NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • June 2007
Archives 2007: January• February • March • April • May • June • July
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
30 June 2007
Ireland: Claim that GM foods present health risk 'irrefutable'
Irish Medical News, 30 June 2007. By Julie-Anne Barnes.
The known health risks of genetically modified (GM) foods present a case that is "overwhelming and irrefutable" and it is now up to the biotech industry to provide rigorous scientific evidence "to show they are not risking the health of the population with food".
Mr Jeffrey M Smith, author of Genetic Roulete made this claim at a recent briefing on food safety and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) at the European Parliament Office in Dublin, where he said there are 65 documented health risks from GM foods. Mr Smith said there are now thousands of human beings complaining of toxic or allergic- type reactions from consuming, breathing or even touching GM produce.
"There are numerous ways in which the process of genetic engineering has been shown to create unpredicted side effects and many of the most fundamental assumptions that we use for the basis of safety claims have been truly wrong in the years since these crops were introduced," said Mr Smith.
His presentation coincided with the announcement by Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, with responsibility for Food and Horticulture, Mr Trevor Sargent that one of the Green Party's primary goals is to ensure that Ireland becomes Europe's first 100 per cent GM Free zone.
Mr Sargent said that the effects of GM foods on human health "are largely untested and potentially very dangerous" and "the use of GM animal feed is damaging our world famous clean green reputation as 'Ireland the food island'".
Ms Kathy Sinnott, MEP also addressed the meeting where she said the new government would need to stand up to the European Commission, which refuses to recognize the legal democratic right of member states and local authorities to have the final say on whether GM crops may be grown in their areas. During the course of the meeting Prof David McConnell, Department of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin challenged Mr Michael O'Callaghan, co-ordinator of the GM-Free Ireland Network and Minister Sargent.
He accused Mr O'Callaghan of "impugning" his scientific reputation during the briefing and said what Prof McConnell was arguing was that everybody interested in the GM debate should take scientific advice and that advice should represent the broad community of science "and you should not pin your view to one view or one expectation of scientific outcome".
He added that he found it very unfortunate that people claiming to be interested in science "really don't understand it and that is really quite serious".
Mr O'Callaghan said the notion that GM crops and non-GM crops can co-exist "is like the notion you can have a person with an infectious disease running around in a population where other people will [not] be contaminated". The meeting was also addressed by Dr Ricarda A Steinbrecher, PhD, developmental biologist and geneticist, EcoNexus.
Note from GM-free Ireland:
Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of GM foods. By Jeffrey M. Smith. Yes! Books. Fairfield, Iowa, USA, 2007. ISBN 978-0-9729665-2-8. Hardcover, 336 pages, € 23. Available at the Cultivate Centre, 15-19 Essex St. West, Temple Bar, Dublin 8, tel (01) 674 6415 or by mailorder from http://www.GeneticRoulette.com.
Ireland: Green GM stance to up feed prices
The Irish Farmers Journal, 30 June 2007. By Pat O'Keeffe.
Feed prices, which have already increased by between 40 and 60% in the past year, look set to increase even further following a controversial EU vote on Monday to reject the use of a variety of Genetically Modified (GM) maize.
In a move that has caused anger in the feed trade, Ireland abstained from Monday's vote at the EU Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health. As recently as last Thursday, Minister for Agriculture Mary Coughlan had signalled that Ireland would be voting in favour of allowing the importation of "Herculex" maize into Europe. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had deemed to product to be safe. "Herculex" is a maize variety produced by Pioneer and it is now authorised in ten countries. It is modified with a gene that makes it resistant to maize rootworm.
Junior Minister for Agriculture Trevor Sargent confirmed to the Farmers Journal that over the weekend he had discussions on the matter and that "these discussions resulted in a longer term view been taken on the issue." "If we had voted to roll-over on Herculex we'd find it impossible to get GM free status." He rejected any suggestion that the decision would lead to a scarcity in supplies of GM-free animal feed ingredients and said that there were ample supplies available. However, sources in the feed trade strongly disagree. "There is only one certainty; the action of the Government is going to lead to far higher feed cost for farmers," according to animal feed consultant Michael Ennis.
He said that Ireland annually imports approximately 800,000 tonnes of corn gluten and distillers grains from the US, from a total import of about 2.9m tonnes.
IFA president Padraig Walshe said that the decision has to be rescinded by the Council of Ministers "as a matter of urgency". He said that, as recently as last Thursday, he had received assurances from the Department of Agriculture that Ireland would be voting in favour of allowing Herculex product to be used in Europe.
The decision to abstain was particularly annoying, given that Ireland had raised the issue with the Commission in the first place, Walshe said.
As of this week, merchants were being told that corn gluten is not available, while supplies of distillers grains are limited. Those products would generally make up 25-30% of a typical coarse beef ration. They will now have to be replaced by other ingredients, almost certainly at a higher cost.
The move comes against the background of a major EU Commission report (see page 4) which warns that European agriculture will find it increasingly difficult to source non-GM feed, as major exporters such as the US, Brazil and Argentina plant increased acreages of GM crops.
The report warns that if major producers continue to adopt the use of non-EU approved GM varieties, it will have drastic consequences for the EU pig and poultry sectors in particular. Ironically, EU produced pork and poultry would then be replaced by imported meat product - produced using the same GM feeds banned from Europe.
The report identifies major feed importers such as Ireland as being vulnerable. Concerning soybeans and soybean meal, the EU imports vast volumes of these feed products which would be difficult to replace by alternative protein rich feed.
Feed price across the world have already risen sharply due to increased demand from the feed and biofuel trades. Figures obtained by the Farmers Journal show that in the past 12 months, the price of distillers grains has surged by 59%, while the important corn gluten is up a massive 59%.
Ireland: Sargent acknowledges role in retaining ban on Herculex
The Irish Farmers Journal, 30 June 2007. By Mairead Lavery.
Junior Minister for Agriculture, Trevor Sargent, has rejected claims that farmers are facing substantial increases in the price of animal feed this winter because of a decision not to certify a variety of GM maize.
Defending the decision to continue the ban on Herculex, Minister Sargent said that a consignment of animal feed containing the banned ingredient had been sent to the EU in May in full knowledge that it hadn't been approved.
"The EU was put in a position of having to consider legitimising this consignment of feed. That was a dangerous precedent and the EU was right to to say it did not want to encourage this sort of activity." Minister Sargent told the Farmers Journal that over the weekend he had had discussions on the matter and that these discussions resulted in a longer term view being taken on the issue.
"If we had voted to roll-over on Herculex we'd find it impossible to get GM free status. It would make it more difficult to have choice in this important matter."
He rejected any suggestion that the decision would lead to a scarcity in supplies of GM-free animal feed ingredients and said there were ample supplies available. He also rejected claims that farmers were facing massive increases in the price of animal feed because of the decision.
"Certified premium GM-free animal feed ingredients are trading at $15 a tonne above the fluctuating daily price on the Chicago market. I take seriously my responsibility to ensure that returns to Irish farmers will be able to offset that premium on feed prices." Minister Sargent said the that markets in France and Italy are increasingly requiring that produce be GM-free feed.
"Our future is in these high end markets. The choice we face is either stay ahead in that race or compete on the quantity market with the likes of Brazil and that's impossible."
Comment on the above article from GM-free Ireland:
Brazil's largest exporter of certified non-GMO soya products, IMCOPA, can supply all of Ireland's needs for soya animal feed certified at the 0.1% detection threshold for a premium – including shipping costs of delivery to any port in Ireland – of approx US$15 per metric tonne above the global commodity price set by the Chicago Board of Trade, which fluctuates daily.
Unlike the GM soya animal feed promoted by the Irish Farmers Journal (which often involves massive use of toxic weedkiller, tropical deforestation, topsoil erosion, displacement of indigenous peoples, virtual slave labour, and contamination of the European food chain with illegal GM varieties), IMCOPA's non-GMO soya production methods are environmentally, ethically and socially compliant with the Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy Production, initiated by WWF Switzerland and Coop Switzerland, certified to the ProTerra Standard.
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 Rhône
Geneva
Switzerland
Tel + 41 22 819 1729
Email: jk(at)imcopa.com
Website: www.imcopa.com
Ireland: GM food policy: Hypocrisy must be faced down
The Irish Farmers Journal, 30 June 2007.
The GM (Genetically Modified) Food Policy is reaching farcical proposals. If Europe decides to effectively ban the technology, not just in the production of plants but also bans the importation of feedstuffs made from GM plants, then it has to live with the consequences.
It is hypocritical to then import animal products, mainly pigs and poultry, fed with the same feedstuffs banned in Europe.
Mary Coughlan's decision to abstain on this issue on Monday is simply not logical, except perhaps in domestic political terms.
Already we are seeing serious supply fears for corn gluten with significant price increase already being factored in.
With huge acreage of new varieties and Round Up Ready soya being sown in the US and South America, we will, unless some kind of sanity is imposed, face even more difficult problems with soya supplies in the future.
It is time for this double speak and hypocrisy to be faced down.
Ireland: Why GM feed issue could be costly for Ireland
The Irish Farmers Journal, 30 June 2007. By Pat O'Keefe, News Editor.
The following is the executive summary of a recently published EU Commission report on "the economic impact of unapproved GMOs on EU feed imports and livestock production."
GM crops are increasingly cultivated in major crop exporting countries. Due to the differences in the GMO authorisation regimes between the EU and exporting countries, asynchronous authorisations of GMOs have already occured. They are likely to become more frequent and to affect a greater range of crops in the future.
The EU applies a zero-tolerance policy for non-approved GMOs in food and feed imports. This implies that the presence on non-approved GMOs has been kept below the technical detection threshold in imports, which is very difficult in practice.
The presence of EU non-approved GMOs has already affected imports of maize feed products (corn gluten feed and distillers dried grain) with, however, limited overall economic implications for EU livestock production. However, as these producs are mainly imported by a few Member States, the economic impact may be more pronounced in these countries.
Concerning soybeans and soybean meal, the EU imports vast volumes of these feed products which would be difficult to replace by alternative protein rich feed. Only 10-20% of imports could be replaced by substitutes.
For this study, the economic impact of a potential ban on soybean/meal imports from the three major exporting countries (USA, Argentina and Brazil) was modelled. Three scenarios were distinguished depending on whether soybean/meal imports from one, two or all three of these countries are banned.
•
If EU-non approved GM soybeans were cultivated only in the USA, but not in Argentina and Brazil, the impact on the EU market of a ban on US supplies would be small due to the moderate US import volumes.
•
However, if these GMOs were also cultivated in Argentina (medium impact scenario) or in Argentina and Brazil (worst case scenario), the estimated economic impact of a two-year import ban would be severe, cutting EU feed supply (in soybean meal equivalent) by 3.3 million t and 25.7 million t. respectively. Feed expenditure would rise by 22.8% and by more than 600% in the two scenarios.
•
The short-term impacts in the pig meat and poultry sectors would be a substantial reduction in production, exports and consumption, and an increase in imports. For beef meat, production would be less affected, but exports would be significantly reduced (by 100% in the worst case scenario).
Assuming that after two years (2009-2010) the import restrictions would be lifted again, there would be a more moderate but still significant medium-term impact beyond the period of the ban. EU meat production and consumption would almost recover by 2013, but EU output and consumption would still remain below baseline levels.
Corn gluten feed pellets 2007 146 59% increase 2006 92 Palm kernel expeller 2007 128 83% increase 2006 70 Dried distillers grain 2007 154 31% increase 2006 117 Citrus pulp pellets 2007 163 57% increase 2006 104 Beet pulp pellets 2007 188 85% increase 2006 101 Beet pulp molasses 2007 102 2% increase 2006 102 Soybean hull pellets 2007 125 39% increase 2006 90 Soybean meal (Arg.) 2007 200 29% increase 2006 155 Soybean meal (Braz.) 2007 209 23% increase 2006 170 EU soybean meal 2007 219 24% increase 2006 177 Rapeseed meal 2007 122 36% increase 2006 90 Sunflower pellets 2007 135 61% increase 2006 84 Tapioca hard pellets 2007 150 46% increase 2006 103 Feed peas 2007 200 48% increase 2006 135 Feed barley 2007 174 58% increase 2006 110 Feed wheat 2007 174 34% increase 2006 130 Feed wheat 2007 173 37% increase 2006 127 Feed rye 2007 156 29% increase 2006 121
Implications
Given the EU livestock production accounts for about 40% of agricultural income a loss in competitiveness of the UE [sic][ livestock sector, as indicated in the medium and worst case scenarios, would have important implications for agricultural incomes and employment, with considerable knock-on effects in the upstream and downstream industries, and significant increases in meat prices for the consumer.
As a result of the import bans for soybeans/meal from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, animal production would expand in the overseas countries, as producers could take advantage of cheaper GM protein feed, while the EU would increase its imports of meat from animals fed with GM soybeans in these countries (meat from animals fed with GM feed is not subject to GMO labelling in the EU).
The prevention of the economic impact of asynchronous approvals of new GM soybeans on the EU market will depend on whether feed exporting countries refrain from the use of these GMOs until authorisation is also granted in the EU.
Soybean varieties
While it can not be expected that the USA will limit the use of novel GMOs, Brazil and Argentina are more likely to be willing to wait with the introduction EU-non approved soybean varieties, as their industries are much more dependent on exports to the EU. However, given the past experience with illegal GMO plantings in Brazil, it is doubtful that Brazil would be able to enforce a policy of non-adoption vis a vis its farmers.
Moreover, with the emergence of China as a major soybean importer, Argentina and Brazil will become less reliant on the European market for their soybean production.
The willingness of feed exporting countries to delay the production of GMOs until EU approval is granted may be greater if they have confidence that the EU authorisation regime for GMOs works smoothly and efficiently.
In general, if can be expected that the presence of EU non-approved GMOs will become an increasingly important factor that will limit the possibilities for animal feed imports. Even if exporting countries take their exports to the EU into account in their GMO approval strategies, unwanted mixing resulting from illegal or experimental cultivation may render these policies less effective.
Flexibility
From an economic point of view, the EU will certainly profit if it can ensure greater flexibility in maintaining imports for different countries, by limiting the potential impact of, and by avoiding asynchronous approvals of GMOs. Therefore, there is an urgent need to take action in order to avoid negative implications for EU livestock production and agriculture overall.
In particular, it should be considered how the authorisation procedure, which is significantly longer than in the USA and other countries, could be accelerated. A limiting factor at present is the risk assessment procedure by EFSA. There is a long backlog of GMO applications following the modification of the GMO legalisation. It should be examined why the risk assessment procedure takes so much time, and how it can be accelerated without compromising the validity of the risk assessment.
We should furthermore look at possible approaches on hwo to deal with imports containing minute or just detectable traces of GMOs that are fully approved in exporting countries according to internationally agreed standards.
In this regard, the discussions at the level of the Codex Alimentarius are important and should be pursued.
Commodity prices (€) on 15 June 2007
compared to last year's prices on the same date
Prices quoted are ex-Amsterdam/Rotterdam
_______________________
Preliminary comments on the above article from GM free Ireland:
The Irish Farmers Journal fails to specify the title and author(s) of the study to which it refers, and does not make clear if the "executive summary" was written by the study's author(s) or by the news editor, Pat O'Keefe.
The article relies on a number of false and/or misleading assumptions and claims:
•
The article's use of the term "asynchronous authorisation" implies that GMO products approved in the USA automatically become approved in the EU. This is certainly not the case, for the very good reason that the EU approvals process is considerably more rigorous than the US version.
•
The statement that the EU applies a zero-tolerance policy for non-approved GMOs in food and feed imports is so in theory, but not in practice because of false certification and inadequate testing procedures (as in the thousands of tonnes of animal feed contaminated by the unauthorised Herculex GM maize gluten which the Irish and Dutch authorites illegally allowed to enter the European food chain in April 2007).
•
The article falsely claims that it would be difficult to replace GM soybeans and soya meal with alternative (GM-free) protein rich feed, and that "only 10-20% of these imports could be replaced by substitutes". In reality, 50% of the brazil soya crop is GM-free. Non-GMO soya meal certified at the 0.1% detection threshold is available now for a premium of around US$ per metric tonne (including delivery costs to any port in Ireland). The management of the Irish Farmers Association is well aware of this fact.
•
Unlike maize and rapeseed, soya is self-pollinating. This means that farmers who currently grow GM soya can convert back to GM-free soya in the following season in response to EU market demand. This shift from GM to GM-free soya has already happened in Romania, and can take place in the USA, Argentina and Canada as well.
•
It appears that Brazil alone could meet the entire European demand for soya animal feed from non-GMO soya.
•
The notion of the EU placing hypothetical country-specific bans on soybean/meal imports from the USA, Argentina and Canada is fantastic. EU bans on GMOs apply to the product, not to the country of origin (except in emergencies when a particular country's seed supply or food/feed exports have been contaminated by illegal GM varieties, as happened with up to 40% of the US long-rain rice supply which was contaminated by Bayer's illegal GM varieties between 1998 and 2007.
•
The projection that bans on GMO soya imports from Argentina, or Argentina and Brazil together, would create feed expenditure rises of 22.8% and over 600% respectively is absurd, given that non-GMO soya is available at minimal extra cost from Brazil.
•
The statement that "it can not be expected that the USA will limit the use of novel GMOs" beggars belief, since US farmers have already prevented the release of various GM varieties including wheat and alfafa in order to avoid contamination and loss of market share.
•
The statement that "the willingness of feed exporting countries to delay the production of GMOs until EU approval is granted may be greater if they have confidence that the EU authorisation regime for GMOs works smoothly and efficiently" rests on the flawed assumption that the EU will continue to legalise GM products which have been already approved in the USA. In reality, resistance to GM food and animal feed is increasing rapidly across the EU's 22 member states.
The article's final three paragraphs reveal the agri-biotech industry intention to obtain more control of the world's agricultural seeds by dismantling the European Food Safety Authority's GMO risk assessment procedures and lowering EU's GMO contamination thresholds, inter alia through changes in the Codex Alimentarius.
The Irish Farmers Journal's uncritical adoption of agri-biotech industry propaganda revealed in this and other articles in the same issue of the paper clearly shows that the Journal places the commercial interests of the agri-biotech industry above those of Irish farmers and consumers.
Moreover, the article completely fails to mention the issue of peak oil, which will eventually make industrial monoculture production of cash crops for animal feed – and their transportation across the atlantic – and the overproduction of Irish meat and dairy produce for long-distance shipping to overseas export markets – physically impossible.
Instead of propping up the global "free trade" industrial biotech agribusiness model which is doomed to failure, we should focus on bringing the food economy home with a more sustainable and organic agriculture that has the capacity to guarantee the world's food security and national food self-sufficiency in the post-petroleum age.
29 June 2007
The health risks of GM foods
Letter sent to the Editor of the Irish Times, 29 June 2007
Shane Morris' bizarre, rambling attack of me (Letters, June 29th) is
predicted on page 252 of my book Genetic Roulette. The book begins with 65
health risks of genetically modified (GM) foods, including links to
thousands of sick, sterile and dead animals and thousands of people with
toxic or allergic-type reactions. With input from more than 30 scientists,
it documents dozens of ways that GM crops create unpredicted side effects
and numerous incorrect assumptions that were used as the basis for safety
claims. It reveals how government assessments are not competent to identify
most of the health risks and how industry-funded studies are meticulously
rigged to avoid finding them.
The book is being presented to governments worldwide as evidence that GM
foods are unsafe. If biotech advocates are unable to provide data to counter
each of the 65 risks (see www.geneticroulette.com), the foods should be
banned. I alert readers, however, that industry advocates, having lost the
debate on health risks long ago, rarely address the science. I describe 10
tactics they use instead, 3 of which are illustrated in Morris's ranting:
Sweeping dismissal, Invoking of scientific organizations, and Personal
attack. The last is used in response to "a particularly strong argument or
evidence that can damage the industry position." Morris' strong personal
attack demonstrates his weak position.
Further, his accusations were twisted, at best. He claims that Genetic
Roulette is not scientific, yet each section was reviewed by at least three
scientists and is supported by more than 1000 endnotes. Although Morris is
correct that my first book, Seeds of Deception was self-published, he
neglected to say that it is the world's bestselling book on GM foods, put
out in 10 languages by 13 publishers, including the largest. It exposes how
GM approvals were based on industry manipulation. At the US Food and Drug
Administration, for example, Monsanto's former attorney was put in charge of
policy. He disregarded agency scientists, whose consensus was that GM foods
might create the type of allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional
problems that we are now seeing. A complete ban of GM food and feed is
overdue.
Jeffrey M. Smith
Executive Director
Institute for Responsible Technology
P.O. Box 469
Fairfield, IA 52556 USA
www.responsibletechnology.org
Author, international bestseller Seeds of Deception (www.seedsofdeception.com)
and the new Genetic Roulette
www.geneticroulette.com
Tel +1 641 472 8338
Cell +1 561 951 7877
The health risks of GM foods
Letter sent to the Editor of the Irish Times, 29 June 2007
Madam,
"Genetic Roulette - the documented health risks of genetically engineered food," as the title suggests deals with the unexpected outcomes of the very imprecise way in which genetic modification moves genes around and disrupts normal gene function about which so little is known.
I therefore understand why, that rather than engage in argument on this topic Mr. Morris prefers to attempt to "slay the messenger" Mr. Smith who compiled the evidence, by reference to his politics and beliefs.
What was called for was a response through the forum for discussion on the books web-site where scientific views maybe aired and held up to scrutiny. In the next ten years the bio-tech industry believes that G.M. cropping will pass the point of no return, is this to be allowed happen without pressing its advocates to explain their presumption about genetics?
As a farmer, I object to natural plant genetics, part of the tools of my trade, being given so little respect by people who don't understand them and who don't feel the need to explain the apparent failings of their scientific presumptions.
Yours etc
Nick Cullen
Ballysax
The Curragh
Co. Kildare
087 6203941
The health risks of GM foods
Letter sent to the Editor of the Irish Times, 29 June 2007
Madam,
Shane Morris's attack on Jeffrey Smith's book Genetic Roulette - 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 colleage 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 [XXXXXXXXXX *] scientific claims, triggering a controversy reported by New Scientist magazine.
Morris wrote his letter in response to the Kildare-based farmer Nick Cullen (Letters, June 28th), who critiqued your newspaper's coverage of the briefing on Food Safety and GMOs which I recently organised with Kathy Sinnott MEP at the EU Parliament Office in Dublin ("Sargent says GMO-free pledge is a 'huge step'", June 16th).
As Nick Cullen rightly pointed out, that article avoided any reference to the peer-reviewed scientific papers presented at the briefing, including those summarised in Genetic Roulette, but quoted instead from statements from the floor by the Chairman of the Irish Times Trust, Prof David McConnell, who attempted to portray Trevor Sargent [Ireland's new Minister of State for Agriculture and Food] – and anyone else who disagrees with his views on GMOs – as scientifically illiterate.
In the interests of transparency, your article should have mentioned that Prof McConnell's Smurfit School of Genetics at TCD is part-funded by the agribiotech industry, and that he is also the Co-Chair of EAGLES (European Action on Global Life Sciences), a biotech industry lobby group which promotes GM food and crops in the developing countries.
Our new government's aim to keep the whole island of Ireland free of GM crops and livestock will help our food and farm sectors retain access to the EU market for safe food, which increasingly prohibits or restricts the use of any food (including meat and dairy produce) containing or derived from genetically modified ingredients.
Our media should not encourage us to abandon this long-term competitive advantage because of vested interests.
GM foods and farming present a variety of extremely serious health, agronomic, environmental, legal, economic and food security risks. Please provide some more balanced coverage of these issues in the Irish Times!
Yours etc
Michael O'Callaghan
Co-ordinator, GM-free Ireland Network
Background information (not included in the letter):
The deleted adjective used to describe the scientific paper has been censored following a threat of libel action by a Canadian Government agent called Shane Morris!
Canada is the world's second largest producer of GM crops. Morris is currently employed as Senior Consumer Analyst at the Consumer Analysis Section of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, as shown on the Canadian Government Electronic Directory Services on 22 July 2007: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/ShaneMorris.pdf.
He maintains a web blog at http://www.gmoireland.blogspot.com designed to discredit the GM-free Ireland Network with personal attacks on Michael O'Callaghan, Percy Schmeiser and others. He persuaded Bord Bía to withdraw agreed sponsorship for the Green Ireland conference in 2006, he complained to the Ireland Funds for their sponsorship of the Briefing on Food Safety and GMOs co-hosted by the European Parliament Independence / Democracy Group and the GM-free Ireland Network at the European Parliament Office in Dublin on 15 June 2007, and he has had many pro-GMO letters published in Irish newspapers.
The scientific paper "Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet-corn", was co-authored by D.A. Powell, K. Blaine, S. Morris and J. Wilson, and was published in the British Food Journal, Volume 105 Number 10, 2003, pp. 700-713.
The paper won the following awards:
•
"British Food Journal's Award for Excellence for Most Outstanding Paper in 2004"
•
"GM Watch Propaganda Lab Award 2006"
The paper and its authors have been criticised in the following documents (note that these documents are published by third parties and do not necessarily reflect the views of the GM-free Ireland Network or those our internet service provider):
•
Secret Ingredients: The Brave New World of Industrial Farming. By Stuart Laidlaw, 288 pages 1st ed. (15 April 2003) McClelland & Stewart; ISBN: 0771045956.
•
Altered food tested at the market. By Stuart Laidlaw, Toronto Star, 8 October 2000.
•
Rude Science. By John W. Morris, The Manitoba Co-operator, June 21 2001. This article strongly criticizes Morris and Powell for their attack dog antics, particularly against the Royal Society of Canada for raising concerns about GMOs.
•
"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:
•
"The GM Propaganda Lab" (originally titled "Award for a Fraud"), published by GM Watch:
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page= 1
•
"Propaganda Lab Award 2006", published by GM Watch:
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7495
•
Related editor's note and correspondence published in the British Food Journal, Vol 108, Issue 8, 22 August 2006:
http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/en/article-details.php?a=3&c=9&sc=62&id=897
•
GM Watch profile of Doug Powell
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=257 (extract):
_______________________
Genetically modified crops
The Irish Times, Letters to the Editor, 29 June 2007
Madam,
Nick Cullen requests a scholarly response to Jeffrey Smith's book Genetic Roulette (Letters, June 28th). However I fear he maybe waiting some time considering the book is not scientifically peer reviewed and is riddled with misinformation. In addition, the publisher, Yes Books, is run by Jeffrey Smith himself and is a vanity publisher that has only ever published two books, both by Mr. Smith.
Jeffrey Smith has never published a peer-reviewed scientific article and is a member of the Natural Law Party his past so-called "scientific" statements include "the minds of yogic flyers are like radio transmitters that radiate a positive influence, resonating through the surrounding mental environment... Smith presented charts with evidence of a correlation between the presence of yogic flyers and in increas in the quality of life and a decrease in crime... Smith said more than 500 studies have shown transcendental meditation has its benefits including more creativity, intelligence and energy, better health and higher IQ over the long term" (Daily Illini, Oct 28th, 1996).
Mr Cullen also fails to point out that Jeffrey Smith was also recently the vice-president of marketing communication for Genetic ID, a US company that has strong links to the Natural Law Party that tests for the presence of genetically engineered products, with contracts in the past with Greenpeace. The New York Times (October 11th, 2000) stated "Genetic ID, many in the industry say, is trying to create a biotech scare to increase the demand for testing". Clearly, it still pays Jeffrey Smith to scaremonger on genetically engineered foods in terms of book sales. Personally I prefer to rely on the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, the European Food Safety Authority and the large number of peer-reviewed scientific publications that agree that approved genetically engineered foods are safe.
Yours etc
Shane Morris B.Sc
Coolkill
Sandyford
Dublin 18
USA: Synthetic Biology: Venter's Trillion-Dollar Dream Spotlights Dangers of "Self-Regulation"
Genetic Crossroads Newsletter of the Center for Genetics and Society, 29 June 2007.
Yesterday's announcement that biotech entrepreneur Craig Venter is one step closer to constructing a self-replicating artificial life form should be a wake-up call.
http://www.nytimes.rsvp1.com/2007/06/29/science/29cells.html?mghost=http%3A%2F%2F
www.nytimes.com&mglogexit=1&mgfixit=1
Venter's move to construct a synthetic bacterial species paves the way for the deliberate or accidental creation of pathogens of unprecedented virulence. Currently there are no laws or treaties, and few regulations, to bring this set of powerful new biotechnologies under responsible social oversight.
In 1975 scientists gathered at an emergency meeting in Asilomar, California to reluctantly impose a voluntary, short-term moratorium on their own research in the then-new field of genetic engineering. Now, 32 years later, scientists promoting the new field of synthetic biology appear far less willing to abide by even minimal precautionary values.
In March 2006 synthetic biologists at the "SynBio 2.0" conference in Berkeley, California downplayed the risks that synthetic biology poses, and resisted calls for moratoria or any effective public oversight. Those sentiments have been reinforced at the "SynBio 3.0" conference being held this week in Zurich, Switzerland.
The profound dangers of synthetic biology have been widely noted. As early as 2003, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) warned [PDF] that synthetic biology could be used to produce biological agents whose effects "could be worse than any disease known to man."
http://www.fas.rsvp1.com/irp/cia/product/bw1103.pdf?mghost=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org
&mglogexit=1&mgfromtag=a&mgfixit=1
A leading MIT synthetic biologist has acknowledged [PDF] that synthetic biology might allow people with a high school biology education to create "a pathogen that could cause millions of deaths."
http://thebulletin.metapress.rsvp1.com/content/c6h4437658546m25/fulltext.pdf?
mghost=http%3A%2F%2Fthebulletin.metapress.com&mglogexit=1&mgfromtag=a&mgfixit=1
Nonetheless, the only safeguards that most synthetic biologists appear willing to accept are a series of "self-regulatory" procedures that provide little or no protection. Their proposals for self-regulation are more public relations than a serious approach to social oversight.
For the past two decades the links between the bioscience research community and the commercial biotechnology industry have become increasingly strong. Commercial motives have been present at the creation, so to speak, of synthetic biology. Earlier this month it was disclosed that Venter had applied for both US and international patents on his proposed synthetic bacterium. He has declared his hope that it will be the world's first "trillion dollar organism."
http://www.msnbc.msn.rsvp1.com/id/18882837/site/newsweek/?
mghost=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.msn.com&mglogexit=1&mgfixit=1
Organizations including the ETC Group, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have already begun to educate and activate [PDF] key constituencies around the immense risks posed by synthetic biology. With researchers and biotech entrepreneurs refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, it's up to civil society, national governments and international governing bodies to ensure that biotechnology is developed in ways that enhance rather than endanger the well-being of the human community and all life on earth.
Resources:
ETC Group: Extreme Genetic Engineering
http://www.etcgroup.rsvp1.com/en/materials/publications.html?
pub_id=602?mghost=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.etcgroup.org&mglogexit=1&mgfixit=1
Civil Society Sign-On Letter [PDF]
http://www.etcgroup.rsvp1.com/upload/publication/pdf_file/8?
mghost=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.etcgroup.org&mglogexit=1&mgfixit=1
Richard Hayes, "Our Biopolitical Future: Four Scenarios," WorldWatch [PDF]
http://www.genetics-and-society.rsvp1.com/media/WWBiopolfut.pdf?mghost=http%3A%2F%2F
www.genetics-and-society.org&mgfromtag=a&mgfixit=1
SynBio 3.0
http://www.syntheticbiology3.ethz.ch.rsvp1.com/index.htm?
mghost=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.syntheticbiology3.ethz.ch&mglogexit=1&mgfixit=1
EU: Cyprus wines to benefit from EU promo
Financial Mirror (Cyprus), 29 June 2007.
Agriculture sector in Europe can better survive if it sets as its goal the production of high quality products, European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development Mariann Fischer Boel said, noting that Cyprus can contribute towards the achievement of this goal.
In a press conference she held with the Cypriot Minister of Agriculture, Natural Resources and the Environment Fotis Fotiou, after the meeting, Boel called upon the Cypriot farmers to aim for high quality products.
She also said that she was informed on Cyprus' intention to apply for registering Cyprus halloumi cheese as a protected product.
"I heard during our conversation about the halloumi cheese, for which you will apply for geographical indication. I think that the idea to go for high quality products is the only way to go forward for the EU agriculture", she said.
During the meeting, EU Common Agriculture Policy was discussed, as well as other issues, such as the problems faced by the Cypriot farmers, the promotion of the European wines and the bad weather conditions all over Europe.
Boel said that the European Commission will present on July 4 a proposal for the promotion of European wines in third countries.
"We have afforded 120 million euros for the promotion of the wine sector each year to the third markets", she explained, adding that Europe is facing "huge competition from outside".
Answering to questions regarding Genetically Modified Organisms and Cyprus' intention to declare itself a GMO free area, she said that this can be done without any previous approval by the EU.
"If Cyprus wants to declare itself GMO free this will depend on the support from the farmers. If a voluntary agreement can be made, then this is possible. But it is not possible to introduce a compulsory or legislative proposal that prohibits the farmers to use GMO production", she said.
EU: EFSA reaffirms its risk assessment of genetically modified maize MON 863
EFSA's GMO Panel has concluded that this re-analysis of the data does not raise any new safety concerns
EFSA News, 29 June 2007.
At the request of the European Commission (EC), EFSA has examined a paper by Séralini et al. on the statistical evaluation of a 90-day feeding study in animals with genetically modified maize MON 863, to identify any consequences for EFSA's risk assessment of the safety of MON 863. The paper presents an alternative statistical analysis of the 90-day rat study that was considered in the original risk assessment. Following a detailed statistical review and analysis by an EFSA Task Force, EFSA's GMO Panel has concluded that this re-analysis of the data does not raise any new safety concerns.
EFSA undertook a series of actions to give a considered response to the European Commission on this issue:
•
Member States (MS) were asked to provide any analyses and comments that may contribute to consideration of this issue.
•
EFSA set up a Task Force of internal and external statistical experts to help assess the statistical methodology applied by authors of the publication in their re-analysis of the original data from the 90-day rat feeding study and to consider the contributions received from MS. As part of that work a meeting was held with the authors of the paper.
•
EFSA's GMO Panel has reviewed all the available evidence.
Following this work, EFSA has responded to the Commission, published a statistical report and issued a scientific statement from its GMO Panel. The main conclusions are:
•
The statistical analysis made by the authors of the paper did not take into account certain important statistical considerations. The assumptions underlying the statistical methodology employed by the authors led to misleading results.
•
EFSA considers that the paper does not present a sound scientific justification in order to question the safety of MON 863 maize.
•
Observed statistically significant differences reported by Monsanto, SÈralini et al., and EFSA, were considered not to be biologically relevant. In the absence of any indications that the observed differences are indicative of adverse effects, the GMO Panel does not consider that this paper raises new issues with respect to the safety of MON 863 maize. Therefore, the GMO Panel sees no reason to revise its previous Opinions that the MON 863 maize would not have an adverse effect in the context of its proposed use.
Prior to this most recent work, MON 863 maize has been subject to a comprehensive risk assessment by EFSA and by other authorities which did not identify any adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment. The 90-day rat study analysed by this paper is one element of the comprehensive risk assessment of MON863 maize. In addition to the original Opinion in April 2004, this study has been reviewed again twice since then, prior to this recent work.
The letter to the Commission, the GMO Panel statement, EFSA statistical analysis of the Monsanto data are available on the EFSA website at the following links:
Letter to the Commission
The GMO Panel statement
EFSA statistical analysis of the Monsanto data
www.efsa.europa.eu
EU: EFSA rejects concerns over Monsanto maize
FoodNavigator.com, 29 June 2007. By Stephen Daniells
The European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) GMO panel has no safety concerns after reviewing data from French scientists suggesting toxicity concerns in rats fed the MON863 variety of GM maize from Monsanto.
"Following a detailed statistical review and analysis by an EFSA Task Force, EFSA's GMO Panel has concluded that this re-analysis of the data does not raise any new safety concerns," stated the authority.
The statement draws a line under the issue, raised when new data from a 90-day rat study, published in the peer-review journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology in March, indicated liver and kidney toxicity in the rats, as well as differences in weight gain between the sexes as a result of eating the transgenic maize.
MON863 is a transgenic maize genetically modified to express the Bt-toxin (Cry3Bb1) which enables the plant to be insect repellent against the corn rootworm pest. It is different from other GM corns of the market since these express the Cry1Ab toxin which is toxic to the European corn borer.
It received European approval for use in animal feed in 2005 and for human consumption in 2006. The corn is also authorised in Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, the Philippines and the USA.
In the US, no re-evaluation of the data was announced by FDA.
The researchers behind the study, led by Professor Gilles Eric SÈralini from the independent CRIIGEN (Committee for Independent Research and Genetic Engineering) based at the University of Caen, questioned the methods used by Monsanto to initially show the safety and non-toxicity of the corn, saying that the statistical methods used were insufficient to observed any possible disruptions in biochemistry.
"Monsanto's analyses do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny - to begin with, their statistical protocols are highly questionable. Worse, the company failed to run a sufficient analysis of the differences in animal weight. Crucial data from urine tests were concealed in the company's own publications," said SÈralini in March during a joint press conference with environmental group Greenpeace in Berlin.
After re-evaluating the safety data relating to MON863, EFSA however have come to different set of conclusions, stating:
"The statistical analysis made by the authors of the paper did not take into account certain important statistical considerations. The assumptions underlying the statistical methodology employed by the authors led to misleading results.
"EFSA considers that the paper does not present a sound scientific justification in order to question the safety of MON 863 maize.
"Observed statistically significant differences reported by Monsanto, SÈralini et al., and EFSA, were considered not to be biologically relevant. In the absence of any indications that the observed differences are indicative of adverse effects, the GMO Panel does not consider that this paper raises new issues with respect to the safety of MON 863 maize.
"Therefore, the GMO Panel sees no reason to revise its previous Opinions that the MON 863 maize would not have an adverse effect in the context of its proposed use," said the authority.
This was not the first time that EFSA was requested to look at MON863. Indeed, the authority released a statement in October 2004 following a request by the German authorities following a 13-week rat study that suggested kidney toxicity.
"Following [the GMO Panel's] investigation of the report, and of the retrospective evaluation of renal tissues and data derived from the 13-week rat feeding study performed by independent peer reviewers, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence presented in the report that changes the conclusions already reached by the GMO Panel earlier this year in its Opinions on the safety of the insect-protected genetically modified maize MON 863 (EFSA 2004a, b)," read the October 2004 statement.
Ireland: Gormley must explain Euro vote on GMO content in organic food
Statement by Proinsias de Rossa MEP
Labour Party MEP for Dublin
Friday, 29 June 2007
Proinsias De Rossa has called on the Minister for the Environment John
Gormley to explain why he voted in favour of a draft regulation at
yesterday's Environmental Council in Luxembourg allowing products to be
labelled as organic even if they contain GMOs to a maximum 0.9%
threshold.
The European Parliament had called for the lowest detectable limit -
0.1% - but this was formally rejected at yesterday's Environment Council
by Minister Gormley and his colleagues.
Mr De Rossa said: 'The minutes of Thursday's Environmental Council
released this morning indicate that Minister Gormley did not follow the
environment ministers from Belgium, Greece, Hungary and Italy and vote
against the draft EC Regulation on organic production and the labelling
or organic production. This will permit products to be described as
organic even if they contain GMOs to a maximum threshold of 0.9% from
January 2009 onwards.
'By contrast in its 22 May vote on this proposal, the European
Parliament had voted in favour of a maximum 0.1% threshold, the lowest
level detectable.
'All MEPs have received a huge amount of correspondence from organic
producers arguing against the 0.9% limit and in favour of 0.1% limit.
'It is regrettable that when this matter came up for adoption in the
Council, John Gormley failed back the organic producers' and the
European Parliament's position. As Friends of the Earth Europe have
warned, 'organic farmers will find it increasingly difficult to keep
their crops GM-free'.
'At the very least, Minister Gormley could have abstained and/or entered
a declaration indicating his support for the lower limit.
'I welcome the Minister's signalling of a change in Ireland's
environmental policy but it seems that he's failed to follow through on
this promised change at one of the very first opportunities."
28 June 2007
Ireland: Genetically engineered crops
The Irish Times, 28 June 2008.
Madam,
I would like to take issue with your paper's coverage of the event at which Trevor Sargent outlined Government policy on genetically engineered crops (June 16th). Your reporter chose to focus on Prof McConnell's opinion that people opposed to the outdoor release of genetically engineered organisms did not understand science, while failing to mention the presentation by respected geneticist Dr. Ricarda A. Steinbrecher or the Irish launch of Genetic Roulette - The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Food which was also part of the event. However, as the Professor was presented with a copy, I await a scholarly response to the documented evidence of adverse health effects from genetically engineered food contained in the dossier, using the forum provided by its author in the website www.GeneticRoulette.com
Yours etc
Nick Cullen
The Curragh
Co. Kildare
Pharma investment in Ireland 'unbelievably significant'
www.in-pharmatechnologist.com, 28 June 2007. By Anna Lewcock.
Ireland has successfully established itself as a hub for
the pharma and biotech industries, and the trend to invest in high
value-added activities on the green isle shows no sign of slowing,
according to Ireland's Industrial Development Agency (IDA).
With numerous big names in the industry setting up shop in Ireland
(Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth, Amgen and Abbott to name but a few),
the region is basking in the glow of its increasing popularity, the
result of a determined drive to establish itself as a prime location
for pharmaceutical and biotechnology activities.
Over recent years, billions of euros have poured into Ireland as a
result of investment by the sector; in 2006 Ireland saw capital
investment projects that totalled §2.6bn, the bulk of which came from
the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, according to Brendan Halpin
of the IDA.
"The last couple of years have been particularly good in terms of
pharmaceutical and biotech investments," Halpin told
in-PharmaTechnologist.com.
"There has been a major increase in high added value manufacturing and
R&D, with companies like Pfizer, Wyeth, GSK and more recently Gilead
Sciences investing in Ireland."
Ireland has indeed become a real focal point for the industry, and has
established itself as the most popular destination for development and
manufacture outside the US. Fourteen of the top fifteen pharma
companies are present in Ireland, according to Halpin, and seven of the
world's top ten blockbuster drugs are manufactured there says Barry
O'Leary, senior vice president of life sciences and ICT at the IDA.
"Life sciences are the largest source of foreign investment in
Ireland," said O'Leary.
"We have a strong life sciences cluster and very strong market share; a
lot of investment is driven by the existing client base."
This claim is strongly supported by the fact that many of the pharma
companies present in Ireland have opted to establish several bases in
the region: Abbott has no less than seven sites, J&J has six, Pfizer
comes in with five, and Schering Plough and GlaxoSmithKline have four
apiece.
Over the decade there has been a shift in seeing Ireland purely as a
destination for low-level manufacturing operations to a location that
focuses on a different area of companies' value chains, and can offer
distinct advantages to firms looking for expertise, an attractive
infrastructure and all-important tax breaks.
"We've followed a very targeted and focused business model to attract
companies by helping them increase value in areas such as R&D, supply
chain management, logistics and high value-added innovations," said
Halpin.
"We've moved on from a location from which companies can serve not only
the European market but one that can serve globally."
The move towards biopharmaceuticals and drugs produced by chemical
synthesis has also proved good for Ireland, with steady growth over the
last five years and the region having again established itself as the
number one location outside the US for development and manufacturing of
biopharmaceuticals.
Ireland has spent considerable time and effort in establishing its
reputation as a high quality destination offering the expertise and
infrastructure to attract investment. This is an aspect where it can
offer significant advantages over low-cost destinations such as Asia or
Africa where some companies are choosing to set up operations.
"Companies have huge confidence in Ireland and the support they receive
here," said Halpin.
"It takes time to build a business environment that is reliableÖthe
system [in Ireland] has been built up over 25 years."
Although some companies have been shifting their investments to
low-cost destinations, according to Halpin these have been the more
cost-sensitive manufacturing aspects of their businesses. For projects
that are less cost-sensitive but still need to be competitive, Ireland
is establishing itself as an attractive option, with many companies
expanding their presence in the region rather than leaving.
The IDA has a great deal of confidence in the pharmaceutical and
biotech industries and future growth in Ireland generated from the
sector. The investments that continue to take place from pharma and
biotech firms are "unbelievably significant for [Ireland] and the
companies involved" says Halpin, and neither he nor O'Leary see the
pattern of growing investment dwindling.
"Things are looking bright," said Halpin.
No to the agrofuels craze!
New from GRAIN, June 2007
http://www.grain.org/nfg/?id=502
GRAIN has just published a special issue of Seedling which focuses on biofuels, or as we like to call them, agrofuels - over 30,000 words of in-depth analysis from around the world.
In the process of gathering material from colleagues and social movements around the world, we have discovered that the stampede into agrofuels is causing enormous environmental and social damage, much more than we realised earlier. Precious ecosystems are being destroyed and hundreds of thousands of indigenous and peasant communities are being thrown off their land.
Worse lies ahead: the Indian government is committed to planting 14 million hectares of land with jatropha (an exotic bush from which biodiesel can be manufactured), the Inter-American Development Bank says that Brazil has 120 million hectares available for biofuels, and lobbyists in Europe are speaking of almost 400 million hectares being available for biofuels in 15 African countries. We are talking about expropriation on an unprecedented scale.
We believe that the prefix bio, which comes from the Greek word for 'life', is entirely inappropriate for such anti-life devastation. So, following the lead of non-governmental organisations and social movements in Latin America, we do not talk about biofuels and green energy. Agrofuels is a much better term, we believe, to express what is really happening: agribusiness producing fuel from plants as another commodity to in a wasteful, destructive and unjust global economy.
In this special issue of Seedling, launched today, we zoom in on the situation in different parts of the world: Latin America, Asia and Africa. We analyse what is happening and talk to the people involved. The conclusion is pretty much the same across the board: the push for agrofuels amounts to nothing less than the re-introduction and re-enforcement of the old colonial plantation economy, redesigned to function under the rules of the modern neoliberal, globalised world. Indigenous farming systems, local communities and the biodiversity they manage have to give way to provide for the increased fuel needs of the modern world.
One of the main justifications for the large-scale cultivation of agrofuels is the need to combat climate change, but the figures make a mockery of this claim. According to the US government, global energy consumption is set to increase 71 per cent from 2003 to 2030, and most of that will come from burning more oil, coal and natural gas. By the end of this period, all renewable energy (including agrofuels) will only make up 9 per cent of global energy consumption. It is a dangerous self-delusion to argue that agrofuels can play a significant role in combating global warming.
As is spelt out in this special edition, the wide-scale cultivation of agrofuels will actually make things worse in many parts of the world, notably South-east Asia and the Amazon basin where the drying of peat lands and the felling of tropical forest will release far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than will be saved by using agrofuels.
One of the main causes of global warming is agro-industrial farming itself, and the global food system associated with it. Although it is scarcely ever mentioned, farming is responsible for 14 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. Within farming, the largest single cause is the use of chemical fertilisers, which introduce a huge amount of nitrogen into the soil, and nitrous oxide into the air. Changing land use (mainly deforestation and thus linked to the expansion of crop monoculture) is responsible for another 18 per cent. And a large part of global transport, which is responsible for a further 14 per cent of emissions, stems from the way in which the agro-industrial complex moves large quantities of food from one continent to anther.
It is abundantly clear that we can only halt climate change by challenging the absurdity and the waste of the globalised food system as organised by the transnational corporations. Far from contributing to the solution, biofuels will only make a bad situation worse. GRAIN believes it is time to declare unambiguously 'No to the agrofuels craze!'
Agrofuels resource page: http://www.grain.org/go/agrofuels
Islands at Risk: Genetic Engineering in Hawaii
A film by Earthjustice, 2006
The film can be viewed in its entirety online at:
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/multimedia/video1/page.jsp?itemID=29841806
To purchase the DVD:
http://www.namaka.com/catalog/environment/genetic.html
Review by Claire Robinson
In my corner of England, the growing season starts in June and lasts for four short months. It's an achievement if once a week I get enough tiny veg from the garden to make a meal. So when I briefly lived in Hawaii in the early 90s, I felt as if I'd died and woken up in God's garden. My host's home was set in a jungle of coconut, banana, avocado, pineapple, mango and papaya trees. He hadn't planted anything himself, nor did he tend the plants. Nature was in charge. The plants produced so much food that it would fall off the loaded trees every night. In the morning we had to pick it up before the wildlife got to it, and eat it or give it away before it rotted.
As for weeds, I couldn't see anything that I could identify as one. Amongst the cropping trees were huge, extravagantly beautiful flowering and foliage plants. They looked strangely familiar and yet alien. Eventually, I realized that I recognized them from home as garden exotics. But in Hawaii, they grew wild and supersized, and you didn't have to buy, plant, feed, or weed them. Summer lasted all year round, so the plants enjoyed an endless growing season. This was their home, and the Creator had given them everything they needed.
How did a place so blessed by nature find itself targeted, in the chilling words of one activist, as a "national and international sacrifice area for biotech and genetic modification research"? How did its fertile fields get to be occupied by monocultures of experimental plants with Guantanamo-style bags over their heads? Answer: by stealth. A film by the Hawaiian nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice, Islands at Risk, features an interview with local hunter and activist Walter Ritte, who says, "We knew nothing about GMO until one day there was a rumour that there were strange things being grown in our cornfields. The whole farming community was changing and we didn't even know." In a process subsidized by US taxpayers and assisted by the state government of Hawaii, the islands' soils have become the open-air laboratories of chemical and biotech giants DuPont, Monsanto, Dow, and Syngenta, for the testing of GM crops.
The film shows that the entire enterprise has been cloaked in secrecy from the start. Even lawmakers are not allowed to know what is being planted and where. What is known is that on the island of Oahu, over 2000 field tests of GM crops have taken place. These include pharma plants producing AIDS, hepatitis and swine diarrhoea vaccines, and crops producing industrial compounds. And the experimental fields are within spitting distance of residential areas, schools and old people's homes. The industry claims it's safe as there is no rising incidence of disease. But this is exposed in the film as a lie. Lorrin Pang, MD and consultant to the World Health Organization, points out that the ten years since GMOs have been introduced have seen rises in prematurity, cancers, attention deficit disorder, and adult onset diabetes in children. Pang adds that no one can draw any conclusions as to the cause, as GMOs in food are not labeled.
If you think such criminal disregard for people's health and well-being should be against the law, well, it is. Earthjustice has had some success fighting the industry and government's GM contamination plans in court. In 2003, a biotech company wanted to produce GM drug-producing algae off the pristine Kona coast. The drug that was to be made in the algae had never been assessed for its impact on human health. Earthjustice took the State Board of Agriculture to court to enforce environmental laws relating to pharma crops. After two and a half years of costly litigation, the judge ruled in Earthjustice's favour and said the state has to conduct a study assessing impacts of such crops on the environment before allowing companies to produce them.
As a telling postscript, the film points out that a few months after the court judgment, a GM drug made from a product similar to the one proposed for testing in Kona was given to six healthy men in a human trial in London. All six were rushed into intensive care with multiple organ failure and continue to suffer severe ill effects.
You won't find anyone from industry or government talking about such disasters in Hawaii, however, where hype has replaced fact. Biotech promoters claim that GM virus-resistant papaya saved the papaya industry, whereas organic farmer Melanie Bondera points out that according to the figures, the opposite is true. Since GM papayas were introduced in Hawaii, 60% of the Hawaiian market (mainly Japan) has been lost due to consumer rejection of GMOs, and the small farmers have gone out of business. It's doubtful whether Hawaii's papaya industry can ever recover. Fifty per cent of the papayas never intended to be GM are now GM-contaminated, as is the seed source at the University of Hawaii.
The gene-bashers didn't have such an easy ride when they tried to "save" a Hawaiian sacred food plant, the taro. Hawaiians have been growing taro for over a thousand years, and there are hundreds of varieties adapted to different conditions. Plant experts knew which one to plant where. So when the University of Hawaii announced that it was going to "save" the taro by genetically engineering disease resistance into it, Hawaiians were not convinced. As Jerry Kananui of the Hawaii Island Taro Group says on the film, "It hurts me when I hear they're going to save the Hawaiian varieties of taro. Because they don't need to be saved. They're here." To add insult to injury, Hawaiians found out that the university had already patented the taro. Fury erupted. There's a traditional Hawaiian belief that the taro is the first-born, the body form of the god Kane, the giver of life. It's more important than man. Man's job is to ensure that the taro survives forever, because the taro's job is to feed man. So people got hold of copies of the patents and publicly tore them up, telling the university, "You cannot own our ancestors." The university backed down and gave up the patents.
As one of the farmers interviewed on the film points out, Hawaii is more than capable of supporting itself by selling its abundant non-GM crops: pineapples, flowers, bananas, organic crops. But there's no government support for such agriculture. The federal US government and the state of Hawaii prefer crops with bags over their heads, lethal algae, and papaya that no one wants. The Hawaiian GM experiment has been a recipe not for development but economic decline.
Ireland stands up to US pressure on GMOs
Ireland, France and Italy abstain in crucial EU vote on GM animal feed
ICMSA calls for 5-year moratorium on GM crops
GM-free Ireland press release, 28 June 2007.
DUBLIN ó The Irish Government stuck to its new policy goal of protecting this whole island as a GMO-free zone by abandoning its previously agreed intention to legalise a controversial GM maize at a crucial European vote in Brussels on Monday [1].
The decision to follow the new policy was made after intense negotiations last weekend between Mary Coughlan (the Minister of Agriculture and Food), Mary Harney (Minister for Health and Children), Trevor Sargent (the new Green Minister of Agriculture and Food), and Michael O'Callaghan (Co-ordinator of the GM-free Ireland Network) [2].
The illegal GM maize, called Herculex RW, is patented by Pioneer / Dow (of Agent Orange fame). It contains DNA from viruses and bacteria, and is modified to resist weedkiller and produce its own insecticide [3]. There are serious concerns about its impacts on animal and human health [4]. Although "deregulated" in the USA, it remains illegal in the EU.
The European Commisison requested member states to retroactively legalise this GM product after the Irish Department of Agriculture and Food failed to stop it from entering the European food chain in April. Up to 5,313 tonnes of maize gluten contaminated by the illegal GM corn have since been placed on the Irish market and sold to farmers as fodder which their livestock transform into meat and dairy produce, creating health risks for livestock and consumers, together with potential legal problems and liability lawsuits for the government, the feed importer, feed compounder, farmers, food retailers and food exporters [5].
Contaminate first, legislate later
The European Commission's sudden and rapid attempt to legalise Herculex GM maize suggests that the EC is more concerned with neutralizing an illegal GM food contamination scandal, rather than enforcing legal requirements on member states to rigorously test and prevent such contamination in the first place [6]. Monday's vote at the EC Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health was a new case of the "contaminate first, legislate later" strategy favoured by griant transnational agri-biotech corporations determined to genetically modify and patent the world's agricultural seeds so as to control the global food supply [7].
Following a preliminary "indicative vote" made by EU member states, the EC expected them to provide a Qualified Majority Vote (QMV) in favour of legalising the GM maize for use as animal feed and food (but not for cultivation) on Monday. This would have provided a major PR victory for the US government and the agri-biotech industry, because it would have been the first time that EU member voted to legalise a GM product since 1998. Unless there is a QMV against legalisation, the Commission always automatically rubberstamps GMO approval in the end [8].
Prior to Monday's vote, the WTO, USA, EC and PR companies employed by the agri-biotech industry exerted huge pressure on the EU member states to vote in favour of placing this GM maize on the market [9], and have since put pressure on the Irish government to justify its reasons for abstaining. The Irish Grain and Feed Association vigorously lobbied Mary Coughlan, Mary Harney and policy makers in Brussels to vote yes, claiming it was "vital" that this GM maize be approved. A flurry of obvious or subtly pro-GMO stories also appeared in the media [10].
Irish farmers to the rescue
Last Friday, Trevor Sargent summoned Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland to negotiations with representatives of Mary Harney and Mary Coughlan, who had made preliminary agreements to legalise the GM maize under the previous governmnent. O'Callaghan provided the representatives with hard scientific evidence about the health risks of GMOs including the book "Genetic Roulette - The documented health risks of genetically engineered foods" [11] and copies of two scientic papers [12] on the health risks of GM foods from a recent briefing on the health risk of GM foods at the EU Parliament Office in Dublin [13].
On Sunday morning, Jackie Cahill of the Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association [14] and Malcolm Thompson of the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association [15] telephoned Mary Coughlan to request her to vote NO.
Trevor Sargent finalised the negotiations in a meeting with Mary Coughlan and Mary Harney on Sunday.
As a result of this collective effort, Ireland abstained from Monday's vote, along with Italy and France, contributing to the lack of a Qualified Majority and thus shattering the biotech industry's expectations of an EU policy U-turn on GM food and feed [16].
Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland said "This small victory for Ireland and Europe is significant in the context of EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson's pressure for member states to cave in to WTO's claims that we must accept GM food and farming. We expect Ireland's new government will now take active steps to protect Irish farmers and consumers from the GMO invasion."
Ireland's new policy on GMOs
Trevor Sargent said "Fundamentally the issue is a sustainable future. The huge commercial pressure from the United States and some countries in South America for Europe to open up to GM foods is not what the people of Europe want. The consumers of Europe are specifying to their large mutliple retailers that they want GM-free produce. The trouble is that the markets we're trying to export to ‚ particularly in Europe - are adamant: they do not want GM! Up to now they have been saying 'just make sure it is not grown in Ireland', but now they're saying 'please don't feed your animals GM feed'. Some of the major supermarkets chains in Italy, France and Britain now actually require labelling that says this produce is fed on GM-free feed. So we have to be able to come up with that and guarantee it. We are at a cross-roads here. We can either go down the road of the Brazilians and have essentially a lower quality product, or else we can continue to make sure we have the high quality product which is going to get us the best price and the best return. So GM is really not any kind of solution to the challenges faced by our farmers, given that the price of their produce, like lamb, have gone down in the past 20 years. The fresh produce people that I'm talking to definitely want GM free. Alot of the farmers in the livestock area definitely want GM-free. The Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association, and many of the farmers in the ICMSA and the IFA want GM free. But they also want a national strategy in place to deal with this, and that is what I intend to bring about."
The President of the Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association (ICMSA), Jackie Cahill, has called for a 5 year moratorium on GM crops.
Commenting on Monday's vote, Friends of the Earth Europe GM Campaign Coordinator Helen Holder said:
"Member states have already won the right to uphold high standards on food safety and the environment at the WTO. The US had tried to use trade laws to force GMOs into the European market. But this is a clear signal that Member States have put safety and the environment before US trade interests and that the concerns of EU citizens can prevail over formidable lobbying from biotech companies".
Refering to the illegal Herculex GM maize that entered the EU food chain through Ireland and the Netherlands in April [17], Helen Holder said "These contamination cases indicate more than ever just how important it is to show zero tolerance to countries that have lax measures on contamination and to ensure the right to GMO-free food and farming in the EU is upheld. There is a critical need for strict laws on growing GM crops and clear rules on who is liable for the costs of GM contamination."
There is still widespread public concern over the loophole in EU legislation that allows for consumers to remain unaware that they are eating meat and dairy products from animals fed with GMOs. Earlier this year one million Europeans called for labelling of foods from GMO-fed animals.
Notes for editors:
[1] Ireland's abstention contributed to the lack of a Qualified Majority Vote at the EC Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 25 June 2007. The company's authorisation request for Herculex will now be sent an upcoming EU Council meeting on 24 September when Ministers will vote on it a second time.
[2] GM-free Ireland Network: http://www.gmfreeireland.org
[3] Herculex Rootworm (RW) 59122 maize has been genetically modified by the introduction of a bacterial gene from Bacillus thuringiensis to produce Bt toxins (Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1) so as to make the crop resistant to the Western corn rootworm insect pest. It is also modified by the introduction of a second bacterial gene from Streptomyces viridochromogenes to make the crop immune to the broad-spectrum herbicide glufosinate. Virus DNA is added as a "promoter" to turn the bacterial genes on. Every cell of the maize becomes a tiny pesticide factory, and the entire plant is classified as an insecticide in the USA.
[4] For a detailed scientific critique of Herculex GM maize, see "Comments to the application under Regulation 1829/2003 for authorisation of 59122-maize in the European Union" published by Greenpeace, May 2007, available for download at
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/herculex/Maize59122Application.pdf (364kb PDF file).
Risk assessments on Herculex submitted to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) by Pioneer/Dow show important differences between animals fed with this GM maize and those fed with conventional maize, including liver weights in females in a 42-day study, and blood parameters following a 90-day rat feeding trial. Effects concerning the blood parameters in the 90-day feeding trial were noticed after a very short time, indicating potential for toxicity in the longer term. In other words, this GM maize could pose risks for human and animal health. Worryingly, EFSA did not look at these results in any detail: [ EFSA 2007. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on an application (Reference EFSA-GMO-NL-2005-12) for the placing on the market of insect-resistant genetically modified maize 59122, for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. and Mycogen Seeds, c/o Dow Agrosciences LLC. (Question No EFSA-Q-2005-045) Opinion adopted on 23 March 2007. The EFSA Journal (2007) 470, 1-25 ].
Friends of the Earth Europe said the the risk assessment was incomplete and failed to act on key evidence which raised the possibility that this GM maize could pose risks for human and animal health.
EFSA has in the past dismissed similar concerns in positive opinions issued on MON863 and NK603 maize, leading to final authorization by the European Commission of these products. But the reliability of these EFSA opinions has been undermined by recent studies by independent scientists showing toxicological effects in both MON863 and NK603 which the EFSA failed to appreciate. EFSA's failures to exert due diligence in GMO risk assessments was raised by Michael O'Callaghan and by Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher in her review of the CRIIGEN paper (see note 13 below) at the briefing on Food Safety and GMOs co-hosted by GM-free Ireland and the EU Parliament Independence/Democracy Group at the EU Parliament Office in Dublin on 15 June 2007.
Compositional differences were also detected in the content of the Herculex GM maize and its kernels.
Despite additional serious concerns that all Bt crops are harmful for non-target organisms including beneficial soil bacteria, wildlife, livestock and humans, there have been virtually no independent analyses on the impact of Bt crops on biodiversity. EFSA has, yet again, ignored this in its Opinion on Herculex GM maize.
EFSA's failure to implement due diligence in its approvals of GMO feed and food has been criticised by the European Council, by the Commission and by NGOs, which have accused EFSA of ignoring significant scientific findings and for being unable to perform long-term environmental and health impact assessments on GMOs.
For details see:
The MON863 case: a chronicle of systematic deception: Greenpeace report, 13 August 2002:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/herculex/MON863_chronicle.pdf
The EFSA stakeholders challenge ‚ working with civil society:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/EFSA_stakeholders_challenge.pdf
European Food Safety Authority criticised for GMO bias: ISIS press release, 27 April 2006:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/EFSA-critique-ISIS.pdf
Commission for more transparency on GMO decisions. EuroActiv.com 12 April 2006:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/biotech/commission-transparency-gmo-decisions/art icle-154355
Commission proposes practical improvements to the way the European GMO legislative framework is implemented.
Europa Press Release, 12 April 2006:
http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?
reference=IP/06/498&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
European Commissioner Dimas speech at the Conference on GMO co-existence Vienna, 05 April 2006:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?
reference=SPEECH/06/224&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
EU law on the standards and legal requirements for GMO risk assessment is not being respected at present by either EFSA or the European Commission. This could be rectified by:
a. Enforcing a strict, independent and transparent risk assessment of GMOs;
b. Suspending all earlier authorisations until the current system is reviewed;
c. Withdrawing the authorisation granted to MON863 maize, pending further investigation and a re-evaluation of Monsanto's dossier.
[5] GM-free Ireland and Greenpeace found a shipment of animal feed contaminated by the illegal Herculex and other varieties of GM maize being unloaded from a ship which arrived in Dublin port from New Orleans on 2 April. The shipment was accompanied by US lab certificates which claimed the maize gluten was free of Herculex. The Department of Agriculture waited 60 days before taking action, by which time up to 5,313 tonnes of the maize gluten contaminated by the illegal GM corn had already been placed on the market and sold to farmers as fodder which their cattle transform into meat and dairy produce. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac and download GM-free Ireland press release "Irish GM food contamination scandal" at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI-36.pdf
95% of the soya and maize currently imported into Ireland for use as animal fee