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 l