29 March 2007

Europe: European parliament votes for organics

Friends of the Earth Europe / European Environmental Bureau / Greenpeace / Press statement
29 March 2007

Brussels, 29 March, 2007 - Environmental NGOs have welcomed today's rejection by the European Parliament of a proposal to allow traces of genetically modified organisms in organic food [1,2]. The result of the vote, say Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace, and the European Environmental Bureau, is a clear indication from European elected representatives that the right to GM-free food is non-negotiable. Parliament also voted in favour of requesting an equal say on the legislation with Member States, through the codecision procedure [3], so there will now be negotiations with the Council and Commission to resolve this conflict over legislative powers.

The NGOs warn that the 0.1 percent GMO contamination threshold should under no circumstances be used as a bargaining counter in the resolution of this conflict over legislative powers.

For further information please contact:

Helen Holder, GM Campaigner, Friends of the Earth Europe
Tel : +32 (0)2 542 0182, Mobile +32 (0)474 857 638 ; E-mail : helen.holder@foeeurope.org

Marco Contiero, Senior policy advisor, GMOs, Greenpeace EU Unit
Mobile: +32 (0)477 777 034 ; E-mail: marco.contiero@diala.greenpeace.org

Mauro Albrizio, Vice-president, European Environmental Bureau
Mobile : +32 479 940 257 ; E-mail : legambiente@skynet.be

Notes for editors:

[1] Proposal for a Council Regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products (COM(2005)0671 - C6-0032/2006 - 2005/0278(CNS))

[2] The proposed law, if adopted as such, would allow 0.9% GMO contamination in organic foods. The law only allows this contamination as long as it is "adventitious" and "technically unavoidable", however there is evidence that the European Commission and other risk managers, under pressure to adopt a lax attitude to contamination, are, in fact, interpreting the 0.9 percent threshold to mean 'acceptable' contamination. The organic sector currently works to a lower threshold (detection level), which EU laws must support, to enable organic farmers and retailers to maintain existing standards.

[3] The codecision procedure gives the European Parliament the power to adopt legislation jointly with the Council of the European Union, requiring the two bodies to agree on an identical text before any proposal can become law.

UK: Soil Association welcomes European Parliament decision

Soil Association press release, 29 March 2007

Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, warmly welcomes the European Parliament decision to set the lowest possible threshold for GM contamination of organic food of 0.1 per cent. Peter says,

"David Miliband must now scrap the UK government proposal to allow almost 1 per cent GM contamination of organic food. His pro-GM position had been criticised by 74 major organic businesses, because people who eat organic food want to avoid all GM.

"The European Parliament has reached the right decision in line with what the people of Europe want. This decision guarantees a healthy, GM free future for the rapidly growing number of organic farmers in the UK."

The European Parliament position is mirrored by an all-party motion in the House of Commons tabled by the conservative front bench, which calls for the minimum, 0.1 per cent, contamination of organic.

Ends

For media enquiries contact the Soil Association press office 0117 914 2448 / mailto:press@soilassociation.org

Notes to editors:

Back in the 1990s, a Soil Association campaign to keep the UK GM-free attracted widespread public support and leads to a supermarket ban on GM ingredients from own-brand products. In 1998, the Soil Association challenged the government and GM seed companies in the high court to halt a GM trial threatening an organic grower, Guy Watson. Judges rule that the government has acted illegally.

Following widespread public opposition and negative impacts of GM field trials on the environment, the government announced in 2004 that GM crops will not be commercially grown in the UK in the foreseeable future.

For more information on GM visit www.soilassociation.org/gm

India: Andhra Pradesh State Agricultural Department cautions rain fed farmers against opting for Bt cotton

Deccan Development Society, March 29 2007

The State Department of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, India has finally conceded that Bt cotton is not beneficial to the rainfed farmers. http://www.hindu.com/2007/03/29/stories/2007032908040400.htm

In Andhra Pradesh, cotton is grown under rainfed conditions in around 78% of the total cotton acreage.

The Commissioner and Director of the State Department of Agriculture has also conceded that, 'the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops, engineered for a specific trait, was also resulting in new pest problems.' http://www.hindu.com/2007/03/29/stories/2007032908040400.htm

Deccan Development Society (DDS) have in fact brought out this fact through their season long studies in the cotton growing areas of the state as early as in 2005 that the incidence of sucking pests have been increasing on the cotton crop since the introduction of the GM cotton in the state http://www.ddsindia.com/www/PDF/BT_Cotton_-_A_three_year_report.pdf

Recently DDS has also brought out that new diseases started appearing on the cotton plants in the areas where Bt cotton is grown extensively. http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=140124

Not only the new diseases, even cattle on grazing the Bt plants are succumbing to Bt cotton http://www.hindu.com/2007/03/02/stories/2007030208990400.htm

Mr. Kiran and Mr. Abdul Qayuum
Consultants, DDS

India: Alarming increase in minor pests causes crop wilting in many parts of State

The Hindu, March 29 2007. Special Correspondent

HYDERABAD: Significant climate changes over the past few years have led to 'alarming' increase in the hitherto minor or unknown pests that are causing wilting and other effects on the crops in different parts of the State.

For instance, paddy crop in over 45,000 hectares in East Godavari district was infected by stem-rot disease in just three days during the previous season.

"Moreover, since the pests are viral in nature, there is no alternative but to burn the affected plants to ensure that the disease does not spread to others," Agriculture Commissioner Poonam Malakondaiah said.

Addressing a press conference here on Wednesday, she said the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops, engineered for a specific trait, was also resulting in new pest problems. This called for a regular monitoring and surveillance system to know the status of pests, which was a pre-requisite for effective implementation of integrated pest management.

To counter this, the department had cautioned the GM companies to indicate the problems on the labels of their products while they were also cautioned against spurious seed.

The department was planning to take up awareness programmes on the new pests during the Rythu Chaitanya Yatras between April 16 and May 5 wherein farmers would be educated on different aspects of crops and cropping pattern.

In addition, it was decided to prepare village agriculture action plans by April 5 and strengthen pest surveillance mechanism in every district through the seed testing labs to test genetic purity of the seeds.

The department had also cautioned farmers against opting for Bt cotton crops in rain-fed areas.

28 March 2007

South Korea: S. Korean gov't orders labelling of all GMO products from late June

Yonhap News, March 28 2007.

The South Korean government said Wednesday that all products with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) must be clearly labelled as such under a plan to enhance consumer rights.

The plan, which goes into effect on June 29, is an expansion of current identification requirements designed to protect the environment and consumer health. Under the current rules, it is only mandatory to identify genetically modified beans, bean sprouts, corn and potatoes.

Products containing GMOs, which have been artificially transformed in labs to improve output, taste and resistance to disease, have drawn criticism over their possible adverse effects on the ecosystem and human health.

"The changes call for all GMO products that are imported and manufactured for human consumption to be labelled," said Kim Young-man, head of the Agriculture Ministry's agriculture distribution bureau.

To encourage enforcement of the new rules, the official said people who report mislabeling will be given cash rewards of up to 2 million won (US$2,130).

Kim stressed that the move is not aimed to hurt imports of GMO products from such countries as the United States, and speculated that it will not cause complaints.

"The actions are not new and are only an expansion of existing procedures," he said.

In addition to GMO products, the ministry said it will start a nationwide probe to ferret out mislabeling of fresh and processed agricultural goods starting on April 1.

The latest actions are to cover both fresh produce like melons, watermelons, strawberries and peaches as well as manufactured products including bread, noodles and curry.

Because of higher prices and stronger consumer demand, some importers and retailers have intentionally mislabeled cheap imports as being produced in the country.

The ministry said those found to have tried to mislead consumers could face a fine of under 100 million won [US$106,000] or a jail term of less than seven years.

Canada: Minority government needs to respect majority's opinion
GMOs: Let us choose, M.Charest!

MONTREAL, March 28 /CNW Telbec/ - Greenpeace this morning dumped five tons of corn in front of the office of the Quebec Liberal Party, to insist mandatory labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Mandatory labelling has consistently been supported by a majority of Quebecers, and with the first minority government since the 1800s, Greenpeace said it's time the National Assembly listened.

"Greenpeace wants no more electoral games," said Eric Darier, a Greenpeace genetic engineering campaigner. "We've waited four years since Mr. Charest's last broken promises of 2003 and the election campaign. With a minority government elected, the majority shouldn't have to wait anymore-whether Jean Charest wants to dodge our right to know or not. Polls indicate that a large majority of Quebecers are united in their desire for mandatory labelling of GMOs and in their right to choose."

Greenpeace took the message directly to the party Quebecers chose to lead the minority National Assembly, and which has a duty to listen to all Quebecers. "It's time for our government to bring forward the mandatory labelling legislation that Quebecers want and see if our National Assembly will pass it," said Darier. "Indeed, we are asking that the new government tell us if this five tons of corn contains GMOs authorized in Canada. And if Monsanto's corn, Mon863, which a recent study says had potentially dangerous health effects, is one of them?

"If the government won't tell us, without labels, how will we know," he asked, pointing to polls that say 79 to 95 per cent of people support mandatory labelling.

On March 17, Greenpeace published an economic study on the costs of mandatory labelling, which the government hid for several months. This study, received last October but never published, laid out the economic costs of labelling-and showed they were not nearly as high as what industry claimed. Greenpeace and other groups analyzed the study and made concrete solutions to let Quebec practically move ahead. Darier urged Charest to move forward now the facts are clear.

"Other provincial governments can't remain inactive on the labelling of GMOs, either, now we know the costs are so low and the dangers of GMOs are so serious," said Josh Brandon, genetic engineering campaigner for Greenpeace in Vancouver. "Across Canada, public opinion will soon force governments to support mandatory labelling legislation. Particularly in BC, where polls show a majority intend to vote for candidates that will bring in labelling."

For further information: Jocelyn Desjardins, Greenpeace communications, (514) 212-5749

Romania: 14 GMO-free localities

HotNews.ro, 28 March 2007. Ecologists' second strike secured a victory for the future of Romania's agriculture: 14 villages in the Cluj county (the Huedin region) followed the example of their Bihor county neighbors and declared this region as free from any genetically modified organisms.

The localities include the small town of Huedin and 13 villages, while the Bihor GMO-free zone includes two towns and 24 villages.

Local authorities say the reason for the move was part of their rural development strategy, agriculture-tourism and environmental protection.

Mayors demand the Government some regulation in this field, so that local autonomy may allow administration institution to forbid GMO cultures on their lands, as well as legal protection for farmers who refuse to grow GMOs.

Europe has 174 GMO free regions and 4,500 areas this far.

According to the Agriculture Ministry , Romania has been the largest GMO producer in Europe for the past 2 years.

GM Potato Controversy - A case with disturbing implications for present day science

FoodConsumer.Org, Mar 28 2007. By Dr. Arpad J. Pusztai.

Two years after the release of the first GM plant, the FLAVR - SAVR tomato in the USA in 1995, there was still not a single publication in peer-reviewed journals probing into the safety of GM foods. As this was of public and scientific concerns..the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department (SOAEFD, as it was called then) called for research proposals to investigate the safety of GM foodcrops; their possible effects on the environment, soil, microorganisms, animals, and whether they presented any risks for human consumers.

Of the original 28 proposals received by SOAEFD, ours was accepted as scientifically the most sound after peer-review by the BBSRC (Biological and Biotechnological Sciences Research Council). In our research plan we specified in detail what we wanted to do and how, with the design of all the experiments, and what we were going to deliver and when, etc.. The tasks of the project were divided between the three research units involved: The Scottish Crop Research Institute (SCRI), University of Durham, Department of Biology and the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen. At the request of the scientists participating in the programme, I co-ordinated it.

In our research to find suitable methods for the risk assessment of GM crops we used GM potatoes as a model for GM crops. These have been developed in Durham by scientists of Axis Genetics, a Cambridge biotechnology company and field-grown at Rothamstead Experimental Station for two years. The Rowett had a profit-sharing agreement with Axis Genetics should the GM potatoes be commercially released.

Artificial feeding trials with aphids at Durham and SCRI have established that the gene product, GNA (snowdrop bulb lectin) expressed in the potatoes did interfere with both the development and mortality of one of the main potato pests, the potato aphid. It was also revealed from previous nutritional-physiological studies that GNA would not pose major health problems for the animals.even at 800-fold concentration of that expected to be expressed in the potatoes. So we started off with a gene coding for a lectin that appeared to control insect damage but wouldn't harm the rat..

Nevertheless problems soon appeared. First, no correlation between the expression level of GNA in the potato plant and the protection against the aphids was found. This was worrying and difficult to understand. There were also disturbing indications that GM potatoes not only harmed the aphids but also non-target and beneficial insects, such as the two-spotted ladybirds which, in nature, control the aphid population.

At the same time the results of the feeding studies at the Rowett did not fit the ideas on which genetic engineering was based. Thus, although the gene product was safe when it was sprinkled on to the diet, it was not when expressed in the GM potatoes. The GM potato-based diets retarded the growth of the rats, particularly on long-term feeding, interfered with the normal development of vital internal organs and depressed the humoral immune system All.these suggested that there must be something wrong with this supposedly precise technology, for which it has been claimed that one can change the phenotype by inserting one gene by a 'neutral' technology. We had two successful lines of GM potatoes coming from the same transformation event, done at the same time and in the same vessel; yet they were different. We were beginning to suspect that the problems were likely to originate from our inability to direct the transgene to sites where it would not interfere with the potato's own gene expression.

These were controlversial ideas at the time. However, after my 150 sec TV interview in August 1998 the Rowett was first happy with the publicity and the Director congratulated me. The Rowett Press Releases on 10 and 11 August and by the Institute Governing Body Chairman to M. Jacques Santer and Frank Dobson were full of praise for our work "of strategic importance to our country and European Union consumers". "A range of carefully controlled studies underlie the basis of Dr Pusztai's concerns". "The testing of modified products with implanted genes needs to be thoroughly carried out in the gut of animals and humans if unknown disasters are to be avoided".

Unfortunately, the Director did not keep to our agreement of not releasing scientific details to the media and disastrously never checked with me about the accuracy of the press releases. He dealt with all enquiries and gave all the interviews resulting in major mistakes. Apparently, when the government instructed him on the afternoon of 11 August that as our results were against the government's pro-GM policy they should be suppressed and I must be silenced, he tried to extricate himself from the responsibility of telling the world about experiments which in fact had never been done. He claimed that I got "muddled" or that I "took" data from an absent colleague. In a further twist he hinted that we have never done any GM-potato experiments but just supplemented our ordinary potato diets with the poisonous Concanavalin A. The Director suspended me on 12 August, gagged me and instituted an illegal Audit even though I was not accused of scientific fraud. All our data were confiscated. My phone was re-directed to his office and my e-mails were intercepted. The Director then wrote a series of letters in which he explicitly threatened me with legal action if I spoke to anyone in or outside the Rowett about our work. Not only the Audit was illegal but also without a nutritionist on the board the composition of the Audit Committee was inappropriate to assess a mainly nutritional work on GM potatoes. The audit was over in less than 10 hours and I was not given a chance to explain our work to them, or the Governing Body or my scientific colleagues at the Rowett. None of the data in the Audit Report was primary and no statistical analyses were carried out by the Committee to validate the data. All this was so upsetting for some members of the international scientific community that 24 of them published a signed Memorandum (without giving away confidential data) and asked for my re-instatement to carry out further work into the safety of GM-foodstuffs. This publication in February 1999 dramatically re-kindled the GM debate.

After my TV interview I was violently criticised by the scientific establishment, including the Royal Society even though I gave no experimental details in the 14 sentences of the interview. However, I made a strong plea for proper scienific risk assessment to be done before the GM crops are released, so we should not need to use our own unwilling citizens as guinea pigs. Despite this, the Royal Society's main attack line was that our results were unreliable, obtained by a flawed experimental design and execution and as they were not peer‑reviewed they could only be 'publiished' on TV. Incidentally, the Royal Society never had the design of our experiments or the methods used by us. They only had an edited internal Rowett Report which, against my wishes, had been passed on to them by the Director. In any case, the Royal Society has never before peer-reviewed scientific results. Moreover, against natural justice, the Royal Society did not publish our data but only their criticism of it, that The Lancet Editorial called a 'breathtaking impertinence' against a senior scientist. As there was no work done on GM potatoes by the Royal Society or anyone else, their report must be regarded as a collection of opinions. However, in science opinions that are not based experimentation and published after peer-review have no scientific validity even if they come from the President of the Royal Society.

Our paper was accepted on both scientific merit and public interest, as explained by The Lancet Editor after having been refereed by six referees, instead of the usual two, and published in The Lancet (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999). As the Rowett still had the right to scrutinise our papers, the publication was a little delayed, that gave an opportunity for pro-GM people to try to stop it. The scientific establishment had to find some reason for rubbishing the paper to justify their rejection of our work. So that was probably the reason why the President of the Royal Society said, 'We still cannot accept this publication because Dr Pusztai did not use the right low protein controls'. But surely the six referees could not have missed something as important as this? You needn't be a Nobel Prize winner to read our paper and see that all diets contained the same amount of protein and energy. According to The Guardian, a senior fellow of the Royal Society who was involved with the biotech industry phoned Richard Horton and threatened him if he dared to publish our paper. Interestingly, when this became public the Royal Society washed their hands of the whole affair. Another Royal Society fellow told the Independent that the Lancet editor must have had political motives for publishing the paper, because 'the referees' did not accept it. Although not a nutritionist he claimed that the design of our experiment was so terrible that if it was presented by one of his students, he would fail him/her 'because what we did was wrong, by changing horses in mid-stream' i.e. started the feeding with the control diet and then we switched to GM and vice versa. It is difficult to judge whether he was scientifically incompetent or did he knowingly misrepresent our experiment? It appears that peoples' attitude profoundly changes when their interests are jeopardised or threatened by some scientific findings.

Unfortunately, ethics have low priority in science nowadays. Powerful scientific committees, such as the Nuffield Council on Bioethics take the side of the establishment most of the time, regardless the merit of the case. Additionally, most of the important decisions are taken by the wrong people who have long retired from active scientific work and these people on the committees have little time to properly read anything. Many of them also either directly or indirectly receive funding from the industry and/or the allied scientific establishment. It is thus not surprising that the whole industrial and political complex came down so heavily on me and on our findings. However, it may have become obvious by now even to those who condemned our work at the time because it was against their interest that suppression of 'unpleasant' but true facts uncovered by independent scientists is not only against the interest of society but in the long run also of their own. Hopefully, it is now generally realized that when academic freedom is denied to professional scientists progress in science becomes impossible .

References

1. Ewen SWB, Pusztai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 1999; 354: 1353-1354.

2. Flynn L, Gillard MS. Pro-GM food scientist 'threatened editor'. Guardian 1999; Nov 1: 1-2.

(Editor's note: We thank Dr. Arpad J. Pusztai very much for his article. Dr. Pusztai has been directly involved as a principal investigator in the researching of GM potatoes and what he told here is absolutely an insider story.

27 March 2007

USA: US Biogiant wants to keep selling GMO alfafa

Legalbrief Today (Zambia), 27 March 2007.

While the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) conducts a court-ordered environmental impact study, Monsanto Co. has asked a San Francisco federal court to allow it to continue selling its genetically modified Roundup Ready Alfalfa.

According to a report in The Washington Post, Monsanto, its seed distributors and growers stand to lose up to $250m if the alfalfa, which was designed to survive the company's Roundup herbicide, is taken off the market for the two years it takes to complete the study, the company said in court papers filed recently. Earlier this month, US District Judge Charles Breyer halted the sale of the modified alfalfa at the request of farmers, environmentalists and consumer advocates who said that it could harm the US economy and the environment.

USA: Vegetable Fallout From the New Manhattan Project
British Petroleum and the New Greenmail

CounterPunch, March 27 2007. By Iain Boal and Standard Schaefer.

British Petroleum's proposed biofuel research deal with the University of California has sparked a growing resistance from a coalition based in UC Berkeley's College of Natural Resources, claiming the deal is essentially a continuation of BP's current greenwash campaign. After much unfavorable publicity surrounding the mismanagement of oil tankers, pipelines, and refineries, BP began airing commercials on business friendly television channels hyping their renewable energy projects with the slogan, "It's a start." It's a start all right, but a rather paltry one if you consider this: BP's net profit last year, in 2006, was $22 billion - roughly $600 per second. So the annual commitment to the UC Berkeley program represents 0.0005% of annual profits--just a few hours of the yearly take.

Still, the half-billion dollar windfall buys a lot of clout in a public university. Those who insist that BP's gift will not change the climate of research at UC Berkeley might consider BP's track record. It does not bode well for this partnership or for free and open inquiry. Here are the words of Greg Palast of BBC Newsnight:

"BP, which owns 46% of the Alaska pipline and is supposed to manage the system, had a habit of hunting down and destroying the careers of those who warn of pipeline problems. In one case, BP's CEO of Alaskan operations hired a former CIA expert to break into the home of a whistleblower, Chuck Hamel, who had complained of conditions at the pipe's tanker facility. BP tapped his phone calls with a US congressman and ran a surveillance and smear campaign against him. When caught, a US federal judge said BP's acts were 'reminiscent of Nazi Germany'. This was not an isolated case."

Given this history, the BP deal-whose specifics remain largely unknown-is bound to produce an atmosphere of secrecy in the research laboratories of a public institution which under the agreement will be staffed by scientist-entrepreneurs enriching themselves by way of private patents and stock options, in a direct conflict of interest.

One of the first casualties of the deal is already clear--the English language. The authors of this proposal have already begun a laundering operation, even before the deal is signed. Genetically modified organisms and biotechnology are nowhere to be seen. The brief era of "biotech" is over, it seems; a new age of "synthetic biology" is dawning. Oddly, we find ourselves back in a world of electricians, chemists and masons. Instead of living GMOs we are dealing with "DNA circuits"; instead of genes we find "biobricks". Plants no longer decompose; in this brave new science they undergo "depolymerization". These linguistic constructs are presumably an attempt to obscure the fact that the core of the BP project for growing fuel instead of food remains the global proliferation of new, reproducing, lifeforms that contain genes transfected from distant species, with very poorly understood results.

It is not by accident that the parties to the BP-Berkeley deal borrow their rhetorical strategies from their counterparts in the military and nuclear fields. The UC scientists and administrators begin the proposal by invoking, in the most effusive terms, the Manhattan Project. In fact, the whole initiative is to be modeled on the Manhattan Project's "team science" model. But that project is properly remembered for its secret, reckless decision-making. With its very first experiment, Arthur Compton, the head of the Chicago scientists involved, risked building a secret reactor in the middle of the city. Compton explained: "We did not see how a true nuclear explosion, such as that of an atomic bomb, could possibly occur"; still, as Richard Rhodes the historian of the Manhattan Project put it, he was risking "a small Chernobyl in the midst of a crowded city."

Here, then, are some questions: What is modern science that its shining hour was the Manhattan Project, a secret project to build a weapon of mass murder? What is modern science that it flourishes in secrecy? What is it that the biofuel boosters here at UC Berkeley like so much about Lawrence and the atomic bomb project?

Well, here's one possible explanation: science--and by this we mean 'actually existing' science--is capital's way of knowing the world, and furthermore, science is the handmaiden of empire. It's no accident that ballistics and the development of weapons of mass murder are at the heart of modern physics. Now the cult of the atom is mirrored and even matched by the cult of the gene. The stakes are high, they tell us, global warming and oil depletion loom. It is all rather plausible, even if promoted by known market manipulators such as BP-its history of machinations we shall address later-but for now it is worth asking: what does it mean, when the language of crisis is on so many lips? Suddenly, everyone is on board with biofuels as the answer to global warming--scientists, environmentalists, pundits, celebrities, politicians of all stripes-the Gores and Bransons and Blairs, and now the Bushes, with their ethanol deal with Brazil.

Global emergency, like communism and terrorism, is a very useful bogey man that brooks no dissent. It facilitates backroom deals, and in the BP case (an agreement put together, in the revealing phrase of the UC vice chancellor for research, "at warp speed"), it obscures the risks that university administrators and scientists are prepared to take not only with the local environment of Strawberry Canyon, but with the ecosystems of the planet and the lives of small farmers everywhere who face further dispossession for the purpose of biofuel monoculture. But risk, of course, is something our neoliberal masters are adept at "externalizing"; after all, its other face is profit. Formerly natural disasters were the work of the Fates and the Furies. Now, chance and contingency and cataclysm are the spectacular image both the nominal left and real right promote so that we will not look at their long history of harm and devastation, so that we will forgo all talk of prevention. But that seems to leave the Fates and the Furies unemployed. Are they then available to protect us from the fallout, no longer just nuclear but vegetable as well?

Iain Boal is a historian of technics and the commons, a member of the Retort collective, and a co-author of Afflicted Powers. He can be reached at: iboal@socrates.Berkeley.EDU

Standard Schaefer is a writer, teacher, and student in San Francisco. He can be reached standardschaefer@sbcglobal.net

Europe: GMO Oilseed Rapes Authorised for Animal Feed in EU

FoodIngredientsFirst.com, 27 March 2007.

This decision is valid for 10 years and covers the use of the oilseed rapes for imports and processing into animal feed or for industrial purposes. It includes measures to be taken by the company who developed the GM oilseed rapes.

The European Commission has authorised the placing on the market of three oilseed rapes known as Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3, genetically modified for tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium. This decision is valid for 10 years and covers the use of the oilseed rapes for imports and processing into animal feed or for industrial purposes. It includes measures to be taken by the company who developed the GM oilseed rapes to prevent any damage to health and the environment in the event of accidental spillage. Processed oil derived from these GM oilseed rapes has already been approved for food use in 1999 and 2000 in the EU.

The authorisation covers the import and the use of Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3 oilseed rapes as animal feed, but not cultivation or food uses. These genetically modified oilseed rapes are tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium and do not contain an antibiotic resistance marker gene. They have been subject to a rigorous pre-market risk assessment and have been scientifically assessed by the Member States, as well as the European Food Safety Authority, as being as safe as any conventional oilseed rape.

When put on the market, products containing Ms8, Rf3 or Ms8xRf3 will need to be clearly labelled as containing genetically modified oilseed rape. They will be covered by the strict labelling and traceability rules in force since April 2004. The labelling will provide operators and consumers with the information they need to decide whether to buy the product or not.

Robust post-marketing rules will ensure that the product can be traced and monitored once put on the market, thanks to a unique identifier assigned to the oilseed rape products. In addition, the authorisation includes a set of guidelines to Bayer, the company who developed the oilseed rape, on how to deal appropriately with accidental spillage should it occur.

During the past six years, the EU has put in place a clear, transparent and stringent system to regulate genetically modified food, feed and crops. The authorisation procedure under this new system ensures that only genetically modified organisms (GMOs) which are safe for human and animal consumption and for release into the environment can be placed on the European market. Individual authorisations are granted following appraisal of the GMOs in question on a case by case basis. Requests for authorisations which do not fulfil all criteria have been and will continue to be rejected.

This is the sixth authorising decision to be issued under the Directive of 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs.

In January 2003, Bayer submitted a request to the competent authorities of Belgium for placing genetically modified oilseed rapes Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3 on the market. The initial request was for import, processing, feed use and cultivation, but not food use. The Belgian authorities came to the conclusion that Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3 oilseed rapes are as safe as conventional oilseed rapes and should be placed on the market for import and processing and for use as any other oilseed rape but not for the requested use of cultivation.

The European Food Safety Authority also appraised the application and focused on the scientific issues raised by competent authorities from the other Member States. Its opinion similarly concluded that Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3 oilseed rapes were as safe as conventional oilseed rapes.

The Regulatory Committee established under Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs did not give an opinion in December 2005. The Commission therefore submitted a proposal to the Council.

The proposal was considered by the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 18 September 2006. At that meeting the Council did not reach a qualified majority either for or against the Commission proposal. Consequently, under the legal "comitology" procedure, the Commission must adopt the Decision. The Commission's decision to approve Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3 is therefore designed to ensure that this legal framework is correctly and fully applied by Member States.

This includes post-market monitoring of the continued safety of the product once it has been placed on the market via the use of surveillance systems. This monitoring is required throughout the period of validity of the consent. Reports of this monitoring programme must be submitted to all Member States and the Commission on an annual basis.

USA: Monsanto intervenes in RR alfalfa lawsuit

Farm Press, Mar 27, 2007. By Harry Cline.

Monsanto Co. has filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit filed by a group of anti-biotech radical groups and commercial seed companies who convinced a Northern California judge -- using questionable facts -- to challenge the governmental process in registering Roundup Ready alfalfa for commercial use.

Forage Genetics International and several farmers also plan to ask for intervenor status in this case, which was brought by the radical anti-biotech organization, Center for Food Safety, and similar groups and two well-respected alfalfa seed producers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture as Geertson Seed Farms Inc. et al. vs. Mike Johanns, et al.

The Center for Food Safety represented itself and the following co-plaintiffs in the suit: Western Organization of Resource Councils, National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Beyond Pesticides, Cornucopia Institute, Dakota Resource Council, Trask Family Seeds, and Geertson Seed Farms.

Family-owned Geertson Seed Farms, Adrian, Ore., has been producing alfalfa seed since 1942, still farming the original 80 acres that was homesteaded by the family in 1939.

Trask Family Seeds is a seed producing company based in Elm Springs, S.D., that raises about 20,000 acres of conventional, common alfalfa. Pat Trask says biotech alfalfa threatens to contaminate standard varieties that are easily cross-pollinated by bees and wind.

Trask tried to get his home state legislature to ban biotech crops, but the South Dakota legislators rejected the ban.

Spokesman for Forage Genetics said 137 South Dakota growers had planted more than 4,000 acres of Roundup Ready Alfalfa by last fall. He said demand for the seed exceeds supplies.

Ongoing campaign

Several of the organizations that have joined in the fight with the two seed companies have staged an ongoing legal and public relations campaign against biotech crops. Many also were involved in trying to get genetically modified crops banned in several California counties. Their efforts largely failed.

Many of their arguments about cross contamination and contamination of organic crops used in the Roundup Ready alfalfa lawsuit were also used unsuccessfully to ban biotech crops in California.

In a decision issued in mid-February, a federal district court judge in Northern California ruled that USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) did not follow the proper process in assessing possible environmental affects of Roundup Ready alfalfa.

"Monsanto is asking to intervene because we believe it is important for hay growers to have the choice to use this beneficial technology," said Jerry Steiner, executive vice president for Monsanto. "Many alfalfa growers have expressed their desire to be heard, and we believe Monsanto's participation in the remedy phase will help bring forward important information that underscores how crucial this technology has become to forage operations from an economic and environmental point of view."

The lawsuit, according to the plaintiffs, may preclude further sales of RR alfalfa. However, by the end of this spring, an estimated 200,000 acres of California's 1.1 million acres of alfalfa will be planted to Roundup Ready varieties sold by several major alfalfa companies.

Apparently Trask and Geerston are not licensed to sell Roundup Ready alfalfa.

Steiner noted that the court has already accepted the fact that Roundup Ready alfalfa poses no harmful effects on humans and livestock. As part of its regulatory filing for Roundup Ready alfalfa in April 2004, Monsanto provided USDA with an extensive dossier that addresses a variety of environmental, stewardship and management considerations, including those raised by the plaintiffs in this case.

Systems can coexist

"The plaintiffs describe Roundup Ready alfalfa as a threat to the production of conventional and/or organic alfalfa production," Steiner said. "They project an either/or scenario when evidence and experience show that sensible stewardship practices make it possible for these different production systems to coexist."

Roundup Ready crops have been grown successfully alongside conventional and organic crops for more than a decade. In fact, the rapidly increasing demand for and adoption of the Roundup Ready system by growers has demonstrated the ability of alternative cropping systems to successfully co-exist.

USDA data for 2005 indicate that of the more than 22 million acres of alfalfa grown, roughly 200,000 acres of this total was certified as organic production.

In its news release hailing the court decision, the Center for Food Safety said the ruling ordered that a full Environmental Impact Statement must be carried out on Roundup Ready alfalfa.

"This is a major victory for farmers and the environment," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety.

"This is another nail in the coffin for USDA's hands-off approach to regulations on these risky engineered crops," said Will Rostov, senior attorney of The Center for Food Safety.

These "risky engineered crops" are now grown on 222 million acres in 21 countries, an 11 percent jump in one year. The U.S. acreage is about 123 million in biotech crops. When first introduced commercially in 1996, 4.3 million acres were in biotech crops in six countries.

The suit also cited the urgent concerns of farmers who sell to export markets. Japan and South Korea, who have "warned that they will discontinue imports of U.S. alfalfa if a GE variety is grown in this country."

Japan has approved importing hay from RR alfalfa fields.

USA: Tell USDA no drugs in rice!

Eco-farm.org, 27 March 2007.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is close to approving a request to grow up to 3,200 acres of genetically engineered (GE) pharmaceutical rice.Ý The rice, developed by California-based Ventria BioScience, is set to be grown and processed in Kansas, after the company was chased out of other states, including Monsanto's stomping grounds, Missouri, and Ventria's home-state, California. Ventria has developed three varieties of rice, each engineered with a different modified human gene to produce one of three recombinant human proteins. Two of them -- lactoferrin and lysozyme -- are bacteria-fighting compounds similar to natural versions found in breast milk and saliva. The third makes recombinant serum albumin, a blood protein used in medical therapies. Ý

Drug-producing food crops grown out-of-doors pose great risks to public health and the economic well-being of farmers because they are likely to contaminate the food supply.Ý In fact, while Southern rice growers were still reeling from last year's contamination of long-grain rice with an unapproved GE variety,Ý a second variety of rice was found to be contaminated with a second unapproved GE line this month, throwing the rice market into further turmoil.Ý As a result, Southern rice growers are facing a severe shortage of uncontaminated seed for planting this spring.Ý Incredibly, USDA appears poised to approve Ventria's request even though the pharmaceutical substances in Ventria's drug-producing rice have not been approved by the FDA. Ý

Tell USDA enough is enough, and to reject this risky proposal! Please take a moment to send your comment today - we need to have your comments by March 28th to get them to USDA by the close of the comment period on the 30th! Click here http://ga3.org/campaign/Ventria_KS to take action now.

USA: More trouble for Monsanto

PJ Star, March 27 2007. By Alan Guebert.

On March 6, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., alleging that in 2002 Charles M. Martin, then Monsanto Co.'s "Government Affairs Director for Asia, authorized and directed an Indonesian consulting firm to pay a bribe totaling $50,000 to a senior Indonesian Ministry of Environment official."

The payment, the filing said, "was made to influence the Senior Environment Official to repeal language in a decree that was unfavorable to Monsanto's business in Indonesia."

Later the SEC explains the "unfavorable" decree was a mid-2001 government ruling that required "bio-technology products . . . such as Monsanto's Bollgard Cotton . . . for the first time, to undergo an AMDAL process (environmental impact assessment) before they could be cultivated in Indonesia."

That assessment, the SEC continues, "posed a considerable obstacle to the success of Monsanto's existing Bollgard Cotton project and Monsanto's ability to successfully market other GMOs in Indonesia and elsewhere in the Asia Pacific region."

Especially so, notes the SEC, because in "February, 2001, Monsanto obtained limited approval from Indonesia's Ministry of Agriculture allowing farmers in South Sulawesi, Indonesia to grow Bollgard Cotton. . . . "

Shortly thereafter, however, a change in government brought a change in rules.

The $50,000 payment wasn't the only money Monsanto spent on Indonesian officials. As the Martin complaint explains in a paragraph labeled "Other Relevant Entities," the SEC already had moved against the St. Louis biotech company in early 2005 "for violating the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)..."

On Jan. 6, 2005, the SEC "filed two settled enforcement proceedings" against Monsanto whereby the company - "without admitting or denying the Commission's charges" - consented to pay "a $500,000 civil penalty" as "a final judgment in (a) federal lawsuit."

The suit, brought by the SEC, "charged that, from 1997 to 2002, Monsanto inaccurately recorded, or failed to record, in its books and records approximately $700,000 of illegal or questionable payments made to at least 140 current and former Indonesian government officials and their family members."

The settlement agreement adds, "The approximate $700,000 was derived from a bogus product registration scheme undertaken by two Indonesian entities owned or controlled by Monsanto."

But since the SEC "considered the cooperation that Monsanto provided the Commission staff during its investigation" important to connect the Indonesian dots, the U.S. Justice Department "entered into an agreement . . . to defer prosecution on charges of violating the anti-bribery and books and records provision of the FCPA."

The deal meant that if Monsanto paid a "$1 million monetary penalty" and retained "for a period of three years an independent compliance expert" to ensure such violations would not occur again, the company would face no other charges.

Russell Mokhiber, editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter, an authoritative weekly newsletter on white collar crime, describes deferred prosecution deals like the one Monsanto agreed to as "criminal activity without any criminals."

In a lengthy 2005 treatise on the rising use of deferred prosecutions (at www.corporatecrimereporter.com), Mokhiber explains it this way: "You can commit any crime you wish, from bribery to corruption to fraud. Just help us put the individuals in jail, and we will let you off the hook. No conviction. No record of criminal wrongdoing."

Under the 2005 deal Monsanto cut with Justice, its three-year compliance period will end just after it hopes to conclude its $1.5 billion buyout of Delta & Pine Land Co., a purchase that will give it a virtual lock on the U.S. biotech cottonseed market.

The buyout is presently undergoing an antitrust review at the same U.S. Justice Department that granted Monsanto the deferred prosecution in the Indonesian cotton scheme.

Alan Guebert's column appears on this page each Tuesday. His e-mail address is agcomm@sbcglobal.net.

USA: Why Monsanto loves ethanol

Salon.com, 27 March 2007. Buy Andrew Leonard.

American farmers, spurred by ethanol frenzy, are planting the largest corn crop in more than 50 years.The demand is so high, reports Farm News, that seed companies are running out of the most popular varieties of corn seed.

At the top of the list are "triple stack hybrids" sold mostly by Monsanto-owned subsidiaries. A triple stack hybrid combines genetic modifications that result in three different "traits." In this case, the corn comes with built-in resistance to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, and built-in insecticides that target two of the corn plant's most fearsome foes, the dreaded corn borer and the equally devastating corn rootworm. (The corn borer and corn rootworm toxins are derived from two different subspecies of the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis -- triple stack hybrids thus include two different "Bt" genetic modification "events.")

For Monsanto, the apparent popularity of triple stack hybrid corn seed is an opportunity to tout the market's embrace of its latest products. For critics of GM corn, the rush to such varieties presages a future filled with weeds that evolve to resist Roundup and new generations of corn borers and rootworms that shrug off Bt toxins.

No doubt Monsanto plans to come up with new, "improved" corn seed products that will target new, improved pests, and will be able to resist new, improved herbicides. That is the treadmill that the human race has put itself on, and whether we'll ever be able to get off of it seems a highly doubtful proposition, unless food prices rise so high that biofuels become politically impossible. But that dreary quagmire is not the point of this post.

For some time, How the World Works has been convinced that the rush to biofuels will significantly boost the ongoing rollout of genetically modified organisms. There's just too much money at stake in the energy business for it to be otherwise. The popularity of the latest biotech crops is a perfect illustration of this. These seeds aren't cheap -- they are top-of-the-line products. But for well-financed farmers and industrial-scale agribusinesses aiming to cash in on ethanol demand, seed costs are not a significant barrier. It seems reasonable to expect, in the not-too-distant future, quadruple- and quintuple- and sextuple-stacked hybrids that do all kinds of fancy things such as incorporate herbicide resistance, targeted pesticides, and modifications that make the corn cheaper and easier to industrially transform into ethanol.

As more and more modifications are incorporated into a single organism, our ability to understand and predict how wide-scale proliferation of those organisms will affect the greater environment will become even more difficult than it already is. So maybe "treadmill" isn't the best metaphor to describe the current dynamic. A rocket launch into territory unknown might offer a more appropriate analogy.

India: GM trials only after settlement of case

Press Trust of India, March 27 2006

Coimbatore, March 27 (PTI): Trials of genetically modified (GM) food or non-food crops would be carried out only after settlement of a case pending before Supreme Court, a senior official with Department of Biotechnology (DoB) said today.

Though the Department had decided to release GM brinjal [i.e. aubergine], followed by cauliflower and cabbage, the apex court has stayed fresh trials by its order in October last year and the case would come up for next hearing on April 16, K K Tripathi, Advisor, DoB, told reporters here.

Almost all trials, including toxicity, have been carried out with the regard to brinjal and only environmental safety and agro-climatic condition trials have to be conducted.

The department would release GM crops, after carrying all the safety trials, he said.

Similarly, research and trials were going on in many food and non-food crops in "greenhouse", Tripathi said, adding that the department has carried out trials in rice and started in maize for weed and stem-borer resistance.

Tripathi, here to participate in a 'Consultation on Safety Assessment of GM Food Crops', said there was no cause for apprehension for farmers to adopt BT seeds, which in real terms, were beneficial income wise.

However, "certain vested interests" were driving away innocent farmers from utilising the technology to increase production, Tripathi said.

UK: If we want to save the planet, we need a five-year freeze on biofuels
Oil produced from plants sets up competition for food between cars and people.
People - and the environment - will lose

The Guardian, March 27 2007. By George Monbiot.

It used to be a matter of good intentions gone awry. Now it is plain fraud. The governments using biofuel to tackle global warming know that it causes more harm than good. But they plough on regardless. In theory, fuels made from plants can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by cars and trucks. Plants absorb carbon as they grow - it is released again when the fuel is burned. By encouraging oil companies to switch from fossil plants to living ones, governments on both sides of the Atlantic claim to be "decarbonising" our transport networks.

In the budget last week, Gordon Brown announced that he would extend the tax rebate for biofuels until 2010. From next year all suppliers in the UK will have to ensure that 2.5% of the fuel they sell is made from plants - if not, they must pay a penalty of 15p a litre. The obligation rises to 5% in 2010. By 2050, the government hopes that 33% of our fuel will come from crops. Last month George Bush announced that he would quintuple the US target for biofuels: by 2017 they should be supplying 24% of the nation's transport fuel.

So what's wrong with these programmes? Only that they are a formula for environmental and humanitarian disaster. In 2004 I warned, on these pages, that biofuels would set up a competition for food between cars and people. The people would necessarily lose: those who can afford to drive are richer than those who are in danger of starvation. It would also lead to the destruction of rainforests and other important habitats. I received more abuse than I've had for any other column - except for when I attacked the 9/11 conspiracists. I was told my claims were ridiculous, laughable, impossible. Well in one respect I was wrong. I thought these effects wouldn't materialise for many years. They are happening already.

Since the beginning of last year, the price of maize has doubled. The price of wheat has also reached a 10-year high, while global stockpiles of both grains have reached 25-year lows. Already there have been food riots in Mexico and reports that the poor are feeling the strain all over the world. The US department of agriculture warns that "if we have a drought or a very poor harvest, we could see the sort of volatility we saw in the 1970s, and if it does not happen this year, we are also forecasting lower stockpiles next year". According to the UN food and agriculture organisation, the main reason is the demand for ethanol: the alcohol used for motor fuel, which can be made from maize and wheat.

Farmers will respond to better prices by planting more, but it is not clear that they can overtake the booming demand for biofuel. Even if they do, they will catch up only by ploughing virgin habitat.

Already we know that biofuel is worse for the planet than petroleum. The UN has just published a report suggesting that 98% of the natural rainforest in Indonesia will be degraded or gone by 2022. Just five years ago, the same agencies predicted that this wouldn't happen until 2032. But they reckoned without the planting of palm oil to turn into biodiesel for the European market. This is now the main cause of deforestation there and it is likely soon to become responsible for the extinction of the orang-utan in the wild.

But it gets worse. As the forests are burned, both the trees and the peat they sit on are turned into carbon dioxide. A report by the Dutch consultancy Delft Hydraulics shows that every tonne of palm oil results in 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, or 10 times as much as petroleum produces. I feel I need to say that again. Biodiesel from palm oil causes 10 times as much climate change as ordinary diesel.

There are similar impacts all over the world. Sugarcane producers are moving into rare scrubland habitats (the cerrado) in Brazil, and soya farmers are ripping up the Amazon rainforests. As President Bush has just signed a biofuel agreement with President Lula, it's likely to become a lot worse. Indigenous people in South America, Asia and Africa are starting to complain about incursions onto their land by fuel planters. A petition launched by a group called biofuelwatch, begging western governments to stop, has been signed by campaigners from 250 groups.

The British government is well aware that there's a problem. On his blog last year the environment secretary David Miliband noted that palm oil plantations "are destroying 0.7% of the Malaysian rainforest each year, reducing a vital natural resource (and in the process, destroying the natural habitat of the orang-utan). It is all connected." Unlike government policy.

The reason governments are so enthusiastic about biofuels is that they don't upset drivers. They appear to reduce the amount of carbon from our cars, without requiring new taxes. It's an illusion sustained by the fact that only the emissions produced at home count towards our national total. The forest clearance in Malaysia doesn't increase our official impact by a gram.

In February the European commission was faced with a straight choice between fuel efficiency and biofuels. It had intended to tell car companies that the average carbon emission from new cars in 2012 would be 120 grams per kilometre. After heavy lobbying by Angela Merkel on behalf of her car manufacturers, it caved in and raised the limit to 130 grams. It announced that it would make up the shortfall by increasing the contribution from biofuel.

The British government says it "will require transport fuel suppliers to report on the carbon saving and sustainability of the biofuels they supply". But it will not require them to do anything. It can't: its consultants have already shown that if it tries to impose wider environmental standards on biofuels, it will fall foul of world trade rules. And even "sustainable" biofuels merely occupy the space that other crops now fill, displacing them into new habitats. It promises that one day there will be a "second generation" of biofuels, made from straw or grass or wood. But there are still major technical obstacles. By the time the new fuels are ready, the damage will have been done.

We need a moratorium on all targets and incentives for biofuels, until a second generation of fuels can be produced for less than it costs to make fuel from palm oil or sugar cane. Even then, the targets should be set low and increased only cautiously. I suggest a five-year freeze.

This would require a huge campaign, tougher than the one which helped to win a five-year freeze on growing genetically modified crops in the UK. That was important - GM crops give big companies unprecedented control over the foodchain. But most of their effects are indirect, while the devastation caused by biofuel is immediate and already visible.

This is why it will be harder to stop: encouraged by government policy, vast investments are now being made by farmers and chemical companies. Stopping them requires one heck of a battle. But it has to be fought.

You can join the campaign at www.biofuelwatch.org.uk - www.monbiot.com

Australia: CSIRO: public resources for private profit

Gene Ethics, News Media Release - March 27 2007

CSIRO Plant Industry sacked leading soil and organic researcher Dr Maarten Stapper last week. His research on healthier soil systems and criticisms of crop Gene Manipulation (GM) upset CSIRO management.

"This travesty of justice shows again that priorities for taxpayer-funded research are grossly distorted by CSIRO contracts with companies, that direct public funds to private profits," says Bob Phelps, director of Gene Ethics.

"Stapper was sacked because GM giants like Bayer and Monsanto can't patent know-how on healthier soils," he says.

"Scientists who publish negative evidence about GM technology and its products are victimised, everywhere in the world," he says.

"Australian governments spent $1.29 billion on GM research from 2003 to 2005 alone (Warren Truss MP, Media Release, June 2005) and how this money is allocated should be the subject of public discussion," he says.

"Gene Ethics calls for a democratic system of funding policy and decisions to set research and development priorities. Our scarce R&D resources are now being misallocated by those who stand to gain most," he says.

"GM has failed to fulfill its promises so Australian taxpayers and producers are ripped off," Mr Phelps says.

"Even where success is claimed, the companies with patented genes benefit most. For instance, GM cotton was developed by CSIRO and Cotton Australia at taxpayer and grower expense, but Monsanto's technology fee is well over $150 for every hectare grown," he says.

"Billions are spent on GM, but research on the sustainable biological and organic farming systems needed to cope with climate change and the end of oil is under-funded," he says.

"CSIRO chief Jeremy Burdon's claim that environmentally friendly systems are 'not a long term viable strategy' is refuted by their success. Sustainable organics are the fastest growing sector of Australian farming and they will not use GM or synthetic chemicals," he says.

"Repairing Australia's systemic agronomic and environmental problems on farms is urgent. But the funds go to GM crop research that can't solve our core problems - salty, acidic, chemical polluted, drought affected, denuded, and waterlogged soils," he says.

"Public-good research is starved of funds as it does not enrich the companies or keep hi-tech lab scientists working on GM plants," he says.

"For instance, disbanding the CRC for Weed Management because it lacked corporate partners was another foolish, short-sighted travesty," he says.

"CSIRO is failing us badly. Gene Ethics calls on state governments to fund Dr Stapper's soil health research, increase his funding and recruit more staff for sustainable farming projects," Mr Phelps concludes.

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

Australia: CSIRO Scraps Research Program: Huge Loss for Organic Farmers

BFA Press Release, Tuesday, 27 March 2007

"The Biological Farmers of Australia is deeply concerned that CSIRO has decided to scrap the work of Dr Maarten Stapper an agronomist within CSIRO Plant Industry. This area of research that is critical not only to the organic sector, but also to the thousands of farmers around Australia right now developing better soil biology - specifically during a time of massive investment in finding sustainable and effective means of sequestering atmospheric carbon," said Scott Kinnear spokesperson for BFA.

Elaine Ingham and Arden Anderson have operated successful farm seminars that thousands of farmers have attended and the work of Maarten Stapper supported the principles put forward in their work.

"For Dr Burdon to say that CSIRO does not consider biological and organic farming to be "a long-term viable strategy" is extraordinary. At no time has CSIRO approached our organisation to discuss their views or to seek input on the technologies and processes undertaken on cutting edge organic farms. The BFA finds this statement akin to IBM's 1950s view of the world market for computers being a total of 5!"

"The rest of the world is getting behind research into organic farming and now looking at the quality characteristics of organic foods compared with conventionally grown foods. In addition most State Governments are actively developing research and development programs to support the growth of the organic sector to supply the demand coming domestically and from export markets in Asia, Nth America and Europe."

"We have for many years been concerned at the commercialisation of research within CSIRO whereby patentable technologies with income generation potential are favoured. This applies to their research into genetically engineered foods which has cost CSIRO many tens of millions of dollars for no commercial food product to show. Remember the failed CSIRO GE field pea that caused an allergic reaction in mice, shelved last year at a huge cost to the taxpayer.

"We believe that the States should look closely at employing Maarten Stapper, who by all accounts was one of the most sort after presenters at field days and seminars because his research was cutting edge and provided real immediate benefits. We are most concerned that CSIRO is prepared to say they see no future in organic farming, yet are prepared to waste extraordinary amounts of money supporting genetic engineering that the general public overall does not want. Demand for organic food is growing at about 15% per year globally and estimates put the market at more than A$50 billion."

"We must remember that European farming has been disastrous for our ancient and fragile soils in Australia and one of the fundamental keys to soil fertility under our unique conditions, which are so different to North America and Europe, is the healthy maintenance of biological activity in the soil. Farmers are aware that healthy soil biology increases carbon which improves structure and capacity to hold water and ultimately leads to an improved soil which will yield more food of higher quality."

"It seems that CSIRO has conveniently ended their one small research program supporting biological and organic farming while at the same time ending the employment of a scientist who was privately critical of genetic engineering. The fact that he was very much admired and supported by the farming community really adds insult to injury with this decision."

"The BFA calls on CSIRO to rethink their decision to drop this research and we will be seeking a face to face meeting with Dr Burdon and the relevant Minister to ask them to explain CSIRO's views."

The BFA is the largest organic organisation in Australia comprising of farmers, processors, wholesalers, retailers, consumers and exporters. Through its subsidiary certification organisations Australian Certified Organic (ACO) and Organic Growers of Australia (OGA) the BFA provides certification services to approximately 75% of the organic sector.

For further comment contact Scott Kinnear, mobile ph: 0419 881 729

USA: USDA clarifies policy on low-level presence of genetically enginered material

USDA press release, 27 March 2007.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is clarifying the existing approach for handling situations in which regulated genetically engineered (GE) plant material becomes mixed at low levels with commercial seeds and grain.

This policy is not new, but rather a description of how APHIS currently evaluates and responds to these incidents. In light of continuing international discussions regarding low-level presence (LLP), APHIS is taking this opportunity to formally state our approach.

One of APHIS' roles is to protect plant health by overseeing the importation, movement and field testing of regulated GE material. A major focus is ensuring appropriate confinement of such material in field tests. Developers must comply with all APHIS regulations and permit conditions to prevent the release of regulated GE material. However, when LLP incidents occur, the agency's policy is to respond with actions appropriate to the level of risk, determined by a scientific assessment and warranted by the facts in each case. APHIS will initiate an inquiry whenever regulated material is mixed with commercial seeds or grain to evaluate any risk, to determine the circumstances surrounding the release and to determine whether remedial and/or enforcement actions may be appropriate.

If APHIS determines that an incident involving regulated GE plant material could pose a risk to plant health or the environment, APHIS will take appropriate remedial steps using its authority under the Plant Protection Act. In cases in which APHIS determines that remedial action is not necessary to mitigate LLP of regulated GE plant material to protect plant health and the environment, APHIS is not precluded from taking enforcement action against a company or individual for violations of APHIS regulations.

A 2002 U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy Federal Register notice outlined proposed actions to be taken by the three agencies that provide regulatory oversight of the development of GE organismsóAPHIS, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)óaimed at strengthening the controls to prevent low levels of regulated materials from GE plants from occurring in commercial seeds and grain until appropriate safety standards have been met.

APHIS, in 2003, strengthened its field testing requirements for crops that produce pharmaceutical or industrial compounds to ensure that regulated materials from these plants are not found, even at low levels, in commercial seeds and grain. APHIS also initiated a process to amend its biotechnology regulations in 2004. In 2006, FDA published a Federal Register notice and guidance document for early food safety assessments and EPA published a Federal Register notice clarifying its guidance for field testing of plant-incorporated protectants (pesticides intended to be produced and used in a living plant). This clarification is consistent with those documents.

APHIS oversees the development and introduction (importation, interstate movement and environmental release) of GE organisms. The agency is committed to ensuring safety in the oversight of field tests and other activities involving GE plants. APHIS' approach is to apply precautionary measures to such activities which are commensurate with the risks posed by these crop varieties. This allows for research and development activities to take place, so that potential benefits can be realized, while still protecting agriculture, the environment and the public.

Notice of this policy document is scheduled for publication in the March 29, 2007 Federal Register.

To view the policy, go to the Federal Rulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov, select "Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service" from the agency drop-down menu; then click on "Submit." In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0167 to view supporting and related materials available electronically. The policy may also be viewed at APHIS' biotechnology regulatory services website at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/brs_main.shtml.

Note to Reporters:

USDA news releases, program announcements and media advisories are available on the Internet. Go to the APHIS news release page at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/newsroom. Also, anyone with an e-mail address can sign up to receive APHIS press releases automatically. Send an e-mail message to lyris@mdrdlyriss10.aphis.usda.gov and leave the subject blank. In the message, type subscribe press_releases.

APHIS considers six safety-related criteria when determining a GE plant material's potential to pose a risk to plant health or the environment. The criteria are:

1. The plant is not a Federal noxious weed or considered a weed in the area of introduction.

2. The introduced genetic material must remain inside the living cell and replicate only with the plant DNA.

3. The introduced genetic material's function is known and does not create a plant disease.

4. The introduced genetic material does not create an infectious entity or unintended toxins, or produce products intended for pharmaceutical or industrial use.

5. The introduced genetic material does not cause the creation of a new plant virus.

6. The plant does not contain genes from animal or human pathogens, or contain coding sequences whose products are known agents of diseases in humans or nontarget animals

26 March 2007

USA: Importers Question Purity of U.S. Crops

The Wall Street Journal, 26 March 2006

Recent breakdowns in the system meant to keep experimental genetically engineered plants from contaminating the hundreds of millions of acres of crops grown in the U.S. has farmers and import markets questioning the purity of U.S. goods.

Mexico, the largest foreign market for U.S. rice, sent tremors through the U.S. sector midmonth when it stopped shipments on the border out of concern the U.S. can't keep its experimental transgenic long-grain rice out of commercial crops.

California's medium-grain rice growers have demanded a statewide moratorium on any biotech field trials to avoid the contamination recently plaguing long-grain growers in the south.

Those contaminations, California Rice Commission spokeswoman Beth Horan said, prompted farmers and millers to say, "Whoa, this isn't as isolated as we thought and really the system isn't working the way that we thought."

California relies on countries such as Japan and South Korea to buy as much as 30% of the state's harvest each year, and producers want to keep the experimental crops as far away from their fields as possible.

That's getting harder, if not impossible, to do with so many field trials going on, said biotechnology experts at nonprofit consumer groups.

The U.S. is the largest producer of biotech crops in the world, with 135 million acres planted last year, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.

European Union countries, which were big long-grain buyers, stopped importing when they realized the U.S. couldn't keep biotech rice out of exports.

Europe: EFSAs GM maize assessment to take several weeks

FoodNavigator.com, 26 March 2007. By Jess Halliday.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is consulting with EU member states to ascertain whether further data are available to help it with its renewed assessment of Monsanto's GM maize MON 863; its evaluation, based on this input and the work of its GMO panel, is expected to take several weeks.

The European Commission asked EFSA two weeks ago to examine the recently published CRIIGEN study on genetically modified maize MON 863, and see whether it has any consequences for the authority's existing opinion on the safety of Monsanto's transgenic maize.

CRIIGENII is a 90-day rat study conducted by researchers at the University of Caen and published in the peer-review journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. It indicated liver and kidney toxicity in rats fed the transgenic maize, as well as differences in weight gain between the sexes.

EFSA's GMO panel has the job of addressing the statistical analysis in this study and any possible implications for human safety. The matter was discussed at EFSA's GMO Panel meeting last Thursday and Friday.

This is not the first time that EFSA has been asked to evaluate the safety of MON 863 as a result of a published study. A 13-week rat study conducted in Germany in 2004 raised concerns over liver toxicity.

However in October of that year the EFSA GMO panel concluded that there was "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)."

The initial opinions stated that the results of the rodent toxicity study with MON 863 maize did not indicate concerns about its safety for human and animal consumption.

The researchers behind the new study, led by Professor Gilles Eric Séralini 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 observe 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 during a joint press conference with environmental group Greenpeace in Berlin.

Monsanto has continued to defend the safety record of its corn. Spokesperson Lee Quarles told FoodNavigator.com earlier this month: "The important thing to note in all of this is the fact that the overwhelming opinion of expert authorities is that MON 863 is safe for human and animal consumption. This includes experts in Europe as the European competent authorities concur that MON 863 YieldGard Rootworm maize is safe for human and animal health and the environment.

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 has been grown commercially in the United States and Canada since 2003, and approved for import and food use in countries including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Russia and Mexico.

MON 863 received European approval for use in animal feed in 2005 and for human consumption in 2006.

India: Bt cotton allegedly causes cattle deaths in AP

NDTV, March 26 2007. By Uma Sudhir.

(Hyderabad): Genetically modified Bt cotton in the midst of yet another controversy. And this time it could be the beginning of a head on collision between the animal husbandry and agriculture ministry in Andhra Pradesh.

The animal husbandry department in Andhra Pradesh is going to ask the agriculture ministry to stop the sale of genetically modified Bt cottonseeds in the new season.

This follows reports from several districts that sheep, goat and even cattle grazing on leftover Bt cotton fields have taken ill and even died.

"We have given this message that not just goat and sheep, even cattle are also affected with this poison, so better not to graze. We will also write to the commissioner, agriculture to give clear instructions not to sell Bt cotton seeds in the coming season," said Dr Laxmi Rajam, Additional Director, Animal Husbandry, Andhra Pradesh.

Immediate action

Shepherds and goatherds from 12 districts protested in Hyderabad on Monday to demand immediate action on the unusual deaths that are now being reported for the third consecutive year.

"After grazing on non-Bt fields, there is no problem. Only after grazing on Bt leaves, sheep and goat are dying," said P Jamalaiah, Secretary, AP Shepherds and Goatherds Union.

"It is not just us who are saying that. Even the animal husbandry department and veterinary doctors have said that in their primary reports," he added.

Independent study

The department had earlier this year issued an advisory to shepherds and goatherds to avoid Bt cotton fields but that did not reach people like Urimekala Kotaiah in Khammam who lost 10 of his 50 sheep just two weeks ago.

"The government is allowing the sale of these seeds, so only if they ban the seeds, this problem can be solved because our sheep necessarily graze in open fields," said U Kotaiah, Shepherd.

The agriculture department has initiated an independent study following the reports of animal mortality. However, it may not be easy

Romania: Romania's GMO dilemma: who to side with - corporations or the EU?

Truth About Trade and Technology, 26 March 2007.

The Environment Ministry in Bucharest is due to push for public debate two new initiatives on genetically modified food - one for the introduction of GM soy testing and one for tests of GM plum trees. The Ministry recently authorized tests on GM corn. The moves come as agricultural experts are pushing hard to make Romanian citizens understand that GM crops are not harmful.

But environmental militants are redirecting the debate towards studies they say may help stop the expansion of non-conventional crops, while modified corn is the only GM plant allowed in the EU agriculture.

Romania is facing backbreaking decisions on aligning its agricultural legislation to the EU's and applying it wherever possible. But major companies are also pushing hard to have GM crops allowed at large-scale level.

"We're doing what the EU laws says and it says very clearly what can be cropped and what not", Environment Ministry official Catalin Cheran told HotNews.ro.

A short look over all notifications submitted on GMOs on EU territory (http://gmoinfo.jrc.it/gmp_browse.aspx) shows most come from US corporations such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta. Several other local players - state universities and companies covering national territories alone - are also profiled, but in a much lesser measure.

Pioneer, Monsanto and Syngenta have submitted documents asking to test GM crops in Romania. If applied, the groups may start putting up crops for testing GM soy, corn and plum trees.

They're also claiming that food is already insufficient and that "a solution to these crisis is the use of biotechnology in agriculture", as Clive James, a GMO supporter, put it during a Bucharest conference on March 2.

But anti-GM campaigners are also doing their best in preventing such pressure. Shortly after Hungary obtained an exemption from regulations on GM corn crops, a study was published claiming that GM corn damages human health.

And for the first time since GM corn was authorized for food production, a study recently published by Professor Gilles Eric Seralini of the University of Caen claims the only EU-approved GMO used on testing animals provides signs of toxicity in at liver and kidney level.

USA: GMO in BASF Rice is Safe, USDA Says

Wallaces Farmer, 26 March 2007.

The unapproved genetically modified organism that contaminated BASF long grain rice seed is safe for human consumption, USDA said Thursday.

USDA confirmed BASF findings when it identified the GMO in BASF's non-biotech Clearfield 131 rice as Bayer's Liberty Link 604 rice, a biotech variety that USDA has determined to be safe for consumption but has not approved. The contaminants were experimental seeds, USDA says. The protein in the unapproved Liberty Link rice is USDA-approved in biotech corn, canola and soybeans.

Because Liberty Link 604 rice is still unapproved, farmers still may not plant Clearfield 131 this year. Rice produced from Clearfield 131 seeds in previous years will not be banned from processing mills, USDA Undersecretary Bruce Knight told Dow Jones Newswires, but it is still unknown if any contamination occurred in seed planted last year.

Knight says that U.S. farmers planted between 300,000 and 500,000 acres of Clearfield 131 last year, out of 2.84 million total acres of rice.

India: 1,727 villages in Orissa declared GM free

Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security Press Release, New Delhi, Mar 26 2007

Seven hundred newly elected representatives of Panchayats in Orissa and the Governing Body members of Orissa Nari Samaj - a confederation of 53 block-level tribal women's organizations - resolved to protect nature, promote biodiversity, and also took an oath NOT to cultivate Genetically Modified (GM) crops.

The elected representatives declared 1,727 villages falling under 130 Panchayats in 12 districts as GM Free villages. These villages are in the districts of Koraput, Rayagada, Malkangiri, Nawarangpur, Kalahandi, Bargarh, Bolangir, Deogarh, Jharsuguda, Sambalpur, Sundargarh, Mayurbhanj in Orissa.

This brings the total number of villages in the country, which have decided to remain GM free, close to 1,900. These GM Free villages are located in Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu.

The oath in Orissa was taken at a conference organized by the Team for Human Resource Education and Action for Development (THREAD) on "Model Panchayats in Orissa£ at Siddharth village, Khurda, near Bhubaneshwar on Mar 20. The State Election Commissioner, Shri Sanjib Chandra Hota was the chief guest at the conference and the Regional Coordinator of Institute for Social Studies Mr. K.K Pattnaik delivered the keynote address.

Speaking on the occasion, Mr G.John, Executive Director of 'Team for Human Resource Education and Action for Development' (THREAD) informed that the Panchayat leaders have also sent memorandums to the Prime Minister of India and the state Chief Minister stating clearly that they will not cooperate with any activities of either the National Biodiversity Authority or the State Biodiversity Board unless control over local biodiversity and related knowledge is passed on to the communities. Demanding protection of local knowledge against piracy, they insisted that people's access to natural resources should be given priority over commercial trade.

The leaders expressed hope that their action will be emulated by other villages, which will force Orissa to turn into a GM-free state. They resolved to work towards community control over biodiversity, to preserve and protect biodiversity for the sake of food sovereignty. These leaders have already launched a movement against GM seeds in the tribal belt.

Orissa Nari Samaj had continuously been opposed to the entry of GM crop seeds since 2005. Decrying the seed companyÇs agenda to lay siege to poor farmerÇs livelihood, it had earlier sent thousands of letters from 2,500 villages in 53 blocks to the Chief Minister and the Chairman of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) against the large scale field trials of Bt Brinjal. In its endeavour to make the people of the state aware of the hazards of GM crops as well as the advantages of organic food, THREAD has so far printed and distributed about 40,000 posters throughout the state stating the same.

Photograph caption: 700 elected Panchayat leaders and members of the Orissa Nari Samaj (ONS) taking oath for establishing model GM free Panchayats. These panchayats represent 1,727 villages in 12 districts of Orissa

Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security
G-3F, DDA Flats, Munirka, New Delhi-110 067
Tel: 9811301857; 9811191335

Europe: Keep GMOs out of organic food!
European Parliament to vote on new EU law

Friends of the Earth Europe + Greenpeace + European Environmental Bureau press release,
26 March 2007.

Brussels, 26 March, 2007 - Environment groups are this week appealing to the European Parliament to protect organic farming from contamination by genetically modified crops. MEPs will vote this Thursday on whether a new EU law should allow GMOs in organic food [1,2].

According to Mauro Albrizio, Vice President of the European Environmental Bureau: "Organic farming is the jewel in the crown of European agriculture. The European Parliament should support organic production rather than putting it at risk from contamination by genetically modified crops that citizens don't want to eat anyway"

Although the use of genetically modified (GM) crops is currently banned in organic production, the new draft law would allow traces of contamination and contains no measures to stop GM crops contaminating organic farms [3].

A large proportion of European citizens are opposed to GMOs in food and crops, and have been so consistently for the past ten years, as confirmed by the most recent EU opinion poll, published in June 2006 [4].

"People buy organic foods in the confidence that they are 100% GMO-free. Opening the farm gate to GMOs in organic food will be going against consumer choice and accepting that big business can contaminate our food and decide what we eat", said Marco Contiero, senior policy advisor on GMOs at Greenpeace's EU unit.

Helen Holder, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, added: "Organic farming is the only farming sector in the EU showing growth. The sector provides quality jobs and a lifeline for rural economies, but it could be wrecked because of the biotech industry's inability to control its crops. We need strong laws that allow the organic sector to grow the crops and produce foods that European consumers want."

Environmental NGOs are urging MEPs, the European Commission and Member States to take all necessary measures to prevent genetic contamination. As well as the new law on organic production, strict laws on the commercial growing of GM crops and contamination (ëcoexistence') are urgently needed.

For further information please contact:

Helen Holder, GM Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe
Tel : +32 (0)2 542 0182; Mobile +32 (0)474 857 638;
E-mail: _helen.holder@foeeurope.org_

Marco Contiero, Senior Policy Advisor, GMOs, Greenpeace EU Unit
Mobile: +32 477 777 034; E-mail: marco.contiero@diala.greenpeace.org

Mauro Albrizio, Vice-President, European Environmental Bureau
Mobile : +32 479 940 257 ; E-mail: legambiente@skynet.be

Notes for editors:

[1] Proposal for a Council Regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products (COM(2005)0671 ‚ C6-0032/2006 ‚ 2005/0278(CNS))

[2] EEB, Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace are calling on MEPs to vote for an amendment to the report that was supported unanimously by all political parties in the EP's Environment Committee:- "In this Regulation, the labelling threshold for GMOs as defined in Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms shall not apply".

[3] The proposed law, if adopted as such, would allow 0.9% GMO contamination in organic foods. The law only allows this contamination as long as it is "adventitious" and "technically unavoidable", however there is evidence that the European Commission and other risk managers- under pressure to adopt a lax attitude to contamination- are in fact interpreting the 0.9% threshold to mean "acceptable" contamination. The organic sector currently works to a lower threshold and EU laws must support and enable organic farmers and retailers to maintain existing standards.

[4] Eurobarometer study (Gaskell et al., June 2006)

Nepal: Thirty Thousand People in Nepal Raise Their Voices for Rice!

WORA News, 26 March 2007. By Sarojeni Rengam, PAN AP.

The All Nepal Peasant's Association (ANPA) announced that to date 30,000 people have signed the WORA (Week of Rice action) statement, Save OUR RICE.

Balram Banskota of ANPA declared that out of the 30,000 signatures, 80 members of the Nepali Parliament including the Speaker of the house have signed on to the demands of WORA and the statement. He added, "This will send a strong statement to the Asian countries and particularly SAARC countries that we need to protect our rice culture and biodiversity from the onslaught of corporate control of rice production."

ANPA launched the WORA programme in Nepal at the inaugural event of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) People's Forum on 23 March and called on the 1000 delegates from different parts of the region to sign on to the WORA statement. Immediately after the announcement, the Chief Guest of the function, the Speaker of Parliament, signed the WORA statement.

Banskota stressed, "We, peasants are strongly asserting food sovereignty in Nepal. We do not want nor need genetically engineered (GE) rice and we do not want any technologies that deplete our rice diversity and culture". He spoke at the WORA seminar at the People's SAARC Forum to explain the 13 country campaign that is taking place throughout Asia to protect and celebrate rice diversity and culture.

Banskota stressed that rice is important for the culture of Nepal, and related how when a child is born the mother will celebrate her child's birth with the consumption of rice and when someone dies, rice is placed on the chest of the dead person and cremated.

At the culmination of the People's SAARC Forum three thousand people marched for justice, peace, and democracy on 25 th March 2007. At this rally, PAN AP Executive Director, Sarojeni V. Rengam, brought the strong message of WORA and called on the crowd to "Resist imperialist globalisation" that is driving peasants off their lands and reminded them of the struggles of rice peasants defending their land rights in Singur and Nandigram in West Bengal, India. She also called for South Asians to "Say no to GE rice" and "to assert our food sovereignty". She emphasised, "All SAARC countries and their governments must uphold the rights of food sovereignty and the right of peasants to land and productive resources".

The People's SAARC Forum was a gathering of South Asian people's movements, NGOs and civil society organisations raising their voices against the policies of the governments pursuing neoliberal policies. The forum took place from 23-25 March in Kathmandu, Nepal.

On the evening of 23 March, the participants were entertained by cultural dances and songs celebrating rice: the Chandinath dance, the harvest dance of the Rai, an indigenous community from the highlands of Eastern Nepal. Dynamic dancers also performed The Dhan dance related with the Newr community. During the Forum, the indigenous and local varieties of rice from across Nepal were displayed.

WORA 2007 will bring together farmers, rural communities, and other sectors of society to celebrate and protect rice culture. The main WORA events will take place in 13 countries across Asia from March 29 to April 4. From art competitions to seminars, food festivals to rallies, a myriad of activities will take place to showcase rice culture, farmers' wisdom and ecological agriculture, as well as the threats of landlessness and GE Rice. WORA will make a concerted stand against corporate control of rice and rice lands, unfair trade and laws, and genetically engineered (GE) Rice in Asia. Culminating in India and the Philippines, WORA will be an unprecedented mobilisation of Asians "Celebrating and Protecting Rice Culture"!

WORA is organised by Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) and its partner organisations in thirteen countries in the region. Anyone interested in being a part of WORA 2007 can log on to the WORA page at www.panap.net.

For more on the 1-million Signature Campaign - "People's Statement on Saving the Rice of Asia", see: http://www.panap.net/221.0.html.

Contact at PAN AP: Ms Anne Haslam, PAN AP at wora2007@panap.net

Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP),

P.O. Box 1170, 10850 Penang, Malaysia.
Tel: 604-6570271 or 604-6560381 Fax: 604-6583960
E-mail: panap@panap.net Home Page: linkwww.panap.net

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is a global network working to eliminate the human and environmental harm caused by pesticides and to promote biodiversity based ecological agriculture. PAN Asia and the Pacific is committed to the empowerment of people especially women, agricultural workers, peasant and indigenous farmers. We are dedicated to protect the safety and health of people, and the environment from pesticide use and genetic engineering. We believe in a people-centered, pro-women development through food sovereignty, ecological agriculture and sustainable lifestyles.

South Africa: South Africa rejects first GM maize for biofuels

African Centre for Biosafety & Centre for Food Safety

Johannesburg 26 March 2006

The African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) and US based Centre for Food Safety welcome the resounding rejection by South Africa's regulatory authority of Syngenta's GM maize for fuel ethanol.

During May 2006, the ACB and the Center for Food Safety (US) opposed, on food safety grounds, Syngenta's application for commodity clearance of its GM maize event 3272, the first GM industrial crop for which commercial approval (whether for cultivation or import) has been sought anywhere in the world.

South Africa's GM regulatory body, the Executive Council, rejected the GM maize application on the most damning biosafety grounds, namely, that Syngenta had failed to provide convincing proof of food and feed safety even if the primary intended use is ethanol production.

"The rejection by South African authorities of the world's first GM industrial crop confirms our long-standing concerns that GM crops can in fact be hazardous to human health, and that biotech company studies purporting to demonstrate safety are grossly inadequate," said Bill Freese, science policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety.

The EC expressed great concerns at Syngenta's failure to submit crucial biosafety data and found Syngenta's compositional studies, broiler chicken feeding studies, and its agronomic performance studies to be hopelessly inadequate.

The ACB especially welcomes the EC's finding that Syngenta had not adequately assessed the GM maize for its potential to cause allergies, based on the presence of a novel enzyme with allergenic properties. The EC urged Syngenta to adhere to methodologies for evaluation of allergenicity as developed by the FAO/WHO and conduct additional studies.

The final nail in the coffin for Syngenta was the finding that Syngenta's GM maize for ethanol would contaminate non-GM maize in SA and thus pose an unacceptable risk to South Africa's export market.

Bill Freese (US) 202-547-9359 x14
Mariam Mayet (SA) 083 269 4309
The full objection can be viewed at www.biosafetyafrica.net

Reasons for the rejection can be obtained from Mariam Mayet mariammayet@mweb.co.za

25 March 2007

India: GM crops cause 'breakdown' in Indian farming systems

The Independent on Sunday (London), 25 March 2007. By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor.

Genetically modified crops have helped cause a "complete breakdown" in farming systems in India, an authoritative new study suggests.

The study threatens to deal a fatal blow to probably the most powerful argument left in the biotech industry's armoury, that it can help to bring prosperity to the Third World.

Professor Glenn Davis Stone, professor of anthropology and environmental studies at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, has spent more than 40 weeks on the ground in the biotech industry's prime Developing World showcase, the Warangal district of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh.

The industry claims that local farmers have adopted GM cotton faster than any other agriculture technology in history. It argued at the prestigious Biovision conference in Lyon this month that the rapid spread proves that the technology is working for farmers.

Professor Stone's study, published in the February issue of the journal Current Anthropology, demolishes this argument. Extensive interviews with the farmers proved that they are plumping for the GM seeds because they are new, hyped and locally fashionable, without having time to see if they produce better crops.

"There is a rapidity of change that farmers just can't keep up with," he says. "They aren't able to digest new technologies as they come along."

He adds that the rapid uptake "reflects the complete breakdown in the cotton cultivation system".

India: GM mosquitoes - boon or bane?

Indo-Asian News Service. By K.S. Jayaraman (Staff Writer, IANS).

Indian public health experts are not at all excited by the news that American scientists have created genetically modified mosquitoes to help fight malaria, saying it had been tried here before and abandoned as a failure.

'We tried genetic control in the 1970s and abandoned it,' P.L. Joshi, director of the National Vector Borne Diseases Control Program in New Delhi, told IANS. 'It seemed to work in the lab but failed at field level.'

Scientists at John Hopkins University in the US announced this week that their GM mosquito is resistant to the malaria parasite, meaning that it cannot pass on malaria to humans via a bite.

Their 'cage' experiments also showed that the GM mosquitoes - because they were free of the malaria parasite - lived longer than the wild ones and laid more eggs.

Based on this finding, the scientists concluded that their GM mosquitoes released into the wild in large numbers would - over a period of time - displace the natural mosquitoes that transmit malaria.

While reports said that a field trial with GM mosquitoes could start in five years in Africa, Joshi said he is sceptical about genetic control approach after India's experience some 30 years ago.

In 1975 the Indian government called off the planned release of millions of altered mosquitoes in Sonepat in Haryana and closed down the US financed genetic control project in New Delhi. The authorities wanted to be sure that the modified mosquitoes did not become carriers of a disease that did not exist in India.

'We take up only safe, well tested, and proven methods in our control program,' Joshi said, adding that the best way to control malaria is reduction at the source.

'The recent epidemics of dengue and