NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • January 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

Archives 2004 • 2003 • Please submit news items for this page to news@gmfreeireland.org

31 January 2007

South Africa: government blamed for encouraging genetically modified crops

African News Dimension, January 31 2007. By Savious Kwinika (CAJ).

From Fred Katerere, CAJ News Bureau Chief CAPE TOWN -- AN opposition legislator has blamed the government of putting what she termed as enabling legislation that has encouraged genetically modified crops "to run riot" in the country.Cheryllyn Dudley, African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) Member of Parliament and party spokesperson on agriculture and land issues said the government had not considered reservations of the safety on the crops.

"Encouraged by recent enabling legislation, genetically modified crops (GMOs) have been allowed to run riot in South Africa despite many reservations including concerns that the safety of genetically modified foods has not been established," she said in a presentation in Parliament on Thursday.

South Africa is now considered the world's 8th top producer of GM crops while United States of America and the European markets demanded GM free crops. "The United Nations (UN) is a primary market for South Africa. This kind of risk-taking places the South African economy in jeopardy," she said. Dudley said about a million hectares of South Africa's maize crop, the country's staple food, was under GM cultivation which represented 44% of this year's maize planting, up from last yearÇs 29,3 per cent.

"The ACDP is of the opinion that genetic engineering has serious implications for sustainable agriculture and food security and offers counterfeit solutions for Africa." Dudley said. According to GRAIN, an international non-governmental organisation (NGO) which promotes the sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity based on people's control over genetic resources and local knowledge, South Africa's accommodating policy on environmental issues paved way for the entry of the GM crops.

"South Africa with its large commercial farming sector and accommodating policy environment, was the first and continues to be the most popular destination for GM seeds," said GRAIN on a report on GM crops in African Agriculture. In 1997, the first GM crop, Bt cotton, was approved for commercial released to commercial farms and by 2001 more than 200,000 ha were planted with GM crops-CAJ News.

30 January 2007

Brazil: Syngenta seeks to reverse expropriation of Brazilian research farm

The Associated Press, January 30 2007

SAO PAULO, Brazil: The Brazilian subsidiary of Swiss agricultural chemicals and seeds company Syngenta AG asked a court Tuesday to halt the expropriation of its farm near the Iguacu waterfalls straddling the border of Brazil and Argentina.

The 123-hectare (304-acre) property was confiscated last November by the state government of Parana after officials claimed that Syngenta's research on the farm into genetically modified corn was illegal.

The state government wants to transform the property into an educational center for environment-friendly agriculture, Syngenta said in a statement.

Syngenta asked a state court in Parana for an injunction to stop the expropriation, saying it wants to continue research at the site and contending that there are better locations for the educational center.

About 300 poor farm laborers opposed to biotech crops developed by Syngenta invaded the farm last year and camped there to publicize their claims that Syngenta was conducting illegal research into genetically modified soy and corn crops.

Syngenta is one of Brazil's top agrochemical retailers, and a leading researcher into genetically modified crops.

New issue of Seedling magazine

Grain.org, January 2007.

The latest issue of Seedling is now available at: http://www.grain.org/seedling.

Every day the biotechnology companies bombard us with their publicity. We are told that eight million farmers throughout the world are already enjoying higher yields and lower production costs because of the benefits of genetically modified crops. And forever dangled before us is the carrot of far greater improvements in the future. We are promised that within a decade the biotech companies will have designed crops that will deal with drought, salinisation and all the other problems that we are likely to be facing as the result of global warming and climate change.

But how true are these claims? Have hybrids and GM crops really reduced costs and increased yields? And is this kind of farming sustainable? It is often difficult to probe behind the hype of the biotech companies and to find out what is happening on the ground. In this edition, we have an extensive first-hand report from China about the real impact of hybrid rice, which now covers well over half of the area under rice cultivation in this vast country. Another article brings together reports from many different countries -- Burkina Faso, China, India, Indonesia, South Africa and the USA -- about the impact of Monsanto's genetically modified Bt cotton, which has now been on the market for a decade. The reports uncover profound concerns among the farmers and a worrying lack of transparency among the advocates of the new technologies. In both cases, it is clear that, even if the new crops bring short-term benefits (and this is not always the case), these can soon be outweighed by serious long-term problems in both the financial and agronomic viability of the new varieties.

The biotech companies' response to the plethora of problems is to come up with another round of technical fixes. We are already hearing about the second -- and even third -- generation of GM crops engineered to deal with the problems created by the first generation. And so it will continue.? Not surprisingly, many farmers throughout the world are increasingly sceptical and are returning to the tried-and-tested practices of agro-ecological farming. Support is growing for the concept of food sovereignty -- the idea that communities have the right to define their own agricultural, pastoral, labour, fishing, food and land policies, in accordance with their own ecological, social, economic and cultural circumstances.

In this edition, we talk to two different proponents of food sovereignty, one in Africa, one in India. Not surprisingly, their strategies are different, for they come from very different parts of the world, but they agree on one essential point -- the need for local farmers to be the ones who decide which crops they cultivate, what farming methods they use and how their produce should be marketed. In February advocates of food sovereignty from the five continents will be meeting in Mali for the Forum for Food Sovereignty.

We are planning in 2007 a special issue on biofuels, the new craze that is sweeping through the world. The biotechnology companies are moving quickly to produce genetically modified crops especially tailored for the manufacture of ethanol and other biofuels. We would like to receive any comments or information that you, the readers, have on this topic. We plan to publish a list of the ten most useful documents on biofuels, and would welcome suggestions.

This issue of the magazine includes two articles about GMOs:

Biopiracy: A System of Appropriation review by GRAIN

Book: Ikechi Mgbeoji, Global Biopiracy -- Patents, Plants and Indigenous Knowledge, 2006: http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=461

Bt cotton: the facts behind the hype by GRAIN

It has been over ten years now since genetically modified Bt cotton was first commercialised. Since then it has been introduced or tested in more than twenty countries. The crop is a clear success for Monsanto, the leading Bt cotton company. But what has it meant for farmers? Today, a more complete picture is finally emerging of what is happening on the farm in many countries throughout the world: http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=457.

Is food different?

Book: Peter M. Rossett, Food is different -- why we must get the WTO out of agriculture, 2006:
http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=460

29 January 2007

Global GM Crops Area Exaggerated
Ten years on, and the "growth" in GM crops area is exposed to be more hype than substance as opposition heightens

ISIS press release, 29 January 2007. By Sam Burcher. A fully referenced version posted on ISIS members' website at http://www.i-sis.org.uk.

An electronic version of this report, or any other ISIS report, with full references, can be sent to you via e-mail for a donation of £ 3.50. Please e-mail the title of the report to: report@i-sis.org.uk

PR masquerading as fact

The biotech industry's mouthpiece, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agrobiotechnology Applications (ISAAA), has been exposed for grossly inflating the figures of GM crops grown globally. Its latest report lists countries growing GM crops that do not grow them, or that have banned them. For example, Iran is down as having grown tens of thousands of hectares of commercial GM rice in 2006, despite the fact Iran has never approved or grown GM rice on any commercial scale.

Bob Phelps of Gene Ethics Network criticizes the report for making these unsupported claims and ignoring the negative impacts of GM crops: "The report emphasizes that 10.3 million farmers grew GM crops in 2006, but this is just 0.7 percent of farmers world-wide. And just 600 000 farmers grew 85 percent of all GM crops on industrial farms in North and South America. Small Third World farmers are misused as fodder in the ISAAA's PR war."

India's bid to ban all GM field trials

The ISAAA launched the report in India, where the Supreme Court has recently banned any new GM crop trials until further notice. However, the exception to the ban, GM mustard developed at Delhi University, involves a genetic engineering "Terminator" technique called a GURT (Genetic Use Restriction Technology) that renders the seeds from the plant sterile. (See Chronicle of An Ecological Disaster Foretold, SiS 16). The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) group, which instigated the ban on GM crops in India, are now pursuing a ban even on GM mustard because the University failed to reveal the full scientific facts to the Court.

PIL are also concerned by the conflict of interest with the body that regulate GM crops in India, the GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee), whose co-Chair also sits as a Director of the ISAAA. There is deep concern in India from all corners that their agricultural policy is being manipulated by corporate entities that have targeted Third World farmers with the full force of the US Government behind them. The ISAAA report claims cost reductions for Indian farmers growing GM cotton, which is another outright falsehood that should be challenged. In fact, more than 100 000 farmers in India that became involved in growing GM crops have committed suicide in the ten years since 1993 (See Stem Farmers' Suicides with Organic Farming, SiS 32.) And on average, a further 16 000 farmers a year have killed themselves since 2003 because of crop failures and debts incurred by buying the expensive GM cottonseed and herbicides touted around Indian farms by Monsanto (India's Bt Cotton Fraud, SiS 26). (To support the ban please see: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/no-to-indias-crops-being-genetically-engineered.html )

Romania reduces GM planting to zero and eight other EU countries have imposed bans

Meanwhile in Europe, Romania has announced a ban of GM soya as of 1 January 2007, that is, a drop to zero planting, and is therefore unlikely to plant the 100 000 hectares listed by the ISAAA.

Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini at Caen University, France, explained on

Radio Romania International that, "The soybeans grown in Romania are treated with a very powerful pesticide named Roundup Ready, which has a very toxic effect on human placentas and embryos. Roundup Ready genetically engineered soya is not approved for growing in the EU" (Glyphosate Toxic & Roundup Worse, SiS 26; Roundup Ready Sudden Death, Superweeds, Allergens..., SiS 28). The ban on GM soya coincides with Romania's inclusion in the European Union. So far, all GM crops grown in Romania have been unregulated, untraceable and unlabelled. The lack of regulation is also a serious threat to farmers who may find their produce restricted from entering into the EU market. Furthermore it also hinders the potential for organic agriculture. The proposed decontamination of GM crops in Romania is a process likely to take many years, and may also become a test case of whether such decontamination is possible.

The ISAAA has also glossed over the ban of GM maize in Austria, and in a further seven European countries, including Germany, that have banned one or more GM crop.

Poland pushes for rejection of GM

Poland's National Seeds Catalogue has already banned genetically engineered seeds from its collection in 2006. In the European Parliament in January 2007, a resolution towards the use of more GM technology was supported by 22 MEPs, but rejected by 15 MEPs with 6 abstentions. However, the Polish vice-Chairman of the Agricultural Committee in the European Parliament, Janusz Wojciechowski, announced recently that he fully rejects the resolution and supports a completely GM-free Europe. The ICPPC - International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside -is therefore hopeful that there is time for more MEPs to be informed of the facts before the resolutions' final plenary session on 14 March 2007. (For more information and for a letter to send to your MEP to reject the motion, see http://www.icppc.pl/).

GM crops grown mostly in North and South America

Despite the ISAAA's claims that agrobiotechnology is a global industry, only 8 countries worldwide are growing 99 percent of GM crops commercially. These are: USA 53.5 percent, Argentina 17.6 percent, Brazil 11.3 percent, Canada 6 percent, India 3.7 percent, China 3.4 percent, Paraguay 2 percent and South Africa 1.4 percent.

The ISAAA figures for China's planting under GM are 3.4 million hectares, but Kraft Foods, the world second largest food producer has committed to supply China with GM-free foods from 1 January 2007. The Chinese Biosafety Committee has also stymied GM rice crops approval for another year while more data on safety are assessed.

Brazil is listed as growing 11.5 million hectares of GM soybean and cotton, but it continues to resist the GM industry's attempts to gain approval for GM maize.

South Africa's hugely hyped figures called into question

South Africa is hyped up as having a massive increase in biotech crops from 500 000 hectares in 2005 to 1.4 million hectares in 2006. But according to a press release from Monsanto three months earlier, the 2006 area was a much more modest 609 000 ha. As Mariam Mayet of the African Centre of Biosafety points out, it would mean an additional 800 000 ha planted in the space of three months if ISAAA figures were to be believed.

South Africa has already rejected field trials of GM sorghum to protect their own local varieties from contamination. The South African wine industry has also closed ranks against the Biotech companies by opposing two applications for field trials of GM yeasts and GM grapevines in 20 wine producing regions both in the Southern and Western Cape [13] (For more on GM wines, see Self-Cloned' Wine Yeasts Not Necessarily Safe and GM Grapevines & Toxic Wines, SiS 33).

The true picture emerges

Greenpeace pre-empted the ISAAA's report with a summary of their own to get a truer picture of the global status of GM crops. Jeremy Tager, spokesperson for Greenpeace International said, "There is irrefutable evidence that governments, farmers and consumers throughout the world recognise that genetic engineering in unreliable, unviable or downright dangerous." (See GMO Free: Exposing the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of our Food Supply; also GM Soya Fed Rats: Stunted, Dead, or Sterile SiS 33, and GM Crops the Unfolding Nightmare, SiS33, for the latest evidence of serious health hazards inherent to GM technology.)

Elsewhere in the world, rice suppliers in Thailand and Vietnam are committed to keeping rice exports GM free. So is the world's largest rice processor, Ebro Puleva. This is a strategic move to capitalise on the market opportunities that have opened up after the contamination of US long grain rice stocks with an unapproved genetically engineered variety LLRICE601 (USDA Poised to Deregulate Illegal GM Rice, SiS 32). The Bayer rice scandal was financially disastrous for US rice producers, as it met with strong disapproval from rice farmers, processors, and governments worldwide. The Rice Producers of California have called for a ban on the cultivation of GM rice, be it for commercial purposes or for field trials.

Basmati farmers burn down GM rice

The All India Rice Exporters Association has lobbied the Indian Government to prohibit field trials of GM rice in many basmati rice growing states, including Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and the Punjab. So strong is the desire to keep their fields GM-free that Indian farmers burnt down the GM test plots that could potentially contaminate their rice fields.

Rakesh Tikait, a national spokesperson for one of the largest farming groups in India, the Bharathiya Kisan Union, explained the extreme reaction of rice farmers. He said, "The threat to farmers' livelihoods is clear. Examples from across the country of Bt cotton failures show that this technology is unsafe for humans and the environment, and that it can neither be controlled nor regulated. We consider the threat serious enough to warrant the destruction of test fields of GE rice to stop its introduction and to protect ourselves".

Goodbye biotechnology, hello nature

The ISAAA and the biotech industry may delude themselves with the ësuccesses' of genetic engineering and the constant expansion of acreages planted to GM crops. The stark reality, however, is that the global market has remained steadfastly hostile to GM crops, as the recent tainted rice episode so amply demonstrates. And far from benefiting the poor as the report claims, GM crops cost the poor at least 3 times more in terms of seed and herbicide, misappropriation of land and precious water resources, and incalculable harm to human, animal, and environmental health.

Greenpeace concludes that the rejection of GM crops by farmers, processors, consumers and governments alike reiterates the global message to the biotech industry that there is no place in our future for genetic engineering.

Can Food From Cloned Animals Be Called Organic?

Washington Post, Monday, January 29, 2007. By Rick Weiss.

There's nothing like a tender steak from a free-range, grass-fed, hormone-free, antibiotic-free, organic and -- oh, yes -- cloned cow.

Or is there?

That's a question being raised by scientists, activists and government bureaucrats since the Food and Drug Administration concluded in December that meat and milk from cloned animals should be allowed on the market.

In the opinion of some in the biotechnology arena, the federal definition of organic food would allow them to label food from clones as organic, as long as those clones were raised organically.

"My interpretation is that it's not excluded at this time," said Barbara Glenn, chief of animal biotechnology at the Washington-based Biotechnology Industry Organization.

But the mere thought that a clone might earn the coveted organic label makes even the most mild-mannered foodies rabid.

"Over my dead body," said Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy organization in Washington.

"I think it's unbelievable," said restaurateur Nora Pouillon, proprietress of the Nora and Asia Nora restaurants and Washington's doyenne of organic cookery.

"It's like putting artificial apples in an apple pie," said Joseph Mendelson III, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, a consumer group in Washington that has petitioned the government to more strictly regulate the sale of clone products for human consumption. "People would consider that a downright violation of the American way."

Officials at the Agriculture Department, which oversees the definition and certification of organic food, say the question will not be fully settled until it is considered by an advisory panel, perhaps by this spring. At that meeting, they predict, opponents will probably win, and the term "organic clone" will join the ranks of word pairs that simply do not belong together.

But nothing is ever certain in the federal rulemaking process. And a look at the USDA's legal definition of "organic" shows how tough it can be to regulate a science that is changing almost as fast as ink dries in the Federal Register.

The Agriculture Department spent years crafting a definition of "organic," integrating the advice of a record-breaking 50,000-plus public comments. But even after all that, said USDA spokesman Jerry Redding, the issue of clones "really never came up internally or externally until the FDA made its announcement about cloned animals being safe."

Now, like legal scholars poring over a Supreme Court decision, experts on both sides of the issue are examining the language of the department's six-year-old organic rule -- which, for all its detail, they are finding to be a squishy document open to interpretation.

Many clone-opposing readers of the rule are quick to note, for example, its clear statement that genetically engineered organisms cannot be organic. Surely, these opponents conclude, no animal is more engineered than a clone, which is conceived in a laboratory dish and has just one biological parent.

But the biotechnology companies that make cloned farm animals, such as Cyagra of Elizabethtown, Pa., and ViaGen of Austin, have for years been careful to distinguish between clones -- which are genetic replicas of other animals -- and genetically engineered animals, which have had genes added or subtracted to change specific traits.

The FDA has accepted that distinction and has emphasized that its preliminary approval of clones for food does not apply to gene-altered animals, which will have to pass more stringent safety tests.

Opponents also note that the organic rule excludes all animals made by "cell fusion." That technique is often the first step in making a clone, as scientists fuse a skin cell from the animal to be cloned to an egg cell whose DNA has been removed.

But cloning can be done without cell fusion -- by injecting the DNA from the skin cell directly into the egg cell, for example.

Other detailed exclusions in the organic rule fall similarly short of being slam dunk rejections of clones, several experts agree. That leaves opponents of organic clones falling back on some of the rule's more general language, such as the part that says an organic animal's growth and development must not be influenced by means "that are not considered compatible with organic production."

That language is sweeping, given the fuzziness of ideas about what "organic" means.

"For me," said Pouillon, "organic food means that everything goes through a sort of organic, natural process."

"Organic farmers work in harmony with nature, not to change it," echoed George Siemon, chief executive of Organic Valley, a farmers cooperative based in LaFarge, Wis.

But biotech industry leaders scoff at such language. If organic is so natural, they ask, why is it that the USDA allows organic cows to be conceived by in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination? If that is okay, why not cloning?

To which Pouillon responds dryly: "At least they still use sperm and an egg."

Even if the "naturalness" of various reproductive technologies remains open to debate, other principles are clearly central to the organic movement and leave the USDA no choice but to exclude clones, said Michael Sligh, a program director with the Rural Advancement Foundation International in Pittsboro, N.C.

"One of the principles of organic production is to encourage biodiversity," said Sligh, who was on the committee that drafted the organic rule in 2000. Without a doubt, Sligh said, the mass production of genetically identical critters runs counter to that.

Biotech officials counter that clones are unlikely to make up even 5 percent of the U.S. herd a decade from now, so they will have minimal impact on overall biodiversity.

But despite their belief that they ought to have access to the lucrative organic market, these companies may well decide that it is not worth going to the mat on this issue. And a decision to surrender might make a lot of sense, according to people who follow the debate.

After all, the FDA is still considering whether to insist that meat and milk from clones be labeled as such. The industry strongly opposes such a requirement because of fears that consumers -- who according to polls are not exactly salivating over the prospect of eating food from clones -- might interpret a "Made From Clones" label as a sort of health warning.

If "organic" were allowed to mean, among other things, that the food is not from cloned animals, the biotech industry can say to the FDA that explicit clone labels are not necessary because consumers already have a way to make choices.

"It allows them to say, 'If consumers want to avoid it, they can go organic,' " said Mendelson of the Center for Food Safety.

Ultimately it will be up to the USDA to decide whether a clone can be organic, based on advice from the agency's National Organic Standards Board. The board's next meeting is scheduled for March. An agenda has not yet been finalized.

India: Mahyco compensates Bt cotton cultivators

BharatTextile.com, January 29 2007

One of the front running BT cotton dealers in India, Mahyco has compensated farmers affected by cultivation of Bt cotton during a function held in Poosaripatty near Omalur on 28th January, industry sources said.

Mahyco, for the first time has distributed compensation to the tune of Rs 9.86 lakh to 88 of the 125 affected farmers of Omalur and Kadayampatty areas.

Earlier, about 125 farmers of Omalur and the adjoining Kadayampatty complained of huge loss due to the cultivation of Bt cotton seeds, supplied by Mahyco, in over a 198 acres of field.

Following the complaints received, the state agriculture minister, Veerapandy S Arumugam instructed Tamil Nadu Agriculture University (TNAU) scientists, several NGOs and environmental groups to conduct studies to find causes for failure of Mahyco supplied Bt cottonseeds in the region.

The study reveled that variation in soil condition was the major cause for Bt seeds failure.

Keeping in vies the situation and study, the state government held negotiations with Mahyco and convinced them to compensate Rs 5000 per acre to the affected farmers.

Accordingly, Arumugam distributed Rs 9.86 lakh compensation to 88 farmers of 125, while the rest of the farmers would be paid within two days.

Further he advised TNAU officials and Mahyco staff to extend necessary technical and intellectual support to the farmers before they started cultivation and warned TNAU scientists and extension wing officials of stern action if they failed to allay the fears of the farmers about BT cotton seeds.

Agricultural Deskilling and the Spread of Genetically Modified Cotton
in Warangal (Andra Pradesh, India)

Current Anthropology, Volume 48, Number 1, February 2007. By Glenn Davis Stone.
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/research/stone480102.web.pdf

Monsato has claimed the rapid spread of GM cotton is result of farmer experimentation and management skill. But Stone's multiyear study of Warangal cotton farmers shows something very different. He argues that, rather than a case of careful assessment and adoption, Warangal is plagued by cotton seed fads and that these fads can be exploited to encoyurage rapid crop adoption. Stone also suggests there is no convincing evidence to date that GM cotton is a success in India.

We strongly recommend reading the paper as a whole. The following are just fairly arbitrary excerpts from Stone's paper - some from footnotes:

In her history of maize breeding in the United States, Fitzgerald (1993) argued that adoption of hybrids led to "deskilling" of American farmers, turning farmers into passive customers of seed firms. Within a few years of the spread of hybrid corn, farmers who had previously been developing landraces and collaborating with public-sector breeders were told, "You may not know which strain to order. Just order FUNK'S HYBRID CORN. We will supply you with the hybrid best adapted to your locality" (Funk Bros. 1936 Seed Catalog, quoted in Fitzgerald 1993, 339).

"Like the adoption of any new technology, people planted it [genetically modified cotton] on smaller acres initially, but the ever-increasing Bollgard plantings demonstrate that the Indian farmer is willing to embrace a technology that delivers consistent benefits in terms of reduced pesticide use and increased income. Clearly the steadily increasing Bollgard acres being planted by increasing numbers of Indian farmers bear testimony to the success of this technology and the benefit that farmers derive from it." - Ranjana Smetacek, Director of Corporate Affairs for India, Monsanto

Producers of Bt cotton have been quick to attribute its adoption to farmer wisdom based purely on environmental learning. Monsanto cites small-plot experimentation, consistent results, and the development of "faith in the seed" (BBC 2005); the biotech industry's public relations consortium explains the Indian adoptions as a response to doubling in yield gains (CBI 2005). Pro-industry agricultural leaders such as P. Chengal Reddy insist that "we should leave the choice of selecting modern agricultural technologies to the wisdom of Indian farmers" (Pinstrup-Anderson and Schioler 2001, 108). Government officials such as the Andhra Pradesh agriculture minister stress the need to "let the farmers finally decide on the usefulness of Bt cotton. Farmers are wise enough to adopt anything good and discard things that do not work." (Venkateswarlu 2002).

The industry-supported International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications reported yield increases of 90% on test plots in India, although the source was only a personal communication (James 2002, 137). Mahyco-Monsanto's press releases reported on their own studies showing large boosts in yields coupled with lower pesticide costs in 2002, resulting in extraordinary increases in profits (Mahyco-Monsanto 2002). For 2003 the firms commissioned a study of cotton farmers in five states which again showed higher average yields and lower pesticide costs (Krishnakumar 2004; Mahyco-Monsanto 2004).

The few refereed studies on the performance of Bt cotton in India have had a variety of limitations and problems. Qaim and Zilberman 2002 analyzed 2001 test plot data supplied by Mahyco-Monsanto, showing that the Bt seeds gave an astonishing 80% yield increase. The article has been heralded by biotechnology companies (e.g., MonsantoIndia 2003), but its extrapolations set off a "firestorm" (Herring 2005a; Scoones 2003). It has been pointed out that 2001 was an unusually bad year for bollworm outbreaks, exaggerating the value of Bt (Herring 2005b), and that the source of the data was suspect. Even defenders of genetically modified crops complained that the study "used selective data sets from just one season when they had access to five years worth of data sets. . . This kind of astonishing yield increase due to a single gene trait was never going to be true" (Shantharam 2005).

At present the only safe conclusions seem to be that "an urgent need is obvious for further rigorous scientific evaluation of Bt cotton in India before deciding its further promotion" (Arunachalam 2004) and that this further research needs to address the enormous variation in the impact of Bt cotton (Qaim et al. 2006). A recent study of eight Bt cottons in test plots by India's Central Institute for Cotton Research showed that, although the gene construct was the same, Bt effectiveness varied markedly among hybrids; expression was also highly seasonal and imperfectly matched to the seasonality of Indian bollworms (Kranthi et al. 2005).

28 January 2007

Someone (Other Than You) May Own Your Genes

New York Times, January 28 2007. By Denise Caruso.

A recent survey (http://pewagbiotech.org/research/2006update/1.php) found that Americans overwhelmingly distrust government and industry to provide truthful information about biotech's risks and safety. Yet equally important as risk - and more often overlooked - are the public's equally real and unaddressed concerns about who is looking out for its interests as the genes of plants, animals and microbes, as well as entire organisms, become privatized through the patenting system.

Stephen Hilgartner of Cornell University said he believed that the economic and political challenges surrounding these so-called life patents would come to rival those of biotech risk, and he has come up with a sensible framework for starting a new conversation about them.

From the moment the first biotech patents were granted in 1980, the industry was hailed as a new frontier - uncharted territory where a new generation of scientist-inventors could reap the traditional rewards of innovation.

But even as the gold rush began, critics as varied as scientists and human rights advocates declared that biotech's new intellectual property frontier was already occupied. Claims of novelty and innovation as the basis for life patents, they said, disregarded the realities of not only nature, but also of research practices, democratic decision-making and global governance.

These realities led Mr. Hilgartner, an associate professor in Cornell's science and technology studies department, to think about how society might deal with biotech discoveries outside the strict economic imperatives of intellectual property law.

The title of an intriguing paper he wrote on the subject, "Acceptable Intellectual Property," (http://www.arts.cornell.edu/english/biopolitics/hilgartner1.pdf) is a wordplay on the well-known concept of "acceptable risk" - that is, the level of risk a society considers acceptable, given existing social, economic and cultural conditions.

In other words, what level of intellectual-property protection is society - not the biotech industry or its phalanx of patent lawyers - willing to accept in exchange for the benefits of biotechnology?

With this question in mind, Professor Hilgartner began to investigate whether legal theories of real property, rather than innovation, might be a more useful way to think about who owns biotech inventions and what can be done with them.

He notes that the law frames the ownership of property as a bundle of rights. People who "own" real estate actually own a set of expectations, relationships and obligations to various communities and regions.

Depending on the communities' rules, property owners may not be able to drill for oil, cut down trees or build new structures without permission, for example. They are obliged to prevent dangerous conditions, to pay for damages if they don't, and so forth. Communities are accountable in various ways to property owners as well.

In contrast, there is no analog to this network of obligations for a patent holder. As Tim Hubbard, a Human Genome Project researcher, noted at a 2001 conference: "If you have a patent on a mousetrap, rivals can still make a better mousetrap. This isn't true in the case of genomics. If someone patents a gene, they have a real monopoly."

This monopoly gives patent holders total control over patented genetic materials for any use whatsoever - whether for basic research, a diagnostic test, as a test for the efficacy of a drug or the production of therapies.

Professor Hilgartner said patents don't just determine who will own new technologies and who has access to them. They also influence what technologies cost, whose cultural and ethical values they represent, and what aspects of the research and development process will be transparent - and to whom.

The degree of control that life patents grant their owners is of growing concern to scientists, human rights and patient advocates and ethicists. More than 20 percent of human genes have already been patented, and most of those patents are owned by corporations.

Professor Hilgartner noted how this kind of control can play out in the real world. In the case of the Canavan disease patent, for example, a family afflicted by this rare genetic disorder initiated an effort to find the gene mutation responsible for the disease. They raised money, collected DNA samples and attracted researchers to the cause.

After a researcher found the gene in the late 1990s, he and his employer, Miami Children's Hospital, patented it and began charging royalties on a genetic test to screen for the disease - despite the fact that they would never have found the gene without the efforts and the DNA samples of the afflicted.

Patient groups filed suit in 2000, contending misappropriation of trade secrets by using their children's DNA without consent to obtain a patent. It took until 2003 for the parties to reach a confidential settlement; it allows certain laboratories to continue collecting royalties but lets institutions, doctors and scientists use the patented gene sequences without paying.

There are many other examples of life patents causing public concern. One of the most important examples involves patents on food crops and cloned animals. These patents have a growing potential to cede control of the world's food supply to biotech patent holders.

Important questions must also be answered about who can legitimately "own" or control our personal genetic information. And no one has yet been able to address economic, social and legal questions raised by the patenting of genetic resources taken from developing countries.

This month, for example, Peruvian farmers protested against the biotech giant Syngenta, which genetically modified a common potato variety so that the potatoes are sterile unless a chemical is applied.

Risk concerns aside, farmers say they want to know why the company can charge a premium for adding a few new genes to a potato variety - yet they cannot, in turn, demand a royalty from Syngenta for using the "property" that they and their ancestors have been "genetically modifying," by traditional means, for centuries.

Biotech companies are also amassing huge patent portfolios by tapping the genetic diversity found in volcanoes, rain forests and deep sea hydrothermal vents. They collect DNA from micro-organisms they find, patent it, and sell access to the gene sequences to pharmaceutical, agricultural, chemical and industrial companies.

Only rarely do such companies voluntarily work with indigenous communities to come to mutually agreeable terms for these kinds of activities. There has been much international protest as a result, but very little concrete action to change the situation.

These concerns may sound like the nattering of nabobs to those who believe the present system of protecting intellectual property is acceptable. But like it or not, a large and powerful infrastructure has declared that patents are crucial for getting discoveries out of the lab and into the market, and it will not change on its own.

NEVERTHELESS, that does not change the larger reality that Professor Hilgartner describes: that decisions about intellectual property are about much more than simply finding ways to stimulate and reward innovation.

They directly affect what technologies make it to the marketplace. They determine who is accountable for biotech products and processes, under what circumstances, and how they affect everyone.

Shifting the terms of the debate from patents and innovation to the rights-based framework that Professor Hilgartner has proposed may not be an immediate solution. But it is certainly the most direct route to a more democratic and inclusive conversation about intellectual property concerns as biotech marches on.

Denise Caruso is executive director of the Hybrid Vigor Institute, which studies collaborative problem-solving. E-mail: dcaruso@nytimes.com.

27 January 2007

Let's not barter away our food security for GM crops
We need to have a strategy that benefits our farmers

The News - International (Pakistan), 27 January 2007. By Kamal Siddiqi.

KARACHI: Important decisions are being made about Genetically Modified (GM) technologies, which arenÇt covered in our media or even in our parliament. Journalists and parliamentarians either lack access to information about GM crop trials or do not understand the issues at stake.

Meanwhile, biotech corporations are pressing ahead, leaving decisions that will affect millions of Pakistanis unexamined. After the privatisation of our important public sector entities, the new frontier seems to be our farms and food security. From what was once called the granary of the sub-continent, Pakistan can be reduced to what some are calling a client food state which will have to comply with the whims of Western biotech companies or face famine.

Earlier this week, Kausar Abdullah, member Planning Commission on Agriculture told a news conference that efforts were underway for approval of all BT (Bio-technology) varieties "as soon as possible" to adopt them in an organized manner for cultivation all over the country. This is bad news as it comes without any debate on the issue.

In Pakistan's business-friendly climate, biotech and GM issues are not a priority and are often mentioned in a polarized manner. In the absence of in-depth knowledge and specialization, it's either a business story - technologies are reported as good for food production and export markets - or itÇs a story about NGO protests.

This is ironic because some experts feel that the media in developing countries will have to increasingly deal with GM issues in the future.

"...Facing a political climate that is generally hostile to agri-biotech, companies have grown pessimistic about their commercial future in Europe and have begun moving their plant biotechnology divisions elsewhere," said an editorial in the Scientific American magazine in August last year.

According to some experts, multinational companies engaging in crop-improvement programs have taken a stronghold in developing countries through locally influential personages and companies.

In 1998 Monsanto bought a 28 per cent equity stake in Mumbai-based MAHYCO (Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company), an Indian firm. MAHYCO is headed by Dr Raju Barwale, a top scientist who has been decorated for his pioneering work in non-GM seed development. His influence in the government spreads into almost every sector of agriculture and biotechnology, and even the environment ministry.

Monsanto is not controversy-free. Its field trials with genetically modified Bt cotton sparked NGO protests between 2001 and 2003. The department of biotechnology in India gave it permission to produce the seeds even before trials were completed and the company did not make the trial results public.

One claim that Pakistan has to deal with is that GM crops will alleviate poverty and hunger in the developing world. Making the claim, among others, is a non-profit organization with global clout - the International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications (ISAAA). With a mandate to aid technology-transfer from rich to poor countries, and a high-profile board of current and past members, the ISAAA was represented at the press conference in Islamabad by its chairman Clive James.

In a 2004 report on the global status of biotech crops, ISAAA chief Clive James says that 90 per cent of beneficiaries of the increase in acreage of biotech crops have been poor farmers "whose increased income from biotech crops contributed to the alleviation of poverty."

The ISAAA's growing influence in Pakistan is apparent. It also claims that these technologies would bring about the "next green revolution" in Pakistan.

The ISAAA, which conducts media study tours and symposia, says a country like India saw a 400% rise (500,000 hectares) in Bt cotton hectareage in 2004 and that 11 per cent of cotton farmers adopted Bt seeds. Only a handful queried such claims.

But the increase in acreage that the ISAAA refers to is minuscule compared to India's 10 million hectares of cotton cultivation, say analysts. Just because farmers are experimenting with GM crops in order to assess their benefits does not mean they have accepted the technology. This is true of Pakistan as well.

Sometimes it is also a question of making use of available data. India's Crop Weather Watch Group argue that the countryÇs bumper cotton crop in 2004 was more due to deficient rainfall - low humidity discourages pest-breeding - than to the widespread use of Bt technology as claimed by the ISAAA.

But GM crops have made considerable inroads into traditional agriculture over the last ten years. Major biotech crops to have been successfully commercialised include cotton, corn (maize) and soybean. But is this for the better?

After a decade of commercialisation, global area under biotech crops has expanded to 90 million hectares in 21 countries covering 8.5 million farmers in 2005.

Herbicide-tolerant soybean continues to be the mostly widely adopted trait, accounting for 60 per cent of total global area. Varieties with stacked traits are growing in popularity, accounting for 10 per cent of global area, the ISAAA report pointed out.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that food output must increase by 60 percent over the next 25 years to keep up with demand.

In a report on the bioengineering of crops written for the World Bank and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in October last year, a group led by Henry Kendall, chair of the Washington DC-based Union of Concerned Scientists, said that transgenic crops could improve food yields by up to 25 percent in developing countries and could help to feed an estimated additional three billion people over the next 30 years.

Whether or not the rest of the world falls in line with the US in accepting life patents, researchers predict that with advances in biotechnology there will be a switch in centres of production away from the developing world, accompanied by loss of export income. This is cause for worry.

Farmers in the US are expected to plant twice as much GM soybean in 2008 as in 2007, and with resistance to GM soy in Europe, there are concerns that it will be dumped in countries like Pakistan.

Corporations that patent crop plants often donÇt allow nations, where these crops are indigenous, to benefit. The central, over-arching debate (or lack of debate) concerns ownership of resources and how to reconcile the rigid, individualistic patenting system of the developed world with the community-held knowledge systems of poorer countries.

If foreign researchers and TNCs can patent indigenous crop plants without making recompense to the communities who provided them, there are fears that farmers will end up paying royalties on the products of their own knowledge, products on which they rely for survival.

In September 1997, the US company Ricetec, Inc., was granted a patent on Basmati rice. The patent is for a variety achieved by the crossing of Indian Basmati with semi-dwarf varieties, and it covers Basmati grown anywhere in the Western hemisphere.

Ricetec can also put its brand on any breeding crosses involving 22 farmer-bred Basmati varieties from Pakistan and, according to RAFI (Rural Advancement Foundation International), on any blending of Pakistani or Indian Basmati strains with the companyÇs other proprietary seeds.

Ricetec also claims the right to use the Basmati name. The Indian government has challenged RicetecÇs claim, arguing that the patent jeopardises India's annual Basmati export market of around $277 million, and threatens the livelihood of thousands farmers.

Monsanto, a biotech firm, does not allow farmers to save seeds, forcing them to continually buy more Monsanto seed. The ability of farmers to save seed is seen as crucial to food security especially in a country like Pakistan.

According to RAFI, up to 1.4 billion poor farmers in the developing world depend on saved seed and seeds exchanged with farm neighbors, and up to 50 percent of soybean in the developing world is planted with farmer-saved seed.

TNCs such as Monsanto require farmers who buy their GM seeds to sign contracts agreeing not to save seed. In March 1998 RAFI reported that Monsanto had taken legal action against more than 100 soybean growers in the US, and had hired Pinkerton investigators (hired police) to identify those saving seeds.

In 1998 the US Department of Agriculture and the Mississippi-based Delta and Pine Land seed company were granted a patent on the so-called "terminator technology", which involves engineering seeds so that they do not germinate if planted for a second time.

What does all this mean for the Pakistani farmer? On the one hand, GM seeds and crops promise an increased yield. But the catch is that the farmer cannot re-use the seed. This makes the farmer a client of the biotech company for life. There is no more self sufficiency.

GM crops also have other hazards attached to them and sometimes do not get the results that they promise. All this needs to be considered by Pakistan before it opens the way to bio-technology.

To every cloud there is a silver lining. If our parliament is heavy with agriculturists, this is the platform for us to debate whether we are better off with our crops and techniques or should we adopt technology that barters away our food security. Time for some deep thinking and hard questioning.

GM Watch Comment on Pakistan articles above and below:

As Pakistan is pressurised down the GM route, it's encouraging to see such a thoughtful article (item 1) in the Pakistani press.

As the article notes, "The ISAAA's growing influence in Pakistan is apparent." And, unfortunately, most of Pakistan's media is failing to ask questions about the hype they're being fed by this industry group.

Over and over again we read about the danger of Pakistan being left behind as other Asian countries enjoy bountiful harvests and race ahead with GM. But almost every element of this picture is either false, incomplete or misleading.

Here's a classic example of this from the article below:

"The [ISAAA] report said that Bt cotton has contributed significantly to the yield increase in cotton in India... In turn... Bt cotton has been a major contributor to increased exports from India... Thailand [is] worried about falling behind its global competition, much of Asia is rushing forward with the development and cultivation of genetically modified crops. The three most populous countries in Asia - China, India and Indonesia - are already planting millions of acres of genetically modified cotton."

False

Far from Indonesia "planting millions of acres of genetically modified cotton", Monsanto's Bt seeds had to be withdrawn from the country after it proved a disaster. And a sustained campaign of corruption of officials by Monsanto was subsequently shown to have occurred. http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=58&page=1.

And as the first article notes, India's apparently improved cotton harvests owe more to the weather than Bt cotton. In fact, ISAAA's own data shows the attribution of any improvements to Bt cotton is completely bogus. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7433.

Incomplete

A lot of Bt cotton has been planted in India and China but that hardly reflects the technology's success. In India's case there's good reason to conclude that it reflects a massive campaign of hype impacting, as a just published study shows, on farmers who've become highly vulnerable to agricultural fads. (Effect of genetically modified crops on developing countries) http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7490. (THE MARKETING OF BT COTTON IN INDIA) http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5741.

And a study of Bt cotton cultivation in 2004 in China showed non-Bt cotton farmers were making more money than Bt cultivators, who were suffering from major problems with secondary pest infestations. http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=86&page=1.

Misleading

As for Thailand missing the GM train, that may have been a concewrn of the former Thai Prime Minister but that concern hasn't been reflected in the rest of Thailand, quite the reverse, a fact which forced the PM to back-track on lifting Thailand's GM ban. And the Thai rice industry has recently been celebrating the fact that it has kept clear of GM rice as it is benefiting ecenomically from the crisis inflicted on the US rice industry by GM contamination following field trials. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7337.

Policymakers yet to reach consensus
Sowing of Bt cotton was unauthorised

The Daily Times (Pakistan), January 27 2007. By Fida Hussain.

ISLAMABAD: As most countries in North and South America and considerable number of countries in Asia have made a significant progress on introducing biotech (Bt) crops for increasing productivity, the policymakers in Pakistan are still to reach a consensus on the adoption of the new technology in the country, a senior government official told Daily Times on Friday.

Most of the initiatives being taken by different government organisations are working without any co-ordination due to which there are differences among the policymakers, which include the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock (MINFAL), the National Commission on Biotechnology (NCB) of Ministry of Science and Technology and Planning Commission (PC).

The recent development of Bt cotton, which has already been grown in different areas of the country, has become a bone of contention among various stakeholders as no farmer has sought any permission from the MINFAL to grow this variety of crop. Under the present rules and regulations, the sowing of Bt cotton was illegal.

"There is set mechanism which must be followed for the introduction of new technology. The new varieties of genetically modified of seeds must undergo various tests before permitting the sowing of new crops at a mass scale," a senior government official said. He said that MINFAL was going to introduce IRFH 901 variety of cotton, which has been developed by the country's own research institutions, this year. According to him the permission of Bt crops was a risky issue, as the MINFAL must make sure that no variety is the carrier of any lethal diseases. Despite having spent millions of rupees, the research institutes failed to curb or eradicate the Cotton Leaf Curl Virus (CLCV) in cotton.

Despite the fact that the NCB and the PC were striving to introduce more Bt crops in the country in 2007, the MINFAL has not been formally informed by the concerned organisations.

According to the official, before the introduction of Bt crops, every variety must be tested for longer period. It takes two or in some cases three years to approve the new variety of seed. So far, the concerned organisations provided no variety in this regard, the official said.

According to a recent report of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Application (ISAAA) more than 20 million farmers will plant 200 million hectares of biotech crops in about 40 countries. The growth during 1996 to 2006 is equivalent to an unprecedented 60-fold increase, the biggest adoption rate of any crop technology.

The report indicated that the growth of biotech crop adoption was substantially higher in the developing world at 21 percent versus the industrialized nations where adoption grew by 9 percent. Developing countries now account for 40 percent of the global biotech crop, the report said.

The report said that Bt cotton has contributed significantly to the yield increase in cotton in India from 308 kg lint per hectare in 2001-02 to 450 kg lint per hectare in 2005-06. In turn in yield from Bt cotton has been a major contributor to increased exports from India, which soared from 0.9 million bales in 2005 to 4.7 million bales in 2006. Thailand, worried about falling behind its global competition, much of Asia is rushing forward with the development and cultivation of genetically modified crops. The three most populous countries in Asia - China, India and Indonesia - are already planting millions of acres of genetically modified cotton.

26 January 2007

GM debate needed

Irish Farmers Journal, 27 January 2007.

A call to hold an open debate on GM Foods and biotechnolgy was made this week by Fine Gael MEP, Mairead McGuinness.

The prospective FG candidate for Louth said there is an urgent need to debate the GM technology so that Irish consumers and producers can make the right choice for the future.

The EU Opinion Barometer shows 58% of the general public are opposed to GM foods.

Only six EU countries – Spain, Portugal, Czech Republic, France, Slovenia and Germany allow the production of GM crops, with Spain being the lead producer.

"Ireland is faced wtih a choice of remaining 'technically' free of GM production, as currently there are no such crops grown in Ireland or any GM crops on the market which would suit Irish conditions.

"On the other hand, we need to access the impact of remaining "GM free" in terms of research and development.

Wheat growers get on biotech wagon
Global acreage decreases start to outweigh reluctance

Capital Press, Friday, January 26, 2007. By Scott Yates.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - If the wheat industry had been as unified about capturing biotech traits three years ago, Roundup Ready wheat might be on the market today.

As it is, the wheat industry is a dozen years behind corn, cotton, soybeans and oilseed crops in the race for biotech superiority. Based on the latest estimate, that gap is expected to widen, with wheat interests indicating Syngenta won't introduce a genetically modified fusarium head blight-resistant cultivar until sometime around the middle of the next decade.

For the Joint Biotech Committee of U.S. Wheat Associates and the National Association of Wheat Growers, that is simply too long. Motions passed by the group and approved by both organizations aim to speed up the release of biotech traits and encourage scientists in the private and public sector to renew their research on GMO wheat.

It wasn't that long ago the wheat industry was divided between those who wanted Monsanto's herbicide-resistant trait and those who felt it would irreparably damage U.S. marketing efforts overseas. After seven years of working to achieve a consensus, Monsanto shelved Roundup Ready wheat in May 2004, telling growers the company would concentrate on biotechnology development in corn, cotton and oilseed crops.

Now, wheat growers appear intent on working to jump-start biotechnology development in their crop, passing a motion that directs USW and NAWG to meet with counterparts in Canada and Australia to develop a time line for the commercialization and release of genetically modified wheat. Sherman Reese, past president of NAWG, said wheat growers are the ones who dropped the ball and they are the ones to pick it up again.

"At some point we have to grab our own destiny, and we are not doing it," the Oregon wheat grower said.

The change of heart on the part of the nation's wheat growers is the result of trends that show corn and soybean acreage increasing at the expense of wheat. With genetically modified, drought-resistant corn the next big thing, growers are worried the erosion of acreage will only accelerate.

Wheat interests are calling the situation a "crisis of competitiveness" and are using acreage data to encourage other segments in the food chain, domestically as well as overseas, to get on board.

Daren Coppock, chief executive officer of NAWG, put it bluntly: "We are being displaced, and the longer we wait to address the competitiveness problem, the bigger hole we dig and the harder it is to conquer."

At the biotech committee meeting, Vince Peterson, vice president of overseas operations for USW, said his staff is making presentations building on the idea this is not just a U.S. problem. He reviewed data that showed wheat acreage is also declining in Canada, Argentina and Brazil. And based on precipitation patterns, he said breadbasket areas of Ukraine and Russia may also shift to corn and soybeans.

Peterson said millers and bakers are being told if non-GM wheat is desired, it will be delivered, with the understanding that tolerances are key. Different areas of the world have different tolerances for adventitious or accidental presence of genetically modified crops. In the European Union, the level is 0.9 percent. Japan, however, has a 5 percent threshold for the GMO crops its currently imports.

Peterson said reaction to the presentations is mixed, with the response in the Middle East more conciliatory than in Europe and Asia. After presentations in Europe, USW received letters "the gist of which was, 'If we haven't told you lately, we still aren't happy about this,'" Peterson said.

Based on the current time line for release of a fusarium head blight-resistant variety, there appears to be years to sort out the GMO opposition, but Al Skogen, a grower from North Dakota, doesn't believe growers have the luxury of waiting.

"Somewhere along the line we are going to have to make more aggressive moves," he said, including telling buyers that growers are unilaterally making the choice to move forward. "I think the wheat industry is going to have to step up the pace."

He said he believes the answer is not to withhold GMO wheat, but rather to give customers what they want.

Speaking of Japan, where several importers indicated they would cease sourcing U.S. wheat if the Roundup Ready trait were commercialized, he said: "The only question they really should ask is can we deliver what they want? Beyond that, they don't have the right to tell us what to plant."

New Syngenta corn enters US market

Decision News Media SAS, Friday, January 26, 2007.

A new genetically modified corn is to become available in the US, after the variety was approved by the nation"s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Developed by Swiss biotech firm Syngenta, the variety is the stacked combination of the firm's new corn rootworm trait with its European corn borer trait.

The approval also allows Syngenta to launch its triple stacked corn that includes glyphosate tolerance.

The double stack, AgrisureTM CB/RW, will be available in limited quantities for the 2007 growing season and the triple stack, Agrisure GT/CB/RW will be available for 2008, said the firm.

"The approval of the stacked insect traits marks another milestone in our strategy to offer a highly competitive portfolio of proprietary biotech products to growers in the world's largest corn market," said Mike Mack, chief operating officer of Syngenta Seeds.

"As we scale up hybrid production over the next two seasons, this will enable Syngenta to drive growth and market share into the next decade," he added.

The registration follows the first EPA approval for the corn rootworm resistant trait in October 2006.

Syngenta said it also plans to offer the single and stacked traits for use in other leading seed brands through its GreenLeaf Genetics joint venture. The firm expects US Department of Agriculture (USDA) authorization to ship the double stack trait for the 2007 growing season.

The third largest business in the high-value commercial seeds market, Syngenta reported sales in 2005 of approximately $8.1 billion.

In October last year Group sales in the third quarter of 2006 increased by 1 per cent to $1.41bn, though at constant exchange rates (CER), sales were unchanged.

The company said earlier this year that Western European markets were affected by a late start to the season, which reduced cereal fungicide usage and by the progressive implementation of subsidy reform.

But the company, which also reported overall decreased sales for the first half of the year, is confident that growth will come on the back of newly launched products.

For the first nine months, sales of new products rose 20 per cent to $784 million. In the quarter, fungicides sales were higher following an inventory adjustment in the USA in 2005, though lower sales of selective herbicides reflected timing differences between the last two quarters.

25 January 2007

No BSE-free cow

Re-posting of New Scientist article from 2004.

Reports that the first cow genetically engineered to be immune to BSE will soon be born have turned out to be misleading.

In theory, creating BSE-free animals is simple: delete both copies of the gene for the PrP protein that causes prion diseases when it becomes mishapen, and animals cannot develop the disease. But in practice, engineering such animals is time-consuming and very costly, and past attempts to create cows that lack the gene have failed (New Scientist, 5 January 2002, p 5).

So when Kirin Brewery of Japan this week announced that a cow was pregnant with a calf that lacks the PrP protein, the story received global press coverage. But the actual work is being carried out by Kirin's partner, Hematech of Connecticut, and James Robl, the company's chief scientific officer, told New Scientist that so far the US company has only created cell lines lacking the prion gene.

The aim of the work is to use BSE-free cows to produce pharmaceutical products such as human antibodies. This would guarantee there would be no risk of people getting vCJD, the human form of BSE. But BSE-free cows are unlikely to end up on the dinner plate - it would take decades and be very expensive to replace existing herds of beef cattle.

It remains to be seen whether BSE-free cows will be healthy. Some mice in which the PrP gene has been deleted seem to have altered sleeping patterns, which may indicate other problems too.

Note: For a critique of recent coverage of this story see article by Glenn Ashton at http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7443

Public litigation over GMOs in India

GM Watch comment: This press release relates to the latest stage of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) brought by Aruna Rodrigues and her co-petitioners over GMOs, which is due to be heard again by India's Supreme Court (SC) on the 31st January.

The PIL has already lead the Court to ban all new GM field trials in India. However, an exception was made at the request of Delhi University for trials of its GM mustard (DMH-11).

The petitioners are contesting this exemption on the grounds that Delhi University did not make all the relevant scientific information available to the Court, in particular that the GM mustard involves a Terminator-style sterility producing GURT (Genetic Use Restriction Technology).

The petitioners are also drawing attention to the Government of India's total inability to provide adequate independent scrutiny and regulatory control over GMOs, due to its direct alliance with the US Government and with US and other multinationals to promote GM crop commercialisation in India.

The petitioners also draw attention to the revealing prevalence of conflicts of interest in the regulation of GM crops in India. They note, for instance, that the key GM Regulator, the GEAC, has as its Co-chair, Charudatta Mayee, who is simultaneously a Director of the ISAAA, an international network established to promote GM, funded by biotech majors like Monsanto, Bayer and Dupont.

Similarly, Dr Deepak Paintal, the promoter of Delhi University's GM mustard, is the chairman of the Review Committee for Bt Brinjal (aubergine/eggplant) set up by the GEAC. In other words, he oversees a body of regulation that he himself is subject to.

Press release:

New Delhi, India, 25 January 2006.

Delhi University's impleadment application to the Supreme Court to field test mustard DMH-11 compromises a critical bio-safety protocol of the court, for the added reason that it is confirmed to be a sterilisation technology based on pollen GURTS (Genetic Use Restriction Technology).

The conflict of interest in the regulation of GM crops is deep and pervasive. The Union of India is openly collaborating with the government of the United States of America to commercialise GE crops in India: to subject Indians to the riskiest and fastest experiment anywhere whith regard to GM foods and animal feeed.

In continuation of the PIL filed in July 2005 in the Supreme Court for a moratorium pending a comprehensive biosafety protocol, Petitioners have filed two submissions in January 2007, which provide the following evidence:

1. Contamination from Field Trials Risk India's Bio-safety in Perpetuity

At this juncture, contamination is the critical issue precisely because of outstanding safety concerns that GMOs present; that the bio-safety risk through contamination by more than one method is confirmed, and transgenic or gene contamination is a biological certainty. Since this involves a time-scale of perpetuity, it is therefore unacceptable.

For this reason, it is necessary to apply the precautionary principle to this hazardous technology through an immediate moratorium on ALL FIELD TRIALS without which this Petition will be rendered infructuous. The hazards of GE are fully applicable to DU's Mustard DMH-11. Brassica (B) species including B juncea (Indian mustard) present particularly high contamination risks. DMH-11 is also engineered to be resistant to glufosinate, BayerÇs herbicide. Glufosinate is toxic, carries environmental and health hazards and in Canada triple herbicide tolerance including to glufosinate is a matter of serious concern. The extensive contamination of certified canola seed with transgenes for herbicide tolerance is staggering. The Canadian canola crop extends over some 5 million hectares, of which roughly 60% are planted with transgenic varieties. It now seems unlikely that transgene-free canola can be produced in western Canada.

The fact that DMH-11 is also a GURT greatly exacerbates the bio-safety risk. It therefore enjoins a more rigorous application of injunction applied to it and not by any means, less. The science is that the Barnase construct has "the potential to act as a GURT and is consistent in its effects with purposefully made GURTs, because the barnase plant and its POLLEN can restrict access to fertile plants" (Dr.JH). GURTs are rightly banned by COPs 8 (of the CBD) and that is also the intention of the Indian Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Act 2001 which bans the registration of any GURT.

DU places great emphasis on an integral proprietary technology in DMH-11 in which "any possible leaky expression of the barnase gene is completely avoided." This begs the question of whether the field trial is indeed purely a research exercise or is commercial testing. On the other hand, if the researchers had no commercial interest in the "proprietary technology", they could release the details and the results of safety tests for the larger scientific community to consider. Dr. Jack Heinemann states conclusively:

"zero expression is impossible to prove and highly unlikely to be achieved. The researchers are making a powerful claim when they say 'any possible leaky expression of the barnase gene is completely avoided.' This claim is for an achievement that would not be a minor incremental advance on the science of gene expression, and therefore should not simply be accepted without proper review of the evidence". (Dr. JH, Director, Centre of Integrated Research and Biosafety, University of Canterbury)

"it does not seem entirely sane to undertake safety tests involving known toxins in the open environment. Such tests on the safety of the ablation (to kill) toxins should have been undertaken on plants grown in a controlled glass house environment prior to being released in the open environment for agronomic tests." (Prof. Joe Cummins, Professor Emeritus of Genetics, University of Western Ontario)

2. The Government of India's Intent is to Promote & Commercialise GE.

The recent Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture, (KIA) with Monsanto elected to a pivotal role, is the key in the joint political plan, involving the potent combination of the most powerful country in the world, the US with the largest democracy in the world, India, to push the commercialisation of GM crops in India, with global implications. By their own admission, (Union of India), the recruitment of our centres of education, i.e. universities and state agricultural universities (SAUs) is being rapidly deployed to aid the process.

Every US President since George H.W. Bush (1992) has made support of genetically engineered crops a matter of highest national priority. The control over the world's seed supply is the cornerstone of Monsanto's aim of supremacy over world agriculture, where "NATURAL SEEDS ARE VIRTUALLY EXTINCT". Transgenic contamination of the seed stock will preclude choice and is irreversible. If genetic engineering (GE) fails, then seeds will be our only recourse. Recovering the original genetic seed stock will however be impossible, which is the ultimate aim of biotech in order to gain control and domination over global crops.

In March 1998 the US Patent Office granted Patent No. 5,723,765 to Delta & Pine Land for a patent titled, Control of Plant Gene Expression. The patent, which is Terminator, is owned jointly, according to Delta & Pine's Security & Exchange Commission 10K filing, 'by D&PL and the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture.'

The patent has global coverage. USDA's (United States Department of Agriculture) Phelps stated that the US Government's goal in fostering the widest possible development of Terminator technology was 'to increase the value of proprietary seed owned by US seed companies and to open up new markets in Second and Third World countries.'

D&PL is now in the process of being bought over by Monsanto. The acquisition will give Monsanto an unprecedented monopoly position as a seed supplier and the owner of the Terminator patent. Monsanto's tactics worldwide (including in India), and it also includes those of Bayer, Sygenta and the full biotech industry, should in the normal course be of the greatest concern to the Union of India and the national Regulator. Patents lapse over time; not so the biological control over a nationÇs food crops. The fact that biotech plans have not alerted a national bio-safety and food security antennae, demonstrates a serious and dangerous break with the process of objective enquiry that may not be countenanced in a Regulator. It is proof of a mindset that is disastrous for India, must rank as the greatest betrayal of the nationÇs sovereign interests and is therefore reason for a corrective course of action to be applied with the greatest sense of urgency.. Monsanto's corporate interest of profit and domination over many decades, has taken priority over human concerns and therefore represents the corporate 'ethics' and culture of the company. Keeping company with other biotech majors like Bayer, it includes some of the worst human rights excesses committed by an organisation. In order to put a perspective on matters, i.e. the complexion of a government that finds it fit to support the likes of such as these, a telling description bears repetition:

On February 22, 2002, a court found Monsanto guilty on all six counts of negligence, wantonness and suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage. Outrage, according to Alabama law, usually requires conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society."

The fact is: that India's GM and agricultural policy is being manipulated and steered by such a corporate entity and others like it, with the full backing of the US Government, to fulfil scary and anti-sovereign objectives of domination of global food supply with emphasis on the 3rd world. That the Indian Government should be aiding and abetting such a policy is dumbfounding. It defies rational sense and debate.

Two significant and further aspects of the conflict of interest within the Government and its Regulator, the GEAC, are: (a) The Co-chair of the GEAC, Charudatta Mayee, is simultaneously a Director of the ISAAA, an international network established to promote GM, funded by biotech majors like Monsanto, Bayer and Dupont; (b) Dr. Paintal the promoter of DU's mustard DMH-11 is also the chairman of the Review Committee set up by the GEAC for Bt Brinjal. He therefore oversees a body of regulation that he is himself subject to.

It is also a fact that the Indian Constitution is being subverted through trade-related politics and pressure brought on India at the WTO by the USA. The Indian Government is accordingly committed to embarking on a sleuth of measures to bend Indian regulations to allow both the commercialisation of crops and full scale GM imports without labelling into India. Bio-safety and the precautionary principle have been comprehensively ditched.

The solutions lie in (a) the election of independent members to the GEAC; (b) however, on its own, this measure will be insufficient to ensure the long term protection of India's national interest. It is therefore quite necessary to institute the office of an overseeing, autonomous and independent body, an OMBUDSMAN, which is instituted by an Act of Parliament to underpin its constitutional mandate of the protection of India's Biosafety. It has been suggested that a comprehensive working paper by civil society must form part of the guidelines for this Body to ensure its independence and objectivity. It is recognized that the level of research, experience and expertise on GE that is available in the 'North' developed world is not matched in India. The presence therefore of world class independent scientists as advisors/consultants to the Ombudsman is also seen as part of a process that ensures a climate of world class excellence in the workings of such an institution.

Since it is civil society that is now bearing and will in future bear the brunt in perpetuity of the Regulators' reckless rush to commercialise this technology in India in partnership with the US Government and Monsanto, how we proceed is of the uttermost national importance. It therefore requires the most serious application of wills and hearts of National Government and civil society to ensure that India gets it right, NOW, for we will not get a second chance.

Aruna Rodrigues with co-petitioners:
Petitioner No1
Mhow, Madhya Pradesh

PV Satheesh,
Hyderabad


Devinder Sharma,
New Delhi

Rajeev Baruah Mhow, Madhya Pradesh
Dated 25th January, 2007

Say "No" To India's Crops Being Genetically Engineered:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/no-to-indias-crops-being-genetically-engineered.html

24 January 2007

GM crop picture not as rosy as industry claims

Biowatch South Africa press statement, 24 January 2007.

Industry-funded International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) claims of increases in the growing of genetically modified (GM) crops and overwhelming acceptance of this risky new technology is flawed.

Statistics from ISAAA have been exaggerated in the past, according to a report released this month by Greenpeace International.

ISAAA claimed that in 2005 Romania grew 125 000 hectares of GM soy, while the Romanian government put the area at only 87 000 hectares. In 2006, ISAAA claimed that Iran was growing GM crops commercially, although Iran is neither growing nor has it approved any GM crops on a commercial scale.

According to ISAAA, of the 25 European Union states six are growing GM crops. It is silent on the banning on cultivation of GM soy by Romania, the ban on GM maize by Austria and that seven European countries have banned one or more GM crops.

According to ISAAA, China has 3.5 million hectares under GM crop cultivation. Nevertheless, Kraft Foods, the world"s second largest food producer, has committed itself to supply China with GM-free food from January 1 2007. The Chinese government"s biosafety committee has also called for more data and assessment about the safety of GM rice, so delaying a decision on its commercial approval for at least a year.

Following the discovery in 2006 that significant quantities of USA long grain rice were contaminated with an unapproved GM variety, the Rice Producers of California and a major rice mill in the state have called for a ban on the growing of GM rice, including in field trials. The world's largest rice processor, Ebro Puleva, has also committed to being GM-free and rice traders in Thailand and Vietnam, the world's two largest rice exporting countries, have done the same.

In India, which ISAAA says is the leading GM crop grower in Asia, the Supreme Court has placed a temporary ban on all field trials of GM crops.

ISAAA claims Brazil has 11.5 million hectares under GM crop cultivation but Brazil continues to resist GM industry attempts to get approval for GM maize.

Even in South Africa, where ISAAA says there has been a 180% increase in the area under GM crop cultivation, the regulatory authority for GM applications last year rejected an application for experiments with GM sorghum - because they feared contamination of local sorghum varieties. And towards the end of 2006, the South African Wine Industry Council objected to an application for the use of GM yeast in winemaking.

Research in South Africa and worldwide is showing that GM crops have none of the benefits which the GM industry persistently promises.

A joint seven-year study by Chinese and United States researchers found that Chinese farmers growing GM cotton lost money. The researchers, from the Centre for Chinese Agricultural Policy, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Cornell University in the United States, found that farmers who had planted Bt cotton initially cut their pesticide use by more than 70% and had earnings 36% higher than those planting conventional cotton. But after that, the farmers growing Bt cotton had to spray as much pesticide as farmers growing conventional cotton. This resulted in them earning 8% less than conventional farmers because the Bt cotton seed was triple the cost of conventional cotton seed. After seven years, other insects had increased so much that the farmers growing Bt cotton were having to spray their crops up to 20 times per growing season.

A study of GM cotton farmers in Makhathini Flats in KwaZulu Natal by University of KwaZulu Natal researchers, found that cotton yields in the area were more or less the same before and after the adoption of GM cotton. Based on their discussions with those familiar with pesticide application in the area, the researchers suggested a similar scenario with pesticide use as was the case in China.

Contact For more information, queries, please ring Leslie Liddell, Biowatch South Africa director, on + 27 (0)21 447 5939 or + 27 (0)73 307 8873.

23 January 2007

Bayer reaches settlement over drug disclosure

Houston Business Journal, January 23 2007.

Bayer Corp. will pay $8 million to 30 states, including $200,000 to Texas, as part of a settlement requiring the company to fully disclose when drugs pose risks for patients with specific health conditions. According to the settlement, Bayer failed to adequately warn physicians, pharmacies and patients of clinical studies revealing serious consequences of taking Baycol, a cholesterol-lowering drug. The company pulled the drug from the market in August 2001 due to its muscle-weakening side effects. The terms also extend to the disclosure of clinical studies involving other Bayer drugs with possibly harmful side effects.

"Texans deserve to be fully informed about the adverse effects of their medications," said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. "This agreement ensures that patients have access to the information they need to make educated health care decisions." The terms of the judgment require that Bayer register its clinical studies and, upon the completion of each study, post the results on the Internet. The marketing, sale and promotion of Bayer's pharmaceutical and biological products must comply with the law and cannot include false or misleading claims.

In 1997, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Baycol, a "statin" cholesterol-lowering prescription drug, which Bayer began marketing in May 1998. While patients who take statin drugs frequently experience muscle-weakening side effects, Bayer failed to disclose that its product posed significantly greater risks than did statins produced by other drug companies. Because of Bayer's failure to disclose risks exacerbated by its product, patients who were prescribed Baycol were not informed of its potential side effects. Concealing risks in the name of profit violates the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Bayer Corp. USA is a subsidiary of Bayer AG, part of the Bayer Group of companies based in Germany. The company has facilities across the U.S., including Channelview and Baytown.

[Comment from GM Watch: This settlement follows on from the disclosure of company documents indicating that "some senior executives at Bayer were aware that their anticholesterol drug had serious problems long before the company pulled it from the market. The documents, made public by lawyers suing Bayer, include e-mail messages, memos and sworn depositions of executives that suggest that Bayer promoted the drug, Baycol, even as a company analysis found that patients on Baycol were falling ill or dying from a rare muscle condition much more often than patients on similar drugs." (Papers Indicate That Bayer Knew of Dangers of Its Cholesterol Drug, New York Times) http://www.cbgnetwork.org/386.html.]

Are you afraid of what"s in your food?

The Bridge (Massachusetts), 23 January 2007. By Jen Mazer.

Join the Somerville anti-GMO initiative project

I would like to hear from those who are deeply concerned about what exactly is in their food.

I am interested in starting a ballot initiative against genetically engineered (GMO) food in Somerville for 2007. This will be a nonpartisan, anti-corporate effort. I would suggest an initiative where farms, restaurants, and markets all have certificates that they do not use GMO food or seeds, or cloned animals.

Background

Food is genetically engineered or genetically modified by artificially changing the DNA in a plant or animal species. The usual method is inserting a gene from one species into the cells of a completely different species. Corporations like Monsanto say that this improves the yield or increases resistance to disease, pests or weeds. Inserting a gene into DNA can be dangerous, since the ultimate results are unpredictable. The outcome can be different depending on where the gene was inserted.Why should people want to eat bland tomatoes that have a longer shelf life when you can eat home grown tomatoes that may have less risk of cancer? GMO food could also cause immunities to penicillin.

Why do we not become independent of the machine-the industrial system? What is wrong with us? It comes down to greed for more. We have enough food. Famines are caused by humans. A lot of food goes to waste.Overpopulation is a legitimate worry among both ecologists and environmentalists though, because we do not know how many of us the earth can take.

Some governments are so corrupt they won"t release the food; it rots somewhere. Some governments are so corrupt they put in nasty chemicals and artificially changed DNA. Some governments are so corrupt they teach monoculture and force people to grow sugar cane rather than beans and maize.

An anti GMO initiative campaign would touch upon many issues such as patents, violation of culture, organic permaculture as an answer to GM food, and other efforts around the country and the world. Agribusiness takes patents out on traditional food, full of hubris about how much they can improve on nature and hundreds of generations of farmers.

And then they actually sue farmers for accidentally having GMO seeds. This happens because seeds drift in the air from one farm to another. Maize, soybean, rapeseed, and now possibly rice crops have already been contaminated by this drift.

We should have permaculture (a practice in which even weeds are helpful and certain plants grow better when they are planted with certain other plants) instead of GMO cornfields, instead of monocultures, instead of planting crops on the same acres every year.

NOFA (Northeast Organic Farmers Association) has helped to pass anti GMO initiatives in Western Massachusetts towns. I see no reason not to do the same in Somerville.

Contact:

Jennifer Mazer, jmmazer@gmail.com

Advice to Bush: Break up Monsanto

Salon.com, 24 January 2007. By Andrew Leonard.

Alexei Barrionuevo's roundup of all things ethanol in today's New York Times, setting the stage for an expected announcement tonight by President Bush calling for significantly increased ethanol consumption in the United States, is a generally good introduction to the topic. But one fragment caught my eye:

Responding to concerns that there just isn't enough corn to supply expected future demand, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johans was described as "confident that more corn will emerge to ease the pain of higher grain prices, as seed companies improve yields."

Seed companies? Now, who might that be? As of 2005, worldwide, 10 companies controlled about 50 percent of the global seed business. At the top of the heap are just three companies, Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta. Industry concentration is continuing to proceed apace. Monsanto is currently waiting for antitrust approval to complete its merger with the 11th largest seed company, Delta Pine & Land. All three companies have been snapping up smaller firms at every opportunity.

All three are also huge chemical and pesticide conglomerates that are aggressively pursuing advanced genetic modification technologies. So when Secretary Johans talks about seed companies improving yields, what he's really saying is that a tiny group of huge multinational chemical companies will be introducing a steady stream of new transgenic corn strains, in a frantic attempt to keep innovating humanity's way out of an energy crisis.

Let's take a break today from worrying about whether scientists are properly evaluating the potential risks to human health and the environment from transgenic research. I've only just started reading Denise Caruso's "Intervention: Confronting the Real Risks of Genetic Engineering and Life on a Biotech Planet," a clear contender for best book yet on that topic, and so we'll save a more detailed discussion of the problem for later.

Here's a different angle: A few years back, the USDA publicized research that found that seed industry consolidation had led to a decrease in research and development intensity. In a classic display of what happens when a market is locked up by a small number of players, competition suffers and the pressure to innovate slackens: "...increased competition in R&D," concluded the researchers, "as indicated by low levels of market concentration and the participation of more competing firms in the GM crop approval process, is positively related to R&D intensity. As the number of firms declined through mergers and acquisitions, the intensity of R&D fell."

If President Bush and Mike Johans want to put some muscle behind their faith that new breeds of corn will deliver ever-higher yields, maybe they ought to do something about the continuing consolidation of control over the seed industry. Stop Monsanto's merger with Delta Pine & Land, which will give the St. Louis giant effective control over cotton seed. Even better, break it up. Let a hundred seed companies bloom, instead of just a few.

Just trying to be helpful here. President Bush has some really low poll approval ratings going into tonight's State of the Union speech. It's time for bold moves!

Council Faces Legal Challenge for Ignoring Public Submissions

GE Free New Zealand press release, 23 January 2007.

GE Free NZ are supportive of the appeal to the Environment Court by John Lawson of Tainui Hapu Ki Whaingaroa and Malibu Hamilton, challenging the Waikato District Council's rejection of hundreds of public submissions on GE. Like many communities across New Zealand local people had made submissions to Council asking them to: "prohibit the growth, development & field-testing of genetically modified & transgenic organisms envisaged for agriculture, horticulture & forestry, except within the boundary of Ruakura Agricultural Research Institute & Waikato Innovation Park, in the Waikato region."

The WDC heard compelling evidence at the long term district plan hearing on the hazards of GMO expansion and development, and the potential to burden ratepayers with costs arising from accidental release as well as endangering the lucrative organics industry. Many Councils North of Auckland have sought legal opinions from people like Dr Royden Sommerville QC, and others in relation to the possible effects and solutions for Councils relating to GMO"s.

The evidence and information in the reports has led the Councils to implement precautionary rules around the use and development of GMO"s, "until the risk potential has been adequately identified and evaluated and a strict liability regime put in place". The Waikato District Council was asked by their rate payers to consider the same precaution and the Council assured them it would talk to the other councils. Unfortunately the Council subsequently ignored their submissions, and this is now being challenged in court.

It is disappointing that legal action has become necessary when GMO"s have become a clear threat to sustainability and marketing New Zealand product. Internationally GMO development has been met with an ongoing consumer backlash. It is also linked to crop failures, and adverse effects in animal feeding and human clinical studies. Crown Research Institutes should follow the 'smart' money and invest in other forms of non-GE breeding like marker assisted selection (MAS). It is concerning to see New Zealand CRI's so intent on pushing GMO development that endangers New Zealand's export market and clean green status. Instead they should be innovating with sustainabilty and consumer-trends to natural, clean and ethical food-production firmly in mind.

Until this strategic vision for sustainability is embraced by CRI's Local Government cannot disregard the rate payers wish to limit the expansion of GMO's. Under current legislation it is rate payers who could end up having to carry the burden of clearing up contaminated sites or compensation for damage. It is admirable that these people care enough to protect their communities and challenge the WDC's process.

22 January 2007

Safeway ditches artificial [GM] hormone in milk

The News-Review, January 22 2007 PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Got Milk? Safeway does but it doesn't have a controversial artificial growth hormone anymore.

The grocer chain said milk suppliers for the grocer's Northwest processing plants have stopped using recombinant bovine growth hormone, or rBGH.

The announcement comes shortly after Starbucks confirmed that milk products in its company-owned coffee shops in Oregon and Washington are free of rBGH.

The artificial hormone is injected into dairy cows to make them produce more milk. It has been tied to increased udder infections and the resulting antibiotic use by dairies, and it has raised fears of greater cancer risks among humans.

Monsanto Co. markets rBGH under the brand name Posilac. Monsanto and many dairy farmers who want increased yields from their herds contend that milk from cows treated with the hormone is identical to that from untreated cows.

In the past two years, however, major dairy names in the Northwest have stopped using the hormone. The Tillamook County Creamery Association started the trend when associationÇs members upheld a ban on injecting cows with the hormone in a hotly contested vote in March 2005.

The issue resonates with consumers such as Nancy Pulone, a Beaverton mother of two who frequently buys organic milk and produce.

"There's just not enough long-term information that use of this hormone is going to be safe for my children," she said.

Teena Massingill, a Safeway spokeswoman, said some milk jugs in stores already carry labels proclaiming them free of the artificial hormone. All the chain's fluid milk products under its Lucerne brand are expected to carry the labels in the next few months, she said.

"Consumers in the Portland and Seattle area have been very vocal about the issue of rBGH," she said. "So this is basically a response to customer concerns."

SafewayÇs decision affects milk supplied to processing plants in Clackamas, Ore., and Bellevue, Wash. Those plants process and package milk circulated in more than 100 Oregon stores and about 170 in Washington, as well as stores in Idaho and Alaska.

The Oregon chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility has led the fight against the artificial hormone in the Northwest. Rick North, who has run the physiciansÇ campaign, has made presentations to companies and coordinated letter-writing by individuals.

North said the only remaining major milk processor in Oregon without a ban on rBGH is Fred Meyer -- a contention disputed by the chain.

Melinda Merrill, a Fred Meyer spokeswoman, said that for the past several years the company has requested -- and received -- assurances from its suppliers that they are not using the hormone.

Merrill said the company has chosen not to label its products as free of the artificial hormone because that might lead consumers to think the milk they had bought previously was inferior.

Unlike Safeway and Tillamook, Fred Meyer does not require its milk suppliers to sign a sworn statement that they are not injecting cows with the hormone.

Ireland last EU state not to ratify Aarhus Convention

Friends of the Irish Environment press release, 22 January 2007.

As of 15 January, Ireland has become the only EU state not to ratify the Aarhus Convention.

The Aarhus convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters is the world's most far-reaching treaty on environmental rights.

It seeks to promote greater transparency and accountability among government bodies by:

• guaranteeing public rights of access to environmental information;
• providing for public involvement in environmental decision-making;
• requiring the establishment of procedures enabling the public to challenge environmental decisions.

It creates a means by which citizens from across the entire region can enforce their rights to protect and enhance the environment.

The Convention was adopted in Aarhus, Denmark, in June 1998 and signed by 39 European and Central Asian countries and the European Community. It entered into force in October 2001. Its Parties now include most of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia and nearly all EU member States.

Ireland is now the sole European Union country that has not ratified the Convention.

The two relevant EU Directives have also not been fully implemented by Ireland.

A spokesman commented that ëeastern European countries with no democratic tradition have embraced environmental justice more readily than Ireland.'

Irish Contact:

Michael Ewing
Tel: 00353 (0) 71 91 55414
Mob: 00353 (0) 86 8672153

International Contact:

Mr. Jeremy Wates
Secretary to the Aarhus Convention
+ 41 (0)22 917 2384

Friends of the Irish Environment

Friends of the Irish Environment is a network of environmentalists who assist local groups and individuals to implement European environmental and Irish planning law to support sustainable communities. We maintain an extensive searchable website with almost 10,000 recent Irish environmental news stories in its database and provide two free news services. The Irish Papers Today [TIPT] covers current environmental news and the Forest Network Newsletter deals with Irish forestry issues. FIE's Marine Working Group's site offers the most extensive Irish NGO analysis of marine issues. Contact details: 027 73 131 or http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/main http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/main

Cotton farmers to get compensation

New India Press, January 22 2007.

DHARMAPURI: The district administration has initiated steps to provide compensation to the cotton farmers, who suffered crop loss, following the use of transgenic seeds.

The affected cotton farmers from Morappur, Harur and Pappireddipatti Union submitted a memorandum to the district administration to take action in this regard.

A district-level committee was constituted by the Collector, who ordered to analyse the reason for the loss.

The concerned private organisation [Monsanto-Mahyco], which supplied the seeds to the farmers, conducted a survey and assessed the reason for the crop failure. Also, a team of experts from the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University conducted a research on it.

At a farmers' meeting here, Collector Pankaj Kumar Bansal said a report had been sent to the State Government seeking compensation for the farmers, who suffered crop loss.

The government had already banned the private seed dealer from selling the cotton and other transgenic seeds in the district. The farmers were also advised to procure all the inputs, including seeds, from the government-authorised agencies in future.

Islands at risk - genetic engineering in Hawai'i
New video now available for activists and house parties

Earthjustice press release, 22 January 2007.

Honolulu, HI - Earthjustice announces a new video entitled Islands at Risk ‚ Genetic Engineering in Hawai'i. This half-hour program explores a subject that has received little attention in the media but involves a potential public health and safety issue of enormous consequence.

Focusing on local experiments with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the program features local Hawai'i farmers, teachers, legal and medical experts, and community activists who share their perspective on the genetic engineering of crops and the patenting of life forms.

"Hawai'i has been called the GMO testing capitol of the world because, in the past ten years or so, we have had here more than 2,000 field tests of experimental genetically-engineered crops in more than 6,000 locations around our small state," says Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff in the video. "And this is more than any other place in the world."

Earthjustice has won recent lawsuits in federal and state courts challenging the introduction of these experimental crop tests in the islands without first assessing the environmental and human health impacts.

Islands at Risk ‚ Genetic Engineering in Hawai'i looks at some of the possible impacts, including allergic and immune system responses from exposure to biopharmaceutical crops - both in humans and in Hawai'i's endangered species - and contamination of regular food crops such as papaya, taro, coffee and corn with genetically modified versions of those crops.

"Some people say it's a tiny risk," says Kaua'i taro farmer Chris Kobayashi in the video, "but it's a huge risk."

Some of that risk is described by medical doctor, public health officer and World Health Organization consultant Dr. Lorrin Pang of Maui who calls for more oversight of the genetic engineering industry. Regarding the substances introduced into the cells of GMO plants, Pang states, "These things are not benign. These things are quite unknown. The kinds of studies we do for drugs and vaccines are exactly what genetically-engineered food needs."

Aside from health issues, the video focuses on the economics of the current state government policy of subsidizing the biotech industry. Local organic farmers growing coffee, papaya, taro and corn point out that genetically engineered produce does not command the export market prices of conventionally-grown and organic produce. Many countries either refuse to import GE food or require labeling. "We're going in the wrong direction for economic development," says international legal expert Mililani Trask. "We need to re-assess it."

Trask also discusses the practice of patenting Hawaiian life forms, calling it a form of bio-piracy. "We Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians) are claiming our inalienable right to the biodiversity of our lands. This is the heart of what we are in terms of our survival, our ability to maintain our health."

The recent attempt by the University of Hawai'i to patent taro, honored as an ancestor of the Hawaiian people, is recounted in the video by Moloka'i hunter and Hawaiian activist Walter Ritte. His and others' successful efforts to persuade the UH to drop their patents on new hybrid Hawaiian taro varieties was a signal to the whole biotechnology industry, Ritte says in the video, that "you cannot own our ancestors."

The issue of food security and the world's future ability to feed itself is discussed by local farmers Una Greenaway and Nancy Redfeather.

"By choosing the path of genetically-engineered agriculture, we are narrowing significantly the amount of seed varieties that are available to the farmer today," says Redfeather.

The video ends with a vision of Hawai'i as a model for sustainable tropical agriculture. "Hawai'i is a niche specialty market for amazing things: coffee, pineapple, banana, flowers. We can actually support ourselves with this," says mixed organic farmer Melanie Bondera.

The program was produced for Earthjustice by Joan Lander and Puhipau of the documentary production team Na Maka o ka 'Aina. Copies are available at http://www.namaka.com.

Watch a clip of the video online here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVwulgaGDa0.

Media seeking review copies please contact Brian Smith, tel + 1 510 550 6714, email: bsmith@earthjustice.or

21 January 2007

Local Supermarkets Still Selling Rice Disapproved for Consumption
Environmentalist group hits DA for ënegligence'

Bulatlat.com (Philippines), 21 January 2007.

Supermarkets in Metro Manila, the Philippines' most populous region, are still selling Uncle Sam Texas Long Grain Rice even if it was confirmed last November to be contaminated with a genetically-engineered (GE) strain disapproved for human consumption.

Supermarkets in Metro Manila, the Philippines' most populous region, are still selling Uncle Sam Texas Long Grain Rice even if it was confirmed last November to be contaminated with a genetically-engineered (GE) strain disapproved for human consumption.

Greenpeace expressed "shock and disgust" over the failure of the Department of Agriculture (DA) to recall the GE-tainted rice from supermarkets to protect consumers, despite the government agency's pronouncements last December that it is "vigilantly inspecting" U.S. rice meant for export to the Philippines to block the entry of the disapproved genetically-modified rice.

"This is utter negligence," said Greenpeace GE campaigner Daniel Ocampo. "Once again, the Department of Agriculture has proven itself inutile in preventing and containing the threat of illegal GE products entering the country. The DA is fully aware of the U.S. rice contamination scandal that affected global rice markets last year. They are also fully aware that Uncle Sam Texas Long Grain Rice has tested positive for GMO contamination. But aside from merely issuing a statement that they will be checking future rice imports for GE contamination, they have not taken any steps to prevent the continued sale of this illicit product in the market."

Uncle Sam Texas Long Grain Rice, distributed by Purefeeds Corp. which is based in Sta. Cruz, Manila, was tested last year by an independent laboratory to be positive for Bayer LL601, a genetically-altered rice that can survive the powerful herbicide glufosinate. It was field-tested under permits granted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from 1998 to 2001 but Bayer stopped its development in 2001 for unclear reasons.

On July 31, 2006, Bayer informed the USDA of LL601 contamination in the food chain, but neither Bayer nor the USDA was able to tell how much rice was contaminated, which rice products were involved, or where the contaminated rice was found.

Bayer LL601 is illegal and therefore not approved for commercial distribution or human consumption in any place in the world except in the U.S. The company applied for marketing in the U.S. approval only after it illegally contaminated the food chain. Greenpeace presumes that this was done to limit Bayer's legal liability for the episode.

The widespread Bayer LL601 contamination scandal was the most significant demonstration of GE rejection on a global scale last year. The news elicited strong reactions from rice farmers and processors, as well as governments. Bayer faced a class-action lawsuit filed by hundreds of U.S. farmers and Japan, the European Union (EU), and Russia responded with import restrictions. The incident also prompted rice producers and exporters in the U.S., EU, and Asia to commit to GMO-free production and trade.

In the Philippines, the National Food Authority (NFA) prohibited future GMO rice imports, and assigned a team in the US to test possible contamination in shipments to the Philippines.

"The DA should also not neglect to address the contamination already in our shores," Ocampo said. "For starters, the distributor of this contaminated rice in the country should be accountable. The concerned agencies should investigate and trace how this rice, disapproved for human consumption, ended up in our supermarkets."

Greenpeace held a press conference last November to warn the public about the presence of the GMO-contaminated rice product, as well as to demand the government for its immediate recall. The contaminated rice was at that time sold in branches of Robinson's, Shopwise, and SM Supermarkets. The DA and retailers were informed of the contamination.

However, the said GMO-contaminated rice continues to be sold openly in branches of SM Supermarket (Megamall and SM City North EDSA), and Robinson's Galleria.

"There is irrefutable evidence that governments, farmers and consumers throughout the world recognize that GMOs are unreliable, not viable or downright dangerous," Ocampo said. "The global GE rice scandal involving Bayer's LLR601 impressed on farmers, exporters, retailers, consumers, and governments, the uncontrollable nature of GMO crops. Clearly, this technology is unsafe as it can neither be controlled nor regulated. The government must therefore take concrete steps to protect consumers ‚ and not just render lip service and empty statements. To continue to neglect the matter is unacceptable."

Greenpeace campaigns for GE-free crop and food production that is grounded in the principles of sustainability, protection of biodiversity and giving all people access to safe and nutritious food. It describes genetic engineering as "an unnecessary and unwanted technology that contaminates the environment, threatens biodiversity and poses unacceptable risks to health."

GMO hens an eggcelent tool in war on cancer

Sunday Tribune (South Africa), 21 January 2007.

London - Something to crow about - chickens could soon be at the forefront of the fight against cancer.

British scientists have developed genetically modified chickens capable of laying highly specialised eggs which contain proteins needed to make cancer-fighting drugs.

The breakthrough was announced by the same research centre that gave the world Dolly, the famous cloned sheep.

According to the BBC, scientists at Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, Scotland, have produced five generations of birds able to provide high levels of life-saving proteins in egg whites.

Roslin director Professor Harry Griffin believes flocks of hens will be able to bulk-produce the proteins cheaply, paving the way to huge savings on life-saving drugs.

"The raw material for this production system is quite literally chicken feed," he said.

About 500 modified birds have been bred after 15 years of work by the project's lead scientist, Dr Helen Sang. It could, however, take five years before patient trials get the nod and 10 years until a medicine is fully developed.

Therapeutic proteins such as insulin have long been produced in bacteria. Some complex proteins can, however, only be made in the more sophisticated cells of larger organisms and scientists have successfully made a range of these molecules in the milk of genetically modified sheep, goats, cows and rabbits.

Now chickens are getting their chance. Some have been engineered to lay eggs that contain miR24, a type of antibody with potential for treating malignant melanoma. Yet others produce human interferon b-1a, which can be used to stop viruses replicating in cells.

Interferon is the subject of ongoing research by other scientists (not based at Roslin) in treating relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis.

The National Multiple Sclerosis Society in Britain has shown interest in the research.

Meanwhile, Roslin scientists say the proteins secreted into the whites of the eggs can be easily extracted and purified.

Sang told the BBC that to make a very active protein like interferon, extra-high productivity was required.

"People need large doses of these over long periods. So one of our next challenges is to try to increase the yield in egg white," she said.

Explaining the advantages of chickens for "pharming", Sang said hundreds of birds could be bred from a single cockerel once the correct gene was in place.

Dolly was the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell. She was euthanased in 2003 after contracting a common lung disease.

18 January 2007

Open letter to Irish MEP Mairead McGuinness

Dear Mairead,

Next week a vote will be taken in Brussels which has immense consequences for the future of GM technology in Europe. I contacted the Fine Gael Headquarter to find out if and what kind of guidance you had been given for this vote. Unfortunately they did not reply to my mail, this is why I now write to you, asking you to vote this technology out of Europe.

If you have prepared yourself for this vote through extensive information gathering you will know by now that this technology is based on corruption, lies, bribes, and corporate greed. Promised benefits have turned into disadvantages (e.g. use of pesticides) potential dangers have been denied.

You cannot give me a single reason why this technology should be supported by European citizens, but I could give you many reasons why it should be kept out of Europe. Looking at those who support GM technology you don't have to search for long before you find them being linked to the GM industry in some form or the other.

I think everybody, who has not given up on ethics in politics yet, should clearly distance him/herself from this technology and on behalf of all organic producers and concerned consumers of Ireland who read our weekly newsletter on our web site, I ask you for a clear vote with the aim to keep Ireland GM-free and support the amendments made by Kathy Sinnot.

As a quality food producer I would say if Europe fails to keep this technology out, Ireland will be suffering from this over-proportionally compared with the rest of Europe. Don't put your name to this scenario.

Yours sincerely

Josef Finke
Ballybrado direct
Clogheen Road
Cahir, Co. Tipperary
Ireland Tel: + 353 (0)52 45500
Fax: + 353 (0)52 45486

The Global Status of Genetically Engineered (GE) Crops:
10 years of continuing rejection

Greenpeace International press release, 18 January 2007.

Amsterdam, 18 January 2007: A summary of global reaction against genetic engineering in 2006, released by Greenpeace today, provides solid evidence that resistance to genetically engineered (GE) crops continues to grow among farmers, consumers and governments.

The Greenpeace summary was released hours before the expected release of an annual report by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a think-tank supported largely by the agrochemical industry.

"There is irrefutable evidence (1) that governments, farmers and consumers throughout the world recognise that genetic engineering is unreliable, unviable or downright dangerous," said Jeremy Tager, campaigner for Greenpeace International, "Market reaction to the recent rice contamination scandal was of near epidemic proportions; some countries are banning GE altogether. Romania, for instance, which had 85,000 hectares planted with GE soy in 2005, will drop to zero this year, in keeping with a new government policy banning the cultivation of GE soy."

The most significant demonstration of GE rejection occurred in the aftermath of Bayer's LLRICE601 contamination scandal. In August 2006, the US government announced that significant amounts of US long grain rice had been found to be contaminated with an unapproved genetically engineered variety, LLRICE601; the news elicited strong reactions from rice farmers and processors, as well as governments worldwide:

The Rice Producers of California and a major rice mill in the state, Sunwest Foods, have called for a ban on any cultivation of GE rice (including field trials) in California.

Large sectors of the rice industry, including Ebro Puleva, the world's largest rice processor, committed to being GE-free.

Rice traders of two of the largest rice exporting countries, Thailand and Vietnam, have signed an agreement that commits them to being GE-free, capitalizing on new market opportunities that have opened up as a result of the contamination of US rice supplies with Bayer's GE rice.

The Chinese Biosafety Committee once again requested further data and assessment on the safety of GE rice, thereby again delaying a decision about commercial approval, even though the varieties have been under active consideration by the committee for over two years.

The All India Rice Exporters' Association formally requested that the Indian government prohibit field trials of GE rice in basmati rice-growing states. Rice farmers in India burnt down GE-rice test plots that could potentially contaminate their own fields.

Rakesh Tikait, national spokesperson for the Bharathiya Kisan Union, (BKU) one of the largest farmers' groups in India, was straightforward in his condemnation of GE, saying, "The threat to farmers' livelihoods in India is clear. Examples from across the country of Bt cotton failures show that this technology is unsafe for humans and the environment, and that it can neither be controlled nor regulated. We consider the threat serious enough to warrant the destruction of test fields of GE rice to stop its introduction and protect ourselves."

Chip Struckmeyer, a rice farmer from California, agreed, "US rice producers took a big hit financially when rice was found to be contaminated with unapproved varieties. It's clear our customers don't want genetically engineered rice. Why on earth would we plant it?"

"ISAAA might claim that genetic engineering has been a success, with consistent increases in global acreage. But the global reaction to the Bayer rice contamination scandal of 2006 provides a sharp contrast to the rosy picture they're painting. It is overwhelmingly evident that the GE industry will not be able to convince consumers to eat GE rice, wheat, aubergine, or anything else. With governments unwilling to allow it, farmers unwilling to grow it and consumers unwilling to buy it, it is clear that genetic engineering has no place in our future," concluded Tager.

Notes to Editor:

1. See 'Global reaction against Genetic Engineering in 2006', http://www.greenpeace.eu/downloads/gmo/GlobalStatusGECrops2006.pdf.

For further information please contact:

Namrata Chowdhary, Greenpeace International Communications: +31 646 1973 27 namrata.chowdhary@int.greenpeace.org
Jeremy Tager, GE Campaigner Greenpeace International: + 31 646 2211 85 Jeremy.tager@int.greenpeace.org

GM crops fail to deliver
Friends of the Earth comments on industry-released figures

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 18 January 2007.

KUALA LUMPUR (MALAYSIA), LAGOS (NIGERIA), BRUSSELS (BELGIUM), January 18, 2007 - Commenting on today's publication by the biotech industry of their estimates of the area planted with genetically modified (GM) crops, Nnimmo Bassey of Friends of the Earth Africa in Nigeria said:

"No genetically modified crop on the market today has done anything to alleviate hunger or poverty in Africa or elsewhere. The biotech industry fails to provide a shred of evidence to support their figures and conveniently fails to mention the problems associated with growing genetically modified crops. Evidence shows that they need more pesticides, provide lower yields and cause widespread contamination. GM crops are clearly failing to deliver at a time when sustainable solutions are urgently needed to feed the world."

Last week, Friends of the Earth International published a new report that shows genetically modified (GM) crops have failed to address the main challenges facing farmers in most countries of the world, and more than 70 percent of large scale GM planting is still limited to two countries (U.S. and Argentina).

The 98-page fully-referenced report - Who Benefits from GM Crops? - and the Executive Summary can be downloaded at http://www.foei.org.

For more information contact:

In Africa: Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth Africa Tel: +234 8037274395 (mobile) or +234 52602680 (office)

In Asia: Nizam Mahshar, Friends of the Earth Malaysia Tel: +60194777755

In Europe: Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe Mobile: +49 16094901163; Tel: +49 802 599 1951

In South America: Karen Nansen, Friends of the Earth Uruguay, Tel: +598 99 524 003

Another bumper biotech harvest worldwide, yet criticism persists

Associated Press, January 18th 2007

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A biotechnology advocacy group reported Thursday that a record number of crops were planted worldwide last year, but critics complained the gains were more of the same: aimed at making corn, soy and cotton crops resistant to weed killers and bugs.

None of the genetically engineered crops for sale last year were nutritionally enhanced and much of the output feeds livestock, which critics said undercuts industry claims that biotechnology can help alleviate human hunger.

Still, the report prepared by the industry-backed International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications touted the record as evidence that crops engineered to cut pesticide use can ease poverty and financially benefit small farmers around the world.

Some 10.3 million farmers in 22 countries grew engineered crops on 102 million hectares last year, a 13 per cent increase over 2005, according to the report. About 9.3 million of those people were considered subsistence farmers.

The United States, Argentina and Brazil were the top three countries that grew genetically engineered crops last year, mostly soy. India tripled its acreage of genetically engineered cotton last year to 3.8 million hectares.

"I have been able to increase my yield significantly," said Ravinder Brar, an Indian cotton farmer told reporters on a conference call. Brar said cotton engineered to resist boll weevil saved her about $320 a half hectare in pesticide costs on her seven-hectare farm last year.

In the United States, 80 per cent of soy - a key ingredient in many packaged foods - and a similar percentage of cotton are genetically engineered. Some 32.5 million hectares of biotech corn are planted - about 40 per cent of the country's crop - though much of that is used for animal feed.

In all, about 55.25 million hectares of the country's 180 million hectares of farmland was under biotech cultivation last year, an increase of 10 per cent over 2005 plantings.

Clive James, head of the advocacy group that prepared the report, said he expected more genetically engineered corn seed to be planted this year because of the recent boom in ethanol production. Ethanol, which is primarily made from corn in the United States, is expected to get another boost next week during U.S. President George W. Bush's State of the Union address.

The report was paid for by two philanthropic groups, the Rockefeller Foundation and Ibercaja, a Spanish bank. The advocacy group received funding from biotech companies.

The share price of St. Louis-based Monsanto Co., which supplies most of the world's genetically engineered seeds, have risen about 36 per cent in the last year. In afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange, Monsanto shares fell 21 cents to $54.01.

In 1996, the first year genetically modified crops were commercially available, about 1.75 million hectares were under cultivation. Now genetically engineered crops are grown throughout the Americas, China and India. Last year, Slovakia became the sixth European Union country to plant genetically engineered crops.

"As more countries gain experience with biotech crops, acceptance will grow," James said. "Biotechnology offers many opportunities for the alleviation of poverty."

However, opponents note that no new or innovative genetically engineered crops have been introduced in the last decade. Much of the worldwide growth last year was attributed to soybeans designed to resist weed killer and corn spliced with bacteria genes to resist bugs, traits that directly benefit farmers, not consumers.

Skepticism of the technology continues to run deep in Europe where many consumers shun products containing genetically engineered ingredients. An increasing number of U.S. consumers pay premium prices for biotech-free, organic products because of environmental and health concerns, though no illness has been attributed to biotechnology crops.

So far, no one has introduced crops with added nutrients and other attributes that could fight hunger in the developing world, as the biotech industry often promises. What's more, few biotech versions of crops such as rice that are widely consumed in poor countries have been distributed on a large scale. The four most popular biotech crops are soy, corn, cotton and canola.

"No (biotech) crop on the market today offers benefits to the consumer in terms of quality or price, and to date these crops have done nothing to alleviate hunger or poverty in Africa or elsewhere," said Nnimmo Bassey, a spokesman for the anti-biotechnology advocacy group Friends of the Earth Africa in Nigeria. "The great majority of (biotech) crops cultivated today are used as high-priced animal feed to supply rich nations with meat."

See also 'The Global Status of Genetically Engineered (GE) Crops: 10 years of continuing rejection' at a href="http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7470" target=winshow>http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7470

UK scientists downplay GMO threat to biodiversity

Science News, 18 January 2007.

LONDON (Reuters) - Fears that switching to genetically modified (GMO) crops could harm the habitat of wild birds, insects and other plants may be overblown, British scientists who have developed a forecasting model say.

The model developed by Reading University's Center for Agri-Environmental Research also suggested government policy to promote a recovery in farmland bird populations may fail to deliver its goal.

There have been concerns that GMO crops which are herbicide tolerant would hurt biodiversity as fewer weeds could threaten spiders and insects as well as the birds which feed on them.

Thirty-nine farmland birds could be threatened by a switch to GMO herbicide-tolerant sugar beet and rapeseed but with only one species, the meadow pipit, is the change likely to move it into a more threatened category, the scientists concluded.

"It appears that replacing equivalent conventional crops in the current agricultural landscape with GMO herbicide tolerant crops would only have a limited effect (on farm birds)," the scientists said in a paper published by Science magazine.

The paper also concluded that a major UK environmental scheme aimed at reversing a decline in farmland birds may not deliver its objectives as its focus was on hedgerows and land at the edge of farms rather than cropped areas.

The scientists argued the main driver for the decline in farmland birds had been the loss of food and nesting habitats in the cropped areas of the agricultural landscape.

Farmland bird populations have almost halved since 1970 with agricultural intensification seen as the main reason. The British government has set a goal of reversing the long-term decline by 2020.

Reading University scientists believe their forecasting model can help governments protect biodiversity with agriculture set to undergo major changes over the next few years.

European Union agricultural reforms, an anticipated growth in biofuels, the prospect of more genetically modified crops and an increasing impact from climate change are among the factors likely to pose new threats to birds, insects and plants.

EU mission to inspect Brazil's transgenic soy in March

CheckBiotech.org, 18 January 2007. By Kenneth Rapoza.

European food inspectors are expected to visit Brazilian genetically-modified soybean farms and related sites for the first time in March, the local Estado newswire reported Monday.

The move comes at a time when Brazilian soy farmers are quickly moving away from traditional soy seeds and planting GMO soy. Some 50% of the new 2006-07 crop is expected to be GMO soy, according to a survey of farmers and cooperatives by the grain brokerage firm Cerealpar. Last year, just 25% was GMO. Brazil's government permits Monsanto's Roundup Ready soy seeds to be planted nationwide.

Brazil was once one of the only places to find GMO-free soybeans, but farmers turned to Roundup Ready this year, which helps them reduce spending on herbicides for weed control.

The EU has the most strict market requirements for GMO foods. It is likely that the mission will seek to judge whether Brazilian trade companies are separating storage of GMO and traditional soybeans in warehouses and silos at export terminals and not mixing the two.

"There is going to be a niche market for GMO soybeans, but that market is shrinking. The EU will be the niche, but a new line of trade must be sought," Steve Cachia, a market analyst at Cerealpar, told Dow Jones Newswires.

"That new line is going to have to include higher prices for non-GMO soybeans because of separation costs," Cachia said.

The EU does import GMO soybeans from Brazil.

Of the total $49 billion in Brazil's agriculture exports in 2006, 31% of that value came from EU markets, according to the Monday newswire report.

Brazil is the world's No. 2 soy producer and exporter behind the U.S.

17 January 2007

Corn pest expansion consequence of transgenic crops?

Farm Week (USA), 17 January 2007.

A corn pest that can devastate yields may be increasing in prevalence across Illinois and other states because Bt crops are reducing predators that once kept the pest at bay.

That was the word from an Iowa State University researcher who spoke during the recent Illinois Crop Protection Technology Conference, Urbana.

Western bean cutworms, a major pest in Nebraska and Colorado, was first detected in Illinois in 2004 and has spread to 49 counties, according to Marlin Rice, an Extension entomologist at Iowa State.

Rice and his colleagues attempted to learn why a pest that was rare in Iowa six years ago has spread as far east as central Ohio.

In laboratory experiments and field studies, Rice tested the bean cutworm's survival when placed together with corn earworm, which is the more aggressive of the two pests and will kill the bean cutworm. Both pests were allowed to feed on silks from Herculex and YieldGard plants [YieldGard is a Monsanto GM rootworm-resistant corn].

The bean cutworms had better survival rates when they fed on YieldGard, which is not labeled for cutworm control, compared to Herculex, which is. Both hybrids are labeled for corn earworm control.

"Our theory is that increased (use) of Bt cotton and YieldGard corn has suppressed (populations) of corn earworms, which are predators of western bean cutworms. This allows (more) bean cutworms to survive," Rice said.

"YieldGard corn may be one of the reasons for more damage from western bean cutworm," Rice said. "It may be influencing (pest) competition in the field."

Bean cutworms have become established in Illinois, "but we'll have to wait a couple of years to see if it is an economic problem," Rice said.

He recommended farmers scout their fields and time insecticide treatments for when eggs or young larvae reach economic thresholds.

If western bean cutworm becomes an economically damaging pest, farmers should consider planting Herculex hybrids, he said. - Kay Shipman

For More Info Contact:

David McClelland, Editor of Publications
Phone (309) 557-3156, Fax (800) 640-1995, E-mail fweditor@ilfb.org

Mighty Monsanto and Biotechs Backdown from GMO Debate

OpEdNews.com, 17 January 2007. By Pamela Drew.

While Americans on the mainland remain blissfully ignorant of the issues surrounding genetically engineered foods, the people in Hawaii have it literally, shoved in their faces. Hawaii is Ground Zero for the biotechs, who can run four crop rotations per year, in the idal climate for growing. Hawaii has more experimental crops per acre, than any place on the planet. Many of Hawaii's citizens have been converted to GMO free activists, by the devastating aftermath, from the invasion of biotech, into their land and their lives.

Over the past decade they have endured the widespread contamination of their papaya and suffered the ruinous economic effects of the export markets destroyed. They have fought tooth and nail, against the land grant university takeover, turning a long history of agricultural outreach and cooperative farming, into a taxpayer-funded scheme to modify and patent taro, an affront to the highest point of reverence in Hawaiian culture of honoring nature. Last week they endured the evacuation of an elementary school as deadly herbicides sprayed by Sygenta, sickened children in a nearby school.

No one on the mainland hears the stories but the local Kauai Garden Island News carries the reports. Last week, they followed up on the Sygenta event, which doused what the biotechs call non target organisms with a deadly herbicide. In this case the unintended recepients of the killing mist,was the Waimea Canyon School. Sygenta did not come to warn the school, they dragged there feet to measure and record weeks after teachers and parents had the school evacuated and cleaned. It is still not clear to me how Sygenta soaking school children with herbicide, is very different from Saddam threatening chemical WMD's, but that's another article.

What we have here is the point where the schoolyard bully, runs away from the fight. The bully runs when the opponent is a fair match and that is what happened to the biotechs in Hawaii on Sunday. Since most of Hawaii is literally, gagging on the biotechs free reign, from breakfast papayas, picked in their own yards, filled with patent protected, fee based, contaminated gmo seed, to their children at the ER from an experimental, herbicide cocktail, the people of Hawaii are being slammed. They have questions and deserve answers.

Regardless of how much corporate control, remains over the American mainstream media, and the embarrassingly blatant boycott of debate, about genetically engineered foods, the word about gmos is out in Hawaii. Now, the truth is finally, on the table. The biotechs have no defense, no rebuttal, no way to have a debate. The time and place for this show down, of put up or shut up was Sunday, January 14, 2006 on Hawaii's KQNG radio the four big biotechs with a presence on the islands were invited to a debate.

Dr. Lorrin Pang, a Maui-based scientist, medical doctor and World Health Organization consultant, was the voice of the Hawaiian people posing questions about risks to human health and the environment. What happened? The biotechs balked, cluck, cluck, cluck; they chickened out, because there is no way to spin the propaganda that is the cornerstone of the entire history of this fleecing of the taxpayer funded privatization plan.

The biotech tactic of hiding behind the "sound science", political sound-bite wouldn't fare too well in the face of a scientist, with a mind to ask questions, for which they have no good answers. So it was that the show down was a cut and run by biotech and an interview became an interview with Dr. Lorrin Pang. Selected quotes appear in the Island Garden News article. Their summary of additional gmo radio topics are noted here and we are working to see if the shows can be made more widely available.

From the Island Garden News, "Pang will be interviewed by Diana LaBedz of the Kaua'i Surfrider Foundation, following a short talk starting at 11:05 a.m. on GMO chemical runoff by her husband, Dr. Gordon LaBedz.

Disappointed that the seed companies declined to participate, Diana LaBedz hopes that the one-hour show on AM 570 will still be a good opportunity for the public to have some questions answered and issues clarified.

Malia Nob, scheduled to wrap up the hour talking about the cultural impact of GMOs and the events surrounding the Waimea Canyon Elementary School stinkweed episode in November, did not immediately return phone calls yesterday.

Sarah Styan, president of the Hawai'i Crop Improvement Association, a collective of seed companies Dow, Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta, was also not immediately available yesterday."

In the interest of full disclosure, and a point of pride, note that Dr. Lorrin Pang is a featured expert in our documentary film, Roundup Ready Nation. Dr. Lorrin Pang's profile and additional CV details are at the film site. http://thegreenreport.com/nature2.0/

Pamela Drew tracks the legislation, politics, science and spin behind the GMO "foods" and pharma crops. She is a freelance researcher and writer focused on topics banned from mainstream and ignored by alternate media.

Starbucks Dropping Controversial Hormone

Supermarket News, 17 January 2007.

SEATTLE - Starbucks Corp. announced yesterday it will begin taking stepsto eliminate artificial growth hormones from the dairy products it serves. Food and Water Watch, a Washington-based environmental watchdog group, had been campaigning to get the company to stop using and selling products that contain the controversial [genetically engineered] hormone rBGH. The dairy products involved include fluid milk, half-and-half, whipped cream and eggnog.

Initially, the changeover will affect the 5,500 company-owned stores in the United States, though some 3,000 franchised locations are also being looked at, according to company officials. Some market areas already have rBGH-free products, including New England and Southern California. The decision follows the recent announcement that Starbucks was eliminating trans fats from its food products.

GM Watch comment: Reuters quotes Starbucks spokesman Brandon Borrman as saying, "This is something that our customers have requested".

EU environment ministers to discuss GMO policies

Prage Post, 17 January 2007.

EU environment ministers will reignite the debate on designer food when they meet Feb. 20 to discuss genetically modified organism (GMO) policies. Topping the agenda is a draft order for Hungary to lift its ban on GMO corn, a proposal to let farmers grow GMO potatoes and the protocol on importing carnations that have had their colors changed through genetic modification.

Why suppress Biovision/Biosquare ?

Indymedia UK, 17 January 2006. By the Lyon Resistance and Alertnatives Collective.

From the 11th to the 14th of March 2007, the fifth edition of Biovision/Biosquare Forum is going to take place in Lyon. These meetings are now considered to be the biggest meeting in the world on biotechnologies. Stop Biovision!

According to the organizers :

"Biovision : the world forum of life-sciences is an international platform for dialogue, debate and constructive proposals for action, bringing together equal numbers of representatives of civil society, scientists, industrialists and politicians on global topics about health, food and environment."

For 2007 the "millennium objectives for development" are announced as the major topic of the forum. These objectives include reducing the extreme poverty on the planet by half, providing primary education for all children and stopping the spread of the aids virus.

Behind this seductive showcase lurks a propaganda tool to promote acceptance of biotechnologies, and a marketplace where contracts are signed between research centers and industries (Biosquare), everything being of course sponsored by big agricultural, chemical and pharmaceutical industries.

Those firms, you know them : for example, Pfizer and Sanofi-Aventis (respectively n° and n°3 in health care ), Bayer (n°1 in the world in phytosanitary products) or, near Lyon, Rhone-Poulenc and Biomerieux.

Whereas the ecological devastation directly related to these industries is more and more oppressive (climatic warming, depleting the reserves of drinkable water, menacing the diversity of species, multiplying dangerously polluted sites...) Whereas GMO seeds trap farmers in dependence on multinational companies Whereas patents on molecules hinder access to vaccinations and treatments for the most vulnerable populations facing most serious health risks Whereas less than 10% of commercialised chemical products have been tested for potential risk (cf Greenpeace) and at the same time cancer has increased 60% in France in the last twenty years Whereas those companies have already been responsible for many scandals (Zyklon B, Roundup, Gaucho, AZF, Bhopal, Seveso ...) Whereas the scientific basis of genetic therapy has not been established and research in this field is little more than tinkering.

Why would companies that are responsible to a large degree for the catastrophic situation in countries of the southern hemisphere, suddenly turn around and pay to allay the sufferings of the populations of those same countries ?

It is primarily for them a way to capture new international mass markets for vaccines, medicines, seeds, chemicals for agriculture and to appear philanthropic at the same time. Thus they can continue the pillage and ecological destruction of the southern countries while being supported by the politicians of the rich ones.

It is important to emphasize that our elected representatives are actively supporting this meeting. The city of Lyon, the department of the Rhone, and the Region of Rhone-Alps are contributing 2 532 000 euros to this event.

If the Biovision Forum is taking place in Lyon it is not an accident but the result of economic interests and the political determination (those meetings have been created by Raymond Barre, ex mayor of Lyon and are directed by Phillipe Demarescaux, ex director of Rhone-Poulenc, and president of The scientific foundation of Lyon ) of the Region of Rhone Alps to become the European center for biotechnologies (Lyon) and nanotechnologies (Grenoble).

Whereas the Rhone-Alps Region declared itself a "non-GMO region" (declaration n°04.00.193 of 28th and 29th of April 2004) and the majority of its population is against the spread of GMO.

Those political choicesó so contrary to the ideals of democracy and the common interests of the peopleóare intolerable. The policy of always more "progress" for more and more profits has to stop now !

It is OUR future that is at stake. We want to decide by ourselves independent from the imperialism of big firms. We are inviting everyone to a mobilisation against this Forum of 2007, and to do all that we can to insure that it will be the last.

Collectif des resistances et des alternatives de Lyon.

16 January 2007

EU lifts extra GMO controls on U.S. maize imports

Reuters, 16 January 2007.

BRUSSELS, Jan 16 (Reuters) - EU biotech experts have lifted extra controls on U.S. maize products for proving the absence of an unauthorised genetically modified (GMO) organism since they are no longer needed, the European Commission said on Tuesday.

In April 2005, the EU said U.S. exports of corn gluten feed and brewers' grains, a by-product of ethanol, had to be certified by an internationally accredited laboratory to prove the absence of Bt-10 maize, a GMO not authorised in Europe.

"Today, (EU) member states voted in favour of lifting the EU requirement for all imports of U.S. corn gluten feed and brewers' grain to be certified as free from the GMO Bt-10," the Commission said in a statement.

Developed by Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta, Bt-10 maize is designed to resist certain insects. It is similar to Bt-11, a different GMO strain that won EU approval for distribution as food and feed in 1998.

Bt-10 maize was detected only once, in May 2005, in a U.S. shipment to the EU but the shipment was stopped at the border so that the contaminated product did not reach EU markets.

Bt-10 was last detected in the United States in November 2005, the Commission said. Since then, Syngenta had taken a series of measures to ensure that this GMO was no longer propagated, it added.

EU countries will have to continue random testing for Bt-10 for six months as a precaution.

U.S. exporters send 3.5 million tonnes of corn gluten feed to EU markets each year, a trade worth some 350 million euros ($454 million).

15 January 2007

EU to debate Hungary GMO ban, flowers and potatoes

Reuters, 15 January 2007. By Jeremy Smith

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - EU environment ministers will rekindle Europe's simmering row on genetically modified (GMO) foods next month when they tackle three different strands of the debate, including whether to authorize a "live" biotech crop.

All three GMO items, to be debated when the ministers meet on February 20, have already undergone a lower-level process when EU experts failed to reach a required majority consensus. Under EU law, those items now pass to ministers for approval.

Two of them look set to be highly controversial: a draft order for Hungary to lift its ban on a GMO maize and a proposal to let farmers grow a GMO potato, the EU's first attempt in eight years to approve a biotech crop designed for cultivation.

The third item relates to imports of carnations whose color has been genetically modified. Had the experts agreed, it would have been the first new approval of a GMO plant in eight years.

Privately, EU officials expect another voting stalemate on the potato and carnation, with no consensus agreement either to accept or reject the draft authorizations. If that happens, the drafts go to the European Commission for a default rubberstamp.

But to order Hungary to lift its GMO ban may be a completely different matter since such a command touches on national sovereignty. In the past, this has been the only area where EU governments agree on biotech policy: They don't like it at all.

Hungary, one of the bloc'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.

Just last month, EU ministers slapped down an attempt to order Austria to drop its bans on two GMO maize types: a second stinging rebuff to the Commission which had tried to do exactly the same thing 18 months earlier. One maize type was MON 810.

"There will be three GMO items to be discussed at the February council (of EU environment ministers) -- the carnation, the Hungarian ban and the potato," one EU official said.

"It could be that they (ministers) show solidarity (on the Hungarian GMO ban), the same way that they did with Austria. It's a very sensitive issue," she said.

Still split on GMO policy

So far, there have been no signs that the EU has changed tack on biotech approvals after the World Trade Organization ruled last year that the bloc was illegally blocking GMO foods.

Observers say the Commission's attempts to overturn national GMO bans is meant to demonstrate to the complainants in the WTO case -- Argentina, Canada and the United States -- that it is taking action to facilitate more GMO approvals.

The European Union has long been split on GMO policy and the EU's countries consistently clash over whether to approve new varieties for import, but without reaching a conclusion.

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

Blue flowers

The potato, engineered by German chemicals group BASF to yield high amounts of starch, would be grown only for industrial processing to make items such as paper. It is not designed to be consumed by humans or used in animal feed.

If the ministers agree to an approval, which is not expected, it would make the potato -- known as Amylogene -- the first GMO product for growing to gain approval since 1998.

The carnation is marketed by Florigene, one of Australia's first biotech companies and part of the privately owned Suntory group. Known as Florigene Moonlite, the flowers are modified to produce blue pigment and also carry a herbicide-resistant gene.

GM cotton and sugar beet

CheckBiotech.org, January 15, 2007

The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) has made available certified reference materials for the analysis of genetically modified (GM) cotton and sugar beet.

The release of the two new materials, together with a set of starchmodified potato materials introduced earlier this year, brings the number of certified GMO reference materials to 14 provided by the JRC's Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM) Iocated in Geel, Belgium.

Certified reference materials are needed for calibrating the methods used to quantify the GM content and for controlling the quality of measurements. Implementing EU legislation on labelling of food and feed products containing genetically modified organisms largely depends on the accuracy and reliability of those measurements.

14 January 2007

Chicken Eggs can Produce Cancer Drugs

Blogger News Network, 14 January 2007. By Christine Burke.

Scientists in the UK have genetically modified chickens to that can lay eggs capable of producing proteins used in cancer drugs. The birds were created by the Roslin Institute, which also created the lamb Dolly ten years ago.It is not the first time scientists attempted to use animals, or animal products, as "drug factories". In fact, the label "drug factory" carries a pretty negative tone without reason. The animals themselves are not harmed by this procedure, and do not physically "notice" they are producing these life saving proteins in their egg whites. This method does give the pharmaceutical industry a much cheaper and easier method of creating compounds necessary for drugs, and is considered a major breakthrough.

There is still a long way to go: the project took fifteen years to come this far, and it will be another ten years until a drug is actually developed from these proteins. This is however not an unreasonable amount of time in drug-development terms.

GMO animals and animal products have been receiving criticism since the moment the concept hit the media. However, proteins like insulin are already produced in genetically modified bacteria for years. Somehow people do not seem to care equally about GMO bacteria as they do about other organisms, or are just less aware. Certain proteins are too complex to be produced in bacteria though, are need more complex systems to produce them. In this case chicken eggs are a perfect medium to produce complex proteins in.

Roslin Institute has engineered eggs that produce the antibody miR24, which can potentially be used to treat malignant melanoma.

GM hens lay eggs to fight cancer

The Sunday Times, January 14 2007. By Jonathan Leake, Science Editor.

SCIENTISTS have created the world's first breed of designer chickens, genetically modified to lay eggs capable of producing drugs that fight cancer and other life-threatening diseases.

Researchers at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, which created Dolly the cloned sheep, have bred a 500-strong flock of the birds.

The breakthrough offers the prospect of mass-producing drugs that currently cost the NHS thousands of pounds a year per patient, at a fraction of the price.

The ISA Browns, a common breed of egg-laying hen, have each had human genes added to their DNA to enable them to produce complex medicinal proteins. These human proteins are secreted into the whites of the birds' eggs, from which they can be easily extracted to produce drugs.

The Roslin scientists have achieved a world first in creating birds that "breed true", meaning the added human genes are passed on from generation to generation. This opens the way for the creation of industrial-scale flocks and offers a potentially unlimited cheap source of medicinal proteins.

One of the chicken lines produces human interferon of a kind closely resembling a drug widely used to treat multiple sclerosis. Such drugs have a potential worldwide market worth hundreds of millions.

Another line could be useful in treating skin cancer, by producing miR24, an antibody that could also potentially treat arthritis, which afflicts 7m people in Britain.

The institute is understood to have created at least two other lines of genetically modified chicken, whose eggs could produce drugs with the potential to fight cancer.

The research is a triumph for Dr Helen Sang, the leader of the Roslin team who, since 1997, has sought to make the technique work without new genes being lost as they are transmitted down the generations. Ian Wilmut, the Edinburgh University professor who created Dolly at Roslin, was an adviser on the project.

"This is potentially a very powerful new way to produce specialised drugs," said Dr Karen Jervis of Viragen Scotland, a biotech company that is working closely with Roslin. "We have bred five generations of chickens so far and they all keep producing high concentrations of pharmaceuticals."

Other researchers have already produced transgenic chickens - with artificially altered DNA - but the ability to make desirable proteins has generally vanished in a generation or two.

At present, therapeutic proteins are mainly made in bio-reactors, vats of bacteria or other cells that have been genetically modified. However, extracting the relevant proteins is expensive and difficult.

In Roslin's research - to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tomorrow - the scientists will describe how they extracted embryonic cockerels from hens, before the eggs had formed.

The embryos, just small clusters of cells, were then each injected into surrogate eggs and "infected" with a virus genetically modified to contain human genes. These genes contained the blueprint for the human proteins that the researchers were trying to produce.

The virus carried those human genes into the cells of the embryonic cockerels where they became incorporated into the bird's DNA.

When the so-called "founder cockerels" hatched, they were mated with ordinary female hens. Their progeny were found to contain the same human genes and, to the delight of the researchers, the females all produced the desired protein in their eggs.

"In theory, this technique could be used with a wide range of genes, so that hens could be used to make many different proteins," said Andrew Wood of Oxford BioMedica, whose researchers collaborated on the project. "Potentially, this could lead to treatments for ill-nesses including Parkinson's Disease, diabetes and a range of cancers."

The ISA Brown, a French breed that is a cross between Rhode Island Red and Rhode Island White chickens, produces about 300 eggs, per hen, a year.

Some scientists are cautious about the advance, pointing out that biotechnology firms have been promising a new generation of drugs from transgenic animals for nearly two decades.

So far, however, perhaps the world's most successful transgenic animal is the glofish - a tropical fish modified with DNA from a sea anemone and a jelly fish to give it a fluorescent skin. It is used as a pet.

Last year saw a breakthrough for such technologies when European regulators approved the worldÇs first medicine derived from transgenic animals. ATryn, an anticlotting agent for people with a rare inherited disease, is made from the milk of goats whose DNA has been modified to incorporate human genes.

Dr Barbara Glenn of Bio, which represents the American biotech industry, said the Roslin research was likely to be the first of many similar breakthroughs. "This technique is simply a way of producing human proteins, which is why it is applicable to so many different diseases," she said.

For the NHS, the hope is that such technologies will help to minimise its annual bill for prescription drugs which was £8 billion last year; an increase of 46% since 2000.

Andrew Tyler, the director of Animal Aid, which campaigns to improve animal welfare, said genetically manipulating farm animals was a reckless and dangerous procedure. "The fallout for the animals of creating GM individuals in enormous. The modification process produces many casualties, with young animals being born with defects and females suffering miscarriages and other problems," he said.

12 January 2007

'Insulted' Andean farmers pick GM potato fight with multinational Syngenta

Press release from the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and the
Quechua-Ayamara Association for Nature and Sustainable Development
12 January 2007.

A coalition of indigenous farmers in South America will today (12 January) launch an international protest against the multinational corporation Syngenta, claiming that its plans threaten their region's biodiversity, culture and food sovereignty.

In an open letter signed today by representatives of 34 indigenous communities in Peru, the coalition says Syngenta's claims that its patent for 'terminator technology' potatoes is neither relevant nor applicable in the region are "deeply offensive".

The Indigenous Coalition Against Biopiracy in the Andes says that by commercialising such potatoes, the corporation would threaten more than 3,000 local potato varieties that form the basis of livelihoods and culture for millions of poor people.

It wants Syngenta to publicly disown the patent, which describes a genetic-modification process that could be used to stop potatoes from sprouting unless a chemical is applied.

Terminator technology refers to genetic modifications that 'switch off' seed fertility, and can therefore prevent farmers from using, storing and sharing seeds and storage organs such as potato tubers.

Although there has been a global moratorium on the field-testing and commercial use of terminator technologies since 2000, research into them continues and some countries and corporations want the ban relaxed.

"Syngenta's pursuit of terminator potato patents in Europe, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt and Poland -- in addition to granted patents in Australia and Russia -- demonstrates its investment in the technology and interest in commercialising it," states the letter. "No trade barriers nor regulatory system would be in place in Peru to keep terminator potatoes from contaminating native potatoes."

Peru and its Andean neighbours are the potato's centre of diversity -- with nearly 4,000 unique varieties that farmers have developed over generations. Before reaching its position, the coalition undertook a lengthy discussion with farmers across the region.

Farmers are concerned that terminator potatoes will enter the Andean production system and destroy their traditions of storing and exchanging potato tubers for future planting. This is central to the farmers' culture and has contributed to the region's immense diversity of potato varieties.

They also fear that pollen from the modified potatoes could contaminate local varieties and prevent their tubers from sprouting.

"We feel greatly disrespected by corporations that make a single genetic alteration to a plant and then claim private ownership when these plants are the result of thousands of years of careful breeding by indigenous people," says Argumedo.

"Making farmers depend on chemicals they do not want to use, and preventing them from saving and reusing seeds and tubers, merely increases corporate control over the global food system."

Last year, a Syngenta shareholder hand-delivered a letter outlining the coalition's concerns to the corporation's CEO Michael Pragnell.

"We received an insulting letter in reply," says Alejandro Argumedo of Asociacion ANDES, a founding member of the coalition. "Syngenta disregards our culture, values and our right to use the tubers of a resource that our peoples have nurtured for millennia. Introducing 'terminator technology' potatoes could create major problems for farmers in the Andes."

Syngenta says it has a policy not to use terminator technology but defines the term solely as a "hypothetical process, which leads to plants with infertile seeds", adding that it was patented by another company in 1998.

In March 2004, however, Syngenta was granted its own patent (US patent 6,700,039) for a genetic modification process that stops tubers -- plant storage organs such as potatoes -- from sprouting unless an external chemical is applied.

"While distancing itself from the prevention of seed germination, Syngenta remains keen to prevent potato tuber development," says Argumedo. "For Andean farmers, this is the same thing."

The coalition is calling for support from the international community, including the World Council of Churches, which lobbies for political change that supports the word's poorest communities.

In May 2006, the council's general secretary Samuel Kobia issued a statement condemning terminator technology. "Preventing farmers from re-planting saved seed will increase economic injustice all over the world and add to the burdens of those already living in hardship," he said.

The coalition finalised its letter at a meeting held on 11-12 January in Lares, Cusco, Peru. The meeting was organised by AsociaciÛn ANDES (the Quechua-Ayamara Association for Sustainable Livelihoods) with support from the International Institute for Environment and Development.

For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact: Alejandro Argumedo (ANDES) 00 51 1 955 82372

Notes to editors

The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) is an independent, non-profit research institute. Set up in 1971 and based in London, IIED provides expertise and leadership in researching and achieving sustainable development (see: http://www.iied.org).

The Association for Nature and Sustainable Development (ANDES) is a non-profit Peruvian indigenous organisation that aims to improve the quality of life of Andean indigenous communities by promoting the conservation and sustainable use of their bio-cultural heritage through rights-based conservation-development approaches. See: http://www.andes.org.pe.

Founded in 2002 in Lima, Peru, the Indigenous Coalition Against Biopiracy is an informal network of indigenous communities, community-based organisations and individuals working together to protect their collective biocultural heritage, which is the basis of their culture and sustenance. The coalition primarily aims to create a space to analyse and discuss the threat of biopiracy to indigenous communities as well as strategies to confront its increasing influence on a local and global level.

Syngenta AG is a multinational corporation with staff in 90 countries that markets seeds and crop protection products. The company's sales in 2005 were approximately US$8.1 billion. Syngenta is listed on the Swiss stock exchange (SWX: SYNN) and the New York stock exchange (NYSE: SYT). See: http://www.syngenta.com/en/index.aspx.

Syngenta's website states that: "Syngenta and its predecessor companies have a long-standing policy not to use the so-called 'terminator' technology to prevent seed germination." It defines terminator technology as "a hypothetical process, which leads to plants with infertile seeds" and states that it was patented in 1998 (not by Syngenta and its predecessor companies). The website adds that: "Syngenta believes that other methods of controlling the activity of genes, such as chemical switch technology, will provide new benefits for farmers and consumers... Other techniques involving the control of the activity of genes in plants could bring a variety of benefits for farmers and consumers. These include boosting the natural disease or pest resistance abilities within a crop plant during susceptible periods of growth, reducing losses after crops have been harvested, or helping avoid frost damage by controlling the timing of plant development." See: http://www.syngenta.com/en/ar2003/social_responsibility/position.aspx (link 4)

Full details of Syngenta's patent (US patent 6,700,039) are online at: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6700039-fulltext.html

In 2000 the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recommended that governments not field-test or commercialise genetic seed sterilisation technologies - thus creating a de-facto international moratorium. In 2006, the CBD rejected a proposal - backed by Australia, Canada and New Zealand - to allow field trials of the crops on a case-by-case basis.

The potato (Solanum tuberosum) originated in the highlands of South America, where it has been consumed for more than 8,000 years.

The World Council of Churches' general director's full statement on terminator technology is online at: http://www.oikoumene.org/en/news/news-management/all-news-english/d isplay-single-english-news/article/1634/take-action-to-stop-termi.html.

Biopiracy refers to the monopolisation (usually through intellectual property rights) of genetic resources and traditional knowledge or culture taken from people or regions that developed and nurtured those resources.

In November 2006, the Andean Parliament passed a resolution to declare the countries of the Andean Community (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia) free of genetically modified potatoes. The resolution urges governments of the Andean countries to stop any field trial, manipulation and experimentation with genetically modified potatoes to eliminate the risk of loss of genetic variability of potatoes. It also calls for an end to any activity related with propagation in the environment, commercial use, transportation, use, commercialisation and production of GM Potato, inside the Andean Community.

See http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/sai/estructura_6.html for information on the Andean Parliament.

11 January 2007

Trust in British food 'threatened by birth of calf'

The Telegraph, 11 January 2006. By Nicole Martin, and Nick Britten.

The Government was accused yesterday of "inexcusable and irresponsible" behaviour after it emerged that the calf of an American cloned cow had been born on a British farm.

Animal welfare campaigners said the birth last month of Dundee Paradise at a Shropshire farm without the Government's knowledge would undermine trust in British farming.

It would also undermine trust in British food because it raised the possibility of the calf's milk entering the human food chain, they claimed. Cloned animals and their offspring have not been used before in British commercial farming.

But supporters of cloning said a five-year study by the US Food and Drug Administration had concluded last month that "meat and milk from clones and their offspring are as safe as food we eat every day".

Dundee Paradise is the daughter of a clone, Vandyk K Integ Paradise 2, created in the US by the company Cyagra Clone using cells from a champion dairy Holstein, Vandyk K Integ Paradise.

"Vandyk-K Integrity Paradise, the two time Supreme Champion at the World Dairy Expo, was an easy choice for her owners to clone," said the company. "When you have an individual this good you need to have more copies of her to realise her true value."

The procedure, which cost about £9,800, involved removing eggs from the clone, fertilising them in a laboratory and implanting them into a surrogate cow.

The British farm bought five embryos from America to be implanted into its Holsteins. The others are expected to be born in the next few weeks.

Mark Rueth, 45, a farmer in Oxford, Wisconsin, who owns the clone cow and sold the embryos, said yesterday that the procedure made sense "because it increases the genetic base of an elite cow".

Those in favour of cloning say that an animal clone is a genetic copy. It is not the same as genetic engineering, which involves altering, adding or deleting DNA. Supporters believe that the technology is fundamental to the success of the farming industry, enabling farmers to replicate elite livestock.

Dr Barbara Glenn, the managing director of the department of animal biotechnology at Bio, the trade association for the biotechnology industry in America, said cloning could help farmers to develop animals resistant to pandemic diseases such as foot and mouth.

"We are talking about assisted reproductive technology," she said. "It allows farmers to produce more reliable, healthier animals capable of producing more nutritious meat and milk."

The Government rejected advice by the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 2004 to set up a committee to monitor attempts to introduce cloning to the commercial farming industry.

Lord Melchett, the policy director of the Soil Association, said the Government's failure to impose regulatory controls on such a practice was "inexcusable".

"The news that this has arrived without any checks and without any controls from the Government, despite the fact that they were advised by the Government advisory committee to introduce controls, will undermine trust in British farming and British food," he said.

"It is irresponsible and bad for the industry. There should be a moratorium on any use of any cloned animals or the offspring of any cloned animals. I have seen absolutely no evidence that consumers want this and lots of evidence which suggests that consumers are very uneasy about the idea of eating meat from cloned animals or drinking milk from clone animals."

Since the days of pioneering British clones such as the sheep Dolly, Megan and Morag, cloners have noted low pregnancy rates and a condition called large offspring syndrome.

Peter Stevenson, the chief policy adviser at Compassion for World Farming, said he was "horrified" by the news that the offspring of a cloned animal was born in Britain.

"Cloning is an incredibly invasive surgical procedure that causes health and welfare problems for all the animals involved," he said. "It is doubly worrying that there is no safeguard in place to avoid serious animal welfare and ethical problems from the introduction of this Frankenstein technology." Andrew Praill, the honorary secretary of the British Cattle Veterinary Association, said: "Our worries are whether the right safeguards are in place to ensure that there are no problems as a result of a trade in cloned embryos, such as genetic traits from chromosomal changes."

A spokesman for the Department for Food and Rural Affairs said the Government did not believe that any animal health and welfare regulations had been contravened.

"From an animal health point of view there are no specific EU regulations that govern the import of cloned animals or embryos other than those health and welfare conditions that must be met for all embryos or animals." he said.

"EU animal health rules do not require us to differentiate cloned from normal embryos and we do not see the need to 'gold plate' this issue."

The company that owns the calf refused to comment last night.

GMO war in Hungary: Academics contra Deputies

Vedegylet.hu, 11 January 2007. By Bori Simonyi.

"The green movements say 70 to 80 percent of the Hungarian consumers reject GMO's, however, the multinationals say 74 % of farmers want to grow them. Economists project that 27 000 hectares will be grown in 2007, while politicians hope that the new coegsistence-law would keep the country entirely GMO-free."

Simonyi Bori munkatársunk írása (angolul) a hazai GMO frontról tudósÌt.

The GMO issue is one of the toughest challenges facing the dedicated citizen aiming to make informed politicial choices and wanting to be up-to-date in current affairs.

In Hungary, for instance, if you try and seek information in the media you're likely to get confused by the e extravagant figures and facts flying around in the furious public debate on GMO's: the green movements say 70 to 80 percent of the Hungarian consumers reject GMO's, however, the multinationals say 74 % of farmers want to grow them. Economists project that 27 000 hectares will be grown in 2007, while politicians hope that the new coegsistence-law would keep the country entirely GMO-free.

What is the truth, then? ‚ this is what I will try and look into in this article.

Why is it different?

The reason that genetical modification of plants is fundamentally different from the traditional methods of agricultural selection is the fact that genes from different species are mixed. For instance, in several of the so-called first generation GM-varieties (herbicid and insect resistant plants) the immunity against certain parasites is achieved with the help of a gene from a germ, called bacillus thuringiensis that leads to the production of the same toxin in the plant that this bacillus uses to defend itself.

The public image of the biotech industry is that of high-tech, cutting-edge science, who do the same functions like farmers seed selection, only much more effectively, in the spirit of the space-age. However, in reality, the smart-looking laboratories uses a highly instinctive methodology, by which they understand in fact much less what they are doing than with traditional seed selection.

Why is it here?

The EU was forced to lift its GMO-moratory in 2004, after the United States, Argentina and Canada started a process about this in front of the WTO. Presently, the EU has 34 GM-varieties on its list. GMO's are cultivated in 6 states of the EU 25, like in Spain and Tchech Republic. Five old member states and Hungary have moratories in place for the commercial cultivation of GM crops. These moratories can be applied with reference to new scientific evidence for security risks. However, they are preliminal, the Commission can lift them if the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) finds that the evidence is not well-based. The Hungarian ministry of agriculture and rural development imposed a preliminary moratory for the Mon810 insect resistant maize on 20. January 2005. The reasoning was that when this variety got authorised in the EU, Hungary was not a member yet. With the accession of Hungary, however, a new ecological region, the Carpathian Bassin, ("Pannon Ecological Region") a sovereign biogeografical region became part of the EU, for which the patent holder has not conducted the necessary tests. The EFSA's GM-panel, however, ruled that the evidence wasn't sufficient. This is problematic, as the GM-panel besides its well known general problems of functioning, is also made up primarily of nutritionist and food safety experts, who were judging ecotoxicoligists' studies. The scientist group working on this is struggling to provide further evidence to maintain the moratory, these sort of studies, however, by nature take time (one needs several cycles for the tests, etc), of which we are short, also, the patent-holders, after the first unfavourable results stopped providing seeds for the testsÖ The Commissions motion to lift the Hungarian moratory has been outvoted by more than half of the member states in September 2006. However, the neccessary majority of 2/3 to remove this question from the agenda has not been achieved. Therefore the decision has been postponed. According to Hungarian agricultural minister Jozsef Graf, he has exhausted all diplomatical means and connections to achieve this vote, therefore we cannot expect and further improvement for the next vote that would enable us to reach the 2/3 consensus and thus defend the moratory for good. Even more so, as since the September vote there have been several unfavourable developments in the member states inner politics, like in Germany the anti-GMO Greens came off government, and the new government is likely to vote pro-GMO. Therefore at the new vote in sight the most probably outcome is the repeat of the last result of non-qualified majority at our side. In this case, however, the decisive power returns to the Committee, who will certainly lift the moratory. This is the reason for the widespread political consensus that enabled the parliament to pass the coegsistence law.

The dynamics of the public debate

The Ñpro" camp

The reasoning of DÈnes Dudits, head of the pro-GMO camp, appeals to the traditional image of the small country as scientific giant, where biotechnological research and development could turn Hungarian agriculture a regional leader in the new technology. There is a noticable change in their argumentation recently, stressing that it would be the energetical sector that could make the most use of the new technology, thus providing an answer to the worrying structural surpluses of the Hungarian cereal sector in view of the future CAP reforms. This communication strategy single-handedly does away with the consumer-resistance argument, saying consumers of energy have really no business defining what the product comes from. You don't have to eat it, and its even environmentally friendly, this sector is high added value, and it would create high quality, knowledge-intensive jobs on the countryside - an argumentation that, even though is questioned by the countercamp, is nevertheless hard to fight in Dudits's home university town Szeged, regional center of the unemployment-stricken, underdeveloped south-eastern part of Hungary.

The countercamp

There's a political consensus against GMO's, which the minister of agriculture proudly regards as his personal success of persuading the prime minister that GMO's are not in the country's interest. Beyond all the 5 parties in the parliament, the countercamp consists of consumers and environmental organisations and the groups of the smaller and organic farmers. According to farmers' reasoning, the GMO-free status of the country ensures a superior price in Hungary's primary export markets. The coegsistence, which is, according to scientific evidence, unsustainable on the medium to long run, would instantly lead to loss of markets and would require the doubling up of all transformation and transport infrastructure in the maize sector, which would put extra burden on Hungarian agriculture. Consumers and environmentalists, along with some leading scientists from the fields of nutritional and ecological sciences, join this camp as they can only see unneccessary risks of this technology, which are not conterweighed by any advantage else then profit of the patentholders.

Divided public debate

A real public debate is a long time revendication of social movements on such issues, where citizens need to take informed action about things which experts like to contextualise as a tehcnical problem for which you need to be an expert to be mandated to participate in the debate. The open day organised by the agricultural comittee of the parliament a day before the vote, with 600 participants, 7 hours of 28 speakers from all sides of the stakeholders, including scientists from several fields, farmers groups, NGO's, authorities, patent holders, etc. could have been a real opportunity for such a debate. However, the pro-GMO camp, despite having been invited by the organisers, has not appeared. None of the knowingly pro-GMO academics appeared, and out of the 28 speakers only the representative of Monsanto and of Mosz took a pro-GMO stance. Instead, there has been an exclusive forum at the Academy of Science, where only pro-GMO scientists were invited to speak up. A day before the voting, 37 members of the Academy published an open letter to MP's reclaiming the "freedom of research" and criticising the coegsistence law project which is "the strictest in Europe".

Coesistence: impossible?

The law, as any compromise, is criticised from both sides. Amongst a number of other causes for concern, the separation of GM and conventional and organic produce has 2 critical points: The size of buffer zones have been a center of debates: the final measure contains a 400-metres distance. Originally, they wanted to make it 800 metres and prohibit GMO's in the Natura 2000 areas, but this was rejected in Brussels. The numbers regarding how much is enough, are extravagantly different. ‚ you can hear anything from 20 metres to 4 kms. But even if all this was solved, the post-harvest treatment would certainly lead to contamination and mixing of produce, due to human negligence. To avoid this, the doubling up of infrastructure (separate harvest machinery, storage, transport, transformation, packagingÖ) needed to ensure coegsistence is such an extra cost for the agriculture of a country that gives up its GMO free status, that it makes the economical viability highly questionable. Therefore this is quite probably not going to happen, so all signs lead to the forecast expressed by L·szlÛ Heszky on the GMO day int he Parliament: life itself will solve the problem of coegsistence within 10 years: as it happened int he USA, where the ratio of the GM-production (ie the fields which no longer qualified as GM-free) reached the critical 30-40 percent, from which it made no longer sense to differentiate between GM and conventional.

Exclusion of small farmers from the new technology?

The two caracteristic groups of the pro-GMO camp, the academics interested in conducting research for multinationals and the big farmers group both claim the right to choose, the freedom of choice that is denied to them by the law which explicitly states as its aim to maintain the GMO-free status of the country. The multinationals and one of the three farmers trade groups argue that the strict regulations of the law (400 metres buffer zone, extensive administrative burden, consent of neighbours within the buffer zone) for which there's no European precedent, menace the liberty of choice in the agricultural technology for farmers, excluding especially smallholders from this new technology. In the light of this argument it is interesting to note that MOSZ regroups the largest and most "competitive" farms, most of whom have no trouble to designate the buffer zone within their own area so that they don't have to ask the consent of anyone. On the other hand, Magosz which have characteristically more smallholders among their members take a clear anti-GMO stance and press for an even stricter law.

Now what?

The five parties in the parliament submitted the regulation proposal together. The declared aim of the law is to maintain the competition advantage held by the GM-free status of the country. The final version has been voted last Monday, with the abstention of the opposition. The reason for this was the fact that the law proposal was already a compromise that for the opponents or GMO's wasn't strict enough, but the notification process in Brussels molded it into During the voting process some amendments have been accepted in a 5 parties-consensus. Some more radical amendments submitted by the opposition (defining personalities the deputies coming from the election alliance of Magosz with the big right wing conservative opposition party) were, however, rejected by the government. Their reasoning was that if the finally accepted law turns out significantly stricter then the one notified in Brussels, it might have to restart the notification process, which would certainly prolong the lawmaking period, possibly leaving Hungary without a forceful coegsistence law at the time of the spring seeding works. If in the meantime the moratory is lifted, that could have the catastrophical situation that GMO's can be grown with no strict regulation. In this case it would be the government's political responsability. There has been, however, a 5-party consensus for a resolution requiring the government to adopt a clear strategy concerning its agricultural and food production application of GMO's. It requires the government to pursue the ecological impact studies for the MON810 maize, launch new ones for the varieties that are currently under authorisation process int he EU. It also demands that the government uses all diplomatical and legal means in order to be able to keep the moratory, even in case of an unfavourable decision of the Comission, and that it examines the possibilities of a new moratory under the safeguard close proccess. The pro-GMO camp feels that in the present European context this was the most that could be achieved, it was more the European political environment that imposed limits. Therefore, it is essential to reinforce the resolution that the government does what it can on the European level, forging alliances with other member states, using the means and ways ont he Brussels playing field and lobby processes that exist. After all, the EU is made up of member statesÖit remains to be seen, to which extent states can exert influence bottom-up in this process, as these strings of intertwined interests lead far up, to the WTO, to the global bargaining that Europe has been making on agriculture and services for global competitivity.

10 January 2007

Tainting Africa's heritage:
Wambugu, Gates Foundation and Dupont's GM sorghum project

Briefing paper by the African Centre for Biosafety, 10 January 2007.

BACKGROUND

On the 15 June 2006, the Executive Council (EC), a statutory body established by the Genetically Modified Organisms Act comprising six government departments (science and technology, agriculture, trade and industry, health, labour, and environmental affairs and tourism) turned down the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research's (CSIR) application to conduct laboratory and greenhouse experiments on genetically modified (GM) sorghum. This decision was taken against the backdrop that Africa is the centre of origin for sorghum where (including in South Africa) a large number of sexually compatible weeds, wild relatives strains and races of cultivated sorghum occur. In this regard, the EC cited concerns regarding the risks "pertaining to possible impact as a result of gene flow on bio-diversity".[1]

The EC specifically requested that the CSIR characterise sorghum species in South Africa with particular regard to examining sexual compatibility, geographic distribution, climatic requirements and importance to bio-diversity, including nutritional characterisation of the different species of sorghum in S.A.

Derek Hanekom, the deputy science and technology minister said in August 2006 that the South African government might well reconsider its stance if the CSIR could demonstrate to the council that the sorghum is suitably contained.[2] In September 2006, an application was re-submitted in the name of the CSIR Biosciences to conduct an assessment of GM sorghum that has been engineered to express a high-lysine storage protein from barley.[3]

This new application provides for the use of a level 3 containment facility. Upon examination by the ACB, not only does the application fail to address the various concerns raised by the EC, we have found it to be extremely sketchy and based on wholly inadequate, erroneous and unsubstantiated scientific information. It appears as if the aim of the application is to forge ahead with the GM sorghum experimentation at all costs, including the wholesale contamination of AfricaÇs prized sorghum heritage.

Wambugu, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Dupont's Role in the Development of GE Sorghum

Florence Wambugu, well known for the disastrous GM sweet potato project in Kenya, sits on the Science Board of the Grand Challenges in Global Health, the initiative created by the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation (BMGF).[4] Wambugu's African Harvest Foundation, in collaboration with DuPont Crop Genetics Research (Pioneer HiBred International) has been granted $16.9 million by the BMGF to conduct research on Nutritionally-Enhanced Sorghum for the Arid and Semi-Arid Tropical Areas of Africa.This project has been given the moniker, the Africa Biofortified Sorghum (ABS) Project. Already under this grant, in partnership with theCSIR in South Africa, a genetically engineered new variety of sorghum containing increased levels of the amino acid lysine has been produced.[5] The stated aim of the ABS Project is to "develop sorghum with improved food quality by enriching it for essential amino acids (part of the protein component of the diet), and later by increasing its content in essential vitamins (vitamin A and E)"[6] and to do so by the application of genetic modification. The outcome of this project would be the development of a Super Sorghum.6

Still knocking on a closed door.

Despite successful litigation by South African based NGO, Biowatch South Africa regarding the public's right to information regarding GM regulation and risk assessment data, the public continues to be denied vital information to conduct a proper assessment, including such basic information as the molecular description and characterisation information. The ACB has not been able to make a full and complete assessment of the application since the bulk of the pertinent information is contained in Annexures, copies of which were denied to us. The engagement by the public with the applicant needs to be made on the basis of complete and accurate information being made to it and in accordance with the court order made in the Biowatch litigation.

Contamination of Africa's wild relatives of Sorghum

Nevertheless, what the applicants could not hide from public scrutiny is that they are unable to provide any references to scientific peer reviewed journals of the various safety claims they make regarding the impacts of their GM sorghum on the biosystem. Indeed, the applicants state that the opportunities for out-crossing to cultivated sorghum and to wild relatives of sorghum are highly unlikely (page 2) because of the level 3 containment facility that is proposed for the release.

The distinct impression gained from the application is that s impacts of the release of the transgene are negligible - a view not supported by the published literature.

During February 2005 Schmidt and Bothma reported on a crop-to-crop gene flow risk assessment study conducted in South Africa, with Sorghum bicolor subsp. bicolor to estimate the impact of transgenic sorghum in (South) Africa.[7] This study was funded by the Agricultural Research Council at which Bothma is employed. The field trial was conducted at on the 4000-ha ARC research farm Roodeplaat close to Pretoria. A central sorghum field (30 x 30 m) was planted with male fertile donor plants and surrounded by eight arms planted with male sterile recipient plants at a distance of 13 to 158 m from the central field. Gene flow was found to be high within the first 40m and whilst low beyond this point, regardless gene flow was detected even at the 158 m point.[8]

In South Africa we have the presence of fully fertile crop wild relatives and the weedy relative johnsongrass [S. halepense (L.) Pers.], which may form hybrids with crop sorghum. Johnson grass is classified as one of the world's most noxious weeds.

The authors concluded that the fact that gene flow takes place and the presence of these weedy and wild relatives provides strong evidence that introgression of genetically modified-(GM)-sorghum into crops and crop wild relatives will take place once GM sorghum is deployed.

CONCLUSION

The South African Sorghum gene flow study raised very serious concerns of introgression of GE-sorghum into wild relatives. The South African government is obliged in terms of its national and international obligations under pertinent multilateral environmental agreements such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, to protect biodiversity, refuse the application. Some activities just cannot be permitted and should be regarded as NO GO options, such as the release of GM sorghum into greenhouses. The risks posed by GM sorghum to sorghum wild and weedy relatives cannot be tolerated at all and the granting of a permit will be tantamount to a licence to taint Africa's heritage.

Ultimately, Wambugu et al's ABS project is being developed for commercial release and will have to undergo field trials. If the original objection of the EC made on 15 June 2006 was based on concerns regarding containment and possible adverse effects on local varieties, any further development or re-consideration of the application must be forestalled by this very concern itself. Containment now in a level 3 containment facility will not negate these concerns for field trials and the risks to local varieties will remain.

Notes [1] Hanekom, D. (2006) Cautiously sowing the seeds of change. 2 August. Business Day.

[2] http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A243447.

[3] CSIR Biosciences. Application for Contained use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in South Africa. Africa Bio-fortified Sorghum (ABS) Project. 17/3/1-CSIR-06/005. non-CBI

[4] Grand Challenges in Global Health. Scientific Board. http://www.grandchallengesgh.org/board.aspx?SecID=260.

[5] Grand Challenges in Global Health. Nutrient-Rich Plants. http://www.gcgh.org/subcontent.aspx?SecID=390.

[6] SuperSorghum.org. The ABS Consortium. The Project. http://supersorghum.org/project.htm

[7] Schmidt, M. & Bothma, G. (2006) Risk Assessment for Transgenic Sorghum in Africa: Crop-to-Crop Gene Flow in Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. Crop Sci. 46:790 798

[8] Ibid

Out of bounds

Nature, 10 January 2007

With the use of transgenic crops expanding around the globe, we need to decide what level of unapproved plants we are willing to accept in our diets. Zero is not an option, says Heidi Ledford. [oh, yes it is - ed]

Steve Linscombe still isn't quite sure how it happened. The director of the Louisiana State University AgCenter for Rice Research knows that he grew a few lines of transgenic rice in field trials between 2001 and 2003. He also knows that one of those lines, LLRICE601, was grown on less than one acre. What he is not clear on is how the line then wended its way into the food supply. That little mystery is now the subject of an official investigation and a class-action lawsuit.

When the escape was announced in August last year, LLRICE601 had not been approved for human consumption. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) rushed to deregulate the crop, granting permission on 24 November for LLRICE601 to be grown without a permit. By then, Japan had already declared a month-long ban on all imports of US long-grain rice, and the European Union had started to require all US long-grain rice imports to be tested and certified at the expense of the exporters. Meanwhile, Bayer CropScience, the company that created the rice strain, put the blame squarely on farmers and an "act of God".

By that logic, this would not be the first time that a deity has aided and abetted the escape of a genetically engineered crop. On 21 December, Syngenta was fined $1.5 million for allowing its unapproved pest-resistant Bt10 corn (maize) to mix into seed distributed for food. The past decade is smattered with examples of unapproved crops sneaking through containment barriers (see 'Some past escapes'). When they make it into the food supply - as with LLRICE601 and Bt10 - public outcry and financial losses follow. But amid the calls for tighter regulations, experts say one truth is being drowned out: no amount of regulation can guarantee that these crops will not escape and multiply.

Meanwhile, the stakes are getting higher. Since 1991, the USDA has approved nearly 400 field tests of crops that produce pharmaceutical and industrial compounds, leaving many concerned that future escapes could have severe consequences for human health. A close call came in 2002, when stalks of corn designed to produce a pig vaccine were found mixed with $2.7-million worth of Nebraska soya beans destined for human consumption. Prodigene, the corn's maker, was fined $250,000 and forced to buy and destroy the soya beans.

No guarantees

Although the use of transgenic crops is spreading around the globe, production is still concentrated in the United States, which grows more than half of the world's genetically engineered crops. There, they are monitored by three regulatory agencies: the USDA regulates field tests, the Environmental Protection Agency monitors crops genetically engineered to produce pesticides, and the Food and Drug Administration provides a voluntary 'consultation' on the safety of crops for human consumption. That voluntary consultation sets the United States apart from many other countries, including China and many European countries, which require crops to be evaluated for toxicity and allergenicity before being approved.

In the 20 years since the USDA started to regulate field tests, it has approved nearly 50,000 field sites. But an internal audit commissioned by the USDA inspector-general and released on 22 December 2005 was severely critical. The report admonished the agency for lacking basic information about test sites, failing to inspect field tests sufficiently, and neglecting the fate of the crops after testing. USDA regulator Rebecca Besch says that a year on, many of the report's recommendations have been enacted. The agency now asks for detailed coordinates of field test sites, she says, and is revising its environmental standards.

Jeffrey Wolt, an agronomist at Iowa State University in Ames, commends the USDA for its efforts, but says that tougher regulations are no guarantee of confinement. "There has been this strong effort by regulators and industry to tighten this stuff up," he says. "But no matter how much you ratchet it down, the risk is not going to be absolute zero because that's a scientific impossibility."

Other scientists agree. Transgenic plants have many ways to escape. For plants pollinated by wind and insects, such as canola, pollen transfer is a constant threat. And although seed harvesting and processing equipment is designed to keep different varieties apart, there is no guarantee of success. "Just like anything, it is not 100%," says Linscombe. "You could have a seed that gets caught somewhere in a planter and later jars itself loose." And of course even if only a few seeds make their way into breeding stock, their numbers can then multiply.

Meanwhile, says Michelle Marvier, an ecologist at Santa Clara University in California, the focus on designing effective biological containment has kept attention away from an even more slippery culprit: human error. "The reality is that humans are involved, and we inevitably make mistakes." She warns that any risk evaluation of a genetically engineered crop should consider that crop likely to escape.

Several countries have opted not to take that risk. After the news of LLRICE601 contamination, major exporters in Vietnam announced that they would not be growing any transgenic rice. And even some countries that grow genetically modified crops are cautious about the ones they will accept. Argentina, for example, the world's second largest producer, refuses to grow any genetically engineered crop that has not been approved for consumption in its major export markets, including the European Union. That policy is intended to prevent unintended mixing of crops from hurting Argentina's robust agricultural export sector (although it hasn't protected neighbouring Brazil - which did not allow genetically engineered crops until last year - from repeated contamination from Argentina's transgenic stocks).

Harsh punishments

In the United States, the idea is that escape can be prevented if producers know that they will be punished if unapproved plant material is detected in the food supply. If a company is responsible for contamination, it typically has to remove the unapproved material at its own expense, and as an additional deterrent, deal with the flurry of negative press that undoubtedly follows. "It is really bad for the reputation of these firms and the technology itself," says Guillaume Gruere, an agricultural economist at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington DC. But he says that the regulatory agencies' zero-tolerance policy clashes with the inevitability of escape. "The problem is the threshold. If you want zero percent, it's going to be pretty much impossible."

And despite the negative press, US public opinion of genetically modified crops seems to have been changed little by the escapes so far, judging from the results of a survey done by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology last year. The number of Americans who approve of genetically modified food has hovered unchanged at around 26% for the past five years, whereas the number that explicitly disapproves has shrunk from 58% to 46%.

What about crops that produce pharmaceuticals and industrial compounds? In 2003, the USDA issued stricter guidelines for containment of these plants. Isolation distances from food crops were increased, and field test sites were to be inspected more frequently. And so far, no such strains have been deregulated, meaning that they must always be contained no matter how well they are tested.

But Margaret Mellon, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Food and Environment programme, doubts that those regulations will be enough. Her organization has called for a ban on the outdoor production of pharmaceuticals in food crops, arguing that the amount of regulation needed to guarantee containment would be prohibitively expensive both to the government and to researchers. The union has gone through the USDA regulations and analysed points at which transgenic crops could still escape, such as machine cleaning and seed transport. "Regulations that are sufficiently stringent to plug all of those holes really are not feasible," says Mellon. "We see how much trouble the agency is having even with the current ones." Instead, she argues, production of pharmaceuticals or industrial compounds should take place only in non-food crops such as tobacco.

The problem is that such a ban would have a chilling effect on research, because the technology for creating and processing transgenic food crops is well understood and therefore much cheaper. At this stage, a US ban seems unlikely, and no other country has an official ban on pharmaceutical-producing crops. In 2005, the Oregon Department of Agriculture convened a panel to evaluate the risks and potential economic benefits of growing animals and plants that produce pharmaceuticals in the state. The panel concluded last October that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Back in Louisiana, Linscombe plans to enact a few new regulations of his own. After his experience with LLRICE601, he says that he will be taking drastic measures to separate any experimental crops from his breeding stock, to at least minimize the chance of contamination. He is considering buying separate processing equipment for genetically modified crops. And he plans to greatly exceed the typical three-metre distance that is required between strains. "We have two farms that are located five miles apart," he says. "Any transgenic work in the future is going to be on one farm, and the breeding work on the other."

BOX: Some Past Escapes

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070108/box/445132a_BX1.html

1997

Limagrain Seed and Monsanto withdrew 60,000 bags of Canadian canola after finding that it was contaminated with unapproved herbicide- resistant seed.

2001

Unapproved insect-resistant corn produced by Monsanto escaped its field trial site and released pollen to a commercial crop. The commercial corn was destroyed.

2002

ProdiGene field-tested corn in 2001 that was engineered to produce a pharmaceutical. The next year, transgenic corn was found mixed with commercial corn that surrounded the site, and the crops were destroyed.

See Puzzling industry response to ProdiGene fiasco. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v21/n1/full/nbt0103-3b.html

2002

Transgenic contaminants of corn engineered to produce a pharmaceutical were harvested with commercial soya bean plants a year after they were field-tested by ProdiGene. Some 500,000 bushels of soya beans were destroyed.

See Puzzling industry response to ProdiGene fiasco http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v21/n1/full/nbt0103-3b.html

2004

Unexpected winds at a field-test site released herbicide-resistant, transgenic bentgrass produced by Scotts Company beyond its containment area.

See Escaped GM grass could spread bad news http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060807/full/060807-17.html

2005

Nature reported that Syngenta had mistakenly produced and distributed a regulated, insect-resistant strain of genetically modified corn. The Environmental Protection Agency and the USDA decided that the crop did not pose a risk to human health.

See US launches probe into sales of unapproved transgenic corn http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/full/434548a.html

2005

Greenpeace reported that it had found evidence of unapproved rice being sold illegally in China over the previous two years.

See GM rice forges ahead in China amid concerns over illegal planting http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050531/full/nbt0605-637.html

2006

The USDA found that BASF had planted regulated genetically engineered corn outside the area specified by its permit.

2006

Unapproved herbicide- resistant rice produced by Bayer CropScience was found in US rice sold for food. The USDA decided retropectively that the crop did not pose a risk to human health.

See Liberty Link rice raises specter of tightened regulations http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061030/full/nbt1106-1301.html

2006

Unapproved pest-resistant transgenic rice was found in European imports from China.

See Escaped Chinese GM rice reaches Europe http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060904/full/060904-5.html

Off the hook:
New environmental laws bring in the notion that the polluter should pay,
so why is the UK choosing the weakest option?

The Guardian, January 10 2007. By Sue Mayer.

Nature conservation in Britain has long been based on the protection of key sites and species - sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), for example, are identified for their biological or geological importance. Castleton in Derbyshire's Peak District, Wychwood Forest in Oxfordshire and Hampstead Heath Woods in north London are just some of the 4,000 designated areas. But while they are considered to be of great importance - covering almost 7% of Britain - around 40% are by the government's own estimation in a lamentable condition.

The UK also boasts a biodiversity action plan created specifically to protect and improve the status of species and habitats of conservation concern. But for the 391 species for which action plans have been developed, the costs are estimated at £21.8m a year - and there is little money.

Now, the environmental liability directive has given the UK a further opportunity to greatly enhance conservation. But rather than seizing the chance to improve environmental protection, the UK is choosing to take the weakest option.

This piece of legislation, which was hard fought for in Europe, is due to enter British law this year and is revolutionary in that it introduces the "polluter pays" principle. The thinking behind it is that by making businesses accountable for any environmental damage they cause, they will be more cautious about what they do. In theory, it will prevent environmental harm and remove from society the burden of costs of putting things right.

The European directive was always seen as a base, not a ceiling, for countries' legislation and governments can choose what teeth they give to the legislation they must introduce. But consultation documents put out by the government reveal that its policy is "not to go beyond the minimum requirements unless there are exceptional circumstances justified by a cost benefit analysis and following extensive stakeholder engagement".

The RSPB, one of the only groups campaigning on the issue, has pointed out that the government's own analysis shows the economic benefits to the Treasury of strengthening the directive.

The potential legislation is wide-ranging, but the government is choosing at every point to do as little as possible. The directive provides for "strict" liability for certain potentially hazardous activities. This includes the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs); waste management; discharge of pollutants into the air or water; and the production and use of dangerous chemicals such as pesticides. Strict liability means that the business undertaking the activity should not have to be shown to be at fault or negligent. Having gained in terms of profits, it should contribute to remediation of any damage that may arise.

The government, however, proposes allowing a "permit" defence to be used to avoid costs. This means that if an activity was given an official licence, payment for damage would not be required.

State of the art

Another defence the government proposes allowing is "state of the art": if the activity was not considered harmful according to the scientific and technical knowledge available at the time it took place, costs should not be payable. This is dangerous because it could encourage a situation where it is better not to know and so restrict scientific research into environmental effect.

Together, the state of the art and permit defences effectively make the liability regime fault based. It will only be necessary for businesses to argue that harm was not predicted, and that they have not been at fault or negligent, to avoid any economic liability.

The Welsh assembly, for GMOs only, has considered the effect of the permit defence and proposes not to allow it. The Welsh have understood that knowledge and experience of GMOs is limited, organisms are living and any adverse environmental impacts may be serious. Because the public there remains sceptical about the benefits of GMOs, they are unlikely to feel it is fair that the taxpayer pays to put any problems right.

Another cause for concern is that under the government's proposals, the directive will include only a limited amount of the environment. All biodiversity with European protection under the habitats and birds directives must be included in the liability directive and it states that countries can go further - but Britain does not intend to do this. This means that a quarter, in terms of land area, of SSSIs will be excluded. The water vole, red squirrel, brown hare and tree sparrow are among the 70% of our biodiversity action plan species that will also be excluded.

Nor is the government choosing to make the directive improve the ecological quality of all our rivers and lakes. Liability rules are to be restricted to larger lakes and rivers: streams and ponds are to be excluded. Land damage is also part of the environmental liability directive, but only if any harm that arises poses a risk to human health. The government does not want to extend this to environmental risks.

The real driving force behind the government's approach became clear last year when the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), considered strengthening the directive. In particular, it wanted strict liability to apply. The directive provides for fault-based liability for any activity (such as fisheries) that might harm biodiversity, not just those activities listed as potentially dangerous. Defra wanted to upgrade this so that strict liability would apply to all activities. Even this small step caused such outrage at the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) that a wholesale reassessment was undertaken in the interests of business and the implementation process delayed by more than nine months.

So the government, led by the DTI, is letting an important environmental principle drop by the wayside despite the polluter pays being one of the 10 guiding principles in its 2002 sustainable development strategy. Instead of fisheries, biotechnology, waste and chemical industries taking responsibility for their environmental impact, every opportunity is being taken to let them off the hook. While the public is being told that assessments into GM crops, pesticides and waste disposal are so thorough that their use poses no risk to the environment, this confidence evaporates when it brings tangible corporate financial accountability in terms of environmental liability.

It seems polluters don't have to worry about damaging our most precious wildlife species and sites, and the supposed polluter pays principle is being made so conditional as to be meaningless.

Sue Mayer is director of GeneWatch UK

Read the consultation at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/env%2Dliability

Any comments on this article? Write to mailto:society@guardian.co.uk

9 January 2007

Researchers see bias in private-funded studies
• Survey based on reports of health benefits of drinks
• Figures revive controversy over commercial influence

The Guardian, 9 January 2006. By Polly Curtis, health correspondent.

Research into the health benefits of drinks including fizzy pop, juices and milk may be severely biased in favour of food industry funders, American doctors say today. A survey of research on the nutritional value of drinks found that studies funded entirely by food and drink companies were approximately eight times more likely to produce results favourable to their funders, compared with studies which had no industry funding.

The findings threaten to revive the row which started in the pharmaceutical industry about how independent scientists can be when they receive funding from a commercial source. The authors of the review of research conclude: "Industry funding of nutrition-related scientific articles may bias conclusions in favour of sponsors' products, with potentially significant implications for public health."

The researchers, based in Boston, reviewed 206 articles which examined the nutritional effects of drinks and found a "significant" bias towards positive results in the research which was funded by the food industry.

"Whereas bias in pharmaceutical research could have an adverse effect on the health of the millions of individuals who take medications, bias in nutritional research could have an adverse effect on the health of everyone," they said.

David Ludwig, lead researcher and specialist in childhood nutrition at the Children's Hospital in Boston, said: "We found that the industry-funded studies were up to eight times more likely to be positive than the publicly-funded ones. In the aggregate we now have evidence of a bias and that bias could have a substantial impact on human health."

The paper, which was published in the peer-reviewed public access journal PLOS Medicine, suggested that companies were more likely to sponsor research which would show their product in a good light; investigators might consider a question which would "sell" to the funders when starting a study; authors might be selective in what they include to meet their funders' agendas or may over- or under-represent findings accordingly.

But other scientists said that the high incidence of positive results in industry-funded research was because they were more likely to fund research that was useful to their aims.

Susan Jebb, a senior scientist at the Human Nutrition Research department at Cambridge University, which receives taxpayer funding via the Medical Research Council, said that industry funding was "essential" as long as there was a strong understanding that it did not influence the outcomes of the research.

"There isn't enough public funding around so we welcome industry funding to help. The public should be able to have faith in the scientists to do research properly and fairly," she added.

New report: GM crops still not performing

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 9 January 2007

Brussels, 8 January 2007 - A new report to be released tomorrow shows that genetically modified (GM) crops have failed to address the main challenges facing farmers in most countries of the world, and more than 70 percent of large scale GM planting is still limited to two countries (U.S. and Argentina).

The new report, 'Who Benefits from GM crops? An analysis of the global performance of genetically modified (GM) crops 1996-2006' [1] also notes that the 'second generation' GM farm crops with attractive 'traits' long promised by the industry has failed to appear.

"No GM crop on the market today offers benefits to the consumer in terms of quality or price, and to date these crops have done nothing to alleviate hunger or poverty in Africa or elsewhere," said Nnimmo Bassey of Friends of the Earth Africa in Nigeria.

"The great majority of GM crops cultivated today are used as high-priced animal feed to supply rich nations with meat," he added.

According to the report, GM crops commercialised today have on the whole increased rather than decreased pesticide use, and do not yield more than conventional varieties. The environment has not benefited, and GM crops will become increasingly unsustainable over the medium to long term.

In Europe, the report acknowledges a small increase in cultivation of GM maize (up to approximately 1 percent of all maize production) but highlights strong continued opposition to GM crops in the European Union and an increase in the number of European regions declaring themselves GM Free.

Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth Europe said: "The widespread opposition to genetically modified crops and foods in Europe continues to restrict the growing of these unwanted and unneeded crops. Consumers and farmers can see that they offer no added value and only additional environmental and health risks."

The Friends of the Earth International report launch coincides with the annual release of the 'Global Status of Commercialized Biotech' report of the industry-sponsored International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) - which promotes GM crops as a key solution to hunger and poverty. The GM crops industry continues to misleadingly claim that GM crops play a role in solving world hunger.

2006 a bad year for GMO crops

• In 2006 the US Department of Agriculture, a chief proponent of GM crops, for the first time acknowledged that GM crop yields are not greater than those of conventional crops, and a compelling number of studies by independent scientists demonstrate that GM crop yields are lower than, or at best equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties.

• In 2006 due to a soybean sector crisis and lower yields in Brazil and Paraguay, Monsanto had to scale down its expectations in both countries. The company was forced to publicly announce in Paraguay a reduction in the royalties they demanded from soy producers. The Ministry of Environment in Paraguay detected higher losses in Roundup Ready soy yields than in the conventional varieties, verifying that the GM varieties were highly sensitive to drought.

• In the last decade cotton production has declined in the majority of countries that have adopted GM cotton like Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, South Africa and Australia, and significant drops in GM cotton production specifically are forecasted in 2006 for South Africa and Mexico.

• In 2006 a European Union-wide survey of public views reconfirmed the European public's opposition to GM food.

• In 2006 the rice food supply on four continents was contaminated with an illegal GM rice supposedly field-tested only until 2001, proving once again the inability or unwillingness of the biotech industry to control its products.

For more information contact:

In Africa: Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth Africa Tel: +234 8037274395 (mobile) or +234 52602680 (office)

In Asia: Nizam Mahshar, Friends of the Earth Malaysia Tel: +60194777755

In Europe: Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe Mobile: +49 16094901163; Tel: +49 802 599 1951

In South America: Karen Nansen, Friends of the Earth Uruguay, Tel: +598 99 524 003

Notes to editors:

[1] The executive summary of the report is available at:
http://www.foei.org/publications/pdfs/gmcrops2007execsummary.pdf

The full report is available for media upon request from the contacts above or from media@foei.org

A three-page 'Highlights of the report' is available at:
http://www.foei.org/publications/pdfs/gmcrops2007highlights.pdf

8 January 2007

Indian Govt. asks Mahyco to compensate cotton farmers

BharatTextile.com, 8 January 2007.

CHIDAMBARAM: The fully owned subsidiary of US biotech major Monsanto, Mahyco has been asked by the government to compensate cotton farmers for failure of Bt cotton in the current season, industry sources said here on January 07.

The Bt cotton crop has failed in the major producing district of state, Dharampuri and farmers in the region has complained to the district collector and subsequently the agriculture officials.

The officials following the complaints have asked the scientists at Coimbatore Agriculture University to verify the fact. The scientists conducted tests on the soil where the crops were planted and took samples of the seeds sown.

After the completion of test, scientists informed that improper seeds only had caused all the problems.

The Tamil Nadu agriculture minister, Veera Pandi Arumugam informed that government has advised the company to pay compensation to the affected farmers and has also ordered that Mahyco should not sell any type of seeds in Tamil nadu.

The cell has been formed to safeguard the interests of farmers under the leadership of the chief minister, where experts from various sections of agriculture ministry will be in the cell, minister added.

Wine Industry And Environmentalists Eye Government Over GMO Applications

AllAfrica.com, 8 January 2007. By John Veld. Cape Town, South Africa -- The government is being watched like a hawk by the wine industry and environmentalists as it prepares to make two key decisions on the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in wine.

The first relates to an application by Professor JJ Hennie van Vuuren, director of the British Columbia Wine Research Centre at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, to use genetically modified yeast in wine-making in 20 wine- producing regions of the western and southern Cape.

The second - completely unrelated - is by Stellenbosch University's Wine Biotechnology Institute for field trials for genetically modified (GM) grapevines to produce both fruit and wine for research purposes.

Both decisions, which will be made by the Department of Agriculture's Executive Council for Genetically Modified Organisms, may come as soon as next month, although this could not be confirmed.

The yeast application is particularly controversial and is being opposed by, among others, the South African Wine Industry Council and the GMO watchdog Biowatch South Africa, whose formal objection to the application is being supported by 12 winemakers, including high-profile players like Anthony Hamilton Russell of Hamilton Russell Vineyards and Anton du Toit of Lourensford and Lanzerac Wines.

Professor van Vuuren wants to apply genetically enhanced malolactic wine yeast ML01 for the commercial production of wine in South Africa.

According to Biowatch, permitting this would likely result in "disastrous consequences".

"There is a ban on genetically modified wine and overwhelming rejection of all genetically modified food and drink by consumers in Europe, an important export market for South African wine," it states. "The application ... is likely to engender general suspicion among consumers, especially in South Africa's key export markets. It is also likely to jeopardise the organic wine sector."

There was a "real possibility" that the GM yeast could contaminate microbial diversity of areas outside the wineries, such as through waste disposal, and might also have negative impacts on human health, it added.

The second application, which involves a proposed field trial of GM grapevine plants (chardonnay and sultana) on the university's Welgevallen experimental farm just outside Stellenbosch, will be for research only.

The institute says fruit and wine that will be produced from this trial (if the go-ahead is given) will be chemically analysed and then destroyed.

"The main objective of the proposed field trial is to analyse the appearance and viticultural performance of the vines, as well as any effect on the environment over at least five seasons under normal field conditions."

It adds that none of the genes or promoter sequences involved is considered dangerous, and that field trials of transgenic grapevine plants are also going on in Australia, France, Italy, the US and Germany.

Biowatch South Africa, the African Centre for Biosafety, and Earthlife Africa are among the organisations objecting strongly to the application. However, the SA Wine Industry Council has not objected - yet.

Biowatch's objections include that the application has inadequate monitoring and assessment to prevent contamination and damage to the environment, and that there are "significant discrepancies" between the institute's public notice about the proposal and its actual application to the Registrar of Genetic Resources.

On its website, the institute has set out a lengthy rebuttal of all Biowatch's objections. It says, inter alia: "The grapevine biotechnology research programme of the institute focuses on understanding and ultimately improving disease resistance in grapevine in support of environmentally-friendly production practices.

"The South African wine and grapevine industries have supported this research since 1998 for its strategic potential and prospective economic importance."

Biowatch's appeal against a Pretoria High Court order that it has to pay the legal costs of GM seed producer Monsanto, despite its successful application to be granted access to information it had requested about how decisions are made relating to permits for GM crops in South Africa, has been set down for April 23.

New Review of Transgene Integration

The latest paper on transgene insertion has been published in Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews (vol 23, December 2006, pp 209-237).

Title: Transformation-induced Mutations in Transgenic Plants: Analysis and Biosafety Implications
By Allison K. Wilson , Jonathan R. Latham and Ricarda A. Steinbrecher

It is the most comprehensive and up to date resource available anywhere on the characteristics of transgene integration.

It is available as a pdf c/o the Bioscience Resource Project website:
http://www.bioscienceresource.org/docs/BSR-2-BGERvol23.pdf

The work of this group of independent scientists on so-called "genome scrambling" has been extremely important in revealing how the genetic engineering of crops not only lacks precision but causes large scale genetic rearrangements of host DNA at transgene insertion sites, as well as large numbers of mutations scattered throughout the genome of each new transgenic plant. The significance of all this genetic damage is that the food safety of edible crops relies crucially on genetic stability.

One third of GM feed consignments mislabelled in '05 - Naughten

Fine Gael press release, 8 January 2007.

Leinster House, Dublin, Ireland -- "One third of animal feed consignments imported into Ireland in 2005 were mislabelled as containing no genetically modified material when, in fact, the opposite was the case", the Fine Gael Agriculture and Food Spokesperson, Denis Naughten TD, has revealed today (Monday).

"Under strict Department of Agriculture rules, all consignments of animal feed coming into the country which carry no GM declaration, or are declared as not containing any GM, are tested.

"Of the 17 consignments of such feed imported in 2005, five were found to contain genetically modified material.

"Fine Gael wants to see all foods, for both human and animal consumption, properly labelled, and wants both shoppers and farmers to be provided with clear information about such products.

"In Ireland, our food labelling system, for GM and non-GM products, has been exposed as less than adequate in the past. Fine Gael therefore wants to introduce a more effective food labelling system which is not open to abuse.

"As things stand, shoppers and farmers are having their rights trampled on, and they need to be aware of the realities of their food supply. For example:

• Loopholes in Irish labelling laws mean that products produced outside of Ireland, such as beef from Brazil or chicken from Asia, can be passed off as Irish once they have undergone minimal processing here, e.g. the addition of breadcrumbs.

• Surveys conducted by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland have revealed products which have been falsely labelled as being of Irish origin.

• EU inspections in countries outside Europe have highlighted inferior hygiene and quality standards, yet food from these countries is currently on your supermarket shelf and restaurant table. Inadequate labelling is denying you your right to make an informed choice.

• The average distance travelled by your food is 3000 miles, making it less nutritious than local produce and susceptible to a greater risk of damage through transportation and handling. The absence of a single, clear, guaranteed Irish label makes choosing local produce a trial.

• Fine Gael's recent food price survey showed that shoppers are being ripped off by mark-ups of over 200% on basic food products in the supermarket.

"Fine Gael wants to guarantee safe and secure food for the public, and wants to ensure that shoppers can make an informed choice.

"In Government, Fine Gael is committed to;

• Ensuring the right to clear and concise country of origin labelling on all products, giving shoppers the choice to buy Irish, and providing comprehensive information on where their food originates.

• Ensuring that GM products are clearly labelled and that the public is provided with as much information as possible.

• Reforming our labelling laws to ensure that the current abuse of the system is halted. Misleading labels not only deny consumers their rights, they can also pose a public health risk.

• Establishing a new super food agency which will amalgamate the existing bodies into one new statutory agency, responsible for overseeing all agencies involved in the food sector as well as the ongoing marketing and promotion of Irish food overseas.

• Developing a new food label known as 'Green Ireland'. All foods labelled with the 'Green Ireland' label will be fully quality assured, 100% Irish, and produced to the highest standards."

Denis Naughten TD is the Fine Gael spokesperson for Agriculture and Food

Contact: Joeanne Lonergan tel + 353 1 618 3858

Irish biofuel industry still facing tough environment

The Irish Times, 8 January 2007.

New biofuels grants were announced in the Budget, but many believe more supports are needed if the industry is to thrive, writes Ciar·n Brennan

For the past two budgets miscanthus and willow have made it into Brian Cowen's speech, a clear indication that the day of energy crops and biofuels may finally have arrived.

In the Budget, Mr Cowen announced that establishment grants will be introduced for willow and miscanthus. He also announced a national top-up of §80 per hectare, in addition to the existing EU premium of §45 per hectare and grant aid for the purchase of expensive, specialised harvesting machinery.

The Minister's initiative received a positive response from industry players, including NTR biofuel subsidiary Bioverda.

The State's agricultural and food development authority, Teagasc, described the measures as a step in the right direction, but questioned the amount of money being set aside in meeting the schemes' potential high demand.

It is something the Government should be aware of given its experience with the greener homes scheme this year, in which grants for wood pellet burners led to a surge in demand that outstripped supply, a situation made all the more embarrassing by the fact that the Republic had no indigenous supplier of the fuel.

That has led to fears of similar problems happening with other biofuels.

Despite the welcome for the measures, the Budget initiatives have been criticised in some quarters as too little, too late.

Sufficient suitable agricultural land exists to meet the additional needs of a growing biofuel industry in Ireland, but without exemptions the industry cannot compete against heavily subsidised imported fossil fuels, according to the Green Party.

"A number of countries have exempted their bio-diesel and bio-ethanol fuels from energy taxes. Ireland only allows excise duty exemptions on targeted pilot projects," said the party's bio-fuels spokeswoman, Mary White.

Jerry Murphy, a professor in sustainable energy and environmental engineering in UCC, agrees that the business conditions are not right for establishing a biofuel industry in Ireland and says more incentives are needed to match what is happening in other countries, while the planning process for biofuel plants will have to simplified.

"There are various businesses and entrepreneurs that would be very happy to make investments but the business climate is not strong enough. If you have a large source of money and you want to invest it, you will find better ways of making a return than trying to play around with getting planning, going past An Bord Plean·la, getting past a judicial review and then trying to get excise duty from a government, which you may or may not get," he said.

A starting point would be the complete removal of excise duties for a period of 10 years for producers until we reach the EU target level of 5.75 per cent, he said.

But some are taking the plunge nonetheless. Bioverda is investing §50 million building a vegetable-oil-based biodiesel refinery in the port of Cork. This is evidence that a viable biofuel industry is not some sort of utopian pipe dream, said Mr Murphy. In fact, the climate here makes growing biofuel crops easier than in some countries, such as Sweden, which are years ahead of us in the field.

Support from government, local authorities and state transport companies, combined with the complete removal of excise duty on biofuels has led to a vibrant biofuel industry in Sweden, according to Mr Murphy.

He cites the example of Linkoping, a city of 120,000 people, where abattoir waste from slaughtered cattle is used to run 65 buses, 600 cars, a train and 10 waste collection lorries.

A key issue in Ireland is lack of joined-up thinking, according to Teagasc energy system specialist Barry Caslin.

Farmers who want to grow energy crops have to deal with too many Government departments, he said.

Mr Caslin suggests setting up an independent body to deal with biofuels - along the lines of the UK's Bio-energy Infrastructure Scheme - to assist farmers, foresters and businesses to develop the infrastructure required to harvest, store, process and supply biomass to energy end-users.

Another stumbling block is that energy crops are land-hungry. The EU estimates that 20 per cent of all agricultural land in Europe will be required to meet its 2010 target of 5.75 per cent of all transport running on biofuel.

But Mr Murphy argues this is because the EU estimates are based on rapeseed, which he says is an inefficient crop for generating biofuels. Some 24 hectares of rapeseed are required to run one city bus, but crop rotation means rapeseed can be grown for only one year in five.

"You would have to contract a farm of 120 hectares to get one bus powered by rapeseed. Grass or silage offers a far better return, needing only a seven hectare farm to run the same bus. So you have gone from a 120 hectare farm of rapeseed to a seven hectare farm on grass," he said.

Nevertheless, biofuels are unlikely to be the sole answer to Ireland's energy problems. We import 11 million litres of oil a day, whereas the entire farm land in Ireland would generate around 90 million litres in a year. Transferring huge quantities of land over to energy crops raises big questions about the environmental impact on flora and fauna and the landscape, says Mr Cassin.

But Ms White, who has raised the idea of putting a bio-ethanol plant on Greencore's former sugar factory site in Carlow, argues that biofuels should not regarded as some kind of energy nirvana, but a contributor towards reducing dependency on fossil fuels and carbon emissions.

"I can't see anybody turning over all their tillage land for fuel crops. We're never going to have enough to power the country, but for instance Carlow could run 60,000 cars locally on ethanol which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

Jerry Murphy sees no reason why it cannot happen in Carlow and elsewhere in the country. "It can be done. If there was someone at the Cabinet table that wanted a biofuel industry, it can be done. But it's not the main issue at the Cabinet table."

7 January 2007

113 institutions charged with refusing to reveal biotech research

Political Affairs Magazine, 7 January 2007. By Sherwood Ross.

Some 113 university, government, hospital and corporate laboratories engaged in research often with potential to be used for germ warfare have refused to disclose their operations to the public as required by Federal rules, a nonprofit watchdog agency has charged.

Instead of shutting their operations down, however, the National Institutes of Health(NIH), of Bethesda, Md., the government agency tasked with oversight of these laboratories, allows them to continue to operate, a peculiar stance for an entity that describes itself as "the steward of medical and behavioral research for the Nation."

From California to New Jersey and from Boston to San Antonio, often in the heart of major centers of population, biological warfare labs lavishly financed with their share of about $20-billion by the Bush administration since 2001 are literally crawling with deadly germs from Spanish flu to plague to anthrax to tularemia to rift valley fever. Reportedly, in some of the laboratories security is lax and safety procedures inadequate to protect the public from exposure to deadly pathogens.

Under U.S. law, recipients of Federal funds for biotech research must comply with guidelines issued by the NIH. These include making available to the public the minutes of the labs' Institutional Biosafety Committees(IBC)meetings, describing their operations and plans. In a number of instances, these IBC's have never bothered to hold a meeting. In other cases, the minutes they furnish are devoid of substance.

Basically, their operations in many cases are being kept secret, according to watchdog Sunshine Project of Austin, Tex., a nonprofit that attempts to protect the public from the risks of biotechnology experiments. The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention(BWC), which the US signed, prohibits research on offensive biological weapons. If the work is performed in secret, however, weapons designed for offensive use could be concealed. In the 1930s, the Japanese military masked its secret germ warfare scheme as a water purification project.

As the government-funded labs engage in "dual-use research," (pathogen research having both offensive and defensive applications), Sunshine's Edward Hammond reports he "has encountered grave problems with the system." These include "risky experiments approved with dubious safety precautions and/or inadequate IBC review, dysfunctional and otherwise noncompliant committees, and other types of biosafety problems."

Francis Boyle, an international legal expert at the University of Illinois, Champaign , puts it more bluntly. He called the in-house university committees "a joke and a fraud" that provide "no protection to anyone." Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by Congress, states the Pentagon "is now gearing up to fight and 'win' biological warfare" pursuant to two Bush national strategy directives adopted "without public knowledge and review" in 2002.

Last November 7th, Hammond lodged a complaint with Dr. Amy Patterson, director of the Office of Biotechnology Activities at NIH, citing 113 institutions "for non-compliance with the NIH Guidelines," specifically for refusing to honor requests for IBC meeting minutes.

"Honoring these requests is not only mandatory under the NIH Guidelines that you are charged with enforcing (but) transparency is also a moral duty of institutions that conduct research, such as rDNA and select agent work that could endanger the public," Hammond added. He wrote Patterson, "Failing prompt compliance by these institutions we note that your office must do its duty under NIH Guidelines and terminate funding."

NIH's Dr. Patterson apparently had troubles of her own obtaining information from labs on the Federal payroll. On Dec. 6, 2004, she issued a "reminder" to universities engaged in research that stated "compliance with the NIH Guidelines is critical to the safe conduct of research and to the fulfillment of an institutional commitment to the protection of staff, the environment, and public health."

Since 9/11, biotech houses, military laboratories, and State and private universities across America, and others sited in Canada, Australia, and South Africa, have collectively lapped up record sums in Federal R&D dollars.

How big is this enterprise? At just one venue, the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research(SFBR) in San Antonio, Tex., there are 6,000 caged chimpanzees, baboons, and other primates, Sunshine reports, whose upkeep alone costs U.S. taxpayers $6-million annually. SFBR genetically engineers monkeys and harbors some of the world's most dangerous viruses such as Ebola and Lassa, authorities state.

Again, the Battelle National Biodefense Institute(BNBI) of Columbus, Ohio, has just received a $250-million, five-year award from the Department of Homeland Security to run the new biodefense analysis center under construction at Fort Detrick, Md., according to The Washington Post of December 25, 2006. Earlier, on July 30th of last year, The Post reported much of what transpires at the center may never be publicly known as the Bush administration "intends to operate the facility largely in secret." Battelle also does not maintain an effective IBC, Sunshine charges.

"Some of the resarch falls within what many arms-control experts say is a legal gray zone, skirting the edges of an international treaty outlawing the production of even small amounts of biological weapons," The Post reported. "The administration dismisses these concerns, however, insisting that the work...is purely defensive and thus fully legal. It has rejected calls for oversight by independent observers outside the (Homeland Security) Department's network of government scientists and contractors."

The paper quoted Milton Leitenberg, a weapons expert at the University of Maryland stating, "If we saw others doing this kind of research, we would view it as an infringement of the bioweapons treaty. You can't go around the world yelling about Iranian and North Korean programs ---about which we know very little ---when we've got all this going on."

The Post reported the operation would encompass about 160,000 gross square feet of working area and accommodate a staff of about 120. The Post noted, "Fort Detrick's history as the incubator of germ warfare research casts a long shadow over the new lab. When the fort held the Pentagon's very highly classified and long abandoned biological warfare program, it was a magnet for antiwar protests in the Vietnam War era." In such labs, scientists can create new strains of disease for which those attacked would have no ready defense. Such weapons, once loosed, are notoriously difficult to control, and could ignite epidemics to sicken and terrify civilian populations.

Hammond believes there are about 400 bioweapons agents labs across the U.S., some of which encounter unexpected difficulty when they try to comply with the law. David Perlin, president of the Public Health Research Institute(PHRI) of Newark, N.J., told Sunshine the FBI requested PHRI to enter into an agreement with them to "not publicly disclose which specific select agent pathogens and/or strains are stored at our facility."

Those who tend to dismiss NIH's laxity about enforcing its own regulations have only to recall the October, 2001, anthrax attacks on Congress and the media. The deadly strain released is believed to have come from a U.S. germ warfare lab at Fort Detrick although there is no certainty as the FBI has never solved the murders. Since then, the vast proliferation of such labs by the Bush administration has educated many new employees --- in some cases undergraduate students --- in germ warfare ops. Four employees at Fort Detrick are known to have died after performing lab work.

Lack of transparencey is cause for concern if only because of the history of secret CIA and Pentagon experiments in germ warfare that used the American people as guinea pigs. In "Rogue State," (Common Courage Press) reporter William Blum noted those agencies over two decades "conducted tests in the open air in the United States, exposing millions of Americans to large clouds of possibly dangerous bacteria and chemical particles."

Between 1949 and 1969, the Army tested the spread of dangerous chemical and bacterial organisms over 239 U.S. populated areas including San Francisco , New York and Chicago with no warnings to the public or regard for the health consequences, Blum wrote. The Pentagon even sprayed navy warships to test the impact of germ warfare on U.S. sailors.

Even deadlier cocktails were secretly provided to dictator Saddam Hussein for his war of aggression against Iran. Washington denied supplying them but as Robert Fisk reported in Great Britain's "The Independent" last December 31st, "prior to 1985 and afterwards, US companies had sent government-approved shipments of biological agents to Iraq," including anthrax. Fisk gives this eye-witness account of what he saw on a military hospital train carrying stricken men from the front back to Tehran:

"I found hundreds of Iranian soldiers coughing blood and mucus from their lungs --- the very carriages stank so much of gas that I had to open the windows--- and their arms and faces were covered with boils. Later, new bubbles of skin appeared on top of their original boils. Many were fearfully burnt. These same gases were later used on the Kurds of Halabja."

Thus, the Reagan administration, which escalated germ warfare research and allowed the sale of the pathogens to Hussein, took its place in the dark annals of military history along with Italy under Benito Mussolini, whose aviators dumped mustard gas on the Ethiopians and Japan under Emperor Hirohito, whose Imperial Army's germ warfare attacks killed thousands of Chinese civilians.

Because of their comparative cheapness to manufacture, biological weapons have been dubbed "the poor man's nuclear bomb." Yet their potential may be even deadlier. Jeremy Rifkin, author of "The Biotech Century"(Penguin), noted a government study in 1993 found "the release of just 200 pounds of anthrax spores from a plane over Washington DC could kill as many as three-million people."

The secret operations of the labs' would be less ominous if the Bush administration hadn't led the fight to demolish the international inspection system. Jackie Cabasso, executive director of Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, Calif., warned, ÑLast year (2001), the U.S. single-handedly blew apart an international system for inspections of these kinds of (biological) laboratories, a system that would have made great strides toward ensuring that biodefense labs arenÇt abused for offensive purposes. Having thumbed our nose at the world, the US is now massively expanding its biodefense program, mostly in secretive facilities.â

According to Boyle, President Bush Ñsabotaged the Verification Protocol for the BWCâ as it was on the verge of conclusion and success. He said the U.S. Ñfully intended to get back into the research, development and testing of illegal and criminal offensive biowarfare programs.â

Boyle is the author of "Biowarfare and Terrorism," Clarity Press. And Elisa Harris, former arms control official under President Clinton, told The New York Times in 2003 "It (the administration's actions) will raise concerns in other capitals in part because the United States has fought tooth and nail to prevent the international community from strengthening the germ treaty."

Among pharmaceutical houses not in compliance with NIH disclosure requirements are Abbott Laboratories of Abbott Park and Worchester, Agencourt Bioscience Corp.; Antibody Science, Inc.; BASF Plant Science, Bristol-Myers Squibb and its Pharmaceutical Research Institute of Connecticut; Centocor, Inc.; Chiron; Discovery Genomics Inc.; DuPont Central Research and Development; Embrex, Inc.; Genentech, Inc., Genzyme Corp. of Cambridge and Framingham, Mass.; GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., Inc. and its Rahway, N.J., research site; Integral Molecular; Introgen Therapeutics; L2 Diagnostics LLC; Merck & Co. Inc., West Point; Merck Research Laboratories, Rahway, N.J.; Meridian Bioscience Inc.; Monsanto Co. Mystic, Conn., research; New Link Genetics; NovaFlora, Inc.; NovoBiotic Pharmaceuticals; OSI Pharmaceuticals; Pfizer Inc., and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals of St. Louis, Roche Bioscience, Schering-Plough Research Institute; SelectX Pharmaceuticals; Serono Research Institution; Third Wave Technologies; and Vaxin, Inc.Federal entities involved include the Center for Disease Control, the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, VA hospitals in Stratton, Va.; the Jerry Pettis Memorial hospital and the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System. Also, the Idaho National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Plum Island Animal Disease Center of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Walter Reed Army Institute of Research and Navy Medical Research Center.

Other fund recipients include AERAS Global TB Vaccine Foundation, Battelle, CBR Institute for Biomedical Research, Inc.; ChildrenÇs Hospital Oakland Research Institute, ChildrenÇs National Medical Center, Cincinnati ChildrenÇs Hospital Medical Center, Columbus ChildrenÇs Research Institute, Hadassah Medical Organization, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mystic Aquarium & Institute for Exploration, and Scripps Clinic.

Among universities in non-compliance: Alabama A&M, Albany Medical College, Ball State, Brigham Young, Bucknell, Central Michigan, Drexel College of Medicine, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hunter College, Indiana State University, Purdue University, Loma Linda, Missouri State, New York Medical College, and Queens College of City University of New York.

Also, Rider, Rockefeller University, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, South Dakota State University, St. JohnÇs University, State University of New York at Binghamton, Brockport, and Buffalo; Towson, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School(UMDNJ), and University Medical Center of Southern Nevada. Also, the universities of Arizona, California at San Francisco, Maryland, Massachusetts, Miami, Fla.; Mississippi; Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Southern Mississippi, Texas at Arlington and San Antonio, Tulsa, Utah State, Wake Forest, Washington University in St. Louis, Western Kentucky and Wilkes.

Foreign institutions include the University of Sydney, Australia; the University of British Columbia , and University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa . This listing covers most, but not all, of the names submitted to NIH by the Sunshine Project. Three years ago, Sunshine said if it had to pick the labs with the worst biosafety record-keeping, he would choose Princeton University, the University of Texas Southwestern at Dallas; the University of Vermont at Burlington and the University of Delaware at Newark.

Sunshine's Hammond said there has yet to be any formal response to his letter of last November from NIH. He added, "I doubt I will ever get one." The NIH was asked to respond to the charges contained in this article but has yet not done so.

In sum, the costliest, most grandiose research scheme ever attempted having germ warfare capability is going forward today under President Bush and in apparent defiance of international treaties such as the Geneva Convention of 1925 that bans biological agents. What's more, where once the use of germ warfare was an isolated happenstance -- such as when an English general in 1767 gave smallpox-laced blankets to the Indians that decimated their tribes -- research in this grim area today suggests it has been elevated to an instrument of national policy. And this program, involving some of the world's deadliest and most loathsome pathogens, many of which could trigger plagues and epidemics, is being conducted largely in secret without adequate oversight and in flagrant contempt of NIH's own rules. Why?

-- Sherwood Ross is an American reporter and columnist. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com

The Struggle for the Expropriation of Syngenta:
Showdown Between the Social Movements and Agribusiness in Brazil

ZNet, January 7 2007. By Isabella Kenfield.

Curitiba, Brazil - The recent decree by Roberto Requiao, Governor of the state of Parana, to expropriate the Syngenta corporation's experimental site in Santa Tereza do Oeste has become a powerful symbol for all interests in the struggle over the future of Brazilian agriculture. The magnitude of Requiao's decision was highlighted on November 30th when members of the rural social movements the Via Campesina and the Movement of the Landless Rural Workers (MST) closed the first Meeting of Education in Agrarian Reform, in Cascavel, with a march to the Syngenta site. En route to the march, the movements' busses were halted by a blockade of tractors formed by about 100 members of the Rural Society of the West (SRO), an elite group representing the interests of large landowners and commercial agricultural producers in western Parana. Some SRO members were on horseback and armed with guns. As the marchers began to cross the barricade on foot, a violent conflict began. Shots were fired into the air, and pieces of wood were used to beat the marchers. While no one was hospitalized, the confrontation resulted in the injury of nine people. According to Alessandro Meneghel, President of the SRO, the blockade was created "to show that the rural producers will no longer peacefully accept land invasions and political provocations."

The conflict over Syngenta began on March 14th when about six hundred members of the Via Campesina and the MST occupied the 127-hectare locale after the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Natural Resources (IBAMA), the federal environmental agency, confirmed that Syngenta had illegally planted twelve hectares of genetically-modified (GM) soybeans there. The planting was illegal because the site is located within the protective boundary zone of the IguaÁu National Park, and under Brazilian federal law it is illegal to plant GM crops within this zone. The Via Campesina and MST justified their occupation of Syngenta's site with Article 186 in the Brazilian constitution, which stipulates that private property (including land) must serve a social function. Since the early 1980s, the MST has used Article 186 to justify non-violent occupations of unproductive land owned by large landowners in order to pressure the government to expropriate the land for the purpose of agrarian reform. The movements argue that the land at Syngenta's experimental site, through the illegal cultivation of GM crops, was not serving its social function because it endangered Brazil's natural resource base, upon which all Brazilians depend. The occupation stopped all of Syngenta's activities at the site, and cost the multinational millions of dollars. Additionally, the occupation successfully pressured IBAMA to fine Syngenta US $462,000 (which remains unpaid), and applied continuous pressure on the governor to expropriate the site.

Requiao's decree to expropriate the site from Syngenta in the public interest was signed on November 9th, just days after he was re-elected Governor on October 30th. From the beginning of the occupation until he signed the decree, Requiao ignored various municipal and state judicial orders to expel the occupants. According to the statement released by the Parana government's press agency, the legal basis for the decree is founded on a constitutional clause that gives Brazilian states the sovereignty to "protect notable natural areas and the environment, combat pollution of whatever form, and to preserve the forests, fauna and flora." The decree also emphasizes the "fragility of the biggest and most important remnant of the semi-deciduous seasonal forest in the country, in the Iguacu National Park," which was declared the Patrimony of Humanity by the United Nations Educational Social and Cultural Organization in 1986. Requiao announced his intent to turn the site into a center for research and education in sustainable agriculture for small farmers and landless workers.

The efficacy of the occupation, and Requiao's resulting decree, have elevated the social movements' struggle for Syngenta to be the current most powerful global symbol of resistance to the growing hegemony of multinational agribusiness corporations. This is true for the social movements and civil society in Brazil, as well as for organizations and movements in the anti-GM struggle worldwide. Syngenta, which realized profits of over US $8.1 billion in 2005, has the third largest share of the global seeds market. The corporation is at the forefront of research into agricultural biotechnology, and the effort to patent and privatize genetic material from seeds, including the development of Terminator Technology. This technology, which causes GM plants to produce sterile seeds, is perhaps the biotechnology most threatening to peasants and small farmers, as it is designed to force all agriculturalists to purchase seeds from agribusinesses, as opposed to choosing, saving and reproducing seeds. Given Syngenta's position as an agribusiness leader, for the anti-GM struggle the Parana government's expropriation of the Syngenta site is strategic in the effort to resist the increasing control by multinational agribusinesses over global food and natural resource systems.

The expropriation is also vital to the effort to hold agribusinesses accountable for their crimes, and highlights the ability of social movements and civil society to affect them. According to Jose Maria Tardin, who works in the Sector of Production, Cooperation and the Environment for the MST and also coordinates the Latin American School for Agroecology in Parana, the decree "calls the attention of the public to the abuses of these companies in the country, and signals to the social movements the need for action in order to combat and criminalize these companies, which operate in an illicit form and under the complacency of the state, disseminating transgenics in the country." With its immense geographic size and natural resource wealth, opening Brazil up to GM crops has been strategic to the survival and expansion of agribusiness' interests.

Since 2003, agribusiness has dramatically increased its presence and interests in Brazil, a development that would not have been possible without the Monsanto Company's illegal promotion of GM soy cultivation in the country. According to Darci Frigo, an attorney for the human rights organization Terra de Direitos, based in Curitiba, in 2001, when GM soy was still illegal to plant in Brazil, Monsanto encouraged farmers in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul to illegally pirate its Roundup Ready GM soy seeds from Argentine farmers and plant them. Monsanto then approached the Lula administration and demanded that it legalize cultivation of GM soy so that the corporation could collect 'its' royalties. Thus the process of fait accompli of how the cultivation of GM soy came to be legalized in Brazil. On May 8, 2006, the Correio Braziliense published an article reporting that Monsanto sold Parana congressman Abelardo Lupion, of the Liberal Front Party, who represents the interests of the Brazilian rural elite, a farm for one-third of its market value in return for Lupion using his political power to legalize glysophate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. After the sale of glysophate was legalized in Brazil, Monsanto's sales of Roundup increased by more than 30%. In early 2004, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that despite a loss of $97 million for Monsanto that quarter, Brazil was "blossoming" and "becoming a bright spot" for the corporation.

Due to agribusinesses' increase of economic and political power, and criminal activities in Brazil, in recent years the rural social movements have increasingly focused their actions against these corporations. The expropriation of Syngenta is their latest victory in a struggle against biotechnology that has an established history in Paran·. "This victorious expropriation crowns the struggle of the peasant movements and organizations of civil society," says Tardin, "that since 2001 have intensified their mobilizations in Paran·, for a land free of transgenics and without agrotoxins, and for the promotion of agroecology amongst poor, rural families." The rural social movements and civil society organizations have applied strong and continuous pressure on Requi“o to reject GM technology, and to adopt various policies to impede the abuses of agribusiness corporations. Thus, while the rest of Brazil planted millions of hectares to GM soy, Requiao signed the Parana Law Free of Transgenics in 2003, which prohibits the planting of GM crops in the state, and prohibits the export of GM grains through the Port of Paranagua, the largest port of agricultural export in Latin America. The decree to expropriate Syngenta is Requiao's latest political maneuver in his already well-articulated anti-GM stance. The magnitude of the decree should not be underestimated; it is unprecedented in Brazil, as never before has any state or the federal government moved to expropriate land from an agribusiness multinational corporation. Without question, Requiao's anti-GM policies are a result of the pressure applied by the social movements and civil society.

Therefore, for agribusiness, including the multinationals and their allies amongst the Brazilian rural elite, Requiao's decree to expropriate Syngenta's experimental site is a direct threat to its economic and political power. This power is based on a neoliberal model of economic growth through agricultural production for export. Brazil's agricultural sector has experienced massive growth in recent years, boosted primarily by exports of GM soy (Brazil is now second only to the U.S. in soy production and export). While Meneghel claims that the SRO does not have direct financial interests in the Syngenta site, the organization's consternation about the expropriation is based on the fact that "the Rural Society of the West is historically constituted to represent the productive sector. Regionally, Syngenta performs the relevant research to raise the levels of productivity of agribusiness." Meneghel maintains that Requiao's decree is "based on questionable legality, sending a negative message to investors, chasing them away and inflating 'Brazil risk.'" The expropriation, if upheld, will considerably weaken this current model of economic growth via agricultural export, and will strengthen the national and regional movements toward a sustainable agricultural model based on family farming, agroecology, and food production for domestic markets - all firmly grounded in a comprehensive agrarian reform. The success of these movements will necessarily entail the end of agribusiness in Brazil. For these reasons, Syngenta, the SRO, and all who have interests in Brazilian agribusiness are desperate to stop the expropriation.

The SRO and Syngenta have been mobilizing at the local and national levels to fight Requiao's decree. Their tactic has been to criminalize the Via Campesina and MST by reframing the occupation by as 'invasion,' and by asserting Requiao's decree has no legal basis. As the conflict of November 30th demonstrated, the SRO is attempting to resolve the issue by taking the law into its own hands. According to Meneghel, "The SRO does not defend violence as a form to resolve conflicts in the countryside, but the SRO also does not accept the invasion of land, provocation and impunity of the invaders. For every invasion of land that occurs in the region, there will be one similar action by the SRO. The position of the SRO is simply to defend the productive sectors of society against the free will and the abuse of power by the Governor. We are not going to permit the agriculturalists that generate these riches for the country, and toil from sunrise to sundown, to be insulted by ideological political movements of whatever form."

While Syngenta has not yet publicly responded to Requiao's decree, its tactic to fight it has been to utilize its economic power to change Brazilian law and garner support from state and federal politicians in order to disprove that it committed any criminal activity. On October 31st, President Lula signed a provisional measure that reduced the distance of the protective boundary zone for national parks from 10 kilometers to just 500 meters. This maneuver, a result from local agricultural interests and of pressure from Syngenta, complicates the effort to find that Syngenta illegally planted GM soy, as it planted the soy six kilometers from the park. This measure was approved by the lower house of Congress in December, and will likely be approved by the Senate early this year. Additionally, on November 30th the Federal Public Minister of Parana, through the Municipal Prosecutor of Cascavel, annulled the civil suit against Syngenta filed by Terra de Direitos on October 4th. This decision is currently waiting to be ratified by the Minister of Justice in Brasilia.

Syngenta has also enlisted the support of congressman Lupion to do its political bidding, despite the fact that there are currently two unresolved federal inquiries into his alleged corruption, including one into his connection to Monsanto. On December 13th the federal government's Commission of Agriculture, Livestock, Supply and Rural Development (CAPADR), under the direction of congressman Eduardo Sciarra, also of the Liberal Front Party in Parana, approved a proposal submitted by Lupion on June 28th to investigate IBAMA's "administrative procedures" in regard to the fine it imposed on Syngenta for the illegal planting. Through the CAPADR investigation, Lupion intends to negate the legality of IBAMA's fine. The investigation also intends to discredit the occupation by establishing that the site was 'productive,' and therefore serving its social function. Finally, it is an attack on Requiao for refusing to comply with judicial orders to forcibly expel the occupants from the Syngenta site.

Yet the evidence remains that Syngenta illegally planted GM soy within the Iguacu National Park, and therefore broke a federal law. As Tardin points out, "In addition to Syngenta, there were 12 other farmers that committed the same crime of planting transgenic soy and corn in the protective zone of the Iguacu National Park, an act duly prohibited by federal legislation." IBAMA fined every single farmer found to have planted GM crops within the zone. According to Maria Rita Reis, the attorney for Terra de Direitos responsible for the case against Syngenta, "The Federal Justice already declared that the planting was illegal."

It is clear that all interests in the struggle over Requiao's decree to expropriate Syngenta's test site understand that the outcome is critical to the future of agribusiness in Brazil. If Syngenta and the SRO are successful in their effort to annul the decree, and discredit the criminal charges against the corporation, the case will strengthen the power and confidence of agribusiness in Brazil, setting the stage for future crimes, increased hegemony, and further environmental destruction. In his article, "Trangenics: Concentration of Power of Multinationals and the Deconstruction of the Patrimony of the People," presented in Caracas, Venezuela, in April 2005, Tardin writes: "The absolute and unhindered control over humanity's natural resources by the multinationals is a key factor to the establishment, maintenance, and amplification of imperialism. It is in this context that agriculture occupies a strategic place in the accumulation of wealth, and biotechnology especially offers the multinationals the best techniques to gain absolute global control, and to manipulate that to their interests and necessities. It is through biotechnology that [the multinationals] make a concerted effort to achieve the maximum concentration of power over humanity's food system, and biotechnology therefore offers them an instrument of geopolitical-military control as never before."

Requiao and the social movements face what could be termed 'an uphill battle' against various powerful interests in Brazilian agribusiness before the decree to expropriate is upheld. Yet if it is upheld, the expropriation will serve to drastically curb agribusiness' power. It will strengthen the local, national and regional movements toward alternative, sustainable agricultural systems, based on agrarian reform, food security, food sovereignty, and conservation of natural resources. Requiao is one of the increasing number of leftist politicians in Latin America that are a part of this movement, which also includes Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales. The occupation of, and Requiao's decree to expropriate, the Syngenta site is the most powerful tangible example that currently exists in the world of how common people and civil society have been able to affect a multinational agribusiness corporation and the state. For this reason, success of the expropriation could help to stimulate popular resistance to agribusiness on a global scale. According to Tardin, Requiao's decree "is the greatest global victory in this battle, that reverberates around the world - energizing the struggles in all of the countries where these same companies commit the same crimes." Requiao's decree sets new precedents for the interpretation of the social function of private property, in particular how land, natural resources and food systems must be prioritized for Brazilian society - not the wealth of agribusiness. If agribusiness can be weakened in Brazil via expropriation of Syngenta's experimental site, this will have profound impacts throughout the world.

5 January 2007

Bt cotton crop fails in Tamil Nadu

Financial Express (India), January 5 2007. By Ashok Sharma.

CHIDAMBARAM, JAN 4: After Andhra Pradesh, it is now Tamil Nadu where the much hyped Bt cotton seeds of Mahyco has run into rough weather. The Tamil Nadu government has asked Mahyco to pay compensation to farmers for failure of Bt cotton in the state in the current season.

Bt cotton crop has failed in Dharampuri, the major producing district in the state. The farmers and the local NGO Pasumai Vakatan had complained to the district collector and subsequently to the joint director for agriculture in charge of Dharampuri, Duraisamy.

Duraisamy had on December 22, 2006 asked the scientists at Coimbatore Agriculture University to verify the fact. The scientists conducted tests on the soil where the crops were planted and took samples of the seeds sown.

Speaking over the phone the Tamil Nadu agriculture minister Veera Pandi Arumugam confirmed reports and told FE, "The authorities had informed me that improper seeds only had caused all the problems. I had talked to the chief minister immediately and I had ordered that the said company should not sell any type of seeds in Tamil nadu. We had advised the company to pay compensation to the affected farmers. So the farmers need not be worried."

The minister further added, "We have formed a cell to safeguard the interests of farmers under the leadership of the chief minister. Experts from various sections of agriculture ministry shall be in the cell. They shall watch out for the problems of farmers and keep submitting solutions for the problems. On the whole, our objective is there should not be any problem to the farmers."

Monsanto in trouble over herbicide price

CNN-IBN, January 5 2005.

New Delhi: US biotech giant Monsanto is heading for fresh trouble. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission's (MRTPC) investigative arm Director General of Investigation and Registration (DGIR) has recommended an inquiry against its subsidiary Monsanto India Ltd for selling herbicides at high prices.

In its preliminary report, the DGIR has found that Monsanto India Ltd adopted unfair and restrictive trade practices in relation to sale of herbicides.

The DGIR has suggested that the MRTPC should start an inquiry against the company.

DGIR is understood to have said Monsanto India charged very high prices and reaped "unreasonable" profits.

The company also underutilised its production capacity at Silvassa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli. It was using less than 10 per cent of the installed capacity but even then managed a profit margin of about 20 per cent.

"We have not received any information and are not in a position to respond," a Monsanto India spokesperson told PTI.

The DGIR report recommending inquiry against Monsanto India Ltd comes even as its sister concern Mahyco Monsanto Biotech Ltd and parent company US-based Monsanto are battling legal cases in MRTPC.

Share price of Monsanto India ended 2.28 per cent per cent down to Rs 1,463 in a flat market.

Cloned Meat: the hidden agendas (behind the other hidden agendas)

BioPoliticalTimes.com, posting by Pete Shanks, January 2007.

Who is pushing to legalize cloned meat? Follow the money -- and there are strong connections to human genetic engineering.

The [USA] Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s draft risk assessment leans heavily on the work of animal-cloning companies Cyagra and ViaGen. Over a quarter of the 700-page draft is a data dump from those two -- a fact that the New York Times failed to mention, even when quoting the president of ViaGen saying "I think that this draft is going to provide the industry the comfort it needs.
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CloneRiskAssessment.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/business/28cnd-clone.html

ViaGen is part of the Exeter Life Science Group, owned by billionaire John Sperling, who also financed the notorious Genetic Savings and Clone (GSC). Viagen's chief scientist, Irina Polejaeva, was once GSC's, and when GSC closed ViaGen took over their gene banking operation. The cloned pets were rightly described by Wired as "a footnote to John Sperling's grand plan" -- and so are the cows and pigs. The plan is people -- living forever.
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/resources/items/20020429_fortune_warner.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.02/immortal.html

Cyagra was a subsidiary of Advanced Cell Technology (ACT), of press-release infamy. ACT sold Cyagra in one of its desperate grabs for cash, but chief scientist Robert Lanza and his former colleague Jose Cibelli (a co-author of Hwang Woo-suk's and a former consultant to the California stem cell institute -- it's a small universe) are cited throughout the FDA report.

The surface agenda the FDA addresses is public safety (though Stuart Newman [professor at New York Medical College] says "it's potentially a health hazard"); the agenda hidden in plain sight is that of commercial interests; and behind that lies the specter of human genetic engineering. It's a mutually reinforcing spiral: The animal cloners have been relying on human medical research (and of course feeding the starving) to make their work seem less unacceptable -- and the human cloners rely on the animal work to make theirs seem more reasonable.
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070101/NEWS02/701010332/1018

The public does not want cloned meat and certainly wants it to be labeled, which the FDA says it cannot require. All the more reason to object now. The Center for Food Safety has been opposing animal cloning for years. So has the Organic Consumers Association, which has set up a handy site for responding to the FDA's call for public comment.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/rd/clones.htm.

European voters are screaming for their rights, but MEP's are deaf

International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside (ICPPC) press release, 3 January 2007.

Since December 4th 2006 more than 2,000 European citizens, including many from Poland, have written to all 42 members of the European Parliament's Agricultural and Rural Development Committee demanding to know why they are supporting the further spread of GMO in Europe. But instead of receiving answers, they are getting an automatic notice: "Message deleted without reading."

The reason for EU citizen's concern is a motion (http://www.icppc.pl/gmo/635387en.pdf ) submitted by Finnish MEP Kyösti Virrankoski, currently being debated in the European Parliament , which strongly promotes the further development of GMO food and farming throughout Europe. So far, only 2 MEPs have rejected this motion and a few others have made some cosmetic changes.

If this motion should be carried by the European Parliament, it will open the flood gates for a GMO invasion of European food and farming.

On December 2nd 2006, ICPPC initiated a campaign reminding MEPs that they are democratically elected and accountable for their actions. "How many of your electorate have asked you to promote GMO food and agriculture?" is one of nine questions they ask.

More than two thousand European citizens have now also asked the same question.

Only three MEPs have so far replied: Mr Jeffrey Titford (UK) who claims to be against GMO; Ms Bernadette Bourzai (France) who has reservations and Mr Janusz Wojciechowski, the Polish vice chairman of the committee, who has fully rejected the Virrankoski motion, stating that he supports a completely GMO free Europe. (more: http://icppc.pl/pl/gmo/eng_index.php?id=eng_eu )

The refusal, by the great majority of MEPs, to even open the letters being sent to them, let alone answer the questions, exposes the shamefully irresponsible and undemocratic position being taken by elected European Parliamentarians, who appear to have forgotten that they are accountable to their electorate.

Sir Julian Rose, ICPPC President said "MEPs who are putting the future health and welfare of all European citizens at risk by supporting genetically engineered food should voluntarily go onto a GMO diet to demonstrate their enthusiasm."

Notes for editors:

80% of European citizens have said 'no' to GMO food and farming in independent opinion polls conducted over the past 5 years.

Poland banned the import and planting of GMO seeds and plants in 2006. Every Province in Poland has declared itself a GMO Free Zone, joining other European GMO free regions (in total 174 regions and over 4500 smaller areas).

Contact:

Julian Rose or Jadwiga Lopata on: biuro@icppc.pl , phone: +48 33 879 7114
ICPPC - International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside,
Mie dzynarodowa Koalicja dla Ochrony Polskiej Wsi
34-146 StryszÛw 156, Poland tel./fax +48 33 8797114
biuro@icppc.pl www.icppc.pl www.gmo.icppc.pl www.eko-cel.pl

Pig Hearts for Humans: What the Public Needs to Know About Biotech Risks

AlterNet, January 3 2007. By Heather Gehlert.

In her new book, Intervention, former NY Times technology columnist Denise Caruso talks about the risks of life on a genetically engineered planet. Turn on the TV, open your Internet browser, or click on your inbox and chances are you'll find an alarming story alerting you to the possibility some new hazard: cancer-causing toxins in your deodorant, mold spores in your kitchen sponge, radiation from your cell phone -- the list goes on.

In an age of information overload, it's tempting to tune risks out entirely, especially when even the scientific community can't seem to come to a consensus on some things: One day eggs are good; the next, they're bad. One day hormone replacement therapy is healthy; the next, it causes cancer.

But, what if you knew that, instead of one product putting you at risk, an entire field of technology was? That's what former NY Times technology columnist Denise Caruso tackles in her new book, Intervention: Confronting the Real Risks of Genetic Engineering and Life on a Biotech Planet.

Caruso doesn't use scare tactics -- she doesn't need to. Instead, she merely points out the risks of living in an age when scientists are recombining DNA from multiple species, experimenting with tissue regeneration by growing human ears on the backs of mice, and looking seriously at pigs for human heart transplants. Even more eye-opening, these innovations are occurring in the near-absence of oversight and with little attempt from government regulators or scientists to educate the public.

So what is life like on a biotech planet? AlterNet interviewed Caruso to find out.

AlterNet: Why did you write the book?

Denise Caruso: Well, for a lot of reasons. But mostly because I was shocked by this ongoing schism between the people who were against biotechnology and the people who were really in favor of biotechnology. And I thought, well, this is supposed to be science, right? It should be neutral. But these sides weren't neutral. They were so different and antagonistic -- what were they looking at? Then I realized they must looking at different factors -- or, rather, looking at the same thing in different ways. So, that's when I started to dig into the whole idea of risk --

By risk you mean --

Denise: -- the probability that a hazard will come to pass. Risk isn't a hard concept, but it's hard to measure, and that is where communication breaks down. For example, one day about five years ago I was talking with Roger Brent, who is one of the most macho molecular biologists on the face of the planet, and we got into this conversation about genetically modified food, which I refuse to eat. And Roger said, "Why won't you eat it? Don't you know that you could eat 10 kilos of genetically modified potatoes and nothing would ever happen to you?" And I said, "You don't know that. You don't actually know that. You guys don't know anything about the long-term effects of these things. You don't know what happens after it passes through my gut and goes back into the water -- you don't know any of this stuff". And I was actually really surprised that he said, "OK, you're right, we don't. But how can we not stop progress at the same time?" And that's one of the core questions I try to address in Intervention.

So how do we walk that tightrope? How do we protect people without inhibiting progress?

We have to redefine risk and rethink how we evaluate it. Calculating risk is tricky with biotech because you have all of these new and very complex systems that we've created that are all coming into contact with each other, trying to interact, and you don't have any historical data to tell us what will happen when those systems come into contact. What ends up happening is that we are asking scientists to provide a statement of safety or risk about something related to biotech, but they don't have any data.

In your book you discuss other models of risk analysis -- models that assess chemical or toxic risks. Why can't those models be applied here? What is it about biotech and genetic engineering that calls for special attention and a new method?

Actually, there are a lot of different ways to parse that. So, I'll take the easiest example: If you look at why the EPA got started and the work they do now, they're looking at chemical toxins -- lab tasks where you could put one more drop, one more drop, one more drop into a tube, and you could figure out that at three parts per billion of this chemical, someone's going to get sick or they're going to get cancer or they're going to die. It's sort of a threshold thing: You find out how much of the substance will create some kind of effect -- some kind of negative effect. But that doesn't apply here. There's a big difference between manipulating chemicals and manipulating living organisms -- and I actually want to limit what I talk about here to transgenic organisms -- those that contain genes from another species.

What are your concerns about transgenic organisms?

Well, we're talking about a potential hazard that is reproducing. And it doesn't just reproduce within its own plant population or its own animal population. Genes move. The fact that we and mice share more than 90 percent of the same genes has gotta tell you something about how much we don't know about where all of these genes came from. A lot of evolutionary biologists are trying to figure out how all of that happened but the bottom line is that if I can get the flu from a bird then it's not a far stretch to think that some transgene that's in the corn or soy that I eat could also find its way into my body and do something harmful.

In one of your chapters you talk about pigs as potential organ donors for humans. What problems could that present and what potential is there for medical, economic or social disruption?

There's potential for disruption in all of those areas depending on the problem. The pig one is really interesting because it's really disruption in pretty much every dimension. So you have an incredible strain on the healthcare system, you know -- there are thousands and thousands and thousands of people who need these transplants and so, healthcare trying to deal with a whole new problem -- huge economic impact on the country, huge ecological impact, and the social impact -- how are you going to look at somebody who's got a pig heart? Are you a freak?

And then there's the safety of it. If you rub a pig cell up against a human cell, what's the probability that a retrovirus is going to jump and I would just get a pig virus? Most virologists would probably say pretty low, but no human immune system's ever seen that before. You can't calculate the probability of it because it's never happened before.

Can you foresee any kind of future where genetic engineering could be used as a weapon?

Oh, sure. I'm sure it's being used as a weapon now. You know weaponized anthrax is genetically engineered.

What about benefits or potential benefits in terms of helping to eliminate hunger or poverty? Transgenes allow us to grow giant potatoes and chickens with really large breasts. Is that something we should still be talking about or should that conversation be tabled entirely?

Well, one of the things that I talk about in the book is that I reject the saving the world from hunger as an argument because everybody in the hunger community knows that the issue with hunger is distribution -- it's not volume, it's distribution. We have plenty of food. So until now -- until that's solved, I think we need to table that conversation. I think that the benefit question is really important, and one of the things that I didn't get to write about in the book is that, in the olden days, when they very first started doing risk analysis back in the sixties, they analyzed alternatives. Nobody ever analyzed one product, one technology, one thing. They identified the problem and then said, What are the range of solutions we have for the problem? And what's the most beneficial and the least potentially harmful out of all of those solutions? But we don't do that anymore.

Why is the public so unaware? Are scientists just ignoring these risks?

The public is unaware because there's no reason for the biotech industry or the regulatory industry to make it clear to people what's going on. The last thing in the world that the biotech industry wants is for people to start sniffing around and figure out what's going on here. A lot of legitimate researchers have asked very legitimate questions about what was happening out in the field of transgenic organisms, and they lost their research funding and people wouldn't publish their papers --

And they would be cut off because they would ask questions --

Exactly. The biotech industry has such an enormous amount of influence over the type of research that gets done and what information reaches the public.

You say in your book this is happening against a backdrop of conflicts of interest. When you follow the money, what do you see?

One of the points that I make in the book is about this revolving door between industry regulators and the biotech industry. If you look in the upper echelons of management of virtually all of the agencies, people go from industry into the agency, work in the agency for years and go back into industry and so you find that really, the regulators who are writing the legislation and regulations to protect the public interest are actually from the perspective of people in the industry. And some agencies have done studies on risk, but then ignored the results. One time the FDA got sued by a biotech activist group because of an FDA policy that said transgenic foods were substantially equivalent to traditional food crops that are grown. And amazing documents about how the people inside the agency were saying we have no idea whether this stuff is risky. But at the end of the day, the judge said that the FDA has the right to ignore its scientists' advice.

Sounds like risk analysis shouldn't just be left up to one government agency or one group of scientists.

Absolutely. The process needs to be much more democratic because, right now, ordinary people don't have much of a voice. The only way you can actually do a proper risk assessment is to find out who all the experts are who have any kind of expertise or interest in the subject. In this case, you'd find all of the biologists -- not just the molecular biologists, not just the people who sit in labs looking through their microscopes, but people in the field -- ecologists -- and the members of the public who have an interest. So, if you wanted to study something related to the San Francisco Bay, you would bring in people from the fishing industry.

Basically, you would bring in the most people who were relevant to the subject. Then you ask the question, what's the problem? What are we trying to do here? What's the risk? What that does is it gives someone who has to make the decisions -- the regulators -- a beautifully drawn map of what we know, what we don't know and what we could know if we spend some money on research to find out. This could be such a positive force because industry people today who do research are often doing discovery research, not risk research. They want to create a product. They want to build the tightest fence possible around the problem and say that what's inside the fence is safe. But, of course, that's not how the world works. No organism moves around in the world with a little bubble over it.

Whose jurisdiction should risk analysis be under? Should it be at the federal level? Is that even realistic? You mentioned earlier that any group -- a nonprofit or even a chamber of commerce -- if given the appropriate model, could do risk assessment.

The only way you can really effect change at the federal level is by starting at the local level. The feds, the agencies, they're all so insulated by money, by power, that nothing happens until people can rattle their tin cups against the bars loud enough for somebody to hear it, and I think that one of the things that's very powerful about this method of risk assessment is that it can be completely decentralized. That said, it would be much better if it were centralized like it is in Sweden and some places in northern Europe, where you have these participatory citizens groups that work with the government to do risk assessment on the really big, critical about where science and technology meet the public.

Are you anti-biotechnology?

Not at all. And I purposely made sure the book wasn't a rant against biotech. It's a rant against irresponsible risk assessment. It's a lot easier to sell a book that's a rant about biotech. You know, what people want to read about is you know, they want this sort of cross between Silent Spring and Michael Creighton. They want birds dropping out of trees and dinosaurs being brought back to life, but that's not what this is. I think it's scarier -- it's scarier that we don't know when the birds are going to start falling out of the trees. If or when.

Heather Gehlert is a managing editor at AlterNet.

Giant ragweed added to glyphosate resistant list

SeedQuest, 3 January 2007.

COLUMBUS, OHIO - Giant ragweed soon could cast a giant shadow on the world's most popular herbicide.

Researchers at Ohio State and Purdue universities have confirmed glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed populations in Indiana and Ohio. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in herbicides such as Roundup and Touchdown, which are used for burndown weed control in no-till cropping systems and postemergence in Roundup Ready soybeans and corn.

The weed species is the seventh in the United States to show resistance to glyphosate.

"We've identified one giant ragweed population in Indiana and a few in Ohio that are showing resistance to glyphosate," said Bill Johnson, Purdue Extension weed scientist. "The population in Indiana is located in Noble County, which is northwest of Fort Wayne. The field in which it was located had been in soybeans six out of the last seven years, and the producer relied solely on glyphosate for giant ragweed control."

The three Ohio fields with glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed are in central and southwest counties.

Johnson and Mark Loux, Ohio State University Extension weed scientist, urge farmers to alter their weed control strategies in 2007 to slow the development of glyphosate-resistant weed populations. They recommend starting with a weed-free cropfield at planting and using a program of pre-emergence herbicides, followed by a series of timely postemergence herbicide treatments.

Giant ragweed is the most competitive broadleaf weed in Indiana soybean production, Johnson said. The weed can grow as tall as 15 feet, if left undisturbed. Populations of three to four giant ragweed plants per square yard can reduce crop yields by as much as 70 percent, he said.

Farmers annually plant millions of acres in crops genetically modified to withstand glyphosate applications. While giant ragweed can complicate corn production, it is a bigger problem in soybeans because there are few alternative herbicides that provide effective control.

"The reason this is a problem in soybeans is because we have only four effective postemergence herbicides for giant ragweed," Johnson said. "Those are glyphosate, Flexstar, Cobra and FirstRate. If the giant ragweed population is resistant to ALS inhibitors, we are left with only glyphosate, Flexstar or Cobra. If the populations are resistant to glyphosate and FirstRate, then we're left with either Flexstar or Cobra as a post-treatment."

Like glyphosate, aceto-lactase synthase (ALS) inhibitors kill weeds by preventing them from producing essential amino acids necessary for growth. FirstRate is an ALS inhibitor. Flexstar and Cobra are postemergence contact herbicides that attack a plant's cell walls.

Johnson and Loux have monitored suspected glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed since 2004, when farmers in Indiana and Ohio reported weed populations that were responding poorly to glyphosate applications. In some cases, producers were treating their fields with the herbicide three or four times the same year or when giant ragweed populations had reached 15-25 inches tall.

"Our on-farm field research in 2006 demonstrated that resistant populations were not adequately controlled by glyphosate-based programs that have been effective in other populations," Loux said.

Johnson and Loux expect glyphosate resistance to show up in more giant ragweed, although it might not spread as easily as it has in marestail, another problem weed.

"The wind can blow marestail seeds longer distances than giant ragweed," Johnson said. "Giant ragweed seeds are large and heavy, so we don't think seed movement is going to be a huge issue. It is unknown whether the resistance trait might be able to spread in giant ragweed pollen."

Producers have a big role to play in managing weeds to avoid glyphosate resistance, Johnson said. They should start before planting their 2007 crop, he said.

"If growers have fields with a history of poor control of giant ragweed with glyphosate, they need to change their management tactics," Johnson said. "One big key is to start out with a clean field, with tillage or an effective burndown, which includes 2,4-D. Other keys to control include using a residual herbicide, and targeting the first in-crop postemergence treatment when the giant ragweed is between six inches and 12 inches tall.

"For the first postemergence treatment on 6- to 12-inch-tall giant ragweed, they also should use the maximum labeled rate of 1.5 pounds of acid equivalent per acre of glyphosate, or substitute tank mix FirstRate, Flexstar or Cobra for glyphosate in that first treatment."

If plants survive the initial postemergence treatment, a second postemergence treatment should be made three to four weeks after the first treatment, before the weeds start to poke through the top of the soybean canopy, Johnson said.

Additional recommendations can be found in "Management of Giant Ragweed in Roundup Ready Soybean Fields with a History of Poor Control," by Johnson, Loux, Purdue weed scientist Glenn Nice and OSU weed scientist Jeff Stachler. The article can be downloaded at http://agcrops.osu.edu/weeds. The recommendations also are included in the 2007 Weed Control Guide for Ohio and Indiana, available through the OSU publications distribution center by calling + 1 614 292 1607.

Federation, seedsmen disagree over LL testing plan

Farm Press, 3 January 2007. By Elton Robinson.

The rice seed industry has voted against a USA Rice Federation seed plan recommendation that seedsmen provide purchasers of planting seed with a certificate stating that the seed is biotech-free. The vote took place at a meeting of the certified rice seed channel on Dec. 15, in Memphis to address the LL rice issue.

Instead of certification, the rice seed industry recommended that a document showing a negative test result for the LL trait be provided to the mill or first point of delivery prior to harvest of the crop.

The seedsmen"s recommendation was subsequently rejected by the USA Rice Federation on Dec. 19, according to Michael Hensgens, G&H Seed, who was appointed as the seed channel representative for the federation on the LL rice issue.

When asked about its decision, the USA Rice Federation responded with the following statement, "All segments of the U.S. rice industry must work together to resolve the Liberty Link (LL) issue. First and foremost, our common goal must be to restore customer confidence and market stability.

"The USA Rice Federation seed plan responds to market demands from regulatory agencies and consumers around the world. If the industry does not act decisively and in unison to resolve the Liberty Link issue, the U.S. rice industry will find itself in the unenviable position of producing a product world customers will not buy. Many allied businesses and a wide range of local economies depend a viable U.S. rice industry."

Develop protocols

Unless there are further discussions between the seedsmen and the USA Rice Federation, it is now up to each state to develop a protocol for testing for the presence of the LL trait in rice seed and deciding who should receive the subsequent documentation of the results.

Hensgens said the Louisiana rice industry is working with the Louisiana Department of Agriculture on a proposed plan, "where the state will pull the certified seed samples for the seed dealers, send the samples to the testing lab and provide the document to the first point of delivery."

Hensgens said that if the document goes directly from the seed retailer to the producer, "it becomes a warranty to the producer which is not something that is required by seed law, nor is it insurable by any seed conditioner"s insurance agency. Seedsmen"s insurability is governed by the state and federal seed laws and genetic purity is not one of them.

"It"s not that we can"t win the claim. But we may spend exorbitant amounts of money settling claims because it costs so much to defend them. You can win the battle but lose the war if you go out of business."

Randy Ouzts, general manager of Horizon Ag LLC, says, "At this time, we don"t have laws that make the seedsmen warrant for the absence any kind of GM presence. While we all realize that testing may be legally required due to the gravity of this situation, there is currently no protection available to seedsmen from downstream problems should something happen with a grower"s crop. If any laws are made (to require a warranty related to GM presence), you will see quite a few seedsmen not sell seed this season. It is simply too risky for most."

Ouzts says the rice seed industry is close to the point where each day the issue is not resolved results in a percentage of seed unavailable for planting in 2007.

Hensgens says the rice seed industry supports all other recommendations of the rice industry"s plan to remove the LL trait from the market.

Main components

According to Hensgens, the two most important components of the federation seed plan to remove rice with the LL trait from the seed supply are for producers to not plant Cheniere in 2007 and to extend some type of regulatory authority to farm-saved seed.

"The certified seed channel has a history and record of the field seed is planted in and makes field and equipment inspections. Records are audited and all processes are monitored. You don"t have that on-farm. We are a state-regulated channel, they are not."

So far, tests show that genetically engineered strains LL601 and LL62, which are not approved for export to some countries, are present only in Cheniere.

In a position statement, seedsmen did not address a stipulation of the federation seed plan to test for the LL trait at the 0.01 level, equivalent to finding a single genetically-engineered seed in a sample of 30,000. (This is the same level used by the European Union).

Terry Gray, a rice producer and seed wholesaler and retailer from Delaplaine, Ark., was concerned about a hypothetical analysis presented at the Memphis meeting that indicated if seed is tested at 0.01, as much as 25 percent of so-called good seed might (test positive).

"You"ve already lost Cheniere, now you stand to lose some more rice seed. At 0.01 are you even going to have enough seed to plant the long-grain crop in 2007?

"But I understand how the other side feels," Gray said. "The people who do business with the Europeans have got to do whatever they can to keep this business package. A lot of it"s brown rice. You know you"re going to get your money. The margin"s good and they can"t afford to lose the business, so they want to do everything they can to get it back.

"The federation and the seed dealers have got to sit down and come to some kind of agreement. I perceive the seed dealers" position statement as being a message to sit back down at the table and renegotiate."

Mechanical mixing

Chet Boruff, chief executive officer of the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies, Moline, Ill., said the reason behind testing all rice seed varieties, as proposed by the Rice Federation, "would be to address mechanical mixing, where some whole kernels from Cheniere that contains the LL trait might get into seed lots of other varieties. This can occur anywhere in the processing chain at the seedsmen level. But we have approved conditioners that have good protocols in place, so the likelihood of mechanical mixing is minimal."

Boruff said the biggest threat is from farm-saved seed, where sampling protocols were still vague at the time of this writing.

He also said that testing agencies would only present a document detailing a sample"s chain of custody and the results of the testing. "We would provide that documentation in the form of a letter. But it"s not a certificate, it"s a third party documentation."

On the diminishing time frame the testing agencies are working with ‚ very little of 2007 seed has been processed for planting, much less tested ‚ Boruff noted, "We will do what we can to cover the bases. We"re used to working under the gun, but things could start backing up and we are concerned about that."

email: erobinson@farmpress.com

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

World-wire.com, 3 January 2007.

CHICAGO, Illinois, January 3, 2007 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, professor emeritus of environmental medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health and world renowned author, has announced the publication of his new book, "What's in Your Milk?", a powerful expose of the dangers of Monsanto's genetically engineered (rBGH) milk, and the company's no-holds-barred conspiracy to suppress this information.

rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone) is a genetically engineered, potent variant of the natural growth hormone produced by cows. Manufactured by Monsanto, it is sold to dairy farmers under the trade name POSILAC. Injection of this hormone forces cows to increase their milk production by about 10%. Monsanto has stated that about one third of dairy cows are in herds where the hormone is used.

Monsanto, supported by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), insist that rBGH milk is indistinguishable from natural milk, and that it is safe for consumers. This is blatantly false: rBGH makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 toxic effects, including mastitis, on its Posilac label.

• rBGH milk is contaminated by pus, due to the mastitis commonly induced by rBGH, and antibiotics used to treat the mastitis.

• rBGH milk is chemically, and nutritionally different than natural milk.

• Milk from cows injected with rBGH is contaminated with the hormone, traces of which are absorbed through the gut into the blood.

• rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of a natural growth factor (IGF-1), which is readily absorbed through the gut.

• Excess levels of IGF-1 have been incriminated as a cause of breast, colon, and prostate cancers.

IGF-1 blocks natural defense mechanisms against early submicroscopic cancers.

• rBGH factory farms pose a major threat to the viability of small dairy farms.

• rBGH enriches Monsanto, while posing dangers, without any benefits, to consumers, especially in view of the current national surplus of milk.

Of still greater concern, based on 37 published scientific studies as detailed in the book, excess levels of IGF-1 in rBGH milk pose major risks of breast, colon and prostate cancers.

The introduction to What's in Your Milk? by Ben Cohen, Co-founder of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, with a Foreword by Jeffrey M. Smith, author of the bestseller Seeds of Deception

Many prominent experts in the environmental field have endorsed the new book including Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Democrat, House Judiciary Committee, Mark Achbar, Executive Producer of the multiple prize-winning documentary The Corporation, Ronnie Cummins, National Director, Organic Consumers Association, and Dr. Joseph Mercola, founder of the world's most visited natural health website.

The book is a unique resource on rBGH milk. It presents Dr. Epstein's trailblazing scientific publications since 1989, which have played a major role in influencing other nations, including Canada, 24 European nations, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan to ban rBGH milk. The book also presents: the author's editorials and letters to major newspapers, and correspondence with the FDA, Congressman John Conyers, and other key members of Congress and the Senate. Epstein also details evidence of interlocking conflicts of interest between Monsanto and the White House, the American Medical Association and American Cancer Society. He also details evidence of Monsanto's white collar crime; the suppression and manipulation of information on the veterinary and public health dangers of rBGH milk; and evidence of Monsanto's "Hit Squad," which attempted to stifle and discredit him.

Of compelling interest is the story behind Fox Television's firing of Jane Akre, a veteran journalist, following her in-depth interview on rBGH with Dr. Epstein, his subsequent day-long deposition by Monsanto on her behalf, her subsequent litigation against Fox, and Fox's successful counter suit.

Monsanto's corporate recklessness, compounded by FDA's complicity and refusal to require labeling of rBGH milk, more than justify the rejection of any assurances of its safety. Of further interest is the critical relevance of this information to the ongoing growing concerns and debate on genetically engineered foods, including irrefutable evidence discrediting the "trust us" safety assurances of Monsanto, and other industries.

The book also presents resource materials, including listings of national and international anti-biotech, public health, veterinary and animal rights activist groups. Also listed are rBGH-free U.S. dairy producers, such as Horizon Organic, and Swiss Valley Farms.

What's In Your Milk's critical message to consumers is, BOYCOTT rBGH HORMONAL MILK IN FAVOR OF CERTIFIED ORGANIC MILK.

The book is available from Trafford Publishing, www.trafford.com/06-0676, or by calling Trafford's Order Desk at 888-232-4444 or 250-383-6864, and subsequently at amazon.com and major bookstores everywhere. Cost of "What's in Your Milk" is $24.95 USD For overseas orders, contact national Amazon sites or other major bookstores and on-line retailers. GBP14.35 GPB, 20.49 Euros Dr. Epstein is professor emeritus of environmental medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, and Chairman of the international Cancer Prevention Coalition. He is the author of 270 scientific publications, and author or co-author of 12 books, including the prize winning 1978 The Politics of Cancer, the 1995 The Safe Shopper's Bible, and the 2005 Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing Cancer War.

Dr. Epstein has been the recipient of many awards, including the 1998 Right Livelihood Award, the Alternative Nobel Prize, for his "incomparable contributions to cancer prevention, and for his leadership role in warning of the dangers of rBGH milk." Dr. Epstein has also received the the 2000 Project Censored Award. In 2005, Dr. Epstein was awarded the Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medal "for Humanitarianism, and International Contributions to Cancer Prevention."

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

For more information contact:

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
(312) 996 2297
Chicago, Illinois, USA

A new weapon against mad cow disease?

MSNBC.com, 3 January 2007. Commentary by Food Editor Phil Lambert.

[Note: see critique of this approach under 4 January above.]

The Washington Post reports that scientists believe they have come up with a way of using genetic engineering to prevent the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) commonly known as mad cow disease.

According to the story, a company called Hematech has developed a process that will actually produce cattle that are biologically incapable of developing BSE because they lack prions, a protein that facilitates the mad cow infection.

The Post writes that Hematech scientists "cultivated a colony of cattle cells in a laboratory dish. Then they used a genetic engineering method to 'knock out' just one gene inside each cell ó the gene that directs the production of prion proteins. Finally, using cloning techniques, the team grew a dozen calves, each from one of those altered cells. Because the starter cell from which each animal was grown lacked the prion gene, so did all the daughter cells that ultimately constituted the animals' bodies. Today, as far as scientists can tell, those 12 cattle are wholly lacking in prions."

Numerous questions remain to be answered. It remains possible that as the cattle age, they could still develop BSE. It also is unknown whether the lack of prions will cause other medical problems for the cows. And, further studies need to be conducted to see what happens when BSE-infected prions are injected into a prion-free cow. The research looks promising as scientists look for ways to prevent the spread of mad cow and its human variant, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

There is no doubt that as we move further into the world of biotech that diseases of all kinds will be able to be controlled and genes manipulated ó and that will make for a better and healthier life. But once again we have to state the obvious, products such as this GMO (genetically modified organism) beef must be labeled as such to allow shoppers to make informed choices.

Phil Lempert is food editor of the "Today" show. He welcomes questions and comments, which can be sent to phil.lempert@nbc.com or by using the mail box below. For more about the latest trends on the supermarket shelves, visit Phil's Web site at SuperMarketGuru.com.

2 January 2007

AP govt agrees to out-of-court settlement with Monsanto

Financial Express (India), 2 January 2007.

HYDERABAD, JAN 1: In a significant move, the Andhra Pradesh government expressed its willingness to have an 'out-of-court settlement' with Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech Ltd in the 'BT cotton seed' issue, however, with a rider.

Speaking to the media here on Sunday, AP agriculture minister N Raghuveera Reddy said the AP government had no objection to the out-of-court proposal by the company as long as it would be beneficial to farmers in the country. "The government has no problem and is even ready for the out of the court settlement, if the proposal benefits the farmers and reduces the cost of cotton crop," Reddy said.

The company had recently approached the state government with a proposal for out of the court settlement, he added.

Making it categorical that the government was not ready for any sort of compromise on the 'price front', the minister, however, said the compromise formula should also be accepted by the other state governments and farmers' associations which have impleaded in the writ-petition.

AP was the first state to raise the issue of higher prices being charged by the Monsanto stable through its joint venture company in the country. The government had approached the Monopoly and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Commission to get relief for the farmers, who were unable to pay higher seed prices. It had even suspended the marketing rights of Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech in the state.

MRTPC had issued interim orders directing the company to reduce the seed price, which prompted other states, Maharashtra and Punjab, to also implead in the case. According to the Andhra Pradesh government's claim, the company was charging Rs 1,850 per 450 gm packet, where the Monsanto stable would receive Rs 1,250 per packet towards trait value. Reddy claimed that due to the reduction in the cotton seed price, the Indian farmers benefited by about Rs 1,200 crore, besides the crop area having increased throughout the country. "Today, farmers are able to get the genuine BT cotton seed and there is no trace of spurious cotton seed in the state," Reddy said.

Breeding breakthrough produces mad cow resistant cattle

Cape Times (South Africa), January 2 2007.

WASHINGTON: US and Japanese scientists reported on Sunday that they had used genetic engineering to produce cattle that resist mad cow disease.

They hope the cattle can be the source of herds that can provide dairy products, gelatin and other products free of the brain-destroying disease, also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE.

Writing in the journal Nature Biotechnology, the researchers said their cattle were healthy at the age of 20 months, and sperm from the males made normal embryos that were used to impregnate cows, although it is not certain yet that they could breed normally.

The cattle lack the nervous system prions, a type of protein, that cause BSE and other related diseases such as scrapie in sheep and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, known as CJD, in humans, the researchers said.

"(Prion-protein-negative) cattle could be a preferred source of a wide variety of bovine-derived products that have been extensively used in biotechnology, such as milk, gelatin, collagen, serum and plasma," they wrote.

Yoshimi Kuroiwa, of Kirin Brewery Company in Tokyo, and colleagues made the cattle, known as "knockouts" because a specific gene has been "knocked" out of them, using a method they call gene targeting.

"By knocking out the prion protein gene and producing healthy calves, our team has successfully demonstrated that normal cellular prion protein is not necessary for the normal development and survival of cattle. The cows are now nearly two years old and are completely healthy," said James Robl, of Hematech, a South Dakota subsidiary of Kirin.

BSE swept through British beef herds in the 1980s and people began developing an odd, early-onset form of CJD called variant CJD, or vCJD, a few years later. CJD normally affects one in a million people globally, usually the elderly.

There is no cure and it is always fatal.

Note: see critique of this article under 4 January above.

Summit participants express varying views on GMOs

TheTideNews.com, Nigeria, 2 January 2006.

Participants at a food summit have expressed varying views on the introduction of Genetically Modified Food (GMO) technology on the continent.

Wilson Selenge, a parliamentarian from Malawi, told Newsmen at the just-ended Food Security Summit in Abuja, that his country rejected GMO technology because it transferred foreign genses into local crops.

"When you produce maize or any other crop through GMOs you are applying a foreign gene, and that foreign element can be harmful to the body system", he said.

According to him, if you therefore eat such food you will be damaging your body system, which can even lead to death.

Dr. Olaseinde Afrigbede, national coordinator, United and Medium Scale Farmers' Association of Nigeria (USMESFAM), said that farmers in the country were against the used of GMO technology in food production.

He said that apart from being harmeful to the body "GMO technology is also destructive to the soil around where it is applied".

"Where ever GMO food is grown, no other crop can grow in that soil, so it renders the enter surrounding useless," he added.

He cited Argentina as one of the countries that had fallen victim of the use of GMO technology in the production of food, saying that Nigeria could not afford such a destructive venture.

Arigbede also said that the application of GMO technology was expensive for African countries to embark upon.

According to him, GMO technology is being promoted by Trans-National Organisations for their selfish interest.

However, Dr. Carol Marshal from South Africa, said that GMO technology was a fast way of mechanizing agriculture on the continent.

She said that it was the best and quickest way for Africa to attain food security, adding that it was acceptable and applicable in South Africa.

"If you say that GMO technology is harmful, is the assertion based on research result or speculations?

"Even if there are difficulties in understanding the technology on the continent is there anything in the world that is not associated with one problem or the other?" she asked.

She cited the cell phone as an example, saying that in spite of its side effect, it was still being used all over the world.

"We should weigh the advantages and disadvantages, and I think that the benefits are much higher", she said.

According to her, there are a lot of unqualified fears about the GMO application in Africa, and the problem is that the fears are not evidence-based.

Welcome to the New Delicious

Common Ground magazine, January 2006. By Lynn Peemoeller.

Terra Madre, the second international slow food conference, mounts a global counterforce for changing the way the world eats.

United by a passionate hunger for delicious and sustainable food, 4,803 farmers, breeders, fishermen and artisan food producers from 1,583 food communities and 150 nations; 953 cooks; 411 professors and representatives from 225 universities; 2,320 observers and guides and 776 volunteers came to the second Terra Madre world meeting of food communities last October in Turin, Italy. This gustatory love fest was hosted by Slow Food International, the "eco-gastronomic" organization that works through "virtuous globalization" to counteract fast food culture and the disappearance of local food traditions.

The cavernous arena that housed the 2006 Winter Olympics was transformed by Slow Food into a world village where solutions were suggested, information was presented and conviviality prevailed. Italian President Giorgio Napolitano lent his support at the opening ceremony where he shared the stage with Slow Food founder Carlo Petrini and representatives from each participating nation.

An impassioned Petrini invoked a "Slow Food Revolution," emphasizing local food economies as the main course of our future, and speaking urgently of the resurgence of the natural economy over the capital economy. "We will never produce good food if we stress the environment and rape it of its resources," he declared. "The Slow Food principles are that food must be good, clean and fair."

For Slow Food, this bi-annual event was an opportunity to strengthen networks of food communities, to re-focus on agro-ecology – agriculture that respects the environment – and to collectively rise in preservation of native food traditions. The committed community illuminated the power of small producers and cast an optimistic light on the otherwise dark side of the global food system. Critical issues like GMO contamination, dependence on foreign aid and the universal distribution challenges of small-scale producers were some of the more spirited discussions. A dogged ëcan-do' attitude was pervasive, and revolution was in the air.

The program featured a dizzying array of topics ranging from detailed discussions of cheese, rice, beer, coffee and spices to big picture presentations that addressed the preservation of genetic resources in plant and animal species, healthy soil, traditional agricultural systems and the economics of market access.

Amidst the organized chaos, a spontaneous marketplace emerged. Foodies haggled in Euros over exotic edibles and crafts from all over the world. Thai farmers set up colorful chilies and rice next to crafts people from Kyrgyzstan hawking traditional ethnic headgear. In the Salone de Gusto, or "Hall of Taste" next door, delegates sold "Presidia" or protected delicacies like yak cheese from Tibet, and Mullet Botarga, dried fish eggs from Mauritania.

It became clear over the three-day conference that the Slow Food movement is finally beginning to emerge as a new global counterforce for change in the way the world eats. And on the supply side, it's helping farmers confidently face-off with goliaths of the global food economy like Monsanto, while challenging consumers to preserve eroding local food traditions.

For developing countries like India, Slow Food has become a powerful organizing tool. Leaders like Vandana Shiva in the biodiversity movement are outspoken against the impact global seed companies like Monsanto have on biodiversity and local agriculture. Shiva's mantra resonates: "Every seed saved is a seed of freedom for every farmer." Terra Madre enabled her to lead a delegation of Indian farmers to Italy to learn about alternatives to the global model, and more importantly, to become inspired by the international kinship of people struggling against persistent threats to their cultural traditions.

The Slow Food idea of eco-gastronomy , a concept for our times, reminds us of the interconnectedness of food and the land from which it comes, and the balance between the pleasures of eating and the principles of eating responsibly. Here in the birthplace of McDonald's and Dairy Queen, Slow Food is resonating across the urban landscape, with Slow Food Nation, a domestic version of Terra Madre, planned for May 2008 in San Francisco. When Alice Waters calls Slow Food a "counterculture," this isn't just cagey provocateur-ism; food is political, and never more so than today.

At Terra Madre, far-flung food communities teetering between old world traditions and new world conveniences learned they are not alone. They learned that food problems are universal, and that solutions lie in joining forces. When cattle farmers from Africa and Illinois join in solidarity with honey producers from Tasmania and Zambia, when seed savers from India and native peoples of North America unite to fight GMO contamination, they're planting the seeds for a Slow Food revolution.

Lynn Peemoeller is a food systems planner, urban farmer and Program Director for Sustain USA.

Archives 2007: January
. 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
Archives 2004 • 2003

Sponsored by Global Vision Corporation

© 2003 - 2007 Global Vision Consulting Ltd • updated 31 January 2007
Privacy policy
For enquiries contact mail@gmfreeireland.org
URL of this page: www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2007/jan.php