.

GM Freeze has assessed the claims made about the losses due to blight by BASF. Based on BPC's average price [5] of GBP135 per tonne, a GBP50 million loss would equate to 370,000 tonnes of potatoes or 6.2% of total production of 6m tonnes annually (BPC figures). Using BPCs figures, the losses would be just 22,250 tonnes per year or 0.4% of the total crop.

Blight is a serious fungal disease of potatoes. In recent years considerable progress has been made in predicting the occurrence of blight and in developing varieties which are naturally resistant to the disease. At present 20% of the most popular commercial varieties offer good resistance to the disease and potato breeding lines introduced from Hungary are producing highly resistant strains [4].

The BPC Flight Against Blight (FAB) campaign monitors the blight population regularly to check for new strains of the fungus which in the past few decades has developed the capacity to reproduce sexually as well as asexually. The latest BPC finding "indicates that strains are not successfully mating in Britain and producing oospores which could otherwise lead to difficulties controlling the disease" [5]. However, they call upon growers "to stay alert for signs of blight and control sources of infection such as outgrade piles and volunteers" and to sign up to FAB and BPC's Blight Watch which monitors the disease around the country.

Defra issued a consent to BASF in December 2007 to release the GM potatoes in Derbyshire and Cambridgeshire. In an unusual step, the consent was personally signed by Secretary of State David Miliband instead of senior civil servants. The Derbyshire site was withdrawn two weeks later and this week BASF informed Defra of a replacement site at Hedon in Humberside. The trials will last 5 years.

Commenting of the lack of agreement between BASF and the BPC Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

"BASF clearly have a vested interested in exaggerating the costs of potato blight losses - they want to sell the idea of GM potatoes to farmers and politicians. BPC don't have to inflate the costs of damage. We'll leave it to readers to decide who is likely to be more accurate. Mr Miliband has firmly nailed his colours to the GM mast by personally endorsing these GM trials. Let's hope he has not been taken in by BASF's hype and that gets he gets better advice if he ever has to make decision on whether these GM potatoes can be grown commercially. GM won't solve the blight problem because the disease can evolve into new strains. What is needed is an integrated approach of conventionally breeding resistant varieties, close monitoring and very strict hygiene to minimise the use of fungicides".

ENDS

Calls to Pete Riley 07903 341065 or 01226 790713

Notes

1. BASF press release 27th February. See also http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/regulation/applications/index.htm

2. As above.

3. British Potato Council Growers Advice Fight Against Blight
http://www.potato.org.uk/media_files/FAB_GAs/01outgradehygiene2005.pdf

4. Sarpo varieties are being developed by the Sartavi Research Trust. For more information see http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/GM_Spudsoverview_webbriefing.pdf.

5. BPC press release February 2007 http://www.potato.org.uk/department/knowledge_transfer/press_releases/index.html?did=2085&pg=1

India: Farmer suicides haunt west India despite government relief promises

Xinhua news agency (China), Feb 28 2007.

In the first month of this year 62 farmers committed suicide in Vidharbha, a cotton-growing belt in west India, but the tragic figure was considered a positive sign as the monthly suicide rate finally dropped below 100 for the first time since last July.

According to the state government, 1,452 farmers killed themselves in this region last year. Many did it because of failure of crops and unbearable debts.

There was a popular comment among local farmer activists: "If I were given a choice, I would like to be born as a European cow, but certainly not as an Indian farmer, in my next birth."

In Europe a cow gets two U.S. dollars as subsidy per day while here a farmer could be a debtor all his life. After his death, his son might inherit his debts and has to borrow money for his funeral.

According to a report from the Planning Commission of Indian government, the cost to produce a quintal of cotton stands at 2, 215 rupees (49 U.S. dollars) but the minimum support price offered by the government remains 1,960 rupees (43 U.S. dollars).

Some blamed the failure of their crops to the genetic modified Bt cotton which was promoted by the government.

"The low yield is because of the genuine Bt. Cotton, which is highly uneconomic and known to fail in rain-fed farming," said Ramashankar Tiwari, a farm activist in Vidarbha.

The agriculture authorities blamed the low yield of cotton to spurious Bt cotton seeds but Tiwari said there has been few spurious cotton seed in the market since U.S. bio-agriculture giant Monsanto lowered the price from 1,780 rupees (39.56 U.S. dollars) per bag to 750 rupees (16.67 U.S. dollars).

Drought and lack of irrigation facilities contributed to heavy burdens upon farmers in Vidarbha. In a region that receives over 800 mm of average rainfall annually, the cultivation area totals 17 million hectares but only 3.5 percent of them has access to its 10 major, 49 medium and 650 minor irrigation schemes.

Other factors that worsen the situation are reducing price of cotton in the market and competition from cheaper cotton imported from the United States.

Insiders here said that the subsidies that U.S. government provides to its cotton growers have greatly lowered their cotton products and tiny farmers in Vidarbha have few resources to stand against it.

The cotton price dropped by 60 percent since 1995 but the U.S. subsidies to its 25,000 cotton farmers reached 3.9 billion dollars in 2001-02, doubling over that in 1992.

When a farmer in Vidarbha suffers loss in the fields and needs some cash to restart, he has few choices but private money lenders.

Nearly 73 percent of Vidarbha farmers don't have access to institutional credit. They borrow from relatives, friends, big landlords, or the moneylenders, though Vidarbha has a good banking network consisting of 823 commercial banks, about 200 regional rural banks and close to 60 other banks.

An investigation team of the Planning Commission said in its report that nearly 2.8 million of the 3.2 million cotton farmers in Vidarbha are defaulters and for every 100 rupees (2.22 U.S. dollars) they borrow, about 80 rupees (1.78 U.S. dollars) goes into servicing of old loans.

The high farmer suicide rates have attracted lots of attention from the central government. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited the region in July last year and promised a special relief package of 37.5 billion rupees (833 million U.S. dollars). At least 16 panels from various government departments and committees have visited the region producing quite a few reports but little visible improvement has been seen so far.

According to the Prime Minister's relief package, 20.77 billion rupees (462 million U.S. dollars) will go to irrigation facilities but the projects have not started after six months, said Kishore Tiwari, chairman of Jan Andolan Samiti, a local farmer organization.

27 February 2007

USA: Bill would hold makers of engineered crops liable for contamination

Associated Press, Feb 27 2007.

SACRAMENTO (AP) - Stepping into the middle of a growing debate, a freshman assemblyman has introduced legislation that would make companies developing genetically engineered crops liable for damages if their work results in contamination of other fields.

The bill by Assemblyman Jared Huffman also would ban open-field production of genetically engineered crops used in the development of medications. And it would require growers to give county agriculture commissioners at least 30 days notice before engaging in open-field development of other genetically modified plants.

Huffman, D-San Rafael, said the measure is needed to protect California farmers against significant losses if their conventional or organic crops are contaminated by genetically engineered plants, seeds or pollen.

His bill would cover cases in which a grower claimed annual losses of at least $3,500.

He said an incident last year in which an experimental form of rice being developed by a German company showed up in grain elevators in Arkansas and Missouri should serve as a wake-up call for California.

Hundreds of rice farmers in Arkansas, Missouri and Louisiana have filed lawsuits claiming losses because of that contamination.

"It certainly underscores the urgency of taking action before things like that happen here,'' Huffman said.

The bill would clarify who would be responsible for damages if there was contamination. With some limited exceptions, it would be the seed producer, chemical company or other manufacturer paying for the genetically altered crop rather than the farmer growing it under contract.

"I'm not interested in farmers suing farmers...,'' Huffman said. "The kind of damage that can occur when cross-contamination does happen can be of a scale where you're not going to be able to make farmers whole unless they can hold the manufacturer responsible.''

The measure also would identify who was involved in genetically modified crop production. Right now, no one seems to have a clear idea of how much of that activity is taking place in California.

The bill would prevent the mixing of pharmaceutical plants with other crops by preventing those projects from being conducted in open fields.

"We're seeing food crops being engineered to grow chemicals as an alternative way of producing things like vaccines and antibiotics,'' Huffman said. "That is fascinating stuff, but obviously you don't want those crops getting into the food supply.''

Huffman's bill might go too far for some segments of California's agriculture industry and not far enough for others.

Greg Massa, co-chairman of the Rice Producers of California, said he welcomes Huffman's bill but added, "I don't really know if it's enough.''

His group of 200 farmers wants a moratorium on genetically modified rice experimentation and production. A study it commissioned found that California growers could lose about 40 percent of their rice market if Japan, China and several other nations imposed trade embargoes to keep out genetically modified crops.

"We can't take the risk,'' Massa said. "The report we just put out said pretty clearly that our customers don't want (genetically engineered crops) and that contamination in California would be much more severe than in the South.''

A California law adopted in 2000 might give farmers enough protection already, said Tim Johnson, president and chief executive officer of the California Rice Commission, which represents growers and marketers.

That statute, the California Rice Certification Act, provides for a committee representing growers, handlers, warehouses and researchers to suggest regulations designed to prevent the intermingling of different varieties of rice.

"That really has provided us, at least up to this point, the tools we need to manage customers' response to genetically modified crops,'' Johnson said. "That said, the industry will take as deliberative a review of Mr. Huffman's legislation as we did in developing the California Rice Certification Act of 2000.''

The California Farm Bureau Federation opposes the bill "as it stands now,'' said Cynthia Cory, the bureau's director of environmental affairs.

But she said her group of 91,000 farmers and others in the agriculture industry, including companies engaged in genetic engineering, is willing to work with Huffman.

"Biotechnology across the board is very important to this state,'' she said. "I don't think the bill acknowledges that.''

The bill's ban on open-field production of corn and other crops for use in medications could curtail "a cheap and effective way to produce the drugs,'' Cory said.

Huffman's bill may be unnecessary because legal remedies already exist, said Richard Matteis, executive vice president of the California Seed Association, which also represents some companies involved in genetic engineering.

"In California, I'm not aware of any growers being damaged because of the presence of biological crops in their crops,'' he said. "I think the system is working.''

Huffman's bill is similar to legislation introduced in 2005 by Assemblyman John Laird. That measure passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee but died in the Assembly Agriculture Committee.

Laird, D-Santa Cruz, said his bill ran into ``big fears that (it) would get in the way of certain agriculture production.''

"I think those fears are misplaced,'' he said. "I think it's an issue of markets. There are potentially markets that will close themselves to American crops if they believe there is (a genetically modified crop) involved.''

Huffman's bill might have a better chance of passing because of increased concern about the potential threat posed by the inadvertent spread of genetically modified grasses and crops since his bill failed, Laird said.

Several federal court rulings in the last six months have found that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been lax in enforcing environmental protections on genetically modified crop projects, Laird said.

In one case, a judge ordered the department to conduct more detailed reviews of genetically engineered plant projects after studies found that pollen from weed killer-resistant grass had drifted more than 12 miles from plots in Madras, Ore., and bred with conventional plants.

"Two things are inevitable on this issue,'' Huffman said. "One is genetic engineering is here to stay. We're going to see it more and more.

"But the second is there is going to be some regulation of this, and hopefully we can put a coherent policy in place before California experiences a cross-contamination disaster like the one that happened in Arkansas.''

Canada: Soybean farmers look to Japan

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 27 February 2007.

Farmers on Prince Edward Island are feeding a Japanese market hungry for soybeans that aren't genetically modified for making tofu.

Robert MacDonald would like to see other farmers on P.E.I. growing for the Japanese market. Robert MacDonald would like to see other farmers on P.E.I. growing for the Japanese market.

Robert MacDonald of Belle River, in southeastern P.E.I., has been growing for the Japanese market for three years.

"Right now, the premiums are $45 a ton and $60 a ton over and above what you'd normally get for a feed grade," MacDonald said.

Most of the soybeans currently grown on P.E.I. are used for livestock feed, but with fewer potatoes being grown on the Island, farmers are looking for new cash crops.

MacDonald started growing for Japan after visiting an Ontario farmer and seeing him packing up beans for the far east. He saw an opportunity that was particularly good for P.E.I., given the Japanese affection for a certain Island literary character.

"We were looking at the packages that he had set to go in these containers and I mentioned, you know, I could really see an Anne of Green Gables type of sign on one of these," MacDonald said.

"There is an attraction there and that's what it's all about."

Selling to the Japanese means more than being GMO-free. The soybeans must be carefully graded for colour and size to get the premium price. That's done in Ontario right now, but MacDonald wants to see a grading and cleaning plant built on the Island.

"If we're going to continue to get more advantage out of the markets, we have to be able to process them here," he said.

Currently there aren't enough soy beans grown on P.E.I. to make that economical. Production would have to triple, to 3,000 tons, so MacDonald is trying to get more farmers interested in growing the specialty crop.

MacDonald is also looking into other opportunities on the Japanese market, such as GMO-free canola.

UK Monsanto hid study that showed GM potatoes harmed rats, campaigners claim

Western Mail (Wales), 27 February 2007. By Steve Dube.

ONE of the world's leading biotechnology companies has been accused of suppressing a study of genetically modified potatoes that showed they damaged the internal organs of rats.

Campaign group GM Free Cymru said research into Monsanto GM NewLeaf potatoes by the Institute of Nutrition of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences only emerged after a lengthy legal battle.

It was delivered to the company in 1998, the same year that the variety was deregulated in the United States and at the same time as research by Arpad Pusztai in the Rowett Institute reached a similar conclusion. Dr Pusztai was vilified and his research funding stopped by the UK Government.

Dr Brian John of GM Free Cymru said the study only came to light this month after a protracted legal campaign by Greenpeace and other consumer groups in Russia.

Biologist Dr Irina Ermakova said it showed that the GM potatoes damaged the kidneys, liver, large gut, blood serum, testes and prostate.

"The GM potatoes were the most dangerous of the feeds used in the trials... and on the basis of this evidence they cannot be used in the nourishment of people."

Monsanto insisted that the company always acted transparently and said the research had not been peer-reviewed.

Company spokesman Tony Combes said, "Monsanto acts transparently and will continue to post on its website product safety summaries that support the food, feed and environmental safety of our products.

"The overwhelming preponderance of scientific scrutiny during the past decade of safe use, leaves no stone unturned in showing that these improved crops pose no harm to humans, animals or the environment."

Dr John said Monsanto seems to have left at least one stone unturned by not publishing the study and checking its results.

"The approval process for GM crops is never based on peer review but on advocacy," he said.

"But when independent scientists try to do research, biotech companies refuse to supply the material on the grounds of commercial confidentiality."

Gordon James of Friends of the Earth Cymru said the revelations were "a serious indictment" of Monsanto and said the UK government should halt forthcoming trials of GM potatoes in the UK until the research from the Russian Academy is fully assessed.

"This news should also act as a strong incentive for the Welsh Assembly Government to do all in its power to prevent GM crops from being cultivated in Wales," he said.

FoE Cymru and the Farmers Union of Wales are preparing to host a debate on GM crops, featuring speakers from both sides of the divide, at this year's Royal Welsh Show in July.

USA: GMO rice suits may be combined

High Plains / Midwest Agriculture Journal, 27 February 2007.

ST. LOUIS (AP)--Thirteen lawsuits over the accidental spread of genetically altered rice could soon be combined into one legal action against Bayer CropScience AG, lawyers representing hundreds of rice farmers said Nov. 30.

Attorneys told a panel of federal judges in St. Louis that the lawsuits should be tried collectively in front of one judge. But the lawyers mostly disagreed over which state should host the proceedings.

The farmers from Louisiana, Arkansas and Missouri allege the rice market was hurt after Bayer's strain of genetically engineered Liberty Link rice was accidentally released from test plots in the U.S.

They want Bayer to pay them for lost revenue and to clean up farms and rice bins that might be contaminated with Liberty Link grains.

The incident caused concern in Europe and Japan, two big markets for U.S. rice. Prices dropped after Japan suspended imports of U.S. long-grain rice and the European Union required extensive testing of all U.S. rice shipments.

The Liberty Link rice wasn't approved for human consumption, but tests indicated it somehow found its way into mainstream rice supplies in Missouri and Arkansas. Bayer and federal regulators are investigating how that happened.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture retroactively approved the rice recently. It is unclear how that might affect Japanese and European acceptance of the rice.

St. Louis attorney Don Downing argued Nov. 30 that the 13 lawsuits should be combined and tried in St. Louis federal court.

Downing said judges in the district are familiar with issues in the case because they oversee so many cases filed against Monsanto Co., the St. Louis company that's the world's biggest producer of genetically altered seeds.

Little Rock attorney Scott Poynter said the case should be tried in Arkansas because the state is the biggest rice producer in the U.S.

"Whether this case is won or whether it's lost, one thing is sure: The people most affected by this case are going to be Arkansas farmers," Poynter said.

The panel of seven federal judges will now rule whether to combine the suits and decide where they might be heard. Attorneys for the farmers expected the ruling within the next month.

Note: this article is dated 13 December 2006.

26 February 2007

USA: U.S. courts say transgenic crops need tighter scrutiny

Science magazine, 26 February 2007. By Dan Charles.

Citing a broad range of risks, U.S. federal judges in three separate cases have asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to examine genetically engineered crops more closely. The courts said the department had violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in approving commercial sales of transgenic alfalfa and field trials of turf grass and plants engineered to produce pharmaceuticals.

Critics of genetically engineered crops say the decisions, two issued this month and one last August, will compel tighter regulation of transgenic crops. Will Rostov, an attorney for the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C., which filed all three lawsuits, called the alfalfa decision, rendered 12 February by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, California, "another nail in the coffin for USDA's hands-off approach to regulation." But Stanley Abramson, a lawyer who represents several biotech companies, pointed out that the courts raised questions about USDA's procedures, not its substantive decisions. He predicted that USDA's final judgments would hold up in court.

The alfalfa verdict could have the most significant impact. In 2005, USDA approved the sale of Roundup Ready alfalfa, jointly developed by Monsanto and Forage Genetics International, which can withstand the popular herbicide glyphosate. But last week, Breyer said that the department should have first prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) as required under NEPA.

Joseph Mendelson of the Center for Food Safety said that his group may demand an end to sales of genetically engineered alfalfa or even a ban on planting transgenic seed already in farmers' hands. USDA officials declined to discuss the government's position or whether it plans to appeal. A spokesperson for Monsanto, which sells genetically engineered alfalfa but was not a party to the lawsuit, said he did not expect sales to be halted. Breyer gave both sides until next week to propose regulatory fixes.

The second verdict, handed down 5 February by a Washington, D.C., district judge, found that USDA should have carried out an EIS or a more modest environmental assessment before it allowed a 162-hectare field trial of transgenic turf grass near Madras, Oregon, in 2003. And last August, a federal court in Hawaii faulted USDA for approving field trials in Hawaii of corn and sugar cane engineered to produce experimental pharmaceuticals without considering the state's numerous endangered species.

In two of the cases, the judges expressed concerns about potential risks that USDA has dismissed as insignificant or outside its mandate. Breyer, for instance, complained that USDA ignored the cumulative impact of glyphosate-tolerant alfalfa, corn, and soybeans. Greater use of glyphosate increases the odds that weeds will develop resistance to it.

Breyer also said USDA erred when it dismissed as not "significant" the concerns of organic farmers who don't want Roundup Ready pollen or seeds spreading to their alfalfa fields. The possible replacement of traditional varieties is itself significant, he noted. "An action which eliminates or greatly reduces the availability of a particular plant--here, nonengineered alfalfa--has a significant effect on the human environment," he wrote.

USDA argued that cross-pollination wasn't a serious problem in alfalfa, because farmers typically harvest their fields before the plants have a chance to flower, much less produce seeds. Producers of commercial alfalfa seed, however, would have to make sure their conventional and transgenic fields were widely separated. Alfalfa is pollinated by bees, which can carry pollen at least 3 kilometers.

In the turf grass case, Judge Henry Kennedy found that transgenic bentgrass from a large field trial in Oregon threatened a nearby area's "aesthetic and recreational" value. Pollen from the bentgrass spread up to 20 kilometers into the nearby Crooked River National Grassland.

Many scientists, including some critics of genetically engineered crops, say the bentgrass poses no real ecological threat in that area because it isn't well adapted to the region's arid climate. But the spread of this "confined" field trial proved embarrassing to the Scotts Co., which hopes eventually to sell bentgrass seed to golf courses.

Dan Charles is a Washington, D.C.-based science writer.

24 February 2007

UK: Law change 'may bring designer babies'

The Telegraph, 24 Feb 2007. By Roger Highfield, Science Editor.

Britain could become the first country to sanction the genetic alteration of human embryos, a step that a pressure group claims could pave the way to designer babies.

A decade after the cloning of Dolly the sheep, the Government is opening the door to GM human embryos for research, according to Human Genetics Alert.

David King, its director, said: "In a world first, the Government has said it will allow scientists to begin developing the technology for genetic modification of human beings, although creation of actual GM babies will be prohibited for the moment. We believe the public will be horrified."

There is a need for a public debate on genetic alteration of embryos said HGA. It said that it could eventually lead to "germ-line" gene therapy, where DNA changes are passed down generations, and to genetic enhancement, where embryos are altered to boost intelligence or for cosmetic purposes.

A draft Bill for legislation to replace the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is being prepared with the intention of including a full Bill in the Queen's Speech next November. But Mr King called on the Government to "draw the line" at GM embryos.

Although the White Paper says genetic alterations of eggs, sperm and embryos "should not be permitted for reproductive purposes" it adds that this is only "for the foreseeable future, and until such time as safety and efficacy are assured".

The paper says the Government "is not, however, convinced of the need to preclude research activities that would involve altering the genetic structure of the embryo".

Dr Michael Antoniou, a gene therapist at Guy's Hospital, London, was concerned that even though germ-line therapy was too dangerous to attempt, the White Paper signalled the acceptance of safe germ-line modification of embryos.

Dr Richard Nicholson, the editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, said: "Every country that has legislated on this subject has banned it.

"Thus the British Government's decision breaks ranks with the international community, and may lead to the perception that Britain is a haven for irresponsible and profit-driven scientists."

A Department for Health spokesman said: "Any sanction of the genetic alteration of human embryos is in the context of research only.

"The Government proposes that the law will continue to ban genetic modification of embryos for reproductive purposes. Moreover we will extend that prohibition to explicitly cover sperm and eggs."

India: The Bollworm returns
Is Bt-based resistance collapsing?
Studies from China and the US show the limitations of Bt-based resistance.
The bollworm evolves to resist the toxin eventually, and a number of secondary pests remain unaffected.
Suman Sahai argues that this is not really a workable strategy except in the first few years.

India Together, 24 February 2007. Suman Sahai.

24 February 2007 - A recent study from China, reported at the American Agricultural Economics Association's annual meeting in July 2006, indicates that the Bt cotton crop there is failing, and farmers are incurring losses rather than making profits from its cultivation. The study, conducted by Cornell University, found that Bt cotton farmers cut pesticide use significantly for the first three years of cultivation. After that, however, they had to spray just as much as conventional farmers, and ended up with a net average income of 8 percent less than conventional cotton farmers, partly because the cost of Bt seed is triple that of conventional seed. Also, after seven years of Bt cotton, populations of other insects - such as mirids - have increased so much that farmers now have to spray their crops up to 20 times in a growing season. The Cornell researchers anticipate that the emergence of secondary pests is likely to become a major threat in countries where Bt cotton has been widely planted.

Published at almost the same time as the China study, other reports from Arkansas in the United States show that bollworm were found to be feeding in large numbers in Bt cotton fields. These pests should have been killed by the toxin that is engineered into the plant to kill them, and their presence indicates they may have become immune to the genetic treatment. This breakdown is happening roughly ten years after Bt cotton was first planted there. Unlike in Arkansas, the problem in China is not due to the bollworm developing resistance to Bt cotton. Instead, secondary pests - that were previously controlled by the broad-spectrum pesticides that were common earlier - began reappearing with the shift to gene-based control.

In India an ad hoc research agenda, in the absence of any policy on genetically engineered crops, has led to wide use of the Bt gene. Over forty two per cent of the research projects in crop biotechnology in India are based on the Bt gene. Ranging from cotton to potato, rice, brinjal, tomato, cauliflower, cabbage, even tobacco, to maize, the Bt gene is everywhere.

Bt cotton in India has been around for the last seven years - four of them legally and at least three years illegally before that.

Flaky results, forced consensus

Presumably, the crops that are being researched will reach the fields one day. If that happens, a wide range of crops grown in both the Rabi and Kharif seasons will contain the Bt gene; as a result, throughout the year there will be standing crops containing the Bt endotoxin. Not just that, in the same season, there will be various Bt crops juxtaposed with each other in small fields when farmers grow a variety of different crops, particularly vegetables. When the bollworm is exposed to the endotoxin constantly, season in and season out, naturally its resistance to the toxin will build up rapidly. As it is, resistance-delaying strategies - such as maintaining a 20 per cent non-Bt crop belt - are not followed by cotton farmers, and resistant pests are already appearing, as the laws of biology dictate they would.

In India too we are beginning to see the first indications that the the Bt-based insect resistance management strategy is failing. Bt cotton in India has been around for the last seven years - four of them legally and at least three years illegally before that, particularly in Gujarat where the illegal Bt cotton called Navbharat 151 originated and where it has been cultivated steadily since then. Since farmers are not practicing the recommended cultivation practices, we are seeing the emergence of resistance in the bollworm, as well as problems created by other pests like pink bollworm and sucking pests, and disease factors like wilt.

Given the complex management strategy of the Bt approach, and the wide range of pests found in the tropics, is the Bt gene approach workable in a developing country situation for any length of time, and can it provide a viable disease resistance strategy? Bollgard II, with a higher number of Bt genes in it, is ready, but even this second round will eventually face the same problems - the targeted pests will develop resistance, and crops remains vulnerable to unpredictable attacks by pests over which Bt toxin has no effect.

Cotton scientists at the Central Institute of Cotton Research, Nagpur have warned that it is only a matter of time before the widespread emergence of resistance in bollworms will cause the Bt cotton technology to collapse, unless corrective measures are not taken immediately. The only long term feasible and sustainable approach to controlling pests in cotton would appear to be not the Bt gene but an integrated pest management approach including a mix of strategies. This could include introducing natural predators, a combination of chemical and plant based pesticides such as the oil of Karanj seed (Pongamia species) or any of the other natural pesticide combinations including the traditional Panchgavya which is a preparation based on the urine and dung of cow mixed with plant extracts and which has recently been awarded a patent in the US.

Suman Sahai
24 Feb 2007

Dr Suman Sahai is President of Gene Campaign, based in Delhi.

23 February 2007

USA: Deal May Hurt Organic Cotton

Wired News, February 23 2007. By Kristen Philipkoski.

Organic cotton growers could face increased risk of crop contamination if a merger between the world's largest seed company and the nation's largest cottonseed seller is allowed to proceed, an influential agriculture watchdog group warned Thursday.

Biotech giant Monsanto agreed to purchase Delta and Pine Land Company (DPL) last August for $1.5 billion in cash. Now, as the Department of Justice considers the merger, the Center for Food Safety has released a 57-page report (.pdf) protesting the deal.

"Monsanto is the largest seed company in the world.... In the '90s (the company) began acquiring seed firms in the U.S. and abroad and it has a very dominant position in seeds in soybeans and corn," said Bill Freese, the Center for Food Safety's science policy analyst and author of the report. "That kind of concentration is always a concern."

Thurdsay's report is the latest salvo in a decade-long battle to prevent the tie-up, which would put nearly two-thirds of the U.S. cottonseed supply in the hands of one company. Since the late 1990s, critics have had little effect in blocking Monsanto's steady expansion, and the DPL deal stands as a rare exception. Monsanto voluntarily backed out of a 1998 deal, fearing regulatory backlash.

The renewal of the deal signals Monsanto's confidence that regulators will sign off -- something the CSF hopes to head off with its report.

Among other things, the group argues that the merger could dampen the recent trend toward organic cotton.

Companies including Wal-Mart (the largest purchaser of organic cotton in the country) and Nike have ramped up their marketing and sales of organic cotton products in recent years.

But organic cotton could become more difficult to come by post-merger. With more genetically engineered varieties in fields, the risk of contamination to organic and conventional crops will likely increase.

Last year, Liberty Link rice, made by Bayer, contaminated rice in several states including Missouri and Louisiana, resulting in shipments rejected by Europe, which is largely against genetically modified crops.

The report also highlights the risk of crop damage from drifting herbicides. Monsanto's Roundup-ready seeds are genetically altered to be resistant to the company's Roundup herbicide. So when a farmer sprays a field, everything but the crop is killed. The fields are often sprayed by airplane, so organic crops could be damaged if the herbicide drifts into their fields.

The merger could also exacerbate rapidly increasing seed prices, the report found. They increased 240 percent from 1995 to 2005, in part because of extra technology fees charged by biotech companies.

Another concern is that Delta and Pine along with the USDA own patents to a highly controversial Terminator cottonseed, which is genetically altered to die after one season's use, so farmers can't save seed from year to year.

In response to industry concern, company officials have pledged not to introduce Terminator seeds, but say they reserve the right to reconsider.

The Terminator was a concern among critics when the companies first proposed a merger nearly 10 years ago.

Not everyone believes the merger poses major risks to agriculture or consumers. Owen Taylor, editor and publisher at AgFax Media, a financial analysis firm that covers the commodities business, called the Center for Food Safety's report "the same old rhetoric."

"The simple fact is that the vast majority of U.S. cotton farmers favor biotech approaches, and as the market has shaken out, a large part of that is built around DPL varieties and Monsanto's technology," Taylor said. "Farmers can compare performance every year, both in their own fields and in non-biased university trials. They buy what works best."

For the report - Cotton Concentration Report

An Assessment of Monsanto's Proposed Acquisition of Delta and Pine Land:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CFS-CTA%20Monsanto-DPL%20Merger%20Report%20-%20Final.pdf

UK: GM Freeze Welcomes Judge's List of Mistakes in FSA Handling of GM Rice Contamination

GM Freeze press release, 23 February 2007.

GM Freeze has welcomed acknowledgement of a High Court judge that the Food Standards Agency (FSA) had made mistakes in the way they handled the contamination of US long grain rice imports with an unapproved GM traits last summer. The campaigning group is calling upon the FSA to break their close relationship with industry and for Parliament to take far greater interest in the operations of the Agency.

In a Judicial Review brought against the FSA by Friends of the Earth, Justice Calvert-Smith ruled that the food safety watch dog had not acted illegally in failing to require local authorities and companies to take action to verify that all contaminated rice which was already in the retail and catering supply chains had been traced and removed from sale (22nd February). However, in his ruling the judge identified three mistakes in the way the FSA had dealt with the contamination incident. These were their:

•

failure to issue any Food Alerts to local authorities.

•

failure to notify the public of which batches of rice were contaminated.

•

failure to provide legal guidance to local authorities at the start of the incident

The FSA have agreed to hold an internal review on how it handled the GM rice contamination incident.

The contamination of US long grain rice with GM rice, known as LL601, was discovered in January 2006 but the EU authorities were not informed until mid August. The GM rice had been grown in test sites in the USA between 1998 and 2001 but had not received any approval for commercial growing anywhere in the world. It was illegal to sell the rice in the EU. The dossier of safety data required for a commercial approval was not complete and therefore the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) were unable to complete a full safety assessment and to say, with certainty, whether the GM rice was safe to eat.

Initially, the FSA announced there were no public safety issues [1] associated with the LL601 but latter revised their advice following the EFSA's opinion which acknowledged the lack of data. Minutes of private meetings between the food industry and FSA showed that the FSA were advising companies that it did not "expect contaminated products already in the food supply chain to be removed from sale" and "does not expect companies to trace products and remove them from sale" [2].

Over five weeks (21st and 25th September) after the GM contamination was first announced, GM Freeze supporters were able to buy batches of contaminated rice from MorrisonsÇ store in Taunton. GM Freeze reported these purchases to Somerset Trading Standards but no legal action was taken.

In January 2006 GM Freeze published a report of a survey on how well the GMO traceability and labelling regulations were being enforced and warned the FSA that the UK was open to future GM contamination incidents [3].

Commenting on the outcome of yesterday's case Pete Riley Campaign Director of GM Freeze said:

"The FSA were well aware of the risk of further GM contamination and that the UK was ill equipped to deal with such incidents so the judge's critcisms of their handling the GM rice case are fully justified. The next contamination incident could involve crops genetically modified to produce drugs or vaccines. The FSA's review of their handling of this case must include a substantial input from outside and the outcome and evidence must be published in full. In our view, Parliament needs to take a more active role in overseeing the performance of the FSA to ensure that they become a true consumer watchdog and that they break their cosy relationship with industry".

Contact

Pete Riley + 44 (0)3341065 / + 44 (0)1226 790713

Notes

1. FSA press release 1st September 2006.

2. Food and Drink Federation minutes of a meeting with the FSA.

3. See http://www.gmfreeze.org/admin/uploads/report_doc.pdf

22 February 2007

USA: Leading Advocates Against Genetically Modified RBGH Milk File Citizen's Petition With FDA

Medical News Today, 22 February 2006

Petition Seeks Withdrawal of Approval for Posilac - Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH)

Tuesday morning February 20, three major advocacy organizations representing consumers, family farmers, and cancer prevention advocates filed a citizen's petition to the FDA, seeking the Withdrawal of Approval for Posilac -- Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH).

The petition is based on scientific evidence of increased risks of cancer, particularly breast, colon, and prostate, from the consumption of milk from cows injected with Posilac(R), the genetically modified recombinant bovine growth hormone (also known as rBGH, or rbST), with increased levels of IGF-1. Posilac is the trademark for Monsanto's rBGH product, registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and is approved for marketing by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This petition is also based on other abnormalities in the composition of rBGH milk, resulting from the recognized veterinary toxicity of rBGH.

The petition requests the immediate suspension of approval of Posilac(R) based on imminent hazard; and citing a section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to request the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration to label milk and other dairy products produced with the use of Posilac(R) with a cancer risk warning.

The petition was submitted on behalf of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Chair; the Organic Consumers Association, Ronnie Cummins, Executive Director; and Family Farm Defenders, John Kinsman, President.

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Chair of the Cancer Prevention Coalition Professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, is an internationally recognized authority on the causes and prevention of cancer, including carcinogenic ingredients and contaminants in food and other consumer products. He is the author of the new book "What's in Your Milk? An expose of Industry and Government Cover-Up on the Dangers of the Genetically Engineered (rBGH) Milk You're Drinking." Epstein's trailblazing scientific publications, editorials, national and international conferences, and legislative interventions, since 1989, have played a major role in influencing 27 nations, including Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan to ban rBGH milk. Dr. Epstein is available for interviews regarding this petition, and to speak to health risks associated with rBGH milk.

Cancer Prevention Coalition: http://www.preventcancer.com

21 February 2007

UK: EU vote reinforces resistance to GMOs

Financial Times, 21 February 2007

Resistance to genetically modified crops in Europe was underlined yesterday when EU governments rejected an attempt to force Hungary to lift a ban on them.

Only the UK, Netherlands, Finland and Sweden among the 27 members voted that Budapest should allow in bio-engineered maize, although it has been approved as safe by food safety authorities.

Last year ministers permitted Austria to maintain a ban on the same product, MON810, which contains a toxin to kill pests and was created by Monsanto, the US group.

The entry of GM-friendly Bulgaria and Romania into the EU was thought to have tipped the balance but countries such as Romania and Spain, although they have planted tens of thousands of hectares of GM crops, voted against on grounds of sovereignty.

"It is a bad day for farmers and a bad day for science," said Simon Barber, of Europabio, which represents the biotech industry. "Ministers are refusing to implement the law they drew up."

Under a 2001 directive, the European Food Safety Agency has the responsibility to assess and approve applications to import or cultivate GM crops. The European Commission then asks national governments to approve them.

The decision will infuriate the US, which with Canada and Argentina won a case against the EU at the World Trade Organisation.

The EU claims that it has ended the moratorium that was deemed illegal by Geneva, but in practice no new crops have been approved for cultivation since. Only a handful can be grown and not many more imported for animal feed and processing, amid continuing suspicion among the public.

Green groups welcomed the vote. "Ministers took a bold decision today in defence of the environment and in line with European public opinion," said Marco Contiero of Greenpeace.

A European Commission spokeswoman said it would now examine its options. It could launch legal action or drop the effort to end Hungary and Austria's bans altogether.

"We have to acknowledge a political dimension," she said. "If people will not buy GMOs because of even the smallest doubt we have to make sure we eliminate that doubt."

USA: Group wants to halt herbicide-resistant alfalfa seed

Billings Gazette (Montana), February 21 2007. By Jim Gransbery.

A coalition of farmers, environmentalists and food safety organizations plans to ask a federal judge in California to halt the sale of Roundup Ready alfalfa seed, the group's lawyer said Tuesday.

The request follows a decision released two weeks ago in which U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer in San Francisco ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture failed to follow environmental law before approving the genetically modified forage.

Breyer asked parties to the suit for proposals for remedies after he found that the USDA should have completed an environmental impact statement before giving its go-ahead for the crop in 2005. The proposed remedies are due Monday.

"The USDA approval is vacated" by the judge's decision, said Joseph Mendelson, an attorney for the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C. "So any new sales of seed and hay should be halted," he said. As for what to do with stands of the perennial already in the ground, Mendelson said, "It is hard to speculate. It is difficult to halt a harvest."

In Montana and Wyoming, a decision to stop sales could directly affect seed producers and seed businesses.

The Center for Food Safety represented itself and the co-plaintiffs in the suit, including the Western Organization of Resource Councils, which has headquarters in Billings. WORC is a coalition that includes the Northern Plains Resource Council and similar organizations in North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon and Colorado.

Mendelson was asked if Roundup Ready alfalfa posed any threat to animal or human health or whether the suit focused on environmental and economic consequences.

"Both," he said. "At this point on alfalfa we are unable to know (health threats) because USDA has not done an EIS."

Millions of acres of Roundup Ready soybeans, corn and canola are planted each year in the United States and are consumed by animals and humans.

Genetic modification, as compared with hybridization or cross-breeding, involves inserting genes from one kind of an organism into the genes of an unrelated organism. Roundup Ready seeds contain genetic material that makes the plants resistant to the herbicide Roundup, thus reducing the costs of tilling and weed control. Monsanto Co., which produces Roundup and Roundup Ready seeds, discontinued its research plots of spring wheat varieties in Montana in 2004. The company said at the time that there were better business opportunities for its genetically modified strains of corn, cotton and oilseeds.

Monsanto and Forage Genetics of Nampa, Idaho, a partner in the development of the alfalfa strain, were not party to the case in California but are affected by the results of Breyer's decision.

"We are working with seed producers and farmers," said Andrew Burchett, public affairs manager for Monsanto in St. Louis, Mo. "And we will work with USDA in seeing the regulatory requirements are satisfied. There is an extensive dossier already" on Roundup Ready alfalfa.

Approved in Canada, Japan

He noted that Canada and Japan have ruled Roundup Ready alfalfa safe.

Jose Arias, of Forage Genetics, said he had no comment when informed that the Center for Food Safety intended to seek a halt of the sale of the seed.

Burchett said the issue is procedural.

"The coexistence of Roundup Ready plants and organic is well-known. Roundup Ready soybeans, corn and canola all co-exist."

Blaine Schmaltz, of Rugby, N.D., rejects that argument.

An independent seed grower and organic farmer, Schmaltz discontinued his sprouting seed sales because the "expense of testing lies on me."

He said he has to prove that his seed is not contaminated by pollen from Roundup Ready plants. "Alfalfa is a perennial and is open-pollinated," he said. "And there is the liability issue. There is no insurance for it."

Schmaltz was a co-plaintiff in the suit as an affected party. He provided written testimony in the case.

He said the possibility of contamination from Roundup Ready alfalfa is "devastating the organic market, which is growing."

He expressed concern that Roundup Ready plants are leading to "super-resistant" weeds because the herbicide is now used on so many crops.

The suit also affects Laurel seed producer John Wold, who raises seed for Forage Genetics. He said Monday that he has raised Roundup Ready alfalfa seed for two years.

"It is very safe, in my opinion," he said.

He questioned how the court could halt sales.

"It would be pretty hard to do that," he said. "A tremendous amount is sold already."

Wold conceded that the issue is "a touchy subject."

Seed purveyor and user Dan Downs said Roundup Ready "is just another tool in the box."

"The question is, does it work for that field for the money?" Downs said. The seed carries a premium that goes to Monsanto as a royalty because it has a patent on the process.

Downs owns and operates Montana Seed and Grain and Chemicals in Billings.

"This is not a big issue for me," he said of the suit. "But for others it is big."

Downs said he has sold less than three tons of seed in the past two years.

"Roundup Ready can make a real difference in getting an early start," he said. "I planned on planting it this spring. I go seed when the ground is ready, and I get a 15- to 20-day head start."

When the weeds emerge, Downs can use Roundup herbicide to kill them without injuring the alfalfa.

3rd most valuable crop

Alfalfa is grown on more than 21 million acres in the United States and is valued at $8 billion a year, making it the country's third most valuable and fourth most widely grown crop. It is the primary forage for dairy and beef cattle.

Alfalfa seed production was worth $4.8 million in 2006 for Montana farmers, almost double its value in 2005. The 2006 increase was attributable to increased acres. In 2006, 10,700 acres were harvested, compared with 6,100 acres in 2005. The average price per hundredweight was $113 in both years.

USA: Market acceptance of U.S. herbicide-tolerant rice

Rice Producers of California, February 21 2007

The Rice Producers of California (RPC) retained Bryant Christie Inc. (BCI) to evaluate the potential for market acceptance of the genetically modified (GM) rice in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey. These markets account for about 40% of California's annual rice crop and are therefore economically important to the California industry. Findings in this study come from desk research and interviews with the rice trade in each country. This report summarizes these findings.

Japan's rice import policies and its government's reaction to recent reports of certain GM rice in U.S. supplies, coupled with cultural sensitivities to rice, as well as low acceptance of GM foods by the Japanese public and the Japanese rice trade, reduce the likelihood of the market accepting U.S. GM rice. In fact, strong evidence demonstrates that without consumer education and changes in government policies, efforts to commercialize GM rice in the U.S. could result in the loss of the Japanese market to U.S. rice. Considering that Japan accounts for roughly half of all California rice export sales, or the equivalent of between 20% and 25% of CaliforniaÇs annual rice production, loss of the Japanese market could significantly impact the California rice industry.

Korea is also economically important to the California rice industry as approximately 86% of Korea's rice imports from the U.S. is produced in California. As in Japan, rice is a politically sensitive topic in Korea. Although market access for U.S. rice under Korea's minimum market access (MMA) agreement is improving and GM soybeans and corn are currently imported for feed and processing, the majority of Korean rice trade members interviewed for this report opposed the purchase of GM rice. This sentiment is also shared by Korean consumers, though some evidence indicates that consumer education campaigns may be capable of changing this opinion in the future.

Unlike Japan and to a lesser extent Korea, Taiwan offers more commercial opportunities for U.S. rice imports. This is particularly the case forCalifornia rice which accounts for nearly all U.S. rice exports to Taiwan. However, like Japan and Korea, challenges for GM food products are present in Taiwan. While Taiwan imports GM soybeans for human use and animal feed, the Taiwanese rice trade members interviewed for this report were reluctant to accept imports of GM rice. Taiwanese consumers are generally less aware of GM foods than their Japanese and Korean counterparts and it is possible that their perception of GM foods could improve through consumer education efforts.

Turkey's restrictive import policies and ambiguous regulatory framework for GM foods create significant market access barriers for GM rice in the near-term. Further, while the results of the in-country surveys conducted for this report indicated that it may be possible to locate a Turkish buyer for GM rice, the results also indicate that consumers might reject GM rice given the information to which they are currently exposed. However, even with these obstacles, Turkey shows the most promise for U.S. GM rice relative to the three other markets covered in this report.

In conclusion, it would appear that the rice trade in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and to a lesser extent Turkey has little interest in importing GM rice at this time, even in situations involving cost advantages and full regulatory approval of GM rice. Due to the risks involved, this report recommends that the U.S. industry not seek commercialization of GM rice in the near term and any longer term effort be accompanied by targeted and extensive education/communications campaigns in each market. Even then, there should be a full understanding that the pursuit of such commercialization could jeopardize existing U.S. rice exports to Japan.

USA: Planned merger angers black farmers

Clarion Ledger, 21 February 2007. By Julie Goodman.

A national black farmers group says a proposed merger between Monsanto Co. and Delta and Pine Land will create a monolopy and force black farmers out of the business. The association represents 80,000 members, predominantly small planters.

Black farmers in Mississippi and around the country are bracing for a major seed company merger they say threatens to create a monopoly that will price them out of the farming business.

St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. is forging ahead with a plan to purchase Mississippi's Scott-based cottonseed company Delta and Pine Land, and a national black farmers group says its opposition to the deal has gotten lost in the mix

"If this merger goes through, it's going to have a drastic effect on black farmers and small farmers around the country," said John Boyd Jr., president of the National Black Farmers Association.

"If this merger goes through, there is literally no competition for cottonseed, soybean seed and corn seed, genetically engineered."

The association represents 80,000 members around the country, primarily small producers, and has its biggest membership in Mississippi.

Delta and Pine Land operates the largest and longest-running private cottonseed breeding program in the world while Monsanto, one of the world's largest agricultural products companies, makes Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide.

The deal, still awaiting U.S. Department of Justice approval, would mean a monopoly on the market, and seed prices would shoot up, Boyd said.

"It would be just like going to one supermarket and that supermarket sets the price for everything and we don't have any option but to go to that one supermarket."

Monsanto, which sells seeds and also licenses technology for insect protection and herbicide tolerance - one way farmers can help keep costs low - could not say whether prices would go up.

"It's difficult to speculate on pricing decisions in the future, but I would say that bottom line is, we've always looked to price our technologies based on the value the technology and the seed is delivering to the farmer," said company spokesman Lee Quarles.

Monsanto broadly licenses the technologies to other cottonseed companies so farmers can access the technologies in the seed brands they prefer to plant, he said.

A portion of the money the company makes is reinvested into new technology for farmers, including cotton farmers.

Quarles said a monopoly is not in the works, pointing to other companies farmers will have access to, including Stoneville, which Monsanto currently owns and could become an independent brand if the merger goes through.

"Just as we have announced that we would have a proposed merger with Delta and Pine Land, we've also announced that we would divest of the Stoneville business if that's required by the Department of Justice."

Boyd, who raises corn, soybeans and wheat, said he has asked Congress to hold hearings on the issue, but has not yet heard back on a decision.

One farmer in Mississippi, Rodalton Hart, fears he will go out of business if the merger goes through.

"You ain't got no control over it and with the cost of fertilizer and chemicals and everything that goes in to it, ain't no way anybody can survive," said Hart, 56, a cotton farmer in Lexington with 1,500 acres.

"They can go up as high as they want to go and you ain't got no control over it. It's just like the airlines. You can't control it," he said.

"You have to pay labor; you have to pay rent; you got to pay for seeds and chemicals ... equipment. It just goes on and on and on. I mean, everything comes out of the farmer's pocket."

The stakes are already high in farming, Hart said.

"Farming is risky. You're already on the edge. You're already on the verge ... Ain't no way you can survive," he said.

"Unless the government steps in and regulates the prices, we're just messed up."

Europe: EU states deal blow to Brussels by backing GMO ban

EU Observer, 21 February 2007.

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS ‚ EU member states have for the third time snubbed the European Commission by backing a national ban on genetically modified maize products - in this case Hungary - which Brussels says is against international trade rules.

EU environment ministers on Tuesday (20 February) upheld with a qualified majority a Hungarian ban on GM maize although the crop was authorised by the commission in 1998. Key Account Manager

Hungary has placed a temporary ban on the use and sale of the MON 810 maize, saying there has not been enough testing on the effects of the GMO.

One Hungarian ministry official said that new studies had shown the GM maize reduced the fertility of the soil where is was planted.

The commission however is pointing to research by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which has found there is no reason to believe the GMO product poses any risk to human health or the environment.

EU environment ministers in June 2005 and December 2006 rejected similar commission proposals to force Austria to lift its 1999 and 2000 bans on T25 maize (made by German chemicals firm Bayer) and MON 810 maize (produced by US biotech giant Monsanto).

The Austrian government based its stance on the fact that no long term health safety tests have been done and that GMO maize imports would likely lead to the accidental spillage of the seed into the environment.

Since the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled last year that EU nations broke trade rules by stopping imports of GMOs, the commission has been under pressure to remove member states' GMO bans.

One commission official said Brussels is determined to push its line, adding that taking the issue to the European Court of Justice could be one of the options.

'Religious' GMO debate

Meanwhile, Danish environment minister Connie Hedegaard on Tuesday called for a "less religious" and a "more enlightened" European debate on GMOs.

"Whether we like it or not, GMOs are here to stay," she said at a Brussels debate organised by the Danish environment ministry and the Friends of Europe think-tank.

"We should move away from the more religious way of handling this because that is the way forward to try to fill the knowledge gap," she said pleading for a better exchange of information.

Ms Hedegaard said the EU should also look at how it could help improve the situation of food security in the third world, promoting a more ethical GMO industry there than the one run by big US biotech firms.

Europe: EU Council backs Hungarian GM ban

FoodNavigator.com, 21 February 2007. By Anthony Fletcher.

EuropaBio has criticised the EU's Environment Council for 'failing to support the rights of Hungarian farmers wanting to grow GM crops'.

The European Commission had asked the Council to overturn the Hungarian ban on the genetically-modified maize seed that, according to the biotech association, has repeatedly been pronounced safe in EU reviews.

It has chosen not to.

"Once again the Council is not following the advice of the EU's own expert advisory bodies," said Simon Barber, director of EuropaBio.

"The Council has failed in its responsibility to implement its own laws and instead today's failure suggests that the council favours state censorship rather than offering choice to farmers to decide for themselves as to whether or not to grow biotech crops; this is deeply discouraging for the future of Europe's agriculture and growth of the bio-based economy."

But the Hungarian government has been confident that it would be allowed to retain the ban. Speaking at a news conference before of yesterday's talks, Hungary's state secretary Kalman Kovacs announced that there was sufficient anti-GM feeling within the EU to ensure support for the country's stand.

Furthermore, Robert Fridrich of environmental group Friends of the Earth Hungary claimed that upholding the ban was vital to protecting the future of the Hungarian food industry for both processors and producers.

"Hungary is the second biggest corn feed producer in Europe and Hungary's reputation as a GMO free country is very important to this," he said.

"The European public are very much against the use of GMO products, which gives Hungary a massive advantage in the market place."

The refusal of the Council to ignore EFSA advice has precedent. Last December the Council chose to ignore the authority's advice and rejected the Commission's request to have Austria lift its illegal ban on the cultivation of EU-approved GM crops.

"By acting in this way, the Council continues to seriously damage the credibility of the EU's regulatory system which they helped to put in place and on which much of Europe's innovative and industrial capacity relies," claimed EuropaBio.

"Today's decision simply denies the freedom of choice to Hungarian farmers who want to grow insect protected maize crops."

This issue goes back to1998, when the European Commission gave its consent for the marketing of Monsanto's Zea Mays L. line MON 810. A number of EU countries have now authorised the product.

However, Hungary prohibited the use and sale of the product in January 2005, but its justifications for the prohibition were rejected in June 2005 and in March 2006 by the European Food Safety Authority.

On 29 March 2006, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that there is no reason to believe that the continued placing on the market of these products "is likely to cause any adverse effects for human and animal health or the environment under the conditions of its consent."

This issue again underlines how polarised the issue of GM food has become in Europe. But despite the controversy surrounding the technology, GM food expansion appears inexorable.

The recent publication of new figures from The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) shows that in 2006 the number of hectares globally cultivated with GM crops increased by 12 million hectares.

Most of this growth came from countries such as China and India.

An EFSA colloquium will be held in June 2007 on GMO environmental risk assessment involving environmental experts from across Europe, details of which will be announced during Spring 2007.

20 February 2007

Europe: EU Environment Ministers twice resist GMOs

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 20 Feb 2007

Brussels - Today, Environment Ministers from EU Member States voted to allow Hungary to uphold its national ban of Monsanto.s genetically modified maize [1].

Helen Holder, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said,

"EU countries have defended Hungary's right to protect its environment and its citizens' health by banning a genetically modified crop. Bans such as HungaryÇs are allowed under EU law and according to the World Trade Organisation rules and EU countries were quite right to refuse to be bullied by the European Commission into annulling the ban."

Environment Ministers also failed to give the green light for the marketing of a genetically modified flower. Since the Ministers failed to reach a clear agreement amongst themselves, the final decision, under EU rules, will now revert back to the European Commission.

Notes

[1] Genetically modified maize, MON810, produced by Monsanto. Prohibited by Hungary under the Safeguard Clause of Directive 2001/18

Belgium: EU upholds Hungary's sovereign right to ban GMOs

Reuters, 20 February 2007

BRUSSELS, Feb 20 (Reuters) - EU environment ministers slapped down on Tuesday an attempt to order Hungary to lift its ban on a genetically modified (GMO) maize type, delivering a third stinging rebuff to the European Commission.

There was a "qualified majority" of member states -- the amount needed under the EU's complex weighted voting system -- against the proposal, a Commission spokeswoman said.

Hungary, one of the EU-27's biggest grain producers, became the first country in eastern Europe to ban GMO crops or foods when it outlawed the planting of MON 810 maize seeds, marketed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, in January 2005.

The decision follows a similar rejection by the ministers in December of a draft order, authored by the EU's executive Commission, for Austria to drop its bans on two separate GMO maize types. One of them was also MON 810.

Between 1997 and 2000, five EU countries banned specific GMOs on their territory, focusing on three maize and two rapeseed types approved shortly before the start of the EU's six-year moratorium on new biotech authorisations.

In June 2005, the Commission tried to get the bans scrapped. EU environment ministers rejected the proposals then as well.

In September, EU biotech experts failed to agree on the CommissionÇs draft order concerning Hungary. Under EU law, if that happens, the matter is escalated to ministerial level.

Although at the time more EU countries voted in favour of the order to lift the national ban -- 14 countries, with five against and six abstentions -- that was not enough under the EU's weighted voting system for a consensus agreement. The European Union has long been split on GMO policy, and its member states consistently clash over whether to approve new varieties for import but without reaching a conclusion.

In Europe, consumers are well known for their scepticism, if not hostility, to GMO crops, often dubbed "Frankenstein foods". But the international biotech industry says its products are safe and no different to conventional foods.

USA: National Black Farmers Association Resolution

A RESOLUTION opposing Monsanto's acquisition of Delta and Pine Land Company.

WHEREAS, the National Black Farmers Association (NBFA) is a community-based organization with a national presence of more than 80,000 members involved in advocacy for black and other small farmers throughout the country since 1995;

WHEREAS, there is growing concern in the black farming community over the increased consolidation in agriculture;

WHEREAS, the Monsanto Company has announced its intention to buy the largest cotton seed company in the U.S., Delta and Pine Land Company;

WHEREAS, Monsanto's proposed acquisition of Delta and Pine Land has far-reaching anticompetitive consequences for the agricultural economy, and, if permitted, would significantly diminish competition in the seed and biotech seed trait market and result in substantial harm to farmers, and;

WHEREAS, the proposed acquisition would create a monopoly in the American cotton industry, resulting in fewer choices, less innovation, and higher prices for farmers;

Be it Resolved that the National Black Farmers Association --

1. Opposes the acquisition of Delta and Pine Land by Monsanto because the acquisition will significantly limit agricultural competition to the detriment of farmers;

2. Encourages state and federal antitrust authorities to preserve agricultural competition by blocking the acquisition;

3. Encourages the Congressional Black Caucus to support black farmers by asking the Department of Justice to preserve agricultural competition by blocking the acquisition, and;

4. Authorizes the President of the NBFA to take all necessary steps to protect black farmers from the harms that would result from the proposed acquisition, including retaining legal counsel to commence litigation in the name of the organization to block the transaction under state and/or federal antitrust laws.

This resolution passed by the board of directors of the National Black Farmers Association February 8th 2007 during the NBFA Conference in Dallas TX

President NBFA

Dr. John W. Boyd, Jr., Pres.
68 Wind Rd.
Baskerville, VA 23915
Ph: (804) 691-8528
Ph: 1-434 848-1865
www.blackfarmers.org

USA: Eco-Injustice in Paraguay

The Nation, February 20 2007. By Jessica Weisberg & Benjamin Brown.

Petrona Villasboa and her husband, Juan Talavera, live with their nine children at the end of a long dirt road. The view from their front window shows a landscape dominated by soy, sowed into hundreds of tidy rows that extend to the horizon. In the town of Pirapey 35, a community of 1,600 people in the southern state of Itapua, Paraguay, "Petrona's house" is nearly an institution. Her household bears the constant influx of neighbors and relatives; yet Petrona says that the house "feels empty inside."

Petrona's third-youngest son, Silvino Talavera, died four years ago at the age of 11. Silvino was walking home from school one day, taking his normal route through a neighboring soy plantation growing Monsanto RoundUp Ready hybrid seeds, which require regular doses of a potent herbicide to thrive. He was fifteen meters from his home when he was enveloped in a cloud of the Monsanto herbicide cocktail RoundUp sprayed from a cropduster. He arrived home barely able to breathe. Silvino was rushed to the nearest hospital, where he died five days later, on January 7, 2003.

On January 11, 2003, Petrona pressed charges against the plantation owners, Hermann Schlender and Alfred Laustenlager, accusing them of homicide. "It was a strange case from the beginning," said Petrona's lawyer, Juan Martens Molas. "By law, the procedures for Silvino's case could last for a maximum of three years. We were running against the clock." Under the law, if the case were still unsettled after the three-year mark, the defendants would be exempt from any form of punishment. "Without a doubt, this practice is taken advantage of by people with a lot of political or economic power, who can influence judges and prosecutors, and allows them to interfere with the law, which is exactly what they tried to do in Silvino's case," said Martens.

"They tried offering me and my lawyer money at first so that I wouldn't talk to the court. They offered each of us $10,000. I told them that I didn't care about the money, only justice. If I just accepted the money they could just continue spraying their poison," said Petrona.

Nearly four years later, on November 29, 2006, the Paraguayan Supreme Court upheld a lower-court ruling, and the two landholders were sentenced to two years in prison. This decision set a fundamental precedent, as it is the first case of legal action against death caused by agrochemicals. "This is a great step forward in the fight for a clean environment, free of agrotoxins," said Martens.

The trial was not easily won. Nine months after Petrona pressed charges, the Supreme Court of the City of Encarnacion sentenced Schlender and Laustenlager to two years in prison. However, the defendants appealed the decision. According to Paraguayan law, the court had fifteen days to decide on the appeal. For Schlender and Laustenlager, this decision took more than a year.

The appeal sparked a national solidarity movement. "The case of Silvino Talavera helped to form a coalition of various institutions from all over the country and the world," said Tomas Palau, a sociologist at BASE-IS, a center for social investigation in the capital city of Asuncion. The nucleus of this coalition was a group known as CONAMURI, the National Coordinator of Rural and Indigenous Women. "CONAMURI supported Petrona from the beginning," said Julia Franco, secretary of public relations for CONAMURI. "Also, we organized the national and international solidarity movement that paid for the lawyer and the other costs of Silvino's case."

Paraguay is the fourth-largest exporter of soybeans in the world. The number of hectares dedicated to soy cultivation has more than doubled over the past decade. In 1995, 800,000 hectares of soy were cultivated; in 2003 it reached 2 million.

According to Palau, soy production in 2006-07 will occupy 2.46 million hectares. Much of the soy is cultivated by transnational agribusinesses and Brazilian immigrants, so-called "brasiguayos," who moved to Paraguay for its inexpensive land and cheaper operating costs.

According to Palau, "The increase in soy acreage has come about by asking to buy or rent farmers' property. When there are zones particularly resistant to soy, and the farmers refuse to sell or rent their land, the companies use 'gangster' tactics." This impending monoculture represents a double-edged sword for Paraguayan farmers: Those who maintain their plots, despite the incentives and scare tactics, are subject to the health hazards of pesticide exposure, while those to sell their holdings join the inflated numbers of landless farmers currently living in Paraguay. According to Palau, the number of landless farmers is estimated to be between 250,000 to 800,000 people. These numbers, however, depend on one's working definition of "landless," which Palau defines as holding less than five hectares, "the minimum amount of land that can support an average-sized Paraguayan family." "Official" statistics, Palau said, reduce these numbers by ascribing to a more literal definition of "landlessness."

Seventy-five to 80 percent of Paraguayan-grown soy is cultivated from transgenic seeds that rely on herbicide sprays to maximize their yield per acreage. Environmentally related health problems are common among Paraguayan farmers exposed to herbicide fumigations. Silvino's two sisters, Patricia and Sofia, also have been hospitalized for herbicide-related illnesses; and Sofia's son Vidal, Petrona's grandchild, was born with hydrocephalus, a brain malformation that may be attributed to agrotoxic exposure (he died when he was 5 months old).

Upon pressing charges, Petrona found herself the subject of neglect, harassment and even death threats from her neighbors in Pirapey 35. According to Petrona, a large percentage of the residents in Pirapey 35 work for Schlender and Laustenlager and received financial bonuses for threatening and intimidating Petrona and her family. "I've lived in Pirapey 35 for the last twenty-six years. They've only been living here for six years, but everyone has turned against me. I have no money or anything to offer them."

The 2006 Supreme Court ruling was a vindication of sorts for the Petrona family and others damaged by agrochemicals. "Two years in jail feels like very little to me, given what they've done," said Franco, yet the case still sets a very important legal precedent.

But months after the verdict, nothing much has changed in Pirapey 35. Schlender and Laustenlager are still living at home, less than a mile away from Petrona's house. No one seems to be able to explain why. "They're still in their house, they're still spraying herbicides," said Petrona, who's pessimistic that the final verdict will amount to much. "They have the law in their pockets," Petrona said. She remains resilient, and as she stares out her window at the panorama of soy enveloping her house, she recites vehemently, "I'll fight till the day I die."

19 February 2007

Australia: Auckland Regional Council adopts anti-GMO policy position

CheckBiotech.org, Monday, February 19, 2007

The Auckland Regional Council (ARC) today voted to oppose the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in field and food in the Auckland region. The Council does not, however, oppose creating GMOs in laboratories for medical purposes.

ARC Regional Strategy and Planning Chair Paul Walbran says the Council adopted the policy in principle as a precautionary approach because there are significant uncertainties about GMOs, and issues that are yet to be understood and resolved.

The ARC's policy acknowledges the overwhelming opposition to GMOs that was demonstrated in public submissions to the ARC's annual plan.

"Our policy reflects Aucklanders' widespread opposition to genetic modification.

"This is a symbolic decision that acknowledges that Central Government, not regional and local government, has responsibility for developing and enforcing decisions about genetically modified organisms," says Mr Walbran.

UK: Biofuels - facts and fiction

The Ecologist, 19 February 2007. By Mark Anslow.

The claims for biofuels make it seem truly a wonder crop. Mark Anslow separates the wheat from the chaff

Claim 1: You get more out than you put in

For more than 15 years, David Pimentel, Professor of Ecology and Agriculture at Cornell University in New York, and his colleague, Professor Tad Patzek at Berkeley, have published peer-reviewed research showing that biofuels give out less energy when burnt than was used in their manufacture.

By using a cradle-to-graveÇ approach - measuring all the energy inputs to the production of ethanol from the production of nitrogen fertiliser, through to the energy required to clean up the waste from bio-refineries - they have shown that while it takes 6,597 kilocalories of nonrenewable energy to produce a litre of ethanol from corn, that same litre contains only 5,130 kilocalories of energy - a 22 per cent loss.(1)

Their work has been fiercely attacked by the biofuel lobby, who argue that Pimentel and Patzek include too many energy inputÇ costs, and fail to give credit to the other, useful co-productsÇ created in the process of refining biofuel.(2)

Neither objection stands up under closer scrutiny. In fact, corn uses more herbicides, insecticides and fertiliser than any other crop(3); and 99 per cent of all cornfields used for producing bioethanol are heavily fertilised with nitrogen.(4) Pimentel and Patzek have shown that although the energy costs involved with fertiliser production have fallen, most of the factories producing nitrate fertiliser in the USA today were built in the 1960s and are highly inefficient.(5) As such, they estimate that the energy costs of nitrogen fertiliser manufacture account for over 30 per cent of the total energy needed to grow corn. When the energy costs of labour, machinery, petrol and diesel, other fertilisers, herbicides, insecticides and corn seed production are figured into the equation, merely growing corn using intensive agriculture accounts for 38 per cent of the energy needed to produce a litre of ethanol.

To make their energy costs appear more favourable, proponents of biofuels frequently off-setÇ the energy value of other substances produced during the refining process against the total energy used to produce the fuel. For bioethanol, these co-products include animal feed and carbon dioxide gas. For biodiesel, they include animal feed and glycerine, a component of soap. They argue that, by calculating the energy that would have been required to produce these substances by themselves, the amount of energy accounted for in the biofuel production process can be reduced. In some studies, the energy value of co-products has been calculated at 150 per cent more than the energy required to produce the fuel.(6)

But the energy and monetary value of these co-products is highly subjective. In the UK, the production of glycerine, which biodiesel producers had hoped to sell to cosmetics companies to offset the costs of production, has reached such levels that supply is exceeding demand. Some refiners have been forced to simply burn it. In the US, the value of the grains left over after ethanol distillation has been much touted as an animal feed. But research has shown that this grain contains less energy than normal animal feed (usually made from much less fertiliser-intensive soya),(7) and that production of soya has not fallen as ethanol production has risen, indicating that livestock farmers have been reluctant to change the their animalsÇ diet and use the new feed.(8) David Morris, a biofuel lobbyist, has even admitted that it may benefit refiners more to burn the animal feed as fuel than to sell it.(9)

Some ethanol distilleries have bottled the carbon dioxide that is given off during the fermentation process and sold it to carbonated drinks manufacturers, counting the value of the by-product against their overall energy costs. Most, however, have not.(10)

Energy offset benefits can only be counted if the co-products are genuinely used in substitute for another product. Refining ethanol produces roughly equal parts ethanol, carbon dioxide and animal feed.(11) Given that US corn-based ethanol production in 2005 peaked at 16.2 billion litres, this means that an almost equivalent amount of co-products (by volume) must have been produced. If these products are, as market figures suggest, unwanted, then instead of providing a useful offsetÇ, they are set to become a serious waste problem.

Claim 2: It makes economic sense

In 2006, the American government handed out between $5.1 and $6.8 billion in ethanol subsidies. These include payments made to farmers, tax breaks given to refiners and payments made under carbon reduction programmes.(12) But instead of these subsidies finding their way into farmersÇ pockets, they are instead swelling the accounts of several large biofuel manufacturers.(13)

One company, Archer Daniel Midlands (ADM, one of the worldÇs largest agribusiness companies), accounted for nearly 28 per cent of the US ethanol industry in 2006.(14) According to attorney Arnold Reitze, Professor of Environmental Law and Director of the Environmental Life Programme at George Washington University Law School, every dollar of ADMÇs profit has cost US taxpayers $30. To ensure the continuation of ethanol subsidies, the Renewable Fuels Association (of which ADM is a member) had reportedly contributed $772,000 to Republican coffers between 1991 and 1992.

Biofuels have already been taken out of the hands of farmers and turned into big business. Where the demand for ethanol has benefited corn farmers, it has done so only at the expense of cattle farmers, for whom the cost of animal feed has vastly increased.(15) Ethanol production from corn has been estimated to add $1 billion to the cost of beef production.(16)

In the USA, a litre of petrol costs roughly 33 cents to produce; a litre of ethanol can cost up to $1.88.(17) At present, these differentials are disguised behind subsidies, tax breaks, levies and laws. Germany subsidises biofuels to the value of 47 cents per litre, and France to the value of 33 cents per litre.

In his recent pre-Budget report, Gordon Brown reduced the tax on UK blended biofuels from 53 pence per litre to 8 pence per litre. In Brazil, although subsidies of ethanol officially ended in the mid-1990s, a number of incentivesÇ still exist. Personal diesel-engined vehicles have been banned, to encourage the uptake of ethanol burning models, despite the greater fuel economies of many diesel cars. In addition, new flex-fuelÇ cars - models that can run on both ethanol and petrol - have been made available at a reduced rate of VAT.

Behind this raft of measures, it is difficult to see whether biofuels could ever compete with fossil fuels without continued subsidies, covert or otherwise. It is important to remember exactly what is being subsidised as well - excessive motor transport. As Michael OÇHare, Professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, pointed out in a recent article:

Driving your car with a gallon of ethanol doesn't do 50 cents worth of good for society, it just does less damage than driving it just does less damage than driving it with gasoline.'(18)

Claim 3: It is the solution to our energy problems

Recent figures show that if high-yield bio-energy crops were grown on all the farmland on earth, the resulting fuel would account for only 20 per cent of our current demand.(19) The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published research which shows that more than 70 per cent of EuropeÇs farmland would be required for biofuel crops to account for even 10 per cent of road transport fuel.

But there are more basic reasons why biofuels cannot be the answer to our energy problems. A normal petrol engine cannot run on more than a 15 per cent ethanol blend, and it is considered too expensive to modify a car after manufacture.(20,21) Given that the average life expectancy of a vehicle is 14 years,(22) it would take approximately this long to replace the current petrol fleet. By 2021, however, it could already be too late to make a difference to serious global warming.(23)

The European Union Biofuels Directive requires that all EU member states have a blend of 5.75 per cent biofuel in their road transport fuels by 2010. However, a litre of biodiesel contains 12 per cent less chemical energy than an equivalent litre of mineral diesel, and is five per cent less fuel efficient when burnt in an engine.(24) A litre of ethanol contains 33 per cent less energy than a litre of petrol, and a blend of 85 per cent ethanol to 15 per cent petrol (known as E85) can see vehicle fuel consumption rise by 31 per cent.(25) The UK uses approximately 26 billion litres of petrol each year.(26) If this were to be blended with 5.75 per cent bioethanol, the net energy contained in a litre of pump fuel would drop by approximately 2 per cent.(27) In addition, ethanol blended fuels cannot be transported by pipeline, as the ethanol attracts water, which would render it ineffective as a fuel. It must, therefore, be transported by road. This means that an extra 521.5 million litres of fuel would need to be transported annually to make up for the energy deficit - equivalent to an extra 16,478 tanker journeys in the UK each year,(28) which could increase the carbon emissions involved in distribution from refinery to tanker terminals by 38 per cent.(29)

Claim 4: It's clean and safe

The biofuels ethanol and biodiesel are often referred to as clean-burningÇ fuels, and much has been made of their lower emissions of carbon monoxide. However, analyses of exhaust emissions from cars burning ethanol show an increase in nitrogen oxides, acetaldehyde and peroxy-acetyl-nitrate.(30)

Likewise, cars burning biodiesel have been shown to emit higher levels of nitrogen oxides than those burning mineral diesel. Nitrous oxides are powerful greenhouse gases and can lead to the depletion of atmospheric ozone. At low levels they can react with VOCs and create low-level ozone, which can give rise to urban smog and respiratory problems.

When ethanol is blended with gasoline it makes the entire fuel more volatile. This means that it is more likely to evaporate, especially in the summer, through rubber and plastic parts of the fuel system. A study by the California Air Quality Board in 2004 found that blending ethanol with petrol increased fuel evaporation by 14 to 18 per cent.(31) This means a higher quantity of hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions, as the fuel dissipates from vehicle tanks.

Ethanol is a solvent, and corrodes soft metals including aluminium, zinc, brass and lead. This means that existing underground storage tanks designed for fossil fuels and made from metal or even fibreglass could leak if filled with ethanolblended fuel, leaching pollutants into groundwater.(32) If this happens, there is evidence that pollution would be even more widespread with a petrol-ethanol blend than with petrol alone. The presence of ethanol in the mix increases the persistence of the toxic substances benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene, and can cause them to travel 2.5 times farther in groundwater than would have been the case with a non-ethanol blended fuel.(33)

Biodiesel is also a natural solvent, whereas mineral diesel is not. This means that parts of the fuel system, particularly in older cars, may start to corrode when biodiesel blends are used. This can lead to a build-up of deposits in the fuel system and engine, which in turn could reduce vehicle performance and increase fuel consumption.

Biodiesel also solidifies at around 4-5°C. This means that it must be pre-heated on cold winter mornings before it will flow from the tank. One biodiesel information website recommends the use of highly toxic anti-gellingÇ compounds mixed in with the fuel - or a heated garageÇ. It is this kind of solution that typifies the utter dependence of biofuels upon the continuing extravagant use of fossil energy.(34)

Claim 5: It's good for the environment

A bio-refinery is an extraordinarily wasteful facility. For every litre of bioethanol produced in a modern refinery, 13 litres of waste water are generated. This waste water contains dead yeast and small amounts of ethanol, and has what is known as a Biological Oxgen Demand (BOD) - which means that the effluent competes with various other organisms in the water for available oxygen.

If effluent with a BOD is discharged into a watercourse, microorganisms in the water use oxygen in the water to break down, or oxidise, the pollutants, thus making the oxygen less available for other species. In extreme cases, fish and other aquatic organisms can suffocate from lack of oxygen.

The BOD of raw sewage is around 600mg per litre; that of bio-refinery waste water can be between 18,000 and 37,000mg per litre.(35) This must be treated before it can leave the refinery, which requires an energy input of around 69,000 kilocalories, roughly equivalent to 306.7 cu ft of natural gas per 1,000 litres of ethanol produced.

In sugarcane ethanol plants, which are particularly common in Brazil, 12 cu ft of a thick, dark red, acid substance called vinasseÇ is left behind for every cubic foot of ethanol that has been produced.(36) It is piped from the refinery to settlement ponds, where it is allowed to cool. If vinasse is left in the pools, anaerobic breakdown will lead to the production of methane, a greenhouse gas.

Some refinery operators have chosen to dilute vinasse at a ratio of up to 1:400 with water for use as a fertiliser on the sugarcane plantations. But it is so potent that the soil has to be carefully monitored to make sure that plants are not scorched or waterways polluted. Some farmers have used vinasse as a binding agentÇ on gravel drives, only to find that it corrodes the underside of vehicles that frequently drive over it.(37)

Ethanol refineries also produce significant amounts of nitrous oxides (a greenhouse gas more than 300 times more potent that COî), carbon monoxide and VOCs (also linked to the destruction of the ozone layer and damage to human health). Their emissions are so high that in March 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency in the USA was forced under political pressure from the biofuels lobby(38) to propose raising the threshold for facilities considered to be minor source of emissionsÇ from 100 tons per year to 250 tons per year.(39)

Mark Anslow is a reporter for The Ecologist.link

Notes

(1) Pimentel, D & Patzek, T, 2005, Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and SunflowerÇ, Natural Resources Research, 14:1.

(2) Morris, D, 2005, The Carbohydrate Economy, Biofuels and the Net Energy DebateÇ, The Insitute for Local Self-Reliance.

(3) Pimentel & Patzek, 2005.

(4) http://pangea.stanford.edu/ESYS/Energy per cent20seminars/patzek_ethanol.pdf

(5) Patzek, T, 2004, Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel CycleÇ, Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 23(6):519-567, p. 8.

(6) Lorenz & Morris, 1995, How Much Energy does it take to Produce a Gallon of Ethanol?Ç, The Institute for Local Self-Reliance, estimate for cellulosic crop-based ethanol.

(7) Brown, L., Grain DrainÇ, The Guardian: Society, 29/11/2006, p. 9.

(8) Armstrong, A et al., 2002, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Balance of Biofuels for Europe - An UpdateÇ, CONCAWE Ad Hoc Group on Alternative Fuels, Brussels.

(9) Morris, 2005:16.

(10) Motola, C, 2005, Ethanol. Does It Make Sense to Produce It?Ç, Oswego County Business Magazine, http://oswegocountybusiness.com/index.php?a=1964.

(11) Morris, 2005:14.

(12) Koplow, D., 2006, Government support for ethanol and biodiesel in the United StatesÇ, The Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Geneva, Switzerland.

(13) Pimentel & Patzek, 2005:67.

(14) Reitze, A., 2006, Should the Clean Air Act Be Used to Turn Petroleum Addicts Into Alcoholics?Ç, ELR, October, 2006.

(15) Reitze, 2006.

(16) National Center for Policy Analysis, 2002, cited by Pimentel & Patzek, 2005.

(17) Pimentel & Patzek, 2005.

(18) http://lists.iisd.ca:81/read/messages?id=31222#com_one.

(19) http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=380.

(20) It is too impractical and costly to do after-factory conversions of gasoline fueled vehicles to E-85 vehicles. Since the combustion of ethanol and gasoline is different, different engine electronic systems are required, and need to be installed at the time of manufacture.Ç source: Iogen.ca - a world leading biotechnology firm specializing in cellulose ethanol.

(21) Specific engine parts that need adjustments to run smoothly with E85 include the car fuel tank, lines, injectors, the computer system, and the anti-siphon device. Both the car fuel tank and fuel lines must be made in stainless steel while the injectors should have wider ranges for the pulse widths to put up with at least 30 percent more fuel.Ç source: http://www.cleanairtrust.org/Differences-Between-E85-and-E95.html.

(22) Asia Times Online, Beware the Ethanol Hype, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH01Dj01.html.

(23) Monbiot, 'Heat'.

(24) Tickell, 2000:162.

(25) deOliviera et al., 2005.

(26) UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 1990-2004Ç, Defra, 2006, p. 359 - In 2004 the UK used 19.48 Megatonnes of petrol - 1 litre of petrol weighs 0.747 kg - this gives 26,077,643,908 litres of petrol.

(27) deOliviera et al, 2005 give a 33 per cent lower net energy yield from ethanol - a litre of petrol contains 33,000 kjoules of energy - a litre of ethanol contains 21,780 kjoules of energy - a 5.75 per cent blend gives 32,353 kjoules of energy, roughly a 2 per cent loss.

(28) Lewis, 1997, Fuel and Energy Production Emission FactorsÇ, MEET Project: Methodologies for Estimating Air Pollutant Emissions from Transport, - gives an articulated tankerÇs capacity at 31,650 litres.

(29) Lewis, 1997, gives the CO2 emitted through pumping a gigajoule of fuel along a pipeline as 0.048 kg/Gj. The CO2 emitted by transporting a gigajoule of fuel by road is 0.070 kg/Gj. An increase of 38 per cent in emissions.

(30) Patzek, 2004:63.

(31) Hancock, 2005, cited by Patzek, 2004:63.

(32) http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/factsheets/tanks/ust/FuelEthanolUSTSystems.pdf.

(33) http://www.deh.gov.au/atmosphere/fuelquality/publications/ethanol-limit/issues.html.

(34) http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_mike.html.

(35) Pimentel & Patzek, 2005:69.

(36) http://www.spriinc.org/abstracts0906.html.

(37) http://www.sei.se/climate/EED_series/rm_2001_luena.pdf.

(38) Reitze, 2006:10754.

(39) Reitze, 2006.

18 February 2007

Canada: Farmer continues to fight Terminator

Kamloops This Week, (Canada), 18 February 2007. By Mark Macdonald.

Genetically modified food is destroying human health, the environment and the social fabric of rural Canada, said an international spokesperson for farmers' rights.

Saskatchewan's foxes and deer are dying, and its people are succumbing to alarming rates of prostate and breast cancer from chemicals used in the province's canola production.

Those chemicals are administered by agrichemical giant Monsanto, said Percy Schmeiser, who spoke Thursday night to a standing-room only audience in the Alumni Theatre at Thompson Rivers University.

"There's a whole new culture of fear these companies have been able to exercise over farmers," he said.

Schmeiser, who specializes in breeding and growing canola, became an international symbol for the anti-genetically engineered movement when Monsanto sued him for patent infringement after discovering their genetically modified canola growing in his fields.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Monsanto, determining Schmeiser had recognized his fields were contaminated and replanted his crop the next year anyway, which included some Monsanto seeds.

Schmeiser spoke about the control Monsanto wields over Saskatchewan farmers, who, he said, are coerced into signing contracts saying they can't use their own seeds; they must buy their seeds from Monsanto and they must allow "Monsanto police" onto their land.

Monsanto's "gene police" visit Saskatchewan farmers suspected of growing genetically modified seeds ó on tips from neighbours forced by the contract to squeal ó and threaten them with court action.

The farmers are left wondering which neighbour betrayed them, leading to a "breakdown of the rural social fabric," he said.

"I think that is one of the worst things that can happen. That's one of the things that can happen with the introduction of GMOs," he said.

"I'm not talking about a Third World country. I'm talking about what happens on the Northern Plain and on the Prairies of Western Canada," he said.

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) were introduced in Canada in 1996. There are two types: one that alters plant genes making it resistant to pesticides and another making it resistant to certain diseases and insects.

Schmeiser said once GMOs are introduced, they take over and become the dominant gene, leading to a situation where there is "no longer any pure canola seed in Western Canada," he said.

"Every time you introduce a GMO, you have an increased use of chemicals," he said, adding GMOs have spread in Canada, by wind or wildlife, to contaminate organic crops.

But the full destructive power of GMOs is on the horizon, he said, referring to two new genes now being developed by Monsanto to monopolize seed supply: the "terminator gene" and the "cheater gene."

A cheater gene is used to grow a plant and the terminator gene then destroys a crop's fertility ó a process Schmeiser called "the greatest assault on life as we know it on the planet today."

He said Canadians must fight to save the integrity of our air, water and land for future generations, and ensure farmers don't become "serfs of the land, in a feudal system" controlled by trans-national corporations like Monsanto.

"As long as we have life in us," said Schmeiser, referring to his wife, Louise, "we're going to go down fighting for the rights of all farmers all over the world."

17 February 2007

UK: Suppressed report shows cancer link to GM potatoes

The Independent, 17 February 2007. By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor.

Campaigners against genetically modified crops in Britain last are calling for trials of GM potatoes this spring to be halted after releasing more evidence of links with cancers in laboratory rats.

UK Greenpeace activists said the findings, obtained from Russian trials after an eight-year court battle with the biotech industry, vindicated research by Dr Arpad Pusztai, whose work was criticised by the Royal Society and the Netherlands State Institute for Quality Control.

The disclosure last night of the Russian study on the GM Watch website led to calls for David Miliband, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to withdraw permission for new trials on GM potatoes to go ahead at secret sites in the UK this spring. Alan Simpson, a Labour MP and green campaigner, said: "These trials should be stopped. The research backs up the work of Arpad Pusztai and it shows that he was the victim of a smear campaign by the biotech industry. There has been a cover-up over these findings and the Government should not be a party to that."

Mr Simpson said the findings, which showed that lab rats developed tumours, were released by anti-GM campaigners in Wales. Dr Pusztai and a colleague used potatoes that had been genetically modified to produce a protein, lectin. They found cell damage in the rats' stomachs, and in parts of their intestines.

The research is likely to spark a fresh row about GM crops in Britain. Graham Thompson, a Greenpeace campaigner, said: "It is important because it backs up the research by Pusztai, which was smeared at the time by the industry."

Brian John of GM Free Cymru, who released the findings, said the research was conducted in 1998 by the Institute of Nutrition of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences and has been suppressed for eight years.

It showed that the potatoes did considerable damage to the rats' organs. Those in the "control groups" that were fed non-GM potatoes suffered ill-effects, but those fed GM potatoes suffered more serious organ and tissue damage.

The potatoes contained an antibiotic resistance marker gene. The institute that carried out the studies refused to release all the information. However, Greenpeace and other consumer groups mounted a protracted legal battle campaign to obtain the report. In May 2004 the Nikulinski District Court in Russia ruled that information relating to the safety of GM food should be open to the public.

The institute, however, refused to release the report. Greenpeace and Russian activist groups again took the institute to court, and won a ruling that the report must be released.

Irina Ermakova, a consultant for Greenpeace, said she had conducted her own animal feeding experiments with GM materials. "The GM potatoes were the most dangerous of the feeds used in the trials ... and on the basis of this evidence they cannot be used in the nourishment of people."

Greenpeace said the Russian trials were also badly flawed. Half of the rats in the trial died, and results were taken from those that survived, in breach of normal scientific practice.

16 February 2007

Russia: Secret Monsanto GM potato study suppressed for 8 years
GM potatoes are "unfit for human consumption"

GM Free Cymru press release, 15 February 2007.

[For Monsanto overview see http://www.voteyeson27.com/monsanto.htm]

A secret feeding study of Monsanto GM potatoes, conducted in 1998 by the Institute of Nutrition of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences and suppressed for 8 years, showed that the potatoes did considerable damage to the organs of the rats in the study (1) (2). In comparison the rats in the "control groups" which were fed on normal potatoes or on a non-potato diet were healthier, and had much less organ and tissue damage. This research, fully supported by Monsanto through the provision of the GM potatoes, was conducted at approximately the same time as Arpad Pusztai's research in the Rowett Institute.

The potatoes used in the study were Monsanto GM NewLeaf potatoes bred in 1995 from the Russet Burbank variety to be resistant to the Colorado Beetle. The GM event was registered as 082, and the potatoes are included in the Bt group of GM crops. They also contain an antibiotic resistance marker gene (3). The potatoes were deregulated in the USA in 1998, without any feeding studies being required. Another line was deregulated in 1999. Even earlier, in 1996, Monsanto started to introduce the potatoes into Russia and Georgia, and probably into many other countries with lax approval regimes as well (4). For some reason (probably to assist in the consent process) Monsanto co-operated in some feeding studies involving rats from the Institute of Nutrition of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. Something "inconvenient" showed up in these feeding studies, but the Institute refused to release all the information into the public domain and in 1999 the researchers presented a "doctored" version of their Report in support of Monsanto's application for Russian commercialization. The consent was duly given in 2000 by the Russian regulators on the basis of this corrupt piece of science.

However, Greenpeace and other consumer groups mounted a protracted and immensely frustrating campaign to obtain a sight of the feeding study Report. In May 2004 the Nikulinski District Court in Russia ruled that information relating to the safety of GM food should be open to the public. On the basis of this ruling Greenpeace tried to obtain the GM potato report; but the Institute and Monsanto refused to release it. So Greenpeace and local activist groups again took the Institute to court, and in October 2005 won a ruling that the Report must be released. At last it was handed over, and examined by Dr Irina Ermakova at the request of Greenpeace. She produced a brief Russian paper on her findings, and we have now produced an English- language version with the kind agreement of Greenpeace (5).

Ironically, the NewLeaf GM potato was a failure, and it proved to give poor yields and to be susceptible to disease in European environments. While Monsanto was enthusiastically promoting its GM potatoes in Eastern Europe, it was having second thoughts in the United States and Western Europe, and pulled out of GM potato development in 2002 (6). The results of the 1998 GM potato rat feeding study may well have had a bearing on that decision.

Dr Irina Ermakova, the Greenpeace consultant, has herself conducted animal feeding experiments with GM materials. In her very restrained commentary on the Russian study (1) she criticized the small scale of the experiment and its design, and was especially critical of the complacent conclusions drawn by the authors from evidence which was actually profoundly worrying. The GM potato was nutritionally inferior to its conventional counterpart and to other Russian potato varieties. The research results showed that both "normal" Russet Burbank potatoes and the GM variety caused "serious morphological changes in the internal organs" of the animals in the trials. They also showed that the group of animals fed on the GM potatoes suffered greater weight loss than the other animals, and statistically significantly greater damage to kidneys, liver and large gut. There was also greater damage to blood serum, testes and prostate. Dr Ermakova concluded: "The GM potatoes were the most dangerous of the feeds used in the trials........ and on the basis of this evidence they CANNOT be used in the nourishment of people."

Given the small scale of the feeding trials (only ten animals in each feeding group) and doubts about the statistical significance of some of the Report's findings, Dr Ermakova stressed the importance of follow-up studies on a larger scale and with more careful experimental design. But no matter what the shortcomings of the work may be, the Institute of Nutrition research did nothing to show that the Monsanto GM potatoes are safe. That should not be a surprise to anybody, since Bt potatoes are classified as pesticides in the US and have never been tested for toxicity or allergenicity (7).

According to Dr Brian John of GM Free Cymru, it is incredible that Monsanto and the Institute of Nutrition have kept the research secret until now. "That obsessive secrecy has clearly been against the public interest," he says, "and it tells us a great deal about Monsanto's priorities. If the company had any regard at all for the health of consumers, it would have published these results world-wide in 1999, and at the very least it would have commissioned follow-up research which might have confirmed or discredited the study's findings. Instead of that, it connived with the Russian researchers to keep the information away from public scrutiny, just as it did with the feeding study results for MON863 maize in 2005. On that occasion too, it took a court case and massive media coverage to obtain sight of the research team's raw data and to reveal evidence of damage to health." (8)

While Monsanto attempted to suppress the information from the 1998 Russian study, it connived in the vilification of Dr Arpad Pusztai, a respectable and careful scientist whose findings were very similar (9) (10). The company must have known that the release of its own feeding study information would have supported his findings and would have contributed to a general understanding on health concerns specific to GM potatoes. "The actions of Monsanto in this case have been utterly reprehensible," says Dr John. "The company has continued to promote its GM potatoes as perfectly harmless, while for eight years it has managed to keep out of the public domain clear evidence that they are harmful to animals and hence to human beings also. And it has got away with it because the science establishment and the GM regulators within the EU -- as in Russia -- cannot see scientific corruption when it is staring them in the face." (11)

ENDS

Contact:

Brian John or Ian Panton GM Free Cymru Tel + 44 (0)1239 820470 or + 44 (0)1437 720075

Notes

(1) Medical-biological investigations of transgenic potatoes, resistant to the Colorado beetle (under agreement with Monsanto Co.) Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Institute of Nutrition Moscow, 1998. Signed off by VA Tutelian, Deputy Director. Physiological, biochemical and morphological investigations in rats. Full Report 275 pp, including raw data.

(2) The commentary on the rat feeding study by Dr Irina Ermakova is here: http://www.gmfreecymru.org/

(3) http://www.agbios.com/dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=RBMT21-129% 2C+RBMT21-350%2C+RBMT22-082&frmat=LONG
Full petition (240 pp) for the deregulation of New Leaf GM potatoes (event 082) in the US:
http://www.agbios.com/docroot/decdocs/05-242-028.pdf

(4) GM potatoes in Georgia: http://www.foei.org/publications/link/gmo/16.html

(5) http://www.greenpeace.org/russia/en/news/evidence-of-food- products-safe#

(6) http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Monsanto-Dumps-Potatoe.htm
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/crops/ 23.genetically_modified_potato.html

(7) http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/safety.htm
http://www.cathnews.com/news/409/doc/15colgm2.doc
http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html
http://www.epa.gov/oscpmont/sap/meetings/2000/october/ brad3_enviroassessment.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad.htm

(8) http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/rats060205.cfm
http://www.spinwatch.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1239

(9) http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/98/august98/81798world_in_action.html
http://www.voteyeson27.com/monsanto.htm
http://www.theecologist.co.uk/archive_detail.asp?content_id=753

(10) Ewen SWB, Pusztai A (1999) Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354:1353-1354

(11) See, for example: http://www.rowett.ac.uk/gmo/ajp.htm