NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • July 2007

Archives 2007: January• February • March • April • May • June
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

Ireland: GM policy u-turn 'could cost farmers dearly'

Roscommon Herald, 31 July 2007.

THE DECISION by the Minis- ter for Agriculture to u-turn on Government policy to date on the importation of genetically modified (GM) feed has the potential to badly damage Irish agricul ture, according to Deputy Frank Feighan.

"Fine Gael has continually called for a full debate on GM in agriculture but the Gov ernment up to now has per sistently refused to engage in one. There is no getting way from the fact that these decisions have huge impli cations that need to be fully thought through and not developed on a political whim. In 2006, € 144.6m worth of animal feed was imported into Ireland, of which 97% contained some genetically engineered material. The fact is that the vast majority of imported animal feed now used by Irish farmers has been genetically modified in some manner - we cannot pretend other wise.

"One of the consequences of the Nitrates Directive, which penalises grass-based production systems as we have here in Ireland, is that there will be even greater demand for imported feed in the future. However, despite assurances to the contrary from the Agriculture Minister, the Irish Government decided in June to abstain on an EU vote which has the effect that animal feed companies here will no longer be able to import maize by-products from the US," he said.

"I am informed by the Connacht Gold Feed Mill that 800,000 tonnes of maize by-products which are used in the production of animal feed are imported from the US every year. Connacht Gold, like other animal feed companies, is now in the position of having to source replacement ingredients and estimates that this could lead to an additional cost of up to € 50 million a year. The knock-on effect on the price of feed and therefore on farmers' margins is obvious and potentially very damaging.

"It is now time for a full debate on the whole GM issue and not off-the-cuff, knee-jerk policy which deter mines this issue in isolation from the broader and more practical factors which must be considered. Fine Gael believes that the best way to facilitate such a debate is to establish a Dail Committee on Science & Technology which would, as its first function, facilitate a fully informed debate on GM food, feed and crops and their use or not in this country. "As the Taoiseach has not yet established the Dail Committees, now is an ideal opportunity to have a specific forum not only to deal with the issue of GM but all other scientific developments which have an impact on society and our economy.

"Such a recommendation was made a number of years ago by an all-party Oireachtas committee and a similar committee is in place in many other EU Countries including the UK. It is high time that we have a mechanism to bring facts on scientific developments into the public domain instead of half truths that are spun to the benefit of one side or another," concluded Deputy Feighan.

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Misinformation and nonsense! Ireland's policy on GM is well thought out. The article gives the impression that 95% of Irish animal feed is GM, whereas it is only the portion of the feed which contains maize and soya ingredients which is GM. This means that around half of the animal feed sold to Irish farmers is made up of non-GMO ingredients.

The claim that Ireland's abstention on a vote to retroactively legalise a single variety of GM maize "has the effect that animal feed companies here will no longer be able to import maize by-products from the US" defies logic. Numerous varieties of GM maize remain on sale in Ireland. The notion that Connacht Gold and other animal feed companies are consequently "having to source replacement ingredients" for 800,000 tonnes of maize by-products - at an additional cost of up to € 50 million a year - is a total lie.

The biotech industry spin doctors are freaking out because there is no market for GM food in Europe, and leading retailers now exclude meat and dairy products from livestock fed on GM ingredients, as outlined in the article "Declaring Ireland a GMO-free zone" published in the Irish Examiner farm supplement on 26 July (see below).

Moreover, there is a current European surplus of GM-free maize, around half the US crop is GM-free, EU maize imports have greatly declined in the last decade, and certified non-GMO soya is widely available at minimal extra cost which can easily be recouped by premia now on offer from European retailers.

Fine Gael had plenty of opportunity to raise the GM issue in the pre-election campaign, but failed to do so. The only actions taken were a half-hearted call by TD candidate Brody Sweeney to keep Ireland free of GM crops as part of Fine Gael's Green Ireland policy, a failed attempt by Mairead McGuinness MEP to promote the EU-wide release of GM pharmaceutical crops that would contaminate our food crops with industrial chemicals and drugs in perpetuity, and a defeatist statement by FG Agriculture Spokesperson Dennis Naughten that nothing can be done because Ireland does not have the right to decide.

Deputy Feighan should heed his own advice and "bring facts on scientific developments into the public domain instead of half truths that are spun to the benefit of one side or another"!

31 July 2007

EU: urgent call for agrofuel moratorium

Econexus, 31 July 2007, by Helena Paul.

Organisations and individuals around the world are extremely concerned about the way the European Union (EU) is rushing into agrofuels and the signals this sends to the rest of the world to race into agrofuel production.

The impacts are already serious worldwide. Millions of hectares are being designated for agrofuel production and export in Africa, Asia and South America. Indigenous peoples and local communities are being expelled from their land or forced into agrofuel production, forests and biodiversity are being destroyed.

In many places no impact assessment or consultations have been carried out; land is simply being handed over to European companies to exploit for export to Europe. In Africa, for example, land on which pastoralists depend and which only they can manage is being treated as unused or degraded land suitable for agrofuel production. In other countries, companies are taking over the most fertile, well watered land for agrofuels and driving food production to dry, marginal lands.

Agrofuels pose an unprecedented threat to regions that have hitherto not experienced the impact of industrial agriculture. Many of these are the final refuge of indigenous peoples, of precious biodiversity. The protection of such regions is also vital if we are to have any hope of preventing runaway climate change.

In the autumn, the EU will hope to finish the process of putting its agrofuel targets into law and drafting certification rules to reassure consumers and justify this unprecedented new push for agrofuel monocultures. We have to stop this process.

This is why we need more organisations and individuals to sign up to the call for an immediate moratorium on EU incentives for agrofuels, EU imports of agrofuels and EU agroenergy mopnocultures so that we can oppose the push more effectively. We will also need help in the Autumn!

Please think for a few moments about how to get more signatures.

To read the call and to sign up, please visit: http://wwweconexus.info/agrofuel_moratorium_call.html

India: Field trials of GM crops trigger row

The Statesman, July 31 2007. By Anindita Chowdhur.

* Field trials for the genetically modified (GM) varieties of eight major food crops, including rice, potato, mustard and tomato, are in the pipeline but guess how prepared India is?

Field trials of genetically modified crops in the state have triggered off a war of letters between some members of the state agriculture commission and the department of biotechnology under the Union science and technology ministry.

The department of biotechnology under GOI has brushed aside allegations of illegal field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops in North 24 Parganas and a lax regulatory system, as raised by some members of the state agriculture commission. The commission itself, however, plans to discuss the issue of GM contamination and human hazards, in its coming meetings.

Citing reports by the monitoring authority, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya (BCKV), Prof. TK Bose, a member of the commission, had alleged that Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds company (Mayco) has conducted illegal field trials on Bt brinjal, Bt tomato without following bio safety measures and monitoring as suggested by DBT although they were given permission only for trials on Bt rice and Bt okra (ladies finger). He had demanded legal action against the company.

BCKV had informed DBT that biosafety protocols were not adhered to during the trials. Moreover, the monitoring visit was timed when the trials were at a finishing stage and the university was not consulted about site selection, trial details and methodology followed .

However, Dr KK Tripathi, advisor, DBT has dismissed these allegations of conducting illegal trials without informing regulatory authority as being "unfounded" since both the chief secretary and commissioner of agriculture of the state were informed about the trials. While admitting that the company did not seek permission for conducting field trials for GM tomato or brinjal crop he explained that the presence of such crops was probably due to the practice of "seed companies to keep testing their different hybrids (non GM) in different locations for agronomic performance and evaluation. This is reiterated because no company can do any GM trial without adhering to the conditions specified in the permit letter and cannot abandon it the way indicated in your letter."

He has also argued that the regulatory system put in place by the Government of India has been functioning effectively in regulating the DNA research and GM product commercialisation in the country in respect to biosafety as well as various risk benefit analysis and socio-economic issues.

Prof. Bose has countered Dr Tripathi's arguments in a recent letter saying that the report of BCKV has been ignored. He has also pointed out that in small holdings in states like West Bengal it would be impossible to protect non GM variety from contamination with pollens of GM hybrids or keep an isolation of 200 metres.

When contacted, Prof. RN Basu, chairman of the commission, said it would give its own recommendations on the use of GM seeds in the state.

India: ASSOCHAM report on Bt cotton incredulous'
APCDD ridicules survey report

The Hindu, July 31 2007

HYDERABAD: AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity (APCDD), representing civil society groups against genetically modified crops, has challenged the recent Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM)'s survey report on Bt cotton farming and termed it "incredulous."

At a press conference here on Monday, P.V. Satheesh, convenor of the APCDD, said the survey was part of a huge campaign launched by the genetic engineering industry to bamboozle public opinion. The seed major, Monsanto has produced 29 short films to counter the APCDD's film, "A disaster in search of success: Bt cotton in global south", he added.

Wrong priorities

"For Monsanto and the ASSOCHAM, foreign direct investment is far more important than the lives of the farmers lost in the pursuit of Bt cotton that left a trail of Bt-infected toxicity in the soils and plants leading to livestock morbidity."

Releasing the findings of the APCDD's own survey, he said the Bt cotton farmers earned just nine per cent more, a paltry difference of Rs. 380 per acre between Bt and non-Bt and not "additional income of Rs. 7039 crore as claimed by ASSOCHAM." Similarly cultivating Bt cotton was more expensive as farmers have to spend more on pest control than others.

New diseases

The raising of Bt cotton has brought to the fore diseases like "root rot", not seen by cotton farmers before, he said.

The survey also found that genetically engineered seed industry was deliberately closing all non-Bt options to farmers, forcing them to go in for Bt cotton.

The APCDD wanted the Government to promulgate a law to ensure production and distribution of non-Bt seed up to 50 per cent of their trade volume and to ask National Institute of Nutrition to investigate death of cattle after grazing in areas where Bt cotton was grown.

S.Africa worried GMO labels could raise food prices

Reuters, 31 July 2007. By Wendell Roelf

CAPE TOWN (Reuters) - South Africa is resisting labelling its genetically modified foods because of fears it could raise prices and make food less available for consumers, a senior health official told the country's parliament on Tuesday.

The country, Africa's economic powerhouse and one of the few on the continent to accept genetically modified organisms, or GMOs as they are popularly known, does not currently require that the modified foods be labelled.

But pressure is growing on the government to consider doing so amid a growing debate over their use. Supporters say that GMOs could help solve many of Africa's food problems, while critics say they are an experiment that puts millions at risk.

"If we had to label the foodstuffs, we have to determine the costs and benefits of it. Would it increase food prices and, therefore, decrease the accessibility of that foodstuff for a vast majority of people ?" Renusha Chanda, an assistant director in South Africa's department of health, said in a presentation.

However, Chanda added that the government believed that all GMOs currently on the South African market were safe, making labels unnecessary.

The government is considering changing GMO legislation and has heard appeals from environmentalists and farmers for tighter controls to halt the import and creation of such crops.

Zimbabwe, Zambia and several other nations have banned GMOs, saying that they could mix with indigenous crops.

Chanda said that more studies and research were needed to determine the costs and benefits of labelling GMOs. They are only mandatory when they include genes from fish, animals and humans or when they differ substantially in nutritional content.

The amount of South African land devoted to genetically modified crops was 1.4 million hectares in the 2006/2007 growing season, a 180-percent increase over the previous year.

One million hectares was devoted to maize cultivation, the staple diet of the majority of the country's 47 million people, with the remainder allocated to soybean and cotton.

EU: Decision on ice structuring proteins

http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2007/jul/isp

The Agency's expert advisers on novel foods, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP), have provisionally approved an application to use an ice structuring protein preparation in food.

Their opinion now goes to other European Union member states for comment.

Ice structuring proteins (ISPs) are naturally occurring proteins and peptides, which are found in a variety of living organisms (such as fish, plants and insects). ISPs protect these organisms from tissue damage in very cold conditions by lowering the temperature at which ice crystals grow and by changing the size and shape of the ice crystals.

The applicant, Unilever, wants to use an ice structuring protein preparation in ice creams and similar products to influence the formation of ice structure during their manufacture.

Before any new food product can be introduced on the European market it must be rigorously assessed for safety. In the UK, the assessment of novel foods is carried out by the ACNFP, an independent committee of scientists.

30 July 2007

World: Precautionary Principle left out by Codex Alimentarius

NutraIngredients, France, 30 August 2007. By Alex McNally.

Codex has agreed to exclude the controversial precautionary principle in its risk analysis standards, marking the end of a long battle between the EU and trade groups.

The final decision was made at the Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting in Rome this month when the "Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety for Application by Governments" was finally adopted, excluding the precautionary principle.

The controversial plan would have allowed governments to take certain preventative measures for foods in cases where scientific evidence on the safety of the food is uncertain, but were seen by many governments and organisations as a tool to create unjustified trade barriers.

The principle, which has already been formally established by the European Commission (EC/178/2002), granted food risk managers the ability to take measures to protect health if they feared an unacceptable level of health risk exists. These measures ranged from a total ban on the substance, to food manufacturers being ordered to carry out further safety tests.

The International Alliance of Dietary/Food Supplement Associations (IADSA) and the US Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN USA) both feared the precautionary principle would create unfair trading opportunities around the globe if it was adopted.

It was omitted from the set of principles for risk analysis adopted by Codex in 2003. However, since then a number of countries have tried to introduce it into Codex texts, to no avail.

David Pineda, IADSA's manager of regulatory affairs, said: "Despite the numerous attempts to introduce this principle into the text, there has again been sufficient resistance from both governmental and non-governmental organisations to prevent it from happening."

Pineda added that consumers were not being put at risk by the exclusion of the precautionary principle.

He told NutraIngredients.com this morning: "Scientific evaluations are carried out when there are justified doubts about the safety of a food product and therefore there are systems in place to protect the health of the consumers. However, the use of the precautionary principle is often abusive in cases where there is no scientific proof of the unsafety of a food product.

"It is encouraging for the dietary/food supplement associations that this principle is not adopted by Codex and therefore not being applied worldwide."

There have been three unsuccessful attempts by the EU and other countries to include the principle in key Codex documents.

In April, the full Codex Committee of General Principles (CCGP) debated the new draft and, after rallying of both government and non-governmental organisations - notably the CRN USA - agreed to omit the precautionary principle.

---------

World: Codex's Precautionary Principle inclusion thwarted

NutraIngredients, France, 4 May 2007.

The International Alliance of Dietary/Food Supplement Associations (IADSA) has revealed that latest attempts to insert the precautionary principle into Codex's draft risk analysis standards for food safety have been foiled.

The news marks the third unsuccessful attempt by the EU and other countries to include the principle in key Codex documents, and could represent that last hurdle for adoption without the inclusion of the precautionary principle.

David Pineda, IADSA's manager of regulatory affairs, told NutraIngredients.com: "We are very happy with the outcome of this week. This new decision by the committee means there are fewer possibilities to introduce the precautionary principle [into the Codex framework]."

The precautionary principle allows governments to take certain preventive measures for foods in cases where scientific evidence on the safety of the food is uncertain, and many governments and other organizations believe that it is used to create unjustified trade barriers.

"The new document just accepted by the committee appropriately follows an earlier one by excluding the precautionary principle, an action needed to help assure fair opportunities for trade in supplement products," said Dr John Hathcock VP of scientific and international affairs of the Council Responsible Nutrition (CRN USA).

The full Codex Committee of General Principles (CCGP) in Paris this week debated the new draft and, after rallying of both government and non-governmental organisations - notably the US Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN USA) - agreed to omit the precautionary principle. To enter the Codex framework, the Commission must adopt the Committee's draft.

Pineda said that whether or not the Commission accepts the document as a Step 5 [document up for revision] or Step 8 [accepted document], this week's decision means there are less possibilities to introduce the precautionary principle.

"The introduction of this principle has been consistently rejected since the Codex principles were first drafted. However, the text is at an intermediate stage of the Codex procedure and changes can still be made. There could, therefore, be attempts to include this principle into the text during the next Commission meeting later this year which will have to consider this week's decision of the CCGP," said Pineda.

Doctoral research post

[translation into English of German original]

Beginning in July 2007, the Department for "Consumer Behavior" of the ETH Zürich [= Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich, that is the University for Technology and Natural Sciences in Zürich, Switzerland; official English name: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich] offers a doctoral post in a project of NFP 59 [NFP = Nationales Forschungsprogramm, that is National Research Program] on the issue "Fairness, trust and the perception of genetically modified plants".

Scope of the project:

The introduction and implementation of biotechnology depends on public acceptance. Through various studies, this project is intended to analyse how public trust and powerful emotions affect the perception of biotechnology. For this purpose new implicit measuring methods are to be developed. Whether confidence building procedures lead to more acceptance of the introduction of biotechnology is to be explored and analysed by means of a field experiment. This issue will also be explored by means of a longitudinal study - interviews before and after a GM field release experiment. Comparative interviews with laymen and experts should also provide clues about different risk perceptions. The goal of the project is to improve risk communication in biotechnology by better taking into account strong emotions and fears within the population.

Your main task will be to assist in the design, organisation, performance, evaluation and publication of empirical studies.

Your main task will be to contribute to the design, organisation, implementation, evaluation and publication of the empirical studies.

The doctoral post is limited to 4 years.

Your profile:

- graduate of psychology with interest in biotechnology
- very good knowledge of quantitative research methods
- very good knowledge of statistical evaluation procedures
- interest in scientific publishing
- good mastery command of the English language
- ability to work independently
- ability to work in a team.

For more information ask Prof. Dr. Michael Siegrist
(msiegrist@ethz.ch; +41 44 632 63 21).
Address your application with the usual documents until June 30th to Prof. Dr. Michael Siegrist.

Prof. Dr. Michael Siegrist ETH Zürich
Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED) Consumer Behavior
Universitätsstrasse 22, CHN J75.1 CH-8092 Zürich Switzerland
phone: +41 44 632 6321 fax: +41 44 632 10 29

_______________________

Declaring Ireland a GMO-free zone

The Irish Examiner (Farm Supplement cover story), 26 July 2007.
By Michael O'Callaghan, Co-ordinator, GM-free Ireland Network (www.gmfreeireland.org)

-------
Cover picture: Green Party MEPs during a protest in the Parliament in 2004.

Photo caption 1: Map of GMO-free zones in the EU

Photo caption 2: Darina Allen on the Ballymaloe Cookery School organic farm, just one of the 1,000 Irish locations declared GM-free on April 22, 2005.
--------

OUR government's policy "to declare the whole island of Ireland a GMO-free zone" aims to prohibit the release of live GM seeds, crops, livestock, trees, insects, crustaceans and fish on this island. (The policy does not apply to the use of GMO bacteria for the production of pharmaceutical products in sealed vats in secure laboratories.) There is no plan to prohibit GM animal feed. The government is, however, encouraging farmers to phase out its use on a voluntary basis, in response to rapidly growing EU market demand for meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on certified non-GMO feedstuffs.

Because of our geographical isolation from potential contamination by wind-borne GM pollen, declaring this island off limits to GM crops will clearly position Irish farm produce as the most credible, safe GM-free food brand in Europe. If implemented (in collaboration with the Northern Ireland Assembly), this will boost the safety, quality, reputation and economic value of Irish food in the lucrative EU export markets. It will provide a competitive advantage to Irish farmers and food producers for generations to come.

Widely supported

The policy is supported by TDs, senators and MEPs from all the political parties, and by over 130 organisational members of the GM-free Ireland Network – including the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association, the National Beef Association (NI), all the organic certification bodies, the Irish Doctors Environmental Association, the Restaurants Association of Ireland, Euro-Toques Ireland (representing our 300 leading chefs), the Food Writers Guild, Slow Food Ireland, etc.

It is also supported by the county councils of Cavan, Clare, Fermanagh, Kildare, Kerry, Meath, Roscommon, Monaghan, and Westmeath), the District of Newry and Mourne in counties Armagh and Down, and the towns of Bantry, Bray, Clonakilty, Derry, Galway City, Letterkenny, and Navan), representing over one million citizens on both sides of the border whose elected representatives have declared these local areas off-limits to GM crops.

No market for GM food in Europe

Ireland exports 90% of the food produced here, mostly to European countries which have a near-total market refusal of any food which carries the GM label (required by EU law if it contains or is derived from 0.9% or more of GM ingredients). This market refusal is now rapidly spreading to also exclude meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients (even though such produce does not yet require a GM label).

In January 2005, Greenpeace published the landmark report, "No market for GM labelled food in Europe", which details a virtual shut-down of the EU market for GM-labelled food. Europe's top 30 retailers and top 30 food and drink producers had by then already declared policies and non-GM commitments which revealed a massive international food and beverage industry rejection of GM produce. This cut across the industry from food and drink manufacturers to retailers, and includes everything from snacks and ready meals to pet food and beer. The combined total food and drink sales of the 49 companies with a stated non-GM policy in their main market or throughout the EU (27 retailers and 22 food and drink producers) amounted to 646 billion, more than 60% of the total 1,069 billion EU food and drink sales in 2005.

Since then, Consumers International has called for a ban on all GM foods, and an EuroBarometer survey found that "Overall Europeans think that GM food should not be encouraged; GM food is widely seen as not being useful, as morally unacceptable and as a risk for society". Most leading EU retailers are now extending their GM bans to gradually exclude meat and dairy produce from GM-fed animals.

Health risks

There is growing scientific evidence linking GM animal feed and food to deaths and disease in laboratory animals, livestock and the human population. Speaking at the launch of his book "Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of GM food" at a briefing on food safety and GMOs at the EU Parliament office in Dublin recently, the author Jeffrey M. Smith, described the evidence of health risks as "irrefutable", including new diseases, allergies, inflammatory responses, antibiotic resistance, reduced immunity, and pre-cancerous growths. Transgenic DNA in food can survive digestion and activate inside your body, potentially turning you into a living pesticide factory. A leaked European Commission document admits, "there is no unique, absolute, scientific cut-off threshold available to decide whether a GM product is safe or not".

But the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) claims GM animal feed and GM foods are safe, although it is being challenged for routinely approving such products based on risk assessments provided to it by the companies it is paid to regulate, for not making the relevant data available for independent scientific scrutiny, and for failing to address the concerns of member states. In April 2006, the European Commission issued a statement calling for better test protocols and more research into the long-term effects of GMOs. The European Council has also repeatedly voiced concerns about EFSA's work. EFSA's recommendations on GMOs have never achieved formal backing by the required two-thirds majority of EU member states. No long-term human health studies prove GM foods are safe, and a recent study found that one variety of GM animal feed widely sold to Irish farmers causes liver and kidney damage to laboratory animals.

GM animal feed

Following surveys which found that most EU consumers also do not want to eat GM-fed animal products, more and more leading EU retailers are now extending their previous bans on GM food to also exclude or restrict meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients (see box below). In response to consumer demand, Irish farmers should therefore phase out the use of GM animal feed as soon as possible.

In February 2007, a petition signed by one million EU citizens called on the Commission to require mandatory labelling for such produce because of citizens' right to information, a fundamental right in the European Union. The petition was delivered to the EC Health and Consumer Affairs Commissioner Markos Kyprianou, who said "it shows strong interest in the issue on the part of EU citizens, who are increasingly concerned about food safety, the quality of food and the use of GMOs in the food chain". Food producers, retailers, restaurateurs and consumers are increasingly alarmed by the growing volumes of illegal and/or toxic GM ingredients which have entered the Irish food chain three or four times in the past few years, including illegal and unlabelled GM rice sold in supermarkets and served in restaurants, and illegal and/or toxic GM animal feed, of which 12,000 tonnes entered the EU market through Dublin port in a single shipment in April 2007, including 5,313 tonnes which appears to have been sold to farmers even though it was reported to cause liver and kidney damage in mammals.

This alarm is exacerbated by open-air experiments with GM "pharma crops" underway in the USA and Germany. These crops are genetically modified to produce industrial chemicals, biofuels and drugs whose contamination of the food chain is clearly unacceptable. Cross-contamination of food from GM biofuel crops (especially GM oilseed rape) is the most immediate threat for Ireland.

Availability of GM-free soya and maize

Unlike most EU countries which practice factory farming, Ireland is renowned for the superior taste of its grass-fed beef, lamb and dairy produce, produced with minimal use of animal feed compounds. The two most important animal feed ingredients imported here are soy meal (mostly from Argentina and Brazil, to boost protein levels), along with maize gluten and distillers grain (for energy), mostly from the USA. Currently, 95% of these imported soy and maize products are genetically modified.

Regarding soya, official representatives of the IFA, ICMSA, ICSA and the National Beef Association (NI) met recently in Co Wicklow with IMCOPA, Brazil's largest exporter of certified non-GMO soya meal, to discuss the option of phasing out GM soya meal. IMCOPA said it can easily supply all of Ireland's needs for non-GMO soya (certified at the very low 0.1% detection threshold), for a premium of about 0.01/kg (1 cent) above the daily commodity price set by the Chicago Board of Trade. This premium includes the costs of shipping to any port in Ireland. Problem solved!

Regarding maize gluten and distiller's grains, the vast majority of the EU maize crop continues to be GM free, with an overall surplus of GM-free maize available from Hungary. But GM experiments in some parts of Spain and France have already contaminated neighbouring farms (despite EC assurances that GM crops can safely "co-exist" with their conventional and organic counterparts). This could turn into an irreversible disaster if Monsanto succeeds in its goal to patent, genetically modify – and thus secure monopoly control of 100% of the EU maize crop within a few years. In the USA, half the maize crop remains GM free, and transportation costs often make it cheaper to import maize to Ireland from America than Southern Europe. However, cheap US maize feed imports may soon become a thing of the past because of peak oil and the massive diversion of US maize for biofuel use.

The Government should therefore foster greater European and Irish self-reliance for the production of maize and other energy-rich animal feed crop substitutes. We should encourage southern European countries which have not already done so to ban the cultivation of GM maize, and support a diversification of Irish agriculture to include more tillage for the production of rolled oats and barley, which would benefit rural communities with more jobs and also protect our biodiversity and food security.

But with the massive diversion of the US maize crop into biofuel, and peak oil expected to drive the costs of chemical farm inputs and transportation rapidly upwards, Ireland will need to produce most of our own animal feed to guarantee our food security, food sovereignty and farming future. The resulting diversification and increased tillage and local food production will boost local economies and keep food affordable.

Value-added production

The shift to GM-free animal feed is a significant market trend which Irish farmers should follow closely.

The GMO-Free World Summit on Diversity will take place May 12-16, 2008 in Bonn, Germany.

And the European Network of GMO-free Regions, which currently includes 39 EU Regional Governments in six member states, will host a conference on "Non-GM feedstuff, Quality Production and European Regional Agriculture Strategies" at the European Parliament on December 5-6, 2007.

Over ten regions in Austria, France, Italy, and Spain have already committed themselves to this approach. Preliminary meetings have been held with the EC, the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions, AER, CRPM, AREPO, COPA-COGECA and with Brazilian players of the entire sector, and the project is going full steam ahead. The European Commission's Directorates-General for Agriculture, Health and Consumer Protection, Development and Trade have also agreed to participate.

The EU Network of GM-free Regions is phasing out GM animal feed to provide value-added production, to preserve competitive and high-quality agriculture in the context of the globalisation of food markets, and thus boost the sustainability of local rural communities. These regional governments are demanding a special status for quality agriculture which recognises its role in space management, environmental protection, and the strengthening of local communities, and wants all the European Regions to support this strategy in the mid-term review of the CAP in 2008 and its revision in 2013.

Misinformation

Given the vast profits which giant agribusiness-biotech corporations intend to secure by genetically modifying and patenting the world's agricultural seeds and livestock, it is no surprise that the public relations companies and spin doctors they employ in the Irish media are hard at work, even resorting to forged letters, "shoot the messenger" techniques, and scare-mongering with all sorts of incredible claims.

Having failed to convince European farmers and consumers that GM crops are more nutritious, have higher yields, require less chemicals, or will end world hunger, their current strategy – called Public Perception Management – now aims to convince us that nothing can be done to prevent the GMO invasion in general, and that there is no alternative to the use of GM animal feed in particular. The scale of this deception echoes the fraudulent claims about the non-existent "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. Just because you believe something does not make it true.

The simple reality is that certified GM-free feed is available, and that the minimal extra costs involved can be recouped by the higher premia already provided by leading European retailers. Irish producers and exporters of live cattle, beef and dairy produce who use certified non-GMO feed are already securing these premia in the export markets.

Foreign direct investment

Declaring the whole island of Ireland a GMO-free zone is also likely to attract foreign direct investment from international agricultural seed developers looking for a safe haven for the production and conservation of certified non-GMO varieties of cereals, vegetables and fruit. Instead of attempting to win an impossible competition for the production of low quality GM-fed beef with countries with cheap labour like Brazil, Ireland's economic advantage clearly lies in the production of the high-quality, safe GM free produce which the markets demand.

Our green image, mostly grass-fed livestock, and geographical isolation give us an invaluable head-start in this regard. Keeping Ireland GM-free is good for business.

--------

More and more retailers move towards excluding meat and dairy produce
from livestock fed on GM ingredients

SOME of the EU retailers who exclude or restrict meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients:

IRELAND:

All of Marks & Spencer's fresh meat and poultry, salmon, shell eggs and fresh milk comes from animals fed on a non-GM diet. The Kepak Group, which controls 60% of Irish beef exports, requires some farmers who produce meat for its flagship KK Club brand to exclude the use of GM animal feed.

All Kepak's chicken meat comes from birds reared on a vegetarian, non-GMO diet. The Silver Pail Dairy in Co Cork has signed multi-million euro foreign direct investment deals with Baskin Robbins (the world's largest ice-cream retailer) and with Ben & Gerry's, to produce GM-free ice cream (made from milk from cows fed a certified non-GMO diet) for the European market.

TLT International in Mullingar exports non GMO-fed live store cattle yearly, mostly to Northern Italy.

All Irish organic meat and dairy producers avoid use of GM animal feed, including Glenisk which recently secured € 5m in foreign direct investment to expand its EU market share.

UK:

Tesco, Sainsburys, M&S and Budgen Stores all have quality labels for meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on certified GM-free animal feed. All of Marks & Spencer's fresh meat and poultry, salmon, shell eggs and fresh milk comes from animals fed on non-GM diet. Moreover, standard poultry sold in most UK supermarkets now carries a label certifying GM-free feed.

The UK has over 40 GMO-free zones, including Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall.

GERMANY:

Most retailers avoid GM-labelled food. A well-known leading supermarket chain is expected to exclude meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients later this year. A second leading retailer is considering the same, beginning with pork meat, but for reasons of corporate social responsibility, rather than marketing.

ITALY:

The largest retailer, Coop Italia, already has a quality label for meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on certified GM-free animal feed. GM crops are banned in most Italian regions, including Tuscany where anyone found growing GM crops faces two years in prison or a € 50,000 fine.

FRANCE:

Carrefour, Cora, Auchan and Monoprix all have quality labels for meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on certified GM-free animal feed. GM crops are banned by many regions and local authorities.

SWITZERLAND:

The two largest retailers, Migros and Coop, systematically ban all GM food – including meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM feed – in their supermarket brands. Following a national referendum, the Swiss government implemented a five-year moratorium on GM crops and livestock in 2006.

POLAND:

Europe's largest agricultural producer has imposed a total ban on GM crops, and also plans to prohibit GM feed by 2008 unless it is scientifically proven to be safe. Farmers have imported certified non-GMO soya since 2006 for their pork meat bound for the German market.

_______________________

Ireland: Greens mean business

The Irish Times, 26 July 2007. By Mary Raftery.

The Green Pary is nothing if not interesting, particularly in the midst of its current maelstrom of activity. One might almost be forgiven for believing that the Greens are running the whole show at the moment.

The Party has come a long way since its dislike of having leaders or personality-based politics. Suggestions based on Buddhist principles (such as that made apparently some yars ago) that their party political election broadcasts should consist of two minutes of silence are unlikely to surface in the new lean, mean, green machine. Their relatively recent political naïveté, or even eccentricity, may well have led many to believe that they would crumble when confronted with the real world of hard decisions and unpleasant compromise inevitably associated with government and even more so with coalition administrations.

However, so far the Greens have displayed considerable steel. Minister for the Environment John Gormley's shot across the bows of Monaghan County Council on the rezoning issue is likely to send shock waves through every local authority in the land.

Employing a little-used section of the 2000 Planning Act, Gormley has instructed the Monaghan Council to rescind no fewer than 29 of the rezonings it had included, against professional planning advice, in the latest development plan for the region.

It is a long overdue signal that wild and wilful behaviour from councils will not longer be tolerated, and that rezonings should follow the principles of good planning as laid out by the various strategies for national development.

There will doubtless be those who will argue that the Minister's action constitutes a gross interference in local democracy and in the rights of local politicians to represent their communities. However, it has become abundantly clear over past decades that the repeated practice of rezoning vast swathes of land for development, often against planning advice and even commons sense, has had a profoundly negative effect on many communities. If the Minister can act to root this out, he will in fact have enhanced the fundamental principles of local democracy by redressing the balance betwee the needs of communities and the profits of developers.

The other issue which the Greens have faced up to squarely is that of GMOs, or genetically modified organisms. The Green Party has always wanted Ireland to be a GM-free zone. It is suspicious of food which has been genetically modified, arguing that it has not been proven to be free of possible health risks.

However, it is almost impossible to prove beyond doubt that anything is risk free. What the bulk of science in the area tells us at present is that there is no evidence that GM foods are unsafe. All of which means that the debate over GM or not GM is likely to rage around Europe for the foreseeable future. I say Europe here, as this is the region of the world where there is the most pronounced consumer resistance to GM foods. So strong is the hostility, in fact, that major European food brands have declared themselves GM-free.

In Ireland we have (as is our wont) lived quite happily with a comfortable and unthreatening fudge. While Fianna Fáil was vehemently anti-GM 10 years ago, this has changed of late to the point where the previous government officially described its attitude to GM as "positive but precautionary". What this seems to have meant in practice was an expectation that Ireland would almost automatically support measures at EU level to free up access for GM products across Europe.

But no longer. The Green Party, with two key ministries in this area (Environment and Food), has begun to make its weight felt with can only be described as a seismic shift in government policy. Over the past six weeks, the new Government has twice indicated at European level hat it now strongly opposes GMOs in all food, including animal feed. At the EU Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, Trevor Sargent abstained in a vote on GM animal feed ingredient called Herculex which continues to be banned. And John Gormley moved to support Austria, a firmly anti-GM country, at a recent EU meeting.

Any move to shut down the use of GM-based animal feeds will have enormous financial implications for the Irish beef, dairy, pig and poultry sectors, which have a substantial reliance on these products. However, leaving things as they are may have equally negative economic consequences should the EU move to introduce mandatory labelling of all meat and dairy produce from GM-fed animals – something which is also Green Party policy.

While Ireland as a country likes to market itself as green and clean, the reality is often somewhat different. The current Green Party focus on GM foods, whether for humans or animals, may finally make us confront at least some of the contraditions we usually manage to live with so smugly.

GMO Zero Tolerance Devastating For EU Livestock Feed

ThePigSite, 26 July 2007.

EU - Coceral, the European grain and feedstuffs traders and Fefac, the EU compound feed manufacturers have welcomed the new EU Commission report on the economic impact of unapproved GMOs.

The report concludes that there is a "need to take urgent action to avoid negative implications for EU livestock production and agriculture overall".

JeanMichel Aspar, Coceral President, stated that "the present strict zero-tolerance policy of the EU is disproportionate and will lead to a complete halt of vital feed supplies from South and North-America, as no trading company will bear the risk of guaranteeing absence of traces of GMOs approved in some third countries but not yet in the EU".

He stressed that "the EU is totally dependant on soybean meal imports as major source of vegetable proteins, for which no substitutes are available in sufficient quantities on EU or world markets".

Major feed cost increase

Pedro Corrê.a de Barros, Fefac President, stressed that the current de-facto import ban for corn gluten feed will increase feed costs to the EU livestock industry by another € 60-90 million at a time of record-high feed grain prices.

He pointed out that "a similar ban on soybean meal imports will have devastating consequences for European livestock producers, wiping out entire pig and poultry production chains in the EU Safeguard viable livestock industry

Coceral and Fefac have therefore called on the EU Farm Council to safeguard a viable livestock industry in the European Union, which accounts for 40% of the farm revenues, by ensuring reliable access to vital feed material imports.

As demonstrated in the DG-AGRI study, the "CAP Health check" objectives of a more competitive and sustainable EU agriculture cannot be achieved unless solutions are found to address the issue of unapproved GMOs.

Toolbox ingredients

Coceral and Fefac take the view that a "toolbox" with the following key elements is necessary to re-establish normal trading patterns ensuring a regular supply of high-quality feed materials for the European livestock industry:

* aligning the speed of the GMO authorisation procedure between the EU and the major exporting countries;

* a risk proportionate, workable tolerance for the low level presence of products that have obtained a positive EFSA opinion or have been approved by another OECD country to be present in cargoes of traded feed materials.

Comment by GM-free Ireland

The "new EU Commission report" (Economic Impact of Unapproved GMOs on EU Feed and Livestock Production) mentioned above clearly features a prominent disclaimer indicating it does not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission. It was in fact published by DG Agriculture, not the Commission!

The Irish Farmers Journal article of 30 June "Why GM feed issue could be costly for Ireland" (by its News Editor Pat OíKeefe), also falsely described the report in the same way.

The claim that a ban on GM soymeal would "wipe out the entire pig and poultry production chains" in Europe is rubbish, since certified non-GMO soya is widely available, inter alia, from Brazil.

The description of GM animal feed ingredients as "high quality" is totally misleading, since the European-wide move to quality agriculture specifically rejects GM ingredients as well as meat, poultry and livestock derived therefrom.

25 July 2007

USA: Monsanto loses claims for Roundup Ready genes

Commercial Appeal, July 25 2007. By Jane Roberts.

For the second time in five months, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected patents key to Monsanto's dominance in bioengineered seed, casting suspicion on its science and weakening the argument that helped the company prevail in dozens of lawsuits against farmers.

Tuesday, the Public Patent Foundation said that the U.S. patent office sided with it in its case against Monsanto, saying at least four patents should not have been granted because the gene technology was either not new or so obvious it wouldn't require patenting.

"This is a significant decision," said Daniel Ravicher, executive director of the Washington nonprofit that is focused on rooting out undeserved patents and unsound patent policy. "Monsanto would be much more pleased if the patent office had found the patents were valid.

"Instead, it found that every single claim is undeserved and invalid," he said. "It couldn't be going better for our challenge."

Monsanto dismissed the findings, saying rejection is a standard part of any patent re-examination process and that it plans to ask for a reconsideration.

"Our commercial products are covered by multiple patents that are not the subject of this re-examination," said Lee Quarles, spokesman. "This poses no threat to our business or our ability to deliver innovative technologies to farmers."

Opponents disagree, saying Monsanto has profited handsomely because the patents allow it to charge inflated prices for seed. They also say Monsanto has used its dominance to bully farmers into submission through a series of high-profile lawsuits that made examples of people who saved the patented seed for replanting.

"Monsanto is the only company I know of that is suing individual farmers and putting them out of business," Ravicher said.

Monsanto has 60 days to ask for a reconsideration or reduce the breadth of the patents.

The patents in question are part of its Roundup Ready arsenal, a series of genes it patented to make crops immune to the herbicide.

With the modified seed, farmers can spray Roundup over their crops and kill the weeds but not the crop.

The American Seed Trade Association says companies have every right to defend intellectual property. In this case, it's the brainpower that helps farmers produce better yields or provides solutions to reduce the impact of factors they cannot control, including drought.

Monsanto says hundreds of thousands of farmers across the globe rely on the company for breakthroughs that help reduce the cost of raising a crop and the deleterious affects of chemicals on the environment.

"Intellectual property is important because it encourages continuous innovation in an industry, regardless if you're on the farm or reading the newspaper or sitting at your computer," Quarles said.

Monsanto introduced the trait first in cotton in 1997. By 2000, a majority of cotton farmers in the Mid-South were using its genetically altered seed because it vastly reduced fuel and the use of other chemicals. It also saved them time and reduced soil compaction, making the choice hardly a choice at all.

The lawsuits followed shortly later, including cases against Mitchell Scruggs, a farmer in Saltillo, Miss., and Homan McFarling, who farms near Pontotoc, Miss.

Both were charged with saving the patented seed for resale or use on their own farms. In other cases, Monsanto sued farmers after wind blew the genetically altered seed into their fields.

With the patents now in question, attorney Jim Waide of Waide & Associates in Tupelo, Miss., expects the outcomes could be very different.

"Logically, I would think the judgment is void if the patent is void," he said after talking with his clients.

In the midst of the Scruggs case, Monsanto withdrew patent No. 435 because it was generating public scrutiny, he said, and began relying more on No. 605. That patent is now among the four rejected patents, although Monsanto did alter No. 435 enough to get reapproved.

The Public Patent Foundation mounted its campaign against the company last fall, it said, after watching farmers across the country lose suits.

In early March, it celebrated its first victory when the U.S. patent office rejected the first patent. Other rejections followed May 31, June 4 and July 17.

"This poses a real serious challenge to Monsanto's intellectual property position on Roundup Ready crops," said Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety in Washington.

He says the standards for issuing patents need stricter scrutiny, especially in molecular biology where the rush to capitalize on genetic breakthroughs leaves companies rushing to patent whole gene sequences before they know how useful they are.

The problem, he said, is that it takes a lot of resources to mount a credible challenge because the patents are extremely technical.

"We need folks to become aware that patents are being granted that are illegitimate," Freese said. "And how many more does Monsanto hold?"

Monsanto facts

Address: 800 North Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis
Employees: 17,000
Maker of Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide
Bought Delta and Pine Land cotton breeders this spring for $1.5 billion
Jane Roberts: 529-2512

USA: Companies really know beans about moving genes

News Leader, July 25 2007. By Don Maroc.

The transnational seed, pesticide, and drug corporations have known for five or 10 years that the scientific foundation on which genetic engineering is built is false, but with billions of dollars riding on it they, with the support of our governments, continue to mislead us.

In 1956, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, posited his central dogma of molecular biology, that each gene in the human genome contained the code to construct one protein that contributed one characteristic to a human. An article published by a large group of scientists in the journal Nature (June 14 2007), exposes this as wrong.

For years, independent scientists like Barry Commoner, Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho have repeatedly pointed this out, only to be ridiculed and attacked by the powerful public relations enforcers for the multi-national corporations.

For two decades Monsanto, Bayer, Dupont and Syngenta have told us genetic engineering (GE) is a precise technology. When their scientists insert a bacterial gene into a corn seed they know exactly how it will operate in its new genome. They have always said that a majority of genes serve no function. They called them junk DNA.

Sorry guys, the new, overwhelming evidence says the only junk is the propaganda you have been feeding us. The collective work of 80 organizations worldwide states conclusively that, "the findings challenge the traditional view of our genetic blueprint as a tidy collection of independent genes, pointing instead to a complex network in which genes, along with regulatory elements and other types of DNA sequences that do not code for proteins, interact in overlapping ways not yet fully understood."

When scientists in their understated way say human genetics functions in ways "not yet fully understood", they are really saying they don't know beans about what they've been doing moving genes between animals, fish, bacteria, viruses, and plants.

Any undergraduate biology student can now insert new foreign genes in the plants that provide our food. But neither the student nor the professor, nor the biotech corporation technologists, nor the government scientists have any idea what might result from the forceful invasion of the foreign gene.

Of course there is no way to determine whether the inserted gene (in corn, soybeans, canola, and cotton) caused any human malady, triggered allergic reactions, or set up conditions for cancer, because products containing genetically modified organisms are not labelled.

They are often not allowed to be labelled. When an organic grain processing company tried to label their breakfast cereals as "non-GMO" the supermarket told them to take it off the label or take their products out of the store.

In addition GMO and non-GMO grains are freely mixed at the grain elevators. You never know what you are getting, and market experts say that 60 to 70 per cent of all products in your supermarket contain GMOs.

You want to avoid feeding yourself and your kids GMOs? Eat no processed foods containing corn, soybeans, canola, or cottonseed oil, unless it is certified organic.

Got a tip or a comment? E-mail me at maroc@islandnet.com.

Cyprus Greens angry at GMO law shelved

Reuters, 25 July 2007.

NICOSIA, July 25 (Reuters) - Environmental campaigners in Cyprus accused the government of yielding to American influence on Wednesday by refusing to endorse ground-breaking legislation forcing retailers to segregate GMO food.

President Tassos Papadopoulos has referred the law, passed by parliament on June 14, to the Supreme Court, effectively freezing its application until the court convenes to assess its legality. That is not expected to occur before the autumn.

"The only way the law can be applied immediately is if the president withdraws his petition to the Supreme Court," Greens Party spokeswoman Ioanna Panayiotou said.

The law, a first in an EU member state, obliges retail outlets to separate food with a genetically modified content of more than 0.9 percent on separate shelves.

The United States, a pioneer of biotechnology, warned Cyprus in 2005 that the move could contravene Cyprus's obligations as a World Trade Organisation member, and harm bilateral ties.

"This is being done to meet the demands of Americans. Is our government merely an intermediary of American interests?" the Greens Party said in a statement.

The Greens Party supported Papadopoulos's bid for election in 2003. Papadopoulos is seeking re-election next year.

Under the present centre-left administration it has been rare for the presidency to exercise its right to refer parliamentary legislation to the Supreme Court, Panayiotou said.

"Certainly it's the first time a law concerning food safety is referred to court," she said. The Supreme Court was expected to issue a judgment on the validity of the law by autumn, she added.

Papadopoulos's referral letter, seen by Reuters, says the procedure for the adoption of the legislation, and elements of the legislation itself, could be an infringement of European Union regulations.

European consumers are generally suspicious of genetically modified products, fearing health and environment risks.

Advocates of biotechnology insist GMO products are safe and will help eradicate world hunger by improving food supply.

New Zealand: Responsiblity for GE clean ups would land on local government and local land owners

Whangarei District Counci Press Release, 25 July 2007.

Central Government has recently confirmed that responsibility and costs fall onto local government and local land owners if genetically engineered crops contaminate natural crops or the environment and have to be cleaned up.

A letter from the Minister for the Environment indicates that when or if contamination occurs it will be the person affected by the "pollution" not the "polluter" who will pay.

These concerns have been raised by a group of councils worried about their vulnerability on behalf of ratepayers generally, as a result of the way Hazardous Substances and New Oganisms (HSNO) Act has been written.

"Until now Government had not clarified that we would be the ones carrying the can, even though that is clearly the way the act is written," said working party member, retiring Whangarei District Councillor Robin Lieffering.

"Finally they have agreed that local councils do have a duty of care under their Resource Management Act responsibilities."

Councillor Lieffering was reporting back to Whangarei District Council on the outcome of a letter to the Minister from the Inter-council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options (comprising the Whangarei, Far North, Kaipara and Rodney District Councils, the Waitakere and Auckland City Councils, along with the Northland Regional Council).

The group met recently to discuss the Minister for the Environment, the Hon David Benson-Pope, response to a letter sent to the Government by the Working Party late last year. The letter outlined a number of concerns held by councils on the Working Party regarding possible future land uses involving genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the Northland/Auckland regions.

The Working Party resolved at its meeting to invite both the Auckland Regional Council and North Shore City Council to join the Working Party and to seek support from Local Government New Zealand, before lobbying Central Government at a higher political level within the Working Party. Auckland Regional Council has accepted the invitation and is now a full member.

It was felt within the Working party that by demonstrating to Central Government the growing dissatisfaction within local government throughout New Zealand to the present legislation regulating GMOs, particularly in relation to liability, Central Government could be persuaded to work with local government to accommodate their concerns.

These concerns include questions over liability for possible harm caused to the environment and potential costs arising from GMO land uses to both existing land users and local authorities. Under the liability provisions in the HSNO Act, existing land users face potential financial loss from contamination (or perceived contamination) of non-genetically modified produce, whilst councils face possible clean up costs for harm or threatened harm to the environment.

The response by the Minister for the Environment was extremely disappointing, according to Dr Kerry Grundy, chairperson and coordinator of the Inter-council Working Party. The response did not alleviate the concerns raised by the Working Party. Indeed, the Minister's letter made it clear that Central Government has no intention at this time to amend the HSNO Act to incorporate local government concerns.

In particular, and of most concern to those councils on the Working Party, no changes are to be made to improve the liability provisions of the legislation. This means that if a GMO release is in accord with an approval from the national regulator ERMA, and subsequent damage arises to either existing land users or to the environment, the costs will lie with the adversely affected parties, and in regard to the environment, with local councils.

The Bio-tech companies, who develop the technology and the parties releasing the GMOs, will not be liable for costs arising from harm caused to other land users or to the environment. This, according to Dr Grundy, is patently unfair and not in accord with the concept of natural justice nor with the polluter pays principle.

A proposed community consultation programme, including a telephone poll of residents, to gauge community support for local and/or regional regulation of GMO land uses under the Resource Management Act has been re-scheduled until after the October local body elections to allow time for further lobbying of Central Government.

24 July 2007

USA: Nerve gas antidote made by goats

BBC News, 24 July 2007

Scientists have genetically modified goats to make a drug in their milk that protects against deadly nerve agents such as sarin and VX.

These poisons are known collectively as organophosphates - a group of chemicals that also includes some pesticides used in farming.

So far, the GM goats have made almost 15kg of a drug which binds to and neutralises organophosphate molecules.

Details appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.

The drug, called recombinant butyrylcholinesterase, could be used as a protective "prophylactic" drug and also to treat people after exposure to nerve gas.

The US Department of Defense is funding the development effort by biotech firm PharmAthene to the tune of $213m (GBP105m).

It regards the drug as a promising way to protect its troops against exposure to nerve agents on the battlefield.

Butyrylcholinesterase could also be stockpiled for use in the event of a terrorist attack on a city with chemical weapons.

It is an enzyme that is made in small quantities by the human body.

The compound can be purified from blood, but the yields are poor.

However, the team at PharmAthene has been able to produce butyrylcholinesterase in large, commercial quantities and, the company says, at a reasonable cost.

Tough task

"It is a very difficult molecule to produce. There is a long history of people trying to produce this in everything from insects to yeast to bacteria and mammalian cells," said Dr Solomon Langermann of PharmAthene, a co-author on the PNAS paper.

"None of them has been able to produce anything beyond milligram amounts. In the goat, we can make two or three grams per litre."

The researchers inserted DNA for making the human form of butyrylcholinesterase into a "vector" molecule. This vector is then introduced into a goat embryo.

This allows the human gene to be incorporated into the goat's DNA sequence. The resulting female animals, all healthy, produced large quantities of butyrylcholinesterase in their milk.

The high yields are partly down to "control elements" - stretches of DNA added, along with the human gene, to the vector molecule.

These control elements regulate how much of the enzyme the goat produces and ensure that most of it is produced in the milk, rather than in other tissues.

Safety trial

Once the enzyme was purified from milk, the scientists injected it into guinea pigs, and saw that it remained active in the bloodstream.

The commercial name given to the butyrylcholinesterase enzyme is Protexia.

Dr Langermann said that Protexia was more effective than the combination of the drugs atropine and 2-PAM currently carried by soldiers for protection against nerve agents.

"Those (older) drugs get cleared from the blood very rapidly. Even if the soldier were to survive, they would have very severe neurological damage," he told BBC News.

"With Protexia, you would survive and be able to go back on the battlefield."

It is also effective against a variety of different organophosphate poisons.

The product is still several years from entering use; it needs to pass a safety trial and seek approvals from the US government.

A Genetically Modified Potato, Not for Eating, Is Stirring Some Opposition in Europe

New York Times, July 24 2007. Elisabeth Rosenthal.

Limburgerhof, Germany - When Timo Bohme, a plant scientist, pulls up the cluster of dirt-encrusted potatoes from a tidy field here, he cradles them like a precious baby. For his employer, the German chemical giant BASF, these unassuming golden orbs, called Amflora potatoes, are the culmination of nearly 20 years of research and hold the promise of immense future profits. But not just yet.

Amflora potatoes, likely to become the first genetically modified crop in the last decade to be approved for growth in Europe, have become the unlikely lightning rod in the angry debate over such products on the Continent.

The European Commission now says it will approve the potato "probably this fall," even though European ministers have twice been deadlocked on approval over the last eight months, with only a minority voting in favor. According to European Union procedures, "the ministers have not been able to take a decision, so we will have to reaffirm our earlier opinion to recommend it," said Barbara Helferrich, spokeswoman for the European Commission's Environment Directorate.

But European environmental groups are critical of Amflora potatoes, saying they could release dangerous genes into the environment. Approving Amflora would make "a mockery of E.U. law," said Marco Contiero, an expert on genetically modified organisms at Greenpeace in Brussels.

Still, perhaps the biggest hurdle for Amflora is the visceral popular reaction against genetically modified crops on a continent whose food culture is ancient and treasured.

"I just don't like the idea," said Monika Stahl, 31, waiting for a bus with a sack of fresh vegetables in Mannheim, just 12 miles from the Amflora field. "I worry about safe food and about the environment. I have children and worry about them."

In one sense, the irony is that Amflora is not a food at all. Although it looks, feels and smells like any other potato, each one is actually a genetically engineered factory for amylopectin, a starch used to make glossy paper coatings, clothing finishes and adhesive cement.

Normal potatoes combine amylopectin and amylose; the gene for amylose is turned off in Amflora potatoes, which taste terrible, and will never be turned into French fries or a potato salad.

"You would think that this approval would have been easy since this potato has no seeds, no wild relatives to cross with in Europe, and only industrial use," said Ralf-Michael Schmidt, vice president of BASF. "But it didn't turn out that way."

Only 1 percent of the world's genetically modified food is grown in Europe. In contrast, 55 percent of the worldís acreage in genetically modified crops is in the United States. From 1998 to 2004, the European Union had a moratorium on the approval of new genetically modified crops and food, so experts could study the risks involved. Under pressure from the World Trade Organization and the United States, that was lifted.

The European Commission has been under enormous pressure to open its doors to crops like this ever since a W.T.O. decision in 2006 that made banning genetically modified crops tantamount to an illegal trade barrier.

But if the approval process for industrial Amflora has proved a challenge - BASF first filed an application to grow the potatoes in 1994 - the road will certainly be far more arduous for other planned genetically modified crops because they do involve plants intended for food or animal feed. "That will be a much tougher sell," Ms. Helferrich said. Indeed, BASF has a second application for Amflora pending that would allow the potato residue after starch extraction to be used as animal feed.

Even Germany, which has favored the approval of Amflora for industrial use, would not support that application, said Wolfgang Kohler, head of the unit for gene technology at the German Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection. He said: "I'm very doubtful we could vote in favor for food and feed because of fears about transmission" of genes into the environment or food supply.

He noted that more than 70 percent of Germans say they do not want genetically modified organisms, or G.M.O.'s, in their food and the German food industry "does everything it can to avoid using this stuff."

Polls by the European Commission have shown that 80 percent to 90 percent of Europeans distrust genetically modified plants. "We can authorize as many crops as we want, but the bigger problem is to convince people they are safe," Ms. Helferrich said.

In the United States, where genetically modified crops have been grown widely for more than a decade, approvals are left to expert agencies. But in the European Union - where voters and politicians are more passionate about food - such approvals involve a more democratic process.

On a crop-by-crop basis, the scientific recommendations of the European Food Safety Agency are voted on by ministers from the 27 member states. Approvals bounce back and forth and ultimately arrive at the European Commission in Brussels when member states cannot agree.

"As a scientist I have a hard time understanding it, but this is how Europe has chosen to make these decisions," said Susanne Benner, communications director at BASF. "But it's hard when you see an innovative product go through the loops again and again. These decisions are not about science but about politics."

In February 2006, a scientific review by the European Food Safety Agency concluded that planting Amflora to make starch posed no more risk than planting an ordinary potato. Based on that opinion, Europe's administrative governing body, the European Commission, recommended approval and passed the application to the Council of Ministers, where it has been voted on twice, first by a council of experts from member states in December and again on Monday by European agriculture ministers. Approval requires a 74 percent majority.

But the two votes were inconclusive, with a huge number of countries abstaining on a decision that is a political minefield. The voting is anonymous, but some information leaked out: In the second vote, the agriculture ministers of Italy, Ireland and Austria voted no; Germany and Belgium said yes; and France and Bulgaria abstained.

"These are elected politicians and they have to face the general unease at home about G.M.O.'s," said a European Union official who asked not to be identified because of the delicacy of the issue. "They are passing the buck to the commission, which is between a rock and a hard place on this issue."

Many experts and even some of Europeís environment ministers continue to dispute the European food agencyís scientific opinion that Amflora is safe for cultivation. One concern is that it contains a gene for antibiotic resistance that could get out of the potato and into the environment, making bacteria that infect man and beast more difficult to treat.

The European Food Safety Agency concluded that this was unlikely given the closed system in which potato-based starch is produced. But a second dossier from BASF - one that received a positive review from the food safety agency, but has not yet come to a ministers' vote - involves using leftover Amflora pulp from starch production for animal feed.

"It is a fact that there will be contamination, given the volume of the industry," said Mr. Contiero of Greenpeace. "And if animals are eating pulp it certainly will end up in food. This is not just an opinion."

USA: Monsanto patents asserted against American farmers rejected by Patent Office:
PUBPAT Initiated Review Leads PTO to Find All Claims of All Four Patents Invalid

Public Patent Foundation, 24 July 2007.
http://www.pubpat.org/monsantorejections.htm

NEW YORK ‚ July 24, 2007 -- The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) announced today that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected four key Monsanto patents related to genetically modified crops that PUBPAT challenged last year because the agricultural giant is using them to harass, intimidate, sue - and in some cases literally bankrupt - American farmers. In its Office Actions rejecting each of the patents, the USPTO held that evidence submitted by PUBPAT, in addition to other prior art located by the Patent Office's Examiners, showed that Monsanto was not entitled to any of the patents.

Monsanto has filed dozens of patent infringement lawsuits asserting the four challenged patents against American farmers, many of whom are unable to hire adequate representation to defend themselves in court. The crime these farmers are accused of is nothing more than saving seed from one year's crop to replant the following year, something farmers have done since the beginning of time.

One study of the matter found that, "Monsanto has used heavy-handed investigations and ruthless prosecutions that have fundamentally changed the way many American farmers farm. The result has been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for centuries in this country and millennia around the world, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed." The lawsuits filed by Monsanto against American farmers include Monsanto Company v. Mitchell Scruggs, et al, 459 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006), Monsanto Company v. Kem Ralph individually, et al, 382 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Monsanto Company v. Homan McFarling, 363 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Although Monsanto has the opportunity to respond to the Patent Office's rejections of the patents (U.S. Patents Nos. 5,164,316, 5,196,525, 5,322,938 and 5,352,605), third party requests for re-examination, like the ones filed by PUBPAT against the four Monsanto patents, are successful in having the reviewed patents either changed or completely revoked more than two-thirds of the time.

"We are extremely pleased that the Patent Office has agreed with us that Monsanto does not deserve these patents that it has used to unfairly bully American farmers," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director. "Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end of the harm being caused to the public by Monsanto's aggressive assertion of these patents, which threatens family farms and a diverse American food supply."

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

The rejection of the US patents may not affect their validity in Europe. Until the EU Patent Office takes similar action against all GMO crop patents, European farmers who are contaminated are also liable to patent infringment lawsuits and the expropriation of their seeds and crops.

In a 9 March 2007 live television debate on RTE's Seoige & O'Sea programme, Monsanto Ireland CEO Dr. Patrick O'Reilly vehemently denied that Monsanto had ever filed, or threatened to file, patent infringement lawsuits against American farmers contaminated by Monsanto's GM seeds or crops. The above mentioned lawsuits are evidence of the contrary.

Related documents:

Monsanto extortion letter:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/exhibits/A.php

Speech by contaminated farmer Percy Schmeiser:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/pschmeiser.php

Interview with contaminated farmer Percy Schmeiser:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/interviews/schmeiser.php.

Comment from GM Watch:

More information, including copies of the Office Actions issued by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office rejecting the four Monsanto patents, can be found at PUBPAT > Monsanto Anti-Farmer Patents. http://www.pubpat.org/monsantovfarmers.htm.

Britain is GMO free again

Indymedia UK, 22 July 2007.

On the night of Friday the 6th of July, a group of activists converged on Britain's only GM trial site just outside Cambridge. They scaled the security fences and destroyed the crop of genetically modified potatoes.

This was the only crop of GM potatoes being grown in the UK, after the chemicals giant BASF abandoned plans for a GM potato trial in Yorkshire this year. There have been multiple protests at the Cambridge site [video] and at the Yorkshire site (where organic potatoes were planted [video]).

However BASF have permission lasting until 2011, so this may not be the end of the story ...

Background: GM back on agenda | sabotage promised | detailed talk report | audio interview re victory and protest 1st july

Campaign links: Mutatoes | Hedon Against GM | Cambridge GM Concern

The trials were the first GM crops to enter British soil in nearly 3 years, after public opposition forced a U-turn in government and corporate plans for patented crops. Although presented as an R&D trial into the effectiveness of an anti blight gene, they were widely considered to be trial of public opinion.

DEFRA initially gave approvalin December for BASF to undertake trials at two sites, one in Cambridgeshire (at the National Institute of Agriculture and Botany) and the other initially in Derbyshire - until the farmer pulled out. The Yorkshire site was then chosen, but the owner of that site pulled out after being approached about borage being grown nearby, with the consequence that the trial would affect locally produced honey.

In more recent news, the EU Agriculture Council failed to approve the commercial growing of the genetically modified potato. However, this means that the European Commission (which backed BASF's proposal) will take the final decision on whether to allow commercialisation of the potato. Approval was likely in the "coming months," the Commission said.

IMC'ista

Australia: Government Push Polls on GM crops and foods

Gene Ethics Media Release, July 23 2007

"The Australian government push-polled Australians on genetically manipulated (GM) crops and foods to dishonestly inflate support for GM in its latest survey," says Gene Ethics Director, Bob Phelps.

"It was unethical to falsely imply in the questionnaire that GM has solutions to key environmental problems when they do not exist now and are ten years from commercial reality, if ever," he says.

"Most citizens support genuine solutions to air and water pollution, climate change and salinity on farms, but GM food crops are not the answer to these problems and probably never will be," he says.

"Gene Ethics saw the draft questionnaire but Biotechnology Australia rejected our proposal that people be asked their opinions on the costs, risks and hazards of GM foods and crops, as well as their claimed benefits," he said,

"Biotech Australia again showed itself to be a government-funded pro-GM lobbyist that promotes the interests of foreign GM giants ahead of Australian farmers and shoppers," he says.

"Industry Minister Ian MacFarlane's comments were also designed to mislead the public by cherry-picking the survey results and ignoring their inconvenient truths," Mr Phelps says.

"For instance, the Minister ignored Figure 25 on 'willingness to eat GM foods' that shows an average rating of 8.2 out of 10 for organic foods and 6.1 for non-organic," he says.

"Food containing preservatives rated 5.2, with GM foods lower, depending on the kind of genetic manipulation involved," he says.

"Food from GM crops was 5.1 and meat from cloned animals was last, at 3.6," he says.

"Shifts in public acceptance of GM foods were the result of revised wording from the last survey two years ago," he says.

"It's undemocratic and unfair to mould public opinion using biased surveys to justify GM policies that are nothing short of mad," Mr Phelps concludes.

More comment: Bob Phelps 03 9347 4500 or 0408 195 099

Minister's statement at: http://minister.industry.gov.au/index.cfm?event=search.showForm

Reports at: http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/index.cfm?event=object.showContent
&objectID=DCE82A65-EBEE-A004-F1F274EB7E4B2577

------------

USA: Engineering acceptance of GM foods

International Food Information Council - profile

As part of its science-based remit IFIC commissions research into consumer attitudes. An area of repeated focus by the IFIC has been consumer acceptance of 'food biotechnology'. 'Since 1997, IFIC has provided the longest continuous series of publicly available surveys to determine how consumers feel about food biotechnology.'

The results of each annual survey are press released, attracting wide-scale media coverage. In 2002 IFIC reported, 'American consumer support for food biotechnology is holding steady, while specific benefits are resonating even more in the latest survey conducted for the International Food Information Council by Cogent Research in August 2002.' (SUPPORT FOR FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY HOLDS IN THE U.S., September 23, 2002 )

In 2003, IFIC reported, 'A growing majority of Americans support the benefits of food biotechnology as well as the US Food and Drug AdministrationÇs (FDA) labeling policy.'

The surveys were devised for the IFIC by Dr Thomas Hoban , Professor of Sociology and Food Science at North Carolina State University. Dr Hoban is a keen supporter of genetic engineering and is listed by CS Prakash as an AgBioWorld expert.

Hoban's publications include, 'Biotechnology is Here to Stay: American retailers need not worry about consumer acceptance of foods produced with modern biotechnology', and an outreach videotape, 'Biotechnology: It's Role in Your Future'.

Hoban's IFIC survey questions include:

'All things being equal, how likely would you be to buy a variety of produce, like tomatoes or potatoes, if it had been modified by biotechnology to taste better or fresher?'

'Biotechnology has also been used to enhance plants that yield foods like cooking oils. If cooking oil with reduced saturated fat made from these new plants was available, what effect would the use of biotechnology have on your decision to buy this cooking oil.'

According to Karen Charman in a PR Watch article on Hoban's IFIC surveys:

'James Beniger, a communications professor at the University of Southern California and past president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, reviewed the IFIC survey and said it is so biased with leading questions favoring positive responses that any results are meaningless. UCLA communications professor Michael Suman agreed, adding that the questions "only talk about the food tasting better, being fresher, protecting food from insect damage, reducing saturated fat and providing benefits. It's like saying 'Here's biotechnology, it does these great things for you, do you like it?'" '

The results might be different, Suman offers, if it contained questions biased in the other direction such as: 'Some people contend that some foods produced from biotechnology cause higher rates of cancer. If that is so, what effect would that have on your buying decision?'

------------

Controversy over claims in favour of GM corn

From issue 2553 of New Scientist magazine, 27 May 2006, page 7 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19025533.300&feedId=gm-food_rss20

A LEADING researcher into scientific ethics is calling for the withdrawal of a paper published in the British Food Journal two years ago purporting to show that consumers preferred genetically modified to non-GM sweetcorn. The study, carried out at a farm store in Canada, claimed that sales of the GM crop were 50 per cent higher. The journal later awarded the study a prize as its "most outstanding paper" of 2004.

Now the campaign group GMWatch has published a photograph that it says shows a large sign suspended above the non-GM corn during the study that asked: "Would you eat wormy sweetcorn?" The GM corn, it claims, was labelled as "quality sweetcorn". The paper (vol 105, p 700) claims that the corn was marked simply as either genetically engineered or regular.

If this is the case, "it is grounds for the journal to retract the article," says Richard Jennings, who studies research conduct at the University of Cambridge. Journal editor Chris Griffith of the University of Wales Institute in Cardiff has refused to withdraw the paper, but says he is willing to publish a letter condemning it followed by a response from the lead author, Doug Powell of Kansas State University.

[More on this research, and the photograph mentioned by New Scientist, at http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1 ]

------------

Comment on the three items above from GeneWatch

Here's the latest bit of dishonesty from the pro-GM putsch underway in Australia [item 1 above]. Similar efforts to skew attitudinal research studies have taken place elsewhere, for instance in the case of the widely reported annual consumer surveys of the International Food Information Council [item 2 above]. And then, of course, there's the infamous "Would you eat wormy sweet corn" research [item 3 above].

EXTRACTS: "It was unethical to falsely imply in the questionnaire that GM has solutions to key environmental problems when they do not exist now and are ten years from commercial reality, if ever." [item 1 above].

The results might be different, Suman offers, if [the survey] contained questions biased in the other direction such as: "Some people contend that some foods produced from biotechnology cause higher rates of cancer. If that is so, what effect would that have on your buying decision?" [item 2 above].

Comment from Louis Sales: Yep - what a complete joke! Before being asked how willing they were to eat GE food, survey participants were asked the following questions:

Q4. Now IÇm going to ask you about different objectives of genetically modifying plants to produce food. IÇd like you to tell me how valuable you feel these objectives are to individuals or society. Please tell me whether you think these objectives are very valuable, somewhat valuable, not very valuable or not at all valuable. So what about genetically modifying plants:

(i) to make the food healthier
(ii) to make the food last longer
(iii) to make the plants herbicide tolerant
(iv) to make the plants pest resistant
(v) to make the plants frost resistant
(vi) to make the plants mature more quickly
(vii) to make plants drought resistant
(viii) to make the food cheaper

Q6. Thinking about the environmental problems that society currently faces, would you be in favour of:
1) Using only natural or traditional methods of agriculture and environmental management OR
2) Pursuing only technologies made available through advances in gene technology OR
3) Pursuing all avenues available

Unbelievable! - well actually all too believable unfortunately...

22 July 2007

India: Conventional seeds, hybrids to ensure food security

Financial Express, July 22 2007. By Ashok B. Sharma.

New Delhi, Jul 22 - Scientists have said that immediate concerns over ensuring food security through increased yields can be easily met through use of available conventional seeds and hybrids. Attempts should be made to bridge the gap between the demonstrated yields of various crops and the actual yields in the farmers' fields, they said.

Increase in rice production can ensure food security to the growing population as a large section of India's population consumes it. Production in 2006-07 has been 92.76 million tonne, an increase of about one million tonne over the previous year. "We need to have a target for increasing rice production by 10 million tonne from the present level," said the noted rice breeder, EA Siddiq.

Siddiq, honorary chair professor in biotechnology in Acharya NG Ranga Agriculture University, Hyderabad said, "We can mange with our conventional varieties and hybrids to ensure food security. Transgenic crops developed so far do not increase the potential yield."

The national average yield of rice in the country is only 1.86 tonne per hectare, one of the lowest among major rice growing countries. Among states having average rice yields more than the national average are - Punjab with 3.89 tonne/ha, Haryana with 2.74 tonne/ha, West Bengal with 2.5 tonne/ha, Tamil Nadu with 2.3 tonne/ha and Kerala with 2.14 tonne/ha.

However, the ICAR assistant director general SN Shukla said that frontline demonstration of high yielding rice varieties (HYV) like Shanti showed a higher yield at 8.1 tonne/ha in village Ootalapally in Ranga Reddy district in Andhra Pradesh. Another HYV rice Krishahamsa showed a yield of 6.9 tonne/ha in Murcherla demonstration plot in Andhra Pradesh, while the HYV rice Triguna showed a yield of 5.59 tonne/ha in Andhra Pradesh in Sarloraopally village in Andhra Pradesh. The check variety Tella hamsa also showed a higher yield of 5.9 tonne/ha in village Murcherla. Trials of hybrid rice show yields ranging from 5.3 to 9.26 tonne/ha

Anti-GM demonstrators invade German maize field

Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa), July 22 2007

Altreetz, Germany - German police arrested dozens of militant protesters who invaded a field of genetically modified maize Sunday in defiance of a court order.

Anja Becker, a spokeswoman for the protesters, said they wrecked about 15,000 square metres of crop in the demonstration which had been planned and announced weeks ago.

A police helicopter and 570 officers were waiting for the group near Altreetz, close to Germany's Polish border. A no-trespassing order had been issued by a court in the nearby city of Frankfurt-an-der-Oder.

Both police and protesters said nobody was hurt in the melee as the demonstrators kicked over and tore up plants.

The anti-GM group objects to the planting of a maize variety which has been genetically modified by Monsanto, the US seed company, to contain a toxin against European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis).

GM opponents claim the transgenic maize could kill other insects as well and damage the environment. Maize is grown in Germany as an oil plant or as animal feed.

India: Not Cottoning On

Business Standard, July 22 2007. By Sreelatha Menon.

New Delhi -- The government seems to be oblivious to the farmers paying with their lives to learn about cotton farming in the times of open market.

Ask any US expert about suicides by cotton farmers in India, and you would find his innocence touching. There is no linkage between cotton and suicides, you will be told. Cheap subsidised US cotton has nothing to do with the deaths in Vidarbha. In any case, farmers are off cotton here. In Vidarbha, farmers are turning to soya, while in Punjab, where the Bt cotton crop has been invaded by the mealy bug, paddy is being planted.

Despite US subsidies of around $5 billion to its handful of 25,000 cotton farmers, cotton prices are steadying, thanks to subsidies of another kind. More lucrative subsidies are available for growing maize in the US as the country needs the crop for ethanol. Therefore, a large number of cotton farmers there are shifting to maize. The result of all this is that cotton exports from the US are going down and the prices up. However, the rising rupee keeps India from reaping the gains.

But, in Vidarbha, neither the prices nor the prime minister's relief package have inspired hope. Growers have turned their back on cotton. There was barely 30 per cent sale of cotton seeds this time, says Vijay Jaywandhia, one of the prominent farm activists in the region.

The region's farmers are turning to soya in a big way and GM-free soya cakes are likely to fetch them good prices in the European market, Jaywandhia points out. But the suicides have not stopped. About 50 were reported this month. The reason is said to be Nabard's decision to halve the credit this year in Vidarbha.

Even as the Vidarbha farmers are paying with their lives to learn about cotton farming in the times of open market, Bt cotton farmers in Punjab are already staring down the brink. Bt cotton crops in at least four districts of the state have been destroyed by the mealy bug.

At least 40 per cent of the crop has been razed and paddy sown instead, says Bhaskar Goswami of the Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security. Farm organisations in Punjab confirm this.

The village of Badal, the birthplace of Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal, is one of the sites of Bt disaster. Bhatinda, Muktsar, Ferozepur and Faridkot, all cotton districts, have been equally affected.

The price the Bt farmer pays goes something like this. He invests Rs 6,000 on an acre of cotton. He destroys it, as local newspapers are reporting daily, and sows paddy again at a price of Rs 6,000.

Now, these are usually the lands taken on lease, after paying a rent of Rs 15,000. So, the production price goes up by Rs 6,000. With Rs 27,000 spent on an acre, he needs to sell rice at Rs 10 a kg to break even. The minimum support price is a mere Rs 600 a quintal.

The response of the central government to all this has been casual. The Union agriculture ministry has been telling the Punjab newspapers that agriculture is a state subject and it cannot do anything. But the fact remains that 135 varieties of Bt cotton have been cleared in the last three years, not by the Punjab government but by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee of the Union environment ministry. It has to explain why seeds immune to primary bug infection were not tested for secondary pest manifestations like the mealy bug.

The losses are steep in terms of scale as 61 per cent of Punjab's cotton farmers have gone for Bt cotton this year. This is double the national average, say experts. But this concerns none.

And given the combined stony gaze of the commerce, environment and agriculture ministries to the Indian farmer, why should anyone blame the US or seed companies like Monsanto and Raasi if they protect their own interests?

21 July 2007

Ireland: It's in the genes

Irish Examiner Weekend, 21 July 2007. By Darina Allen.

Farmers and animal feed companies were understandably dismayed when Ireland recently abstained from EU voting on the importation of Herculex GM maize into Europe. As a result, animal feed costs, which have already risen by 40-60% in the past year, are set to rise even further.

At present, the majority of farmers favour grain-hungry continental breeds over traditional breeds. The former cannot be finished on grass alone, whereas the more native breeds like Hereford, Aberdeen Angus, Shorthorn and Pol Angus, are bred to be grass-fed, needing a minimum of grain supplements.

Grass-fed beef is now sought after by chefs in the US and Europe, as they acknowledge the better flavour and nutritional value that scientific research ahs proved comes from good pasture. In a coutry where we can grow grass like nowhere else in the world, we have the natural resources and climatic conditions to produce the best beef, lamb and dairy products.

Although I have written about it before, most Irish consumers are unaware that 80% of animal feed contains genetically modified material.

Meat from animals fed on this diet is not labelleed in supermarkets or butcher shops, so those who want to avoid GM foods find it almost impossible to get guaranteed GM-free meat unless they opt for organic.

In a country where there is the capability to produce top quality food there is little sense in encouraging farmers to produce quantity over quality.

There is huge pressure on the EU to accept GM maize. In May, a consignment of animal feed containing the banned ingredient was sent to the EU in full knowledge that it hadn't been approved. According to Junior Minister for Agriculture and Food, Trevor Sargent, the EU was put in a position of having to consider legitimising this consignment. This would have set a dangerous precedent and the EU was correct to emphasise that it did no want to encourage such activity. Mr Sargent confirmed that if Ireland vote to roll-over on Herculex, we would find it impossible to get GM-free status in the future.

As the demand for quality food gathers momentum, Ireland will have a priceless marketing tool if it can guarantee that its food is GM-free.

This type of food will unquestionalbly command a premium price.

The only supermarket in Ireland and Britain which as a complete ban of GM foods is Marks & Spencer.

Tesco, Sainsburys and Budgens have quality labels for certain non-GM foods, as to Monoprix, Carrefour, Cora and Auchan in France and Co-op Italia in Italy. In Switzerland, Migros and Co-op have banned all use of GM feed while Poland, Europe's largest agricultural producer, will prohibit GM feed next year unless it can be proved to be safe.

So Irish farmers may need to take a longer term view in the knowledge that food that can be guaranteed to be GM-free will command a premium price.

A SuperValu spokespershon says the company sources all it s beef from Bord Bia-approved farms - but Bord Bia does not specify that the feed is not GM. The spokesperson added that if SuperValu could source GM-free meat, it would stock it. Bord Bia says it is reviewing the situation.

If the public demands meat fed on non-GM grain, supermarkets will deliver. So it's up to consumers to make their voice heard. Keep ut to date with what's happening in the GM area:

See www.gmfreeireland.org (email: mail@gmfreeireland.org) and www.soilassociation.org

EU: One potato, two potato, GMO potato more

New Europe, 21 July 2007.

European Union farm ministers on July 16 failed to break a deadlock over plans to allow the large-scale cultivation of a controversial genetically-engineered potato, clearing the way for a European Commission move to authorise the product.

EU rules mandate the commission - the EU's executive body - to act on its authority on some key issues if the bloc's governments cannot resolve their differences.

The commission has said it favours the introduction of the controversial potato, which includes genes making it resistant to antibiotics, since it will only be used for starch production and as animal feed. "It will not enter the nutritional chain," said a commission spokeswoman.

If the commission goes ahead with the authorisation, it will be the first time since 1998 that a genetically-engineered plant is given permission for cultivation in the EU. The commission decision could take some time, however.

But the international environmental group Greenpeace said an EU go-ahead for cultivation of the potato would amount to allowing controversial genetically modified crops to enter the EU "through the back door."

Italy and Austria are leading the group of EU states which oppose the cultivation of genetically-modified crops in the bloc. Other states, including Britain, however, favour the move. Greenpeace has called on governments to reject the potato, which has been developed by German chemical company BASF, saying it poses significant risks to health and the environment.

EU rules demand that genes which may have adverse effects on human health and the environment should be phased out.

However, the European Food Safety Authority has given a positive opinion on the BASF-developed potato, saying its antibiotic resistance genes do not pose a "relevant" risk to human health or the environment.

Greenpeace has warned that the genetically-engineered potato did not undergo full risk assessment including its effect on biodiversity. The organisation also said the potato could contaminate the food chain.

20 July 2007

Unmarked GMO foods sold in Bulgaria

SofiaEcho.com, 20 July 2007.

Genetically modified food was being sold in Bulgaria although no producer had applied for permission to do so, the country's Focus news agency reported.

Authorities had found genetically modified organisms (GMO) in maize flour, popcorn, soy flour, sausages and frankfurters, Focus said.

The GMOs found were permitted for us in the EU. Bulgaria, as an EU member, can also use them, but only after the goods are marked as containing GMOs.

In if unmarked GMOs were found, the food would be returned to the producer country, Focus said.

Currently nearly 20 GMOs are permitted for use in the EU.

Southern Africa: Zambia Consults On SADC Food Organ

BuaNews (Tshwane), 20 July 2007.

Lusaka -- The Zambian government is holding consultations with stakeholders before stating its position on the proposed Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) Regional Food Reserve Facility.

Minister of Agriculture and Co-operatives Ben Kapita said the establishment of the food reserve is critical as it requires countries to take into consideration both physical and monetary aspects.

In addition, the facility might not be established soon as members countries would need a lot of time to consult the matter.

"The matter is crucial. I would have to first inform the government, consult with the Cabinet, the Bank of Zambia (BOZ) on the financial aspect, Parliament, the Zambia National Farmers Union (ZNFU) and other concerned stakeholders," he said Thursday.

SADC member countries in 2004 agreed in principle to establish the Regional Food Reserve Facility aimed at ensuring physical stocks and financial reserves for use in times of food crisis.

Member states who would use this facility to timely access food and finances to minimize the impact of disasters on food security, have, however been tasked to make consultations at national levels before committing themselves.

Minister Kapita told ZANIS in an interview that member countries, including Zambia, would hold consultations about when the programme should commence and whether the reserves should be physical or financial and which country or countries should host the facility.

He pointed out that keeping reserves in physical form would have to be critically considered as some countries in the region had accepted the Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) maize in grain and others in mealie meal form

If the region agreed to import GMO maize, he explained, this would make it difficult for other countries such Zambia that have taken a stand not to allow GMO maize.

The minister said it would not be wise to keep all the reserve in monetary form as resources could be diverted to other emergencies that might arise.

He further pointed out that in an event that stocks are not available in the region, it would be too expensive to source from other countries.

"Keeping physical stock is expensive, so member countries need to agree on how to bear the cost. There are many areas that countries will have to look at this before making a firm decision on the matter," he said.

Minister Kapita also said Zambia would have to learn from Malawi on the successful implementation of the Fertiliser Support Programme (FSP).

He said although Zambia and Tanzania were implementing the same programmes, Malawi had scored success in empowering its farmers.

He attributed the success to the farmer registration programme which Malawi had successfully completed. This had enabled Malawi to determine genuine small scale farmers who should benefit from the FSP.

Moratorium - Scotland's new GM policy

GM Watch, 20 July 2007.

It's interesting to note that while the biotech industry and Australia's pro-GM federal government appear to be having some success in pressurising Australia's State governments into reconsidering their GM moratoriums, in the UK things are going in exactly the opposite direction.

Below is the GM Policy of the new Scottish administration, as reflected on their website. There are now also parties involved in the new administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland that have long been opposed to GM crops. Meanwhile, the new government in the neighbouring Republic of Ireland has committed itself to a vision of the whole island of Ireland being completely GM-free.

Scottish Executive
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/15159

The Executive's intention is to maintain a moratorium on the planting of GM crops in Scotland. GM crops are not grown in Scotland and we believe this respects the wishes of Scottish consumers who want local, high-quality produce. Scotland has a wonderful and varied environment, rich in biodiversity and we do not wish to jeopardise this.

_______________________

19 July 2007

Peru's Ancient Inca Capital Bans Transgenic Potatoes

Environment News Service, July 19 2007.

LIMA, Peru, July 19, 2007 (ENS) - A region of Peru that is a center of potato diversity has banned genetically modified varieties of the tuber. The Cusco regional government's Order 010 - approved by majority vote on June 21 and made public today - is intended to protect the genetic diversity of thousands of native potato varieties.

The order forbids the sale, cultivation, use and transport of genetically modified potatoes as well as other native food crops.

Potatoes have been cultivated in the Cusco region for thousands of years and helped to feed the ancient Inca empire.

The regional capital Cusco is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the Americas. Along with nearby Machu Picchu, the Lost City of the Incas just named one of the new seven wonders of the world, Cusco is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The potato originated in the highlands of South America. Peru and its Andean neighbor countries are the crop's center of diversity - with more than 4,000 distinct varieties that farmers have developed over generations.

Today, more than 1.2 million people live in the Cusco region. Many are small-scale farmers for whom the potato is their most important crop.

Local farmers' organizations fear that genes from genetically modified, GM, potatoes could transfer into local varieties and alter their unique properties.

The head of the regional government's environmental office, Abel Caballero, proposed the ban "in recognition of the historical, cultural, social and economic importance of the potato and other native crops to the Cusco Region."

Order 010 was passed in response to proposals submitted by a network of local potato farming communities and Asociacion ANDES, an indigenous nongovernmental organization based in Cusco.

They collaborated on the proposals with the International Institute for Environment and Development, IIED, an independent, non-profit research institute based in London

"This is unprecedented for Peru and a great victory for the communities of Cusco," says Alejandro Argumedo, director of Asociacion ANDES.

"It will protect the region from contamination with GM varieties that can threaten the diversity of the potatoes and other important native food crops that are critical for food security and the economy," said Argumedo.

ANDES, the Association for Nature and Sustainable Development, is a non-profit Peruvian indigenous organization that aims to improve the quality of life of Andean indigenous communities. It works by promoting the conservation and sustainable use of indigenous bio-cultural heritage through rights-based conservation development approaches.

The potato is so important in Peru, that in 2005 the Peruvian government declared that May 30 every year would be celebrated as the National Day of the Potato.

The law establishing the National Day states, "The potato crop is crucial in the history, development, culture and cuisine of Peru, especially for Andean people; its genetic wealth has contributed to global food security."

"It is necessary to promote and revalue cultural diversity and the ancient technologies related to the crop, and to enhance its consumption," the law states.

ANDES marks that day with a biocultural festival each year with local food products, local medicinal plants and handicrafts and a soccer tournament. Community members compete in singing, dance, poetry and music, and winners receive prizes donated by the Association ANDES.

"With this decision to keep GM crops out of one of the world's most diverse centers of potato and other Andean crops, the regional government of Cusco has acted wisely and with courage," said Dr. Michel Pimbert, director of the sustainable agriculture, biodiversity and livelihoods program at IIED.

"Responding to citizens' concerns," says Pimbert, the regional government "has put issues of food security, human well-being and the environment first and foremost at a time when most national governments persist in their failure to implement international agreements to protect the environment and human rights."

At the same time, genetically modified potatoes are being developed in Peru. Scientists at the International Potato Center in Lima announced July 5 that they have developed the first GM crop variety in Peru - a GM potato that can resist attack by weevils, a major insect pest.

Named Revolucion, the GM potato produces no pollen - it is naturally sterile. The scientists transferred a gene that confers total resistance to the potato tuber moth, Phthorimaea operculella, into the Revolution potato variety. To date the new transgenic potato has been tested only in the laboratory.

Similar potato varieties are undergoing field trials in Egypt, Indonesia, South Africa, and the United States.

To counteract the threat caused by the moth, potato farmers use large amounts of pesticides, particularly toxic phosphorates and carbamates. A study made by CIP in 2006 for the World Bank showed that such pesticide use was particularly damaging to the health of the farmers and harmful to the environment.

"Unfortunately, there are not many alternatives to control this pest," said Marc Ghislain, who heads the Biotechnology Laboratory at CIP. "Conventional improvement has not developed very resistant varieties and integrated pest management is not being adopted to control the insects that attack the potato crops."

One of the most important concerns in genetically engineering crops is the possibility of the genes being transferred into native varieties, a sensitive issue in Peru because it is the center of origin of the potato.

Because of this concern, said Ghislain, the Bt gene has been transferred into a naturally sterile variety to remove any chance of transfer of the gene. In addition, the resistant variety will not be released into the Peruvian market because the government does not yet have regulations governing products obtained from genetic engineering.

Indonesia: Govt urged to get serious about promoting biotechnology

The Jakarta Post, 19 July 2007

Experts have called on the government to urgently start promoting biotechnology in order to ensure food security and improve the living standards of farmers.

Speaking Tuesday during a seminar organized by the Indonesian Biotechnology Information Center (IndoBic), economist Bustanul Arifin said that biotechnology had the potential to greatly increase the production of important food crops, such as rice, corn, soybean and sugar.

According to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, biotechnology, which involves the modification of an organism's genes so as to produce bigger and higher quality crops, could increase plant yields by 61 percent, nutritional content by 50 percent and food quality by 29 percent, and decrease the use of pesticides by 53 percent.

Speaking during the same seminar, Graham Brookes, a director of the U.K.-based biotechnology consultancy firm, PG Economics Limited, said that the use of genetically modified (GM) seeds could increase farmers' incomes by between 6 and 15 percent.

"Although transgenic seeds cost more -- they are around 15 to 20 percent more expensive than natural seeds -- farmers will be able to earn more as they will benefit from lower pesticide use," he said.

Brookes said the United States had reaped an economic windfall of some US$12.9 billion between 1996 and 2005 as a result of the use of the biotechnology.

The Agriculture Ministry has been setting aside about Rp 100 billion ($11.1 million) a year to fund biotechnology research.

Although such research has been going on for almost a decade, Indonesia has yet to grow any GM crops as the regulations that were issued on the subject have not been followed up by concrete initiatives.

"What I have noticed is that the government appears to be on and off about biotechnology," said Bustanul, referring to a lack of research focus.

In 2005, the government issued Regulation No. 21 on the biological safety of GM products, and their economic, social and environmental impacts.

However, the regulation cannot be put into effect as the envisaged biological safety commission to oversee the its application has yet to be established, said Eri Sofiari, an expert advisor on biotechnology to the Agriculture Ministry.

"We hope that Indonesia will be able to produce its first GM crops within the next three years," he said.

He also stressed the need for Indonesia to be able to produce GM seeds in the future, instead of importing them from major producers such as the United States.

"What we expect from this project is that Indonesia will become a producer not only of GM food, but also GM food [?]," said Eri.

Comment by GM Watch:

This is such a joke. The fact that the claims by the pro-GM lobby, who are busy trying to pressure the Indonesian government to open up to GM crops, bear absolutely no relation to reality is actually borne out by Indonesia's own experience.

Six years ago Indonesia became the very first Asian country to give commercial approval to a GM crop - Monsanto's GM cotton. By December 2003, however, the Indonesian Minister of Agriculture had announced that Monsanto had pulled its GM cotton out of the country.
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=58&page=1

The introduction of Bt cotton had been a disaster. In the first year of planting, the Bt cotton succumbed to drought and hundreds of hectares were attacked by pests. The drought had triggered a pest population explosion on Bt cotton, but not on other cotton varieties. As a result, instead of reducing pesticide use, farmers had to use larger amounts of pesticides to control the pests.

On top of that, it did not produce the yields Monsanto had boasted about. The poor yields trapped Indonesian farmers in a debt cycle; some 70% of the 4,438 farmers growing Bt cotton were unable to repay their credit.
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=58&page=1

One of the Indonesian farmers who grew Monsanto's GM cotton commented, "The company didn't give the farmer any choice, they never intended to improve our well being, they just put us in a debt circle, took away our independence and made us their slave forever."

But Monsanto didn't just leave behind a legacy of broken promises, there was also illegality - bribery on a massive scale involving "at least 140" officials.
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=58&page=1

Now Indonesia is being asked to let go of the reality and buy into hype from the usual suspects - the likes of Graham Brookes of PG Economics, a pro-GM outfit that specialises in producing feel good reports commissioned by the biotech industry that skew facts to support dubious conclusions.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=308

‰ustralia: Crunch-time for SA's GM future

Extracted from Stock Journal, SA, July 19 2007. By Paula Thompson.
http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=43909

Crunch-time has come for the future of genetically modified crops (GM) in South Australia.

While many believe GMs will bring benefits, such as drought-tolerant crops, others, such as organic growers, are fearful of cross-contamination and the loss of Australia's clean-green image.

A review of SA's Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004, which states that GM food crops cannot be cultivated anywhere in the State, has started.

Submissions are being taken by the review, with a report to be prepared for the Genetically Modified Crop Advisory Committee.

The committee will then make recommendation to Agriculture Minister Rory McEwen.

Mallala farmer John Lush, a member of the Federal Government's Biotechnology Advisory Committee and president of the Food Science Futures Foundation, says great gains are to be made from GM technology.

"If a farmer has been successful over the past 10 to 20 years, in all probability a large percentage of that is due to science in food production," he said.

GM could offer benefits to crops such as heat stress resistance, salt tolerance, and more efficient water use.

"Other farmers around the world have already benefitted," he said.

"If you talk to farmers in Canada, they are a long way ahead of us.

"They are using GM technology to plant things like GM canola, which is putting them a long way ahead.

"If GM technology was already in place in Australia, the pain of last year's drought would not have been as great."

Consumer acceptance of GM food will grow, he says.

"If you ask people whether they will eat GM food that is proven to be of benefit to the environment, through the use of less fertiliser, I believe the answer will probably be 'yes'," Mr Lush said.

But Biological Farmers of Australia board member and GM spokesperson, Scott Kinnear, said too many risks would be involved in lifting the moratorium on GM crops.

More information: www.pir.sa.gov.au

Comment from GM Watch:

We've rarely come across such a spectacular volume of extravagant BS as that pumped out by the pro-GM lobby in Australia. Here Louise Sales takes apart some choice examples from an article about South Australia's "GM future".

[SALES] John Lush's comments are particularly ridiculous.

1. "If GM technology was already in place in Australia, the pain of last year's drought would not have been as great."

[SALES] Perhaps he'd like to explain why - since there are no commercially available drought resistant GE crops anywhere in the world.

2. Consumer acceptance of GM food will grow, he says.

[SALES] There is no evidence of this - consumer opposition is just as strong as ever and with good reason

3. "If you ask people whether they will eat GM food that is proven to be of benefit to the environment, through the use of less fertiliser, I believe the answer will probably be 'yes'," Mr Lush said.

[SALES] There are no GE crops anywhere in the world that use less fertiliser. In fact the majority of GE crops are herbicide tolerant which has only served to increase chemical use on farms.

More bulldust from Lush and other lobbyists in Oz:

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7045

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7076

USA: GMO label 'very important'

The Honolulu Advertiser, 19 July 2007. By Sean Hao.

Hawai'i consumers are fairly evenly divided over the safety of genetically modified foods such as locally grown papaya, according to a poll by University of Hawai'i researchers. However, consumers overwhelmingly support labeling of such foods, the survey found.

Genetically modified, or transgenic, crops are plants that have been altered by the transfer of genetic material from another species. In the case of papayas the fruit is modified to be resistant to a virus that causes unsightly blemishes and lower yields.

Genetic modification of foods is becoming more widespread: Up to 75 percent of processed food on store shelves contains genetically modified ingredients, according to some estimates.

Government officials consider such crops safe and do not require labeling. As a result products such as transgenic papayas typically are indistinguishable from non-genetically modified foods on store shelves. However, the lack of labeling may run counter to consumer sentiments.

According to the recently released survey, 72 percent of residents said it was "very important" that genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, be labeled, with another 13 percent calling it "somewhat important." At the same time the survey showed a general lack of knowledge among residents about genetically modified foods. Fully 64 percent of respondents said they were either very little or not at all informed about transgenic foods. Only 8 percent of respondents said they were well informed.

When it came to the safety of genetically modified foods, 36 percent of those surveyed said the products were extremely or somewhat risky, vs. 34 percent who said genetically modified foods were somewhat or extremely safe. Twenty-two percent of respondents said they did not know whether genetically modified food was safe or not.

UH professor Sabry Shehata, who was principal author of the report, said the findings support a move to adopt genetically modified food labeling coupled with consumer education initiatives. The results were generally comparable with prior research into U.S. consumer attitudes about transgenic foods, according to the report.

"Consumer education is very low," Shehata said. "Labeling should be considered as a way to educate consumers about it."

In the United States, there are no requirements that transgenic food be labeled as such. Proponents for labeling contend such a move will allow scientists to better track any long-term effects of genetically modified foods and allow consumers to avoid such foods if they wish. However, opponents contend that labeling will cost too much and raise unsubstantiated food safety fears.

"It's just like you're red-flagging it," said O'ahu papaya farmer Ken Kamiya, who's also president of the Hawaii Papaya Industry Association. "I don't see a need for labeling. There is no question or doubt people want a good product. The question of (whether it's genetically modified) doesn't really enter into it."

Honaunau organic farmer Melanie Bondera disagreed.

"Every public survey always supports labeling," said Bondera, a board member for Hawaii Seed, an advocate for sustainable agriculture and a Hawai'i free of GMOs. "People want choice."

Hawai'i's most popularly cultivated transgenic papaya is called Rainbow, and it represented 53 percent of papaya grown in Hawai'i, according to the study. The non-genetically modified Kapoho variety accounted for 30 percent of papaya acreage in 2005. Most of the papaya sold locally is genetically modified while non-genetically modified papayas are exported to countries such as Japan, which currently do not accept transgenic papayas.

The introduction of transgenic papaya by UH researchers in 1998 is widely credited with saving Hawai'i's papaya industry. However, genetically modified papaya introduced other problems by raising the risk of cross-pollination with non-genetically modified and organic papayas. The modified papayas also have yet to generate the market acceptance and higher sales prices that non-genetically modified papayas command.

The survey of 538 Hawai'i residents was conducted between February and June of 2006. It has a margin of error of 5 percentage points.

GMO zero tolerance devastating for EU feed industry

AllAboutFeed.net, 19 July 2007.

Coceral, the European grain and feedstuffs traders and Fefac, the EU compound feed manufacturers welcome the new EU Commission report on the economic impact of unapproved GMOs, which concludes on the "need to take urgent action to avoid negative implications for EU livestock production and agriculture overall".

JeanMichel Aspar, Coceral President, stated that "the present strict zero-tolerance policy of the EU is disproportionate and will lead to a complete halt of vital feed supplies from South and North-America, as no trading company will bear the risk of guaranteeing absence of traces of GMOs approved in some third countries but not yet in the EU".

He stressed that "the EU is totally dependant on soybean meal imports as major source of vegetable proteins, for which no substitutes are available in sufficient quantities on EU or world markets".

Major feed cost increase

Pedro Corrêa de Barros, Fefac President, stressed that the current de-facto import ban for corn gluten feed will increase feed costs to the EU livestock industry by another € 60-90 million at a time of record-high feed grain prices.

He pointed out that "a similar ban on soybean meal imports will have devastating consequences for European livestock producers, wiping out entire pig and poultry production chains in the EU".

Safeguard viable livestock industry

Coceral and Fefac have therefore called on the EU Farm Council to safeguard a viable livestock industry in the European Union, which accounts for 40% of the farm revenues, by ensuring reliable access to vital feed material imports.

As demonstrated in the DG-AGRI study, the "CAP Health check" objectives of a more competitive and sustainable EU agriculture cannot be achieved unless solutions are found to address the issue of unapproved GMOs.

Toolbox ingredients

Coceral and Fefac take the view that a "toolbox" with the following key elements is necessary to re-establish normal trading patterns ensuring a regular supply of high-quality feed materials for the European livestock industry:

* aligning the speed of the GMO authorisation procedure between the EU and the major exporting countries;

* a risk proportionate, workable tolerance for the low level presence of products that have obtained a positive EFSA opinion or have been approved by another OECD country to be present in cargoes of traded feed materials.

Ireland: GM foods: concerns remain until real risk assessment is carried out

The Irish Farmers Journal, letter to the editor, 21 (published 19) July 2007.

Dear Sir,

I was pleased to see Shane Morris's letter in the IFJ for the following reasons:

1. Firstly to reassure him that the anti-GM lobby have not been silenced, but to the contrary are busy, and making great inroads on the campaign to ban GM crops.

I have just returned, recently, from the third conference of GMO-Free Regions, Biodiversity and Rural Development, which was held in the European Parliament wehre I represented the Irish Organic Farmers Association, IOFGA. The reports from all of the Europe and around the world are very encouraging.

2. How refreshing to hear a pro-GM supporter admit that GM food is not a perfect food system! So often it is stated that GM food is safe, even though latest scientific information such as epigenetics, tell us it is not. As we know, proper risk assessment of GM crops is not done; as what is done is based on substantial equivalence.

Until we have real risk assessment done, we will continue to have serious concerns about GM food, such as that seen with Starlink corn.

3. I am at a loss to understand why he thinks that a defeat of a motion at the IMO [Irish Medical Organisation] conference is of any consequence. As we know, the IMO is heavily involved with contract negotiations with the HSE, to have time to research an important issue such as GM foods.

Finally, I would like to thank the IFJ for the balanced debate they have initiated over the last two years.

Yours etc

Kate Carmody
Beal Lodge
Asdee, Co. Kerry

Comment from GM-free Ireland

GM free Ireland has contacted the author of this letter, who confirms that it was was originally published by the Irish Farmers Journal in May. Reprinting it now – after the journal's recent paroxism of pro-GMO propaganda and lies – gives the false impression that the author still considers the Journal's coverage to be balanced, which she certainly does not!

Ireland: Anti GM-Lobby: consumers not going to pay Irish Farmers for being GM-free

The Irish Farmers Journal, letter to the editor, 21 (published 19) July 2007.

Dear Sir,

€ 30 euro per tonne is the estimated extra cost of not being allowed to use GM corn gluten and distillers in Irish Compound feed rations and more extra costs are on the cards if the EU votes against GM in soya beans later in the autumn.

That's an exra € 1,500 of a feed bill for a livestock or dairy farmer purchasing 50 tonne of compound feed a year. This is on top of already escalating feed cost.

Are the ICMSA and ICSA organisations living in the real world when they lend their support to the anti-GM lobby and directly canvass the minister for Agriculture to vote against GM when the rest of the developed world is using GM feed to stay competitive and improve efficiencies.

Consumers are not going to pay Irish farmers one extra cent for being GM free and our processors who sell our produce can verify this with the realities of the market place, so its like turkeys voting for Christmas when we see farm organisations lobbying for GM-free.

Yours etc.

John Joe Kelleher
Knockane
Terelton, Co. Cork.

Comment from GM-free Ireland

In reality, GM maize products (including corn gluten and distillers grains) only constitute around 50% of the weight of typical compound feed rations sold to Irish farmers. Assuming, for a moment, that GM-free maize actually costs € 30 extra per tonne, then the total extra cost for certified non-GMO maize feed rations would be € 15 per tonne, or € 750 for 50 tonnes. J.J. Kellerer's figure of € 1,500 extra per 50 tonnes is thus 100% higher than the real price.

Similarly, GM soya consitutes only around 5% by weight of feed rations. Since the premium for certified non-GMO soya meal is around € 15 per tonne, the extra cost per tonne of feed ration would be around € 0.75 (75 cent).

Moreover, consumers and retailers across Europe are already paying Irish farmers extra premia for meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on certified non-GMO feed rations. Furthermore, Irish farmers who avoid GM animal feed have secured multi-million Euro foreign investment deals to provide GM-free ice-cream for Baskin-Robbins and Ben & Jerry's European outlets. And leading retailers across the EU are beginning to phase out the sale of meat and dairy produce from animals still fed on GM feed.

New Zealand: Government urged to reject 'dangerous' GM corn

New Zealand Herald, July 19 2007. By Martin Johnston.

Two leading scientists are calling for the Government to reject a new kind of genetically modified corn which they say could be linked to a variety of diseases.

Professor Garth Cooper of Auckland University and Associate Professor Jack Heinemann of Canterbury University want tougher testing of the corn, LY038, made by international seed company Monsanto.

The corn is designed to be a more nutritious feed for animals, but because of the risk of its accidentally entering the human food chain - which officials say is slight - it needs approval as a human food before it can be used.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand last year recommended approval by the nine food ministers from both countries, but New Zealand's Food Safety Minister, Annette King, in February sought a review.

After the review, the agency has again recommended approval, saying food derived from LY038 "is as safe as food derived from other corn varieties".

But the Sustainability Council, chaired by Professor Cooper, and Canterbury University's Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, headed by Dr Heinemann, say the high levels of lysine in LY038 make it the first GM corn designed to be substantially different from conventional corn in its nutritional profile.

"While lysine is an essential amino acid, it is also highly reactive with common sugars and the heat of cooking accelerates the formation of advanced glycation end-products."

The latter are implicated in conditions including heart disease and chronic kidney failure. They are also what cause the "browning" of foods.

The two groups say the food standards agency has failed to apply proper testing standards - by accepting a Monsanto study based on rats and chickens fed with raw corn when humans eat it cooked; and by not consistently comparing LY038 with a GM-free corn, contrary to international standards.

"This decision is precedent-setting as once one GM bio-industrial product is accepted as a food on this basis, the stage is set for a raft of other products - including plants producing industrial and medical substances - to be approved using this lower safety standard." They say Ms King should exercise New Zealand's right to opt out of accepting the new corn.

Professor Cooper said that because of the uncertainty over the effects of the high level of lysine, the corn should be subjected to the same testing as experimental medicines, including human trials.

"The currently available safety data for the proposed high-lysine corn is judged to fall far short of the quality required for adequate pharmacological safety assessment," he said.

Ms King's spokesman said yesterday she would not comment until the transtasman ministerial food council's decision was released next week.

The agency said in its review report that its assessment of LY038 was "entirely consistent" with international guidelines and its own.

Spokeswoman Lydia Buchtmann denied that lower standards had been applied and said the assessment included comparison with conventionally-grown corn.

"We think Jack Heinemann has misinterpreted a lot of the things he has raised."

When asked if human feeding trials were necessary, she said: "Lysine is an amino acid; it's part of a protein; it's something we eat every day.

"It's nothing new. It's just genetically modified to make this a high-lysine corn, so animals thrive better and grow better."

18 July 2007

USA: Dr. Nina Fedoroff Named Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary

Office of the Spokesman of the US Secretary of State
Media note, 18 July 2007.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has named Dr. Nina V. Fedoroff to be her new Science and Technology Adviser. Dr. Fedoroff is the Willaman Professor of Life Sciences and Evan Pugh Professor in the Biology Department and the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Pennsylvania State University.

The position of Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary (STAS) was created in 2000, to serve as the DepartmentÇs chief scientist and principal liaison with the national and international scientific and engineering communities. Dr. Fedoroff is the third person to hold this position. The Adviser is responsible for enhancing the science and technology literacy and capacity at the State Department, increasing the number of scientists and engineers working in Washington and missions abroad, strengthening and building bridges to the scientific and engineering communities, and providing advice on current and emerging science and technology issues as they impact foreign policy. See www.state.gov/g/stas for more details.

Dr. Fedoroff is a leading geneticist and molecular biologist who has contributed to the development of modern techniques used to study and modify plants. She received her Ph.D. in molecular biology from the Rockefeller University in 1972. In 1978, she became a staff member at the Carnegie Institution of Washington and a faculty member in the Biology Department at Johns Hopkins University. In 1995, Dr. Fedoroff joined the faculty of the Pennsylvania State University, where she served as the founding director of the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences (http://www.lsc.psu.edu/).

Dr. Fedoroff has done fundamental research in the molecular biology of plant genes and transposons, as well on the mechanisms plants use to adapt to stressful environments. Her book, Mendel in the Kitchen: A ScientistÇs View of Genetically Modified Foods, published in 2004 by the Joseph Henry Press of the National Academy of Science, examines the scientific and societal issues surrounding the introduction of genetically modified crops.

Dr. Fedoroff is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the European Academy of Sciences. She has served on the National Science Board of the National Science Foundation. Dr. Fedoroff is a 2006 National Medal of Science laureate.

Comment by GM Watch:

NOTE: Condi Rice's new advisor Nina Fedoroff stands accused of repeatedly dissembling in her promotion of GM.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3297
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6338
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5501

''No to GMO in Africa!'' - Kofi Annan (Update)
Chief Executive of AGRA, Kofi Annan says Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) will not fund Genetically Modified seeds

Mathaba.net, 18 July 2007. By Trevor Wells.

The Farmers' Legal Action Group-South Africa welcomes the first firm announcement that the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) will not fund Genetically Modified seeds by the new Chief Executive of AGRA, Kofi Annan

The announcement today, 17-July-2007, was reported in Business Daily (Kenya), in an article by Allan Odhiamo headlined "Annan rules out the use of GMO's in the war on hunger in Africa."

The former United Nations General-Secretary said "Poor pricing of commodities, and not type of seeds, keeps African growers away from their farmlands despite spiraling food insecurity and poverty on the continent."

This is complete turn around by the Gates/Rockefeller Foundation who up to now have been hell bent on forcing GM seeds down the throats of the African people.

The previous Green Revolution was severely criticised for removing peasant farmers off their heritage lands to be replaced by huge agrobusiness farms in third world Countries. It was hailed as a huge success in first world countries which reaped the benefits of cheap food from the south. Apologists for the system claimed that they had raise levels of employment.

This announcement comes in the wake of the South African Government applying due diligence in rejecting an application by the African Biofortified Sorghum(ABS) Consortium to do trials in South Africa with an American patented sorghum gene. The Consortium claimed it was a truly African Sorghum. According to the ABS website "the consortium comprised nine ‚ seven African and two American - institutions led by Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International(AHBFI). Africa Harvest's communication activities have been supported by CropLife, a global federation 'representing the plant science industry' and led by companies like BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont , Monsanto and Syngenta. According to the AHBFI Funding Statement they are a well-resourced and highly professional lobbying operation. The US$18.5 million project was funded as part of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's Grand Challenge in Global Health program."

The rejection by the South African Government was based on the results of scientific research funded by US-AID and done by Dr Gurling Bothma of the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) in Roodeplats. The research proved conclusively that all native African relatives of sorghum including Sudan Grass would be adulterated by the American patented gene. Being an African, Kofi Annan, fully understands the spiritual connection between the land, the seeds, and the ancestors.

Kofi's inaugural speech in Cape Town can be read on the new Agra-alliance.org website launched to coincide with the official announcement of his appointment.

The website confirms that the Alliance "Programe for Africa's Seed Systems" (PASS) is funding African-led initiatives that use conventional breeding to develop new varieties of maize, cassava, beans, rice, sorghum, and other crops resistant to diseases and pests."

Credible community based farmers organisations with the links to http://www.agra-alliance.org/ are sadly missing from their website. The list is still overweighted with international and African organisations who have no standing or legitimacy at grassroots community farming level in the African context. This, however, is a legacy of the past largely due to funding by biotech industry fronts, the World Bank and US-AID. What is pleasing is that the usual biotech brigade and industry front organisations have been very wisely, surgically cleansed from the list. It is clear that with the disastrous record of smuggling, bribery and racketeering which some of them are burdened with, would prove to be the kiss of death for AGRA.

Concerned African environmental groups and communal farmers have been monitoring behind the scenes, top level, negotiations for some months. The clear, unequivocal announcement not to finance GM0's together with the appointment of former UN-Secretary General Kofi Annan as the Chairperson of AGRA sends out a clear signal that good faith negotiation with a view to building long term relationships is the way forward.

Farmers' Legal Action Group- South Africa
http://www.flag-sa.org/blog/rallyround.html

Peru: GM potatoes expelled from Andes
Peruvians decide to ban transgenic crop from the potato homeland

Nature magazine, 18 July 2007.

This Thursday, the government of Cusco, a region in the Peruvian Andes, is scheduled to ban all genetically modified (GM) varieties of potato, according to the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). The area was the birthplace of many varieties of spud, and is still home to thousands of kinds of potato, from the notoriously hard to peel q'achun waq'achi to the dark grey amakjaya.

The move was supported by a Peruvian non-profit organization called Association ANDES, along with the IIED. The motivation is both to ensure that genes from GM potatoes do not infiltrate the native potatoes, and to support efforts to market the area as a source of diverse, authentic, organic potato varieties.

Alejandro Argumedo, associate director of Association ANDES, cites emotional and economic reasons, as well as cautiousness, for the decision. "This is a potato land. All potatoes have meaning. Potatoes are believed to have spirit," he says. But also, he adds, "There is great concern of contamination at the centres of origin." The ban will also keep cheaper GM spuds from competing with the more expensive local varieties.

Argumedo has long been involved in repatriating varieties of potato that had gone locally extinct, but are held in repositories such as the International Potato Center (CIP) in Lima. "When the potatoes came back, the culture came back," he says. "Genetic diversity and cultural diversity are closely linked."

Not grown from seed

The growth of GM crops in areas where the genetic diversity of those crops are of significant cultural importance has caused controversy before. There have been concerns that growing GM maize in Mexico, for example, might be a bad idea (see 'Report recommends ban of US GM maize in Mexico').

But some note that there are ways of allaying fears about the accidental spread of GM potatoes. Creating types without viable seeds can help to prevent genetic dispersal. Spuds can be grown asexually by planting the sprouts, or 'eyes', from last year's crop. Other varieties are grown from seed each year.

This month, the CIP announced the creation of a male-sterile potato that is resistant to the pest tuber moth (Phthorimaea operculella). This, according to Marc Ghislain, head of the biotechnology laboratory at CIP, should lessen fears that biotechnologically manipulated genes from this potato will be spread about.

In 2004, a group headed by Howard Atkinson of the University of Leeds, UK, worked on male-sterile potatoes and concluded that with this method, "scientific progress is possible without compromise to the precautionary principle"1. The group had previously seen gene flow from non-sterile GM potatoes to wild Peruvian relatives.

References

1.Celis, C. et al. Nature 432, 222-225 (2004).

Indian Cotton Meadows Turn Into Killing Fields

Bernama.com, 18 July 2007.

NEW DELHI, July 18 (Bernama) -- One middle-aged Indian cotton farmer kills himself every eight hours -- either unable to overcome grinding poverty or repay his debts.

Over the last 48 hours at least eight farmers committed suicide in hard-pressed Vidarbha in Maharashtra, a cotton-farming village -- now turning into one of India's killing fields as more vulnerable farmers kill themselves in this remote district.

Since January this year, 506 farmers had taken their own lives despite the government's multimillion relief package to help cotton farmers, simply because aid failed to reach the target group, claim relief workers.

And, since June 2005, more than 5,000 farmers pathetically killed themselves all over India, leaving their wives and children in worse financial doldrums.

The death tolls tell a poignant story of how Indian farmers succumb to free trade competition that has destroyed their revered economic lifeline -- cotton farming -- with cotton prices dipping in the global market while highly subsidised farmers from rich nations corner cotton trade, leaving Third World widows in grim villages.

"Vidarbha was once a white gold mine. We gave the world the best soft cotton. Our cotton was liked by Europeans because it was cheap and shirts made from our cotton kept them warm," Kishore Tiwari, the president of Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti (Peoples' Protest Forum), a farmers lobby group, told Bernama.

With cotton prices fetching poor prices, at merely 1,700 rupees (RM154) per quintal or 100kg compared to 2,500 rupees (RM227) in 2005, farmers with paltry earnings found it impossible to cope with spiralling cost of living, even in rural areas, said Tiwari.

"Cost of healthcare, education and food has gone up but farmers' earnings continue to drop. In fact, each farmer's income, according to a government survey, is negative (-400 rupees), which means economically he is not earning anything," he added.

Citing a government national survey conducted last June, Tiwari said about 1.3 million farmers out of 1.72 million, from eight villages, lived in financial distress while 400,000 were in a critical stage.

"It's a mass genocide here," he described, adding that some two million farmers were now in dire need of financial aid because the only cash crop they relied on had failed miserably.

Since the cotton and textile quota restriction was removed in 2004, Third World cotton planters suffer to keep their livelihood fertile -- facing severe rivalry from producers like China and the highly-subsidised American farmers, who can dispose their cotton cheaply in the international market.

Moreover, the majority of Indian farmers grow BT cotton (genetically- modified cotton) that requires a large amount of investment, for irrigation and fertilisers, which are not within the reach of these poor farmers.

"Ninety five per cent of BT cotton are grown in non-irrigated land here, where there is no proper irrigation or water supply. So the yield is low and BT cotton farming requires a lot of money for fertilisers," said Tiwari.

In booming India, the agriculture sector remains an integral part of the economy though contributing a fifth of India's economic output. Some 600 million people rely on farming for direct or indirect source of income.

Yet in a largely investment-driven Indian economy, the third largest in Asia, after Japan and China, with a projected nine per cent gross domestic product growth for 2007-2008, farmers are still squeezed for a living.

There is no quick-fix to revive this ailing sector and Tiwari said only a long-term, government-backed programme could remove farmers' misery in Vidarbha, located about 1,000km from the bustling financial hub of Mumbai, capital of Maharashtra.

"We want protected economy for cotton and credit facilities for farmers. Government must restore healthcare, education and create employment opportunities for the masses, and promote organic or natural farming which is cheaper than growing BT cotton," he added.

On the horizon, the Indian monsoon may continue to drench India for at least another month, perhaps bringing some respite for Vidarbha farmers.

"But when the monsoon slips away the "mass genocide" will bound to continue," cautioned Tiwari.

New anti-GMO coalition in Italy

Food and Water Watch (fwwatch.org), 18 July 2007.

Some history. Last November, AIAB (Italy's organic farming association) in cooperation with the major players of the agro-food sector in Italy, co-signed an important document on the future of the country's agriculture. The document states that innovation, environmental sustainability, territorial ties and a strict refusal of GMOs represent the main principles on which to build Italy's agricultural future.

Out of this large alliance was born the idea to initiate a wide national debate to say a final word on GMOs and at the same time to determine a future as main players on Italy's agro-food scene.

Thus a new coalition has been built, the "Coalizione Italia Europa Liberi da OGM" (Coalition GM-Free Italy Europe) that will launch a nation-wide GMO debate from September 15th to November 15th, 2007.

60 days that will see initiatives throughout Italy. Regional committees have been formed in many of the country's regions.

Upcoming events:

Rome, July 24: press conference to present the new coalition

Rome, September 10: meeting of the organising committee

Bologna, September 15-16: public debate

Friction TV Agent Orange Video

The Ecologist online, 13 July 2007.

Between 1961 and 1971, American forces sprayed some 80 million litres of defoliants and other poisons onto the forests and villages of Vietnam.

The damage which the key constituent, Agent Orange, did to children in the country is still being felt today. Babies born two generations after the war are subject to hideous deformities.

Neither the US government nor the manufacturers, Dow Chemicals and Monsanto, have ever been brought to account for these crimes. Watch Friction TV's new video and join their campaign for the victims of Agent Orange: http://www.friction.tv/debate.php?debateno=672

The Legacy of Agent Orange [extracts]

http://home.clara.net/heureka/gaia/orange.htm

Agent Orange was manufactured by Monsanto, Dow Chemicals (manufacturers of napalm), Uniroyal, Hercules, Diamond Shamrock, Thompson Chemical and TH Agriculture. Monsanto were the main supplier. The Agent Orange produced by Monsanto had dioxin levels many times higher than that produced by Dow Chemicals, the other major supplier of Agent Orange to Vietnam.

Dioxins are one of the most toxic chemicals known to man. Permissible levels are measured in parts per trillion, the ideal level is zero. The Agent Orange manufactured by Monsanto contained 2,3,7,8-tetrachlordibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD), extremely deadly even when measured against other dioxins. The levels found in domestic 2,4,5-T were around 0.05 ppm, that shipped to Vietnam peaked at 50 ppm, ie 1,000 times higher than the norm.

Monsanto's involvement with the production of dioxin contaminated 2,4,5-T dates back to the late 1940s. 'Almost immediately workers started getting sick with skin rashes, inexplicable pains in the limbs, joints and other parts of the body, weakness, irritability, nervousness and loss of libido,' to quote Peter Sills, author of a forthcoming book on dioxins. Internal Monsanto memos show that Monsanto knew of the problems but once again a cover-up was the order of the day.

A wide range of products manufactured by Monsanto have been contaminated with dioxins, including the widely used household disinfectant Lysol. Monsanto's attempts at a cover-up were revealed when a court awarded $16 million in punitive damages against Monsanto. It was revealed that Monsanto had intimidated employees to keep quiet, had tampered with evidence, had submitted false data and samples to EPA. An investigation by Cate Jenkins of the EPA Regulatory Development Branch documented a track record of systematic criminal fraud.

Accidents involving large release of dioxin to the environment have occurred at Seveso (Italy) and Times Beach (USA). The Times Beach incident occurred when local contractors were hired to spray the town's dusty roads with emulsified oil. The oil was taken from sumps (which the same contractors had been hired to dispose of). Too late it was discovered that the oil was heavily contaminated with dioxin. The US government ordered the town to be evacuated in 1982. Times Beach lies not far from East St Louis, a chronically deprived, heavily contaminated area across the Mississippi from St Louis, centre of Monsanto's PCB manufacturing. Monsanto are believed to be linked to the Time Beach contamination, at least that is the view of the Times Beach Action Group (TBAG) 'From our point of view, Monsanto is at the heart of our problem here in Missouri.' TBAG cite contaminated soil samples that have been traced back to Monsanto.

Monsanto's contribution to the well being of the world has included dioxin, rBGH, PCBs, DDT, Agent Orange and Roundup. Monsanto is currently aggressively pushing genetically modified crops, a technology the world does not need and does not want. For Monsanto, corporate greed far outweighs planetary need. Monsanto aggressively pursues anyone who dares to criticise their policies.

Vietnam is a poor country, even a rich country would be overwhelmed by the environmental and genetic catastrophe Vietnam is having to face.

At a time when US tobacco corporations have been forced to pay billions of dollars in the US to compensate the victims of smoking, it would seem only reasonable that Monsanto be forced to pay billions to the Vietnamese for the catastrophe Monsanto has wrought on their country.

Read the article: http://home.clara.net/heureka/gaia/orange.htm

Quotes about Agent Orange

Occasionally I saw these [genetically deformed] children in contaminated villages in the Mekong Delta; and whenever I asked about them, people pointed to the sky; one man scratched in the dust a good likeness of a bulbous C-130 aircraft, spraying.
-- John Pilger

The US has dumped [on South Vietnam] a quantity of toxic chemical amounting to six pounds per head of population, including women and children.
-- US Senator Gaylord Nelson

Perhaps the most gruesome legacy of Agent Orange is to be found in a locked room in Tu Du Obstetrical and Gynaecological Hospital in Saigon. Here the walls are lined with jars containing aborted and full term foetuses.
-- Hugh Warwick

Monsanto has in fact submitted false information to EPA which directly resulted in weakened regulations ...
-- Cate Jenkins [EPA scientist]

Monsanto covered up the dioxin contamination of a wide range of its products. Monsanto either failed to report contamination, submitted false information purporting to show no contamination or submitted samples to to the government for analysis which had been specially prepared so that dioxin contamination did not exist.
-- Cate Jenkins [EPA]

It will take a long time to clarify the exact consequences of Agent Orange.
-- Douglas Peterson, US Ambassador to Vietnam

We need more facts ... There is need for more scientific research on this subject before factual statements can be made to the effect Agent Orange had in Vietnam.
-- Madeline Albright

International research has proven that, during the war, 72 million litres of chemicals were poured onto Vietnam, over 40 million were dioxins - there is a link.
-- Vu Trong Huong, director War Crimes Investigation

We have over 50,000 children that have been born with horrific deformities; the link is clear.
-- Vu Trong Huong, director War Crimes Investigation

These Agent Orange births are normal for us ... Every now and then we have what we call a foetal catastrophe - when the number of miscarriages and deformed babies, I am afraid to say, overwhelms us.
-- Dr Pham Viet Thanh, Tu Du hospital

We were wrong, terribly wrong.
-- Robert McNamara, former US Secretary of Defence during Vietnam War

Never again must the US or any other country interfere in another country's affairs.
- Len Aldis, secretary Britain-Vietnam Friendship Society

It should never be forgotten that the people must have priority.
-- Ho Chi Minh

More: http://www.friction.tv/debate.php?debateno=672

17 July 2007

GM potato approval means defeat for Italy
Efforts to stop biotech contamination attempts need to continue

Coldiretti, 17 July, 2007. Translation: Giuseppina Pagano, Food & Water Watch Europe

A further defeat for Italy that unfortunately does not succeed in building solid alliances in Europe when it comes to defending consumers and national primacy in terms of quality from the continuous attempts to contaminate food and the environment with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

This is what Coldiretti affirms in its worried comment on the failure to halt the introduction of the first GM potato in Europe - only shortly after EU Agriculture Ministers had recently even gone to the length to authorise a minimal level of GM contamination in organic products.

With this failure to achieve a majority opposed to GMOs, the decision will now pass to the European Commission, which has already announced its favourable position to the GM potato. This position is contrary to the will of consumers in Europe and in Italy where according to the Coldiretti Ispo survey three citizens out of four (74 percent) are convinced that products containing GMOs are not good for your health.

Italy's national agricultural production represents a guarantee, states Coldiretti. This is possible thanks to the far-sighted choice to show "zero tolerance" in the face of contamination risks. A choice made possible also thanks to Coldiretti's mobilisation and despite constant pressure.

The growing opposition to the biotech in our plate is not the result of an ideological, but an economic choice, maintains Coldiretti. An economic choice that aims to safeguard entrepreneurship in the agricultural sector which takes into account both the market and citizens' needs who are asking for quality food with strong territorial ties. The real objective must therefore be to valorise production "made in Italy" and to defend it from homologation and territorial delocalisation. Therefore, concludes Coldiretti, efforts to stop biotech contamination attempts must continue.

Tortilla-hungry Mexico setting rules on GMO corn

Reuters, 17 July 2007.

MEXICO CITY - Mexico, widely considered the birthplace of corn, is close to finalizing rules governing experimental planting of genetically modified corn strains, a senior biosecurity official said on Tuesday.

In Mexico, where tortillas made from corn are eaten with almost every meal, the government is determined to boost output in the next few years to offset rising prices driven by U.S. demand for corn-based ethanol fuel.

Mexico's biggest grain farmers have long lobbied to lift a 1998 ban on GMO corn plantings, arguing it would help lift lagging crop yields. But environmental activists say GMO would put Mexico's numerous local corn strains at risk.

Reynaldo Alvarez, who heads Mexico's biosecurity commission, said the president's office now had a copy of the proposed regulations.

"They are revising the final draft," Alvarez told Reuters. "I would hope it will be ready in the next two months."

Mexico last year passed a biosecurity law designed to permit plantings in certain regions under controlled conditions to be set in the regulatory document.

The rules would likely prohibit farmers in regions that contain the oldest strains of corn from planting GMO material, Alvarez said.

Even with the rules established, he said, it could still take time for test requests from biotech firms to be approved. He said such requests would be resolved with within 90 days.

U.S. companies like Monsanto Co. and DuPont Co. want to enter the Mexican seed market with GMO strains. A large group representing small corn farmers recently signed a good-will deal with Monsanto.

Scientists have found evidence the grain was grown in Mexico as far back as 5,300 BC, placing it as the likely cradle of corn cultivation. The country has a huge variety of locally specific corn strains that farmers have bred over generations.

Despite that history, Mexico imports millions of tons of corn each year and was hard hit when grains prices rocketed in January as demand for ethanol fuel soared in the United States.

EU Split Means Go-Ahead for Cultivation of GM Potato

Deutsche Welle, 17 July 2007.

European Union farm ministers failed to break a deadlock over plans to allow the cultivation of a controversial genetically engineered potato, clearing the way for a European Commission move to authorize the product.

EU rules mandate the commission -- the EU's executive body -- to act on its authority on some key issues if the bloc's governments cannot resolve their differences.

The commission has said it favors the introduction of the genetically modified potato -- which includes genes that make it resistant to antibiotics -- since it will only be used for starch production and as animal feed.

"It will not enter the nutritional chain," said a commission spokeswoman.

If the commission goes ahead with the authorization, it will be the first time since 1998 that a genetically engineered plant is given permission for large-scale cultivation in the EU.

However, the commission decision could take some time.

But international environmental group Greenpeace said an EU go-ahead for cultivation of the potato would amount to allowing controversial genetically modified crops to enter the EU "through the back door."

Made in Germany

Italy and Austria are leading the group of EU states which oppose the cultivation of genetically modified crops in the bloc. Other states, including Britain, favor the move.

Greenpeace has called on governments to reject the potato, which has been developed by German chemical company BASF, saying it poses significant risks to health and the environment.

EU rules demand that genes which may have adverse effects on human health and the environment should be phased out.

However, the European Food Safety Authority has given a positive opinion on the BASF-developed potato, saying its antibiotic resistance genes do not pose a "relevant" risk to human health or the environment.

Greenpeace has warned that the genetically engineered potato did not undergo full risk assessment including its effect on biodiversity. The organization also said the potato could contaminate the food chain.

India: Bt cotton has lost its charm in Punjab

BharatTextile, 17 July 2007

Bt cotton which was introduced in Punjab as a solution to the American Ballworm problem faced by farmers, has lost its charm. The mealy bug attack has taken away Bt cotton's glory as the savior of the farmers.

Even though the damage is not much in terms of acreage, the spread of the attack has made the Punjab Agricultural University and Punjab State Department of Agriculture to take notice of it.

B S Sidhu, Director, Agriculture, says, "We are concerned as the attack is severe than last year. While it may not have affected a large number of farmers, the damage levels are very high."

Sidhu says, "We are advising farmers to use two-prong strategy – kill the congress grass and at the same time use chemical sprays for mealy bugs."

As per the data collected by the State Department of Agriculture from Talwandi Sabo block in Bathinda, Abohar in Ferozepur, Lambi and Gidderbaha are the worst-affected areas.

Dr N S Butter, head of the Department of Entomology, PAU, says, "Prior to the introduction of BT cotton, we used to spray the crop with chemicals which killed these pests. Now as the pest umbrella has been lifted because Bt cotton does not need so many sprays, these pests are making no effect."

Mealy bug, as per PAU experts, thrives on weeds and the simplest way of keeping them away is to clear the wastelands. However, with the present attack in the state, controlling the weeds has become difficult task, as the bug will shift to other crops.

Dr N S Butter says that "The problem we are facing is that pesticide dealers are misleading the farmers and selling them chemicals which have little effect on the bug. We have formed two teams that are regularly working in eight districts of the cotton belt. We are trying to attack the spots of sites and advising the farmers how to save their crops."

When asked why PAU didn't think of this attack when it was rooting for Bt cotton as a panacea for Punjab farmers' problems, Dr Butter says, "The problem that time was only American Ballworm. At that time there was no mealy bug. With chemicals, we will be able to control this bug too."

Annan rules out use of GMOs in the war on hunger in Africa

Business Daily (Kenya), 17 July 2007. By Allan Odhiambo.

In what is bound to stir controversy in agriculture and scientific circles, former UN secretary general Kofi Annan has ruled out the use of Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs) in the battle against food insecurity and poverty in Africa.

"We in the alliance will not incorporate GMOs in our programmes. We shall work with farmers using traditional seeds known to them," he said. Mr Annan said poor pricing of commodities, and not type of seeds, keeps African growers away from their farmlands despite spiralling food insecurity and poverty on the continent.

"We need to get the right seeds into their hands by strengthening research partnerships with local universities and other institutions," he said. Mr Annan said insufficient infrastructure such as roads, poor storage facilities and weak market structures were to blame for Africa's continued dependence on food aid.

"Millions of Africans are being fed through aid and this is not sustainable. We have the means to make Africa self sustainable," he said. Mr Annan, who chairs the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (Agra), said infrastructure development will top the organisation's agenda for the next five years.

"We need proper market systems, an infrastructure of roads and storage facilities because failure by farmers to access them acts as a demoralising factor," he said. Agra was established last year with an initial $150 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates and Rockefeller foundations.

It seeks to help millions of small-scale farmers and their families get out of poverty and hunger through sustainable growth in farm productivity and incomes. Mr Annan said food production in Africa could be doubled in the next decade with improved seeds and increased access to inputs such as fertilisers and pesticides.

The Alliance was formed in response to recent calls by African leaders to chart a new path for prosperity by spurring the continent's agricultural development and also seeks to help reverse decades of relative neglect in funding for agricultural development for Africa.

It seeks to firm the vision laid out in the African Union's Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), which seeks a 6 percent annual growth in food production by 2015 through increased usage of new technology and inputs such as fertiliser.

CAADP was established by the African Union's New Partnership for Africa's Development (AU/NEPAD) in July 2003 with special focus on four pillars including, extending area under sustainable land management and reliable water control systems, improving rural infrastructure and trade-related capacities for market access, increasing food supply, reducing hunger and improving response to food emergency.

EU paves way for GM potato

EuObserver.com, 17 July 2007. By Lucia Kubosova

The European Commission is set to approve the cultivation of a genetically modified variety of potato, following a stalemate among EU member states. Brussels argues the product is safe despite some NGOs claiming the opposite.

EU farm ministers failed on Monday (14 July) to agree on the large-scale cultivation of GM potato Amflora, developed by German chemicals giant BASF.

Germany, UK and Sweden reportedly supported the authorisation while Austria, Ireland and Italy led the camp of its opponents. Several countries, including France, abstained.

The split among the countries and their incapability to reach a qualified majority means the decision will be passed on to the European Commission.

Barbara Helfferich, the commission's spokeswoman for environment, said on Monday the EU executive would support the go-ahead for the controversial potato with the formal approval likely in the "coming months".

"It has been analyzed and it is safe," she insisted, referring to the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority which had stated the GM potato is safe for cultivation.

The product is intended for use in industrial processes, such as making paper. But its producer also called for the approval to use it in food and animal feed.

Environment groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth argue that it could contaminate the food chain and future crops, highlighting that the potato contains a gene which can convey resistance to antibiotics.

"The big GMO companies claim that using genetically modified potatoes in industrial processes is an environmentally-friendly option, but this is absurd considering the associated health and environmental risks," said Helen Holder, from the Friends of the Earth.

If approved by the Commission, the Amflora potato would be the first GMO crop allowed in Europe since 1998 following an EU moratorium on such authorizations. Brussels formally ended the blockade in 2004.

European farmers, industrial food and chemical producers complained that the bloc's stringent position against the GMOs created a disadvantage for them against their foreign competitors.

In 2006, the World Trade Organisation ruled that the EU was unfairly blocking GMOs from entering its markets.

16 July 2007

Europe not hungry for GM potatoes
EU Agriculture Council rejects latest attempt to grow GMOs in Europe

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 16th July 2007.

16 July, Brussels ‚ Friends of the Earth Europe has welcomed EU member states' rejection of the latest application to grow GMOs in Europe, as the EU Agriculture Council today failed to approve the commercial growing of a genetically modified potato. There have now been no new GMOs grown in the EU for ten years.

Helen Holder, GMO Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said: "Too few EU member states support growing genetically modified crops, and now yet another has been refused authorisation. National governments recognised the safety risks of growing this GM potato, as they have with previous applications. Now the decision is in the hands of the European Commission and we urge it to reject it too."

Today's vote was on an application to grow the genetically modified potato for use in industrial processes like making paper. The producer ‚ German chemicals giant BASF ‚ has also applied for approval to use the same potato in food and animal feed and acknowledges that contamination of the food chain is possible.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave the GM potato the green light, but has been criticized for overlooking several important health and environmental risks:

* Antibiotic resistance marker gene: the potato contains a gene which can convey resistance to antibiotics. Under EU law, genes of this kind should have been phased out by the end of 2004. EFSA acknowledges that the cultivation of this potato could lead to antibiotic resistance, yet argued that this did not pose a "relevant" risk to human health or to the environment.

* The risk assessment, required under EU law, fails to fulfil legal requirements. Basic information on the health and environmental safety of the GM potato is missing; in particular there is only an analysis of effects of surrounding wildlife on the potato, rather than looking at the impact of the GM potato on the environment.

* Effects on health have not been sufficiently investigated. A number of irregularities, including toxicological differences that could have serious implications for food safety, have simply not been probed either by BASF or by EFSA

* BASF admits that food contamination is likely: the potato has been genetically modified by the chemical giant BASF to increase its amylopectin content, which is used to produce starch. Although it is not intended to enter the food chain, BASF have issued a separate application for use in human food and animal feed, stating that "it cannot be excluded that amylopectin potato.. may be used as or may be present in food" [2].

* The risk of contaminating future crops is ignored. As they grow underground, it is virtually impossible to harvest all potatoes from a crop. Potatoes therefore grow back the following years and future crops could be contaminated with the genetically modified variant.

"No new GMOs have been grown in the European Union for 10 years now and research show that GMOs actually stimulate the economy less than green farming measures. It is time to accept that there is simply no market for genetically modified crops."

"The big GMO companies claim that using genetically modified potatoes in industrial processes is an environmentally-friendly option, but this is absurd considering the associated health and environmental risks," Ms Holder added.

For more information, please contact:

Rosemary Hall, Communications Officer at Friends of the Earth Europe: Mobile +32 485 930515, rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org

Helen Holder, Coordinator of the Friends of the Earth Europe GMOs campaign: Mobile +32 474 857638, helen.holder@foeeurope.org

Notes:

[1] Application for cultivation of Amylopectin Potato Event EH92-527-1 according to Directive 2001/18

[2] Application for Amylopectin Potato Event EH92-527-1 according to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, BASF Plant Sciences.

Europe: Ministers wary of hot GM potato

The Daily Telegraph (UK), 16th July 2007. By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels.

The European Union is expected to sidestep hostile public opinion by approving the cultivation of a genetically modified crop via the "back door" of a bureaucratic Brussels procedure.

Europe's farm ministers meet in Brussels today to consider a European Commission proposal to allow a new antibiotic-resistant GM potato, the first biotech crop released for planting since 1998.

EU officials predict that ministers, running scared of anti-GM public opinion across Europe, will fail to agree to either block or approve the potato. This will mean that the "proposed act shall be adopted by the Commission" via the obscure process of "comitology", allowing governments to pass the buck to unelected officials.Greenpeace is concerned that the procedure will allow the Commission to allow the planting of BASF's EH92-527-1 potato following earlier clearance from the European Food Safety Authority.

Marco Contiero, the GM policy adviser for Greenpeace, said: "This mechanism allows the Commission not to take political responsibility as a risk manager. "Many member states also use this authorisation procedure to duck political responsibility to their citizens who are opposed to GM crops. It is convenient to all governments but especially those like the UK, where the authorities support GM but British people do not."

BASF's genetically modified potato, which includes genes for resistance to antibiotics, would be used in industrial starch production rather than for food. Despite the overwhelming weight of scientific advice showing biotech to be safe and trade war threats from the United States, EU governments are still wary of the pan-European campaign against GM crops which sprang up in the late 1990s.

Britain is a friend of biotech and the EU's other 26 member states are evenly split, between supporters, abstainers and outright opponents.

EU ministers pave way for GMO potato crops

Reuters, 16 July 2007.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - EU farm ministers clashed on Monday on whether to approve a genetically modified (GMO) potato for growing, passing the final decision to the bloc's executive and paving the way for the first new "live" GMO crop for years.

Developed by German chemicals group BASF, the potato yields high amounts of starch. While it would be grown in Europe's fields, it is not for direct human consumption and its starch would be used in industries such as paper-making.

Since the ministers failed to achieve the required majority under the EU's weighted voting system, the decision now passes to the European Commission, which should now issue a rubberstamp authorization. However, it is unclear how long that might take.

It would be the EU's first approval of a GMO crop for cultivation since before the bloc's unofficial six-year moratorium on authorizations of new GMO crops and foods, which ended -- again by a default Commission rubberstamp -- in 2004.

USA: GMO label 'very important'

The Honolulu Advertiser (Hawai'i), 16 July 2007.

Hawai'i consumers are fairly evenly divided over the safety of genetically modified foods such as locally grown papaya, according to a poll by University of Hawai'i researchers. However, consumers overwhelmingly support labeling of such foods, the survey found.

Genetically modified, or transgenic, crops are plants that have been altered by the transfer of genetic material from another species. In the case of papayas the fruit is modified to be resistant to a virus that causes unsightly blemishes and lower yields.

Genetic modification of foods is becoming more widespread: Up to 75 percent of processed food on store shelves contains genetically modified ingredients, according to some estimates.

Government officials consider such crops safe and do not require labeling. As a result products such as transgenic papayas typically are indistinguishable from non-genetically modified foods on store shelves. However, the lack of labeling may run counter to consumer sentiments.

According to the recently released survey, 72 percent of residents said it was "very important" that genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, be labeled, with another 13 percent calling it "somewhat important." At the same time the survey showed a general lack of knowledge among residents about genetically modified foods. Fully 64 percent of respondents said they were either very little or not at all informed about transgenic foods. Only 8 percent of respondents said they were well informed.

When it came to the safety of genetically modified foods, 36 percent of those surveyed said the products were extremely or somewhat risky, vs. 34 percent who said genetically modified foods were somewhat or extremely safe. Twenty-two percent of respondents said they did not know whether genetically modified food was safe or not.

UH professor Sabry Shehata, who was principal author of the report, said the findings support a move to adopt genetically modified food labeling coupled with consumer education initiatives. The results were generally comparable with prior research into U.S. consumer attitudes about transgenic foods, according to the report.

"Consumer education is very low," Shehata said. "Labeling should be considered as a way to educate consumers about it."

In the United States, there are no requirements that transgenic food be labeled as such. Proponents for labeling contend such a move will allow scientists to better track any long-term effects of genetically modified foods and allow consumers to avoid such foods if they wish. However, opponents contend that labeling will cost too much and raise unsubstantiated food safety fears.

"It's just like you're red-flagging it," said O'ahu papaya farmer Ken Kamiya, who's also president of the Hawaii Papaya Industry Association. "I don't see a need for labeling. There is no question or doubt people want a good product. The question of (whether it's genetically modified) doesn't really enter into it."

Honaunau organic farmer Melanie Bondera disagreed.

"Every public survey always supports labeling," said Bondera, a board member for Hawaii Seed, an advocate for sustainable agriculture and a Hawai'i free of GMOs. "People want choice."

Hawai'i's most popularly cultivated transgenic papaya is called Rainbow, and it represented 53 percent of papaya grown in Hawai'i, according to the study. The non-genetically modified Kapoho variety accounted for 30 percent of papaya acreage in 2005. Most of the papaya sold locally is genetically modified while non-genetically modified papayas are exported to countries such as Japan, which currently do not accept transgenic papayas.

The introduction of transgenic papaya by UH researchers in 1998 is widely credited with saving Hawai'i's papaya industry. However, genetically modified papaya introduced other problems by raising the risk of cross-pollination with non-genetically modified and organic papayas. The modified papayas also have yet to generate the market acceptance and higher sales prices that non-genetically modified papayas command.

The survey of 538 Hawai'i residents was conducted between February and June of 2006. It has a margin of error of 5 percentage points.

15 July 2007

Finland: Antilla Demands Labelling of GMO Feed

YLE Uutiset, 15 July 2007.

Minister of Agriculture Sirkka-Liisa Antilla hopes meat manufacturers and processors using genetically modified feed would voluntarily indicate this on their products.

She said the preservation of consumer confidence in Finnish foodstuffs was essential.

The Minister added consumers had the right to know what they purchased and put into their food. She was speaking in Vihti on Sunday.

GMO soy is widely used as feed throughout the EU and can be legally imported to Finland. However, legislation does not require meat processors to indicate their products are genetically modified.

The meat industry believes GMO soy will dominate the market within a couple of years. Both the Finnish Food and Drink Industries' Federation and its subsidiary The Finnish Meat Board have taken a positive stance on the use of GMO soy in production.

The temptation to give animals GMO soy as feed is strong as it is much cheaper than other feeds.

Australia: Public input sought into GMO review

Australian Broadcasting Commission, 15 July 2007.

The Tasmanian Government is urging the public to participate in a review of the state's moratorium on the use of gene technology in primary industries.

Tasmania's moratorium on growing genetically modified crops will end in late 2009.

The Government has set up a joint house parlimentary committee to review the GMO moratorium, looking at trends in national and international regulations, advantages and disadvantages of allowing genetic modification of food crops and the potential for agricultural research.

The committee chair, Primary Industries Minister, David Llewellyn, says the policy has been a bonus for the state's clean, green image in many markets.

"We are a major exporter of products particularly to Japan, the buyers of our products in Japan think highly of our quality and they're concerned about geneticallty engineered products," Mr Llewellyn said.

Thomas Deichmann: 'All smoke and mirrors'

GM Watch, 15 July 2007.

In the article from the German press below, Thomas Deichmann dismisses concerns over Monsanto's MON863 corn as totally bogus - 'All smoke and mirrors'. That's an accusation Deichmann's fond of levelling, as can be seen not just from his repeated cries of 'hoax' when reporting concerns over biotechnology.

Prior to his resurrection as a GM expert, Deichmann's principal claim to fame was as a 'debunker' of a very different set of 'myths'. Deichmann's notoriety reached its height with an article on Bosnia he contributed to the magazine LM (formerly Living Marxism), in which he accused journalists of fabricating evidence of imprisonment and atrocities at the Trnopolje camp in Bosnia. As a result of Deichamnn's article, LM was sued out of existence with the court concluding, as did war crimes tribunals at the Hague, that Trnopolje was 'a camp where Muslims were undoubtedly imprisoned' and where 'many were beaten, tortured, raped and killed by their Serb guards'. http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=161

Deichamnn, in his role as apologist for Serb nationalist atrocities, also published a sympathetic interview in LM with the Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic, who had by then been charged with genocide. And Deichamnn even put in an appearance as the final defence witness at the trial in the Hague of Dusko Tadic. The war crimes tribunal clearly found Deichmann's 'evidence' less than convincing, convicting Tadic of crimes against humanity, including 'killings, beatings and forced transfers' of civilians, as well as a particularly horrific sexual mutilation. One of the detention camps where these horrendous crimes were committed was Trnopolje. http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=161

According to journalist Paul Stoop of the Berlin Tagesspiegel, nobody had ever heard of Deichmann before he reinvented himself as a fully-fledged Bosnia expert and began exposing 'myths' about Serb nationalist atrocities. And as the battle of ideas over Bosnia receded, Deichmann was reborn again - this time as an expert exposer of 'myths' about GMOs.

Although Deichmann now claims to be championing science, the common thread with Deichmann, as with the rest of the LM network, is that truth is always subjugated to ideology. The ideological position of this political network is that it's vital to support genetic engineering as part of the championing of 'human endeavour' and the beating back of the 'culture of fear'. For this reason, they believe all restictions on genetic technologies or big business should be strenuously opposed.

As a result, Deichmann has called for Greenpeace's charitable status in Germany to be removed because of their actions in opposing genetic engineering. To this end, the man who previously went to such lengths to try and make the world turn a blind eye to crimes against humanity, now reckons up every instance of direct action by Greenpeace as a source of indictment. He berates the organisation not only over its 'various illegal activities' but also for disseminating 'unscientific opinion on scientific issues' - an interesting stance given that the LM network have been in the very thick of climate change denial. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7546

Note, by the way, how in 'Hypochondria Resurrected', Deichmann has almost completely airbrushed out the actual researchers, led by Professor Gilles Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, who took a detailed look at the Monsanto study that supposedly supported the safety of MON863. Deichmann transforms the peer reviewed work of Professor Seralini and his colleagues, published in a journal edited by a research scientist for the Food and Drug Administration, into 'Greenpeace' merely reinterpreting some 'old feeding studies, which were sufficiently examined already'!

Deichmann certainly knows a lot about smoke and mirrors.

(The following translation of Deichmann's article was posted on the AgBioView list.)

For more on the study by Seralini et al, see:
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8093
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7647

For more on Deichmann

http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=161

For more on the LM network and its various guises:

http://www.lobbywatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=39&page=1

Germany: Hypochondria Resurrected

Kolner Stadt-Anzeiger, July 10 2007. By Thomas Deichmann.

A brouhaha like this over food is nearly unprecedented. Seldom have so many emotional and financial resources been squandered, in order to repeatedly reach the same conclusion: MON863 corn is safe. But for many, this message is obviously so hard to swallow that they aren't even willing to hear it.

MON863 was developed in the genetic engineering laboratories of the US multinational Monsanto. It is equipped with the ability to defend against corn rootworm, it is grown on millions of acres - and eaten by countless humans and animals. And why not? It is exactly as safe as the yellow cobs we grow domestically. This was confirmed all over again last Thursday by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

The reason why the authority had to clarify matters once more is an announcement by the environmental group Greenpeace in March 2007. Its Hamburg office had reported a new "study by independent French scientists" who claimed that "gene-corn" carries "potential health risks." In rat feeding studies, the animals allegedly showed "symptoms of poisoning and damage to the liver and kidneys." And supposedly, for the first time, "a health risk for approved gene-plants has been proven."

In reality, however, there were no new sensational bioassays. Greenpeace had only reinterpreted old feeding studies, which were sufficiently examined already some years ago and verified. All smoke and mirrors, a finding immediately reached by several scientific institutions.

At the end of March, the Federal Institute for Risk Evaluation (Bundesinstitut f¸r Risikobewertung) stated that the "renewed statistical analysis of the data does not provide any reason" to question the earlier findings. One month later, the same thing was notified by France's Sood Safety Authority (AFSSA). In the mean time, the EFSA experts had also begun to evaluate the new Greenpeace interpretations of the bioassays. From it "no new safety concerns" emerged, according to the latest announcement.

The nation has once again trembled because of a statement by the "German fear industry". For the anti-genetic-engineering-front, however, the accomplishment is trivial. The rat story of 2004 is simply resurrected. Just like the fairy tale of the collapse of Monarch butterflies, which drop from corn-stalks; the story about allergens released from transgenic Brazil nuts and the legends about "killer-potatoes." By the middle of June Greenpeace was already working on the next "scandal": This time it concerns the transgenic corn line NK603, which they claim is "possibly injurious to health". Rat feeding studies supposedly demonstrated "effects on the functions of the kidneys, brain, heart and liver." We'll see how much money and anxiety will be wasted this time around in examining Greenpeace's hypochondria.

14 July 2007

Australia: Victoria to lift GM ban?

Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #717, 14 July 2007. By Janet Grogan.

Three years after extending its moratorium on the commercial growing of genetically modified (GM) crops, the Victorian ALP government appears poised to remove the ban when it expires in February 2008.

State agriculture minister Joe Helper believes that Victoria is now "open-minded" about GM crops and a "careful and considered approach" will be used to determine the impact of GM crops on the market before a decision is made.

Farmers' groups are split. The National Farmers Federation (NFF) has been lured by promises of increased yields for less expense, but the Network of Concerned Farmers sees an erosion of choice for non-GM farmers, with up to 10% additional costs to cover segregation bills alone. The United Dairy Farmers of Victoria voted on June 19 to reverse their support for Victoria's ban on commercial GM canola. In response, consumer groups say that they will vote with their feet and choose non-GM soy or organic alternatives if the ban is lifted.

Federal agriculture minister Peter McGuaran, a supporter of GM crops, was quoted by the May 13 Age as saying: "Farmers have much to gain, particularly in times of drought, from growing GM crops, such as wheat and canola that use less water and herbicides than conventional crops." The same points have been reiterated by NFF chief executive Ben Fargher.

These are emotive words, especially in times of drought, but they are hard to substantiate. There is no GM drought-resistant wheat or canola and development could be 10 years away. Non-GM varieties will be available far sooner. Seventy per cent of GM crops are herbicide resistant, and farmers spray more often and at higher doses, resulting in "super weeds" that demand an increasing amount of chemicals to control them.

Federal minister for trade Warren Truss has repeatedly said that Australian farmers are being "left behind". Yet, according to a 2006 industry-backed report from the International Service for Acquisition of Agro-biotechnology Applications ten years after the introduction of GM crops, just 0.7% of all farmers grew them, and 85% of all GM crops were grown in North and South America.

With Australian GM-free canola enjoying a premium of up to $120 per tonne more than the Winnipeg price it is difficult to see how our farmers are being left behind.

The Victorian government has appointed a three-member GM review panel to examine the economic impact of commercial GM canola on trade. However, the panel appears flawed from the start. The chairperson, Gus Nossal, is a retired medical researcher and a long-time supporter of GM crops and food. Panel member Merna Curnow was an officer of the Victorian Farmers Federation. She also worked for the Grains Research Development Council, which invests in GM promotion. Neither appear to have skills to review the issue.

As Bob Phelps from Gene Ethics said, "The Bracks government has set up a panel to recommend fast tracking GM crops into our environment and onto our plates". On May 22, he called for a review of "new evidence on health and environmental impacts of GM crops and foods since the licences were issued".

There have been few independent GM studies carried out, partly due to a lack of funding, but also because of the difficulty in accessing GM material. Hence the majority of data comes from the GM companies themselves. It is then the responsibility of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to review the data.

WA agriculture minister Kim Chance has said that FSANZ does not adequately assess health impacts of genetically modified crops, and FSANZ spokesperson Lydia Buchtmann agreed it did not conduct trials involving feeding animals or people GM foods. As the May 13 Age editorial stated, "To ask Big Agribusiness about GM is a little like consulting Big Tobacco about the risks of smoking".

One independent study was conducted by Dr Irina Ermakova of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Female rats were fed GM soy, non-GM soy or non-soy diets prior to conception. Two weeks after birth, 36% of the GM pups weighed less than 20g compared to 6% of the others. Within three weeks, 25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared to only three of 33 (9%) from the non-GM soy group, and three of 44 (6.8%) from the non-soy controls. These results are consistent with other independent studies.

If Victoria does remove its ban, the pressure will be on other states to follow. In WA, there is a push to make GM cotton exempt from the moratorium. Opponents see it as a Trojan Horse that will serve to pave the way for GM canola and other crops.

In WA, the Say No to GMO campaign has brought together the Conservation Council of WA, the Organic Growers Association and the Network of Concerned Consumers. A petition asking that the GM moratorium be extended 10 years beyond 2008 has gathered almost 4000 signatures and was recently tabled in parliament.

This type of consumer-led resistance is evident across the country. As Phelps explained, "The citizen campaign to keep Victoria GM-free is even stronger since the turnaround as their foolish decision is based on empty promises about the profit potential of GM canola".

With outstanding issues to consider such as segregation, contamination, liability, labeling, consumer rejection, health, environment and economics, one has to wonder why we are even having this debate.

[To get involved in Say No to GMO email Janet on jan60gro@yahoo.com or phone Maggie on (08) 9420 7260.]

Australia: GM push vilifies organics

Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #717, 14 July 2007. By Annolies Truman.

Recent attacks on the organic food industry are about discrediting it to soften up the public to accept genetically modified (GM) crops, Dr Maggie Lilith of the Conservation Council of WA and the Say No to GMO campaign told Green Left Weekly.

"The spate of recent claims that organic food is riskier and linked to health scares seems to have come from proponents of GM and those with a vested interest", said Lilith, who is also a member of the Fremantle Organic Growers Association. "The claims about the safety of organic foods are unfounded and aim to spread misinformation to the public."

On April 12, a syndicated piece by Bettina Arndt entitled "Organic myths pose real risks to health" appeared in newspapers across Australia. The article is a savage attack on the organic food industry and consumers who choose its products.

"The organic food industry is booming with ever more people deluded into thinking that paying two or three times more for organic food products will provide them with healthier, safer food", stated Arndt.

In an attempt to portray organics as backward and unscientific, Arndt quotes British Lord Dick Taverne as saying, "What is most worrying about the whole organic product movement is the underlying notion that scientific progress is inevitably bad and we are all better off reverting to primitive, 'natural' ways of doing things."

Lilith disputes this unscientific claim. "Organic systems rely on modern scientific understanding of ecology and soil science as well as traditional methods of crop rotations to ensure fertility and weed and pest control", she said.

"Moreover, organic production aims to be sustainable and reduce dependence on non-renewable resources. The soil is not depleted as under conventional agribusiness practices. Organic produce is not covered in toxic chemicals as no pesticides or artificial chemicals are used. Animals are not treated with synthetic growth hormones or drugs."

Arndt also quotes Taverne glorifying GM crops: "If people were really worried about the effects of pesticides in farming on wildlife or human health, they should promote pest-resistant GM crops, which reduce pesticide use Ö The solid scientific support for the safety and efficiency of GM crops means nothing to blinkered souls who trust instincts over science."

Janet Grogan, a leading activist with the Say No to GMO campaign, described Arndt's article as "a thinly veiled pro-GM rant against organic foods".

"It was misinformed and biased. Arndt cites two cases to prove the dangers of eating organic foods, neither actually linked to organically-derived produce."

"What's more, her list of experts comes from pro-GM groups. Lord Taverne is the chairman of the pro-GM lobby group the Association of Sense in Science. His book was lambasted in the Guardian newspaper as Ö mingling myth with fact."

A month later, on May 16, an article appeared in the West Australian, promoting the idea of growing GM cotton in the Ord River district of northern WA and attacking organic growers.

A key GM scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, claimed opponents of the scheme were largely "self-serving organic farmers and ill-informed environmental activists". Peacock was instrumental in developing GM cotton while working at the CSIRO. Some 100 hectare trials of GM cotton along the Ord have already been approved by the WA government.

Lilith is scathing about Peacock's criticism. "It's the pro-GM groups who are self-serving, interested only in making profits at the expense of farmers and community health. Moreover, GM cotton should be considered a Trojan horse as it leaves the door open for other unwanted GM crops."

Another attack on organics followed soon after. The May 22 edition of the Bulletin contained an exclusive titled "The Truth About Organic Food". Two large photos of shopping baskets graphically illustrate the expense of organic food over conventional.

Lilith contests the claim that organic food is expensive, saying, "A lot of supermarket pre-packaged food costs far more than organic staples. The typical household spends far more on junk food, or alcohol, or take-aways than on fruit and vegetables."

"The Bulletin article also ignores the nutritional benefits of organic produce", Lilith told GLW.

"Scientific evidence shows that fresh organic produce is more nutritious than non-organic food, containing higher nutrient levels, more vitamins, minerals, cancer-fighting antioxidants and enzymes."

But the Bulletin article does concede "consumption of organics is growing at 25% to 44% per year, outstripping the rise in organic food production at 6% to 15% Ö in 2000, there were 7.6 million hectares under organic management, with a value of $19m. By 2006, that had grown to 12.3 million hectares valued at $400 million."

According to Annie Kavanagh, president of the Organic Growers Association WA, suppliers are finding it difficult to keep up with the demand from consumers.

Across Australia, in addition to the 12.3 million hectares under organic cultivation, a further 1.1 million hectares land is being prepared for organic certification. In 2006, there were 176 listed organic processors and producers in WA, compared to 58 in 2002. This shows a 300% increase in four years, which reflects the increasing demand for organic produce.

Perhaps this trend explains why the GM lobby is so keen to demolish the credibility of organic agriculture.

Australia: Federal bill threatens GM moratoriums

Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #717, 14 July 2007. By Annolies Truman.

A bill recently pushed through federal parliament has the potential to threaten state moratoriums on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by granting new powers to the federal agriculture minister, a WA anti-GMO activist told Green Left Weekly.

Say No to GMO campaigner Janet Grogan is worried the Gene Technology Amendment (GTA) bill will be used to bypass state regulations and community consultation to introduce unwanted GM crops.

"At stake is the future of the Ord River, in the east Kimberley region of Western Australia, which has been marked out for GM cotton by bio-tech companies Monsanto and Bayer CropScience. The federal government has vowed to pressure WA to lift its ban on GM crops as part of negotiations surrounding development of the second stage of the Ord", Grogan said.

At the government's Northern Australian Land and Water Taskforce inaugural meeting on June 29, the Ord River region was high on the agenda, with GM cotton tabled as a first crop. While WA agriculture minister Kim Chance is on record committing his government to maintain the moratorium on the commercial production of GM crops, the state government has recently given approval for a 100-hectare GM cotton research trial on the Ord.

A number of consumer and farmer groups and NGOs are campaigning for the current moratorium on GM crops to remain for another 10 years after it expires in 2008. "But even if we succeed in convincing the WA government, the GTA bill would enable the federal government to override its decision", Grogan said.

"Under the bill's new emergency provisions, the federal agriculture minister could use drought or pest problems to justify the release of GM crops, with no requirement for a safety assessment or approval from the states", Grogan explained. "The bill also removes the requirement for community consultation when dealings may pose significant risks to the health and safety of people or the environment, and when genetically engineered [GE] crops are field-tested."

Grogan said the federal government seems absolutely determined to bring GE crops to market. "It has invested millions of dollars in GE crops through CSIRO and is calling on all the states to lift their bans [on GE food crops]. This pro-GM agenda has permeated many of the government's agencies including Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). So far, FSANZ has rubber-stamped as safe every GE crop that has come across its desk."

"The government appears to be yielding to pressure from the US to lift trade barriers", she said. "At the moment 85% of GM crops are grown in North and South America. If the federal government decides that, due to the drought, the Ord is the new food basket of Australia, there may be little that the state government, or the people of WA, can do to prevent the introduction of GM crops", Grogan concluded.

13 July 2007

Europe: GMO crops could be let in through the back door - Greenpeace

EuBusiness, 13 July 2007.

EU vote on commercial cultivation of controversial genetically engineered potato 'could let GMO crops in though the back door', warns Greenpeace, in advance of a crucial meeting of agriculture ministers on Monday July 16.

The EU Agriculture ministers will vote on a proposal by the European Commission to allow the large scale cultivation of a controversial genetically engineered potato which includes genes for resistance to antibiotics, to be used for starch production and as animal feed.

If approved, this would be the first time since 1998 that a genetically engineered plant is authorised for growing in the EU.

Greenpeace called on ministers to reject the potato developed by German chemical company BASF, claiming that it poses significant risks to health and the environment. The genetically engineered potato contains a gene which conveys resistance to antibiotics. Under EU law, genes of this kind which may have adverse effects on human health and the environment should have been phased out by the end of 2004. Despite this, the European Food Safety Authority gave a positive opinion on the BASF potato, stating that its antibiotic resistance genes do not pose a "relevant" risk to human health or the environment. The EFSA does not rule out, however, that the cultivation of the potato could lead to antibiotic resistance effects. Given that, and considering the industrial scale cultivation for which the potato is designed, Greenpeace considers the approach by the EFSA dangerous:

"Increasing antibiotic resistance in human and animals is a widely recognised medical problem. Any unnecessary use of antibiotic resistance genes in plants is therefore irresponsible because it poses a direct threat to human and animal health" said Marco Contiero policy adviser on GMOs at Greenpeace European Unit.

Greenpeace also warns that the BASF potato did not undergo full risk assessment as required under EU law:

"The European Commission is asking Member States to approve the BASF potato, even though basic information on its health and environmental impacts is missing. The European Food Safety Authority did not investigate the effects of the BASF potato on biodiversity and the ecological implications of its cultivation. BASF did not supply the EFSA with data on the impact of its genetically engineered potato on the environment. Instead, it limited its analysis to the effects of surrounding wildlife on its potato. This makes a mockery of EU law, which requires that all applications for genetically engineered plants must include a full environmental impact assessment" Mr Contiero explained.

"Even though the EFSA acknowledges that the data provided by BASF show many irregularities that could have serious implications for health and environment, it has simply accepted the BASF request without further, independent scientific investigation. This potato is likely to contaminate the food chain and the environment. If approved, the potato can be legally planted anywhere in the EU, even though most member states still have no measures in place to protect conventional and organic agriculture from contamination by genetically engineered plants." Mr Contiero concluded.

Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace.

Friction TV Agent Orange Video [re. victims of Monsanto's toxic chemicals]

The Ecologist online, 13 July 2007.

Between 1961 and 1971, American forces sprayed some 80 million litres of defoliants and other poisons onto the forests and villages of Vietnam.

The damage which the key constituent, Agent Orange, did to children in the country is still being felt today. Babies born two generations after the war are subject to hideous deformities.

Neither the US government nor the manufacturers, Dow Chemicals and Monsanto, have ever been brought to account for these crimes. Watch Friction TV's new video and join their campaign for the victims of Agent Orange: http://www.friction.tv/debate.php?debateno=672

Cyprus: House stands firm on GM law

Cyprus Mail, 13 July 2007. By Jean Christou.

PARLIAMENT yesterday refused to acknowledge a veto by President Tassos Papadopoulos on the stacking of products with Genetically Modified (GM) content on separate supermarket shelves, the Green Party said.

A bill providing for separate display was passed by Parliament on June 14 but was vetoed by the President, who said it would have to be amended. The bill had been before Parliament for two years and when it was passed it made Cyprus the first EU country to create such a law.

"The President is allowed to practice his veto and ask Parliament to withdraw or amend the bill," said Green Party leader George Perdikis. "We said 'no' to the President."

Perdikis denied that the EU had quashed the idea of such a law. "It was the government that assumed the EU would have a position on the bill and that's why they asked for it to be withdrawn," he added. "We are not going to change it, and of now it's final."

Perdikis said Papadopoulos could appeal to the Supreme Court on the issue if he wished.

The proposal had been put forward by the party because it felt that the current labelling of GM products was inadequate, as they are mixed with standard products so the public is not given a clear choice, misleading many people who did not want to purchase GM foods.

"As of now, they will have to be placed on separate shelves," Perdikis said. He said the Green Party would be monitoring the situation "very strictly and closely" to ensure the law was followed by shops and supermarkets.

Shortly after the Greens proposal was first made two years ago, an unsigned letter from the US embassy in Nicosia to House Speaker Demetris Christofias was leaked to the press. The US is the biggest producer of GM foods.

The letter warned Cyprus that passing such a bill was tantamount to "stigmatising" products that have been "found safe by the European Commission experts" and that the legislation would hurt Cyprus-US relations.

Results of a State Lab test in Cyprus found that 12 of the 63 products tested (almost 1 out of every 5) contained GM organisms without the required labelling. Five of those 12 were even labelled 'GM-free'.

In other tests since 2005, it was found that two of 37 tested products ‚ which were all soy or corn based ‚ contained GM in quantities greater than 0.9 per cent.

India: GM-free status sought for State To prevent influx of genetically modified crops

The Hindu, 13 July 2007

• Demand in the wake of permission given to Monsanto
• Issue taken up with Union Agriculture Minister

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Agriculture Minister Mullakkara Ratnakaran has written to the Union Minister of Agriculture Sharad Pawar opposing experimental cultivation of genetically modified crops in Kerala.

The Minister urged the Centre to declare Kerala as a GM-free State and prevent the influx of genetically modified crops.

Mr. Ratnakaran wrote to Mr. Pawar in the light of permission granted to a private agency under the control of Monsanto Corporation to try genetically modified rice in some paddy fields in Palakkad district.

Kerala is rich in biodiversity and 50 per cent of its geographical area is part of the Western Ghats which is a global biodiversity hotspot. Cultivation of genetically modified crops in this area will be detrimental to the ecosystem, the Minister said.

Workshop

The Agriculture Minister said that the Government would organise a workshop soon to create awareness of the effects of the entry of imperialist forces in the food sector.

India bans GM rice imports

EXTRACT: ...India banned the importation of genetically modified rice, the government said Thursday. India is generally a rice exporter, but the country's also imports small volumes.

Read the article: http://prairiefarmer.com/index.aspx?ascxID=dowJones&category=1&djid=20509

12 July 2007

U.S. to mull changes to oversight of GM crops

Reuters, July 12 2007. By Christopher Doering.

WASHINGTON - U.S. oversight of genetically modified crops, which critics charge is insufficient, may be overhauled following a series of proposed changes released on Thursday by the Agriculture Department.

Cindy Smith, associate administrator with USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, said any revisions it makes to its existing framework would be "the first comprehensive review of our regulatory structure" for genetically engineered crops.

One change USDA is considering would abandon the existing two-tiered permit system in favor of a multilevel one.

The new system would provide more stringent review for plants with which USDA is less familiar, or those that may pose an increased risk, such as plants that produce substances not intended for food use. Those engineered for herbicide tolerance or insect resistance would be less complicated.

The proposed changes would "expand our regulatory oversight while at the same time minimizing our regulatory burden for those (genetically engineered) organisms that have been safety field tested for more than 20 years," said Rebecca Bech, an acting deputy administrator at APHIS.

USDA is also considering expanding its oversight to include organisms that have the potential to become noxious weeds. This would increase review of genetically engineered organisms that may damage crops to include plants that pose a broader risk to agriculture, the environment and public health.

The draft environmental impact statement, which evaluates potential revisions to existing regulations, will be open to public comment for 60 days starting on Friday.

The draft, public comments and further scientific information will be used to create a proposed rule. USDA first announced in 2004 it was beginning a review of its biotech regulations.

OVERSIGHT UNDER FIRE

Consumer groups, environmentalists and organic farmers oppose biotech crops, which they fear could mix with other crops or develop super weeds resistant to herbicides.

Currently, USDA no longer has oversight of a plant once it is deregulated and determined to be safe.

"We're exploring whether a different type of system might be applicable," said John Turner, another biotechnology official at

APHIS.

"You might envision a system where certain things would be unconditionally approved ... whereas others might be approved with conditions," he said.

A string of court cases has criticized USDA oversight. In May, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer upheld a ban on the planting of a genetically modified alfalfa crop variety developed by Monsanto Co. until government studies on its environmental effects were concluded.

The judge found in a preliminary injunction that U.S. regulators had not properly examined the effects of the alfalfa before allowing it to be commercialized.

A separate ruling in February by a District of Columbia judge found "substantial evidence that the field tests may have had the potential to affect significantly the quality of the human environment."

Comment by GM Watch:

For the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) see http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2007/07/content/printable/complet e_eis.pdf

For the USDA press release see http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2007/07/drafteis.shtml

And for an USDA fact sheet with background see http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/biotechnology/content/printable_version/fs_programmatic_eis.pdf.

The comments below come from a former Vice President of BIO, as well as President of PrometheusAB ‚ "Advanced Expertise in US and Global Biotechnology", and were posted on the pro-GM AgBioView list:

USDA/APHIS' Long-Awaited Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Biotech is Out

By Val Giddings, Ph.D., PrometheusAB, Inc., lvg@PrometheusAB.com

The long awaited draft environmental impact statement prepared by APHIS in support of their intention to revise USDA's biotech regulations is now available for public review and comment. The comment period ends on 11 September, 2007. This is a significant development. The proposals in the draft will no doubt fall short of what would satisfy those who think that regulation should be proportional to risk (hazard X exposure) and without regard to process. But even if implemented directly as proposed the changes contemplated in the EIS would bring some benefits -- more flexibility for APHIS in dealing with newer developments, such as multi-year permits for plants modified to produce pharmaceutical or industrial compounds, and a multi-tiered permit system which would (in theory) more closely match the degree of oversight and permit conditions to the level of risk posed by the particular plants subject to the permits. APHIS is also considering expansion of its regulatory oversight in a number of areas as well.

It is certain, however, that activist groups adept at distorting science and fomenting fear for ulterior motives will use the comment period and opportunity to inundate APHIS with demands for much more stringent regulation. It is to be hoped that those who understand these technologies best -- the industrial and academic communities developing new applications of biotechnology for agriculture, the agricultural producers and allied groups who grow biotech improved crops, and their customers in the food manufacturing and retail industries, will provide reasoned and rational input to help guide APHIS in their consideration of the alternatives.

Read rest of article: http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=2743

UK: Brewers face GMO testing

BeverageDaily.com, 12 July 2007. By Neil Merrett.

US imports of brewers' grain and feed coming into England could face mandatory testing for contamination of genetically modified organisms (GMO's) under new proposals revealed yesterday by the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA).

The new measures, which will undergo public consultation over the next three months, would repeal legislation agreed by the European Union just over four months ago.

The legislation made random GMO testing voluntary for brewers and farmers.

If passed under its current form, the proposals by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) would force brewers into costly testing of their inputs, with the possibility of having to work with new suppliers and further raising the prices for dwindling supplies of grain.

The moves are yet another twist to the ongoing saga of concerns within the EU regarding the US's use of GMO in foods, and the reported dangers of growing it near non-gmo products.

On 7 March this year, under European Commission Decision 2007/157/EC, random GMO testing on US imports was made voluntary, after the EU was satisfied that the country had shown itself to have taken sufficient action to prevent the further distribution of GMO products like the Bt10 line into the supply chain.

This decision in itself was a revocation of the 2005/317/EC adopted back in 2005, designed to ensure that unauthorised GMO samples had not been spread into the food and drink chain.

The FSA had added that during the testing cycle, only one shipment from the US has yet found to been found to contain samples of GMOs, for the whole time the legislation was in place.

The mandatory testing would apply only to imports being bought into England, though the consultation has been delayed, so that similar legislation can be possibly adopted by Wales and Scotland.

The proposals will be supported by sizeable opposition within many, but not all, EU member states over adopting GMO in the food chain.

Environmental groups back the stance of countries like Austria and Hungary that are strictly against any use of GMO crops on the grounds that its long term health affects remain unknown and could pose a risk to consumers.

However, some organisations beleive especially with increasing pressure on global supply of crops and commoditites, that GMO's could boast strong applications for soil conservation, ensuring a sustainable supply of goods to producers in the country by using modified crops more capable of retaining water and nutrients.

Ireland: Time to clear GM-free air

Irish Examiner (farm supplement), 12 July 2007. By Stephen Cadogan.

Environment Minister John Gormley's statement that Ireland's position on Genetically Modified Organisms is now in line with the new programme for Government, which seeks a GM-free Ireland, sets the stage for the air to be cleared on this subject once and for all.

It should be high on the agenda for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Minister Mary Coughlan's national dairy industry forum, when she meets farmers and processors on July 28 to assist in determining policy priorities.

One of the things the industry will need to know is how the Government will aid the switch-over to farming without genetically modified animal feeds, and to the new marketing challenge it poses.

Clarification will be needed also on the Government's vague sounding commitment "to seek to negotiate the establishment of an All-Ireland GMO-free zone."

The matter is being brought somewhat to a head by the Irish Grain and Feed Association's warning that rejection by the EU of just one genetically modified maize variety, Herculex, would add up to € 40 m to the cost of feeding livestock in Ireland.

The IGFA's warning that this will erode the competitiveness of our food exports comes at a critical time for our dairy industry, which is gearing up to capitalise on an expected decade of strong prices for the dairy commodities which Ireland produces.

Farmers will need to know how their existing feed supply will be affected by the move to GM-free, before they commit to an expected multi-billion investment programme sparked by the expected gradual scrapping of milk quotas over the next eight years.

The dairy industry expects an increase up to 40% in Irish milk production, but processing capacity may need to be increased by a similar order, and processors will need a clear road-map of the way ahead before committing to huge investments.

On one side a competitive economic advantage for decades to come is predicted for the farm, food and tourisms sectors in a GMO-free island of Ireland.

This concept has broad support, with the likes of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association and Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association among its backers.

They say the European countries which take much of Ireland's food exports are turning their backs on "GM" food.

But the farm and food industries will need greater assurances of the economic feasibility of going GM-free.

As it is, the Irish Grain and Feed Association says supplies of GM-free maize by-products are not available to replace the 800,000 tonnes of corn gluten and distillers grains which its animal feed company members import from the US every year, which account for up to 30% of feed rations for beef cattle and dairy cows. If the EU goes ahead with a decision to ban Herculex maize, it effectively eliminates access to these imports, according to the IFGA.

But the GM-free Ireland Network says Irish farmers have been speaking to Brazilian suppliers who could produce enough certified non-GMO soya to satisfy the entire EU demand for this most important source of protein in animal feed, and that GM-free maize gluten could come from Europe to replace the genetically modified maize gluten being imported into Ireland.

There are conflicting claims, and our farmers and food processors need clarification of the move to GM-free.

Ireland: Government on course to seek a GM-free Ireland

Irish Examiner (farm supplement), 12 July 2007. By Stephen Cadogan.

Ireland's position on GMOs is now in line with the new programme for Government which seeks a GM-free Ireland, said Environment Minister John Gormley, after he represented Ireland at the EU Environment Council of Ministers.

He said, "I set out my opposition to GMOs very clearly at the ENvironment Council, when I led the support for Austria's statement on the need to address the safety concerns raised in relation to genetically modified maize."

Minister Gormley has also explained why he did not oppose formal adoption of new EU laws allowing organic labelling of products containing up to 0.9% of approved geneticallly modified material via accidental or unavoidable contamination. He told the Dáil [Irish Parliament] the political decision on this was taken at the Agriculture Council on June 12 and under EU procedures, all political decisions are subject to further legal and other processes and, where these are complete, come to the next available Council for formal adoption - which in this case was the Environment Council of June 28.

But these so-called 'A-List' items were not the subject of further discussion, as they are outside of the remit of the Environment Ministers (who also rubber-stamped 'A-List' matters such as trade policy, security policy, fisheries and the EU budget).

"As Ireland had not opposed the political decision on this specific issue at the Agriculture Council, it would not have been within the remit to have opposed its formal adoption at the Environmental Council. The countries that did so were simply confirming the position they had taken previously at the Agriculture Council", said Minister Gormley.

Ireland: Animal feed warning

Irish Examiner (farm supplement), 12 July 2007. By Stephen Cadogan.

The animal feed industry has warned Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Minister Mary Coughlan that Ireland faces up to € 40m of extra costs unless the EU decision to reject imports of genetically modified Herculex maize can be reversed.

Irish Grain and Feed Association Director Deirdre Webb asked the Minister to ensure Ireland plays a lead role in reversing the decision, which would lead to an escalation of the price of animal feed here, eroding the competitiveness o four food exports.

Ms Webb said the EU decision effectively eliminated accesss to 800,000 tonnes of maize by-products imported from the US every year by Irish animal feed companies. "As supplies of GM-free maize by-products are not available elsewhere, the Irish feed industry will be forced to source 800,000 tonnes of replacement products at an additional cost of up to € 40m. This will have a serious effect on animal feed prices and on the competitiveness of livestock products on our major export markets."

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

According to Friends of the Earth Europe, there is currently a surplus of GM-free maize in Europe, essentially in Hungary, but current overland transportation costs for getting this to the UK and Ireland are higher than shipping in the GM maize from the USA.

Ireland: Minister's GM maize claims rejected

Irish Farmers Journal, 14 July (printed 12 July) 2007. By Pat O'Keefe, News editor.

Amid growing disquiet over the recent EU decision to retain a ban on 'Herculex' maize products, claims by Minister of State Trevor Sargent that stocks of certified GM free maize products are freely available from Brazil have been disputed by the animal feed trade.

"Despite their best efforts, feed importers have found it impossible to get stocks of GM free maize," according to a spokesman for the Irish Grain and Feed Association (IGFA) yesterday.

Gabriel Lavin, General Manager of Animal Feeds wth Connacht Gold said that he is "shocked" at the implications of the 'Herculex' decision. "We are facing into a winter with a definite possibility of no gluten or distillers," he said. "I tried to formulate a ration last week without those two ingredients - what do you replace them with?"

"My big fear is that soya could be next," he added.

Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, feed importer, W&R Barnett, last week wrote to its customers informing them that due to force majeure (circumstances beyond their control) they would not be able to honour contracts for the supply of corn gluten and distillers grains.

William Barnett told the Farmers Journal: "There is nothing cheap to replace this. Wheat feed (pollard pellets), rape meal, palm kernel or citrus products are in fixed supply and their prices are escalating with sudden rising demand for these as replacements for the gluten and distillers."

Barnett pointed out that Ireland will be hit harder than any other region of Europe as a result of the recent EU decision.

Deirdre Webb, director of the IGFA, said the decision taken two weeks ago by the EU Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, to reject imports of the GM maize variety 'Herculex' has massive implications for the supply of maize by-products from the US.

"Two maize by-products, corn gluten and distillers grains, are vital ingredients in animal feed and account for up to 30% of feed rations. A total of 800,000 tonnes of these maize by-products are imported from the US every year by animal feed companies. The EU decision has effectively eliminated access to these imports.

"As supplies of GM-free maize by-products are not available elsewhere, the Irish feed industry will be forced to source 800,000 tonnes of replacement products at an additional cost of up to €40m," said Deirdre Webb.

"In May 2006, the IGFA warned Irish and EU authorities about the potential crisis posed by vacillation in dealing with the GM issue. Even the EU Commissioner for Health, Markos Kyprianou, agreed with the IGFA that, to remain competitive, the EU must urgently address this problem," she added.

Deirdre Webb described the "sudden, last minute decision" by Ireland to abstain in the crucial EU vote as "bewildering" and a "complete reversal" of the commitment given days earlier that the Irish delegation would be voting in favour.

She said the Minister of State for Food, Trevor Sargent, who has taken responsibility for the Irish decision to abstain, must realise GM maize imports is not a feed safety issue.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

According to Friends of the Earth Europe, there is currently a surplus of GM-free maize in Europe, essentially in Hungary, but current overland transportation costs for getting this to the UK and Ireland are higher than shipping in the GM maize from the USA.

IGFA's claim that the EU's recent rejection of Herculex GM maize (which has never been allowed in the EU) "has effectively eliminated access" to the numerous other kinds of GM maize which remail legal in the EU, is self-obvious nonsense.

GM maize (including Herculex) certainly is a food safety issue. That is why many EU member states oppose its importation for food, feed, and cultivation. See "EFSA fails to protect European citizens from a risk GM maize" and "CRIIGEN answers to European Food Safety Authority critique of MON 863 study" under 10 July, below.

For more details of the original CRIIGEN study see: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7647

For why there's such a lack of confidence in the EFSA, see: Throwing caution to the wind, a detailed critique of the EFSA and its work on GM foods. The report can be downloaded here: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/publications/EFSAreport.pdf

And a report into the failings of the EFSA's scientific work on GM foods can be downloaded at: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/EFSA-RA

The authors of the CRIIGEN study give a presentation about their findings at the European Parliament Office, Room S2.2, in Strasbourg from 16:00 to 17:50 on Wednesday 11 July, co-hosted by Monica Frassoni MEP and Hiltrud Breyer MEP.

Ireland: Surge in biofuels

Irish Farmers Journal, 14 July (printed 12 July) 2007. By Pat O'Keefe, News Editor.

The volume of grain being used for bioethanol production in Europe soared by a massive 89% in 2005/6, acccording to a report this week from the influential German market agency, ZMP.

Some 3.6 million tonnes of grain production went on bioethanol during the period and ZMP predict that 16 million tonnes of will be required to meet demands by 2010. Around 80% of bioethanol produced in Europe comes from grain, with only France using alternatives such as sugarbeet and distilled wine, as feedstocks.

The 16 million tonne figure being suggested for 2010, will break down as 10-11 mt of wheat, three mt of rye, one mt of maize and 400,000 tonnes of barley.

Ireland: GM maize

Irish Farmers Journal, 14 July (printed 12 July) 2007. By Matt Depsey, Editor.

The preliminary decision not to allow in the new GM maize variety for animal feed is wrong. The material cannot be planted and we are in competition with producers who have access to the product. The technology is also proving to be enormously environmentally beneficial. See letters p. 13 [next items below - Ed.]

Ireland: Desperate attempt to hide the facts about GM crops

Irish Farmers Journal, 14 July (printed 12 July) 2007. Letter to the editor:

Dear Sir,

It is amazing that Micheal O'Callaghan would choose to finish his misleading letter [i.e. the forged letter falsely attributed to him - Ed.] in your last week's Farmers Journal with "there is nothing to discuss". This, I firmly believe, is his and his band of eco-fundamentalists' desperate attempt to hide the global facts about genetically modified crops.

1. The first commercial GM crops were planted in 1996. Since then the area planted has grown to 250,000,000 acres in 2006.

It is the fastest adoption of a new technology in agriculture since the invention of the tractor.

2. Over the 10 years of GM crops, the use of pesticide active ingredient on these crops has fallen by 224,000 tonnes of active ingredient or a 15% reduction on the environmental impact of pesticide use on these crops.

3. GM crops with the round-up resistant trait, has facilitated the enormous growth of the no-till crop production system. Under no-till, the land acts as a carbon sink. These increased areas of no-till in the world faciliated by GM crops in 2005 alone had the effect of saving 9,000,000 tonnes of CO2 or the equivalent of taking 4,000,000 cars off the road.

On a personal basis, I manage 30,000 acres of genetically modified crops in Argentina, where in 2006, 40,000,000 acres of GM crops were grown. Contrary to what Micheal O'Callaghan is claiming, GM crops are bringing an enormous boom to Argentine agriculture. A recently released report in Argentina on the first 10 years of genetically modified soya bean, makes incredible reading. It shows that the genetically modified soya bean crop produced an extra 19.7 billion profit for Argentina over and above what conventional soya bean would have done. 78% of went directly to farmers, 13% in retention to the Argentine government and 9% to the seed breeders.

Sorry Micheal, if these invonvenient facts get in the way of your opinions. Also please do not endeavour to insult our intelligence by insisting there is nothing to discuss.

Jim McCarthy
Marshalstown
Castledermont
Co. Kildare

Comment by GM-free Ireland

The above refers to the forged letter attributed to Michael O'Callaghan in last week's issue of the Irish Farmers Journal (see below), which the paper failed to retract in this week's issue despite a request to do so by GM-free Ireland last Tuesday 10 July. The author also fails to spell Michael O'Callaghan's first name correctly.

The claims that 250,000,000 acres of GM crops are being grown worldwide, and that GM crops result in less use of toxic chemicals, are based on widely discredited figures disseminated by Monsanto and the International Service for the Aquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) agri-biotech industry lobby group. For details on these two issues, see the Friends of the Earth Europe report "Who benefits from GM crops: 10 years of biotech crops fail to deliver benefits for consumers and environment":

Key facts (116kb PDF file) http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/key_facts_Jan_2006.pdf

Exec. summary (604kb PDF): http://www.tomatotour.org/Ag_and_biotech_report_briefing.pdf

Full report: http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/who_benefits_from_gm_crops_Jan_2006.pdf

Until the widespread adoption of Monsanto's genetically modified Roundup Ready crops, there were just two confirmed cases of glyphosate-resistant weeds. But by 2005, a growing list of weeds required applications of other, often more toxic, herbicides. Argentina may offer a lesson to the world in this respect. Roundup Ready soybeans comprise 99% of Argentine soybean hectarage. Roundup use on soybeans alone in Argentina has climbed from virtually zero in 1995/96 to 40 million kilograms in 2003/04, and 11 glyphosate-tolerant weed species have now been found in Argentina! The decreasing efficacy of Roundup is due in large part to the overuse of this single herbicide as the key method for managing weeds on millions of hectares. This underscores the fallacy of Jim McCarthy's GM soybean monoculture industrial approach to farming. For details see http://www.tomatotour.org/Ag_and_biotech_report_briefing.pdf

The claim that the release of GM soya beans in Argentina produced an "extra 19.76 billion profit" should be taken with an equivalent amount of salt. For starters, the number needs to be divided by the current currency exchange rate of 0.23407 Euro per Argentine Peso, providing a figure of € 4.63 billion for a GM crop which no-one in Europe wants to eat, and which is now increasingly beeing phased out for animal feed as well.

GM free Ireland continue to mislead the farming community

Irish Farmers Journal, 14 July (printed 12 July) 2007. Letter to the editor:

Dear Sir,

The GM free Ireland claim that GM technology would spell the end for Wicklow farming is neither rational nor logical [This claim was made in a forged letter not from GM-free Ireland - Ed.].

The technology is already in use for many years in Ireland, in areas such as food production, medicine, biopharmaceuticals and diagnostics. In relation to its use in farming, plant biotechnology has become the most rapidly developed technology in the history of agriculture. GM crops have now been grown commercially for over a decade. This year alone, 10 million farmers are growing over 250 million acres of GM crops in countries representing over half the world's population.

The widespread adoption of the technology is based on significant farmer income benefits, pesticide reductions and proven safety to human health and the environment. The vast majority of animal feed imported into this country is derived from these GM crops. The technology has immediate relevance for Irish farmers in the areas of crop agronomics, heart healthy foods and biofuel production.

Yet groups such as GM Free Ireland persist in misleading the farming community by distorting and misrepresenting the facts. Technology is the cornerstone to economic progress.

Farmers in Ireland should have the right to access and choose themselves a technology fully approved and benefitting farmers world-wide for over a decade.

The Green Party are now pushing to prevent any access to GM technology for farmers in Ireland, as evidence by a recent abstention on a vote to allow the import of animal feed derived from Herculex RW maize here, but it has commercial consequences for the important feed industry in Ireland.

This vote sends out the wrong message loud and clear, to farm leaders and the farming community that it is now time for them to actively decide if they want to be part of the tremendous innovation that is happening in agriculture globally or consign themselves to the backwaters of technological progress and an organic farming centered strategy.

Patrick O'Reilly (CEO)
Monsanto Ireland

Comment by GM-free Ireland

No surprise from Monsanto, which intends to patent, genetically modify and control 100% of Europe's maize crop in less than a decade! The above refers to the forged letter attributed to Michael O'Callaghan in last week's issue of the Irish Farmers Journal (see below), which the paper failed to retract in this week's issue following a request to do so by GM-free Ireland last Tuesday 10 July.

As usual, O'Reilly tries to confuse GM crops with the use of GMO bacteria for the production of medicines in secure vats in controlled labs, which will not be affected by the new Government policy in any way whatsoever.

He also quotes the widely discredited claim of 250,000,000 acres of GM crops world-wide, made by Monsanto and ISAAA. He fails to mention that GM crops are only grown on approx 2.6% of the world's agricultural land, and that 99% are grown in only 3 countries (all outside the EU).

His claim that farmers in Ireland should have the "right" to choose GM crops hides the fact that their introduction and cross-contamination will violate the right of farmers to avoid their use! Monsanto knows this very well, of course.

His claim that GM crops are "fully approved" flies in the face of the fact that most of them are experimental, that most of those approved in the USA are not approved in the EU, and that many EU member states actually ban them altogether because of their health, agronomic, environmental, economic, legal, biosafety and food security risks!

Far from consigning Ireland to the "backwaters of technological progress", remaining GM-free will position Ireland with the most credible safe GM free food brand in Europe.

11 July 2007

Italian farmers protest against low-cost food imports

Reuters, 11 July 2007. By Svetlana Kovalyova.

BOLOGNA, Italy: Thousands of farmers marched through the Italian food capital of Bologna on Wednesday to protest against low-cost food imports that have been flooding the country, raising consumer health concerns.

The farmers from throughout Italy urged the government to support "Made in Italy" agriculture with laws requiring the origin of food products to be clearly labeled - or face public discontent over a failure to improve consumer safety and farmers' earnings.

"Hands off Italian quality!" Sergio Marini, the president of the biggest Italian farmers' association Coldiretti, told a crowd of supporters at one of Bologna's main squares.

The protest came after a spate of health scares around the world over Chinese-made food, consumer products and drugs.

"We want clear indication of origin of products that we buy, we want products which are GMO-free," and imports whose quality is controlled, said Marini, referring to genetically modified organisms that many European consumers shun.

Imports of canned tomatoes - an essential ingredient in Italian cuisine - came under fire after Beijing revealed last week that nearly a fifth of Chinese goods earmarked for the internal market were of below-standard quality.

"We are not sure that tomatoes that arrive in Italy are of high quality," said Marini, surrounded by banners asking Italian mothers who buy imported food if they were sure that their children were not eating "something disgusting."

The Chinese trade authorities defended the quality of their exports on Wednesday, saying that the problem was limited.

Chinese canned tomato imports soared 150 percent in the first quarter to match a third of Italy's output, jeopardizing the domestic tomato sector, which employs some 7,000 people and produces about 4.4 million tons of canned tomatoes a year, Coldiretti said.

Italy has been smarting after losing a lengthy court battle over exclusive rights to use the name Parmesan for the hard cheese made in Parma, near Bologna.

Organizers said about 150,000 farmers attended the rally, but the police could not immediately confirm the number.

USA: Be afraid ‚ be very afraid of genetically-modified food

Allied News, 11 July 2007.

Genetically Modified Organisms or GMO are becoming very popular in our farming communities, as they facilitate the productivity of the crop from weed control to pest control.

Recently, I overheard a rural farmer talking excitedly about the GMO corn he planted and how amazing it was that he could use Round-up on his sweet corn to kill all the weeds ‚ but the corn was beautiful. I was stunned. He was so excited and all I could think about was how sad it is that farmers are being sold on thinking it is OK that their corn will look the greatest, resist pests and produce more with less cost ‚ but what is the true cost to their families and the community who consume it?

Please don't confuse GMO with natural cross-breeding of different characteristics of plants, which has been going on for centuries. Farmer Jack liked his red-veined chard but Farmer Jane preferred the taste of her white-veined chard ‚ and so on. It is all part of natural selection, and even bees do this through cross-pollinating. It is also a way to increase the variety of produce like cauliflower, broccoli, red potatoes, russet potatoes and more.

Cross-breeding, however, doesn't alter the plant itself.

A genetically modified plant is created in a lab when specific traits are artificially injected into the DNA of the targeted host.

For instance, flounder (yes, the fish) live in ice cold waters, so scientists have isolated that specific trait in the fish's genetic make-up and have injected it into tomatoes so they will withstand colder temperatures. Tobacco can grow 24 hours a day for quicker harvest since scientists have injected its DNA with genes from fireflies, which grow very fast.

This sounds absurd, but it is happening at an alarming rate and we are mostly unaware of it or what it is doing to us. That's why the rural farmer mentioned above can spray his corn with Round-up and the corn will survive ‚ because its DNA has been altered by that of a plant that is naturally resistant to the chemicals. Worms might even die when they tries to eat the corn ‚ thus the corn is labeled as "pest resistant."

What do you think happens when we eat the same corn? Many have speculated that this is the reason our honey bee population is decreasing: They are dying off from GMO plants ‚ but that's another story for another day.

The plot continues to thicken.

According to the June edition of Standard Process' "News from the Farm," it is estimated that in the United States alone, 52 percent of all corn, 55 percent of all Canola (which is really grape seed), 87 percent of all soy and 79 percent of all cotton contain GMO. Yet, after many studies of harmful affects, there are still no requirements for GMO labeling in the United States. However, 51 other countries around the world require some form of GMO labeling and many others don't even allow GMO plants to be grown in or imported into their country.

It's time Americans start making a grassroots stand about what we have available to feed our families.

You have to look long and hard to find products that don't contain many of the above ingredients. While you search for them, though, you still have to worry about non-specific allergens bombarding our health and the lives of our children.

When I am approached with questions about getting food that doesn't contain soy, for instance, I honestly have to say, "Get out your cook-book and start with basic ingredients, ones that you know what they are where they come from."

Since we have no laws requiring GMO labeling on all American food products, the only way we can truly know our food is not genetically modified is to eat organic foods. Regulations for certified organic foods offer zero tolerance for GMO.

You even have to watch supplements, because they are extracted mainly from plants and, of course, the cheaper plants are GMO. That's part of the reason those types of supplements are priced much lower than all-natural, organic whole-food companies' prices.

Do your research and know where you are buying food; or, know that the store owners are researching what they have on their shelves. That's another reason to buy at our local farmer's market, open from 3 to 7 p.m. Thursdays in the parking lot by Steigerwald's Kitchens & Baths on South Broad Street, Grove City.

Now you may understand the farmer's market logo better: "Your Food, Your Farmer."

We do have the convenience of the identification number sticker on fruits we buy in supermarkets, which is nice. Know that the sticker on conventionally-grown fruit (grown with chemical inputs) contains a PLU code consisting of four numbers. Organically-grown fruit has a five-digit PLU prefaced by the number nine. Genetically-engineered fruit, which we've been discussing, has a five-digit PLU prefaced by the number eight.

Biological farmer and author Gary Zimmer has stated the surge of people getting involved with the GMO awareness "isn't an organic movement. It is a movement of people afraid of their food."

Want to learn more about GMOs? Visit www.seedsofdeception.com. Read "Your Right to Know: Genetic Engineering and the Secret Changes in Your Food" or "Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers."

There is also a free seminar from noon to 1 p.m. July 9 on this very subject at Natural Options, South Broad Street.

Learn about how GMO affects you and your children and what the FDA is doing about it.

Rhonda Brooks is a licensed practical nurse and massage therapist. She owns a health food and supplement store in downtown Grove City.

UK: We should farm cloned animals says Dolly expert

The Daily Mail, 11 July 2007. By Sean Poulter.

The creator of Dolly the sheep has called for farmers to take up cloning as a way of producing cheap food.

Professor Keith Campbell believes the country's farms should be populated by superstrong, super-sized offspring of clones.

The U.S. expects to be eating clone-farmed burgers, pork and bacon within two years, and supporters of the method say Europe must follow suit.

The Daily Mail revealed earlier this year how the daughter of a U.S. clone cow had been born on a British farm for the first time, making Frankenstein Farming a reality.

The intention is that the cow - Dundee Paradise - will be used to help breed Britain's future milking cow herds.

Professor Campbell said yesterday that this should be the first step to a far wider use of cloned animals to produce food from cattle, pigs, chicken and sheep.

Campaigners insist that meat and milk from cloned offspring is identical to the food in supermarkets and should not be labelled.

However, any attempt to deny families the right to decide whether they want to eat food produced in this way would be highly controversial.

One of the biggest concerns is the high number of clone-animal pregnancies that lead to abnormalities, miscarriages and stillbirths.

Even in the most successful cloning systems, twice as many piglets are born dead - around 20per cent - as with existing breeding. The clones could be created from cells taken from the ears of prized animals or even bodies going through a slaughterhouse.

Clone-offspring cows would be bigger and able to produce more milk than those from current breeding techniques.

Pigs might also be much bigger, leaner or faster growing, so making them easier and cheaper to produce.

Professor Campbell, director of animal bioscience at Nottingham University, said cloning is a useful extension of existing selective breeding, which includes artificial insemination and embryo transfer.

"It is just another technique that we can add to accelerate genetic improvements to farm animal species," he added. "Cloning allows us to multiply elite animals.

"We have achieved the ability to clone a whole variety of animals and animal species. In farm animals, we have got cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses.

"In my opinion the ability to integrate cloning into the food production line should be allowed to farmers nowadays."

He said there is 'no conceivable risk' in eating food produced from the off-spring of clones, suggesting the only barrier to the technology is public perception.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected to give approval for the technology, without a requirement for labelling, later this year.

Dr Simon Best, chairman of the Bioindustry Association, believes labelling is unnecessary saying: "I don't think there is a scientific reason for doing it."

He said: "There is a whole load of things that the public could want to know, but you end up with information overload.

The policy chief of the organic farming group, the Soil Association, dismissed the claims as 'propaganda'.

Peter Melchett said: "The fact that supporters of cloning are not prepared to support labelling and want to keep the whole thing secret says it all. It stinks."

The European Food Safety Authority launched an inquiry into the issue of clone farming following the Daily Mail revelations earlier this year.

But will take 18-24 months to report and there is no effectively system to police the introduction of clone farming.

10 July 2007

Europe: EFSA fails to protect European citizens from a risky GM maize

Greenpeace press release, 10 July 2007.

Brussels, Belgium - The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) missed an opportunity today to recover its credibility as regulator of GMO authorisations in Europe.

The authority dismissed the call for further independent investigations into a Monsanto maize (MON863, already approved for sale in the EU), the subject of a scientific peer-reviewed study in March 2007 (1) which highlighted negative impacts suffered by rats fed with MON863 during feeding trials. The authors of the study warned that to disregard the signs of toxicity in the liver and kidney of the test animals would pose a danger to human and animal health.

EFSA's refusal to re-open the file on MON863 in the light of this study is consistent with the authority's stubborn refusal to assess GE applications in a balanced way: ever since it was established in 2002, EFSA has rubber-stamped every GMO application. It relies solely on data from agro-chemical companies, disregards long-term health and environmental impacts, and repeatedly dismisses divergent scientific opinions.

The timing of this announcement is telling. Having waited more than three months to release its opinion, it is no coincidence that EFSA chose to do so today, the very day that EU environment ministers are due to discuss the risk assessment of GMOs and the case of MON863 maize. Such an obvious attempt to influence a Council decision exposes the true motivations of EFSA, allegedly an objective agency of the European Union. At least now it is clear for all to see that EFSA is running a campaign to influence EU decisions and push risky GMOs on an unsuspecting public.

Two weeks ago, Greenpeace reported on a new study by French scientists showing similar threats of toxicity from another Monsanto GE maize (NK603) that the EFSA also recommended for sale in the EU, despite never having investigated disturbing anomalies in rats fed with the maize.

Greenpeace is not alone in having criticised EFSA for failing to implement EU law while assessing the risks of GMOs. In April 2006, the European Commission issued a statement (2) calling for better test protocols and more research into the long-term effects of GMOs. The Council, too, repeatedly voiced concerns about EFSA's work. EFSA's recommendations on GMOs have never achieved formal backing by the required two-thirds majority of EU member states.

"Greenpeace is thus calling on EU member states and the EU Commission to reform EFSA's work to ensure that EU law governing GMO risk assessments is correctly implemented," said Marco Contiero of Greenpeace. "Until this reform is concluded, no further GE applications should be authorised."

"The Commission should also withdraw authorisations already granted to other genetically-engineered products, given that they were approved under the same inadequate risk assessment procedure. The time has come for the EU to put the precautionary principle before the vested interests of agro-chemical companies such as Monsanto," he added.

EU environment ministers meeting today will discuss a proposal for further investigations into Monsanto's MON863 maize and the GMO risk assessment process.

Related Reports

EFSA's risk assessment on GMOs 31 May 2006

Notes to Editor

1. Seralini, G.E., et al, 2007, 'New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity', published in Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 52, 596-602.

2. European Commission IP/06/498, 12 April 2006 http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/498
8&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Contact

For technical background
Christoph Then, Greenpeace Germany GE campaigner, tel +49 171 878 0832

In Luxembourg
Marco Contiero, Greenpeace European Unit Policy Adviser on GMOs, tel +32 (0)2 274 1906

In Brussels
Katharine Mill, Greenpeace European Unit Media Officer, tel +32 (0)2 274 1903

Europe: CRIIGEN answers to European Food Safety Authority critique of MON 863 study

For more details of the original CRIIGEN study referred to by CRIIGEN below, see: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7647

For why there's such a lack of confidence in the EFSA, see: Throwing caution to the wind, a detailed critique of the EFSA and its work on GM foods. The report can be downloaded here: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/publications/EFSAreport.pdf

And a report into the failings of the EFSA's scientific work on GM foods can be downloaded at: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/EFSA-RA

CRIIGEN press release, 10 July 2007.

In June 2007, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a press release[1] describing recent analyses of our publication[2] in an international journal. Our study represents to date the most detailed statistical peer-reviewed paper on one of the longest toxicological studies on a commercialized GMO.

After careful consideration of the June 28 EFSA review on the GM maize MON 863 toxicological test, we indicate here our 5 main points of disagreement for the international scientific community, government authorities and the public. These are listed below by order of importance with EFSA views and supporting organisations or societies:

1. We disapprove the politics of absence of transparency on the original crude data of the toxicological tests accepted by EFSA. Normally, all scientists should have access to all blood, urine, organs and weight analyses for rats eating a commercialized GMO. Accepting such data as confidential, EFSA blocks the normal peer-review functioning of science and the knowledge of any toxicological effect not seen before. We recall that this was the case for MON 863, and there was a Court Appeal by Monsanto Company in Germany to avoid the public data release. The case was lost. The Directive CEE/2001/18 asks for transparency of environmental and health impacts of GMOs. Having in its confidential files similar data for other GMOs, EFSA blocks the scientific comparisons that could allow a better understanding of what happens after MON 863 consumption on mammalian physiology. This is very important.

2. CRIIGEN disagrees with EFSA in accepting the fact that GMOs are safe for humans and farm mammals, if detailed blood and numerous organ analyses are available only for rats at a mammalian level. This is also a crucial point and a scientific weakness that EFSA wrongly accepts. It is serious, even if scarce nutritional data are there in addition on other species. We note that for pesticides and drugs, at least three mammalian species are studied at a detailed toxicological level, before commercialization. This MON 863 GMO and more than 99% cultivated commercialized GMOs do contain new pesticide residues that have unknown effects on human an animal health.

3. CRIIGEN disagrees with the fact that EFSA accepts 90-day feeding trials for mammals as the longest necessary from a toxicological point of view (with detailed analyses on numerous organs). The current scientific void regarding safety of GMOs without longer feeding trials (two-year tests, tests run for the duration of a lifespan, and tests on more than one generation). EFSA supports this lack of knowledge, even though it has the capacity to ask for more data from companies before commercialization. As a result, EFSA has accepted an enormous responsibility in case of any accident or chronic effect of a GMO product for humans or animals.

4. EFSA acknowledges the fact that we have evidenced 40 significant differences on physiological parameters between rats eating GMOs and their controls. EFSA demonstrates in its counter-valuation of our study that what we have concluded is true: there is not 100% probability that all these 40 effects are only due to chance. Thus EFSA should conduct a very detailed toxicological analysis completely removed from their report on our study. By concluding that MON 863 is safe, EFSA accepts Monsanto reasoning on the fact that the effects are negligible since they are not proportional between the two doses (11 and 33% of GMO in the diet), and that they varied by sex. In our opinion these are significant departures from scientific principles. For instance, in the case of endocrine disruption, effects may not be proportional for two doses chosen arbitrarily a priori, and are rarely identical in males and females! Moreover there were signs of dysfunction (that we refer to as signs of toxicity) in liver and kidney that were different between rats fed the GMO diet and all other diets used in this experiment (6 diets in total, too many to study the GMO effect properly). EFSA has failed to consider the fact that the Monsanto study was not designed to observe a dose-response relationship (requiring more than two doses), that comparison of outcomes between GMO-fed rats and the entire variation of six reference groups is inappropriate, and that endocrine differences by sex (effect modification) requires separate analyses.

5. EFSA discusses our weight curves for the animals at length, concluding that our comparisons were insufficient in accounting for individual variability. We note that we were the first to do this study that could have been performed by EFSA before. This demonstrates the lack of questioning of Monsanto tests by EFSA, since even in using methods that take a maximal account of individual variability, EFSA and the French Commission du Genie Moleculaire (CGB) still evidence some statistical effects on the variations of the female weights, as we do.

In conclusion, we appeal to the scientific community, government authorities and the public to question the EFSA scientific methodology in this case. Our recent paper stands as robust testimony to the questionable safety of this genetically modified food for humans and animals.

Contact

CRIIGEN - Comité de Recherche et d'Information Independantes sur le Génie Génétique
Siege Social : 40, rue de Monceau
75008 Paris, France
e-mail : criigen@unicaen.fr
site internet : www.criigen.org

Notes

1. EFSA reaffirms its risk assessment of genetically modified maize MON 863, Parma, June 28 2007. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/press_room/press_release/
pr_efsa_maizemon863.Par.0001.File.dat/pr_efsa_mon863.pdf

2. New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity by G.E. Seralini, D. Cellier & J. Spiroux de Vendomois, Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 52, 596‚602 (2007).

West Africa risks massive introduction of GMOs: UEMOA

People's Daily Online, 10 July 2007

West African region is likely to face increased risks of massive introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in the next few years, West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA)'s commissioner in charge of rural development, natural resources and environment Ismail Binguitcha-Fare has said.

"It's highly possible that UEMOA sub-region will be faced with biotechnology development, and more particularly that of massive introduction of GMO in the next few years," Binguitcha-Fare was quoted as saying Monday by Pan-African News Agency (PANA), while making a contribution during a meeting on regional bio-security orientation and monitoring program (PRB) organized by UEMOA in the Senegalese capital.

The meeting's objective was to officially inaugurate PRB's regional monitoring committee. According to Binguitcha-Fare, tests are currently underway and once the new seeds are fully developed, they will be sold through formal and informal channels.

"This will pose a real threat to biodiversity, if no safety measures are put in place," said Binguitcha-Fare, proposing the elaboration of a memorandum of understanding project between the relevant sub-region partners with a view of developing essential synergies for implementing UEMOA's regional bio-security program.

USA: Organic Farming Beats No-Till?

U.S. Dept of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (ARS), July 10, 2007. By Don Comis.

Organic farming can build up soil organic matter better than conventional no-till farming can, according to a long-term study by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists.

Researchers made this discovery during a nine-year study at the Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), Beltsville, Md. BARC is operated by ARS, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief scientific research agency.

Plant physiologist John Teasdale, with the ARS Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory in Beltsville, was surprised to find that organic farming was a better soil builder than no-till. No-till has always been thought to be the best soil builder because it eliminates plowing and minimizes even light tillage to avoid damaging organic matter and exposing the soil to erosion.

Organic farming, despite its emphasis on building organic matter, was thought to actually endanger soil because it relies on tillage and cultivation - instead of herbicides - to kill weeds.

But Teasdale's study showed that organic farming's addition of organic matter in manure and cover crops more than offset losses from tillage.

From 1994 to 2002, Teasdale compared light-tillage organic corn, soybean and wheat with the same crops grown with no-till plus pesticides and synthetic fertilizers.

In a follow-up three-year study, Teasdale grew corn with no-till practices on all plots to see which ones had the most-productive soils. He found that the organic plots had more carbon and nitrogen and yielded 18 percent more corn than the other plots did.

Read more about the research in the July 2007 issue of Agricultural Research magazine http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2007/070710.htm

USA: Growers Can Make More Money by Going Organic

U.S. Dept of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (ARS), July 25 2006. By Don Comis.

It looks like Minnesota grain farmers could make more money by switching to organic grain crops. That's the conclusion of a four-year study being announced today at the American Agricultural Economics Association's annual meeting in Long Beach, Calif.

David W. Archer, an Agricultural Research Service (ARS) economist, and Hillarius Kludze, an ARS soil scientist, will present a paper on this study, conducted at the Swan Lake Research Farm near Morris, Minn. The study was unusual in that it analyzed both economic risks and transition effects of switching to organic farming.

The 130-acre Swan Lake farm is representative of typical corn-soybean farms in Minnesota. The ARS North Central Soil Conservation Research Lab in Morris leases this farm for field research from the local Barnes-Aastad Soil and Water Conservation Research Association.

Archer and Kludze compared an organic corn-soybean rotation and an organic corn-soybean-spring wheat/alfalfa rotation–half grown with conventional tillage and half with strip tillage–with a corn-soybean rotation using conventional tillage. Strip tillage involves tilling only the middle of the seedbed. The scientists found that when strip tillage is used with organic farming, one of the transition risks is an increase in weeds until farmers learn to manage the system.

Computer simulations projected costs, yields and risks over a 20-year period, using yield and economic data from the four-year study, as well as crop price records of recent years.

Records showed that organic crops fetched much more than conventional crops: soybeans, up to $14 more per bushel; corn, up to $3 more; and wheat, up to $5 more. Organic alfalfa hay is too new to have a track record, so researchers recorded it as selling for the same price as conventionally grown hay.

Another computer model projected that farmers would net an average $50 to $60 more per acre a year by going organic, even with the highest transition costs. The premium price advantage would outweigh the initial higher costs and possibly lower yields, even if organic prices were to drop by half.

USA: Organic farming can feed the world, U-M study shows

University of Michigan, July 10 2007

Listen to podcast: http://www.umich.edu/news/podcast/science/Perfectopod.mp3

ANN ARBOR, Mich. - Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food on individual farms in developing countries, as low-intensive methods on the same land - according to new findings which refute the long-standing claim that organic farming methods cannot produce enough food to feed the global population.

Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods, said Ivette Perfecto, professor at U-M's School of Natural Resources and Environment, and one the study's principal investigators. Catherine Badgley, research scientist in the Museum of Paleontology, is a co-author of the paper along with several current and former graduate and undergraduate students from U-M.

"My hope is that we can finally put a nail in the coffin of the idea that you can't produce enough food through organic agriculture," Perfecto said.

In addition to equal or greater yields, the authors found that those yields could be accomplished using existing quantities of organic fertilizers, without putting more farmland into production.

The idea to undertake an exhaustive review of existing data about yields and nitrogen availability was fueled in a roundabout way, when Perfecto and Badgley were teaching a class about the global food system and visiting farms in Southern Michigan.

"We were struck by how much food the organic farmers would produce," Perfecto said. The researchers set about compiling data from published literature to investigate the two chief objections to organic farming: low yields and lack of organically acceptable nitrogen sources.

Their findings refute those key arguments, Perfecto said, and confirm that organic farming is less environmentally harmful yet can potentially produce more than enough food. This is especially good news for developing countries, where it's sometimes impossible to deliver food from outside, so farmers must supply their own. Yields in developing countries could increase dramatically by switching to organic farming, Perfecto said.

While that seems counterintuitive, it makes sense because in developing countries, many farmers still do not have the access to the expensive fertilizers and pesticides that farmers use in developed countries to produce those high yields, she said.

After comparing yields of organic and non-organic farms, the researchers looked at nitrogen availability. To do so, they multiplied the current farm land area by the average amount of nitrogen available for production crops if so-called "green manures" were planted between growing seasons. Green manures are cover crops which are plowed into the soil to provide natural soil amendments. They found that planting green manures between growing seasons provided enough nitrogen to replace synthetic fertilizers.

Organic farming is important because conventional agriculture - which involves high-yielding plants, mechanized tillage, synthetic fertilizers and biocides - is so detrimental to the environment, Perfecto said. For instance, fertilizer runoff from conventional agriculture is the chief culprit in creating dead zones - low oxygen areas where marine life cannot survive. Proponents of organic farming argue that conventional farming also causes soil erosion, greenhouse gas emission, increased pest resistance and loss of biodiversity.

For their analysis, researchers defined the term organic as: practices referred to as sustainable or ecological; that utilize non-synthetic nutrient cycling processes; that exclude or rarely use synthetic pesticides; and sustain or regenerate the soil quality.

Perfecto said the idea that people would go hungry if farming went organic is "ridiculous."

"Corporate interest in agriculture and the way agriculture research has been conducted in land grant institutions, with a lot of influence by the chemical companies and pesticide companies as well as fertilizer companies - all have been playing an important role in convincing the public that you need to have these inputs to produce food," she said.

Related Links:

More about Perfecto, visit: http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/public/experts/ExpDisplay.php?ExpID=599

School of Natural Resources and Environment: >http://www.snre.umich.edu

See the article:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1091304 [or below]

Contact: Laura Bailey
Phone: (734) 647-1848

Organic agriculture and the global food supply

Research Article - Abstract Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems (2007), 22: 86-108 Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/S1742170507001640
Published online by Cambridge University Press 04 Jul 2007
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1091304
Catherine Badgley a1, Jeremy Moghtader a2 a3, Eileen Quintero a2, Emily Zakem a4, M. Jahi Chappell a5, Katia Avilés-Vázquez a2, Andrea Samulon a2 and Ivette Perfecto a2 c1

Abstract

The principal objections to the proposition that organic agriculture can contribute significantly to the global food supply are low yields and insufficient quantities of organically acceptable fertilizers. We evaluated the universality of both claims. For the first claim, we compared yields of organic versus conventional or low-intensive food production for a global dataset of 293 examples and estimated the average yield ratio (organic:non-organic) of different food categories for the developed and the developing world. For most food categories, the average yield ratio was slightly <1.0 for studies in the developed world and >1.0 for studies in the developing world. With the average yield ratios, we modeled the global food supply that could be grown organically on the current agricultural land base. Model estimates indicate that organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base. We also evaluated the amount of nitrogen potentially available from fixation by leguminous cover crops used as fertilizer. Data from temperate and tropical agroecosystems suggest that leguminous cover crops could fix enough nitrogen to replace the amount of synthetic fertilizer currently in use. These results indicate that organic agriculture has the potential to contribute quite substantially to the global food supply, while reducing the detrimental environmental impacts of conventional agriculture. Evaluation and review of this paper have raised important issues about crop rotations under organic versus conventional agriculture and the reliability of grey-literature sources. An ongoing dialogue on these subjects can be found in the Forum editorial of this issue.

(Accepted June 09 2006)

Key Words: organic agriculture; conventional agriculture; organic yields; global food supply; cover crop

Correspondence:

c1 Corresponding author: perfecto@umich.edu

a1 Museum of Palaeontology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.

a2 School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA.

a3 Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.

a4 School of Art and Design, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.

a5 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.

West Africa risks massive introduction of GMO: UEMOA

Xinhua news agency (China), 10 July 2007.

West African region is likely to face increased risks of massive introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in the next few years, West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA)'s commissioner in charge of rural development, natural resources and environment Ismail Binguitcha-Fare has said.

"It's highly possible that UEMOA sub-region will be faced with biotechnology development, and more particularly that of massive introduction of GMO in the next few years," Binguitcha-Fare was quoted as saying Monday by Pan-African News Agency (PANA), while making a contribution during a meeting on regional bio-security orientation and monitoring program (PRB) organized by UEMOA in the Senegalese capital.

The meeting's objective was to officially inaugurate PRB's regional monitoring committee.

According to Binguitcha-Fare, tests are currently underway and once the new seeds are fully developed, they will be sold through formal and informal channels.

"This will pose a real threat to biodiversity, if no safety measures are put in place," said Binguitcha-Fare, proposing the elaboration of a memorandum of understanding project between the relevant sub-region partners with a view of developing essential synergies for implementing UEMOA's regional bio-security program.

9 July 2007

Ireland: Kathy Sinnott MEP denouces EFSA on GM feed

EU Parliament speech by Kathy Sinnott, MEP for Munster.

Mr President, scientists in France recently discovered extensive organ damage in the liver and kidney in animals raised on Monsanto 863. Three years before this, German studies were brought to the attention of EFSA by the German authorities that showed kidney damage in rats fed Monsanto 863. Yet, despite this, EFSA has reaffirmed their risk assessment on this and said that it is safe for European farm animals. Where are EFSA's studies? Why are they just looking at the industry's tests and just going back over them? How difficult can it be for them to try to redo the French and German studies?

The biotech industry in Europe alleges that GM farming is inevitable. My fear is that this will just be a self-fulfilling prophesy. Europe is capable of supplying its farmers with GM-free grain, but if we accept the inevitability, if we accept safety studies that are not really studies at all, then farmers will be forced into feeding their animals GM because otherwise there will be no other grain.

I would remind EFSA that many products, after years of so-called 'safety', have been taken off the market. To give you one example, the polio vaccine we use today is the fourth polio vaccine, because the other three, after having been given to people for many years, were finally withdrawn because of mounting evidence of damage.

We are supposed to respect the precautionary principle in Europe, especially when we are talking about putting genetically-modified organisms into the environment, considering that, with GM, any resulting adverse effects may be irreversible.

8 July 2007

Kenya accused of ësecrecy' on GMO technology Bill

The East African, 8 July 2007. By John Mbaria.

The process of preparing a Bill to regulate genetically modified technology in Kenya is shrouded in secrecy, a leading environmental Lawyer told The EastAfrican last week.

"There has been so much secrecy that most stakeholders do not even know where they should go to get a copy of the Bill," said Maurice Makoloo.

He explained that, under Kenya's environmental law, any proposed law or policy is supposed to be subjected to an environmental impact assessment, which would give all concerned parties a chance to interrogate its contents.

"But as for the Biosafety Bill, this has not been done? most researchers, lawyers and other stakeholders have been kept in the dark."

Similar sentiments were expressed by representatives of Kenya's small-scale farmers, faith-based organisations, NGOs and civil society groups who presented a memorandum to the Minister of Science and Technology, Dr Noah Wekesa, and Agricultural Minister Kipruto Arap Kirwa.

In the memorandum, the groups demanded the withdrawal of the Bill before it becomes an Order Paper for discussion by Members of Parliament. They also called for a national exercise of collecting views and the incorporation of the views into the Bill.

The EastAfrican has acquired a copy of the Bill, which – on the surface – appears harmless as it provides for the establishment of a National Biosafety Authority to regulate biotechnology in the country as contained in Section 5.

First published in 2005, the Bill is intended to "facilitate responsible research" into genetically modified organisms and to ensure protection in transfer and use of GMOs. It also provides for the establishment of the National Biosafety Authority and the National Biosafety Committee, which will regulate all GM activities in the country.

"No person shall conduct any of the following activities without the written approval of the Authority," it reads in part.

Dr Florence Wambugu, head of the African Harvest Biotech Foundation and a key pro-GM campaigner, says the Bill's objectives "are to ensure an adequate level of protection in the field of safe transfer, handling and use of genetically modified organisms."

The EastAfrican has established that the new Bill is the culmination of a long-running boardroom initiative by key biotechnology bodies and national research institutes, with support from the United States Agency for International Development (USAid) and giant biotechnology multinationals and their foundations.

These efforts are said to have begun in the early 2000s when it was felt that with the global expansion of research on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Kenya needed a national policy and law to outline the direction of such research and to ensure safety of the public. The scheme also involved taking some MPs on a tour to Kenya's coast to "sensitise" them to biotechnology issues.

Seemingly, researchers have not been keen to wait for the Bill to become law before openly experimenting on the GM crops. For instance, with facilitation from US-based biotechnology multinational Monsanto and the Syngenta Foundation (associated with the Swiss-based biotechnology giant, Syngenta) researchers at the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (Kari) had been experimenting on GM maize, cassava, sweet potatoes and cotton.

At the same time, the National Biosafety Committee allowed open trials of genetically modified cotton on farmers' fields in Mwea, Eastern Kenya, last month.

Interestingly, Monsanto offered the new cotton variety, which it hailed as having the ability to save farmers up to 32 per cent in production costs, as it does not require pesticides.

The cotton variety is said to be loaded with an organism termed Bacillus thurigiensis that is reputed to have in-built poisons that kill cotton pests (especially African bollworm).

But environmentalists now fear that the introduction of these toxins in areas that have not developed a natural ability to destroy them, could result in the decimation of beneficial plants and insects besides other hazards.

Observers are wondering why the concerned Kenyan authorities and individual scientists seem to be in such a hurry to introduce GMOs in the country. Some Kenyan MPs seem to have also bought into the pro-GMO lobby as they have in the past praised the benefits that genetically modified foods can bring to the country. Media reports published two years ago about the MPs' workshops at the Whitesands Hotel in Mombasa showed most were receptive to biotechnology, which they believed could uplift economic development in the country, and were also supportive of the Biosafety Bill.

Analysts have now taken issue with some of the Bill's provisions. On June 12 this year, Patricia Mbote, a professor of law at the International Environmental Law Research Centre in Nairobi, wrote in a newspaper article that though the Bill is fairly uncontroversial, it does not deal with the contentious issue of labelling. "But Kenya's main market for agricultural exports is Europe, where labelling requirements are strict and consumers are generally more sceptical of GMOs."

She felt that lack of provisions on labelling will jeopardise this valuable trade besides influencing parliamentary debate. Her sentiments were echoed last week by the Kenya Small Scale Farmers Forum (KESSFF), which was categorical that farmers in the country stand to lose them European market once their products are associated with genetic modification.

"Consumers in the international markets are now after organically produced foods, but here we are being pressurised to raise GM crops... What will happen to the market for our products is anybody's guess," said the treasurer of KESSFF Justus Lavi.

"Our fear is that we will end up losing our traditional seed varieties and get hooked to expensive varieties from Monsanto and other international biotechnology companies," said Gerald Ngatia, a member of the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition.

He added that once this happens, Kenyan farmers will not only be forced to buy the seeds, but also chemicals and especially pesticides emanating from these companies to ensure the survival of their crops.

Another contentious issue is the fact that the Bill does not address food coming into Kenya as aid. In the past, there have been claims that international agencies that distribute food relief in Kenya during periods of famine and other natural calamities could have triggered off the entry of GM products. For instance, there has been a lingering suspicion that food aid, especially maize, brought into the country by USAid and such bodies as the World Food Programme might be from genetically modified stocks.

Dr Wambugu conceded that food relief from the US is genetically modified. This feeling is strengthened by the fact that in the US, between 50 and 70 per cent of the maize grown is genetically modified. "There is also a policy in the two organisations not to discriminate between GM and non-GM foods when offering them as relief," said Dr Daniel Maingi of ANAW Biowatch, an anti-GMO organisation based in Nairobi.

"For the draft Bill to proceed, the debate needs to move beyond scientists and policymakers to encompass open public discussions with all stakeholders, including farmer groups," wrote Prof Mbote.

The Kenyan public, the anti-Bill lobby says, need to first be educated to understand what biotechnology is all about as well as the potential implications of consuming genetic modified foods. This is because evidence collected during past surveys suggests most Kenyans do not have any idea of what the two terms – biotechnology and genetic modification – entail.

"It is very important for decision makers, leaders, farmers, pastoralists, fisher folk, traders and consumers to distinguish the difference between the two terms and their implications before allowing the Bill to be discussed in parliament," says a statement released last week to the media by the Kenya Biosafety Coalition.

On her part, Prof Mbote calls for "unbiased information" to be provided on the benefits as well as risks of GMOs so that demand for GM regulations will be based on knowledge rather than on speculation or vested interests.

7 July 2007

Ireland: Freedom to lobby for GMOs
Controversy over claims in favour of GM corn
Conspiracy to Silence

GMwatch, 7 July 2007.

1. Freedom to lobby for GMOs

The following comment is from Joe Cummins, Professor Emeritus at the University of Western Ontario, in response to a letter sent to the Irish Times that noted:

"Shane Morris's attack on Jeffrey Smith's book Genetic RouletteÇ The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods (Letters, June 29th) employs the 'shoot the messenger' strategy favoured by agri-biotech industry spin doctors who are no longer able to deny the growing scientific evidence which links GM food and animal feed to deaths and disease in laboratory animals, livestock and the human population.

Morris and his biotech colleague and mentor Doug Powell (a well-known GM industry lobbyist) have co-authored a number of pro-GMO papers, one of which received the GM Watch Propaganda Lab Award 2006 for its [allegedly] fraudulent scientific claims, triggering a controversy reported by New Scientist magazine." [see item 2] http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8068

It was Prof Cummins who drew the concerns about this research to the attention of the journal which had originally published Powell and Morris's paper.

Here Prof Cummins comments on the fact that Morris undertakes his attack-dog-for-GM role while being employed as a science bureaucrat within the Canadian civil service at Agriculture Canada. Canada, of course, has an obvious economic interest in undermining opposition to GMOs.

Cummins writes:

"I think it is worth reminding people that Shane is a bureaucrat in Agriculture Canada and his views are supported by that Ministry. It is very clear that the Canadian government hired Shane and promote him in the Ministry as a way of promoting GM crops. Shane's attacks may seem like sheer lunacy to most of us but the Canadian bureaucrats think that he is brilliant in damaging the detractors of GM crops. I expect that they will hire other nationals who will attack those opposed to GM crops in their home countries."

Morris's freedom to lobby for GMOs certainly contrasts with the treatment handed out to those government scientists in Canada who've raised concerns about Monsanto's genetically engineered cattle drug rBGH and other drug approvals. For instance, in 2004 three senior Health Canada scientists were fired in what was widely seen as retribution for speaking out over health safety on issues like rBGH and, more generally, failing to kow- tow to industry pressure. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4143

While dissenting scientists are aggressively silenced (see item 3), Morris by contrast seems to have been given free rein.

2. Controversy over claims in favour of GM corn

New Scientist, issue 2553, 27 May 2006
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19025533.300&feedId=gm-food_rss20

A leading researcher into scientific ethics is calling for the withdrawal of a paper published in the British Food Journal two years ago purporting to show that consumers preferred genetically modified to non-GM sweetcorn. The study, carried out at a farm store in Canada, claimed that sales of the GM crop were 50 per cent higher. The journal later awarded the study a prize as its "most outstanding paper" of 2004.

Now the campaign group GM Watch has published a photograph that it says shows a large sign suspended above the non-GM corn during the study that asked: "Would you eat wormy sweetcorn?" The GM corn, it claims, was labelled as "quality sweetcorn". The paper (vol 105, p 700) claims that the corn was marked simply as either genetically engineered or regular.

If this is the case, "it is grounds for the journal to retract the article," says Richard Jennings, who studies research conduct at the University of Cambridge. Journal editor Chris Griffith of the University of Wales Institute in Cardiff has refused to withdraw the paper, but says he is willing to publish a letter condemning it followed by a response from the lead author, Doug Powell of Kansas State University.

[More on the research: http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1]

3. Conspiracy to Silence

Alive: Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition, March 2001. By Richard Wolfson, PhD.
http://www.alive.com/499a2a2.php?subject_bread_cramb=634

There is war at Health Canada. On one side of the battlefield stands Dr Shiv Chopra and other drug evaluators who firmly refuse to approve drugs of questionable safety. On the other side stands the Drug Directorate management - influenced by pharmaceutical companies who wish to facilitate a fast-track of drugs to market.

The battle erupted in 1998 with the evaluation of rBGH (genetically engineered bovine growth hormone). When rBGH is injected into dairy cattle, cows produce more milk. Chopra and other scientists uncovered research showing rBGH causes safety problems for animals and humans. Sparks flew when they would not approve the drug and the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry investigated the resulting commotion. The Committee called the scientists to testify. After hearing about the dangers of rBGH, the senators recommended that the drug not be approved - a decision Health Canada eventually agreed to.

The Health Canada scientists also told the Committee about other drugs of questionable safety that had been approved against their advice including growth hormones for animals that had been allowed even though the drugs were known to produce deformities in animals and were linked to cancer!

An Attempt to Silence

Health Canada officials were frantic! Corruption in its drug approval process was exposed. How could it silence the dissenting scientists?

On July 23, 1999, two months after Chopra spoke before the Senate his supervisor, Dr André Lachance, suspended him for five days without pay. But at the end of the same year another Senate committee began investigating whether the suspension was retaliation against Chopra for testifying before the Senate. Such retaliation is against the law.

This investigation was stalled due to various events, including the disappearance of Dr Lachance, Director of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs‚a key witness. Shortly before Lachance was to testify, his lawyer sent a letter stating that he was on stress leave and couldn't appear for questioning!

At about the same time, the Federal Court of Canada investigated and removed a gag order that Health Canada imposed on Chopra in 1998 forbidding him from speaking to the press or in public about concerns regarding the health of Canadians being risked. The court ruled Chopra was justified in speaking to the public because he had first exhausted all possible government channels for voicing his very serious concerns.

Grievance Hearings

The Senate's investigation of the five-day suspension was stalled. In the meantime, Chopra filed a grievance with the Public Service Staff Relations Board (PSSRB) of Canada, claiming he was unfairly suspended. After various delays, including another failed attempt to get Lachance to testify, the PSSRB heard the grievance from November 28 to December 1, 2000.

Government officials said that Chopra was suspended because he spoke critically of Health Canada in March of the previous year at a Heritage Canada meeting. This argument made little sense since Chopra had been making these same allegations for many years, criticizing Health Canada's record on racism. In fact Chopra had actually won a landmark case on the matter in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

The Plot Thickens

The grievance hearings took an amazing twist with the testimony of Hugh Hards, Senior Human Resources Advisor at Health Canada, who unwittingly proved that there was a conspiracy on behalf of senior management to muzzle Chopra.

Hards testified that he had attended Chopra's disciplinary meeting in July purely as a witness to take notes. New documents surfaced that contradicted his testimony. In fact, these documents showed that Hards had actually recommended Chopra's disciplinary action. More damning evidence showed that Hards had even compiled the questions asked at the meeting. Copies of e-mails and briefing notes from July 23 showed that after the meeting, he wrote the report that recommended disciplinary action. Hards, a member of senior management, who first said he had little role in the disciplinary meeting or the suspension, in fact, played a key role in both!

Under cross-examination, he had no choice but to admit that his testimony contradicted the new evidence. He also admitted to altering his notes from the July meeting, after obtaining input from Lachance and another colleague from the Human Resources Branch (who was not even at the disciplinary hearing). Hards' testimony conveniently hid facts that proved senior management conspired against Chopra.

This case illustrates enormous underlying corruption at Health Canada, with senior management dancing to the tune of industry pressure and coercion. Fortunately, Dr Chopra and other government whistleblowers are battling against these pressures in order to safeguard the safety and rights of Canadians.

Richard Wolfson is Canadian National Director for the Consumer Right to Know Campaign.

Protesters decontaminate the UK's last remaining GM potato trial

Indymedia UK, 7 July 2007. By Digger.

During the night of Friday 6th July, a group of activists converged on Britain's last remaining GM trial site just outside Cambridge. They scaled the security fences and destroyed the crop of genetically modified potatoes.

The potato plants were already flowering, spreading genetic contagion into the surrounding countryside.

A similar trial planned in Hull was abandoned earlier this year after a strong campaign and massive concern from nearby farmers. With the destruction of the Cambridge crop, Britain is once again GM free.

Public concern and demonstrations had failed to sway NIAB, the National Institute for Agriculture and Botany, who are carrying out the five-year trial on behalf of BASF, a multinational chemical corporation. Many feel that if corporations refuse to listen to public opinion it is necessary to take direct action.

Friday's action follows the latest in a series of protests, on the previous Sunday (July 1st), when demonstrators marched on the potato field. On that occasion, they were met by overwhelming numbers of police and two participants were arrested.

This time, however, no such obstacles were met, and the activists were able to successfully decontaminate the field.

If this trial had been allowed to run full term it could have led to a whole new generation of GM crop trials in this country. Friday night's events show that public concern about GM food and willingness to take direct action to keep Britain GM free remain high.

6 July 2007

Uganda: Govt Refuses IDP Seed Donations

The New Vision, 6 July 2007

KAMPALA - Uganda will not accept donations of seeds from abroad for fear that they could be genetically modified, state minister for disaster preparedness and refugees said.

Musa Ecweru yesterday said the prime minister's office, which is responsible for the country's disaster management, accepts only processed foods, clothing, medicines and agricultural implements for distribution to the internally displaced people and refugees.

The minister was receiving 650 cartons of fortified rice and soy protein meal worth $15,000 from a US-based Christian Aid Initiative at the prime minister's stores in Kampala.

5 July 2007

Irish farming and GM food

The Irish Times, 5 July 2007. Letter to the editor.

Madam,

As a farmer and food producer, I am deeply shocked by the current campaign to force GM food down the throats of unwilling Irish consumers. This campaign is being orchestrated by official spokespersons for the animal feed industry with the support of our main farming organisation and a very prominent farming publication.

The fact that the Irish Grain and Feed Association has admitted that the price of feed containing GMOs is now heavily discounted, and can be purchased for up to € 35 a tonne cheaper than "GM-free feed" is incontestable proof that the overwhelming rejection by the European consumers of GM food has been reflected worldwide. Fewer and fewer people are prepared to expose themselves to the risks of consuming GMOs. We should protect the Irish farming industry and not become involved in making a "quick buck" by detroying the integrity and world renowned quality of food produced in Ireland.

Yours etc

John Heney
Kilfeacle
Co. Tipperary

Ireland: GMO and the anti-fact campaign

The Irish Farmers Journal, "7 July issue", published 5 July 2007.

Needless to say, last week's Irish Farmers Journal story on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) has led to a flurry of press releases from Michael O'Callaghan (Co-ordinator of the GM-free Ireland Network). He attempted to claim all sorts of agendas on our part. We are happy to state that our report was based on the facts of the situation, with no anti- or pro-GMO bias on our part. The majority of our story actually came from an official EU Commission report on the topic.

One of GM-free Ireland's press releases claimed that on the Friday before Ireland's controversial abstention from an EU vote on the issue of Hercules [this GM maize is actually called Herculex - Ed], "Trevor Sargent summoned Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland to negotiations with representatives of Mary Harney [Minister for Health and Children] and Mary Coughlan [Minister for Agriculture and Food]". O'Callaghan claimed that he provided the representatives with hard scientific evidence about the health risks of GMOs.

His statement then made the claim that, on Sunday morning, Jackie Cahill of the Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association, and Malcolm Thompson of the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association, telephoned Mary Coughlan to request her to vote NO.

However, Jackie Cahill told the Dealer that this is factually untrue. He also said that, of late, attempts have been made to misrepresent the position of ICMSA on the question of GM food. "ICMSA - and only ICMSA - was entitled to state its own position, " he said. And what is that position? An official ICMSA set out the position as follows:

"The reality is that Ireland cannot opt-out of the use, or the growth of GM crops. If approval is given at EU level, the Irish Government has no say whatsoever in that area.

"All parties should note that, to-date, there is no evidence whatsoever that GM crops are harmful, and the current drive within Irish political circles for GM-free food is not sustainable on either a commercial or legal basis.

"A moratorium on further use of GM crops can only be identified if there are specific issues requiring further study and analysis, and it is for scientists to decide what falls within that category."

Jackie Cahill said that the Irish Government's position "must be fully clarified" so that Ireland can play a full and constructive role at EU level in this important debate that goes to the heart of Irish farming's competitiveness and profitability."

Them's the facts. Now let's hope everyone in the GM debate will listen to them.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

The "Dealer" column of the Irish Farmers Journal is known to the farming community as a scurrilous tabloid-style outlet for defamatory stories written under cover of anonymity. This particular piece is part of the Journal's current backlash against Ireland's policy to conserve its GMO-free crop status.

The previous issue of the Journal (30 June) featured three pro-GMO articles "Green GM stance to up feed prices", "GM food policy: Hypocrisy must be faced down", and "Why GM feed issue could be costly for Ireland" which GM-free Ireland has critiqued in the June news section of our web site).

Describing this previous coverage, the above article by "The Dealer" in the current issue states that "the majority of our story actually came from an official EU Commission report on the topic", without providing any reference to the actual source. It now appears that the Farmers Journal may have been quoting from some unpublished text.

The Dealer's attack on GM-free Ireland manages to pack seven separate items of misinformation into its nine paragraphs:

1.

GM-free Ireland did not issue "a flurry", let alone one press release about the previous 30 June edition of the Journal. We did comment on the various pro-GM articles it contained via a single email sent out on 2 July (see the June news section of our web site).

2.

The Minister of State for Food and Horticulture, Trevor Sargent, did invite Michael O'Callaghan to meet with him and the Minister for Health and Children's deputy Oliver O'Connor, and the Minister for Agriculture and Food's deputy Dermot Murphy on Friday 22 June at Agriculture House.

3.

Michael O'Callaghan did provide everyone at that meeting with scientific evidence of the health risks of GM foods (including the book "Genetic Roulette - The documented health risks of genetically engineered foods" and copies of two related scientific papers presented at a recent briefing on the health risk of GM foods at the EU Parliament Office in Dublin).

4.

ICMSA President Jackie Cahill and ICSA President Malcolm Thompson did both inform Michael O'Callaghan that they telephoned Mary Coughlan (the Minister for Agriculture and Food) to ask her to vote against the legalisation of the Herculex GM maize on the following Monday 25 June. These facts were made public in a GM-free Ireland press release on 28 June.

5.

Contrary to what the Farmers Journal article implies, the ICSA's opposition to GM food and farming is unequivocal. Its national executive voted in favour of a GM free island policy in May 2004, following extensive internal consultation. Its official policy states "ICSA favours Ireland adopting a GM free policy. By this, it is meant that GM technology would not be used in the growing of any crops or plants on Irish soil. It is also meant that farm animals in Ireland would be fed entirely GM free rations... This unique situation would give the Irish food industry a unique advantage in the marketing of farm produce to an increasingly affluent and discerning European market. It is not the position of ICSA that GM foods should not be available to Irish or EU consumers as long as there is comprehensive and clear labelling... ICSA also favours this policy being extended to become a whole island policy. In practice, the Irish government should declare itself in favour of the GM free route and actively canvass a similar approach with the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland." Malcolm Thompson will confirm his telephone call to Mary Coughlan upon request.

6.

The Farmers Journal allegation that the GM-free Ireland press release issued on 28 June lied about ICMSA's opposition to GMOs is false.

On Sunday 24 June, Michael O'Callaghan telephoned ICMSA President Jackie Cahill to discuss the latter's position on GMOs. Jackie Cahill said "ICMSA wants a 5-year moratorium on GM crops" because "Ireland's green image is one of our major selling points". He also said ICMSA would like to see an independent economic study on the premia currently being offered in the EU markets for live cattle and for meat and dairy produce from livestock fed a certified non-GMO diet. Jackie Cahill had previously told Michael O'Callaghan that the ICMSA board members shared this same anti-GMO position in 2006, and ICMSA Wicklow representative John Hempenstall confirmed this earlier this year.

7.

Without informing GM-free Ireland, on 3 July ICMSA published an announcement on its web site ("Cahill says 'time to face facts on GM'") indicating a policy U-turn and its acceptance of the current agri-biotech industry PR spin that EU member states have no choice but to accept GM food and farming. That ICMSA announcement was then quoted in the Farmers Journal, with the defamatory implication that GM-free Ireland had lied about ICMSA's previous anti-GM policy. ICMSA is of course free to reverse its policy as it sees fit, but this new pro-GMO position fails to face the legal facts of the matter:

(a)

The ICMSA's statement that Ireland can not "opt-out" of allowing GM crops (which was not questioned in the Farmers Journal) is misinformed. It embodies the "nothing you can do about it" GMO slave mentality which the agri-biotech industry is now promoting around the world.

(b)

In reality, 11 other EU member states have already implemented total or partial bans on GM seeds and crops, along with 236 regional governments across 22 EU member states. Outside the EU, but geographically at its centre, Switzerland has a 5-year moratorium on GM crops and livestock. Cyprus announced its intention to become a GMO-free zone on 6 June. (See map of GMO-free zones in Europe.)

(c)

The ICMSA' statement ‚ that "If approval is given at EU level, the Irish Government has no say whatsoever in that area" ‚ is misleading in many ways (apart from the fact that as an EU member state, Ireland is regularly invited to vote on GM food, feed, and crops as part of the EU approvals process in the first place):

(i)

Any sovereign state (including those in the EU) can implement a blanket ban on GM animal feed, crops and food if it so desires - despite the fact that such bans may be later be challenged by the undemocratic legal rules of the WTO and/or the EC. These unjust laws claim that such bans violate the WTO "free trade" agreement; but the latter derives whatever authority it may appear to have from the WTO's categorisation of GM crops and foods as being "substantially equivalent" to their conventional counterparts. This is scientific nonsense because GMOs contain DNA from other species as well as novel proteins which have never before occurred in nature. The WTO's claim that blanket bans on GM food and crops are illegal therefore can and should be legally challenged by the EU and its Member States and Regions.

(ii)

The European GMO-free Regions Network (http://www.gmofree-euregions.net), which comprises 42 EU Regions and regional-level Local Authorities, is lobbying for the introduction of a juridical status of GMO-free areas in the European legislative framework.

(iii)

Ireland, together with a qualified majority of EU member states, has voted three times in the past two years at the EU Council of Ministers to uphold the right of many member states to implement specific bans on GM maize and other crops.

(iv)

The European Parliament called on the Commission "to ban the introduction of genetically modified organisms and evaluate the potential threat to biodiversity posed by their introduction" in an own-initiative Report adopted on 22 May.

(v)

MEPs and scientists from six countries called for a Europe-wide and world-wide ban on growing GM crops at a special briefing in the European Parliament in Brussels on 12 June 2007.

(vi)

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (the global treaty regulating the trade in live GMOS, to which both the EU and Ireland are a party) clearly recognises Ireland's legal right to ban the importation of specific GMOs, based on the Precautionary Principle which is enshrined in EU law.

(d)

The allegation that "there is no evidence whatsoever that GM crops are harmful" is irresponsible in the extreme, given the the 65 health risks detailed in the book Genetic Roulette and numerous scientific studies.

(e)

The assumption that the current drive for GM-free food "is not sustainable on either a commercial or legal basis" is pathetic, since other EU member states are sustaining it, consumers and retailers want it, and the number of national and regional governments which are banning GM crops is growing on a monthly basis.

(f)

The notion that it is only "for scientists to decide" on GM policy issues reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of three factors: (a) the irrefutable scientific evidence which shows that GM food and crops are inherently unsafe, (b) applicable EU laws, and (c) the Irish Constitution:

(i)

There is now irrefutable evidence that GM crops are dangerous to the health of laboratory animals, livestock and the human population. But scientists who share such views are denigrated and have little, if any, say in the EU approvals system, where their scientific evidence has been either rejected or ignored.

(ii)

The legal authority to reject or approve of GMO food, feed and crops within the EU resides in the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, and Member States' governments. Their decisions take into account the opinions of various other EU bodies and national "competent authorities" including the European and Irish Food Safety Authorities, the Environmental Protection Agency, and so on. Although these bodies include scientists, the latter only pass on their recommendations to the decision-making bodies but do not have the authority to decide per se.

(iii)

Although the EU Parliament is not empowered to vote on GMO approvals made by the Council of Ministers or the Commission, it called on the Commission "to ban the introduction of genetically modified organisms and evaluate the potential threat to biodiversity posed by their introduction" in an own-initiative Report adopted on 22 May.

(iv)

The Aarhus Convention (which has been signed by the EU and Ireland) recognises the democratic right of Irish citizens to participate in formulating our country's GMO policy.

(v)

EC Directive 2003/4/EC (on access to information on the environment) and EC Directive 2003/35/EC (on participation in environmental decision-making) also recognise the democratic right of Irish citizens to participate in formulating our country's GMO policy.

(vi)

The Irish Constitution holds the government accountable, inter alia, to protect the right of Irish citizens to earn their livelihood, and to prevent monopoly control of any business sector.

Farmers contaminated by GMOs may be sued for patent infringement and could lose ownership of their seeds and crops (as happened to Percy Schmeiser). Contaminated farmers are also likely to lose market share; organic producers are likely to lose their certification and thus be forced out of business. Giant transnational agri-biotech corporations who thus expropriate Ireland's seeds and crops could end up having total de facto control of our food sovereignty.

The relevant articles of the Constitution are as follows:

Article 10: The state

Article 10 ‚ 1: All natural resources, including the air and all forms of potential energy, within the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution and all royalties and franchises within that jurisdiction belong to the State subject to all estates and interests therein for the time being being lawfully vested in any person or body.

[Comment: agricultural seeds and crops are natural resources, along with the natural capital and ecological system services embodied in the biodiversity and health of our topsoil, wildlife, and ecosystem.]

Article 15: Constitution and Powers

Article 15 ‚ 4 (1): The Oireachtas shall not enact any law which is any respect repugnant to this Constitution or to any provision thereof. [Comment: Ireland's signing of the WTO agreement, and the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement (insofar as this applies to the patenting of living organisms) may be considered repugnant to Article 10-1 of the Constitution.]

Article 15 ‚ 4 (2): Every law enacted by the Oireachtas which is in any respect repugnant to this Constitution or to any provision thereof, shall, but to the extent only of such repugnancy, be invalid. [Comment: WTO and TRIPs agreement thus appear to be legally invalid].

Article 29: International Relations

Article 29 ‚ 6: No international agreement shall be part of the domestic law of the State save as may be determined by the Oireachtas. [Comment: did the Oireachtas actually agree to the TRIPS agreement, by actually discussing its implication that contaminated farmers could lose ownership of their crops or be subject to patent royalties and patent infringement lawsuits?]

Article 40: Personal Rights

Article 40 ‚ 3 (1): The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as is practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen. [Comment: the personal rights of the citizen include the right to produce, eat and trade safe GM-free food].

Article 40 ‚ 3 (2): The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the name of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen. [Comment: the property rights of citizens, including farmers and food producers, are clearly jeopardised by the the genetic modification and patenting of seeds and crops under the TRIPs agreement and the numerous crop patents granted by the Irish and EU Patent Offices.]

Article 43: Private Property

Article 43 - 1 (1): The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his natural being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods. [Comment: any release of live GMO seeds and crops would clearly violate this Article because of cross-contamination, crop patents, and ensuing expropriation of contaminated farmers property etc.]

Article 43 - 1 (2): The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath and inherit property. [Comment: TRIPs and Irish patent laws appear to abolish right of private ownership by farmers of their seeds or crops after GMO contamination.]

Article 43 - 2 (1): The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice. [Comment: this applies to the rights of GMO crops patent owners, which should be limited by considerations of social justice.]

Article 43 - 2 (2): The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good. [Comment: the Government has failed to delimit the rights of GMO crops patent owners by reconciling them with the common good.]

Article 45: Directive Principles of Social Policy

The principles of social policy set forth in this Article are intended for the general guidance of the Oireachtas. The application of those principles in the making of laws shall be the care of the Oireachtas exclusively, and shall not be cognisable by any Court under any of the provisions of this Constitution.

Article 45 - 1: The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the whole people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice and charity shall inform all the institutions of national life.

Article 45 ‚ 2: The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing: –

(i) That the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provisions for their domestic needs. [Comment: conventional and – in particular – organic farmers and food producers will lose this right if contaminated because of mandatory labelling, patent royalties, loss of market share and loss of organic status.]

(ii) That the ownership and control of the material resources of the community may be so distributed amongst private individuals and the various classes as best to subserve the common good. [Comment: The TRIPs agreement, together with EU and Irish patent laws appear to enable patent owners to claim ownership the Irish people's heritage of agricultural seeds and crops, which is not in the common good.]

(iii) That, especially, the operation of free competition shall not be allowed so to develop as to result in the concentration of the ownership or control of essential commodities in a few individuals to the common detriment. [50% of the world's agricultural seeds are already controlled by six to ten giant transnational agri-biotech corporations!]

The Irish Farmers Journal appears to ignore the fact that Ireland is a sovereign state. Attacking our Government's policy to declare the whole island of Ireland a GMO-free zone only serves the financial interests of Monsanto and the other giant transnational agri-biotech industry corporations who are intent on contaminating our seeds and crops in perpetuity with their patented GMOs. The resulting appropriation of our agricultural production and destruction of our biodiversity, food security, and food sovereignty for generations to come is not in the interest of any Irish farmer.

The Journal's mission statement is to be "the best source of Irish farming and rural news and information". Having signally failed thus far to provide any semblance of balanced, accurate reporting on the GMO controversy, the Farmers Journal now should open up to both sides of the debate, and trust the intelligence of its readers who are well able to make up their own minds on this important matter of public interest.

According to High Court Judge Peter Charlton (the former lead counsel in the Morris Tribunal), matters of public interest are those "which affect the public in terms of the governance of the country, their safety, their security, and their right to judge their public representatives fairly on the basis of real information."

Over the last month, the Irish Farmers Journal has printed six articles (totalling 3,495 words) in favour of GMOs. If the Irish Farmers Journal refuses to provide GM-free Ireland with the right of reply to its recent one-sided coverage of GMO issues, its refusal will prove its bias.

The Journal should henceforth open up its pages to equal coverage of both sides of the GMO discussion, so that farmers can make an informed democratic choice on our food and farming future .

Ireland: GM would spell the end of farming in Co. Wicklow

The Irish Farmers Journal, Letters to the Editor, "7 July issue", published 5 July 2007.

Dear Sir,

The day that GM (genetically modified) food makes an appearance in Co. Wicklow is the day that Wicklow farming closes down.

The future of Irish farming is dependent entirely on our farmer's ability to breed and rear top-of-the-range livestock and and produce high quality dairy and horticultural produce.

Our reputation for premium agricultural produce, with all the quality and traceability guarantees that this entails, would be destroyed instantly, if the country was to become a GM centre of any kind.

GM is simply not an option for Ireland. There is nothing to discuss.

Michael O'Callaghan
Coordinator, GM-free Ireland Network
Little Alders, Knockrath
Rathdrum, Co. Wicklow

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

The above letter in the Irish Farmers Journal is a forgery. The entire text, falsely attributed to Michael O'Callaghan, was lifted from a general election campaign newsletter published last May by the Wicklow Committee to Elect Joe Behan.

Joe Behan, T.D., is the former Chairman of Wicklow County Council, who has since been elected to the Dáil (Irish Parliament) as a Fianna Fáil T.D. for Co. Wicklow.

Although Mr. Behan's support for declaring Co. Wicklow a GM-free zone is laudable, his election statement betrays his ignorance of the fact that legal and illegal varieties of GM foods and animal feed are already being sold to Irish farmers and consumers.

This includes animal feed containing the illegal GM maize variety Herculex RW which has been fraudulently imported into Ireland and sold to farmers since April 2007, despite scientific evidence that it could pose risks for human and animal health. Ireland's reputation for premium livestock and dairy produce is thus already being destroyed.

GM-Free Ireland is collaborating with the new government and progressive farming groups in favour of a total ban on live GMO seeds and crops, which would contaminate our food chain in perpetuity because most of them can never be recalled after their release. We also support a voluntary phase-out of GM animal feed to give farmers and food producers a competitive advantage in the domestic and EU export markets which increasingly exclude Irish meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients.

The Journal has repeatedly refused to print any letters to the editor from Michael O'Callaghan over the past few years. The sudden publication of this forgery was done without the due diligence one would expect from a newspaper, which requires contacting the supposed author of any letter received to confirm its provenance and authenticity.

Ireland: Government puttting financial pressure on farmers

The Irish Farmers Journal, Letters to the Editor, "7 July issue", published 5 July 2007.

Dear Sir,

More genetically modified crops are on the way like Roundup Ready Soybeans which are due for planting in 2008. The soybeans and meal will be due here in 2009. Despite the authorisation dossier being submitted in 2006, the checks have not yet been completed. This will lead to the possibility of restrictions in the supply of soybean meal throughout Europe, which imports in excess of 32 million tonnes annually and for which there is no alternative.

I would also like to refer to the actions of the Irish Government in abstaining in recent votes to approve the GMO event DAS 59122 (Herculex). This event has received a positive recommendation from EFSA following strict scientific procedures.

The actions of the Government appears to be a change in direction and its implications are very far reaching. Ireland is a net importer of feed ingredients of which 800,000 metric tonnes is corn by-products.

In a market that is already depleted of raw materials, one would like to ask how there ingredients are going to be replaced?

There is only one certainty, the action of the Government is going to lead to far higher feed costs for farmers, who have been under extreme financial pressure in recent times.

Our beef farmers have come out of a winter where losses of € 100 per head were commonplace. Higher feed costs will lead to higher food costs and increase inflation.

The action of the Irish "Green" Government in Brussels on Monday 25 June will make Irish beef and dairy products more uncompetitive in the world markets, opposite the likes of Brazil and Argentina who have access to cheap feeds for their animals.

Frances O'Kelly
Rylands
Rathkeale
Co. Limerick

Comment from GM-free Ireland

Soya meal from Monsanto's GM "Roundup Ready" soybeans is already widely imported into Ireland from Brazil and Argentina for use as animal feed. Soybeans can not be grown in Ireland because we have the wrong climate. The only country in Europe known to have had extensive cultivation of GM soybeans is Romania, where they were illegally sold to farmers as part of Monsanto's "contaminate first, legislate later" market penetration strategy. But the Romanian government recently prohibited their cultivation so as to be able to supply the EU market with certified non-GMO soya meal.

There is an alternative.

Non-GMO soya meal is available from a number of EU and foreign sources. Prominent among these is IMCOPA in Brazil, which sells non-GMO soya meal, soya lecithin and other soya products certified at the 0.1% contamination threshold, for a tiny premium of around € 0.01 per kilo (1 cent) including costs of delivery to any port in Ireland.

Feed importers, feed compounders and farmers wishing to secure GM-free soya animal feed may wish to contact IMCOPA's European office in Switzerland:

Jochen Koester, Director
IMCOPA Europe SA
14 Rue du Rhöne
Geneva
Switzerland
Tel + 41 22 819 1729
Email: jk(at)imcopa.com
Website: www.imcopa.com

Certified non-GMO maize is also available. Most of the EU's maize crop remains GM-free, and Hungary has vast amounts of GM-free maize available. The problem appears to be that large US subsidies for GM maize production make EU maize uncompetitive. This situation may be reversed in the years ahead if increasing transport costs caused by peak oil make transatlantic imports uncompetitive.

Moreover, there are many substitutes for maize, which is fed to livestock as a source of energy rather than protein. These alternatives include rolled oats, barley and lupins. Growing domestic demand for GM-free feed presents a welcome opportunity for Irish farmers to diversify into tillage, especially for oats and barley. Nine of Australia's ten States have passed a moratorium on GM crops.

Ireland recently abstained from voting in favour of legalising the GM maize variety Herculex RW, patented by Pioneeer/Dow, at the EU Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health following irrefutable evidence about its potential health risks submitted to the government by GM-free Ireland.

The Minister for Agriculture, Mary Coughlan, stated in the Dáil that Ireland's imports of GM maize feed in 2005 amounted to 464,000 tonnes (95% of total imports) - not 800,000 tonnes as described by Frances Kelly. GM soya feed imports amounted to 204,000 tonnes GM (95% of total imports) in 2005. (According to Liam Hyde at the Department of Agriculture's Animal Feedstuffs section, all records for GM animal feed imports for 2006 have been irretrievably lost due to a computer failure.)

The government's abstention from the Herculex RW maize vote is unlikely to lead to higher costs - since the numerous other GM maize varieties we import are not affected. The higher costs of animal feed are caused by climate change, including related droughts, flooding, and the massive diversion of the US maize crop for ethanol to feed cars instead of cows and people.

The government's policy aim to prohibit the release of GMO crops and livestock and to phase out the use of GM animal feed will make Irish live cattle and food exports more competitive in the EU markets. This is already happening: Irish exporters of live cattle, meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed a certified non-GMO diet are now not only maintaining access to EU markets from which they would otherwise be excluded, but are also securing price premia from leading retailers in various countries (including the UK, France, Italy and Switzerland) which pay more for safe GM-free food which the vast majority of EU consumers demand. No biotech industry spin can refute this simple fact.

Agriculture ministers must vote on GM maize

Irish Examiner, 05 July 2007. By Stephen Cadogan

EU agriculture ministers must vote within three months on whether to allow imports of Herculex RW, a genetically modified strain of maize.

The decision will be extra difficult for Ireland's minister, Mary Coughlan, who is under pressure from Fianna Fáil's Green Party colleagues in government, including her junior minister, Trevor Sargent.

The European Green Party is urging member states to vote against the authorisation, claiming there are "serious and legitimate health concerns about the GM maize".

Some members, such as Britain, Finland and the Netherlands, almost always vote in favour of approving new GMOs. They are offset by a group of GMO-sceptic states like Austria, Greece and Luxembourg, which vote against and force a stalemate.

Last week, a panel of EU food safety experts failed to agree on allowing Herculex imports in food, animal feed and also in industrial processing, and returned no definitive decision either for or against a GMO maize type, sending the application to agriculture ministers for debate.

The European Commission must now transmit the dossier to agriculture ministers. If they do not reach a position within three months, the proposal is sent back to the commission for final adoption. This is a likely scenario, and in such cases the commission usually issues its own approval of the product under a legal default process.

Last week's vote was one of the EU's closest in recent years for authorising a new GMO application, with the 27 experts being closer than expected towards reaching a consensus majority in favour. France, Ireland and Italy abstained.

IFA president Padraig Walshe said he had received assurances from the Agriculture Department ahead of the recent meeting of the EU Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health that Ireland would be voting in favour of allowing the importation of maize into Europe. He said the Irish decision to abstain was annoying, as Ireland had raised the issue with the EU Commission in the first place.

Herculex RW was designed by Dow Chemical Co and DuPont to withstand corn rootworm. It was cleared for use in the US in late 2005, and in Japan earlier this year.

Herculex RW was first made available to US farmers for the 2006 growing season.

The European Commission-backed advisory group, European Food Safety Authority, said in April it is safe for the EU market.

GMOs next global lighting rod issue

University of British Columbia Reports, Vol. 53, No. 7, 5 July 2007. By Lorraine Chan.

[Photo caption: A fresh ear of corn or frankenfood? The struggle to settle this question has been far from democratic, says political scientist Yves Tiberghien - photo by Martin Dee]

Our ability to tinker with nature has outstripped our ability to regulate what we create, says Yves Tiberghien, a political scientist who specializes in global regulatory mechanisms for technology and trade.

Consider that almost 70 per cent of the products we buy at the grocery store contain genetically engineered food. Yet we don't know their long-term impact on our health, the environment, or how they may tip the future balance of power in the global economy.

"Corn and soy are the two main culprits since nearly all processed foods uses ingredients such as corn syrup, corn starch or soy lecithin," says Tiberghien.

GMO corn and soy first entered into the human food supply in 1996.

"It's a very big experiment -- 11 years of genetically engineered corn and soy thus far," observes Tiberghien. "What does this mean? No one really knows."

Asst. Prof. Tiberghien teaches in the Dept. of Political Science and also heads a Liu Institute for Global Issues research initiative that looks at the global battle over the governance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Between 2004 and 2006, he conducted 200 interviews with policy makers in Europe, Japan, Korea, and international organization bureaucrats. With further funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Tiberghien is extending this research to Canada and China.

To date, studies conducted on GMOs have found no proof of harm, but the amount of independent data is extremely limited. Tiberghien explains that GMO toxicology testing is carried out by industry, which generally does only what is required to get approval.

Overseeing the companies and labs that produce GMO seeds are national regulatory agencies and international bodies such as the World Trade Organization, the UN, the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

The present framework is outmoded and rickety, says Tiberghien, with a decision-making process that's "essentially dominated by industry, the bureaucratic elite and scientific experts without citizens' participation."

He says as a society we are making decisions that are irreversible and far reaching, and we are doing it in a way that weakens democracy rather than strengthens it.

"Yes, we want wealth," says Tiberghien, "but not at any cost. We don't want to cross red lines where we endanger our health or the environment forever. We also want transparency and accountability."

Other common GMO foods found at North American stores include canola oil, papayas and soon, rice. But even the most conscientious label-reading shopper wouldn't be able to detect GMO products. Seed producers argued against mandatory labeling, insisting there was "substantial equivalence," which means that GMOs provide the same nutrients as conventional crops and shouldn't be treated differently.

"Industry pushed for this and governments acquiesced," says Tiberghien.

Since then, civil society mobilization has forced the European Union and Japan to enact more stringent measures, including additional testing and mandatory labeling of GMOs. In turn, the EU seeks to sway other countries to do the same.

Overall, says Tiberghien, tensions are rife between global coalitions and nations, which themselves are fragmented vertically and horizontally over the issue of "frankenfoods."

"The legitimacy of international and national regulatory bodies is in question. For example, Australia on a national level is pro GMO, yet nine of its 10 states are rabidly anti-GMO and have passed a moratorium on growing GMO crops."

Tiberghien says India and China are shaping up as the two largest future GMO battlefronts. China, for example, has the second largest GMO research next to the U.S. But bowing to public outcry, both countries now require mandatory labeling for GMOs, while at the same time are pouring millions of dollars into research and development in a bid for technological advances that could alleviate poverty.

"It's a very unstable situation," says Tiberghien. "On any given day, there are dozens of confrontations over GMOs taking place around the world."

By contrast, Canada is relatively quiet with very little media attention on the topic. Compared to 29 OECD countries, Canadians see the least amount of media reporting on GMOs.

"Canadians place a higher trust in the governmental regulatory agencies, which for GMOs is Health Canada."

He warns, however, that Canada is vulnerable to a backlash that would then catapult the issue into news headlines. Already, public opinion polls in B.C. and Quebec show that 85 per cent of the population support mandatory labeling of GMOs.

"These polls highlight the gap between between citizens' preferences and existing regulatory outcomes, offering room for groups or individuals to gain political mileage."

Tiberghien says GMOs could easily become the next climate change, a lightning rod that unites a broad spectrum of protestors as diverse as the anti-globalization movement, organic farmers, Greenpeace supporters, consumer organizations and the Council of Canadians.

An alternative to these pitched battles would be a more democratic process, says Tiberghien, pointing to a citizens assembly as one possible model.

"Imagine 400 citizens who are trained, know the issues and they're able to give input on regulatory design of GMOs."

USA: Will Napa Valley Grow Genetically Modified Grapevines?

Appellation America.com, 5 July 2007. By Alan Goldfarb.

Grape growers have had this discussion before: the dilemma of resorting to genetically modified grapevines to fight off disease and insects. But this time around there is a tad more anxiety in the talks now that there is more evidence that GMO plants fix problems but also make new ones.

Two and-a-half years after the Napa Valley Grape Growers (NVGG) first addressed the issue of genetically engineered wine grapes, it seems that we're still a long way from ever seeing such fruit planted in the region. Perhaps though, we're this much closer to it ever actually happening.

One of the points that came out of a recent all-morning talk-a-thon in Napa was that modified grapevines may someday become a reality in Napa ‚ and other AVAs ‚ particularly if Pierce's disease (PD), carried by the dreaded glassy winged sharpshooter, remains a threat. Currently there is no known antidote to stave off the vector, whose saliva ravages vines.

However, there are inherent as well as perceived problems with such engineered plants, not least of which is community concern as it pertains to safety of the food supply. The field is so new, especially when it comes to grapevines, that we are a long way from understanding the issue or coming up with viable solutions. Still, there are already GM yeast strains available, even though they are most likely are not being used extensively in the Napa Valley. That is why the NVGG is taking the lead in the area as a means to be proactive as GMs move forward.

Listening to one Napa Valley grape grower discuss the issue in January of 2005 and again recently, one wouldn't think that Carole Meredith has softened her stance on the problems facing modified vines. But if one reads between the lines there are subtle differences between then and now, indicating that perhaps Meredith has had time to take a more studied approach. Meredith, who spent 22 years at UC Davis and was instrumental in the establishment of the International Grape Genome Program, was clear in her opposition to GE grapevines back in ë05.

"Why would you want to change your grapes? We might want to do that to solve a problem," she began then, acknowledging the industry's great concern about PD. But she continued, "It's unlikely we'll ever see a single gene to combat a single disease or insect."

Meredith, who is the co-owner of the Mt. Veeder brand, Lagier Meredith, pointed out that "we already have good strategies" to combat some problems such as resistant rootstocks.

As for PD, Meredith said, "We can try to control the movement of the insect vector," but conceded "this is an area where using a GMO approach might be a worthwhile activity."

Adding to the debate this time, she said, "When there are no solutions or less desirable solutions, you might want to turn to molecular engineering Ö In the long-term, we will have to look into GM. Ö But we won't have huge (amounts of) GM in the Napa Valley soon." Additionally, Meredith said, "I'm a little more concerned about (tainted) spinach leaves in my salad than eating food that has been genetically modified.

"I'm not scared about GMOs in my food Ö There are plenty of issues, but I don't personally object to planting GM grapevines in Napa, if the economic issues and community concerns are addressed. Ö I think we need to remain calm and respect each other."

But, as at the conclusion of her remarks back in '05, Meredith was again asked point blank if she would plant GM vines in her vineyard. "If someone offered me a GE Syrah vine, I would not do (plant) it. "Now, if PD overran the Napa Valley, I might think about it, but I might not grow it."

This time she said succinctly, while raising some vexing questions, "No. We grow Syrah Ö if it was GM (grapevine), could we call it Syrah and would people want to pay $50 for a wine from an estate that's been technically modified?"

Such is the push and pull of the issue of genetically modified grape stock. One who is clear in his stance is Dave Henson, executive director of the Occidental Arts and Ecology Center in western Sonoma County. Henson led a fight that would have placed a moratorium on GMOs in his county. After a vote, his motion went down to defeat. However, Henson is nonetheless passionate and undeterred in his beliefs. But even he took somewhat of a sanguine approach. "I'm a public critic of GE, but not opposed to the research (concerning the issue)."

He added that research is critical, especially in an area where there is so little being done and codified. He is steadfast in his belief that the matter has to be studied and then studied some more, "before we turn it over to private release. "(But) it may be intellectually dishonest when people say they won't buy GE (food)."

Henson further cautioned, "Did we take the necessary precautions on our watch? Did we ask the right questions when we don't know the right questions to ask?"

Further, "if you're a farmer, you'd better be thinking about this. This is not a conspiracy Ö but we need a moratorium. (Because) how do we know if GE crops are good to eat? There's no data being kept and (it is) not adequately regulated."

4 July 2007

America's rice farmers did not want to grow genetically engineered rice. Their customers in Europe did not want to buy it. They never expected the...

Attack of the Mutant Rice

Fortune Magazine, July 9 2007 (U.S. edition)

BACK IN THE SPRING OF 2001, a 64-year-old Texas rice farmer named Jacko Garrett watched a fleet of 18-wheelers haul away truckloads of rice that he had grown with great care. "It just bothers me so bad," Garrett said. "I'm sitting here trying to find food to feed people, and I've got to bury five million pounds of rice." No one likes to waste food, but for Garrett, who runs a charity that collects rice for the needy, the pain was especially acute.

Garrett's rice was genetically modified, part of an experiment that was brought to an abrupt halt by its sponsor, a North Carolina--based biotechnology company called Aventis Crop Science. The company had contracted with a handful of farmers to grow the rice, which was known as Liberty Link because its genes had been altered to resist a weed killer called Liberty, also made by Aventis.

But by 2001, Aventis Crop Science was living a biotech nightmare. Another one of its creations, a variety of genetically modified corn known as StarLink, had been discovered in taco shells made by Kraft. Because the StarLink corn had been approved as animal feed and not for human consumption all hell broke loose. Hundreds of corn products were recalled. Consumers and farmers sued. Greenpeace dumped bags of corn in front of federal regulatory agencies, and an Environmental Protection Agency official accused Aventis Crop Science of breaking the law. So shell-shocked was Aventis SA, the French pharmaceutical giant that owned Aventis Crop Science, that it decided to sell the U.S. biotech unit and abandon the very emotional business of reengineering the foods we eat.

So dumping the Texas rice was a no-brainer. "We didn't want to take any chances," says a former Aventis executive. "We burned and buried enough rice to feed 20 million people."

Eventually Aventis paid about $120 million to settle the StarLink lawsuits. It sold its crop science unit to Bayer, the German drug giant that makes aspirin, Aleve, and Alka-Seltzer. Bayer Crop Science dropped plans to bring Liberty Link rice to market, largely because rice grown in the U.S. is exported to Europe and other places that don't want genetically modified foods. And everyone forgot about Jacko Garrett's rice.

CAN YOU GUESS WHERE THIS IS GOING? Yep. In January 2006, small amounts of genetically engineered rice turned up in a shipment that was tested we don't know why by a French customer of Riceland Foods, a big rice mill based in Stuttgart, Ark.? Because no transgenic rice is grown commercially in the U.S., the people at Riceland were stunned. At first they figured that the test was a mistake or that tiny bits of genetically modified corn or soybeans had somehow gotten mixed up with rice during shipping. They said nothing.

Then came another shock. Testing revealed that the genetically modified rice contained a strain of Liberty Link that had not been approved for human consumption. What's more, trace amounts of the Liberty Link had mysteriously made their way into the commercial rice supply in all five of the Southern states where long-grain rice is grown: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri. Bayer and Riceland then informed the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which announced the contamination last August.

By then the tainted rice was everywhere. If in the past year or so you or your family ate Uncle Ben's, Rice Krispies, Gerber's, or sushi, or drank a Budweiser Anheuser-Busch is America's biggest buyer of rice you probably ingested a little bit of Liberty Link, with the unapproved gene. (A very little bit perhaps ten to 15 grains of transgenic rice in a one-pound bag of rice, which contains about 29,000 grains.) Last November, over the howls of anti-GMO (that's genetically modified organisms) activists, the USDA retroactively approved the Liberty Link rice, known as LL601. The department said the genes that it approved are similar to those inserted for years into canola and corn, with no apparent ill effects. The experts at the USDA, the EPA, and the Food and Drug Administration, all of which bear some responsibility for regulating transgenic food, say the contamination is nothing to worry about.

Then again, the experts also have dismissed repeated warnings that genetically modified crops can't be managed or controlled. When organic farmers worried that their fields could be invaded by genetically modified plants grown nearby, regulators told them there was nothing to fear. The biotech industry promised that experimental, gene-altered plants could be grown in open fields and never, ever end up in the neighborhood Safeway.

Oops.

In any event, after last year's contamination became public, and after rice prices took a tumble, and after Europe said it no longer wanted any American rice, and after several other countries, including Japan and Iraq (!), demanded rigorous testing of U.S. rice, the industry moved to contain the damage. Rice growers were told not to plant Cheniere, a popular seed variety that had been tainted by Liberty Link genes. Regulators set up a comprehensive testing program to keep future harvests clean. Last December, Bruce Knight, a USDA official, assured worried rice farmers, "The good news is that the only foundation seed to test positive for Liberty Link was of a single variety 2003 Cheniere."

And then ... the tests that had been put in place uncovered a second contamination, and then a third, involving new, unapproved strains of Liberty Link, which turned up in another popular variety of rice seed, called Clearfield 131 (CL131). This seed variety is made by the German chemical giant BASF Corp. So the CL131 seed had to be banned as well.

Yes, it's the attack of the mutant rice, and it's spreading.

"This is a new kind of pollution," says Andrew Kimbrell, director of a Washington advocacy group called the Center for Food Safety, which opposes transgenic food. "You don't see it. It disseminates. It reproduces. It mutates. It's living pollution."

And here's the thing that really bugs many of America's 8,000 rice farmers: They didn't want to grow transgenic rice. It's not that they object to genetic engineering per se; many of them grow transgenic corn or soybeans alongside their conventional rice. Over the past decade, in fact, biotech crops have become staples of the American diet; about 60% to 70% of the processed foods in U.S. grocery stores contains oils or ingredients derived from biotech corn and soybeans, according to BIO, an industry group. Nevertheless, an acrimonious debate about whether biotech food is safe for the environment and human health rages on amid considerable scientific uncertainty. Absent firm proof of danger, regulators in the U.S. have chosen to permit widespread bioengineering. But rice farmers know their market. About half of the U.S. rice crop, which was worth about $1.9 billion last year, is exported, and Europeans and Asian consumers simply don't want genetically engineered food.

"If I can't sell it, I don't want to grow it," says Jennifer James, who grows rice, wheat, and soybeans, some of them transgenic, on a 7,500-acre farm near Newport, Ark.

And so the farmers are hiring lawyers and calling their Congressmen and trying to decide whom to blame: Bayer Crop Science, which owns Liberty Link and is the target of dozens of lawsuits, or the U.S. government, which regulates agricultural biotechnology, or the Europeans, for their opposition to genetically modified crops, which many farmers suspect is a form of protectionism. (Funny, isn't it European consumers won't buy genetically modified food, but French, Swiss, and German drug companies sell biotechnology to U.S. farmers.) Some farmers point the finger at environmental groups like Greenpeace for scaring people with their talk of Frankenfoods. Says James, who has decided not to sue: "Somebody screwed up somewhere."

Collectively, farmers and seed companies have lost hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the contamination. Its origins remain a mystery. "This is the most traumatic thing I've seen in the rice industry in 30 years," says Darryl Little, the widely respected director of the Arkansas State Plant Board, who has tried to clean up the mess. "It's been devastating."

And not just to the farmers. Consider the plight of Scott Deeter, the chief executive of a Sacramento biotech firm called Ventria Bioscience. Ventria wants to grow rice that has been genetically engineered to produce proteins that can then be extracted and turned into low-cost treatments for diarrhea. Making the drugs by growing transgenic rice is cheaper than producing them in a lab. "The rice plant is just the factory," Deeter says.

Ventria's medicine would save lives, Deeter says. About 1.8 million children in poor countries die annually from diarrhea. The disease raises national security issues as well, Deeter told a congressional subcommittee. "During Operation Iraqi Freedom, 70% of deployed troops suffered a diarrheal attack," he testified. "This is a silent enemy attacking American troops."

Even before the Liberty Link brouhaha, Ventria struggled to find a home for its "pharma rice." California told the company not to grow it in the state after farmers objected. So did Missouri, after Anheuser-Busch threatened to stop buying Missouri rice if Ventria was allowed to grow there. (AB did not want diarrhea-fighting proteins to turn up in a Bud.) Last year Deeter took his plans for rice fields and a production plant to Junction City, a small Kansas town more than 200 miles away from the nearest rice farm.

That's not far enough to satisfy critics. The USA Rice Federation, an industry group, opposed Ventria's plans. Citing Liberty Link, the group said it does not believe that the USDA can protect "the environment and the public's food and feed supply from unwanted intrusions of genetically engineered materials."

"We're not anti-biotech, and we're not anti-Ventria," says Bob Cummings, the federation's senior vice president. "Our job is to protect our industry."

"HAVE A RICE DAY." So says the USA Rice Federation, which wants people to eat more rice. Check out the recipes on its website for Senegalese peanut soup with spicy rice timbales; walnut rice with cream cheese, mushrooms, and spinach; and chocolate-chip banana nut rice pudding. Yum.

Alas, these items are not on the menu at the Little Chef restaurant in Stuttgart, Ark., where FORTUNE and a group of rice growers recently discussed the industry's woes over a lunch of chicken-fried steak, vegetables, and you-know-what. Arkansas grows about 45% of the nation's rice crop, and America's two biggest rice mills, Riceland Foods and Producer's Rice Mill, are headquartered in Stuttgart, a town of 10,000 people that bills itself as the Rice and Duck Capital of the World. Rice plants and ducks both like water.

Although they can't prove it, the farmers believe that rice prices are lower than they would be because of the Liberty Link problems. After the contamination was made public by the USDA on Aug. 18, 2006, the price of rice futures fell by about 10%. Prices have recovered since then, but farmers say they should be higher given the rising prices for other farm commodities. Currently, rough (meaning unrefined) rice sells for about $10.70 per hundredweight, or 100 pounds. "Rice could have been $1 a hundredweight more, and every farmer needs that," says Ray Vester, who farms about 1,300 acres in Stuttgart and sits on the state plant board. Rice farmers have been hard hit by rising energy and fertilizer costs, so they are feeling squeezed.

Farmers who planned to use either Cheniere or CL131 seed had an additional problem. They had to scramble to find alternatives or plant other crops. About 40% of the rice acreage in Arkansas would have been planted with either Cheniere or CL131 until both were banned, according to Chuck Wilson, a rice specialist with the University of Arkansas cooperative extension service in Stuttgart. Wilson expects Arkansas growers to plant 1.2 million acres of rice this year, 13% less than last year and the lowest acreage since 1996.

Hardest hit was a small group of farmers who specialize in growing rice for seed and were unable to sell their stocks of Cheniere or CL131 to other farmers. "We had to put seals on the bins. We couldn't ship it. We couldn't plant it," said Troy Hornbeck, an owner of HBK Seed in Dewitt, Ark. He was eventually permitted to sell the transgenic rice for consumption, not for planting, at a loss. Ten seed dealers from Arkansas, Missouri, and Louisiana recently sued Bayer, saying the company's carelessness ruined their seed. Rival BASF, which lost an estimated $15 million because it owns the banned Clearfield 131 variety, hasn't said whether it will sue, but its executives are unhappy. "We can't have an unwanted GM event floating around the seed supply," said one.

Many other lawsuits have been filed. Tilda, a British importer of rice, has sued Bayer Crop Science, Riceland Foods, and Producer's Rice Mill, saying it had to destroy or send back Arkansas rice. A Chicago tort lawyer named Adam Levitt has been named a lead counsel in a federal lawsuit brought on behalf of more than 400 rice growers. Not by coincidence, Levitt represented corn farmers who successfully sued Aventis Crop Science, Bayer's predecessor, over StarLink. Says Levitt: "Bayer knew Liberty Link rice could easily contaminate the rice supply, because Bayer contaminated the U.S. corn supply only a few years ago."

Bayer says the company complied fully with the law. In a legal filing, its lawyers speculated that the alleged damages were caused by an "act of God."

SO IT'S GOD'S FAULT? That's about as good an answer as we've got right now to the question of what went wrong.

The USDA's Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has been investigating since last summer, but the agency won't say what it has learned. In a sense, APHIS is investigating itself. Its track record, frankly, is a little scary. In 2005 the USDA's inspector general said that APHIS, which regulates field tests of biotech foods, didn't know the location of some field trials, did no independent testing of nearby crops, and did not even require submission of written protocols by some biotech firms, leaving the industry to, in effect, monitor itself. The audit concluded: "APHIS' current regulations, policies, and procedures do not go far enough to ensure the safe introduction of agricultural biotechnology." APHIS says it has fixed the problems. "We regulate technology that's constantly changing, and our policies continue to evolve," John Turner, an agency official, told FORTUNE.

As it turns out, it's unlikely that Jacko Garrett's Texas rice escaped from the landfill to live another day. He grew a different variety of Liberty Link from the one that got into the Cheniere seed. Instead, the source of the contamination is probably a rice research station in Crowley, La., operated by Louisiana State University. The LSU fields appear to be among the very few places if not the only one where the Liberty Link rice was grown in proximity to fields where Cheniere and CL131 seeds were also being developed. The LSU rice-breeding station is run by a man named Steve Linscombe, one of the most admired men in the U.S. rice industry. Linscombe, who is 52, has devoted his entire career to developing rice-seed varieties that improve yields and resist pests or herbicides. "He has put millions of dollars into the pockets of rice farmers," says Darryl Little, the Arkansas regulator. "He's a premier breeder."

Because Linscombe understood the risks of mixing transgenic rice seed with conventional varieties, he took extra precautions when working with Liberty Link. To prevent pollen or stray kernels of rice from migrating, USDA rules recommend at least a ten-foot buffer zone around transgenic field tests. LSU's contract with Bayer called for a 30-foot isolation zone. Linscombe created buffer zones of at least 120 feet. Until now, no one thought rice pollen could travel that far. "I did as much isolation as I possibly could," Linscombe said. So what happened? "I have been dealing with this for nine months, and I still can't give you a definitive answer," he said. Wilson, the University of Arkansas rice specialist, says, "I think we've learned some things about rice, biologically, that we didn't know before."

Whether the USDA has learned is another question. In May the agency granted Ventria's application to grow its pharma rice on up to 3,200 acres in Kansas. The agency had received 20,000 comments (most by e-mail clicks) opposing the plan from citizens, activists, farmers, and rice industry groups.

Deeter, Ventria's CEO, says there's no chance that the pharma rice will find its way into the food supply, as Liberty Link did: "We're more strictly regulated, by a factor of ten not for any good reason, by the way."

In the USDA ruling, Rebecca Bech, an APHIS administrator, wrote, "The combination of isolation distance, production practices, and rice biology make it extremely unlikely that this rice would impact the U.S. commercial rice supply."

In other words, there's nothing nothing at all to fear.

FEEDBACK mgunther@fortunemail.com

"THIS IS THE MOST TRAUMATIC THING I'VE SEEN IN THE RICE INDUSTRY IN 30 YEARS," SAYS DARRYL LITTLE, DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS STATE PLANT BOARD. "IT'S BEEN DEVASTATING."

THE REGULATORS WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO KEEP AN EYE ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS HAVE ESSENTIALLY LEFT THE BIOTECH INDUSTRY TO MONITOR ITSELF.

World: GM giants pair up to do battle
Monsanto and BASF join forces to create second-generation GM crops

Nature Biotechnology. By Peter Mitchell.

Monsanto is making a bid to dominate commercialized plant biotechÌs second decade. In March, it announced a $1.5 billion collaboration deal with BASF, of Ludwigshafen, Germany. The arrangement promises to be the anchor for much of Monsanto's ongoing R&D, including the introduction of complex second-generation traits to counter drought tolerance, an issue of global importance to agriculture.

Indeed, the BASF deal sets the scene for the next ten years of plant biotech, say crop industry analysts. The scale of the R&D cooperation poses a challenge to Monsanto's main rivals in the genetically modified (GM) crop business - DuPont's Pioneer Hi-Bred, in Des Moines, Iowa, and Basel-based Syngenta.

In the deal, each company is contributing $750 million (600 million) to an R&D program that over the next five years aims to discover and develop genetically modified crops that deliver higher yield while surviving environmental challenges, such as drought and heat. BASF's main contribution is its massive pool of genes and traits, together with the high-throughput phenotyping facility at its CropDesign business in Ghent, Belgium, and high-throughput metabolic profiling at the Metanomics subsidiary in Berlin. It claims to hold 1.5 million metabolic profiles for more than 35,000 genes in its genetic library.

St. Louis-based Monsanto's high card is its expertise in marketing GM seed products to farmers - something BASF has never done.

Some eight separate product lines will be created, in corn (maize), cotton, canola (oilseed rape) and soybean. The cost of commercializing those products is not included in the $1.5 billion number, as they will not reach the market until the next decade. If they do, though, sales revenues would be divided 60:40 between the partners, with the US company taking the lionÌs share. The project will not be spun out as a separate company, says BASF.

The project is a huge boost to both companies' investment in the technology. For example, BASF's spending on plant biotech outside the program will be 330 million from 2006-2008; its 600 million contribution to the Monsanto collaboration is in addition to that.

The new focus on yield and stress-tolerance traits moves the industry away from the first generation of GM crops that contained a single 'input trait', such as the gene for the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin for pest resistance. Second-generation traits are much more genetically complex and correspondingly hard to discover.

'Drought tolerance is not like herbicide resistance where it was just a matter of finding and inserting a single trait,' says economist Graham Brookes, of agricultural and food consultancy PG Economics in Frampton, UK. 'A single company, even a very large one, probably doesn't have the resources to deliver that type of attribute and bring it to market in a reasonable timescale of, say, five years. That is likely to be the rationale for this pooling of resources.'

Expensive though they may be to find, these traits are in increasing demand among farmers. Gautam Sirur of agribusiness consultancy Cropnosis in Edinburgh claims drought is 'the single biggest threat to crop yields worldwide.' He points to the near-disaster affecting Australia's farming sector, where output has fallen by up to 40% because of drought. Total US losses during a drought year could be $5-6 billion for just five or six major crops and that doesn't include the economic effect on livestock.

Counting just the key crops of maize, wheat, sorghum, soybean and cotton, Sirur puts the peak market value for these traits at $1.8 billion for the trait fee alone. The peak could even reach as high as $3.6 billion depending on factors like climate change - and that within a very short time from launch, he says. The leading candidate crop is maize, which combines high value with a high vulnerability to drought.

That was enough for BASF plant science director Peter Oakley, speaking at the launch of the Monsanto partnership, to describe yield and stress traits as 'the single most promising opportunity in agriculture over the next decade.'

That also could account for the recent rash of GM collaboration agreements. Cropnosis's Sirur regards the Monsanto-BASF deal as a strategic response to Wilmington, Delaware-based DuPont's increasing collaboration with Midland, Michigan-based Dow and Syngenta - in particular, the April 2006 Greenleaf Genetics joint venture between Pioneer and Syngenta.

The sums being spent by these agbiotech competitors now are quite large. Pioneer and Monsanto have both intensified their GM research since 2005. Monsanto has grown its seeds/biotech R&D spending at 14% a year, last year taking it from $632 million to $718 million, says Sirur. About a quarter of that, or $170 million, goes into research on drought-tolerance traits, he estimates. It's assumed DuPont-Pioneer is investing similar amounts, whereas Syngenta is investing around 15-20% of its total $300 million seeds & plant science budget on drought tolerance. In June, Monsanto also completed a $1.5 billion acquisition of Delta and Pine Land Company, a cotton seed company with genetics expertise based in Scott, Mississippi, but only after both companies agreed to sell assets to alleviate the U.S. Justice Department's concerns about lack of competition and higher prices.

This massive investment is happening because all GM companies believe the strong world demand for grain will continue as developing countries' populations grow and prosper. GM food is playing a significant role in meeting the demand: Plantings of GM crops are increasing at 10% to 20% a year despite the European ban, says Vivien Moses, professor and GM expert at London University's Queen Mary College.

Meanwhile, more land is being set aside for growing biofuels. The US alone will need 25 million acres of corn and 10 million acres of soybeans to supply its biofuels needs by 2010, says Monsanto.

William Niebur, DuPont's vice president for crop genetics R&D, calls these factors a 'global mega-trend' that will force farmers to 'rapidly adopt technologies that will increase their productivity.' DuPont's seed business, Pioneer Hi-Bred, has in the past year 'significantly increased' the number of products with yield-enhancing biotech traits, he says.

The downside of huge investments like these is that they will probably end any chance of increased diversity in the GM crop business, says PG Economics' Graham Brookes. 'The cost of second- and third-generation technology, together with the increasingly heavy regulation and the cost of testing, means there is less chance of seeing other companies enter the market,' he says.

The GM business looks like it's turning into a battle for giants only.

3 July 2007

South Africa: Report highlights potential risks of GM maize

Published in: Legalbrief Environmental Date: Tue 03 July 2007 Category: General Issue No: 0017

The government is assessing the safety of genetically modified (GM) maize after a flare-up over its effect on laboratory rats that ate NK603 during a 90-day trial.

A report, commissioned by Greenpeace, said there were 'statistically significant' effects on the blood and organs of laboratory rats, reports the Sunday Times [see article below under 1 July]. The rats fed the GM maize suffered liver and kidney toxicity and differences in weight gain between the sexes. NK603 is licensed in SA and is eaten in certain maize products, but the report says more tests are needed before it is deemed safe for consumption. The report also contains a detailed analysis of the Monsanto Company's own health and safety trial of NK603, which similarly found significant differences between rats fed NK603 and other maize. However, Monsanto said the differences pose no health or safety risk. Dr Julian Jaftha, chairman of SA's GMO executive council, said the government could reverse its decision to license the products if toxicity claims proved to be true. A similar report, raising concerns about another type of GM maize, Mon863, was referred to the panel earlier this year. Monsanto has slammed the report, which it claims is part of a broader anti-GMO strategy.

Spain: the Josep Pamies Story

Slow Food, 3 July 2007. By Elisa Virgillito.

The growing movement in Spain against the spread of genetically modified organisms originated with the personal experience of Josep Pamies, a farmer who has always been committed to protecting farm food heritage and agricultural biodiversity. Pamies, who is the leader of the Slow Food Convivium in Balaguer (Catalonia), has become the figurehead of this battle in Zapatero's Spain.

The story begins on 13th September 2003 when about fifty members of the Assemblea Pagesa and the Transgenics Fora platform went to an experimental field where BT176 was being grown. This transgenic corn produced by Sygenta was banned in the US in 2001 because it creates resistance to antibiotics in humans. Following an appeal by international farmers' movement Via Campesina, activists symbolically cut a small quantity of the corn. A group of 13 people (including children) subsequently went to the Lleida town hall to present the authorities with a petition protesting against unmonitored GMO experimentation in the area.

On finding the town hall door closed, these citizens entered and waited for the person inside the building, which they then left peacefully. One year after this event, Pamies was accused by an agent of the Spanish Guardia Civil of attempted and actual bodily harm to persons in authority. Although these were serious charges, the movement defending Pamies proved them to be unfounded since a medical examination showed that the physical harm reported by the agent had been inflicted prior to 2003.

Last 25th June Pamies was sentenced following a second trial during which the prosecution sought a 4-year prison sentence and a fine of 50,000 euro. Pamies was fully absolved after the first trial two years before, while the verdict of the second judicial procedure found him innocent of the charge of attempted harm to persons in authority but ruled a payment of 22,000 euros in damages for bodily harm to the agent as well as legal expenses.

In the last few days Pamies' supporters have formed another platform to fight GMOs, called Somos lo que sembramos ('We are what we sow'), which aims to gather the 50,000 signatures necessary to bring to Parliament a bill moved by the public and thus declare Catalonia a GMO-free area. Vandana Shiva, the Indian researcher active for years in the fight against commercialization of natural resources, has taken the Spanish trade-unionist's story to heart and publicly declared her support of Pamies during a conference in Barcelona.

In 1998 the Spanish government authorised the cultivation of genetically modified plants for commercial purposes. Until Rumania entered the EU, Spain was the only nation to grow GMO on a large scale and 31 authorised corn varieties are grown today. Since 1998 the areas where GMOs are grown have been steadily increasing and Catalonia and Aragona are the regions with the most extensive experimental fields.

According to the law the number of experimental fields in each area must be indicated without necessarily giving the precise location. The fields are outside in the open air and unmonitored, and numerous cases of contamination have been recorded. Social organisations have reported the cultivation of illegal varieties, the existence of unauthorised experimental fields, a lack of respect for minimum distances between fields, and scarcity if not total lack of data, information, testing and monitoring.

The increased cultivation of GMOs in Spain is causing huge problems of contamination of other crops and threatening both agricultural biodiversity and consumer freedom of choice. Esporus, a centre for the conservation of Catalan biodiversity, has complained that the only native Catalan corn variety - del queixal - has been contaminated by the GM variety grown in the region, and consequently lost.

According to the magazine Science (25th May 2007), in the last eleven years the worldwide surface area devoted to biotech cultivation has increased sixty-fold with 10 million growers who have planted over 100 million hectares of GM crops in over 22 nations. In the USA, in particular, 90% of soya, 60% of corn and 83% of cotton is genetically modified, despite the results of a survey carried out by the Pew Research Center, which show that one out of every two American citizens does not want this type of food on their table. But legislation does not require GM ingredients to be declared on food labels.

Even in Europe, where the 'precautiony' principle is practised, in 2004 the European Commission approved the import of seven GM food products for human and animal consumption, thus clearing the path for the cultivation of 31 varieties of Monsanto corn.

The Slow Food international association supports the Spanish movement offering assistance to Josep Pamies.

Read the appeal for support and join the campaign on this site: http://www.freepamies.org.

Elisa Virgilito works at the Slow Food Press Office
Translation by Ailsa Wood

2 July 2007

EU mashes GM potato plan
BASF's Amflora off the menu

The Register, 2nd July 2007. By Lester Haines.

The European Union's Council of Ministers last week delivered a serious blow to biotech companies' ambitions to roll out GM crops across the region by postponing a decision on the "commercial optimisation" of BASF's Amflora "genetically optimised potato".

According to the Telegraph, the German EU presidency canned a European Commission proposal to release the Amflora - developed by BASF for "use in industrial starch" - when it became clear that "a bloc of countries led by Austria, Greece, and Luxembourg would vote against it".

The decision was made ahead of last week's Europe's environment ministers' shindig. Although the EU lifted a moratorium on the commercial exploitation of GM crops 2004, none have been cleared for cultivation since 1998.

An official said: "It became clear that there was no way to get a majority for the first approval of a GM crop since 1998, so it has been taken off the agenda." A Brussels mandarin added: "Nine years after the moratorium we do not look any closer to authorising new GM crops for harvesting."

Greenpeace said of the announcement: "Consumers, most of whom have no desire to eat GM produce, expect politicians to put their health, food, safety, and the environment before the vested interests of a few agro-chemical companies."

BASF has stood by the safety of the Amflora spud, citing the European Food Standards Authority which has "repeatedly stated that Amflora is for humans, animals and the environment as safe as any conventional potato".

India: New Vidarbha season Bt-ing the farmers!

India Together, 2 Jul 2007. By Jaideep Hardikar.

As the fresh sowing season starts, beleaguered cotton farmers, already steeped in debt, are being forced to opt for the more-expensive Bt (genetically modified) cotton. Inputs dealers in Vidarbha say that there is hardly any non-Bt hybrid variety available in the market this year. Jaideep Hardikar reports.

2 July 2007 - Nagpur - When the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh visited Vidarbha last July, the Vidarbha farmers hoped bad days were coming to end, their destiny would change. Skeptics had warned the region's agrarian economy, which has collapsed totally, could not be resurrected with piecemeal packages. They were right. The relief is turning out to be a mere band-aid, as it indeed was meant, with policies remaining unchanged on all fronts ‚ credit, seeds, prices and imports, to name a few.

But, as the fresh sowing season starts, worrying signs are already evident. Beleaguered cotton farmers, already steeped in debt, have little choice but to opt for the more-expensive Bt (genetically modified) cotton this season.

Inputs dealers say that there is hardly any hybrid variety available in the market this year. "We get good margins on Bt from the companies. Also, the companies haven't marketed hybrids this time around." To be frank, says one dealer, "we are not keeping non-Bt seed, for it has no future."

Estimates indicate entire cotton area to be under Bt, results of which have been very discouraging for the rain-fed region. Divisional Commissioner (Amravati) Sudhir Goyal says this year would be a 100 per cent Bt year. Meaning, nearly a 100 per cent cotton area would be occupied by Bt cotton.

While cotton prices are crashing every year, a total shift to the genetic modified cotton will hike up production costs, leading to a steep risk of heavier losses, farm activists say. The central problem is that India provides no cushion to millions of farmers from the risks involved. When hybrid seeds were introduced, they wiped out desi cotton. Now Bt cotton would wipe out hybrids and farmers would be left with no choice but to buy expensive Bt seeds.

The top scientists at the Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) fear it is a signal for disaster, which will be accentuated many times if monsoon fails. For one, only three-per-cent cotton area in Vidarbha has protected irrigation. Two, Bt cotton is highly capital intensive. In a region where income levels of farmers have been steadily dwindling, any exposure to risk could be suicidal. The chief minister, who is advocating that farmers practice yoga and spiritualism, could do well to regulate markets and ensure fairplay by the seed companies.

After Bollguard-I (first generation Bt), Monsanto has introduced in the market Bollguard-II in more or less the same genotypes (varieties). The price of a 450-gm packet of seed is Rs.1350, several times the cost of non-Bt seeds. A package of Bollguard-I comes at Rs.750. A packet of same quantity of non-Bt will come at Rs.400-450, while the desi cottonseed, grown in very few areas, costs Rs.50 a kg.

Farmers' leader Vijay Jawandhia argues, "Bt cotton has not brought about any increase in productivity. Also, it has not reduced the use of chemicals." Last year, with 60 per cent area under Bt, the production of cotton in the state could only match the average annual production ‚ about 190 lakh quintals.

State government reports and statistics too suggest that Bt cotton has not brought about any rise in productivity or decline in pesticide use. In 2005, Maharashtra's Agriculture Commissioner wrote in his note to the central government and later the National Commission of Farmers about the poor performance of Bt in the state. Also, Maharashtra government has in four years paid to farmers about Rs.400 crore in compensation due to the failure of Bt cotton in Vidarbha and other parts.

Suman Sahai, Convenor of Gene Campaign, New Delhi, says: "The only long term feasible and sustainable approach to controlling pests in cotton would be not the Bt gene but a long term integrated pest management approach."

An estimate suggests that over 30 lakh packets of Bt cottonseeds would be sold this season, enough to cover well over ten lakh hectare farms in the region. That's more than a double-fold rise in the acreage over last year, officials point out. A disaster of unmanageable proportions is on the cards if there is any fluctuation in monsoon, fears Kishor Tiwari of the Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti. So far, rains haven't betrayed the farmers, but as the entire Vidarbha reels under inclement weather, some areas are staring at first sowing being washed away.

Already, the farm suicides in 2007 are nearing 500. Tiwari laments that a cotton farmer commits suicide every six hours in Vidarbha, and the rate has been picking up alarmingly, pooh-poohing the government claims that the suicides in Vidarbha have declined due to the implementation of special relief packages.

Interestingly, the Maharashtra Agriculture Minister, Balasaheb Thorat, recently admitted that Bt had failed in Vidarbha and cautioned farmers not to sow it. "We will introduce new crop patterns for every district in the entire state," Thorat said after a Kharif review meeting in Nagpur earlier in May. "We want Vidarbha farmers to shift to soybean," the minister proposed, "because the prices are good and cultivation is cheaper." But it's too late, and the damage is done.

Also, farm activists point out the government-run Mahabeej seeds corporation is itself marketing Bt cottonseeds to inputs dealers, while the minister advises caution. There is a lot of double-speak on the part of the government, charges Tiwari.

Yet, what's concerning activists is the permission granted to nearly 53 new genotypes of Bt cotton by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). As many as 35 of those varieties would be introduced in the central India.

Over 60 Bt varieties are already in the market here and few more are on the anvil. But there's hardly any study on the performance of new genotypes in Vidarbha. "We don't yet know whether these varieties will suit the agro-climatic and soil conditions; moreover releasing the second generation Bt (Bollguard II) for a wide spread commercial use is surely disastrous," says a senior CICR scientist, speaking under condition of anonymity. He also warns that it is only a matter of time before the widespread emergence of resistance in bollworms. "It has already happened in Gujarat, where bollworms have developed resistance to Bt."

Peasants' confusion is only being compounded by the introduction of new varieties this season. As companies compete for greater market share, they are promoting their brands fiercely and relentlessly, and farmers are being exposed to greater risks.

Jaideep Hardikar is a Nagpur based journalist. He won a 2005 scholarship to research the agrarian crisis in Vidarbha from the Prem Bhatia Memorial Trust, New Delhi. He has also been a recipient of several national media fellowships and was the winner of the 2003 Sanskriti award from Sanskriti Foundation, New Delhi.

1 July 2007

USA: A Challenge to Gene Theory, a Tougher Look at Biotech

New York Times, July 1 2007. By Denise Caruso.

THE $73.5 billion global biotech business may soon have to grapple with a discovery that calls into question the scientific principles on which it was founded.

Last month, a consortium of scientists published findings that challenge the traditional view of how genes function. The exhaustive four-year effort was organized by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute and carried out by 35 groups from 80 organizations around the world. To their surprise, researchers found that the human genome might not be a "tidy collection of independent genes" after all, with each sequence of DNA linked to a single function, such as a predisposition to diabetes or heart disease.

Instead, genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood. According to the institute, these findings will challenge scientists "to rethink some long-held views about what genes are and what they do."

Biologists have recorded these network effects for many years in other organisms. But in the world of science, discoveries often do not become part of mainstream thought until they are linked to humans.

With that link now in place, the report is likely to have repercussions far beyond the laboratory. The presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.

Innovation begets risk, almost by definition. When something is truly new, only so much can be predicted about how it will play out. Proponents of a discovery often see and believe only in the benefits it will deliver. But when it comes to innovations in food and medicine, belief can be dangerous. Often, new information is discovered that invalidates the principles - thus the claims of benefit and, sometimes, safety - on which proponents have built their products.

For example, antibiotics were once considered miracle drugs that, for the first time in history, greatly reduced the probability that people would die from common bacterial infections. But doctors did not yet know that the genetic material responsible for conferring antibiotic resistance moves easily between different species of bacteria. Overprescribing antibiotics for virtually every ailment has given rise to "superbugs" that are now virtually unkillable.

The principle that gave rise to the biotech industry promised benefits that were equally compelling. Known as the Central Dogma of molecular biology, it stated that each gene in living organisms, from humans to bacteria, carries the information needed to construct one protein.

Proteins are the cogs and the motors that drive the function of cells and, ultimately, organisms. In the 1960s, scientists discovered that a gene that produces one type of protein in one organism would produce a remarkably similar protein in another. The similarity between the insulin produced by humans and by pigs is what once made pig insulin a life-saving treatment for diabetics.

The scientists who invented recombinant DNA in 1973 built their innovation on this mechanistic, "one gene, one protein" principle.

Because donor genes could be associated with specific functions, with discrete properties and clear boundaries, scientists then believed that a gene from any organism could fit neatly and predictably into a larger design - one that products and companies could be built around, and that could be protected by intellectual-property laws.

This presumption, now disputed, is what one molecular biologist calls "the industrial gene."

"The industrial gene is one that can be defined, owned, tracked, proven acceptably safe, proven to have uniform effect, sold and recalled," said Jack Heinemann, a professor of molecular biology in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand and director of its Center for Integrated Research in Biosafety.

In the United States, the Patent and Trademark Office allows genes to be patented on the basis of this uniform effect or function. In fact, it defines a gene in these terms, as an ordered sequence of DNA "that encodes a specific functional product."

In 2005, a study showed that more than 4,000 human genes had already been patented in the United States alone. And this is but a small fraction of the total number of patented plant, animal and microbial genes.

In the context of the consortium's findings, this definition now raises some fundamental questions about the defensibility of those patents.

If genes are only one component of how a genome functions, for example, will infringement claims be subject to dispute when another crucial component of the network is claimed by someone else? Might owners of gene patents also find themselves liable for unintended collateral damage caused by the network effects of the genes they own?

And, just as important, will these not-yet-understood components of gene function tarnish the appeal of the market for biotech investors, who prefer their intellectual property claims to be unambiguous and indisputable?

While no one has yet challenged the legal basis for gene patents, the biotech industry itself has long since acknowledged the science behind the question.

"The genome is enormously complex, and the only thing we can say about it with certainty is how much more we have left to learn," wrote Barbara A. Caulfield, executive vice president and general counsel at the biotech pioneer Affymetrix, in a 2002 article on Law.com called "Why We Hate Gene Patents."

"We're learning that many diseases are caused not by the action of single genes, but by the interplay among multiple genes," Ms. Caulfield said. She noted that just before she wrote her article, "scientists announced that they had decoded the genetic structures of one of the most virulent forms of malaria and that it may involve interactions among as many as 500 genes."

Even more important than patent laws are safety issues raised by the consortium's findings. Evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today's commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals.

"The real worry for us has always been that the commercial agenda for biotech may be premature, based on what we have long known was an incomplete understanding of genetics," said Professor Heinemann, who writes and teaches extensively on biosafety issues.

"Because gene patents and the genetic engineering process itself are both defined in terms of genes acting independently," he said, "regulators may be unaware of the potential impacts arising from these network effects."

Yet to date, every attempt to challenge safety claims for biotech products has been categorically dismissed, or derided as unscientific. A 2004 round table on the safety of biotech food, sponsored by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, provided a typical example:

"Both theory and experience confirm the extraordinary predictability and safety of gene-splicing technology and its products," said Dr. Henry I. Miller, a fellow at the Hoover Institution who represented the pro-biotech position. Dr. Miller was the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology at the Food and Drug Administration, and presided over the approval of the first biotech food in 1992.

Now that the consortium's findings have cast the validity of that theory into question, it may be time for the biotech industry to re-examine the more subtle effects of its products, and to share what it knows about them with regulators and other scientists.

This is not the first time it has been asked to do so. A 2004 editorial in the journal Nature Genetics beseeched academic and corporate researchers to start releasing their proprietary data to reviewers, so it might receive the kind of scrutiny required of credible science.

ACCORDING to Professor Heinemann, many biotech companies already conduct detailed genetic studies of their products that profile the expression of proteins and other elements. But they are not required to report most of this data to regulators, so they do not. Thus vast stores of important research information sit idle.

"Something that is front and center in the biosafety community in New Zealand now is whether companies should be required to submit their gene-profiling data for hazard identification," Professor Heinemann said. With no such reporting requirements, companies and regulators alike will continue to "blind themselves to network effects," he said.

The Nature Genetics editorial, titled "Good Citizenship, or Good Business?," presented its argument as a choice for the industry to make. Given the significance of these new findings, it is a distinction without a difference.

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

South Africa: Sick lab rats prompt SA probe into GM maize

The Sunday Times (South Africa), 1 July 2007. By Bobby Jordan.

Report sparks concern after test shows effects on blood, organs

The government is assessing the safety of genetically modified (GM) maize in South Africa after a flare-up over its effect on laboratory rats that ate NK603 during a 90-day trial.

A shocking report, commissioned by global environmental lobbyists Greenpeace, said that there were "statistically significant" effects on the blood and organs of laboratory rats.

The rats that were fed the GM maize suffered liver and kidney toxicity and differences in weight gain between the sexes .

NK603 is licensed in South Africa and is eaten in maize products such as mealie pap, but the report says more tests are needed before it is deemed safe for consumption.

The report also contains a detailed analysis of the Monsanto Company's own health and safety trial of NK603.

The multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation's analysis also found significant differences between rats fed NK603 and other maize.

However, Monsanto said the differences pose no health or safety risk.

"In the absence of such results, consent for maize to be released into the environment, for food, feed or cultures, may present a serious risk to human and animal health and releasing it should be forbidden," said the Greenpeace report, compiled by scientists called the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering.

Dr Julian Jaftha, chairman of South Africa's GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) executive council , said the government could reverse its decision to license the products if toxicity claims proved to be true.

The Department of Agriculture has issued 74 licences this year for NK603 maize or maize consignments containing NK603, department records show.

The licences were issued for planting, "general release" and "use as commodity".

Jaftha said the new report had not been studied and would be referred to a scientific advisory panel.

"We have not had any insight into the report so it's difficult to make a judgment of its scientific authenticity."

A similar report, raising concerns about another type of GM maize, Mon863, was referred to the panel earlier this year.

"That report has been forwarded to one of our scientific reviewers and we are awaiting the outcome of his recommendation," said Jaftha.

"Similar to what we've done [with Mon863], we would review this latest data and it would go through to our scientific advisory panel to make a recommendation on it.

"The [GMO] executive council is empowered to reverse a decision. If it is found that there is some uncertainty as to NK603's safety we would take it through the process of reversing the decision [to license it]," Jaftha said.

This week the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) GMO panel ruled in favour of Mon863.

It said there were no grounds for new safety concerns. They have yet to make a ruling on NK603.

Monsanto has slammed the report, which it claims is part of a broader anti- GMO strategy.

Monsanto South Africa spokesman Wally Green said: "These foods are as safe if not safer than conventional foods. People who don't like the technology obviously have another agenda."

National Chamber of Milling executive director Jannie de Villiers said he was satisfied with the safety protocols governing the licensing of GMOs in South Africa.

However, environmental group Biowatch says the maize rumpus is further proof that GMOs need to be thoroughly tested before being released into the market.

Biowatch has also questioned the benefit of allowing patents on critical seed resources, particularly in resource-poor Africa.

"Unlike other seed, GM seed is patented and owned by the world's top five pesticide companies, giving them unprecedented control over the basics of life. These patents have enhanced the profitability of the GM industry but have had few benefits for farmers or the poor," said Biowatch South Africa director Leslie Liddell.

Half of South Africa's maize supply is genetically modified.

It is grown either locally or imported from North and South America. It is mixed together with natural maize, before being sold and turned into products like mealiemeal, breakfast cereals and chicken and cattle feed.

The cumulative area planted with GM maize in South Africa over the past six seasons is 2.686-million hectares, an area bigger than the Kruger National Park, according to a report commissioned by the maize industry.

Picture caption: They've got the pip: Greenpeace activists sit in a cage with genetically modified maize outside the Environment Council in Luxembourg last week. They were trying to alert ministers entering the meeting to 'protect Europe from risks in consuming genetically modified food'

"The SA area planted with GM maize over the past six seasons is bigger than the Kruger National Park".

Archives 2007: Jan • Feb • March • April • May • June

Archives 2006: Jan • Feb • March • April • May • June • July • August
• Sept • Oct • Nov • December

Archives 2005: Jan/Feb/Mar • Apr/May/Jun/Jul • Aug/Sept/Oct • Nov/Dec

Archives 2004 • 2003

Sponsored by Global Vision Corporation

© 2003 - 2007 Global Vision Consulting Ltd • updated 7 August 2007
Privacy policy
For enquiries contact mail@gmfreeireland.org
URL of this page: www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2007/july.php