NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • May 2007

Archives 2007: January• February • March • April • May • June
Archives 2006: January • February • March • April • May • June • July •
August • September • October • November • December
Archives 2005: Jan/Feb/Mar • Apr/May/Jun/Jul • Aug/Sept/Oct • Nov/Dec

31 May 2007

UK: Alarm as GM pollen wafts way beyond the official buffer zones

The Daily Mail, 31st May 2007. Be Sean Poulter

Pollen from genetically-modified crops can spread far further than previously thought, research has shown.

The findings raise questions over whether the Government-approved 'buffer zones' around GM farms will be big enough to prevent contamination of conventional crops.

The size of these buffer zones was decided after large-scale field trials carried out across Britain over the last five years.

But now a team from the University of Exeter has called on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to increase the zones to minimise pollen pollution.

Scientists are concerned that if contamination occurs, it could lead to the creation of 'superweeds' with an immunity to chemical sprays.

The Exeter team created a mathematical model on pollen spread using data on wind strengths from weather stations in the UK and Europe.

They found that pollen could contaminate surrounding fields at a rate two to three times higher than originally thought.

Lead researcher Martin Hoyle said: "Once you have GM crops growing, contamination of other crops will inevitably occur.

"The only question is how you minimise that to the required threshold. Spread of GM pollen on the wind is only one factor.

"There is also seed contamination and the fact that GM crops grown on a field in the past may persist among any new crops that are planted."

The study builds on research which has already found that GM pollen can fertilise conventional crops within a ten-mile radius.

The findings present the worrying possibility of vast swathes of the countryside - including organic farms - becoming contaminated by GM crops.

Critics are demanding the Government tears up its plans to allow GM farming in this country, which could start within just two years.

Friends of the Earth called for a moratorium on commercial GM farming until the risks were fully understood.

Its spokesman Clare Oxborrow said: "This new research makes clear that there are still so many gaps in our knowledge about the implications of GM farming.

"We are talking about a step that will lead to the irreversible GM contamination of the countryside-and our food.

"This technology-has been utterly rejected by the public yet ministers continue to try to steamroller ahead. This research makes clear it is time to take a step back and think again."

The Government and the EU are working on the basis that it will be legal and acceptable to allow GM contamination of other crops, including organic ones, up to a threshold of 0.9 per cent.

That means that if less than one plant in a hundred is contaminated, the entire harvest can be referred to as 'GM-free'.

That is totally unacceptable to the organic farming movement, which argues that any GM contamination is an assault on the purity of the food.

The Government is currently proposing a buffer zone of just 35metres around fields of GM oilseed rape to meet the 0.9 per cent threshold.

It claims a buffer zone of up to 58metres would be need to keep contamination below 0.1 per cent.

The Exeter research suggests, however, that a 500metre gap would be needed to ensure contamination is kept below this level.

The current plan for the buffer zone around maize is put at 110 metres. But the research suggests it may need to be seven or eight times greater.

Mr Hoyle said: "Defra will need to think about extending the separation distances used for GM crops in the light of these findings."

The research findings are published today in the journal Ecological Applications.

Switzerland: Leading researcher excluded from GM risk assessment

Swiss National Fund excludes prominent researcher from risk assessment program on GE plants:
http://www.gene.ch/genet/2007/May/msg00112.html

More information at:
NRP 59 - Benefits and Risks of the Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Plants
http://www.snf.ch/E/targetedresearch/researchprogrammes/newNRP/Seiten/_xc_nfp59.aspx

International Project on GMO Environmental Risk Assessment Methodologies
http://www.gmo-guidelines.info/

Protest against National Fund

Tages-Anzeiger (Switzerland) 15 May 2007. By Daniel Bächtold.
Translated by Hartmut Meyer, GENET

The National Fund is going to assess the benefits and risks of GE plants. A renowned researcher of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zu¨rich (Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zu¨rich, ETH) will be left out.

When on June 30 the National Fund informs about the new National Research Program (Nationales Forschungsprogramm, NFP), one researcher will not be present. Angelika Hilbeck of the Institute for Integrative Biologie of the ETH Zu¨rich - an internationally acknowledged researcher in risk assessment of gene technology - is not going to take part in the NFP 59. During the next four years, this research program will assess the "benefits and risks of deliberate release of genetically engineered plants" in Switzerland.

Hilbeck coordinated a group of scientists from various Swiss research institutions who planned to give answers on still open questions concerning the deliberate release of genetically engineered plants: What, for example, is the fate of transgenes in the soil, how do they move from one plant to the next, and can different plants protect themselves differently against this flux of genes?

The applications of Hilbeck and her collegues have been either bluntly rejected by the National Fund or have been cut down financially to such an extent that the researches have withdrawn them. Hardly any other previous research program is in the centre of public interest as the NFP 59. In November 2005, the Swiss people voted for a five-year moratorium on the commercial planting of genetically engineered plants.

The NFP 59 now could give answers on the fears and concerns of the critics of genetic engineering. It is still not yet decided how the NFP 59 will be structured and which researches will be supported with how much money. But it is certain that the submitted research proposals are exceeding the financial limit - 12 Million Swiss Francs (7.3 Mill EUR/9.8 Mill USD). Only 39 of the initially 92 research concepts sent in made it into the next round. The remaining concepts have been rejected already last November.

The absence of Hilbeck and her group in the NFP 59 is puzzling - especially in the light of the recent order of the German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (Bundesamtes f¨r Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit, BVL) which was made public last week. Due to this order, genetech-maize MON810 of the U.S. company Monsanto can only be grown commercially in Germany when the effects of the cultivation will be monitored and examined scientifically.

In its letter to Monsanto the BVL points out that there are "legitimate reasons to assume" that the planting of MON810 would pose a "risk for the environment". Several scientific studies have been quoted accordingly - amongst them publications of Hilbeck and other researchers who cooperate closely with her. MON810 is a so-called Bt-maize. Due to a gene of the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), MON810 produces an insecticide that should fight pest insects as for example the corn borer.

In the letter, the BVL explains that "nontarget organisms of higher trophic levels of the food chain" are as well exposed to the toxin. Further more: "Currently, the effect and the live time of the plant-derived toxin in soil are unclear, they bear relatively high potentials for ecological effects". A monitoring should assess the effects of the toxin and the possible spread of the bacterial gene in the case of MON810. Amongst others, the German authorities cite the researcher from Zu¨rich, when they write about the "risk for the environment" which would originate from the respective genetech-maize.

Ecologic cycles not yet understood

The Swiss National Fund can obviously ignore the expertise of Hilbeck, who since years fights against the attitude of many proponents of genetechnology to sweep the risks under the carpet. Upon request, the National Fund only explained that there is much experience with NFPs. And a scientifically "balanced program" had been developed. This would allow to answer the questions posed by the Federal Council [the Swiss Government].

Within the context of the NFP 59, Hilbeck and her collegues planned to assess if a product of a bacterial gene that has been introduced into a plant is still activ after it has passed the digestive tract of a sheep or pig and with the manure has reached the soil. Further more, they planned to find out what happens to the gene product in the soil afterwards. Deliberate releases with genetically engineered maize would have brought additional knowledge.

"These cycles have never been investigated comprehensively," states Hilbeck, only parts of its were known. "We have formed a team that unlike any other team in Switzerland could have investigated this problem in its entirety." All gained data would have been fed into a risk assessment model that has already benn tested by the researchers in several countries. The development of this method has been funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the Federal Office for the Environment with 2 Mill Francs (1.2 Mill EUR/1.6 Mill USD). In the context of the NFP 59, it should have been applied in Switzerland as well - so far the plans of the researchers.

But the National Fund obviously was of different opinion. With its decision, an internationally renowned risk assessment researcher has been excluded from the NFP 59. And even more: a researcher who participated in the set up of the aims of the research program.

Arbitrary reasons to reject?

Hilbeck is convinced that the decision of the prime Swiss research funding organization has nothing to do with science. "Apparently, other criteria which we were never told triggered the decision. It has never happened to me that a project has been shot down in such a way," Hilbeck says. Months ago, she explained in a protest letter to the National Fund that the reasons to reject the project were "arbitrary" and "a gut reaction", not being a "very scientifical jugdement". Other researchers also sent protest letters to the National Fund. They state for example that almost every point in the statement rejecting the project was either "demonstrably false" or "unhelpfully vague".

In two weeks, the NFP 59 will presented to the public. If the winners of the moratorium initiative are as well of the opinion that the program is "balanced" is right now questionable - at least.

_______________________

Scientists plan new GM crop trials

SwissInfo, 16 May 2007.

Three years after a series of controversial field experiments with genetically modified (GM) wheat, Swiss scientists are planning similar crop trials.

Two teams of university researchers have applied to carry out tests near Zurich and Lausanne, including observations of potential crossbreeding between wheat and wild grass.

The proposed field trials by Zurich University's Institute of Plant Biology and the Institute of Plant Sciences at the city's Federal Institute of Technology would form part of a planned national research programme

The aim would be to help answer questions about the release of transgenic plants, specifically in Switzerland

"It is important to clearly say that we are not developing a product for the market," Beat Keller, a lead researcher on the project, told swissinfo.

"We want to find out if GM wheat plants that we have already tested in the labs, which show improved resistance to fungal diseases, also [behave in a similar way] in the field in normal agricultural environments."

They also intend to look at aspects of biological safety to see if the plants have any unexpected impact on the environment, as well as organisms living in the ground or insects.

If the Federal Environment Office gives the go-ahead, trials will run over a two-year period from 2008 in Reckenholz near Zurich, and in Pully, on the outskirts of Lausanne. The office is expected to reach its decision within the next three months.

Controversial

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) remain a highly contentious issue in Switzerland. In November 2005 the Swiss voted in favour of a five-year ban on the use of GMOs in agriculture. Scientific research, however, is still permitted.

During discussions before the vote all political parties said it was necessary and essential to increase research into this topic and use the five-year moratorium period to clarify questions.

But the last GM crop trials in Switzerland, which took place in Lindau near Zurich in 2004, resulted in major opposition and a lengthy legal battle.

Keller is certain that there will be resistance to the project, but hopes that there will be better public acceptance than three years ago.

"There is a clear need and demand from society to clarify questions," he reckons.

"And the project also includes a very broad consortium of research groups which will approach it from many different angles."

Scepticism

GM opponents were quick to react to Tuesday's announcement.

"We are very concerned. We don't want trials that are a Trojan horse," said Herbert Karch, a committee member of the Swiss Working Group for Genetic Engineering (SAG).

While trials are allowed in principle, SAG is doubtful whether the proposals meet strict criteria set out in the law on genetic engineering.

It also questions the use of wheat in the trials. "There is no need for these kind of plants," said Karch. No country currently grows GM wheat and producers refuse to do so, SAG said in a statement on Tuesday.

"We are doing fundamental research and it's a fact that for clarifying questions about the use of transgenic plants in Switzerland, wheat is probably the best crop as it is among the most-grown. It's an obvious choice," replied Keller, trying to placate opponents' fears.

Environmental organisation Greenpeace, which opposed the 2004 trial both in the courts and with a demonstration at the site, also expressed its surprise about the news and warned about what it considers to be the dangers of GMOs for the environment, and for the health of both humans and animals.

Yves Zenger, spokesman for Greenpeace, said the majority of Swiss people, like others in many parts of the world, were against the release of GMOs.

The organic farming association Bio Suisse, while supporting GM research in a closed environment, said it was extremely wary of field trials of modified organisms.

Before approving the tests, it said the authorities should carry out a complete and detailed risk analysis.

USA: GM progress being made in Europe, says Monsanto chief

FoodNavigator-USA, 31 May 2007

Europe is edging slowly towards GM acceptance, according to Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant, who underscored the continent's strategic importance and said his company is laying the groundwork should a policy-change come to pass.

Grant's comments, reported in the St Louis Post-Dispatch, were made at the Sanford Bernstein Strategic Decisions Conference in New York yesterday.

The newspaper cited Grant as saying Monsanto does not count on broad regulatory approvals in its financial projections, but the at the company is "laying the groundwork to take advantage of policy change if one should come".

European consumers been averse to genetically-modified foods since the concept was introduced in the 1990s, and acceptance has not been helped by the EU's slow approvals process.

The last time a crop was actually positively approved was in 1998. Three crops, one from Monsanto and two from a Pioneer-Dow AgroSciences joint venture, are up for debate next week. These do not seek the go ahead for cultivation in the EU, but rather for crops grown elsewhere to be used in feed and food processing in the bloc.

But Grant expects that farmers will play a key role in encouraging acceptance.

Biotech crops are being planted in France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

"When farmers actually experience [the performance of GM crops] on their farm and their field, they don't go back," he said. "From a farm perspective there is significant progress."

However earlier this month Germany tightened its restrictions on GM corn. A letter from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture to Monsanto leaked to the media reportedly said that GM corn MON 810 can only be delivered to third parties if accompanied by a plan for monitoring its environmental effects.

Until now Mon 810 seed has been legally sold in German, but the letter has been interpreted as, effectively, a ban.

Grant also gave an insight into his vision of Monsanto's future, which is likely to be determined more by sales of biotech crops than chemical pesticides and fertilisers. But rather than being engineered to have one useful trait, in the future they will have multiple traits - stacked up so that they can deal with a multitude of environmental difficulties at once.

Monsanto has already staked a claim in gene stacking. Last week it announced a three-year joint research programme with gene technology expert Chromatin to develop 'ways' of increasing the number of modified genes that can be inserted into crops. The agreement provides for extension as necessary.

This came on the back of a similar agreement earlier this year with German chemical giant BASF, fund a pipeline of yield and stress tolerance traits for corn, soybeans, cotton and canola via a dedicated joint budget of potentially $1.5bn (€1.2bn).

The first product developed as a result of the agreement with BASF is expected to be commercialized in the first half of the next decade.

USA: Scientists create new crop of genetically modified crops

Grist Magazine, 31 May 2007. Maywa Montenegro.

If you've ever colored Easter eggs -- I mean the old-fashioned way, with food-coloring, not with those plastic wraparounds -- then you know that when you mess up, you have two options: rinse them off with some white vinegar and start over, or forge ahead, layer even more color on top, and hope that something presentable emerges.

Okay, so that metaphor's a bit of a stretch, but that's what came to mind when I read, earlier this week, that scientists at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, have engineered a new category of transgenic crops. The new plants -- which include broad-leafed greens such as soybeans, tomatoes, and tobacco -- harbor a bacterial gene that makes them resistant to an herbicide called dicamba.

"But we have Roundup!" you cry. "Why do we need anything else?" Well, because Roundup (active ingredient: a chemical called glyphosate) isn't working as flawlessly as it used to. According to the story in Science (sorry, subscription only), 24 percent of farmers in the northern Midwest and 29 percent in the South say they have glycophate-resistant (GR) weeds. Crop scientists in Argentina, Brazil, and Australia report GR grasses popping up too.

Which is hardly a surprise when you consider the loads of the chemical we've dumped on our fields in the past few decades. In 1995, U.S. farmers used 4.5 million kilograms of glyphosate; today they use 10 times that amount. And glyphosate-resistant crops (better known as "Roundup Ready"), first engineered by Monsanto in 1986, now dominate the market. Today, more than 90 percent of soybeans and 60 percent of the corn are glyphosate resistant. With many farmers using glyphosate as their sole herbicide, we've essentially ensured that mavericks would eventually sprout. "The selective pressure for weeds to develop resistance has been huge," Stephen Duke, a plant physiologist at the USDA's Agricultural Research Service told Science.

Now plant researchers are hoping to alleviate some of that pressure by introducing dicamba into the mix. If farmers can rotate between dicamba-resistant (DR) and glyphosate-resistant crop varieties, they say the likelihood of weeds gaining a foothold will fall. The new plants also feature an interesting safety mechanism that should help stave off weeds: the dicamba resistance gene (taken from a bacterium) lives only in the plants' chloroplasts. Because chloroplast DNA is only inherited through the maternal side, this means that the GM gene can't be spread through the male pollen. It's a reproductive stopgap of sorts.

But the researchers themselves don't seem so confident that Mother Nature won't soon outsmart even this clever maneuver. Monsanto, which has licensed the dicamba technology, is hard at work on "gene stacking" -- combining genes for multiple herbicide resistance into one plant. "We have the technology today to develop herbicide resistance to anything we want to," Jerry Green, a weed scientist with DuPont Crop Protection told Science.

Yes, we have the technology. That's not the point. How and whether we should use that technology seems to me to be the more relevant issue. Our love affair with glyphosate is showing the first signs of an ugly breakup, and instead of changing (or reversing) course, we're simply forging ahead with more chemical solutions, more layers of genetic dye.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of it all, though, is that when the first dicamba-resistant soya goes into production -- in three to seven years, according to Monsanto -- no one will probably notice. Without a cogent system of labeling standards, consumers will have no idea that this has gone to market, and the mainstream press (sorry, Science and Nature) certainly won't cover it. It's not so much that I'm fearful of a hazard to human health by ingesting these foods (a Twinkie probably has more ingredients to worry about); it's the damage these GM crops do to the greater environment that's so troubling. These mighty duos of herbicide and herbicide-resistant crops create a vicious loop that we've been happy to run in because there's profit to be had. The fallout, though, is biodiversity itself. The widespread planting of these GM marvels to the exclusion of all else wreaks havoc on ecosystems, on levels we can see and on those we don't yet understand. It would be nice, at least, if as voters and consumers, we could have a say in the matter ... Because while this egg may look pretty on the surface, I have a feeling it's already rotten inside.

India: Opportunity for Indian rice exporter

Radhakrishna Rao INFA, May 31 2007 [shortened]

The sustained and no-holds-barred campaign by Indian farmers against the "backdoor and sly" move to introduce the genetically modified GM rice variety into the country, has resulted in the farmers in parts of Haryana and Tamil Nadu destroying the trial plots of GM rice. These experimental rice fields were being monitored by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco) on behalf of the American agro-business outfit Monsanto.

The increasing tempo of the countrywide opposition to GM rice has derived strength from the decision of the EU countries to ban the import of American rice, fearing contamination by the GM rice strain Liberty Line (LL-601). In fact, it was the detection of few grains of GM rice in the American rice consignments that prodded the EU countries to suspend the trading in American rice. Following this episode, the world's largest rice importer Ebro Puleva stopped trading in the US grown rice. In fact, there is a vehement public distrust of GM variety of food in Europe even as the USA is trying to hardsell the theory that GM food varieties are safe for human consumption.

According to a well-known agricultural scientist, "Bt (GM) rice proponent might argue that since rice is a self-pollinated crop, genetic contamination is excluded. But genes travel to related plots on their own which is called gene flow. In 1966, gene flow was discovered to be much more common than it was previously thought. The process of putting alien genes into plants and animals to favour certain traits or confer resistance is, at best, an inexact science, with unpredictable consequences. Genes don't necessarily control a single trait".

Clearly and apparently, the European countries' decision to stop importing American grown rice could be utilized by the Indian rice exporters to fill this "vital gap". The EU countries used to import about 300,000 tonnes of rice from the USA to meet a part of its annual requirement running upto 12,000,00 tonnes. And the rice of Indian and Pakistani origin imported by the EU countries used to account for around 3,00,000 tonnes. "Since Indian rice is free from the GM contamination, this gap in supply certainly opens up vistas for additional market access for Indian exporters", says K.S. Money, Chairman of the New Delhi-based Agricultural Products and Processed Food Export Development Authority (APEDA).

Indian exporters of Basmati rice who have already established a presence in the EU countries hope to boost their export by expanding their portfolios to include non-basmati rice varieties. Pakistan and Thailand are the other major exporters of rice to the EU countries. And in terms of quality and price, Indian rice has certain advantages over its Asian competitors.

Navadanaya, a New Delhi-based NGO (Non-Government Organisation) has together with farmers from nine Indian States developed a register documenting over 2,000 indigenous rice varieties. According to Navadanya, the genetically modified rice strains are not only costly to cultivate but also are a poor match to the native strains in fighting pests, diseases and environmental fluctuations. Several indigenous rice strains adopted by the Indian farmers can withstand extremes of climatic conditions, survive submergence for a fortnight and even withstand salinity with a high degree of success.

See the full text at http://www.centralchronicle.com/20070601/0106301.htm

India: Response to "Organic soybeans GMO contaminated"
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7950

By Aruna Rodrigues

"Madhya Pradesh, (MP) the State in Central India where I live is the largest soy-growing area in India. It also has some of the greatest potential for organic foods and herbs. We need to remind ourselves that the old MP (was the largest State of India in terms of size) and included the newly formed State of Chhattisgarh which is part of the corridor of the centre of origin for rice. MP has some of the most perfumed and tasty rice varieties in India.

This story of contamination of non-GM soy, which is also organic [Organic soybeans GMO contaminated*] has particular relevance and lessons for MP. This State's biggest advantage yet is that India has been SAVED FROM THE BRINK by the Order of the Supreme Court which still stands. It prohibits the Union of India [ie India's central government] and its regulator from field trials of all food crops. Thus, MP soy barring HGT [Horizontal Gene Transfer] will remain non-GM. It is therefore, probably the only 'safe' source left in the world of soy for human and animal consumption. Non-GM soy lecithin, which is an emulsifier used in many food including chocolates, is in much demand. Are the chocolate manufacturers of Europe listening and is the Government of MP listening?"

India: AgriVision for India - important petition

Holistic Ecological Agriculture for India, 11 point agenda for the Eleventh plan

ENDORSE THE PETITION at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/agvision/petition.html

To: The Prime Minister and Chief Ministers of India

CIVIL SOCIETY & FARMERS' REPRESENTATION ON AGRICULTURE

Paradigm Shift for the 11th Plan : Livelihood Security for Small and Marginal Farmers & Regeneration of Natural Resources through Holistic Agriculture

"Organic agriculture is defined as a holistic food production management system, which promises and enhances agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It emphasizes the use of management practices in preference to the use of off-farm inputs, taking into account that regional conditions require locally adapted systems. This is accomplished by using, where possible, agronomic, biological and mechanical methods, as opposed to using synthetic materials to fulfill any specific function within the system."

- FAO/WHO, Codex Alimentarius Commission

Agriculture in India is in crisis. The failure of the 'Green Revolution Technology' (GRT) is clearly evident in stagnant agricultural production, a mounting spiral of ecological problems, relentlessly rising input costs, and increasing farmer indebtedness and suicides. From the small, peasant farmer to the FAO, there is global consensus that the GRT path is unsustainable. It impoverishes both the farmer and the natural resource base of agriculture, and provides toxic food and water to consumers. The increasing billions of dollars spent every year to subsidize 3\% of the population engaged in farming in the USA, is stark proof of its economic bankruptcy. Large corporates who provide agro inputs, are the real beneficiaries of chemical based agriculture.

India's 'National Commission on Farmers' recently reported: "40\% of Indian farmers would like to leave farming if it is possible to do so". This summarizes the enormity of the present agricultural crisis and the challenge facing the nation: how to safeguard agricultural incomes or provide alternative livelihood support to a quarter of a billion people who are potential future economic and ecological refugees ‚ uprooted by mounting farm production costs and a rapidly degrading natural resource base.

While some corporate interests are now lobbying for Genetically Modified (GM) species as the solution, a growing body of scientific testimony and evidence ‚ from both India and round the world ‚ warns against the many serious and irreversible dangers these pose. Such hazards include the uncontrolled and unwanted spread of certain genes and genetic traits; emergence of resistant and more virulent secondary pests; potential health hazards; and other unpredictable problems. Evidence of the economic counter-productivity of GM in the long run, is already emerging. In China, for instance, which has been using Bt cotton for over 7 years, there has been a severe rise of secondary pests when the bollworm is controlled, resulting in the same levels of pesticide spraying as before the use of Bt seeds. In India, there is an alarming record of an increase in crop failure, farmer suicides and deaths of grazing cattle after the use of Bt cotton in rainfed areas of Andhra Pradesh and Vidharbha, Maharashtra. The high cost, high risk and ecologically damaging GM technology is not the solution for our agrarian crisis, and will further damage Indian agriculture.

READ ON AND ENDORSE THE PETITION at:

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/agvision/petition.html

30 May 2007

Beer with Fish, Chocolates with Beef Jelly...
After suspicions that Uncle Ben's rice is GMO, Europe is shaken by scandal of animal ingredients in Mars chocolates. What do we really eat?

Javno.com (Croatia), 30 May 2007.

For suspicion that it has been genetically modified, Uncle Ben's rice has undergone analysis in Switzerland and was briefly withdrawn from shelves in Croatia too. The results of the analysis have shown that Uncle Ben's rice was not genetically modified, but was in contact with genetically modified soy and otherwise fully satisfied Croatian regulations.

At the same time another food scandal broke out in Europe with ingredients of articles known as the "Mars case".

Mars jettisoned rennet from its chocolate bars, a natural enzyme that is found in the stomach of calves. The company said it had used rennet to secure the availability of food, although many industrial experts believe that it was for cutting costs. The statement caused rage among consumers. In only seven days in Great Britain more than six thousand people contacted the local vegetarian society. Realising what they had done, Mars apologised to all vegetarians and removed rennet from its chocolate bars.

This case concerned many people who take care of their health (although not so many in Croatia) and many are now asking do we at all know what we are eating, drinking and using.

What are we eating, drinking and using?

It is good to know what we eat, although Croatians start thinking about nutrition only when they fall ill, as recent research has shown.

Many food products contain jelly, real parmesan, anchovies and numerous other items that the buyer does not know is in a product and is not aware of them because they have not been put on the declaration.

Here is what some products contain:

The black colour of Guiness beer is known as isinglass and has been made from a jelly made from fish gills. Many American types of beer use plastic particles to improve foam.

Dip with real parmesan

The Cirio pasta Genovese pasta dip contains real parmesan and since parmesan is a cheese (therefore of animal origin) the dip does not just contain basil and garlic, as many believe.

In their cereals "Frosted Wheats", Kellogs used beef jelly to "stick" the sugar to the cereal. The jelly is derived from animal muscle tissue collagen, that is, tendons and ligaments that would otherwise be butcher waste.

Some Muller's yoghurts, some toothpastes and mouthwashes contain glycerine, that is derived from animal fat. But, there are some vegetarian products that do not contain anything of animal origin. If you want to be sure that the product you purchase does not contain animal ingredients, buy it in a store for vegetarians.

The St. Ivel dairy producer puts fish oil in its milk that is rich with Omega 3 fatty acids, but does not filter it. Of course, in such milk the content of fat is higher than the stated dairy fat. The difference is in the said oil that has not been declared because it is not dairy fat.

Deadly deceit

It is desirable to know what a product contains and it is up to the manufacturer to protect its customers. The Mars case represents a violation of the right to chose of vegetarians because hiding the truth is equal to lying.

But, it is much more important that the covering up of truth can be deadly. What would happen is someone were to die from an allergy because they drank milk that contains unrefined fish oil?

Europe: EU authorizes import of GMO carnations

Scientific American, 30 May 2007.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union authorized Australian biotech company Florigene on Wednesday to import and market carnations whose color has been genetically modified, its Official Journal said in its latest edition.

The carnations will be allowed to enter EU-27 markets as cut flowers for distribution and sale to the general public. They will not be allowed to be grown and must be specially labeled.

"The words 'This product is a genetically modified organism' or 'This product is a genetically modified carnation', and the words 'not for human or animal consumption nor for cultivation' shall appear either on a label or in a document accompanying the product," the Journal said.

The application for EU approval was filed to the European Commission by Florigene, one of Australia's first biotechnology companies and part of the privately owned Suntory group.

Marketed as Florigene Moonlite, the flowers are modified to produce blue pigment and also carry a herbicide-resistant gene. The EU's import license will be valid for 10 years.

According to its Web site, Florigene developed the world's first mauve-colored carnation in 1996 and devotes much research on developing flowers that lack the blue color, specifically roses, carnations and chrysanthemums.

Ironically, carnations were the EU's last two authorizations of genetically modified (GMO) plants before it began its unofficial six-year moratorium on new GMO approvals. The flowers were modified to alter color and "improve vase life."

The EU decision is a rubberstamp procedure applied by the European Commission -- the EU's executive arm. It is permitted under a legal default process that kicks in when ministers are unable to agree among themselves after a period of three months.

Since then, even after the moratorium ended in early 2004 because of a default legal rubberstamp from the Commission, the EU's member countries have consistently clashed on new GMO authorizations and failed to reach consensus.

National governments have consistently clashed over biotech policy. They last agreed on a new GMO approval in 1998.

European consumers are well known for their wariness towards GMO foods but the biotech industry insists its products are safe and no different to conventional foods. Europe's hostility to GMO foods is unfounded, it says.

USA: Solidarity with June 6 in Pittsburgh, Global Resistance to the G8 Summit

Anonymous posting at InfoshopNews, 30 May 2007.

Picket at Oakland Military Recruiting Station (3712 Forbes Ave.) Wednesday, June 6. 5:30-8:00pm

From June 6 to June 8 the leaders of the world's eight largest industrial 'democracies' will meet in Heiligendamm, Germany for the 33rd annual summit of the G8. For three days, Stephen Harper, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, Romano Prodi, Shinzo Abe, Vladimir Putin, Tony Blair and George Bush will meet behind closed doors at a secluded ocean side resort. While there is no published agenda for the meeting and no minutes will be circulated, it is clear that global warming, trade with China, intervention in North Korea, debt, AIDS, the occupation of Iraq, and the pending invasion of Iran are all likely topics of discussion.

Although the G8 has no official authority, together the eight member nations control, either through direct voting power or indirect influence all of the world's major political, economic and military institutions. The neoliberal policies established at this year's G8 will soon become the official policies of the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO.

As the world's eight most dangerous individuals make their way to Heiligendamm, as many as 100,000 protesters will be ascending on the northern part of Germany with the stated goal of shutting down the meetings. Calls have gone out for road blocks, actions at the eight mile fence surrounding the meeting, and even blockades at the airport as delegates fly into Germany.

But because the neoliberal policies set at these summit meetings impact people around the world, people are taking to the streets in hundreds of different protest actions all around the world. Protests are being organized around agricultural subsidies and GMO's; peoples' rights to migration and citizenship; climate change; and militarism, war and torture.

Join the Pittsburgh Organizing Group at the military recruiting station in Oakland from 5:30 to 8:00 pm on Wednesday, June 6 in a picket against militarism and military recruitment in solidarity with the global resistance to the G8.

USA: GMO Wheat Still In The Distance

[Comment by GM Watch: Monsanto sponsors a program with the National Association of Wheat Growers to provide "leadership training for a whole new group of wheat leaders." Its focus: biotechnology and the environment. (Gene giants have wide influence, Sacramento Bee, Tuesday, June 8 2004)
http://www.activebiotech.net/index2.htm]

Capital Press, 30 May 2007. By Scott Yates.

Spokane - Remember the important announcement that was going to come out on the use of GMOs in wheat? Don't hold your breath.

"As the soldiers went back to headquarters the generals apparently put a damper on the enthusiasm. I had suspected this might happen and hoped that my comments would provide some incentive to make a more bold and unified statement."

John Thaemert, president of the National Association of Wheat Growers, was commenting on the majority statement released by the industry's April Wheat Summit. It was far short of his promise that "substantial progress" had been made toward an agreement which would eventually result in the release of a genetically modified wheat. Instead, the summit, which included a dozen organizations, agreed to form a task force on biotechnology.

"The group will consider in more depth the challenges of commercializing biotechnology traits in wheat," the statement said.

Besides the National Association of Wheat Growers, the Wheat Summit included the American Bakers Association, AIB International, the National Grain and Feed Association, the National Wheat Improvement Committee, the North American Export Grain Association, the North American Millers' Association, U.S. Wheat Associates, the Wheat Foods Council and three U.S. Department of Agriculture agencies including the Agricultural Research Service, GIPSA and the Foreign Agricultural Service.

Majority opinions from the summit statement were all non-controversial in nature: that farm bill commodity programs be commodity-neutral, that all segments of the industry benefit from production of hard white wheat and encourage its production and that all agree to endorse research priorities submitted by the National Wheat Improvement Committee and NAWG.

The first Wheat Summit was held in September 2006. It was organized by NAWG to point out declining wheat acreage in the United States and how that could affect businesses all along the supply chain. The GMO issue is considered a crucial reason why corn and soybean acreage - both with biotech traits - have recently trended higher than wheat. New drought resistant corn is expected to eat into wheat's acreage even more.

Thaemert hasn't given up hope that a solution can be found which will result in the availability of GMO wheat crops which can deliver important traits to the public as well as farmers.

"We have some momentum, if we persevere good things will happen," Thaemert said.

US still bullying EU to market GMOs
But avoid the dirty GMO word! advises US official

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 30 May 2007.

30 May 2007, Brussels ‚ New documents obtained by Friends of the Earth Europe reveal that the United States continues to pressure the EU to market new genetically modified (GM) crops and foods, despite the World Trade Organisation's recent verdict that the EU has a right to protect itself against GMOs. In an email exchange, US officials even insisted that the EU should steer clear of the term "GMOs" in order to minimize public opposition to its policies. [1]

Friends of the Earth Europe GMO Campaign Coordinator Helen Holder said:

"Even after they failed to win at the WTO, the US and their friends in the biotech industry are still trying to force feed European citizens GMOs. The European Commission must stand firm, and put European citizens' health, the environment and the right to GM-free food and farming before the interests of a few big corporations."

The documents ‚ email correspondence and minutes of a meeting between the European Commission and the US earlier this year ‚ were obtained by Friends of the Earth Europe under a freedom of information request. The documents reveal US frustrations at the EU's failure to "normalize trade" of agricultural biotechnology products and at the "lack of political will to operate EU approval systems of GMOs" due to member states' opposition. [2]

The US was pushing the European Commission to:

•

Ignore risk assessment concerns and push GMOs quickly on to the EU market

•

Agree a deal to fast track GMOs that the US wants to be sold in Europe

•

Authorize a controversial genetically modified oilseed rape as proof that the Commission is backing down under US pressure

•

Bring top EU decision makers into line with US policy and commit to allowing GMOs into the EU

•

Abolish member states' national bans

•

Lower standards for GM contamination of food for GMOs that are not authorized in the EU

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) issued its final ruling of the GMO dispute last autumn, finding no clear winner or losers. It did not question the right of counties to put in place strict biosafety laws, nor the right of a country to ban an individual GMO. The GMO bans in place when the complaint was lodged were ruled illegal on a technicality only [3].

For more information, please contact:

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

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

For further background see FoEE media briefing:
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/FoEE_GMOS_US_pressure_on_EU_brief_May07.pdf

Notes: [1] http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/2007/Annex1_US_EC_Emails.pdf

[2] http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/FoEE_GMOS_US_pressure_on_EU_brief_May07.pdf

[3] For an overview of the WTO dispute ruling see:
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/WTO_briefing.pdf

Rosemary Hall
Communications Officer
Friends of the Earth Europe
Rue Blanche 15
B-1050 Bruxelles
Belgium
Tel.: +32 2 542 6105
Mobile: +32 485 930515
Fax: +32 2 537 5596
rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org
http://www.foeeurope.org

New Zealand: Former Crop & Food Scientist says GE Brassica field test approval lacked scrutiny

Soil & Health Association of New Zealand press release, 30 May 2007.

A former Crop & Food GE scientist, Dr Elvira Dommisse, said today that proper scrutiny by ERMA of evidence would have prioritised the need for food studies over fund-wasting field trials.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has once again approved an application to field test genetically engineered (GE) crops, namely GE brassicas - cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower and forage kale for stock feed.

This decision, which gives Crop & Food Research in Lincoln the go ahead, has angered groups with scientific and environmental safety concerns, who note the lack of scrutiny ERMA has shown in its decision.

At the public hearing in April this year, a number of scientific submitters with referenced evidence, stressed that it was important to first carry out rat feeding experiments with these GE crops to establish that they were safe to eat, according to Dr Elvira Dommisse of Soil & Health.

"One thing that needs to come through very clearly is the huge waste of public money if, at the end of ten years, rat feeding trials take place and the crops are found to be toxic or allergenic."

"This is quite possible, given the past record of other GE crops. We only have to look to Australia, where GE peas modified with a harmless bean protein produced immunological problems in mice. The GE brassicas to be field tested at Lincoln are modified with a highly altered bacterial protein, which produces a pesticidal toxin. This is all the more reason to believe that such crops will be toxic or allergenic to mice or rats and ultimately humans and other animals."

Yet when asked about rat feeding experiments on National Radio Dr Mary Christey, the leader of the GE brassica project said, "we do not think that food safety experiments are necessary." [Our Changing World, Thurs 3, 10 May, 2007]

"Apparently in support and bypassing solid food safety evidence ERMA have said, "She'll be right. Crop & Food, have your play at taxpayers expense, and we'll worry about the real point of all this later," said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

"Food safety scares in other parts of the world have increased the international demand for organically grown produce, which has much stricter criteria about what crop protection measures can be taken to deal with plant pests and pathogens."

"Organic certifiers BioGro and Organic FarmNZ are receiving increased applications for organic certification with BioGro receiving a record number last week. This is indicative of the huge worldwide growth in consumer demand for safe, natural and nutritious produce. GE crops are excluded from that demand for good reason. It is time for ERMA and government to listen."

Contact:

The Soil & Health Association of NZ
National Councillor
Dr Elvira Dommisse
03 9422 748
elvira@clear.net.nz

Spokesperson
Steffan Browning
021 725655
steffan@buyorganic.co.nz

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc
PO Box 36-170, Northcote, Auckland
Phone: (09) 419 4536
Fax: (09) 419 4556
info@organicnz.org
www.organicnz.org

India: Bt cotton affects micro fauna in rhizosphere, studies show

GM Watch, 30 May 2007.

[NOTE from GM Watch: The new research referred to here is not yet published. For some of the many problems with Bt cotton already showing up in published research, including the paper by researchers at Cornell referred to here, see: http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=86&page=1

This is from Dr. G. V. Ramanjaneyulu, Executive Director, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, www.csa-india.org

Studies by Acharya NG Ranga Agriculture University, Andhra Pradesh (AP) and University of Agriculture Sciences, Karnataka show that Bt cotton has far reaching implications. The studies confirm that the Bt cotton is an exhaustive crop and mines more nutrients than its counterpart non-Bt hybrid. This was mainly attributed to the quick growth more bolls and leaves in Bt cotton hybrids during the early stages (90 days).

Now the studies (unpublished) show that Bt cotton also has serious effect on the soil micro fauna in the root zone of the crop. This is one of the major reasons why the soils are becoming less productive effecting the crop yields (not only Bt cotton but the next crop like wheat in Punjab and chillies in AP). The studies were part of a network project coordinated by CICR. In fact last year there several complaints from the farmers on the reduction of yields in the crop next to bt cotton from AP and Punjab but like every other problem it was ignored. One may note that agriculture department, university and companies are recommending more fertilisers to the Bt cotton crop as it is exhaustive.

These findings raise several important questions like, if the genetic engineering is only about insertion of one gene why is there a change in the physiology of the crop and why is the rhizosphere effected?

This year the scientists also confirmed the incidence of 'Mirid bug' in Tamil Nadu and parts of AP which was never a problem in cotton. You recall that the study by cornell university 'Tarnishing Silver Bullets' also reported the growing Mirid bug problem in china after the introduction of Bt cotton.

Earlier studies by Akola university (reported in planning commissions report on vidharba crisis) and Karnataka state govt confirmed that Bt cotton is highly susceptible to drought conditions and other stress conditions.

University scientists when contacted say they still need to study [further] before publishing their results. In the meantime companies make their business exploiting the farmers.

29 May 2007

USA: New statute protects the DNA of wild rice

The Associated Press, 29 May 2007

The DNA of Minnesota wild rice gets special protection under a new state law adopted this year with the backing of Indian tribes.

Genetic modifications to wild rice will be watched more closely, with environmental impact statements required and permits controlled by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. The board is also required to keep tabs on genetic modifications to wild rice throughout the country and notify wild rice farmers, Indian tribes and legislators if permits for genetically altered wild rice are issued in any state.

Meanwhile, the state Department of Natural Resources will study the status of natural wild rice and potential threats. Rep. Frank Moe, DFL-Bemidji, said it's the first time a state has voted to protect a native crop or species from genetic changes.

"Wild rice is not only historically and economically important for all Minnesotans, it's sacred to the Ojibwe people," Moe said. "It's both important food for us and prime fish and duck habitat. We need to study the declining wild rice population and protect against any genetic damage to native wild rice."

Additional links: (c/o Genet)

http://www.gene.ch/genet/2007/May/msg00128.html

Read more at:
http://www.savewildrice.org/

H.F. No. 1663
Short Description: Wild rice; genetically-engineered organisms regulation provisions modified, and study required.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billnum.asp?Billnumber=1663&ls_year=85
&session_year=2007&session_number=0&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Search

H.F. No. 1662
Short Description: Wild rice management plan required.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billnum.asp?Billnumber=1662&ls_year=85
&session_year=2007&session_number=0&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Search

SF No. 2103
A bill for an act relating to environment; modifying provisions for regulating genetically engineered organisms; requiring a wild rice study; amending Minnesota Statutes
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?
b=Senate&f=sf2103&ssn=0&y=2007

SF2096 [final text on pp 34; 110-111; 130-131]
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S2096.3.html&session=ls85

China sentences former food and drugs chief to death

Guardian Unlimited, May 29 2007. By Jonathan Watts in Beijing.

The disgraced head of China's food and drug agency was sentenced to death today amid a wave of consumer safety scandals that have rippled across the world.

Zheng Xiaoyu was found guilty of accepting 6.5m yuan (GBP433,000) worth of bribes from pharmaceutical companies to expedite the approval of new drugs.

Underscoring the state's determination to crackdown on corruption and consumer safety violations, he is the most senior official to receive the death penalty in seven years.

The government fears a collapse of consumer confidence after a series of deadly food and drug scandals, often linked with lax regulation and bribe taking. With more and more Chinese products filling shelves overseas, several cases have had international repercussions.

For most of the past decade, Zheng was the face of the government's consumer safety policy. A former pharmaceutical company executive, he was appointed the first director of the state food and drug administration when it was established in 1998.

His powerful agency controlled the approval process for all new drugs and was supposed to coordinate the licensing of food and pharmaceutical factories.

According to local media, one antibiotic approved by the agency killed 10 patients last year before it was withdrawn. In 2005 - the year Zheng was arrested - the health ministry reported 34,000 food-related illnesses.

Given China's 1.3 billion population, this is not a huge number. The Beijing No 1 intermediate people's court said Zheng's main crime was to have abused his position to secure benefits for himself and his familiy.

"Zheng was supposed to use the power given to him by the state and the people seriously and honestly, but instead he has ignored their vital interests by taking the bribes," the Xinhua news agency quoted the court as saying. "This has threatened the safety of people's life and health and has caused an extremely bad social impact."

The unusually harsh penalty may have been handed down to reassure foreign as well as Chinese consumers that the government is taking action.

Earlier this month, Australia, Panama and the Dominican Republic recalled thousands of tubes of Chinese-made toothpaste that allegedly contained dangerous levels of diethylene glycol, a toxin normally used to cool engines.

In April, the US government blamed tainted pet food from China for the fatal poisoning of several dogs and cats. Three US states have since banned imports of catfish from China because they contained an unauthorised antibiotic.

28 May 2007

USA: GM rice - proposed class action - toll exceeds US$ 1 billion

Delta Farm Press, May 28 2007. By David Bennett.

Last August, markets reacted negatively when the USDA announced a Bayer CropScience GM trait had been found in the U.S. rice supply. Most thought lawsuits were inevitable.

Now, nine months later, hundreds of suits have been filed and more are expected. Besides bringing a case alone, an option for a rice farmer is to join a proposed class action that's been moving through U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Perry's St. Louis courtroom since last December.

For the plaintiffs, Perry named Don Downing of St. Louis law firm Gray, Ritter & Graham as co-lead counsel along with Adam Levitt of Chicago's Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz. Levitt has experience with agriculturally-related class actions, having worked on the StarLink contamination case.

Since last August, Downing has filed suit on behalf of over 200 Missouri and Arkansas rice farmers. In the proposed class action, there are now some 460 rice farmers representing over 248,000 acres of rice.

In an April filing, Downing said total compensatory damages for plaintiffs and other members of the proposed classes may approach or exceed $1 billion - and that's before taking into account punitive or statutory damages.

Recently Downing spoke with Delta Farm Press about his expectations for the case, timeframes for the litigation and how the plaintiffs' investigation into the contamination is progressing. Among his comments:

"We have heard from farmers who have gone out of business - or gotten out of the farming business.

The toll on farmers...

"Many farmers have decided to quit planting as much rice as they have in the past. That's for a variety of reasons, but one is the significant rice seed shortage caused by the contamination of the Cheniere and Clearfield 131 varieties.

"As a result, many farmers couldn't obtain the type of rice seed they needed. Or, they couldn't obtain sufficient quantities of it. Therefore, some farmers were forced to plant rice seed they feel will yield less than their preferred variety. Other farmers have been forced to plant crops that are substantially less lucrative than rice.

"Combine that with all the other problems the contamination has caused - the rice price isn't where it would have been had this not happened - and we've lost a chunk of our export market. I know there are a lot of efforts to minimize that problem. But the fact remains that the world price for U.S. rice is substantially lower than it would be if this hadn't happened. All U.S. long-grain rice farmers have been damaged in that regard.

"Other farmers have incurred costs of the decontamination of their equipment, of their grain bins and machinery. And the whole rice distribution system has also incurred decontamination costs that will ultimately be passed along to the rice producers. Those will come in the form of basis points they have to pay or other charges and fees that will be passed to them.

"At the end of the day, our view is the rice producers are left holding the bag because of the contamination. That's what this case is all about: obtaining compensation for rice producers for the economic losses they've suffered."

Do you have a figure yet on how much this has cost?

"No. On reason is some of the damages are continuing to accrue. (Getting a figure) will be part of what will be happening during litigation. We have retained economic experts that are looking into the damages suffered by rice producers as a whole."

On new cases...

"Cases continue to be filed. The vast majority of them have been filed by rice producers. But there have been cases filed by mills, by exporters and importers and others that were sitting on a substantial quantity of rice that was devalued as a result of the contamination."

On the USDA investigation into the cause, or causes, of contaminationΦ

"Our understanding is their investigation is continuing Φ They haven't told us why it's taking so long.

"We are doing our own investigation. Once Judge Perry allows the discovery process to go forward - and we anticipate she'll allow the parties to begin this summer - we'll have the opportunity to issue subpoenas to get to the bottom of what happened, to do a full-scale investigation."

You're only going after Bayer?

"Bayer has been named in virtually all the cases. It was their GM (trait) that contaminated the U.S. rice and seed supply. But there are cases in the multi-district litigation that have named as defendants Riceland and LSU. They're part of the proceedings."

Best and worst-case guesses for when the trial will begin or a settlement is made?

"A settlement could happen anytime, but we don't look for one anytime this year. From our discussions with Bayer, it seems they want to pursue this through litigation for some time.

"We don't look for any final resolution during 2007. It's possible something could be done in 2008 - I think that's the first opportunity for farmers to see a result. But it could be 2009, or beyond, before this winds down and is completed."

e-mail: dbennett@farmpress.com

USA: Interest in genetically modified crops rooted in funding

Gannett News Service. By Sean Hao.

HONOLULU - Driven by increases in funding, the University of Hawaii is conducting genetically modified crop research on bananas, tomatoes, petunias and lettuce in an effort to develop hardier, disease-resistant plants.

Researchers at UH's College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources are trying to develop sugar cane that's genetically modified to produce a vaccine to protect against rotavirus σ a viral infection that can cause diarrhea and vomiting in young children.

"There's no question at a federal level ... more funds are being funneled or being targeted to some of these kinds of areas," said Stephen Ferreira, an assistant specialist for plant and environmental protection sciences at UH. "Ten years ago you could hardly find money to do transgenic work."

UH research into genetically modified papaya resulted in the development of a ringspot-virus resistant papaya.

However, UH's work on papaya and taro has caused a backlash among environmentalists. Cultural concerns about UH's work on genetically modified Hawaiian taro varieties ultimately forced the university to abandon that effort.

Some scientists remain reluctant to go into GMO work because of environmental and cultural concerns, said C.Y. Hu, associate dean and associate director for research at the UH CTAHR. That could hurt Hawaii farmers, should new diseases surface locally.

"If you don't want us to do that, we can accept that," he said. "But if we don't work on this and a disease comes in, it's going to wipe you out."

The projects have been going on for several years but have not been widely publicized. Other ongoing transgenic crop research at UH is being conducted on pineapple, orchids, anthuriums and limes.

Apart from papaya, UH's remaining genetic crop research is being conducted in greenhouses or laboratories rather than in open fields, which lowers the risk of environmental exposure.

Opponents of genetic crop research and genetically modified food contend that not enough is known about the long-term impact of such products. They point out that many countries, including Japan, won't import transgenic papaya and that transgenic crops could cross-pollinate with nontransgenic plants and taint Hawaii's image as a clean and natural environment.

So far UH's efforts have met with mixed success.

Hawaii papaya growers now can grow transgenic papayas despite the presence of the damaging ringspot virus. However, genetically engineered papayas have yet to generate the market acceptance and higher sales prices that nongenetically modified papaya command in some markets.

Now the university wants to develop a better banana - one that's engineered to resist infection from the bunchy top virus. Banana plants infected by the bunchy top virus suffer severely stunted growth and produce deformed fruit, or in advanced stages produce no fruit.

The project suffered a setback when UH researchers were unable to license genetically altered banana trees from Australia. As a result, UH researchers now have to develop their own virus-resistant banana, which "is years away," said Hu. "There's been some success, but it takes time."

Meanwhile, critics contend the $1.5 million spent so far on transgenic banana research could be better spent developing nongenetic techniques for managing the bunchy top virus.

"I think it's a big waste of money," said Sarah Sullivan, director for Hawaii Seed, an advocate for sustainable agriculture and a Hawaii that's free of genetically modified organisms. "It's a good example of how unsuccessful GMO research has been."

Transgenic papaya proponents, which include some UH researchers and farmers, contend that there is no way to control the ringspot or bunchy top viruses without genetic engineering technology.

Said Ferreira, "These sustainable or alternative approaches have not been ignored. They've been studied. There's nothing new they have to offer."

New Zealand: Sad day for New Zealand - Green Party

Green Party media release, 28 May 2007

The Environmental Risk Management Authority's (ERMA) decision to allow field testing of genetically engineered brassica crops risks sending good money after bad, with no chance that the New Zealand public will ever agree to eat this plant or have it grown commercially here.

"This decision will allow for pest resistant forage kale, cabbages, cauliflower, and broccoli containing a caterpillar killing pesticide to be taken out of the laboratory into a field.

"Brassica is a particularly problematic crop. Brassica pollen travels large distances, the seeds are small and brassicas cross easily, with hundreds of variants in existence.

"Rather than reducing the need for pesticides, the use of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in genetically engineered crops is likely to produce long-term resistance in insects, which means more toxic sprays will be needed to control pests," Ms Fitzsimons says.

"We must be cautious about promises of containment and monitoring, and that the trial will not be allowed to flower.

"The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry raised some very serious concerns following the last round of brassica field trials. They highlighted failures to meet several conditions surrounding monitoring, non-cultivation of trial sites and buffer zones. Other evidence shows that canola plants were allowed to flower to enable seed production, and at the end of the field tests, the plant material was disposed of by ploughing into the ground. These seeds can lay dormant in soil for up to 15 years.

"ERMA received 959 submissions on this application - of which 941 were opposed to the trials. What part of "No" don't they understand?

"Risks include the transfer of the changed genes to wild plants. For example, plants engineered to be resistant to pesticides may transfer their resistance to weeds. It has already been proven that this can happen, and that new resistant weeds can survive in the wild. And almost all GE plants use antibiotic resistant genes - another area of grave concern in agriculture and wider society.

"The announcement of 10 years worth of funding for a trial with no safety testing when even the project leader has admitted there can be no guarantees of containing the trial to the site is tantamount to a publicly funded handout for scientific folly.

"The way forward for New Zealand is organics and integrated pest management, building on our clean, green image."

For more information:

Keiller MacDuff, Media Officer, 04 470 6723

New Zealand: GE Brassica Approval Lacks Common Sense - But Nice Job For Some

GE Free NZ media release, 28 May 2007

The decision by ERMA to approve 10-years of field trials of GE brassica is a defeat for common sense and undermines the Authority's credibilty as a regulatory body.

The decision excludes any consideration of "the future", effectively ring-fencing the process from common-sense. It also ignores proven alternatives to "solving the insect problem" the GE field trials are supposed to solve.

The approach to be used in the field trials has already been shown overseas to be short-lived, with target-insects developing resistance or new species becoming pests as the original target-species declines.

The main beneficiaries of this decision are a handful of scientists who will be paid to undertake research that:

- Has no commercially viable outcome (admitted by the researchers themselves)

- Ignores lessons from overseas where such techniques have failed

- Pretends existing solutions for pest-control that are already in use 'do not exist'

- Plans to grow plants that have never been tested to confirm they are safe to eat, and which may indeed be toxic as has been found to be the case in other GE-foods

- Undermines New Zealand's Brand image as a source of safe, clean, natural produce

- Runs counter to the wishes of 70% of New Zealanders who believe GE has no place in the future of agriculture in New Zealand (source: Sustainability Council research)

"The decision shows that ERMA is fatally flawed in its mechanistic application of the HSNO Act and willingly turn a blind eye to common sense as well as community values," says Jon Carapiet from GE Free NZ in food and environment.

"The decision was deliberately "ring fenced" from common sense and any consideration of the future, when 'the future' is precisely what needs to be considered," Mr Carapiet says.

"Of the 60 field trials to date there has been no research published on the environmental, human or animal effects. There are still no diagnostic tools for looking at health impacts or horizontal gene transfer, and there is no responsibility for the applicants to develop them."

However, the scientists set to benefit from years of unnecessary, but public-funded research are to be congratulated. Many people will envy them the job-security and pay-packets resulting from having won approval to spend time and money doing something that has no potential market, little scientific value, and ignores the national and international consumer trends against GE foods.

What little valid information might be gleaned from this research could be, and should be done in containment. Plans to artificially introduce insect infestations to the field trials makes nonsense of the applicant's claims that external field trials are the only research option because it is more "realistic".

ERMA will have lost the public's confidence in the decision-making process, and by approving research that at the end of the day has no reasonable justification.

ENDS

Jon Carapiet- 0210 507 681

REFERENCE

ERMA media release- 28 May 2007

The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA New Zealand) has approved an application by the New Zealand Institute for Crop and Food Research to field test genetically-modified brassicas in the Lincoln region.

However, ERMA New Zealand has included strict controls to manage the risk of GM material escaping from the site.

Crop and Food applied for permission to assess the agronomic performance of four genetically-modified vegetable and forage brassicas ‚ broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower and forage kale ‚ on a 0.4 hectare plot over a 10-year period. The brassicas would be modified for resistance to caterpillar pests like cabbage white butterfly and diamondback moth, with genes derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringensis.

A public hearing was held in Christchurch last month to consider the application, which attracted 959 submissions.

The Authority has approved the field test with a number of controls, including:

- a requirement to prevent the flowering and therefore pollen release of GM brassicas while they are planted in the field test site;

- a requirement to ensure that all GM brassicas are removed from the field test site on completion of the research and do not enter the human or animal food chain, in any form.

- a requirement to monitor the field test site for one year after the last brassicas have been removed to look for any "volunteer" GM plants.

ERMA New Zealand's General Manager, New Organisms, Libby Harrison, says the field test is subject to strict controls to ensure that the GM brassicas remain contained within the field test site, and do not enter the food chain.

Dr Harrison would like to thank all submitters and acknowledge their contribution to the decision-making process.

Application GMF06001

Media contact:

David Venables, Manager, Communications, ERMA New Zealand

USA: Biotech corn varieties called threat to U.S. ethanol market

Pal-item.com, 28 May 2007.

The presence of unapproved biotech corn varieties in U.S. cargoes is threatening the corn gluten export market, which is critical to the success of the U.S. ethanol market, the American Corn Growers Foundation said.

An unapproved Bt corn variety was detected in U.S. cargoes of corn gluten feed and pellets in April 2007 at the Port of Rotterdam, shipped from New Orleans.

The foundation surveyed 1,057 grain elevators in April in the 18 major corn-growing states and found that only 26 percent of the elevators require the segregation of genetically modified varieties from non-GMO varieties.

"This finding raises concerns about the ability of the U.S. to hold on to the critical corn gluten export market that is so important to the future health of our ethanol sectors," said Dan McGuire, director of the ACGF Farmer Choice-Customer First program. U.S. corn gluten exports are 38 percent below the previous marketing year to the European Union.

USA: New ACGF survey shows only 26 percent of elevators segregate GM

High Plains / Midwest Ag Journal, 28 May 2007 (also dated 22 May)

Washington

The American Corn Growers Foundation surveyed 1,057 grain elevators during April 2007 in the 18 states that produce the majority of U. S. grain.

"Only 26 percent of the elevators surveyed report that they require the segregation of GMO (genetically modified) varieties from Non-GMO varieties. This finding raises concerns about the ability of the U.S. to hold on to the critical corn gluten export market that is so important to the future health of our ethanol sector," reports Dan McGuire, Director of the ACGF Farmer Choice-Customer First program. "Both the ACGF and the American Corn Growers Association are again warning U.S. corn farmers and the critically-important U.S. ethanol industry that key U.S. corn gluten export markets are being lost due to unapproved biotech varieties, specifically an unapproved Bt corn variety was detected in U.S. cargoes of corn gluten feed and pellets in April 2007 at the Port of Rotterdam and shipped from New Orleans."

"According to USDA data for the current corn marketing year which began on September 1, 2006, U.S. corn gluten exports are 38.1 percent below the year earlier to the European Union for the September to March period and the EU has been by far the most important export market for U.S. corn gluten feed and meal," said McGuire. "Foreign demand for U.S. corn gluten is extremely important for the economic future of corn processing ethanol plants. As recently as the 1999-00 marketing year the EU imported 5 million of the 5.8 million metric tons of total U.S. corn gluten exports. By marketing year 2005-2006, U.S. corn gluten exports had dropped to only 3.6 MMT with the EU-27 importing only 2.655 MMT. It's time to re-learn the marketing reality that 'the customer is always right' in deciding what they choose to buy."

"Farmers are realizing relatively strong corn prices as a welcome change due to growth in the domestic ethanol industry, which needs the export market for corn gluten as well as distillers dried grains," said Larry Mitchell, ACGA Chief Executive. "Biotech companies have preached that the U.S. should be able to grow the grain varieties it wants, but given the failure and arrogance of U.S. 'export-oriented' farm policy over the past ten years of telling the world what they will buy, taken together with the grain export sector's ill-conceived attempts to 'privatize' export grain inspection at our ports, importers are losing confidence in the U.S. system. It's time for both the biotech and export sectors to reconsider their arrogant policies."

India: Farm suicides spiral in Vidarbha, 401 dead since January

Indo-Asian News Service, 28 May 2007

Nagpur, Maharashtra, India: Even as the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) pats the Maharashtra government for bringing down the rate of farmer suicides to 'only 20' per month from 60 last year, the count kept by an activist group reveals a staggering 401 suicides in the first five months of this year.

As many as 51 distressed farmers in the six cotton growing districts of western Vidarbha have ended their lives in the month of May, claims a press release by the Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti (VJAS). It gives the names and details of 15 farmers who have committed suicide in the last six days.

The VJAS tally shows a whopping 70 suicides in January this year followed by 88, 97 and 95 in February, March and April. Most of these suicides have occurred in the districts of Yavatmal, Buldana, Akola, Amravati, Washim and Wardha covered by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Rs.37.50 billion ($925 million) relief package of July 2006.

The activist group that has persistently highlighted farm distress in the region in the last two years, quotes figures from the government website to show that the 1,564 suicides since July 1, 2006 were more than those reported in the last decade.

Indeed, the government website, which has claimed substantial drop in suicides, does show more or less matching statistics, albeit with a rider that all suicides are not related to agrarian distress.

Refusing to grant a one-time loan waiver, a price of Rs.2,700 per quintal for cotton and restoration of advance bonus of Rs.500 on cotton purchase, the government has however claimed to have exceeded the interest waiver target. It says it has brought an additional one million farmers in the credit net after restructuring their exiting loans.

Consequently, it has claimed doubling of loan disbursement amount and coverage of an additional 34,000 hectares under irrigation with an expenditure of Rs.6.15 billion on 11 irrigation projects. Critics have ridiculed the claim saying it is only a part-fulfilment of a long overdue measure.

Highlighting the heightened distress levels, VJAS leader Kishore Tiwari pointed out that cotton production in the region this year had come down to 1.34 million quintals from 3.10 million quintals in 2002-03 and the selling price had dropped to Rs.1,890 from Rs.2,700.

'Farmers had to spend Rs.5,600 per hectare last year on cottonseeds alone compared to Rs.1,100 that they had spent four years back; and they will end up paying much more in the coming season,' Tiwari told IANS. He pointed to the wholesale promotion of the costlier Bollguard II variety by the government.

The earlier version of the BT cottonseed (marketed by the US based company Monsanto), which, by the government's own belated admission, is not suitable for rain-fed farming, inflicted a heavy loss on the farmers and forced the government to pay compensation in two consecutive seasons, Tiwari said.

Why then is the government promoting the costlier Bollguard II and why are the farmers keen to buy it?

'The government is under tremendous pressure from the US seed giant, whose selling point this year is that the new variety is suited for dry-land farming,' Tiwari explained. 'And hoping against hope for a bumper yield sans pesticide costs, the farmers are ready to wager another gamble.'

The farm leader wants the government to sincerely promote low-cost farming and bring in some kind of regulatory mechanism to ensure cultivation of a minimum proportion of food crops. 'They should also promote soybean, which is a guaranteed, low-risk crop that requires little water.'

27 May 2007

Australia: CSIRO 'dumps' anti-GM expert

The Age, May 27 2007. By William Birnbauer.

ONE of Australia's leading specialists on biological farming says he was dumped by the CSIRO because of his criticism of genetically modified crops.

Dr Maarten Stapper, a principal research scientist, worked for CSIRO for 23 years and is an expert on soil health which, he says, is the key to better crops.

He told The Sunday Age that senior CSIRO management bullied and harassed him and tried to gag his criticisms of GM crops. He left in March after his position with CSIRO's plant industry division was made redundant.

"I could have continued working for the CSIRO but I would have to give up all my beliefs about good agriculture and keep my mouth shut about GM," he said. "I didn't want that because I have a connection with the farming community and they trust me."

Dr Stapper said experience as a farming systems agronomist had taught him that most problems started with the soil, and that was where the solutions were. "GM solutions won't solve our problems," he said.

CSIRO disputed several assertions made by Dr Stapper, who has become something of a martyr among anti-GM groups since leaving the research organisation. The assistant chief of plant industry, Dr Mark Peoples, said Dr Stapper's redundancy had nothing to do with his views on genetic engineering. A project on the management of irrigated wheat he had worked on was now finished.

Dr Peoples said a mediator was used in 2004 to resolve a dispute between Dr Stapper and the then head of the plant industry division, Dr Jim Peacock, who is now Australia's chief scientist. "I guess it still preyed on Maarten's mind Φ but it went through the due mediation process."

Dr Peoples also denied that CSIRO's research was being hijacked by pro-GM groups. About $7 million, less than 1 per cent of the total budget, was spent on GM crops, compared with $45 million on sustainable agriculture. Co-investment with private corporations on GM crop research equalled about 0.2 per cent of CSIRO's total budget.

But Biological Farmers of Australia and the Gene Ethics group say Dr Stapper's dismissal is outrageous as his research is critical to the organic sector and to thousands of farmers developing better soil biology.

"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," the director of Gene Ethics, Bob Phelps, said. "Stapper was sacked because GM giants like Bayer and Monsanto can't patent know-how on healthier soils."

Scott Kinnear from Biological Farmers said: "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."

Dr Stapper said he was sceptical about claims that GM plants improved crop yields and called for more studies on the safety of GM stockfeeds.

"We can learn to use the power of nature rather than fighting it with synthetic chemicals and unproven new technologies in a war we can't win," Dr Stapper said.

26 May 2007

USA: Suspect in bee die-off: Insecticide widely used bug spray may be behind deaths of millions of bees

[Comment from Sierra Club's Laurel Hopwood:

This coating on seeds (referred to in the article below) is new. Since 2005-2006, Monsanto, Syngenta, and Bayer have acquired patents to "coat" their GE corn, soy, canola, and cotton with this class of insecticides. This is NOT being tested by the regulators as a possible causative or contributing factor in CCD (colony collapse disorder). They don't look, so they don't find.]

Mlive.com, 26 May 2007.

An insecticide is suspected of causing a colony collapse disorder that has killed millions of honeybees worldwide and up to half of the 2.5 million colonies in the United States. The chief suspect, say many scientists, is imidacloprid, the most commonly used insecticide on the planet.

The potent chemical can be sprayed on plants or *coated on seeds*, which then release the insecticide through the plants as they grow.

Research has shown that in sublethal doses imidacloprid and other neonicotinoids can impair honeybees' memory and learning, as well as their motor activity and navigation. Recent studies have reported "anomalous flying behavior'' in imidacloprid-treated bees, in which the workaholic insects simply fall to the grass or appear unable to fly toward the hive.

Mark Longstroth, Michigan State University Extension's district educator for fruit in southwestern Michigan.

Longstroth hasn't reviewed data on how imidacloprid is suspected to affect the honeybees, but he said implicating the chemical as the colony collapse culprit sounds plausible.

Some U.S. entomologists who recently have been analyzing dead bees have found a remarkably high number of viruses and fungal diseases in the carcasses, leading them to suspect there may be other culprits besides neonicotinoids. "When neonicotinoids are used on termites, they can't remember how to get home, they stop eating, and then the fungus takes over and kills them. That's one of the ways imidacloprid works on termites -- it makes them vulnerable to other natural organisms. So if you look at what's happening to honeybees, that's pretty scary.''

Read the article: http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/news-23/118002026916110.xml&coll=7

25 May 2007

France to foloow Germany in GM corn ban

GM Watch, 25 May 20077.

France will follow Germany's recent de facto ban on GM corn (maize), according to the country's freshly-appointed environment minister and deputy head of government - Alain Juppé.

Juppé, a former French prime minister, told the French daily paper Le Parisien that, "In this particular instance, we must be steered by the German case."

According to reports, Juppé was referring to restrictions applied by the German government to Monsanto's MON 810 corn which mean that it can only be sold if Monsanto also provides an accompanying monitoring plan to research the effects on the environment. To date Monsanto has not presented any such plan. (France could follow Germany in GM corn restriction) http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=25&story_id=40199

Juppé is also reported to have said, "They have just discovered that the toxin which is supposed to kill the corn pest is being secreted in ways that are not precisely what was expected."

The Minister is also reported to have said the wider question of GM crops in France will be addressed at a national review of environment policies to be held in October.

Europe: Call on European Commission to Support Independent Science

Science for a GM-Free Sustainable Europe

Dozens of prominent scientists from all over the world are calling on the European Commission to support independent science in its next round of science funding, and to ensure maximum transparency and democratic input in deciding funding and research priorities.

The scientists want Europe's next round of public ressearch funding - Framework Programme 7 (2007 to 2013) - to establish broad funding criteria that put public interest ahead of 'wealth creation', and to include ethical and safety considerations before the research is funded. They are demanding a redistribution of the research budget away from industry and technology driven areas like genomics and information technologies towards sustainable agriculture, ecology and energy use in sustainable systems, and holistic health. In particular, they would like to see top priority given to scientists working with local communities to revitalize and protect traditional agricultural and healthcare systems.

Read the detailed comments at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ISPF7.php

Please add your name and/or your organisation to endorse the comment at http://www.indsp.org/endorsements/endorsementISP-FP7.php

or see which organisations and individuals have already endorsed the comments at http://www.indsp.org/endorsements/signed.php

24 May 2007

USA: Monsanto-Delta deal nears US antitrust OK

Read the article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/innovationNews/idUSN1740313120070517

USA: Monsanto, Chromatin agree to develop gene-stacking technology

Read the article:
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=76767-monsanto-chromatin-gene-stacking

USA: Reorganization plan for Solutia (old Monsanto) may be held up by settlement dispute

Read the article:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/0/5E2E772409FFDF50862572E0000A5EB2?OpenDocument

USA: Iowa State Professors File Patent Lawsuit Against Monsanto

The Associated Press, May 24 2007

Two Iowa State University professors have filed a lawsuit claiming Monsanto Co. infringed on their patent on a low-acid soybean.

The lawsuit claims that the St. Louis-based company began their own soybean program based on the low-acid bean invented at Iowa State without "license or authority from" the university and "now licenses Iowa State's technology to others."

The lawsuit said that Iowa State research foundation professors Walter Fehr and Earl Hammond have been awarded several U.S. patents related to soybeans with low linolenic acid. After the patents were issued, Monsanto began marketing the soybeans.

Low linolenic acid is associated with lower trans fat levels in soybean oil, making it healthier.

"Demand for the oil from the food industry has been high because of its excellent frying and flavor stability without the hydrogenation process that creates trans fats," according to the university's Web site.

The lawsuit claims the university challenged Monsanto, which sent a letter to Iowa State saying the company "stands ready to perform under the agreement reached with the university at our meeting of Feb. 28."

Iowa State claims there was no agreement.

A telephone message left Tuesday for a Monsanto spokeswoman was not immediately returned.

23 May 2007

Ireland's genetically modified food scandal

Minister's assurances another blow to farm and food sector

GM-free Ireland press release, 23 May 2007.

DUBLIN, 23 May 2007 - The current Fianna Fáil / PD Government's litany of lies and broken promises on genetically modified (GM) food and farming have exposed Irish farmers, food producers, food exporters, retailers, restaurants, and consumers to years of contamination by illegal and/or toxic GM ingredients.

Following a six-week investigation by Greenpeace International and the GM-free Ireland Network, the latest scandal was revealed late last Friday when the Department of Agriculture finally admitted that it failed to test a 12,313 tonne shipment of contaminated animal feed from the USA before it was unloaded from the ship MV Pakrac in Dublin on 2 April [1] and placed on the market.

As a result of this fiasco, up to 5,313 tonnes of feed contaminated by illegal and toxic GM maize varieties have entered the food chain, causing potential liver and kidney damage to consumers [2].

Contamination still underway

• Farmers have no way to find out if their livestock's feed was or is contaminated.

• Restaurants, food retailers and food exporters don't know if their beef, lamb, pork, poultry, eggs, milk, butter and cheese currently is contaminated by the illegal and toxic GM ingredients.

• Consumers can not choose to avoid the contaminated meat and dairy produce, because our government supports a legal EU loophole which allows these products to be sold without a GM label.

• This lack of labelling makes it impossible for consumers and doctors to trace any resulting medical problems to the contaminated feed.

• Leading retailers across Europe, which prohibit GM ingredients in the animal feed chain, will be increasingly wary of Bord Bia's Ireland - the food island branding campaign which allows meat and dairy fed on legal GM ingredients to be sold under its Quality Assurance Scheme.

Download full press release: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI36.pdf

Europe: MEPs call on the Commission to ban the introduction of GMOs
Biodiversity conservation plan 'insufficient', say MEPs

EUactiv.com, 23 May 2007 [shortened]

http://www.euractiv.com/en/environment/biodiversity-conservation-plan-insufficient-meps/article-163937

Halting the decline in biodiversity will require "unprecedented efforts", according to [the European] Parliament...

Related Documents:

Halting biodiversity loss by 2010 - an EU action plan
http://www.euractiv.com/en/environment/halting-biodiversity-loss-2010-eu-action-plan/article-157424

With just three years to go until the 2010 target date for halting the decline in biodiversity set by European heads of state in 2001, MEPs voiced their "profound concern at the continuing loss of biodiversity", in an own-initiative Report adopted on 22 May.

Parliament considers the Commission's 2006 Action Plan to be "insufficient to conserve biodiversity and sustain ecosystem services in the longer term".

Rapporteur Adamos Adamou's report demands that the Natura 2000 programme be strengthened in order to restore species, as well as safeguard them.

It also calls for a Community response to the threat posed by the introduction of "invasive alien species and alien genotypes", suggesting that immuno-contraception could have a decisive role to play. MEPs call on the Commission to ban the introduction of genetically modified organisms and evaluate the potential threat to biodiversity posed by their introduction.

The Commission welcomed the report, sharing Parliament's strong concern at financial constraints to implementation and at the continuing loss of biodiversity and the related decline of ecosystems. It supports Parliament's position that the maintenance of ecosystems should become a fundamental goal of all EU horizontal and sectoral policies.

Europe: Scientists for a GM-free Europe
ISIS/Green Network/TWN International Briefing at the European Parliament, Brussels

Institute for Science in Society press release, 23 May 2007.

An international coalition of independent scientists will present comprehensive scientific evidence for a Europe-wide and worldwide ban on the release of GM crops.

The briefing will be held on Tuesday 12 June 2007 at the European Parliament. The speakers will explain the science behind GM and why a GM free Europe is essential for human, animal, environmental and economic health.

Chair:

Mr Janusz Wojciechowski Vice Chairman of the European Parliament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

Speakers:

Dr. Irina Ermakova (RAS, RUS)
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho (ISIS, UK)
Mr Nimmo Bassey (FOE, Africa)
Dr. Caroline Lucas (Green MEP)
Prof. Joe Cummins (ISIS, CAN)
Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini (CriiGen, FR)
Dr. Eva Novotny (SGR, UK)
Mr. Jeffrey Smith (IRT, USA)
Dr. Zbigniew Halat (ICPPC, POL)

Time: 10am-2pm - Simultaneous translations / delicious organic lunch

Paul Henri Spaak Building,
Room P5B001,
European Parliament,
Rue Wiertz 60,
1047, Brussels
Belgium

If you want to attend or need more details, please contact Sam Burcher sam@i-sis.org.uk or telephone + 44 (0)208 452 2729 or + 44 (0)207 2725636

Greece: Rice recall

Kathimerini (English edition), May 23 2007

Supermarket chain AB Vassilopoulos announced yesterday that it was pulling off its shelves rice imported from Italy found to have been genetically modified. The Risotto Tex-Mex AB rice, with a November 13 2007, expiry date, failed to meet EU and local food standards, the company added.

Switzerland: Study questions benefits of biofuels

SwissInfo, May 22 2007 [shortened]

Biofuels may not be the panacea for the world's fossil-fuel woes, according to a study commissioned by the Swiss authorities

Such fuels, touted as an ecologically friendly source of energy, may be more harmful for the environment than their fossil counterparts.

The study into the environmental impacts of biofuels was commissioned by the Federal Environment Office, the Federal Energy Office and the Federal Agriculture Office.

The research team tested the following alternative fuels: bioethanol, biomethanol, biodiesel and biomethane. It then considered the entire production cycle.

According to the authors, while it was true that biofuels might emit less greenhouse gases than fossil fuels when consumed, producing them was generally more stressful on the environment.

The report confirmed that biofuels emit up to a third less carbon dioxide than petrol and diesel. However, this in itself was not enough to give them the eco-friendly stamp of approval.

"The energetic efficiency and the resulting reduced emissions of greenhouse gases cannot be the sole criteria for assessing the environmental friendliness of biofuels," said Rainer Zah, one of the authors.

"The prefix 'bio' doesn't necessarily mean environment friendly," Zah added.

Environmental impact

Growing and processing crops for energy purposes or feedstocks can have the heaviest environmental impact, as soil quality can be affected adversely, such as through fertiliser overuse.

In tropical countries slash and burning - used to clear land for crop production ‚ resulted in copious amounts of carbon dioxide being released into the air.

Romania: The Romanian Ministry of Agriculture insists on growing GM soy

Romanian authorities reveal their real intentions regarding GMOs

GMO Information Center - ROMANIA, Wednesday, May 23, 2007

On 10th of May 2007, the Romanian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development clearly expressed the will to re-introduce GM soy in Romania. As Romania is an EU member state since 2007, this favorable position for GM soy commercial growing, will affect the entire European Community.

Romania cultivated GM soy (14 varieties owned by MONSANTO, Stine Seeds, Asgrow Seed, Dekalb Genetic Corporation and Pioneer) starting with the year of 1998.

The GM soy crops increased every year since '98, Romania becoming the largest GMO cultivator in Europe : 86 700 ha in 2005 and 136 000 ha in 2006.

In February 2006, the Romanian Government announced in a press release the fact that the GM soy cultivation will be banned in Romania starting with the date of the EU adhesion (1st of January 2007) as this transgenic plant is not approved at EU level. Therefore, behind this so-called decision there was no real political will to ban GM soy, but only a docile position regarding EU's policy on GM soy and a PR strategy to improve Romania's image.

Recently, the new Romanian Minister of Agriculture (ex. Minister of Economy and Finances - 1998 - 2000) publicly announced his intention to support GM soy cultivation in the EU:

"As the GM soy cultivation technology proved to have obvious advantages for farmers, with positive outcome for Romania' s national economy, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development will support the approval for cultivation of GM soy at the European Union level, by expressing a favorable position in the decision making process."

Dan Craioveanu, GMO Campaigner of the Romanian Federation of Organic Farmers declares: "It's no surprise to see that the Romanian authorities don't want to give up on GM soy. Instead of taking action to protect small farmers, consumers and the environment, the Romanian Ministery of Agriculture continues to support the strategy of contamination carried out by the industry. This strategy is confirmed by the fact that there was no real action taken to eliminate GM soy from the fields after Romania's accession to the EU. We call on all member states to listen to the will of their citizens and reject any proposal of deliberate release of GM soy in the EU".

Please read below the official press release of the Romanian Ministry of Agriculture - 10th of May 2007 Translated by InfOMG - Romania. -------------

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development - ROMANIA Press release

In Romania, the legal framework concerning GM superior plants cultivation and testing was established in 2006, in respect to the EU legislation. Therefore, according to the stipulations of the article no. 54, from the Law no. 265/29 June 2006 concerning the Protection of Environment, which applies at national level :

"(1) Starting with the date of Romania' s adhesion to the EU, the cultivation or testing of GM superior plants will comply to the aquis communitaire.

(2) Starting with the date of Romania's adhesion to the EU, the cultivation of GM superior plants, other than the ones accepted in the EU, is forbidden in Romania."

The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development organized an information campaign on this issue in order to warn the farmers that starting with 2007 the cultivation of GM soy is not allowed in Romania because these GMO varieties are not approved for commercial cultivation in the EU.

The notification submitted by MONSANTO in October 2005 is currently analized by the European Food Safety Authority.

In the European Union, it is possible to cultivate GM plants registered in the Common Catalogue (insect resistant genetically modified maize MON 810).

The GM soy is not authorized for cultivation in the EU, and therefore is not registered in the Commune Catalogue.

So, at this time, the cultivation of GM soy is not legal, no metter what the destination of the production would be: export, biofuels, human consumption or animal feed.

As the GM soy cultivation technology proved obvious advantages at farms level, with positive results for Romania' s national economy, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development will support the approval for cultivation of GM soy at the level of the European Union, by expressing a favorable position in the decision making process.

Press Office - Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development - ROMANIA
Date of release: 10-05-2007

Japan: Team to promote GM crops for biofuel

Asahi Simbun, 23 May 2007.

The agriculture ministry set up a study team Tuesday to spur commercialization of genetically modified crops for biofuel instead of food, which has been largely shunned by the public because of safety concerns.

By promoting the commercialization of GM crops for fuel, the ministry hopes to eventually gain the public's trust in using GM crops for human consumption.

Full-fledged commercial cultivation of GM crops started in other countries, such as the Untied States, about 10 years ago. Currently, more than 100 million hectares around the world are used to grow GM crops, more than 20 times the area of all farm plots in Japan.

Japanese universities and research institutes started growing GM crops outdoors on an experimental basis from the late 1990s. Most of these projects are still in the research and development stage.

Currently, 11 GM crops in Japan are approved under a national law based on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The crops, including rice plants, soybeans and corn, are mainly intended for human food and animal feed.

But none of the crops grown for human consumption has been commercialized.

Commercial farming has not yet been established in Japan for even inedible GM plants. For example, purple-blue carnations developed through gene modification, which were at one time commercially grown in Japan, are now raised overseas.

Because of strong safety concerns among the nation's consumers, the government has found it difficult to approve GM crops for practical use.

GM rice, which has been found to relieve hay fever symptoms, is handled as a medical product and must go through strict animal experiments before it can be commercialized.

To get around all of these hurdles, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries considered commercialization of GM fields for purposes other than human consumption.

The study team, comprising specialists and executives of consumer and producer groups, will draw up a medium-term strategy and a scheduled program for research, development and commercialization of GM crops.

It is expected to propose concrete plans to commercialize inedible GM crops in five to 10 years.

Crops under the plan include GM rice plants, which can yield more grain than regular rice plants for use as biofuel.

Other GM plants that can suck up underground toxic substances, such as heavy metals, will also be considered.

The ministry plans to hold public hearings on the safety and dangers of GM crops from autumn.

22 May 2007

Russia: Non-GMO driving Russian food price increase

FoodNavigator.com, 22 May 2007.

New voluntary screening and voluntary 'No GMO!' labelling is driving up food prices in Moscow, according to reports, with food manufacturers complaining that the voluntary certification is becoming mandatory for companies to remain competitive.

At present only foods sold in Russia that do contain genetically-modified organisms must declare this on their labels. But following a ruling made by the Moscow regional government in February, from July products sold in that region may bear a new No GMO! label, if they pass testing at one of 16 laboratories.

According to the new Russian outlet Kommersant, major retailers have strongly advised food producers to use the mark. It is expected that No GMO! foods could be sold for between 0.5 and 15 per cent more than their counterparts that do not bear the logo.

This has led representatives from ten Russian food and drink associations to complain to the city's mayor Yury Luzhkov. They say that the voluntary GMO absence mark is turning into a compulsory requirement.

The associations behind the complaint are said to include ASKOND (the association of confectioners), the Russian Union of Juice Producers and the Union of Russia's Beer and Nonalcoholic Beverage Producers.

Moscow is one of the most prosperous parts of Russia, with an emerging middle-class that has considerable disposable income to spend on specialty and Western-style products. Moscovians are amongst the Russians the most likely to break with the traditional diet and try new products that have their origins outside of the country.

A study by Russia's largest public opinion research body, VCIOM, found in 2005 that 95 per cent of Russians aware of GM ingredients said they were either opposed to them or seriously concerned by them.

According to Greenpeace, some 450 companies in Russia have had a no-GM stance since 2005, including Nestle and Coca Cola.

But some multinational retailers were said to be guilty of double standards, giving GM-free guarantees on food in Western Europe but not on products in the East.

The list of the 16 Moscow laboratories where non-GMO testing can take place is expected to be finalised today.

Ireland: De Burca reiterates her support for a GM Free Wicklow

Green Party press release, 22 May 2007.

Speaking in advance of the General Election in which she is standing as the Green Party candidate for Wicklow, Cllr Deirdre de Burca reiterated her longstanding opposition to GM crops and repeated her call for Wicklow to be declared a GM-free zone.

Describing her support for this objective as "committed, consistent and sincere" she welcomed support from all public representatives, expressing the hope that such support would not dissipate in the face of changing electoral circumstances. She looked forward to the day that Wicklow, like so many other counties in Ireland, would be GM-free.

Previous press release on GM:

http://www.deirdredeburca.com/releases/gmo221106.htm

Green Party GM policy: http://www.greenparty.ie/en/policies/gm_food/gm_crops_and_food_policy

Ireland: The farm vote - how the parties are shaping up

To help readers make up their minds on how they will vote in the general election, the Farming Independent aksed each of the political parties a series of questions.

The Irish Independent (Farming Supplement), 22 May 2007.

[Excerpt]

What is the party's view on GM crops - Should we retain our GM-free status?

Fianna Fáil

Fianna Fáil does not believe that Irish farmers want to grow GM crops and is supportive of that viewpoint. While EU legislation and new developments in the area will be kept under constant review, the party has no plans to change our current position.

Fine Gael

Much of our imported feedstuffs contain GM elements, which would make the declaration of GM-free status difficult, particularly for the farming sector. Fine Gael wishes to see a greater national debate and public consultation on the views of the public, including farmers, to determine what position Ireland should take.

Labour

The Government should commission research to determine whether or not there will be an economic advantage in the future when most areas in the world have some form of GMO-production for an Ireland that remains substantially free of GMO-production.

PDs

Our election manifesto dots not envision any change from current Government policy, though this may change.

Green Party

Yes. The economic benefits of being able to market Ireland as a producer of clean, green food - a unique selling point - should not be thrown away. The potential benefits for the tourism and food industries are significant. The Government is allowing us to slide into a situation whereby GM will be adopted by default.

Sinn Féin

We are totally opposed to the introduction of GM crops and favour the declaration of the entire island as GM-free, as we have done on a number of local authorities.

Ireland: Unauthorised GM maize found in imported feed

The Irish Independent, 22 May 2007.

THE Department of Agriculture has confirmed that unauthorised genetically-modified maize has been found in animal feed imported from the US.

GM maize Herculex Rw, which is not authorised in the EU, was detected in samples taken from animal feed imported from the US.

The 6,000t of corn gluten and 6,200t distillers dried grain was discharged at Dublin port from a ship (MV Pakrac) which went on to Rotterdam where it discharged the remainder of the animal feed cargo.

The cargo of animal feed was certified as not containing GM Herculex Rw maize product. However, information was received on May 7 from the Dutch authorities that official samples taken by them had tested positive. The Department immediately arranged for samples to be taken from the feed off-loaded at Dublin and sent to the State Laboratory. The State Laboratory informed the Department on May 15 that the samples submitted had tested positive for Herculex Rw.

When the Department received the information on positive results from the Dutch authorities they immediately put in place a restriction order on the 7,000t that still remained in portal stores. In the meantime, steps have been taken to take out of circulation material that had left the portal stores. While some of the material has already been incorporated into the animal feed chain, it is unlikely, based on the EFSA evaluation, to have any adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment. In accordance with requirements under EU legislation, the Department will ensure that none of the material currently under restriction will enter the feed chain.

The Department says it has been - and will remain - in constant contact with the EU Commission and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland on this issue.

The maize variety is authorised in a number of countries, including the US, and an application for its approval in the EU has been made.

Ireland: Long and short odds for who will be the next Minister of Agriculture

Still all to play for in general election vote on Thursday

Irish Independent, 22 May 2007. By Maeve Dineen.

THE rural constituency vote will be of huge significance in this week's general election.

A number of rural political constituencies have been identified by commentators as the key stamping grounds for the formation of the next government. These hotspots include Roscommon/South Leitrim, Galway East, Cork East, Cork South-West, Laois/Offaly, Carlow/Kilkenny and Cork North-West.

While it's still all to play for, will the election throw up a new Minister for Agriculture?

Ivan Yates of Celtic Bookmakers is quoting Mary Coughlan at 6/4 favourite to remain as agriculture minister.

Some sources feel that Minister Coughlan would like a change from agriculture and is seeking a higher profile ministry, but others say she will be glad of hanging on to the government Mercedes, regardless of what ministry it is attached to.

Aside from Minister Coughlan, other Fianna Fail names being mooted for the agriculture portfolio are Noel Dempsey and Brendan Smith. However, there is concern that Dick Roche won't hold the environment portfolio if he is re-elected, so there is a possibility that he could be moved to agriculture.

Over in the Fine Gael camp, the name on everyone's lips for the agriculture job is Mairead McGuinness, with Celtic bookmakers quoting her at 7/4 to be the next minister. However, some political pundits say they could never see her being offered a ministerial role on her first day in the Dail and that a junior ministry is more likely.

Current FG agriculture spokesman Denis Naughten is at 5/2 to take agriculture under a FG-led government. It's not unusual for a spokesperson to be passed over for that ministerial title when his/her party gets into government; some party followers see policies as opposition spokesperson as policies for the new ministry and these policies don't travel well across the floor of the House.

While the party with the biggest majority within a coalition usually seeks to hold the agriculture portfolio, the only outside chance of it going to the smaller party would be in a FG/Labour/Green situation. Here, Willie Penrose of Labour may be considered, with Celtic Bookmakers putting him at 7/2 for the job.

As farming life comes under more and more scrutiny from environmentalists, the Minister for the Environment is also one for farmers to watch. While the Greens say they are happy to go into government with either Fianna Fail or Fine Gael, Green Party leader Trevor Sargent is sure to have his eye on environment if they are involved in a cocktail mix cabinet.

Sargent has been a member of an extraordinary number of organisations including Fingal Council against Bloodsports, the Alternative Technology Association and the Irish Wildlife Conservancy. He'll definitely keep his eye on the farmers!

Brazil: CTNBio approves GM corn by force

Source: AS-PTA Number 345 - May, 2007
[translation for GM Watch by Ralph Miller]

Last Wednesday (05/16) the CNTBio approved the commercial release of Bayer's GMO corn, by 17 votes to 5. But without recent changes the government made to the law, the approval would not have been possible as the number of necessary votes for an approval would have been 18. Now a simple majority of 14 out of 27 is enough.

Right at the start of the meeting, the Commission's president made clear what the the day's objective was: "I may be subject to a penalty if I don't put to the vote" the commercial release of the corn. There was an evident nee to give the biotech market concrete answers.

Members of the Commission questioned the lack of data regarding the corn's environmental impact, the absence of internal norms to evaluate the requests for commercial release, and the fact that CNTBio ignored the contributions made during the public consultation when the release of the GM corn was debated. The decision had already been made.

CTNBio also circumvented the rules required by the Biosafety Edict by not appointing someone to be in charge of analyzing the proposition and making a report to the Assembly who should have submitted an overall view together with the votes of the commissions for health and the environment. The representatives of the multinationals and the farmers present were keeping an eye on things.

All the scientific arguments brought up by CTNBio members showing the risks and the issues regarding GM corn that had not been studied, were solemnly disregarded by the Commission's pro-biotechnology majority.

When questioned about the problem of approving the corn without previously establishing a plan on how to monitor what happened post-commercialization or rules for coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, the Commission's president immediately said there was no point in creating these norms, as nothing had been released. First one has to release the GM crop.

Besides, the president Walter Colli continued, monitoring post-commercialization would only be useful for finding "eventual problems [with GMOs] that he couldn't see" might exist. This sentence, perfectly captures what CNTBio is: a Commission whose legal remit is to evaluate the risks and impacts of GMOs, but which has a majority of members, starting with its president, who do not believe any such problems exist.

In view of all the irregularities committed by CNTBio, the Federal Public Prosecutor has already stated it will take the case to Law, in order to appeal the decision.

CNTBio behaves with such a lack of propiety that the day after it approved the release of Bayer's Liberty Link corn, its members held a meeting to take steps to create new rules for evaluating applications for the commercial release of GMOs.

It was interesting to observe the same people who the day before had voted in favour of approving the release of the GM corn, afterwards insisting on the necessity of prior studies before a GMO could be released. If these rules that are being created had been in effect the day before, Bayer's GM corn could not have been approved.

At CNTBio's next meeting in June, these rules for commercial release will not have been completed and everything indicates that it will be Monsanto's turn to be rewarded by the government through CNTBio's "technical" decisions (approving Monsanto's Bt MON 810). The worst of it is that probably the same thing will happen to other requests for commercial release that are on the Commission's agenda. This way the Commission makes it seem like it's trying to achieve strictness in its decision making, while approving requests without any regard to such rules.

Another high point of the meeting was the letter of resignation submitted to the Commission by the representative of civil society, the environmental specialist Dr. Lia Giraldo. She drew attention to the Commission's irregularities, such as the lack of conflict of interest declarations by several of the Commission's members, and declared that many of the members had already made their minds up on how to vote [before the Commission's deliberations] and considered biosafety questions to be merely stumbling blocks to the advance of biotechnology. In her view, the Commission "is incapable of carrying out the duties the law requires."

Official bodies such as IBAMA (Brazilian Environment Institute) and Anvisa (National Agency for Sanitary Vigilance) may submit an appeal against CNTBio's decision, and the National Biosafety Commission may assemble the eleven ministers that compose it to decide on the social and economical aspects of the release and on the eventual technical disagreements between the CNTBio and IBAMA and Anvisa, as well as the relevant body of the Ministry of Agriculture.

In the meantime, the planting of any GM corn continues to be forbidden in the country. Once released, the contamination of non-GM varieties will be overwhelming.

Canada: Risk assessment of harmful GMOs, chemicals in environment tainted

The StarPhoenix (Canada), May 22 2007. By Paul Hanley.

The social license to release products like chemicals, pesticides and genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment is based on public confidence that these products have been adequately tested to ensure safety. In fact, we have no reason to be assured that the risk assessment process is adequate.

Take the recent decision by a California court, in which the judge concluded that the U.S. government had failed to follow its own rules for assessing GMOs, in particular Monsanto's Roundup Ready genetically-modified (GM) alfalfa.

The court stated that the U.S. Department of Agriculture failed to discharge its responsibilities by ignoring the fact that there were doubts surrounding the likelihood of contamination of non-modified alfalfa by the modified type. It then made a previously temporary ban on this product in the U.S. permanent.

Failures by regulatory agencies to adequately assess the safety of a product may result from an ideological rather than truly scientific approach to risk assessment. This ideology results in part from the undue influence of industry on government and its regulatory agencies. Another factor is the belief that technical innovation is, fundamentally, a good thing because it drives economic growth and progress. This belief interferes with an unbiased assessment process.

GM alfalfa by Monsanto has been approved for use in Canada since Sept. 7, 2004, using similar criteria to those used in the U.S., which are now suspect.

In 2001, the Royal Society of Canada's Expert Panel on Food Biotechnology warned of fundamental flaws in the adequacy of Canada's risk assessment process. The panel urged that the system be changed to strengthen "the scientific basis of the regulatory process by increasing the transparency and validation of the risk assessments upon which regulatory decisions are based. Peer review and independent verification of research findings are principles of the scientific method. The more regulatory agencies limit free access to the data upon which their decisions are based, the more compromised becomes the claim that the regulatory process is 'science based.' Lack of transparency in the current approval process leads to an inability to evaluate the scientific rigour of the assessment process, and thus compromises the confidence that society can place in the regulatory framework."

The panel also stressed the need for regulators to remain independent, neutral and unbiased.

Canada is now in the process of merging its regulatory system for products like GMOs and pesticides with that of the U.S. This is a good idea in principle -- in fact, there should be a uniform, global regulatory system -- but the U.S. system is currently under attack for being under the influence of the companies it is supposed to regulate.

It is not just Greenpeace and the like questioning the quality of risk assessment in the U.S. In 2005, the Governmental Accountability Office raised the alarm about corporate sway over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

China faces consumer confidence issue - EU official

Reuters, 22 May 2007. By Ben Blanchard.

BEIJING, May 22 (Reuters) - China faces a global challenge to maintain consumer confidence in its products following a series of health scares, a senior European Union official said on Tuesday, adding that Beijing must be more cooperative.

China should provide more samples of bird flu viruses found in the country as well as samples of genetically modified produce to better help the bloc protect its own citizens, said Robert Madelin, the EU's Director General for Health and Consumer Protection.

"The challenge for China is to maintain global confidence in its products, and the way to do that is for the regulatory authorities to be very open and very cooperative," he told a news conference in Beijing.

"(This) is exactly what we have been suggesting in areas like GM, to share samples, so that the enforcers in Europe feel like we're getting good cooperation," Madelin added, referring to genetically modified products.

In the most recent scandal, U.S. consumers have been alarmed by a spate of pet deaths blamed on tainted wheat gluten and rice protein exported from China, as well as reports of toxins and disease in other Chinese exports.

A Chinese-made medicine ingredient also killed at least 100 people in Panama, according to a report in the New York Times.

China's Foreign Ministry repeated the government's line that the country takes food and drug safety seriously.

"In recent years the government has done a fair bit of work on this, and has gradually set up a comprehensive legal system," spokeswoman Jiang Yu told a regular news conference, adding investigations were continuing into "some cases".

Madelin said China was still holding back on sharing bird flu samples.

"We need samples because flu viruses evolve very quickly and our laboratory needs to have DNA finger-printing of different samples so that if, in the future, a wild swan comes from somewhere in China to somewhere in Europe and it dies of flu, we can tell from the DNA that that's where it came from," Madelin said.

BACKYARD BIRDS

China has millions of backyard birds and a strained rural medical system that is seen as key in the fight against bird flu.

The government on Saturday confirmed the latest outbreak of the H5N1 bird flu virus among poultry in the central province of Hunan, but no cases of human infection have been reported in the area.

Chinese pig farmers are grappling with an outbreak of blue ear disease, or Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, too, which industry sources say has wiped out as many as a million pigs and sent domestic pork prices soaring.

The EU would also like more samples of Chinese-grown genetically modified rice, Madelin said.

European and Chinese officials have been negotiating rules to test for ingredients processed from genetically modified rice or other cereals in Chinese exports, though the rules have not been finalised.

"Chinese officials feel that they have too little rice to send a few kilograms to Europe, but we have asked them to grow some more," Madelin said.

No transgenic rice is allowed to be grown, sold or marketed in the EU, where consumers have a reputation for mistrusting genetically modified food.

However, last year two environmental groups said samples from three EU member states included a biotech strain in products made with rice grown in China.

China has not approved commercial growing of GM rice but some environmental groups have said it has already made its way into the food chain. (Additional reporting by Guo Shipeng and Niu Shuping)

Australia: Victoria GM Review Panel: no independence or expertise

Gene Ethics - News Media Release, Tuesday, 22 May 2007.

Premier Bracks today announced a panel to review the ban on GM canola in Victoria [Australia].

"The panel announced today to review Victoria's ban on commercial genetically manipulated (GM) canola is neither independent nor expert," says Gene Ethics Director Bob Phelps.

"The panellists are keen supporters of GM crops and foods who have promoted it for many years," he says.

"And none are expert in trade or marketing issues, the main focus of the review," he says.

"The panel has no expert capacity or experience to consider the impact of commercial GM canola release on producers and exporters," he says.

"Their expertise and experience is in science, agriculture and rural and regional development issues - all outside the trade and marketing focus of the review," he says

"The Bracks government has set up a panel to recommend fast tracking GM crops into our environment and onto our plates," he says.

"They set the scene to end the GM canola ban over the objections of most Victorian farmers and shoppers, the vast majority of whom want GM-free foods on the farm, in the shops and on the dinner table," he says.

"An end to the Victorian ban would also upstage the bans in four other states and the ACT as GM canola contamination will be no respecter of state boundaries. GM-free Australia and the benefits that can bring would be finished," he says.

"We call for a panel that fairly reflects the breadth of public views on GM and has real expertise in the topic, to redress the pro-GM bias of the group announced today," he says.

"Panel chairperson Gus Nossal is a retired medical researcher who publicly advocates GM food and crops, and has done so for many years," Mr Phelps says.

"Panel member Merna Curnow is from the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) which spends at least $100,000 a year to promote acceptance of GM," he says.

"Merna was also an officer of the Victorian Farmers Federation when it actively campaigned against the GM bans," he says.

"As the ban is almost five years old, we also call for a review of new evidence on health and environment impacts of GM crops and foods since the licences were issued.," he says

"Victoria's strong record on clean green GM-free foods will be in tatters if the GM canola ban ends," he says.

"A new ban order should be signed to extend the ban till 2013, at least," Mr Phelps concludes.

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

21 May 2007

Ireland: Animal feed containing illegal GM maize impounded

The Irish Times, 21 May 2007. By Sean McConnell, Agriculture Correspondent.

The Department of Agriculture has impounded 7,000 tonnes of US animal feed at Dublin Port, which has been found to contain illegal GM maize, Herculex Rw.

It is also seeking to recover the remainder of the cargo, which was sampled by Greenpeace in Rotterdam and found to contain GM material not authorised in the EU, although legal in the US.

The Irish portion of the cargo - 6,000 tonnes of corn gluten feed and 6,200 tonnes of distillers' dried grain - was discharged at Dublin Port on April 2nd from the MV Pakrac, which sailed from New Orleans. The ship then went on to Rotterdam, where it discharged the remainder of the animal feed cargo.

The cargo of animal feed unloaded here was certified as not containing GM Herculex Rw maize product, according to the department's statement yesterday.

"However, information was received on May 7th from the Dutch authorities that offical samples taken by them had tested positive," it said.

"The department immediately arranged for samples to be taken from the animal feed offloaded at Dublin Port and sent to the State laboratory for analysis. The laboratory informed the department of May 15th that the samples submitted had tested positive for Herculex Rw," it said.

"When the department received the information on positive results from the Dutch authorities, they immediately put in place a restriction order on the 7,000 tonnes that still remained in portal stores," it added. "In the meantime, steps have been taken to take out of circulation material that had left the portal stores.

"While some of the material has already been incorporated into the animal feed chain, it is unlikely, based on the European Food Safety Authority evaluation, to have any adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment," it added.

"In accordance with requirements under EU legislation, the department will ensure that none of the material currently under restriction will enter the food chain," it said.

The issues of misleading certification is to be taken up at EU level by Ireland and the Netherlands and the US authorities will be asked to explain what happened.

Greenpeace International and the GM Free Ireland Network, which exposed the importation, had called for a ban on maize imports into the EU because of the breach of regulations.

GM-free Ireland note: For more information see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac

USA: Farmers Worry About Genetically Modified Rice Approval

ENS-Newswire.com, 21 May 2007. Washington DC -- The National Farmers Union expressed "great concern" over today's approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, APHIS, to allow Ventria Bioscience to plant rice that is genetically modified to produce pharmaceuticals in Kansas.

The decision "poses a potential risk to the American food supply," said the National Farmers Union, NFU, which represents 250,000 farm and ranch families in all U.S. states.

"America's farmers have suffered the economic consequences of two major instances when unapproved genetically modified rice entered the food supply in the past year," said NFU President Tom Buis.

Ventria Bioscience, a biotech company based in Sacramento, California, is developing a product made from genetically engineered rice that helped reduce the duration of diarrhea in children by 30 percent, as part of an oral rehydration solution. Childhood diarrhea is the second leading killer of children, according to the World Health Organization.

Last September, Kansas and Ventria officials agreed to establish a bioprocessing facility for plant-made pharmaceuticals in Junction City.

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius said, "I welcome Ventria Bioscience to Kansas and look forward to their contributions to the health of children worldwide."

The facility will process Ventria's biotech rice. Proteins extracted from the rice will be incorporated into oral rehydration solutions to address childhood diarrhea. Ventria is also developing other products using these proteins. The rice itself is discarded.

Farmers are expected to be among the project's major beneficiaries, as those who grow the rice that supplies the facility can earn a premium compared to their next most lucrative crop, said Kansas Agriculture Secretary Adrian Polansky.

"This is as an important development for Kansas farmers, who stand to benefit from the additional income," Polansky said. "They also have the satisfaction of knowing they are helping provide affordable healthcare products to children who desperately need it."

Buis said National Farmers Union is concerned that the Ventria Bioscience's proposal does not specifically address the necessary safety precautions for transit of the rice.

He said that a significant risk may exist to all crops and soils neighboring the transportantion route.

Buis said that despite Kansas' recent devastating tornadoes and disastrous flooding, part of APHIS' response to official comments was that "extreme weather events are unlikely to occur in the area of the field trial."

"Until USDA and FDA improve oversight and regulation of pharma crops, NFU will remain extremely concerned about pharma commodity production based on economic, environmental, food safety and liability risks to both producers and consumers," Buis said.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved the rice-grown drugs due to potentially hazardous side effects. "This lack of approval means Ventria Bioscience does not have a sufficient market," said Buis, "thus the production of this crop appears to provide no benefit to Kansas farmers or the economy."

USA: Decline in Corn Gluten Exports Weakens Ethanol Industry's Future

GrainNet.com, 21 May 2007.

Washington, DC -- The American Corn Growers Foundation (ACGF) surveyed 1,057 grain elevators during April 2007 in the eighteen (18) states that produce the majority of U. S. grain.

"Only 26% of the elevators surveyed report that they require the segregation of GMO (genetically modified) varieties from Non-GMO varieties," reported Dan McGuire on May 21.

McGuire is director of the ACGF Farmer Choice-Customer First program.

This finding raises concerns about the ability of the U.S. to hold on to the critical corn gluten export market that is so important to the future health of our ethanol sector.

"Both the ACGF and the American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) are again warning U.S. corn farmers and the critically-important U.S. ethanol industry that key U.S. corn gluten export markets are being lost due to unapproved biotech varieties.

"Specifically, an unapproved Bt corn variety was detected in U.S. cargoes of corn gluten feed and pellets in April 2007 at the Port of Rotterdam and shipped from New Orleans."

"According to USDA data for the current corn marketing year which began on September 1, 2006, U.S. corn gluten exports are 38.1% below the year earlier to the European Union-27 for the September to March period and the EU has been by far the most important export market for U.S. corn gluten feed and meal," said McGuire.

"Foreign demand for U.S. corn gluten is extremely important for the economic future of corn processing ethanol plants.

"As recently as the 1999-00 marketing year, the EU imported 5 million of the 5.8 million metric tons (MMT) of total U.S. corn gluten exports.

"By marketing year 2005-2006 U.S. corn gluten exports had dropped to only 3.6 MMT with the EU-27 importing only 2.655MMT.

"It's time to re-learn the marketing reality that 'the customer is always right' in deciding what they choose to buy.

"Farmers are realizing relatively strong corn prices as a welcome change due to growth in the domestic ethanol industry, which needs the export market for corn gluten as well as distillers dried grains (DDG)," said Larry Mitchell, ACGA Chief Executive.

"Biotech companies have preached that the U.S. should be able to grow the grain varieties it wants, but given the failure and arrogance of U.S. 'export-oriented' farm policy over the past ten years of telling the world what they will buy, taken together with the grain export sector's ill-conceived attempts to 'privatize' export grain inspection at our ports, importers are losing confidence in the U.S. system.

"It's time for both the biotech and export sectors to reconsider their arrogant policies."

For more information, call 202-835-

See Related Websites/Articles:

American Corn Growers Association http://www.acga.org

Europe: EU to approve support for failing GM crops sector

Friends of the Earth Europe press release: 21st May 2007

Brussels, May 21st 2007 - The EU is poised today to approve further financial and political support for genetically modified (GM) crops [1], despite growing evidence that the sector is failing.

Helen Holder, coordinator of the Friends of the Earth Europe GMOs campaign, said: "EU leaders continue to blindly push for genetically modified crops, despite clear signals of their market failure. The EU should instead be using the mid-term review of its strategy for biotechnology to promote greener farming methods which are competitive and create jobs."

EU Competitiveness Ministers will today endorse a proposal from the European Commission [2] that promotes genetically modified crops - among other biotechnology sectors - while failing to acknowledge that:

- Industry and government figures show that the genetically modified crops sector is failing [3]

- There is no market for GM crops since the majority of the European public does not want to eat genetically modified food [4]

- The European Commission's measures for the commercial growing of genetically modified crops are putting GM-free farming at risk from contamination, as well as citizens' rights to GM-free food [5]

- GM crops currently offer no advantage over conventional crops for producing biofuels and there is growing concern about the impacts in developing countries about the large scale production of biofuels [6].

"Scratching under the spin reveals that the European Commission and EU member states plan to chip away at biotechnology safety laws, put GM free farming at irreversible risk of contamination and fund public relations campaigns to sell GM crops to the European public," Ms Holder added.

Friends of the Earth Europe recently published an analysis of data from both the agricultural biotechnology industry and the European Commission, which showed that GM crops are not performing economically. In contrast, green farming methods, including organic agriculture, show real economic potential as well as being environmentally friendly and benefiting from public support. [7]

For more information, please contact:

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

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

Notes:

[1] Industrial Policy - Draft Council Conclusions, May 15th 2007, 9622/07

[2] Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the mid term review of the Strategy on Life Sciences and Biotechnology, April 10th 2007, COM(2007) 175 final

[3] Critical I, 2005 and 2006

[4] Eurobarometer, Gaskell et al., June 2006

[5] "Contaminate or Legislate? European Commission policy on "coexistence", Friends of the Earth Europe, April 2006, http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/contaminate_or_legislate.pdf

[6] http://esa.un.org/un-energy/pdf/susdev.Biofuels.FAO.pdf

[7] "The EU's Biotechnology Strategy: mid-term review or mid-life crisis? A scoping study on how European agricultural biotechnology will fail the Lisbon objectives and on the socioeconomic benefits of ecologically compatible farming" Friends of the Earth Europe, March 2007: http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/FoEE_biotech_MTR_midlifecrisis_March07.pdf

USA: Judge upholds Roundup Ready alfalfa sales ban

Farm Press (USA), May 21, 2007. By Harry Cline. A Northern California federal district court judge has issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the sale of Roundup Ready alfalfa seed until the federal government prepares an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a bureaucratic process that could take up to two years. The ruling brings to a screeching halt what was the most rapid acceptance of agricultural biotechnology since genetically modified crops were introduced more than 10 years ago. In the meantime, farmers can continue to grow and harvest 200,000 acres of the herbicide-resistant alfalfa hay already planted. Most of this acreage is among California's 1.1 million acres of alfalfa stands. But, the judge has ordered Forage Genetics to make public on the internet the location of all Roundup Ready alfalfa seed and forage fields. Judge Charles E. Breyer also ordered that harvesting equipment used for Roundup Ready alfalfa be cleaned after harvesting the hay and that all Roundup Ready alfalfa hay to be identified as transgenic. The court injunction is one of the most onerous decisions rendered against American agriculture and, if left to stand, could stymie continued growth of transgenic crops in the U.S. The ruling has sent shock waves through agriculture and halted the planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa, which had been projected to total more than a million acres by 2008, a five-fold increase over what has been planted in the past 12 months. The judge said the economic damage his ruling would cause farmers, Monsanto, and Forage genetics ’§ϊdoes not outweigh the potential, irreparable damage to the environment.’§˜ He said the expansion of the Roundup Ready alfalfa market without an EIS is ’§ϊ unprecedented,’§˜ even though an EIS was not required for any of the other transgenic crops ’§" cotton, corn, soybeans and canola ’§" now approved by a host of government agencies marketed by seed companies in the U.S. and around the world. Monsanto intervened in the case after the preliminary injunction was issued earlier this spring halting Roundup Ready alfalfa seed sales The company was ’§ϊ hopeful that a reasoned approach in this matter’§˜ would ’§ϊanswer questions about the regulatory approval process for Roundup Ready alfalfa.’§˜ Hopes were dashed with Breyer's early May ruling that the APHIS did not take a ’§ϊhard look,’§˜ as outlined in the National Environmental Protection Act. ’§ϊWe support the farmer's right to choose biotechnology, organic, or conventional crops, with the proper stewardship practices that make co-existence feasible,’§˜ says Jerry Steiner, executive vice president for Monsanto. ’§ϊWe have heard from farmers across the country who are disappointed they cannot access this technology.’§˜ Monsanto has not announced whether it will appeal the decision that could set a far-reaching precedent, possibly derailing the future development of agricultural biotechnology. Prominent Tulare County, Calif., farmer and dairyman Mark Watte intervened in the case after the preliminary injunction was issued and called the lawsuit ’§ϊ a sham by the same environmental groups that want to stop any application of new technology in agriculture.’§˜ Many believe the injunction, if left to stand, could make Watte's prediction come true, even though transgenic crops are now grown on 222 million acres in 21 countries, an 11 percent jump in one year. The U.S. has about 123 million of biotech crops. That compares to 4.3 million acres in six countries when biotech crops were first introduced commercially in 1996. It is the first time a court has ordered an EIS for a transgenic crop. A spokesman for Monsanto said a history of 12 years of successful, safe transgenic crop production worldwide should preclude any similar EIS legal challenge to crops now under cultivation. However, ’§ϊI could not begin to speculate what the Center for Food Safety might do,’§˜ said the spokesman. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) was one of a half dozen co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit. CFS is headed by Andrew Kimbrell, who was mentored by Jeremy Rifkin, perhaps America's most notorious anti-technologist. CFS often participates in food scare projects managed by Fenton Communications, a Washington, D.C., public relations firm often used by anti-industry activists. The two farm plaintiffs in the lawsuits are Geertson Seed Farms, Adrian, Ore., and Trask Family Seeds, Elm Springs, S.D. Trask, which grows about 20,000 acres of conventional, common alfalfa, tried to get the South Dakota legislature to ban biotech crops, but the state's legislators rejected the ban. Geertson is associated with Green Genes, Inc., an alfalfa breeding company located in Minnesota. The majority of the alfalfa varieties Geertson markets are genetically modified to offer various resistance levels to alfalfa diseases and insect pests. Will Rostov, senior attorney for CFS, called the permanent injunction ’§ϊa great victory for the environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa poses threats to farmers, our export markets and to the environment.’§˜ There are no export market bans of U.S. Roundup Ready alfalfa hay and, aside from the California federal court ruling, it is still legal to plant Roundup Ready in many countries of the world ’§" except, now, in the U.S. The judge rejected APHIS' determination that introduction of the Roundup Ready gene into alfalfa is harmless to humans and livestock, neither toxic nor pathogenic. He said that the contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa with the Roundup Ready gene is itself an ’§ϊimpact that is harmful to the human environment.’§˜ This, despite the fact there has been no documented evidence that biotechnology crops have ever harmed the environment or people. Recently the International Council of Science, an organization of 111 national academies of science and 29 scientific unions concluded ’§ϊcurrently available genetically modified foods are safe to eat’§˜ and that ’§ϊthere is no evidence of any deleterious environmental effects having occurred from the trait/species combinations currently available.’§˜ A week before the California federal district court judge issued his decision, a Canadian appeals court dismissed an appeal by an organic activist group for a class action lawsuit against Roundup Ready canola on much the same grounds as the lawsuit filed by the radical American groups. ’§ϊFood and feed products containing ingredients derived from plant biotechnology crops have a solid 10-year history of safe use, and all current Roundup Ready crops available in the marketplace...met or exceeded Canadian federal regulatory guidelines for food, feed and environmental release. The court made special mention of this in its judgment,’§˜ said Trish Jordan, Monsanto Canada spokesperson. In filing paperwork to intervene, Monsanto and Forage genetics provided numerous expert declarations detailing how Roundup Ready alfalfa can be grown in successful co-existence with conventional or organic crops. ’§˜The stewardship requirements proposed by USDA for isolation distances, harvesting, storage, and cleanup practices are based upon scientific evidence and eliminate any ’§ςlikelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury' to conventional or organic growers,’§˜ according to court papers filed by Monsanto in March. According to the company, since field trials began in 1998, Roundup Ready alfalfa has been reviewed by three separate federal agencies ’§" the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and ’§ϊ has met every safety prerequisite for commercial use.’§˜ Already, USDA imposes a 1,500-foot isolation of Roundup Ready alfalfa seed produced with leafcutter bees, nearly double the distance for foundation seed production. The isolation is three miles for seed produced with honeybees, 17 times what is required for foundation seed. email: _hcline@farmpress.com_ (mailto:hcline@farmpress.com) Roundup Ready alfalfa seed ban a totally ludicrous legal decision May 16, 2007 12:57 PM, By Harry Cline Farm Press Editorial Staff Ludicrous, absurd, unbelievable, preposterous ’§" those just a few descriptive terms for California Federal District Court Judge Charles Breyer's decision to halt the sale of Roundup Ready alfalfa seed. Not only did he suspend the sale of herbicide-resistant seed for two years, he put RR alfalfa in the same category as child molesters. I am surprised he didn't make producers now farming RR alfalfa seed and forage fields wear ankle monitoring bracelets like criminals. He almost went that far when he ordered Forage Genetics to GPS-identify 220,000 acres of alfalfa seed and forage fields and post those fields on the Internet. For what? Superfund waste sites? Radioactive waste storage sites? No ’§" alfalfa containing a totally harmless protein. Alfalfa that cows, women and children can eat, walk in, munch on, sniff, and experience with not one harmful effect. All this to appease a bunch of radicals bent on destroying the American economy, and to mollify a couple of obscure seed companies that think a protein may contaminate conventional or organic alfalfa (or are angry they did not get a license to sell Roundup Ready alfalfa). One of the companies sells almost nothing but genetically modified alfalfa varieties resistant to pests and diseases. How did the alfalfa Geertsen sells become resistant? Through genetic modification. Wonder what Geertsen and Trask would think if some judge ordered their farms mapped and GPS'd on the Internet for the world to see, on the totally absurd notion something they're doing might be harmful? Wonder what the plaintiff's lawyers would think if their cars were ordered equipped with tracking devices just because a judge decided they might be harmful to the environment? So what if the glyphosate-resistant gene gets into another alfalfa field? You may be able detect it, but what harm will it do? None. And let's get off the glyphosate-resistant mega-weed kick. Sure, there are issues with glyphosate-resistant weeds. But, let's put the issue in perspective: There are exactly 12 of 314 herbicide-resistant weeds worldwide identified as resistant to glyphosate. The Weed Science Society of America says the No. 1 herbicide class for weed resistance is ALS inhibitors, with 95 resistant weeds. Atrazine has 66; Diclofop-methyl (Hoelon, Illoxan, Hoe-Grass), 35; 2, 4-D, 25 weeds; paraquat, 23; chlorotoluron, 21 ’§" all those before the list lands on glyphosate. Certainly, glyphosate-resistance is a serious issue, largely because of the explosion of herbicide-resistant crops. Can producers do anything about it? For one thing they can go to their equipment yards and find the disks and cultivators covered by weeds. They can a herbicide other than glyphosate to kill weeds. Sorry judge, the world will not end because 12 weeds are resistant. And don't accuse me of owning Monsanto stock or being on the Monsanto payroll. It won't fly. I think there is a half empty plastic jug of 3 percent Roundup in the garage. That is my total involvement with Monsanto. Monsanto, Forage Genetics, Farm Bureau, and other farm organizations must appeal this ridiculous decision to protect American agriculture from a threat far more insidious than any transgenic gene or weed. email: _hcline@farmpress.com_ (mailto:hcline@farmpress.com) link

India: Does India need GM food crops?

Industry is suppressing harmful effects of GM crops

Financial Express, May 21 2007. By PV Satheesh

So, there is a "historic" order of the Supreme Court, which has permitted the ongoing GM trials to continue in the country but under severe restrictions imposed. The most important of them are: ensuring a minimum 200 meter isolation distance (between GM crops and non GM crops); ensuring that a senior scientist is in charge of monitoring; before a GM crop is permitted for field trials, GEAC must put all facts before the citizens of this country telling us how toxic is the crop and how much of allergy it can produce in humans and animals; and put up a clear protocol and establish that the contamination will not be more than 0.01%.

This is a tough order and probably must have put the fear of God in the biotech industry. But knowing the way the industry has manipulated law and court orders around the world, one is skeptical whether this order will be followed to the truthful end by the regulators. It is astounding that even before the ink had dried from the order, GEAC had claimed that SC had vacated its earlier interim order banning GM trials.

That this was a mischievous interpretation of the court order is not the only crime of GEAC. Highly distressing was the note of glee and triumph in the GEAC press release. While its mandate is to protect the environment and not the industry, GEAC has acted as an agent of the biotech industry. One would not be surprised if such a trumpet of triumph had been sounded by the department of biotechnology whose very existence is linked to the spread of biotechnology or the ministry of commerce for whom FDI is more important than food and death in the country.

But that the regulator jumps the guns and spreads a misinformation campaign speaks volumes about the dubious role GEAC is playing in regulating the industry since a couple of years. This is a serious matter and therefore the shadow of doubt falls on the regulator's capacity to implement the current SC order.

It took the Union minister of health A Ramadoss to caution the nation that unless studied in detail for its effects on health, GM trials should not be permitted. But the Indian bureaucracy is sanguine in its corrupt backing of GE crops while the CII salivates at the thought of the billions it can bring in FDI. Damn the issues of ecology and environment, their effects on the health of soil, livestock and humans.

The mounting evidence of the toxicity and new diseases being spread on Indian farmlands by the Bt cotton is being suppressed and marginalised by the captains of bureaucracy and the industry. Therefore, however radical the judiciary's actions are, the ground level implementation can be zilch.

It is now left to the civil society organisations and the media to play the role of vigilantes. And therefore the strict conditions that SC has laid down for GM trials should be taken up for close monitoring by these two wings of our democracy. If they do not keep watch, the profit hungry industry and the acquiescent bureaucrats will have their way.

- The writer is director, Deccan Development Society

20 May 2007

USA: The Non-GMO Project seeking industry input to develop non-GMO standard

Non-GMOreport.com, 20 May 2007.

Since being launched at Natural Products Expo West in Anaheim, California, in March, The Non-GMO Project has generated strong interest among organic and natural food companies, says Megan Thompson, project director. "There has been a lot of positive response, and we are engaged in a productive discussion to address all of the questions and concerns that come up around this complex issue," she says.

The Non-GMO Project board members are speaking with a number of key organic and natural food companies to get their input and encourage them to participate. "We expect that many of them will choose to include their products in the verification program," says Thompson.

Developing non-GMO standard

Currently, the main focus of The Non-GMO Project is gathering feedback from all sectors of the industry, which will be used in refining the non-GMO verification standard. Thompson says that, in addition to collecting data and working with technical experts, a key part of this process is working with a number of proactive companies, who are taking their products through the product verification process. This will provide useful information that will be used in optimizing the non-GMO standard and designing the rollout program for the verification process. "We want to complete a revised standard that reflects input from across the industry and then we will engage in the verification process based on that standard," says Thompson.

The goal is to create a non-GMO standard that is rigorous, yet practical, so that it is benefits both industry and consumers. "We are committed to having a standard that is simultaneously meaningful and achievable," says Thompson.

Non-GMO verification will first focus on natural and organic food products and then expand to include vitamins and supplements.

"Now is the time"

Thompson says there is a lively dialogue happening with industry members. "We're getting input from as many companies and sectors in the industry as possible, including farmers, millers, and public advocacy groups," she says. "People are interested in talking about the issue, and there is a strong resonance that now is the time to do non-GMO verification," she says.

The Non-GMO Project Board members include Michael Funk, CEO, United Natural Foods, Inc.; Joe Dickson, quality standards and organic program coordinator, Whole Foods Market; Arran Stephens, CEO, Nature's Path Foods; Michael Potter, CEO, Eden Foods; Grant Lundberg, CEO, Lundberg Family Farms; George Siemon, CEO, Organic Valley; Mark Squire, owner, Good Earth Natural & Organic Foods; Bob Gerner, owner, Berkeley Natural Grocery; Julie Daniluk, member/owner, The Big Carrot Natural Foods Market (Toronto, Canada); Megan Thompson, executive director, The Non-GMO Project; and John Fagan, chief scientific officer, FoodChain Global Advisors.

Arran Stephens says Nature's Path is proud to be part of The Non-GMO Project. "I felt it important for Nature's Path to come on board and be an active participant, as we have always opposed genetically engineered food crops because of the risks to health and environment," he says. "This is going to take a broad coalition of organic farmers, certifiers, processors, distributors, retailers and consumers to bring about necessary change."

Straus Family Creamery, Whole Foods Market, United Natural Foods, Eden Foods, Lundberg Family Farms, and Nature's Path Foods are the first companies to participate in The Non-GMO Project's verification process. The participation of other companies is expected to be announced at All Things Organic tradeshow this month.

For more information about The Non-GMO Project, visit www.nongmoproject.org

USA: Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies

Spilling the Beans newsletter, May 2007
Published by the Institute for Responsible Technology

Part 1: Genetically Engineered Soybeans

The huge jump in childhood food allergies in the US is in the news often[1], but most reports fail to consider a link to a recent radical change in America's diet. Beginning in 1996, bacteria, virus and other genes have been artificially inserted to the DNA of soy, corn, cottonseed and canola plants. These unlabeled genetically modified (GM) foods carry a risk of triggering life-threatening allergic reactions, and evidence collected over the past decade now suggests that they are contributing to higher allergy rates.

Food safety tests are inadequate to protect public health

Scientists have long known that GM crops might cause allergies. But there are no tests to prove in advance that a GM crop is safe.[2] That's because people aren't usually allergic to a food until they have eaten it several times. "The only definitive test for allergies," according to former FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, "is human consumption by affected peoples, which can have ethical considerations."[3] And it is the ethical considerations of feeding unlabeled, high-risk GM crops to unknowing consumers that has many people up in arms.

The UK is one of the few countries that conducts a yearly evaluation of food allergies. In March 1999, researchers at the York Laboratory were alarmed to discover that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by 50% over the previous year. Genetically modified soy had recently entered the UK from US imports and the soy used in the study was largely GM. John Graham, spokesman for the York laboratory, said, "We believe this raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods."[4]

Critics of GM foods often say that the US population is being used as guinea pigs in an experiment. But experiments have the benefit of controls and measurement. In this case, there is neither. GM food safety experts point out that even if a someone tried to collect data about allergic reactions to GM foods, they would not likely be successful. "The potential allergen is rarely identified. The number of allergy-related medical visits is not tabulated. Even repeated visits due to well-known allergens are not counted as part of any established surveillance system."[5] Indeed, after the Canadian government announced in 2002 that they would "keep a careful eye on the health of Canadians"[6] to see if GM foods had any adverse reactions, they abandoned their plans within a year, saying that such a study was too difficult.

Genetic engineering may provoke increased allergies to soy

The classical understanding of why a GM crop might create new allergies is that the imported genes produce a new protein, which has never before been present. The novel protein may trigger reactions. This was demonstrated in the mid 1990s when soybeans were outfitted with a gene from the Brazil nut. While the scientists had attempted to produce a healthier soybean, they ended up with a potentially deadly one. Blood tests from people who were allergic to Brazil nuts showed reactions to the beans.[7] It was fortunately never put on the market.

The GM variety that is planted in 89% of US soy acres gets its foreign gene from bacteria (with parts of virus and petunia DNA as well). We don't know in advance if the protein produced by bacteria, which has never been part of the human food supply, will provoke a reaction. As a precaution, scientists compare this new protein with a database of proteins known to cause allergies. The database lists the proteins' amino acid sequences that have been shown to trigger immune responses. If the new GM protein is found to contain sequences that are found in the allergen database, according to criteria recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others, the GM crop should either not be commercialized or additional testing should be done. Sections of the protein produced in GM soy are identical to known allergens, but the soybean was introduced before the WHO criteria were established and the recommended additional tests were not conducted.

If this protein in GM soybeans is causing allergies, then the situation may be made much worse by something called horizontal gene transfer (HGT). That's when genes spontaneously transfer from one species' DNA to another. While this happens often among bacteria, it is rare in plants and mammals. But the method used to construct and insert foreign genes into GM crops eliminates many of the natural barriers that stop HGT from occurring. Indeed, the only published human feeding study on GM foods ever conducted verified that portions of the gene inserted into GM soy ended up transferring into the DNA of human gut bacteria. Furthermore, the gene was stably integrated and it appeared to be producing its potentially allergenic protein. This means that years after people stop eating GM soy, they may still be exposed to its risky protein, which is being continuously produced within their intestines.

Genetic engineering damaged soy DNA, creating new (or more) allergens

Although biotech advocates describe the process of genetic engineering as precise, in which genes-like Legos-cleanly snap into place, this is false. The process of creating a GM crop can produce massive changes in the natural functioning of the plant's DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their levels of protein expression. This collateral damage may result in increasing the levels of an existing allergen, or even producing a completely new, unknown allergen within the crop. Both appear to have happened in GM soy.

Levels of one known soy allergen, trypsin inhibitor, were up to 27% higher in raw GM soy. In addition, although cooking soybeans normally reduces the amount of this protein, the trypsin inhibitor in GM varieties appears to be more heat resistant. Levels in cooked GM soy were nearly as high as those found in raw soy, and up to seven times higher when compared to cooked non-GM soy.[8] This suggests that this allergen in GM soy may be more likely to provoke reactions than when consumed in natural varieties.

Another study verified that GM soybeans contain a unique, unexpected protein, not found in non-GM soy controls. Moreover, scientist tested the protein and determined that it reacted with the antibody called IgE. This antibody in human blood plays a key role in a large proportion of allergic reactions, including those that involve life-threatening anaphylactic shock. The fact that the unique protein created by GM soy interacted with IgE suggests that it might also trigger allergies.

The same researchers measured the immune response of human subjects to soybeans using a skin-prick test’§"an evaluation used often by allergy doctors. Eight subjects showed a reaction to GM soy; but one of these did not also react to non-GM soy. Although the sample size is small, the implication that certain people react only to GM soy is huge, and might account for the increase in soy allergies in the UK.

Increased herbicides on GM crops may cause reactions

By 2004, farmers used an estimated 86% more herbicide on GM soy fields compared to non-GM.[9] The higher levels of herbicide residue in GM soy might cause health problems. In fact, many of the symptoms identified in the UK soy allergy study are among those related to glyphosate exposure. [The allergy study identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, chronic fatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints, including acne and eczema, all related to soy consumption. Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches, lethargy, skin rashes, and burning or itchy skin. It is also possible that glyphosate's breakdown product AMPA, which accumulates in GM soybeans after each spray, might contribute to allergies.]

GM soy might impede digestion, leading to allergies

If proteins survive longer in the digestive tract, they have more time to provoke an allergic reaction. Mice fed GM soy showed dramatically reduced levels of pancreatic enzymes. If protein-digesting enzymes are less available, then food proteins may last longer in the gut, allowing more time for an allergic reaction to take place. Such a reduction in protein digestion due to GM soy consumption could therefore promote allergic reactions to a wide range of proteins, not just to the soy. No human studies of protein digestion related to GM soy have been conducted.

Soy linked to peanut allergies

There is at least one protein in natural soybeans that has cross-reactivity with peanut allergies.[10] That means that for some people who are allergic to peanuts, consuming soybeans may trigger a reaction. While it is certainly possible that the unpredicted side effects from genetic engineering soybeans might increase the incidence of this cross-reactivity, it is unlikely that any research has been conducted to investigate this. GM soy was introduced into the US food supply in late 1996. We are left only to wonder whether this had an influence on the doubling of US peanut allergies from 1997 to 2002.

Eating GM foods is gambling with our health

The introduction of genetically engineered foods into our diet was done quietly and without the mandatory labeling that is required in most other industrialized countries. Without knowing that GM foods might increase the risk of allergies, and without knowing which foods contain GM ingredients, the biotech industry is gambling with our health for their profit. This risk is not lost on everyone. In fact, millions of shoppers are now seeking foods that are free from any GM ingredients. Ohio-based allergy specialist John Boyles, MD, says, "I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it-unless it says organic."[11]

Organic foods are not allowed to contain GM ingredients. Buying products that are certified organic or that say non-GMO are two ways to limit your family's risk from GM foods. Another is to avoid products containing any ingredients from the seven food crops that have been genetically engineered: soy, corn, cottonseed, canola, Hawaiian papaya and a little bit of zucchini and crook neck squash. This means avoiding soy lecithin in chocolate, corn syrup in candies, and cottonseed or canola oil in snack foods.

Fortunately, the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America will soon make your shopping easier. This Consumer Non-GMO Education Campaign is orchestrating the clean out of GM ingredients from foods and the natural products industry. The campaign will circulate helpful non-GMO shopping guides to organic and natural food stores nationwide. The Campaign will provide consumers with regular GM food safety updates that explain the latest discoveries about why, Healthy Eating Means No GMOs.

Safe eating.

This article is limited to the discussion of allergic reactions from GM soybeans. The evidence that GM corn is triggering allergies is far more extensive and will be covered in part 2 of this series.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of the new publication Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, which presents 65 risks in easy-to-read two-page spreads. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the top rated and #1 selling book on GM foods in the world. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, which is spearheading the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. Go to www.seedsofdeception.com to learn more about how to avoid GM foods.

[1] See for example, Charles Sheehan, "Scientists see spike in kids' food allergies," Chicago Tribune, 9 June 2006, http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/living/health/

[2] See for example, Carl B. Johnson, Memo on the "draft statement of policy 12/12/91," January 8, 1992. Johnson wrote: "Are we asking the crop developer to prove that food from his crop is non-allergenic? This seems like an impossible task."

[3] Louis J. Pribyl, "Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92," March 6, 1992, http://www.biointegrity.org

[4] Ibid.

[5] Traavik and Heinemann, "Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research"

[6] "Genetically modified foods, who knows how safe they are?" CBC News and Current Affairs, September 25, 2006.

[7] J. Ordlee, et al, "Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans," The New England Journal of Medicine, March 14, 1996.

[8] Stephen R. Padgette et al, "The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans," The Journal of Nutrition 126, no. 4, (April 1996); including data in the journal archives from the same study.

[9] Charles Benbrook, "Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years"; BioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper Number 7, October 2004.

[10] See for example, Scott H. Sicherer et al., "Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the United States determined by means of a random digit dial telephone survey: A 5-year follow-up study," Journal of allergy and clinical immunology, March 2003, vol. 112, n 6, 1203-1207); and Ricki Helm et al., " Hypoallergenic Foods: Soybeans and Peanuts," Information Systems for Biotechnology News Report, October 1, 2002.

[11] John Boyles, MD, personal communication, 2007.

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at http://www.responsibletechnology.org. The website also offers eater-friendly tips for avoiding GMOs at home and in restaurants.

Permission is granted to publishers and webmasters to reproduce issues of Spilling the Beans in whole or in part. Just email us at column@seedsofdeception.com to let us know who you are and what your circulation is, so we can keep track.

France: Effects of the herbicide Roundup on human embryonic cells

CRIIGEN Press Release - May 2007

Professor Seralini's group (1), in the University of Caen, France, just published a study on the previously unknown toxic effects of Roundup on human embryonic cells.

Roundup is the major herbicide in use worldwide, including on GMOs for food and feed. The embryonic cells are from a line cultivated in the laboratory and their use does not necessitate embryo destruction. The group wanted to confirm and detail the understanding of the effects already observed on placental cells, as published by Seralini's group in 2005.

Following comparison, it appears that embryonic cells are far more sensitive. The deleterious results of Roundup are noticed at very week doses (the product sold in stores is diluted up to 10,000 times). Sensitivity is confirmed in particular for the disruption of sexual hormones at non toxic levels, especially on fresh placental extracts. The maximal active dilutions correspond to less than the residues in discussion to be authorized in GMO feed in the United States.

It is evidenced that the herbicide Roundup, as sold on the market, is far more toxic than the product which is known and approved to be its active ingredient: glyphosate. The gaps in European legislation to study the effects of mixtures and hormonal disruptions are underlined.

This work may be of help in better understating the problems of miscarriages, premature births or sexual malformations of babies, in particular in agricultural workers families.

The paper published on line first (1) on the website of the journal ΄ Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology ͺ directed by Dr. Doerge from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in USA, will appear in the July 2007 issue.

This work is funded by the Human Earth Foundation, the Denis Guichard Foundation, the CRIIGEN and the Regional Council of Basse-Normandie.

Contact :

Pr Gilles-Eric SΘralini, Biochemistry, Institute of Biology, University of Caen
Esplanade de la Paix
14032 Caen, France.
Telephone: 33(0)2-31-56-56-84. Fax: 33(0)2-31- 56-53-20.

Corinne Lepage President of CRIIGEN. E-mail: criigen@unicaen.fr.

Notes:

(1) Time and Dose-Dependent Effects of Roundup on Human Embryonic and Placental Cells.

By N. Benachour [i], H. Sipahutar [ii], S. Moslemi [iii], C. Gasnier [i], C. Travert [i] and G. E. Seralini [i], [iv]

[i] Laboratoire Estrogenes et Reproduction, USC-INRA, IBFA, Universite de Caen, Caen, France
[ii] Department of Biology, State University of Medan, Medan, Indonesia
[iii] Laboratoire de Biochimie du Tissu Conjonctif, EA3214, CHU Cote de Nacre, Caen, France
[iv] Laboratoire de Biochimie, EA2608-USC INRA, IBFA, Universite de Caen, Esplanade de Paix, 14032 Caen, France.

(http://www.springerlink.com/content/d13171q7k863l446/fulltext.html).

Received: 25 July 2006 Accepted: 20 November 2006 Published online: 4 May 2007

Abstract

Roundup ® is the major herbicide used worldwide, in particular on genetically modified plants that have been designed to tolerate it. We have tested the toxicity and endocrine disruption potential of Roundup (BioforceΖ) on human embryonic 293 and placental-derived JEG3 cells, but also on normal human placenta and equine testis. The cell lines have proven to be suitable to estimate hormonal activity and toxicity of pollutants. The median lethal dose (LD50) of Roundup with embryonic cells is 0.3% within 1 h in serum-free medium, and it decreases to reach 0.06% (containing among other compounds 1.27 mM glyphosate) after 72 h in the presence of serum. In these conditions, the embryonic cells appear to be 2‚4 times more sensitive than the placental ones. In all instances, Roundup (generally used in agriculture at 1‚2%, i.e., with 21‚42 mM glyphosate) is more efficient than its active ingredient, glyphosate, suggesting a synergistic effect provoked by the adjuvants present in Roundup. We demonstrated that serum-free cultures, even on a short-term basis (1 h), reveal the xenobiotic impacts that are visible 1‚2 days later in serum. We also document at lower non-overtly toxic doses, from 0.01% (with 210 μM glyphosate) in 24 h, that Roundup is an aromatase disruptor. The direct inhibition is temperature-dependent and is confirmed in different tissues and species (cell lines from placenta or embryonic kidney, equine testicular, or human fresh placental extracts). Furthermore, glyphosate acts directly as a partial inactivator on microsomal aromatase, independently of its acidity, and in a dose-dependent manner. The cytotoxic, and potentially endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup are thus amplified with time. Taken together, these data suggest that Roundup exposure may affect human reproduction and fetal development in case of contamination. Chemical mixtures in formulations appear to be underestimated regarding their toxic or hormonal impact.

Australia: Now for the hard sell on modified foods

The GM hard sell begins
The public aren't that keen, but Victoria has money on its mind

The Age, May 20 2007. By William Birnbauer.

[image caption: Geoffrey Carracher is concerned about the integrity of his GM-free canola crop after the contamination of his canola seeds two years ago while Andrew Weidemann (right) hopes to fill his silos with grains grown from genetically modified seed should a four-year ban on GM crops be lifted. Photo: Craig Sillitoe]

Years ago Labor backbencher Luke Donnellan voted for a four-year ban on genetically modified crops in Victoria. Last week Mr Donnellan invited his Labor colleagues to attend a pro-GM meeting at Parliament House sponsored by the Institute of Public Affairs, an outfit not highly regarded in Labor circles.

With the State Government's ban on genetically modified canola expiring in February, supporters and opponents are beginning their lobbying campaigns. The outcome will depend on whether Labor has shifted ground on the controversial technology.

ALP insiders say that senior ministers, especially Treasurer John Brumby and Premier Steve Bracks, regard the ban as running counter to the aim of making Victoria an international hub for biotechnology. "They wouldn't be in Boston (for Bio 2007) saying, 'We're going to extend the moratorium', would they?" asks one Labor MP.

Mr Donnellan told The Sunday Age he was generally supportive of genetically modified food. In his email invitation to MPs, he said: "I believe the technology has the potential to assist us to deal with food and water shortages both here and overseas."

Mr Donnellan was one of three MPs - the others are from the Liberal and National parties - who were enlisted by the Institute of Public Affairs to invite guests to hear pro-GM speakers over drinks and finger food in the Legislative Council committee room.

The Labor Party is split over whether to continue the moratorium and is headed for a potentially divisive debate. Already, Tammy Lobato, MP for Gembrook, is gearing up a big campaign. "I urge the people of Victoria to participate in this public debate and consider the evidence," she said. "Going down the GM road is an irreversible oopath and Victorians need to assess whether this is the right way to go for our farmers, our communities, our environment and our health." She did not believe it was.

One clue to the Government's attitude is the language it uses in its press releases. In 2004, the former agriculture minister Bob Cameron said the commercial release of GM canola "would represent a point of no return for Victoria. The Government believes the risks to export markets outweighs any perceived benefits at this time."

Last week, Agriculture Minister Joe Helper was not convinced about the risk to exports. "In Victoria, the focus will be on what impact the use of this technology would have on our trade markets if the moratorium was lifted," he said.

The institute expects 50 to 70 MPs to attend the meeting. They will hear from Rick Roush, the dean of land and food resources at Melbourne University, Jennifer Marohasy, an IPA fellow, and Chris Kelly, a Mallee grain grower.

The meeting follows a front-page report in The Sunday Age last week that the State Government is set to lift its ban on GM crops. The report prompted a large number of letters from readers opposed to GM foods.

Anti-GM campaigners such as Bob Phelps from Gene Ethics and Julie Newman from the Network of Concerned Farmers, are firing their first shots in the new debate. They claim that biotechnology giants Monsanto, Bayer CropScience and Nufarm are funding pro-GM farm lobby groups and the IPA.

The Sunday Age has confirmed that the institute receives total funding of about $1.5 million a year, of which $4000 comes from the global agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto.

Mr Kelly, who is to address Tuesday's seminar, is the Victorian convener of the pro-GM Producers Forum and a director of the Birchip Cropping Group. The group's internet site lists its diamond sponsors as including Bayer CropScience and crop protection company Nufarm Limited.

Bayer CropScience in 2003 won approval from the federal Gene Technology Regulator for the commercial release of herbicide-toleraoont InVigor hybrid canola in Australia. Last September, Nufarm paid Monsanto $10 million for the licence to Roundup Ready canola, which also has been approved by the gene regulator.

The biotechnology giants spent tens of millions of dollars developing these seeds. Moratoriums by state governments halted release of both manipulated canola varieties.

In 2003, Professor Roush and his scientific collaborators received $20,000 from Bayer and Monsanto for research into canola pollen. He said it was the only funding he had received from those companies in 30 years of research.

Julie Newman, of the anti-GM Network of Concerned Farmers, points at a group called Agrifood Awareness, which she said was the main policy adviser for farm groups lobbying in favour of genetically manipulated crops.

She claimed the Grains Research and Development Corporation, which imposes a levy of 1 per cent of gross sales on farmers, contributed $100,000 a year to Agrifood Awareness. She said the levy was supposed to pay for grain research.

Agrifood Awareness executive director Paula Fitzgerald said the money was also used for workshops in gene technology run with the CSIRO.

Ms Fitzgerald said moratoriums in Victoria and elsewhere had led to international companies doing less research here, especially on grains. She said the bans signalled there was no path for the commercialisation of GM products here.

The State Government is expected to announce details of its moratorium review soon. The Agriculture Minister, Mr Helper, said the review would be limited to the potential impact on trade.

Professor Roush said that when the ban was imposed in 2004 there were concerns that Japan or European countries would not buy genetically modified canola or crops from Australia. These had proved to be invalid, he said. "A lot of the concerns people had a few years ago have passed us by and Australia has been passed by as other places are using the technology," Professor Roush said.

In 2003, the Victorian Government commissioned Professor Peter Lloyd tooo assess market risks to trade if Victoria planted GM canola. He found no evidence that the US or Canada had lost market share because of their canola GM exports, or that consumers were willing to pay a premium for non-GM foods.

Professor Lloyd recommended limited release of GM canola varieties in a trial for coexistence with non-GM crops. The Government rejected the report and imposed a four-year ban on GM canola.

Meanwhile, the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria will begin a series of forums tomorrow in Cohuna and Shepparton before a policy debate on the issue next month.

The June annual meeting will consider a "pro choice" policy that says it is up to farmers to decide if they want to use GM crops. Also up for discussion are separate motions for and against the continuation of the moratorium.

THE CASE AGAINST

Geoffrey Carracher, 66, Minimay, west of Horsham

GEOFF CARRACHER is already wary of how genetically modified produce can get into the food chain.

In 2005, the fourth-generation grain farmer discovered his canola seeds had been "infected" at his distributor with GM seeds created by Bayer.

His crop was later cleared and declared GM-free.

Mr Carracher's biggest concern is once GM seeds become commercially available, they would spread to all crops through pests, wind and human error.

He said he was yet to see any independent tests that proved the health safety of GM food or financial viability for the grower.

"We have no idea what will happen down the line," he said. "It's something that should be tested over 20 years. They are going to force us into something that we know is not proven to be any better."

He said the multinationals Bayer and Monsanto were hiding behind a wall of silence. This, he said, included their refusal to release statistics on GM crop yields against non-GM yields.

He said farmers whose crops started growing GM seeds accidentally would be made to pay licensing fees to avoid litigation, part of the multinationals' plan to monopolise the seed industry.

"In the end we will have to oobuy their seed and buy their chemical products," he said.

He said he would refuse to grow GM crops if the moratorium was lifted but conceded he might be forced to change his stance over time.

THE CASE FOR

Andrew Weidemann, 42, Rupanyup, east of Horsham

FOR grain farmer Andrew Weidemann, genetically modified food is the revolution Australian farming has to have.

Crops that are cheaper, healthier and better for the environment, and achieved with higher yields is how he sees the outcome.

"It's all about the right to choose the best technology that's provided to us," he said. "It will allow us to produce crops that give all sorts of benefit, from lower trans-fat levels to ?c wheat that can be eaten by people who are flour-intolerant.

"In the past, we've had a heavy reliance on herbicides and pesticides, but this technology means we will use a lot less of this. It makes farming a lot more cost-effective. We can go from spending $70 a hectare on herbicide to between $15 and $20."

Mr Weidemann, 42, sees no big difference between the traditional crossbred seeds Victorian farmers now plant and GM ones.

Genetic science, he says, just does it more efficiently. "It's smarter science, that's all it is."

Traditional crossbreeding is like throwing darts at a dartboard and hitting with one in every six darts.

Bio-technology means you can hit the board every time. It's about being able to pick the right gene.

Mr Weidemann understands concerns about GM foods but says they are the result of Greenpeace scare-mongering.

"Because so many people don't understand it, they will say they don't want GM. But 95 per cent of people will buy it if it's cheaper. It's bloody hypocrisy."

REID SEXTON

Who stands to benefit?

- MONSANTO

Leading biotechnology company. Its Roundup products are the world's best-selling herbicides. Last year it recorded global seed sales of $US4 billion ($A4.9 billion). In Australia it sells genetically modified cotton. It recently sold its Roundup Ready canola to Nufarm.

- NUFARM

Based in Melbourne

19 May 2007

India: Beware! The MNC locusts are here

Excerpted from Kamdar's book Planet India: How the Fastest-Growing Democracy is Changing the World (Scribner)]

India and the US are working out an agricultural deal that seeks to entrench American corporations in India and promote dangerous genetic manipulations.

Extract: "The agricultural deal is pay-off for the nuclear deal. I see it very much that way. It's easy to understand why Monsanto needs India. There is a huge amount of resistance to GMOs in Europe, Africa and Japan. Who are they going to sell this stuff to? An agricultural giant like India is hugely important for them."

Read the full story: http://www.tehelka.com/story_main30.asp?filename=op260507Beware.asp

18 May 2007

Ireland: Government admits illegal GM maize sold as animal feed

Statement on unauthorised GM event in maize

Irish Department of Agriculture and Food press release, 18 May 2007.

The Department of Agriculture and Food today stated that GM maize Herculex Rw, which is not authorized in the EU, has been detected in samples taken from animal feed imported from the United States.

This GM Herculex Rw maize variety is authorised in a number of countries including the US and an application for its approval in the EU has been made. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has evaluated the application as part of the EU authorisation process and has recently given a favourable opinion. EFSA concluded that it is unlikely that the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from GM maize Herculex Rw will have adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) have been consulted and they agree with EFSA's evaluation. The application for approval will be considered on 8 June at EU Standing Committee Meeting in Brussels.

The animal feed in question (6,000 tonnes Corn Gluten Feed and 6,200 tonnes Distillers Dried Grain) was discharged at Dublin port from a ship (MV Pakrac) which went on to Rotterdam where it discharged the remainder of the animal feed cargo. The cargo of animal feed was certified as not containing GM Herculex Rw maize product. However, information was received on 7 May from the Dutch authorities that official samples taken by them had tested positive. The Department immediately arranged for samples to be taken from the animal feed off-loaded at Dublin Port and sent to the State Laboratory for analysis. The State Laboratory informed the Department on 15 May that the samples submitted had tested positive for Herculex Rw.

When the Department received the information on positive results from the Dutch authorities they immediately put in place a restriction order on the 7,000 tonnes that still remained in portal stores. In the meantime, steps have been taken to take out of circulation material that had left the portal stores. While some of the material has already been incorporated into the animal feed chain, it is unlikely, based on the EFSA evaluation, to have any adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment. In accordance with requirements under EU legislation the Department will ensure that none of the material currently under restriction will enter the feed chain.

The Department has been and will remain in constant contact with the EU Commission and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland on this issue.

ENDS

Department of Agriculture and Food
(Press/Information Office)
Agriculture House
Kildare Street
Dublin 2
Tel: + 353 (01) 607 2190
Fax: + 353 (01) 662 1165
E-mail: info@agriculture.gov.ie
Web site: http://www.agriculture.gov.ie

UK / Wales: EFSA is asked to block all non-replicable science

GM Free Cymru (GM Free Wales), 18th May 2007

GM Free Cymru has written to EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, with a request that its traditional dependence upon non-replicable or advocacy science (conducted by the applicants for GMO approvals) should be abandoned forthwith, and should be replaced by a policy of only considering tests and experiments that are genuinely replicable.

The Background:

Applications for GMO release/marketing consents in Europe are received by one or another of the "competent authorities" or member states and are then passed through to EFSA for its scientific assessment and advice. EFSA deals with the application dossier and invites and receives comments and sometimes detailed submissions from the member states. These comments often come from the advisory committees such as ACRE in the UK. EFSA publishes a "Guidance Document of the Scientific Panel on GMOs for the Risk Assessment of GM Plants and Derived Food and Feed" which provides information on the form in which information should be submitted, and the main types of evidence expected. The latest edition of this advice was adopted in May 2006. There are 105 pages. It is here: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/press_room/publications/scientific/
1497.Par.0005.File.dat/gmo_guidance%20gm%20plants_en.pdf.

Samples of the GMO which is the subject of the application have to be provided for analysis at the EU's Joint Research Centre, so that the transformation event can be verified and so that reference or "control" material can be held for checks against future monitoring / contamination events. There is no other requirement for samples to be provided for independent research or repeat experiments. All of the onus is placed upon the applicant for the provision of the evidence required for the full dossier, as laid out in long annexes.

There is no requirement placed on an applicant to have the research done by independent laboratories or scientists; there is no requirement for "verification" studies to be undertaken by a government institute (as in Russia); and there is no requirement placed on an applicant for the provision of reference or sample materials to be made available to genuinely independent bona fide researchers. This is a recipe for corruption, and explains why so much of the research submitted in dossiers is not only non-replicable but is also cynically manipulated to hide "unwelcome" health and safety effects.

There is no legal obstacle to EFSA amending its Guidance at any time, or adding additional requirements to be met by applicants. Indeed, EFSA flags up on its web site the fact that the Guidance Document is constantly under review and is open for improvement.

Text of the letter:

Prof Harry Kuiper
Chair, GMO Panel
European Food Safety Authority
Largo N. Palli 5/A
I - 43100 Parma
Italy

18th May 2007

OPEN LETTER

Dear Harry

A Proposal for Urgent Action on GM Science

As you are aware, GM Free Cymru has, on many occasions in the past, raised with EFSA the overwhelming emphasis placed by you and other regulators and advisory committees on "advocacy science" when you are considering the health, safety and environmental impacts of GM crops and products (1). Our concerns were brought into sharp focus when we recently attended the 3rd European Conference of GMO-Free Regions in Brussels, when speaker after speaker demonstrated a deep mistrust of EFSA and called for reforms in its membership and in its operational methods. Your GMO Panel is widely viewed as being "in the pocket" of the biotechnology industry, and as a body which exists not for the protection of the public but for the facilitation of GMO consents. This perceived industry bias has caused concern within the EC and in the European Parliament, and although EFSA committed itself more than a year ago to greater transparency and dialogue with stakeholders, we see little sign of any change. The statements on openness, transparency and independence on the EFSA web site have done nothing to allay our fears.

We appreciate that this sorry situation is not entirely of EFSA's own making, in that you have no funds for extensive independent laboratory research and in that you can only make scientific judgments on the basis of what is presented to you in dossiers or in ancillary pieces of research which you may request. However, as we have seen from the fiascos associated with MON863 and MON810, the instinct of those who are applying for GMO consents is always to present the "best" possible case (through the use of corrupt science and in-house data manipulation if needs be), to seek to prevent open access to their dossiers, and to dismiss any criticism or questioning of their methods or research findings. They systematically vilify or patronise those who conduct (with great difficulty) genuinely independent research. Corporations such as Monsanto routinely block such independent research by denying access to their GM materials by any researchers whom they deem to be "unfriendly." Their research is therefore non-replicable, in contravention of one of the oldest principles underpinning scientific endeavour. We have documented many such cases (2), and Monsanto, Syngenta and other companies have never denied their behaviour in this respect. Jeffrey Smith's new book contains many more examples of the manner in which the GM corporations have twisted science for their own ends.

As long as EFSA's GMO Panel allows itself to be associated with this sort of scientific corruption, it will not win any increase in approval or trust from NGOs, consumer groups and the general public. May we suggest one very simple way out of this profoundly depressing situation? EFSA should issue a simple statement (3) along these lines:

"In the interests of public safety, EFSA will not consider any dossier or any other research material submitted in support of an application for a GMO approval unless (a) it is accompanied by a signed declaration to the effect that the scientific research (including full data sets) will be open to public scrutiny and peer review; and (b) it is accompanied by a signed declaration that repeat, additional or extended experiments by bona fide independent researchers and laboratories will be facilitated through the provision of GM reference materials as appropriate."

Such a statement issued by EFSA, and strictly adhered to, would in our view go a long way towards the restoration of confidence in the GMO Panel -- and it would, for the first time, allow truly replicable science to become a part of your operations. If Monsanto or any of the other corporations should refuse to sign these two simple declarations, we can draw our own conclusions as to the honesty of their science and the safety of their GMOs.......

We ask you to take this proposal to your GMO Panel as a matter of urgency, and also to seek the approval of EFSA as a whole.

We are treating this as an Open Letter, and hope that other organizations and individuals will (if they have not done so already) ask you to make this simple and entirely legal step, in the interests of sound science, public safety and environmental protection.

We look forward to hearing from you with confirmation that you will take this matter forward.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Brian John
GM Free Cymru
Trefelin, Cilgwyn, Newport, Pembs SA42 0QN, Wales

Notes:

(1) http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/manipulation.htm
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/corruption.htm
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/greenpeace.htm
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/syngenta.htm

(2) http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/manipulation.htm

(3) We would of course accept that certain very limited information (relating to DNA, gene sequences etc) should remain as commercially confidential information. But the CBI label has been grossly misapplied in the past, by EFSA among others, against the public interest -- and it is time that the regulators, rather than the GMO consent applicants, made the decisions as to what material genuinely deserves protected status.

Cyprus: Plenum downs bio-fuels law amendment

Cyprus Mail, 18 May 2007

THE PLENUM yesterday rejected an amendment by President Papadopoulos on the law regarding the use of bio-fuels that contain genetically modified substances.

The amendment called for an alteration in the law that currently did not allow the import or use of bio-fuels that had been produced using GM substances, something that goes against a recent EU Directive.

During the hotly contested vote, 24 deputies voted in favour while 25 deputies voted against.

AKEL deputy and Chairman of the House Environment Committee, Yiannos Lamaris, said his party voted against the amendment because "we have our reservations over the issue of the growth of genetically modified organisms for the production of bio-fuels. The issue of GM organisms is still in the balance, both in the EU and worldwide".

AKEL, EDEK, the Green Party and the European Party voted against the change, while opposition party DISY and government partner DIKO were the only two parties that voted in favour.

According to Green Party leader George Perdikis, nothing had changed since the previous vote on bio fuels, and that the House had been "fully aware that the law was opposed to European guidelines".

China food scare threatens exports

Daily Times (Pakistan), 18 May 2007.

HONG KONG: Foreign buyers of Chinese food are asking for safety tests following the melamine pet food debacle, threatening the country's competitive position in a wide range of markets, including organic ingredients.

Industry officials said US and other firms had demanded a certificate that farm products were free of melamine.

Their comments came after a US Food and Drug Administration team visited China to investigate how melamine, a chemical product, got into pet food, killing at least 16 pets in the United States and leading to a recall of more than 100 brands of pet food.

Costs for such safety checks are expected to soar, especially as it would take time for the country to build up reliable nationwide quality controls.

"This scandal has had severe consequences for the whole industry," said Chuk Ng, general manager of Nutrogen (Dalian) Co Ltd, a company specialising in organic and non-genetically modified (GMO) farm products.

"Now the European and US clients are checking every batch of products coming from China ... The GMO test is one. Now you add tests for melamine or other heavy metals or pesticides, the costs are very high, too high," Ng said.

Pressured by the US government after the melamine breaches, Beijing has pledged to act on food safety and announced an industry clean-up that would bring inspections for fertiliser, pesticides and additives in livestock feed.

Foreign buyers, reluctant to take risks, are sending large quantities of food samples to international testing specialists such as Eurofins Scientific or SGS Group.

Japan, own systems

The industry officials said Japan, which accounts for about a quarter of China's farm product exports, had also recommended importers check for melamine in Chinese products, such as rice flour or wheat gluten, for use in animal feed.

"The safety tests for raw materials are likely to get tougher," said a senior official from a Japanese food processing plant in China.

"Eventually they could demand traceability similar to that for non-GMO products ... which would raise costs. Given higher costs and credibility, there's a question if you would still want to buy raw materials from China."

A year ago Japan tightened safety checks on farm products from China, which has angered Beijing. The new rules require checks for nearly 300 pesticides and chemicals residues at loading ports as well as at discharging ports.

Asked how to guarantee the quality of food imported from China, an official in charge of food safety at one of Hong Kong's largest food retailers said: "It's very important to get system in place for traceability all the way back in the supply chain. "When you have traceability, you can then have accountability. I think this is what China lacks." reuters

USA: Biotech's deceptive fiction

GM Watch, 18 May 2007.

Earlier this year the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation granted a consortium led by the lobby group Africa Harvest and its CEO, Dr Florence Wambugu, the better part of $16.9 million to develop a GM sorghum.

A key part of the Wambugu consortium is DuPont, the GM and chemicals giant. And this is not the first time that DuPont and Dr Wambugu have collaborated.

In mid-August, a subsidiary of DuPont's, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, put out a press release entitled: 'Harvesting Hope: Kenyan Farmers Celebrate First Banana Harvest Using New Growing Technology'. In it DuPont's Chairman and CEO, Charles O. Holliday, Jr, was quoted as saying, "DuPont is proud to partner with Africa Harvest in bringing tissue culture banana technology to the Chura community".
http://www.just-food.com/press_releases_detail.asp?art=1581

Dr Wambugu is also quoted in the press release, saying that tissue culture technology in Africa has increased banana productivity from 20 to 45 tons per hectare. For the typical Churan family, according to Wambugu, this remarkable increase in production can translate into a tripling of income - from the current average of $1 per day per family to as much as $3 per day per family.

"For these families, this additional income can mean the difference between sending their children to school or being forced to keep them home," says Wambugu. "It is important to understand that the difference tissue culture bananas make is far beyond the field."
http://www.just-food.com/press_releases_detail.asp?art=1581

According to Wambugu, tissue cultured bananas are reversing a dire situation in Kenya. "Banana production in this country has been in decline over the last 10 years," she says. "Yields can be reduced by up to 90 percent from using the same suckers on multiple farms, and this of course, means a major income loss for farmers."
http://www.just-food.com/press_releases_detail.asp?art=1581

Elsewhere Dr Wambugu has written of an even longer decline in yields, "This project was conceived in response to the rapid decline in banana (Musa) production experienced in Kenya over the last two decades."
http://www.gdnet.org/pdf/909_Wambugu.pdf

Dr Wambugu has also emphasised the importance of bananas as a staple crop in Kenyan agriculture, the centrality of this crop to small holder farmers and their incomes, and the important calorific contribution of bananas to rural people's diets in Kenya. (Wambugu and Kiome, Benefits of Biotechnology for Small-Scale Banana Producers in Kenya)
http://assets.innogen.ac.uk/assets_innogen/dynamic/1121332705303/Innogen-Working-Paper-31-Final.doc

Against this disturbing background of a rapid decline of a key crop for food security in Kenya, Wambugu notes that the success that has already been attained by her tissue cultured banana project is "incredible to say the least."
http://www.gdnet.org/pdf/909_Wambugu.pdf

Although tissue culture is a relatively unsophisticated, and largely uncontroversial, biotechnological technique that does not involve genetic engineering, Dr. Wambugu has been keen to draw the widest possible conclusions from the project. For instance, in a 'Statement on Biotechnology in Africa' submitted to the Committee on Agriculture of the U.S. House of Representatives she argued, "programs such as the tissue culture banana project in some East African countries have demonstrated that biotechnology can have a positive impact on hunger, malnutrition and poverty. In some cases, rural farm incomes have tripled as a result of biotech techniques."
http://www.bio.org/foodag/action/20030326.asp

According to DuPont's Chairman, the success of this project makes it "a model for other sustainable agricultural and developmental projects that can benefit many more communities and farmers throughout Kenya, Africa, and the developing world."
http://www.just-food.com/press_releases_detail.asp?art=1581

However, in November 2004 a paper was published that cast serious doubts on just about every one of the claims of Florence Wambugu and her collaborators. In 'The Anti-politics Gene': Biotechnology, Ideology and Innovation Systems in Kenya, James Smith - an African Studies specialist at the University of Edinburgh - carefully analyses Wambugu's tissue culture biotechnology project.
http://assets.innogen.ac.uk/assets_innogen/dynamic/1121332705303/Innogen-Working-Paper-31-Final.doc

Smith's findings are also usefully summarised in 'Smoke, Mirrors and Poverty: Communication, Biotechnological Innovation and Development ' (2005), by Joanna Chataway and James Smith, as part of a discussion of how projects involving innovation and development are communicated. (It is not our intention to deal with the main points of Chataway and Smith's paper here but we will draw on its summarising.)
http://assets.innogen.ac.uk/assets_innogen/dynamic/1127824457271/Innogen-Working-Paper-36-Final.doc

According to Smith, Wambugu and her collaborators have promoted their project by creating what Smith terms a "crisis narrative" - an attempt to paint a picture of "a situation that is inexorable, inevitable and above all cannot be managed with the existing portfolio of development interventions".
http://assets.innogen.ac.uk/assets_innogen/dynamic/1127824457271/Innogen-Working-Paper-36-Final.doc

This "crisis narrative" is created by establishing the banana as an important crop in East Africa and by documenting a very serious decline in yield. However, this decline is a complete myth. "It is important to note that both broad data on banana yields in Kenya and data gained from speaking to many small-scale farmers in the areas surrounding Nairobi do not in any way back up the disastrous declines in yield documented by Wambugu and Kiome (Food and Agriculture Organisation Data, 2004)."
http://assets.innogen.ac.uk/assets_innogen/dynamic/1127824457271/Innogen-Working-Paper-36-Final.doc

In his paper (2004), Smith notes that the "progressive yield declines" claimed by Wambugu et al are not, in fact, "measured, referenced or sourced in any of the literature concerning the project", and he concludes that the yield declines "have little or no statistical or empirical basis". Indeed, he contrasts Wambugu's claims with FAO time series data of mean annual yields for Kenya between 1975 and 2003, which shows "there is no discernable decrease in banana yields over the past 20 years... In fact, if anything there has been a significant increase in yields in Kenya... over that period." The exact opposite of what Wambugu and her collaborators claim.
http://assets.innogen.ac.uk/assets_innogen/dynamic/1121332705303/Innogen-Working-Paper-31-Final.doc

Having established a mythical decline in yields Wambugu then asserts that the decline can largely be attributed to the infestation of Kenya banana orchards by pests and diseases - something tissue culturing bananas could counter. The only problem is, "They provide no empirical evidence for this assertion."
http://assets.innogen.ac.uk/assets_innogen/dynamic/1121332705303/Innogen-Working-Paper-31-Final.doc

Just as fictitious as the declining yields is the importance Wambugu claims for bananas in Kenyan agriculture and the centrality she says this crop has for small holder farmers: "the majority of rural households only cultivate very few banana plants. Banana is almost never the primary crop, and in fact, agriculture as a whole is usually only one of several livelihood activities that a household engages in." In short, "it is clear the banana is not an important crop within the majority of agricultural system".
http://assets.innogen.ac.uk/assets_innogen/dynamic/1127824457271/Innogen-Working-Paper-36-Final.doc

Equally fictitional is Wambugu's claim that bananas make a significant contribution to rural people's diets in Kenya: "data from the Food and Agriculture Organisation indicates that the mean nutritional contribution of bananas has been in the order of 11-12 calories per capita per day over the past 25 years... It is likely that the poorest percentiles of rural households consume proportionately more bananas than the FAO figure, but it appears highly unlikely that the banana forms the main component of either their diet or their income."
http://assets.innogen.ac.uk/assets_innogen/dynamic/1127824457271/Innogen-Working-Paper-36-Final.doc

In other words, there is no sound basis for any of Wambugu's claims for the banana being an important crop for rural development, for food security or for income generation.

What then of Wambugu's claims for the project's "incredible" successes, for its more than doubled yields and for its ability to triple farmer income?

The evidence Wambugu bases such claims on is difficult to assess because, "No published peer reviewed papers seem to exist to document the impacts of TC banana projects in Kenya."
http://assets.innogen.ac.uk/assets_innogen/dynamic/1127824457271/Innogen-Working-Paper-36-Final.doc

Smith accepts that an increase in yield seems likely, not least given that such projects involve increased time spent on orchard management, irrigation etc, but the total absence of any peer reviewed research means "this is not quantifiable in the context of small-scale production and market access".

Indeed, Smith provides a number of reasons for doubting the reality of the "incredible" successes Wambugu claims: "we have found a mixed reaction amongst farmers involved in the projects and documented considerable disappointment from many of them."

Although tissue culture bananas were judged to have positive attributes, "problems with growth cycles of tissue culture bananas and lack of marketing outlets meant that farmers had gluts of bananas" that they were unable to sell or consume. "Quotes from interviews with small farmers carried out for this research included the following: 'TC bananas are not meant for local cultivation', 'Kenya needs some mechanism to add value to its bananas', 'No one thought ahead about surplus bananas.'"
http://assets.innogen.ac.uk/assets_innogen/dynamic/1127824457271/Innogen-Working-Paper-36-Final.doc

Smith also found that, "farmers who planted TC bananas were encouraged to greatly increase their investment in banana growing, this involved not only purchasing the TC plantlets (c. $1.50-2.00 per plantlet) but also introducing more labour and capital intensive orchard management practices such as weeding, irrigation and intercropping. Without viable markets this clearly left farmers in a vulnerable position."
http://assets.innogen.ac.uk/assets_innogen/dynamic/1127824457271/Innogen-Working-Paper-36-Final.doc

Wambugu and her collaborators appear to have both overestimated the importance of tissue cultured bananas "in terms of subsistence and diet and ignored some of the production and marketing constraints... Essentially, TC bananas were pushed as a technology solution and not examined sufficiently from a demand perspective."
http://assets.innogen.ac.uk/assets_innogen/dynamic/1127824457271/Innogen-Working-Paper-36-Final.doc

In a sense then, Wambugu and DuPont are quite right to say this project offers wider lessons for Africa and the developing world. The most obvious lesson is to beware of corporate-connected scientists bearing crisis narratives. They may come pushing biotech solutions in search of a problem.

Unfortunately, though, such narratives can be very seductive. Dr Wambugu has had enormous success in promoting another project in Kenya - the GM sweet potato - and in an exactly similar fashion. Once again she has used low figures on average yields in Kenya to paint a picture of stagnation.

This time in constructing her crisis narrative Wambugu repeatedly claimed that only 4 or perhaps 6 tons of sweet potatoes were being produced per hectare in Kenya - without ever mentioning the data source. However, as the development specialist Aaron deGrassi has pointed out, FAO statistics indicated average yields in Kenya of "9.7 tons, and official statistics report 10.4 tons" per hectare. In other words, Wambugu's figures on average non-GM yields massively understate the reality.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131

The contrasting success of the GM sweet potato was very widely reported on the basis of the claims of Wambugu and her collaborators, even though no peer reviewed reports or official figures were published during three years of trials in Kenya. These results were said to be "astonishing" - just how "astonishing" only finally emerged at the end of the Kenyan trials: the GM sweet potatoes, which supposedly yielded more, had been outperformed by the conventional crop. They were worse than useless.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131

It would be easy to conclude from this that Dr Wambugu is a particular case - a specialist in crisis narratives and hyped solutions, but she has not acted alone. As well as Dupont, Wambugu's collaborators have included Martin Qaim, Monsanto, USAID, ISAAA, the Rockefeller Foundation, and DfID. And, as James Smith tellingly notes, this type of "narrative prevails amongst a whole range of literature supporting biotechnological development in Africa."
http://assets.innogen.ac.uk/assets_innogen/dynamic/1121332705303/Innogen-Working-Paper-31-Final.doc

USA: Catastrophic bee colony collapse is not affecting organic hives

Organic Bytes #109" (free newsletter from Organic Consumers Assn), 18 May 2007.

As previously reported in Organic Bytes (Issue #104), beekeepers in 24 states are experiencing record losses of honeybees. Some states have reported up to 70% disappearances of commercial bee populations. Researchers are struggling to find the causes of this mysterious collapse.

A crucial element of this story, missing from reports in the mainstream media, is the fact that organic beekeepers across North America are not experiencing colony collapses. The millions of dying bees are hyper-bred varieties whose hives are regularly fumigated with toxic pesticides by conventional beekeepers attempting to ward off mites. In contrast, organic beekeepers avoid pesticides and toxic chemicals and strive to use techniques that closely emulate the ecology of bees in the wild.

Researchers are beginning to link the mass deaths of non-organic bees to pesticide exposure, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and the common practice of moving conventional bee hives over long distances.

Learn more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/bees.cfm

17 May 2007

USA: Ventria's pharma rice threatens food supply
USDA Approval of Drug-Producing Rice in Kansas Poses Threat to Food Safety, Say Food Safety & Farming Groups
Tornadoes, Floods Could Contaminate Foods With Drugs Not Approved By FDA
20,000 Citizens, Scientists, Farming and Rice Organizations In Opposition

Press release from Center for Food Safety
Kansas Rural Center
Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering
17 May 2007

WASHINGTON - The Center for Food Safety, Kansas Rural Center and Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering object to USDA's May 16th approval of drug-producing rice cultivation in Kansas, charging that it poses needless risks to the safety of the American food supply. USDA's approval permits cultivation in the Junction City area of up to 3,200 acres of rice genetically engineered to produce pharmaceutical compounds that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has refused to approve. FDA approval is not required for planting to proceed.

The groups note that the decision comes just a week after tornadoes in the Kansas River Valley and heavy rains caused severe flooding in east-central Kansas, including floodwaters on the Smoky Hill River, which passes just a mile from one of the proposed planting sites. USDA had earlier dismissed concerns raised by the groups that floodwaters could carry the pharmaceutical rice into surrounding cropland and contaminate farmers' crops with drugs unapproved by the FDA. USDA concluded in its environmental assessment that: "Extreme weather events are rare and unlikely to occur in the area of the field trial."

"About two weeks ago, I was huddled with other travelers in a rest stop on Interstate 70 as tornadoes were reported on the ground in the very area where Ventria proposes to expand their production between Junction City and Topeka," said Dan Nagengast, Executive Director of the Kansas Rural Center.

"I also question whether the company has adequately engineered their water control systems to deal with the amounts of torrential rainfall that are quite common here. This just represents an unconscionable food safety complication in a food-producing region. Why grow these crops in wide open nature, when other companies have found it possible to use genetic engineering techniques to produce biotech drugs in confined settings where food contamination is not an issue?"

USDA approved the "pharma rice" plantings despite receiving 20,000 comments in opposition from citizens, scientists, farming and rice groups. Groups opposing the scheme include the USA Rice Federation, U.S. Rice Producers Association, Riceland Foods, Mississippi Rice Council, Arkansas Rice Growers Association, Missouri Rice Research and Merchandising Council, and Rice Producers of California. In addition, fourteen independent scientists signed a joint scientific assessment warning of potential adverse health impacts from even trace-level exposure to one of the rice-produced drugs.

"These rice-grown drugs are unapproved by FDA, may be hazardous, and whether hazardous or not could cause huge economic losses to Kansas farmers whose wheat, soy or other crops become contaminated with drug rice," said Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst with Center for Food Safety.

"In 2002, corn containing an experimental swine vaccine got mixed into soybeans and regular corn, which then had to be destroyed at a cost of several millions dollars," said Nagengast. "Over the past year, rice farmers have lost millions of dollars from contamination of their crop with unapproved genetically engineered rice grown under USDA's watch," he added.

"The USDA needs to stop rubber-stamping schemes like drug-producing crops that put farmers and the rural economies they support at great risk," said Bill Wenzel, National Director of the Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering. "The USDA should be focused on representing farmers rather than carrying water for the biotech industry," he added.

Developed by California-based Ventria Bioscience, the rice is engineered with modified human genes to serve as a "biofactory" for production of synthetic human milk proteins that have antimicrobial and other drug-like properties. Ventria has proposed using the rice-extracted protein drugs to treat infants with diarrhea, and as additives in infant formulas, yogurt, granola bars and sports drinks, among other uses.

Last month, the Center for Food Safety released a report detailing the potential human health impacts of Ventria's pharmaceutical rice and the FDA's refusal to approve Ventria's rice-grown drugs. The report, "A Grain of Caution," also disputes the need for Ventria's pharmaceutical rice, discussing cheap and effective solutions for prevention and treatment of diarrhea recommended by the World Health Organization and other public health experts. The report notes that these existing solutions have cut deaths due to diarrhea from 4.6 million a year in 1980 to 2 million today, and could save many more lives if adequate funding were provided.

Center for Food Safety's "A Grain of Caution" is available at:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/Pharmaceutical%20Rice-FINAL.pdf

For Center for Food Safety's comments to USDA warning of contamination and other risks, see:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/Biopharm%20Rice%20Kansas%20comments_final.pdf

Contacts:

Dan Nagengast, Kansas Rural Center, 785-748-0959
Bill Freese, Center for Food Safety, 202-547-9359 x14
Bill Wenzel, Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering, 608-444-0292

Center for Food Safety is a national non-profit membership organization working to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and promoting sustainable agriculture. In 2000/2001, CFS was part of a coalition that discovered widespread contamination of the food supply with genetically engineered StarLink corn, which had not been approved for human consumption due to concerns it could cause food allergies. In the past year, CFS has won three cases against USDA for the Agriculture Department's reckless and illegal approval of genetically engineered crops. See www.centerforfoodsafety.org.

The Kansas Rural Center is a non-profit research, education and advocacy organization that promotes environmentally sound farming practices and a safe and healthy food system, benefiting both farmers and consumers. See www.kansasruralcenter.org.

The Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering was formed in 1999 to provide a national voice for farmers on agriculture biotechnology. The Campaign provides education, training and support to farmers and farm groups on agricultural biotechnology issues.

Brazil: Allied with Brazilian Agribusiness, Syngenta Resists Governor's Decree to Expropriate Site

International Relations Center (IRC) Americas Program Report. May 17 2007. By Rennie Lee.

March 14 marked the one-year anniversary of the Via Campesina's non-violent occupation of Syngenta Seeds' experimental test site in Brazil.

Last year 600 members of the Via Campesina occupied the 123-hectare site in Santa Tereza do Oeste, in the state of Parana, after it was discovered that Syngenta had illegally planted 12 hectares of genetically modified soybeans at the site. Syngenta's plantation was located within the protective boundary zone of the Iguacu National Park (the boundary distance has since been modified), which was declared Patrimony of Humanity by the United Nations in 1986.

The occupation has become one the most powerful symbols in the world of civil society's resistance to agribusiness, as it continues to paralyze all of Syngenta's activities at the site, costing the corporation tens of millions of dollars. It also spurred Parana state Governor Roberto Requiao to sign a decree on November 9, 2006 to expropriate the site for the public interest.

Yet despite Requiao's decree, the magnitude of Syngenta's environmental crime, and continuous pressure from social movements and civil society around the world, the realization of the expropriation of the site from Syngenta is threatened due to the immense power of agribusiness in Brazilian politics.

See full report at http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4239

Colombia: Aerial spraying of herbicide 'damages DNA'
Aerial spraying could damage locals' health

SciDev.Net, 17 May 2007. By Lisbeth Fog.

[BOGOTA] Aerial spraying of a herbicide by the Colombian government on the border of Colombia and Ecuador has caused a high degree of DNA damage in local Ecuadorian people, according to a study.

The research will be published in the next issue of Genetics and Molecular Biology.

The scientists, from the Pontificia Catholic University in Ecuador, analysed blood samples from 24 Ecuadorians living within three kilometres of the border of the two countries. Aerial spraying of a herbicide formulation containing glyphosate - sold under the name Roundup by Monsanto - took place on the Colombian side of the border between late 2000 and early 2001.

The Colombian government sprays illegal coca plantations - used to make cocaine - as part of its 'war on drugs'.

According to the paper, the application rate of the herbicide (litres per hectare) was 20 times the maximum recommended rate for the formulated product.

Half the individuals in the group received spraying directly over their houses, and the blood samples were taken within two months of the spraying taking place.

For comparison, blood samples were taken from 21 Ecuadorian individuals living 80 kilometres away from the border, where aerial spraying of the herbicide formulation did not take place.

In addition to expected symptoms - including vomiting and diarrhoea, blurred vision, and difficulty in breathing - the researchers found a significantly higher degree of DNA damage - 600 to 800 per cent higher - in the people living near the border compared with those 80 kilometres away.

The researchers ruled out tobacco, alcohol, non-prescription drugs and asbestos as causing the DNA damage. None of the individuals used or had been exposed to other herbicides or pesticides when the samples were taken.

DNA damage may activate genes associated to the development of cancer, lead researcher Cesar Paz y Mino told SciDev.Net, and may also lead to miscarriage or malformations in embryos.

Both Colombia and Ecuador have formed national scientific and technical commissions to study the effects of aerially spraying this herbicide formulation, with the Ecuadorian commission concluding it does affect humans and the Colombian commission refuting this claim (see Pesticides used in Colombian war on drugs 'not harmful').

President of the Colombian commission, Alberto Gomez Mejia, told SciDev.Net that it is difficult to establish the real cause of the effects of agrochemicals in humans.

Reference: Genetics and Molecular Biology 30, 456 (2007)

Notes:

1.Effects of the herbicide Roundup on human embryonic cells - Press release

2.Time- and Dose-Dependent Effects of Roundup on Human Embryonic and Placental Cells - Abstract

NOTE: A research group (CRIIGEN) at the University of Caen, France, has published a study on the previously unknown toxic effects of Roundup on human embryonic cells. Roundup is the Monsanto-developed herbicide in use worldwide, including on GMOs for food and feed. Item 2 is the Abstract of the new study. Item 1 is CRIIGEN's press release. Read the full report at http://www.springerlink.com/content/d13171q7k863l446/fulltext.html

EXTRACTS: The cytotoxic, and potentially endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup are thus amplified with time. Taken together, these data suggest that Roundup exposure may affect human reproduction and fetal development in case of contamination. Chemical mixtures in formulations appear to be underestimated regarding their toxic or hormonal impact. (item 2)

..the herbicide Roundup, as sold on the market, is far more toxic than the product which is known and approved to be its active ingredient: glyphosate. The gaps in European legislation to study the effects of mixtures and hormonal disruptions are underlined. (item 1)

1.Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering www.criigen.org

Press Release CRIIGEN - May 2007

Effects of the herbicide Roundup on human embryonic cells

Professor Seralini's group (1), in the University of Caen, France, just published a study on the previously unknown toxic effects of Roundup on human embryonic cells.

Roundup is the major herbicide in use worldwide, including on GMOs for food and feed. The embryonic cells are from a line cultivated in the laboratory and their use does not necessitate embryo destruction. The group wanted to confirm and detail the understanding of the effects already observed on placental cells, as published by Seralini's group in 2005.

Following comparison, it appears that embryonic cells are far more sensitive. The deleterious results of Roundup are noticed at very week doses (the product sold in stores is diluted up to 10,000 times). Sensitivity is confirmed in particular for the disruption of sexual hormones at non toxic levels, especially on fresh placental extracts. The maximal active dilutions correspond to less than the residues in discussion to be authorized in GMO feed in the United States.

It is evidenced that the herbicide Roundup, as sold on the market, is far more toxic than the product which is known and approved to be its active ingredient: glyphosate. The gaps in European legislation to study the effects of mixtures and hormonal disruptions are underlined.

This work may be of help in better understating the problems of miscarriages, premature births or sexual malformations of babies, in particular in agricultural workers families.

The paper published on line first (1) on the website of the journal ¬΄ Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology ¬ͺ directed by Dr. Doerge from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in USA, will appear in the July 2007 issue.

This work is funded by the Human Earth Foundation, the Denis Guichard Foundation, the CRIIGEN and the Regional Council of Basse-Normandie.

Contact : Pr Gilles-Eric Sˆ©ralini, Biochemistry, Institute of Biology, University of Caen, Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen, France. Telephone: 33(0)2-31-56-56-84. Fax: 33(0)2-31- 56-53-20. Corinne Lepage President of CRIIGEN. E-mail: criigen@unicaen.fr. (1) Time and Dose-Dependent Effects of Roundup on Human Embryonic and Placental Cells by Nora Benachour, Herbert Sipahutar, Safa Moslemi, Celine Gasnier, Carine Travert, Gilles-Eric Seralini. (http://www.springerlink.com/content/d13171q7k863l446/fulltext.html)

2. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology http://www.springerlink.com/content/d13171q7k863l446/fulltext.html Time- and Dose-Dependent Effects of Roundup on Human Embryonic and Placental Cells N. Benachour1, H. Sipahutar2, S. Moslemi3, C. Gasnier1, C. Travert1 and G. E. Seralini1, 4

(1) Laboratoire Estrogenes et Reproduction, USC-INRA, IBFA, Universite de Caen, Caen, France (2) Department of Biology, State University of Medan, Medan, Indonesia (3) Laboratoire de Biochimie du Tissu Conjonctif, EA3214, CHU Cote de Nacre, Caen, France (4) Laboratoire de Biochimie, EA2608-USC INRA, IBFA, Universite de Caen, Esplanade de Paix, 14032 Caen, France

G. E. Seralini Email: criigen@unicaen.fr

Received: 25 July 2006 Accepted: 20 November 2006 Published online: 4 May 2007

Abstract Roundup® is the major herbicide used worldwide, in particular on genetically modified plants that have been designed to tolerate it. We have tested the toxicity and endocrine disruption potential of Roundup (Bioforce®) on human embryonic 293 and placental-derived JEG3 cells, but also on normal human placenta and equine testis. The cell lines have proven to be suitable to estimate hormonal activity and toxicity of pollutants. The median lethal dose (LD50) of Roundup with embryonic cells is 0.3% within 1 h in serum-free medium, and it decreases to reach 0.06% (containing among other compounds 1.27 mM glyphosate) after 72 h in the presence of serum. In these conditions, the embryonic cells appear to be 2’§"4 times more sensitive than the placental ones. In all instances, Roundup (generally used in agriculture at 1’§"2%, i.e., with 21’§"42 mM glyphosate) is more efficient than its active ingredient, glyphosate, suggesting a synergistic effect provoked by the adjuvants present in Roundup. We demonstrated that serum-free cultures, even on a short-term basis (1 h), reveal the xenobiotic impacts that are visible 1’§"2 days later in serum. We also document at lower non-overtly toxic doses, from 0.01% (with 210 μM glyphosate) in 24 h, that Roundup is an aromatase disruptor. The direct inhibition is temperature-dependent and is confirmed in different tissues and species (cell lines from placenta or embryonic kidney, equine testicular, or human fresh placental extracts). Furthermore, glyphosate acts directly as a partial inactivator on microsomal aromatase, independently of its acidity, and in a dose-dependent manner. The cytotoxic, and potentially endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup are thus amplified with time. Taken together, these data suggest that Roundup exposure may affect human reproduction and fetal development in case of contamination. Chemical mixtures in formulations appear to be underestimated regarding their toxic or hormonal impact. link

In Brazil, Bayer's GMO corn has one more political hurdle

MarketWatch, 17 May 2007. By Kenneth Rapoza

SAO PAULO (MarketWatch) -- German multinational Bayer CropScience got the green light to sell its LibertyLink transgenic corn in Brazil, but the company faces one more hurdle before the country's farmers are allowed to plant the product. "We said the technical part of LibertyLink is okay, but the product still has to go through 11 different ministries who will have the final say on the political viability of GMO corn in Brazil," said Rachel Mortari, a press agent for the country's biosafety commission, CTNBio.

CTNBio approved the use of LibertyLink Wednesday by a vote of 17-4. Officials from the environmental ministry, agrarian reform, and fishing and wildlife departments voted against.

"We are very much against the CTNBio decision," said Gabriela Vuolo, a Greenpeace coordinator in Brasilia. Greenpeace in Brazil has been lobbying against transgenic corn since last year. Greenpeace says CTNBio doesn't do environmental impact studies. CTNBio was unavailable for comment regarding Greenpeace's allegations.

According to Edilson Paiva of Brazil crop science institute, Embrapa, corn is an exotic plant to Brazil and has only survived because of science.

"Brazil's native corn, the kind we had from the 1950s, doesn't exist anymore," he said. "Scientifically speaking, there is no pure native corn in Brazil."

Bayer has been waiting roughly 9 years to gain access to Brazil's lucrative and new genetically modified seeds market. To date, only Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans and Bollgard cotton is allowed in Brazil. A handful of companies produce their own varieties of Roundup Ready soy. This season marked the first time Brazil soygrowers were able to legally plant transgenic soybeans. Roughly half of this year's crop was transgenic.

If the National Biosafety Commission, composed of top officials from 11 different government departments - from Agriculture to Science & Technology - does not argue against LibertyLink over the next 90 days, Bayer will be permitted to sell transgenic corn in the 2007-08 season.

Farmers say that transgenic plants allow them to control weeds, thus reducing the necessity to spray costly herbicides on the crop.

Corn is Brazil's No. 2 crop behind soybeans. The country should harvest a record 51 million metric tons of corn this year.

Brazil farmers plant corn in October.

- Contact: 201-938-5400.

USA: Rice approved to produce human proteins

Reuters, 17 May 2007. By Lisa Haarlander.

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The U.S. government gave approval on Wednesday for a biotech company to plant rice genetically modified to produce human proteins in Kansas.

Ventria Bioscience of Sacramento, California, can now grow up to 3,200 acres of genetically modified rice in Geary County, Kansas, to produce proteins that would be used in medicine to treat diarrhea.

Ventria plans to grow the rice on only 250 acres, said company president Scott Deeter.

"We have grown it for nine years in North Carolina, California and South America as well," he said.

The approval by the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) fuels concerns that another GMO crop will contaminate the U.S. food and feed supply.

Last summer, a genetically modified strain of long-grain rice made by Bayer CropScience, a unit of Bayer AG, which had not been cleared for food use, was found in commercial rice bins in Arkansas and Missouri. Several countries, including the European Union, have sharply cut back on U.S. rice purchases following the discovery. USDA has since found LibertyLink safe for food and feed use.

"The U.S. rice industry is still reeling from the release of Bayer CropScience's genetically engineered LibertyLink rice into U.S. Delta-region rice fields," USA Rice Producers' Group Chairman Paul Combs said."We are living with the effect of unintended events and consequences. This decision will not generate any comfort among U.S. commercial rice growers."

APHIS received more than 20,000 comments on Ventria's application, with only 29 groups or individuals supporting the planting of the GMO rice in Kansas.

USDA has a stringent protocol for overseeing genetically modified crops with those made to produce pharmaceuticals regulated by more field inspections and greater distances from traditional food crops, among other requirements.

There is no commercial rice production within 300 miles of Geary County, APHIS said. "We don't produce this in an area that produces rice," Deeter said. "It's an entirely different production system. We wouldn't have the situation that LibertyLink had.""

Australian GM report sparks canola controversy

FoodNavigator.com, 17 May 2007. By Neil Merrett.

Australia can adopt commercialised genetically modified (GM) canola production without compromising its organic agriculture, say new findings by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE).

In its latest report, the government agency, revealed it expected growing GM canola would have "very little" impact on existing organic supplies of the product, if at all.

The findings are likely to add weight to calls by some within the food industry that certain domestic GM crops should be allowed to promote greater sustainability in raw ingredient supply within the country. The issue has become particularly important in recent years, as wide-scale drought within the country has hit raw material supply for the food industry.

Under the country's organic certification standards, produce cannot under any circumstances contain traces of GM material. As such, there are fears that by beginning GM canola growth, organic goods certification will be threatened.

However, the report stresses that there has been little organic canola production within the country in recent years. This it claims, is proof there are sufficient alternatives within organic crops to meet feed and formulation demand.

"This suggests that an introduction of GM canola would have minimal impact on the organic livestock industry," states the report.

However, the findings have already come under criticism from representative of the country's organic food industry though.

Andre Leu, a spokesman for the Organic Federation of Australia (OFA), refuses claims that GM Canola production will not be detrimental to the country's organic industry. [Note: surely this "not" is a typo? - Ed]

"There are no markets around the world that will allow products to be called organic if they have a level of contamination from GM products, he said in an interview the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). "So organic growers would lose their premium on the market,"

Leu's claims are likely to hold more sway amongst both authorities and consumers, who remain unsure over GM use.

Australia has imposed bans on commercial production of genetically modified (GM) canola until 2008, although it has been approved as safe for human consumption by the country's food authorities, and food makers are allowed to use it if imported as an ingredient.

Furthermore, under the country's regulations on GM foods, companies are only required to label finished products that can be shown to contain altered DNA when tested. Canola oil, used in food processing and for cooking, is highly refined and is unlikely to contain any protein (and therefore evidence of altered DNA).

Environmental groups remain gravely concerned over any form of GM, claiming that there is insufficient information on the long terms effects of consuming the produce.

Review of Jeffrey M. Smith's Genetic Roulette: The documented health risks of genetically modified foods

Yes! Books, May 2007
Available from www.amazon.com / www.amazon.co.uk www.geneticroulette.com
and from Green Books: http://greenbooks.co.uk

Reviewer: Claire Robinson

What's your response when someone comes out with a fatuous statement they've picked up from somewhere to the effect that "There's no evidence that GM food is harmful"?

If you have time and energy enough, perhaps you manage to scrabble together some bits and pieces from your memory, the web, a book or an article. But considering the number of calls that the business of living places on your time and energy, maybe you just shrug your shoulders and muse that the world is going to hell in a handbasket of Bush, Blair, and Monsanto's making and there's nothing you can do about it.

Well, now there is. Just point them in the direction of the latest book from Jeffrey Smith, Genetic Roulette: The documented health risks of genetically modified foods.

A must-read for every policy-maker, educator, and journalist, it's also invaluable for anyone who wants to sharpen up their weaponry in the battle against the imposition of GM foods. And judging by the steady stream of emails I've received over the years from students in schools, colleges, and universities asking me to explain the risks of GM food, every educational institution and public library needs to buy a copy.

Of course, those who enjoyed Smith's previous book, Seeds of Deception, should be warned that this isn't the same sort of read. 'Seeds' laid out the fraud of GM through its stories: the honest scientists who were gagged, threatened, and persecuted; the revolving door between industry and regulators that led to untested GMOs being unleashed into the food supply; the consumers who got sick and died from eating a supplement produced with GM bacteria, only to have their suffering covered up by a government that cared only to protect the interests of the industry.

While Smith's last book uncompromisingly presented the science challenging the claimed safety of GMOs, the focus was on the human. The salesmen-scientists and the whistle-blowers of the GM world were shown doing what they have to do - in the case of the first, to protect their careers, and in the case of the second, to protect public health, the planet, and their ability to sleep at night. Genetic Roulette is not a book of stories, but rather an easy-to-use reference book of scientific fact and documented findings on the risks of GM foods.

It will come as no surprise to GM Watch subscribers that contrary to what the industry would have us believe, there are a considerable number of findings that show GM causes harm. Smith uses much previously unavailable material obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and has trawled through piles of industry submissions and government documents. He extracts the scientific meat and methodically lays it out for our examination, with one finding per chapter section. One section, for example, is headed, "Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had liver cell problems". The finding is described in full, followed by possible interpretations and comments, either by the researchers themselves or other experts.

Given the worrying lack of substantial published research, Smith also draws upon unpublished studies, case studies, medical reports, media reports, and eyewitness accounts. Unlike the notorious pronouncements of supporters of the biotech industry, interpretations and statements of opinion are never misrepresented as scientific fact. Readers will always know the status of what they are reading and the basis for it. The author has gone to great lengths to maintain accuracy of reporting, having each section of the book checked by at least three scientists.

Other sections of the book highlight serious flaws and gaps in the industry's case for GM food safety. Again, each chapter section is devoted to a particular topic, such as the ability of GM disease-resistant crops to promote dangerous new viruses. Scientific evidence for this is laid out with explanations. All points are referenced in unobtrusive footnotes.

Even those who know quite a bit about the GM issue will learn lots from this book. Perhaps this is partly due to Smith's status as a non-scientist: he does not assume specialist knowledge on the part of the reader, and explains things that many of us have become used to skimming over because of our lack of such knowledge.

For example, ever wondered why a certain batch of GM crops is called an "event"? Smith explains that each batch is produced by inserting the transgene into the host plant cells either by the gene gun method or by infection with a bacterium. So random and disruptive is this process to the host cells that the results are different with each insertion. The process is neither repeatable nor reproducible. Scientists tell me, however, that repeatability and reproducibility are generally viewed as prerequisites to any process that claims to be scientific. In this light, the GM process as it is currently practiced is not scientific. Nor does it even qualify as engineering, as the engineering equivalent would be to try to build the Forth Bridge by tossing an assortment of girders, nuts and bolts in the general region of the Firth of Forth and letting a bunch of monkeys fiddle with them: an intelligence of a sort is at work, but the result is utterly unpredictable. Thus, even if government regulators had a road-to-Damascus conversion and actually started policing GM technology as they are supposed to, any safety tests performed on one "event" of a GM crop would have to be repeated on all other events before the crop could be pronounced safe. Cheap GM crops for the third world, anyone?

Another interesting snippet concerns allergies to GM Roundup Ready soy. The one comforting factor when dealing with allergies to conventional foods is that once you know your poison, you can generally avoid it, and your allergic reaction ceases. But not with Roundup Ready soy. Research has shown that a portion of the transgene from the GM soy is transferred into human gut bacteria. In addition, the gut bacteria survive doses of Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate. This indicates that the transgene continues to produce its Roundup Ready protein from within the gut bacteria. If this is so, then long after you stop eating GM soy, you may be constantly exposed to the potentially allergenic protein. The medical consequences of ongoing allergic reactions to an ingredient widely used in processed foods have not been addressed.

Conspicuous by their absence are follow-up studies to those that show harm from GM foods. The book details the tactics that industry uses to shut down or bury inconvenient research, including ignoring it, attempting to discredit the research or its authors, and funding competing studies so poorly designed that no meaningful findings can possibly be extracted. If all else fails, industry-aligned researchers discount deaths of experimental animals or claim that statistically significant results have, magically, no significance at all.

The layout of the book is an exemplar of clarity and should serve as the model for any reference book (authors of science books, please note: fewer people would give up on science if it were this easy to digest). It is designed to make the material accessible to three levels of reader: the scanner, the casual reader, and the reader who wants all the detail. Each double-page spread is devoted to a particular problem with GM foods, with the left-hand page having the topic heading, a featured quote by a scientist or expert, and a few short bullet points, and the right-hand page giving the technical detail. Scanners can take in the left-hand page at a glance; casual readers can read the main narrative on the right-hand page; and for those who need detail, there are paragraphs of indented text giving figures and examples. You don't need a science background to understand it. While the book is not bedtime reading, all terms are defined and the boggle factor is kept low. The excellent table of contents gives a one-sentence summary of each of the risks of GM foods and enables the reader quickly to access the evidence.

Smith has to be the best science communicator alive today, and this book stands as the final word on GM health risks. It's the definitive answer to those who don't know, those who don't want to know, and those who know but don't want anyone else to know.

15 May 2007

Ireland: Power of One / The Bigger Picture

The Irish Times, Health Supplement, 15 May 2007. By Shalini Sinha.

[Extract:]

One of the biggest issues in this election is health...

Recently I saw the film The Future of Food (Lily Films, 2004) which was also previously broadcast by RTE. While I've always found the hidden agendas behind war, terrorism, secret government assassination orders etc. frightening, I've rarely been as scared as I was by the politics and consequences involved with genetically modified foods.

In particular, several points struck me. First, these foods are not being engineered to need less spraying of toxic pesticides, but indeed to be sprayed as a routine in their cultivation.

Second, the genes being introduced into these plants kill life, and so are potentially dangerous within our bodies, diminishing health and increasing resistance to allergies.

Third, the mechanisms used to force the new gene into the plant's cell are taken from bacteria and viruses, and an antibiotic marker to the cell is introduced, all raising concerns for health.

Finally, these new seeds, once cultivated, cannot be controlled because they behave as all seeds to: they spread themselves be it by wind, birds, small animals or otherwise.

The most frightening thing, however, was that the US government now grants the right to patent a seed (natural or engineered). This means not only does a "company" gain ownership over every instance of that plant or planting variation, but that they control the very seeds our next generation will see, buy or access. That's scary.

A sensitivity and foreseight to prioritise the environment brings with it a sensibility and value for fairness, interconnectedness and human quality of life.

These are the values that will make a real difference to building communities and nurturing our health in the future. And don't worry, they won't make us poorer.

Our current government plans to allow genetically modified foods into Ireland after the election. Whatever power you have needs to be exersised now.

14 May 2007

Europe: Why the EU cannot go on like this

EU Observer / Comment ‚ 14 May 200. By Anthony Coughlan

Between 1998 and 2004, according to the German ministry of justice, 23,167 legal acts were adopted in Germany, of which 18,917, some 80% of the total, were of EU origin, meaning that only one-fifth originated domestically.

Referring to this, former president of Germany Roman Herzog wrote in Welt Am Sonntag on 14 January "By far the largest part of the current laws in Germany are agreed by the Council of Ministers and not the German parliament...Therefore the question has to be asked whether Germany can still unreservedly call itself a parliamentary democracy."

While the proportion of domestic to European laws will differ from country to country, it seems safe to say that in every EU member state at present well over half the laws each year come from Brussels. Only a minority originate domestically. Dr Herzog's question may therefore also be asked of them: can they unreservedly call themselves parliamentary democracies any longer?

This prompts further questions: why is it that national parliaments have been so willing to divest themselves of so much of their power to make laws? Why have governments and government ministers, and aspiring ministers on opposition benches, gone along so readily for decades with such a shift of power from the national to the EU level, when it has left their national parliaments but shells of their former selves? I suggest that the only plausible explanation is something along these lines:

At national level when a minister wants to get something done, he or she must have the backing of the prime minister, must have the agreement of the minister for finance if it means spending money, and above all must have majority support in the national parliament, and implicitly amongst voters in the country.

Shift the policy area in question to the supranational level of Brussels however, where laws are made primarily by the 27-member Council of Ministers, and the minister in question becomes a member of an oligarchy, a committee of lawmakers, the most powerful in history, making laws for 500 million Europeans, and irremovable as a group regardless of what it does.

National parliaments and citizens lose power with every EU treaty, for they no longer have the final say in the policy areas concerned. Individual ministers on the other hand obtain an intoxicating increase in personal power, as they are transformed from members of the executive arm of government at national level, subordinate to a national legislature, into EU-wide legislators at the supranational.

For national ministers operating on the EU stage, keeping in with their fellow-members of the exclusive council of ministers "club" of EU lawmakers tends gradually to become more personally important to them than being awkward in defence of their own people's interests.

Dissent from the predominant consensus on the council risks one being branded as a trouble-maker. Ministers tend to identify ever more with the EU state-building project. They see themselves as political architects of a superpower in the making.

Increasingly they come to see one of their key functions vis-a-vis their fellow EU Council members as delivering their national electorates in support of further European integration. It is an especially attractive prospect for government ministers from smaller countries.

At the same time as it turns national ministers into supranational legislators, the shift of policy areas from the national to the EU level frees the national civil servants dealing with them from scrutiny of their actions by elected national parliaments.

It increases their bureaucratic power as they interact with their opposite numbers in the Brussels commission in drafting and often deciding on EU legislation. For the great bulk of European laws are never debated at council of minister level, but are formally rubber-stamped if agreement has been reached further down amongst the civil servants on the 300 council sub-committees or the 3,000 or so committees that are attached to the commission.

EU integration therefore has become not just a process of depriving Europe's peoples of their national democracy and independence. Within each member state it represents a gradual coup by government executives against legislatures, and by politicians against the citizens who elect them.

It hollows out the nation state, sucking the reality of power from its traditional government institutions, while leaving these still formally intact.

They still keep their old names - parliament, government, supreme court - so that their citizens do not get too alarmed, but their classical functions have been transformed.

Their prime purpose now is to be transmitters of EU laws, executive edicts and legal judgements, as the attempt to subsume the nation states of Europe into a highly centralised supranational EU federation grinds relentlessly on its way.

This is why sensible people everywhere will surely echo the concluding words of the former German president to his article "Most people have a fundamentally positive attitude to European integration. But at the same time, they have an ever increasing feeling that something is going wrong, that an non-transparent, complex, intricate, mammoth institution has evolved, divorced from the factual problems and national traditions, grabbing ever greater competences and areas of power; that the democratic control mechanisms are failing: in brief, that it cannot go on like this."

The author is senior lecturer emeritus in social policy at Trinity College, Dublin, and secretary of the National Platform of the EU Research and Information Centre, Ireland.

Ireland: GM would spell end of farming in Co. Wicklow

Wicklow Committee to Elect Joe Behan election flyer, 14 May 2007.

The day that GM (genetically modified) food makes an appearance in Wicklow is the day that Wicklow farming closes down.

The future of Irish farming is dependent entirely on our farmers' ability to breed and rear top-of-the-range livestock and produce high quality dairy and horticultural produce.

Our high reputation for premium agricultural produce, with all the quality and traceability guarantees which this entails, would be destroyed instantly if the country was to become a GM centre of any kind.

GM is simply not an option for Ireland. There is nothing to discuss.

[Note: Councillor Joe Behan, Chairman of Wicklow Co. Council, is currently running as a Fianna Fáil candidate in the Irish General Election. - Ed.]

New Zealand Set to Benefit from Australian State's "Mad" Push for GM Crops

Press release, GE Free NZ, 14 May 2007

New Zealand is set to benefit from its GE- free production system, if pressure from the biotech industry and the Federal government results in GM crops being planted in Australia.

A Fairfax news report from Australia says GE crops could be growing in Victoria within the next year, and that other states may be pressurised to drop their moritoria on planting GE crops.

But the decision to release GE crops would be seen as 'mad' by overseas manufacturers. Any planting of crops will add to existing problems with GE contamination in Australia which has already been linked to field-trials of GE canola. The contamination has worried exporters and farmers who have secured export-deals by being able to supply GE-free commodities.

"GE crops will inevitably cause contamination of the Australian food supply and would be a tragedy for consumers, farmers and manufacturers exporting to a world demanding clean, GE-free produce," says Jon Carapiet from GE Free NZ in food and environment.

"It is just as well New Zealand remains free of commercial GE crops because the export demand for GE-free food is not going away," says Mr Carapiet.

Trade NZ and other government agencies should be contacting overseas companies now in order to secure supply-deals for GE-free produce out of New Zealand.

"The global marketing opportunity for New Zealand is clear," says Mr Carapiet. "Failure by officials responsible for exports to secure supply deals would be a betrayal of the national interest."

GE Free NZ believe government agencies must invest now in scoping the overseas opportunities for New Zealand as a supplier of GE-free conventional and organic produce.

ENDS

Contact: Jon Carapiet 0210 507 681

References:

Victoria Tipped To Lift GM Crop Ban
NewsRoom.co.nz Agency Story at 8:14 am, 13 May 2007

The Australian state of Victoria is expected to lift a ban on planting genetically modified food crops.

The ban could be lifted as early as February, paving the way for new food varieties in supermarkets, Fairfax newspapers said.

The Bracks government is preparing to scrap the moratorium that stops farmers using GM products.

The pressure has come from farm groups and the federal government.

Federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran says it is time to move on.

Other states are expected to follow suit.

GM supporters say a surge in agricultural productivity could happen, with farmers able to plant crops resistant to weeds, insects and salinity and that need less water. [call me up in dreamland - ed]

UK: GM Potato Trial cancellation has wider implications

GM Freeze press release, 14 May 2007

GM Freeze welcomed the decision of the biotech company BASF not to proceed with a trial of GM blight resistant potatoes near Hedon in East Yorkshire this year because of concerns of local borage farmers about the availability of bee hives to help pollinate their crop.

The Hedon area is home to three major borage growers who grow the high value crop to produce gamma linoleum acid (GLA) which is used therapeutically for a number of common health conditions. The crop relies on beekeepers to bring in hives of honey bees to ensure a height level of pollination is achieved.

Following the announcement in March 2007 by BASF about the GM potato trial, the beekeepers expressed concerns to the borage farmers about the possible contamination of borage honey with GM pollen and pointed to their industry's guidance that required hives to be a minimum of 6 miles from the nearest GM site. The owner of the proposed GM site was reported to want the borage farmers concerns had to be dealt with before he finally agreed to the trial going ahead.

Today's decision not to go ahead with the trial in 2007 by BASF indicates that their attempts to reassure the borage farmers have failed. Defra issued a release consent for the trial today meaning it can go ahead in future years.

The case has wider implications for GM crops. Last year Defra's consultation on the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops did not include beekeepers in the list of people who would be statutorily required to be informed by a farmer intending to commercially grow a GM crop. [1] The value of pollination services provided to farmers by beekeepers is put at £120 to £200 million per annum. [2]

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

"The cancellation of the Hedon GM potato site is warmly welcomed - we could never see the point of allowing this commercial development trial to go ahead when we already have a growing number of blight resistant potato varieties produced by conventional plant breeding. Consumers don't want GM potatoes and the potato processors have said they will not use them. We hope this is the end of GM trialling in Hedon and the rest of the UK.

The impact of the trials on honey and beekeepers has been central to the cancellation. If any GM crops are ever approved for commercial growing in the UK this type of problem could become common place. Defra have repeatedly tried to ignore the impact of GM crops on beekeepers and the potential economic impacts but at Hedon they have been stung. The economic and agricultural importance of honey bees can no longer by sidelined by Defra's GM policies. Ministers need to learn the lesson of the debacle over the Hedon site and protect beepers from GM contamination in the future".

ENDS

Calls to Pete Riley + 44 (0)7903 341065

Notes [1] http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/gmnongm-coexist/consultdoc.pdf
[2] Parliamentary Answer from Ian Pearson to Joan Ruddock MP 3 May 2007 House of Commons Hansard Column 1792

Russia: GMO Certification to Drive Prices by 15 Percent

Kommersant.com, 14 May 2007.

The voluntary certification for absence of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in the foods is turning into a compulsory requirement, food and drink producers said in the complaint lodged to the consumer market department of Moscow government.

On April 24, representatives of ten associations, including Russia's Union of Juice Producers, Askond Association of Confectioners, Union of Russia's Beer and Nonalcoholic Beverage Producers, addressed a letter to Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov, complaining that the GMO absence mark is turning into a compulsory requirement. Under today's laws, however, only the GMO presence in the foods should be marked without fail.

The regional "No GMO!" mark was introduced by the Moscow government's ruling of February 13, 2007, spelling out additional actions to ensure quality and safety of foods and provide adequate information to consumers in the city. Starting from July 1, 2007, the producers may voluntary undergo certification in one of 16 laboratories. The final list of these laboratories will be approved on May 22, and the City Hall has appropriated 50 million rubles for their equipment.

So, some biggest retailers ‚ Pyaterochka and Sedmoi Continent, for instance, - have strongly recommended to producers to have the "No GMO!" mark for foods delivered from June 15. This action will fuel the prices by 0.5 percent to 15 percent, the analysts forecast. www.kommersant.com

13 May 2007

Australia: Remember GM is bankrolled by Big Agribusiness

The Age, May 13 2007

GENETIC modification. What is it and will it hurt us? That question has suddenly come closer to home with the news that Victoria is set to break ranks with other states by ending a moratorium on GM.

First, a definition: GM is the insertion of a gene from one species to another. This is not the selective or cross-breeding of plants and animals, practised for eons. Rather, it is the radical re-arranging of the genetic building blocks of life. Such research is at the frontier of knowledge, and includes huge advances like decoding the human genome - undoubtedly a milestone in curing illnesses.

But that's not to be confused with what is happening down on the farm. The proposed end of the GM ban in Victoria is about agriculture. Cultivating canola or cabbages might seem dull compared with human genome research but, in fact, it is more contentious because ultimately it's about the food we eat - the right to choose whether to eat genetically modified food or not.

The debate is also about which corporations will control the world's food. Even if we ignore the ethical and health issues that GM's opponents raise, there could be sound commercial motives for keeping Australia GM free.

If overseas markets are prepared to pay dearly for GM-free food, Australia is in pole position to exploit its "clean green" image. The claimed advantages of GM crops have been well-aired. They include higher yields and oil content and herbicide resistance.

Now the pro-GM publicity machine is highlighting the potential to create crops that use less water.

Such claims might prove true but we should be clear about one thing: GM is bankrolled by huge multi-national corporations that stand to make huge money. That is why they can afford the best spin doctors and lobbyists that money can buy. To ask Big Agribusiness about GM is a little like consulting Big Tobacco about the risks of smoking.

Canada: GMO's and the state of farming in Canada

Opinion 250 - The Voice of the North, 13 May 2007. By Dave Fuller.

Recently on my radio show on CFUR radio cfur.ca, I interviewed Percy Schmeiser a Saskatewan farmer who was taken to court by industry giant Monsanto. Monsanto took him to court after Monsanto's GMO seed was found in his field.

Percy had been growing Canola or rapeseed as it was then known for 40 years and when Monsanto accused him of patent infringement Percy chose to go to court rather than pay what Monsanto was asking. Percy argued that the seeds had blown into his field from the road and adjacent fields. The fight ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada with Percy not having to pay Monsanto but Monsanto patent being held up as valid.

In my interview with Percy he told about how farming has changed in the 50 years that he as farmed. How now farmers must pay for their seed and cannot save their seed from year to year when buying GMO seed. How these new seeds don't grow without adding the right fertilizers, how farmers are giving up their rights to sue, just by opening a bag of Monsanto's seed and how "Monsanto's Police" ex RCMP officers are harassing farmers and turning the prairies into a state where neighbor doesn't trust neighbor. Where farmers are going broke because of the imput costs associated with farming

There are many countries around the world that consider GMO foods to be an experiment on human health and ban and or label foods with GMO's.

With GMO's the DNA of the seed is changed. Other plant or animal species can be added to make the seed to grow in a different climate to grow larger, sweeter, faster and more mutant! The long term effect on human health has not been examined. Tests are now underway to produce drugs in plantsΦ. But what if these plants produce seeds that like the canola blow into another field and contaminate it?

Percy Schmeiser is now suing Monsanto because they have contaminated other fields of his with their GMO seedsΦ and the cost to clean it up is significant.

In finishing my interview with Percy after all the gloom and doom about farming. I asked him what he would do if he was a young farmer starting out and he stated that he would go into organic farming. Not only was there more money it but the health of the land and the health of the farmer was not exposed to the risks of modern farming.

At a time when many of us are thinking about putting our seeds in our little back yard gardens maybe we should take Percy's comments to heart and use less chemicals and a little more compost.

Dave Fuller is the Owner of Ave Maria Specialities at 1638 20th Avenue in Prince George

USA: States Introduce Numerous Bills to Regulate Genetically Modified Foods

http://environmentalcommons.org, 13 May 2007. By Britt Bailey.

Following a two-year span during which the corporate farming sector lobbied heavily in support of state bills aimed at keeping local governments from regulating genetically modified organisms (GMOs), 2007 state legislatures are now filled with bills confirming farmer and consumer concerns about such foods and crops.

It has been a decade since multinational corporations began blanketing the planet with their patented varieties of genetically modified seed. With little government oversight, poll after poll has shown that consumers would like to see greater supervision of genetic engineering including all-out limitations on their cultivation.

From late 2004-2006, nearly twenty state legislatures attempted to subdue the growing resistance to genetically modified organisms. In the wake of four California counties and numerous New England towns passing local measures restricting the growing of genetically engineered foods, states began passing "preemption" laws removing the ability of local governments to regulate seeds and plants.

Nearly every state hearing on the preemption bills erupted into an emotional discourse on the specific impacts of growing GMOs and the toll which this mode of farming exacts on the environment and public health. Inadequate federal oversight, economic impacts, risks to organic practices, lack of legal liability in the event of contamination, need for public notification, potential health concerns, and harm to natural resources were all listed as reasons why local communities should be able to decide whether genetically modified foods should or should not be grown. Thus far, Missouri is the only state that seems to be shoving the concerns related to genetic engineering under the rug. Unlike prior years, when state preemption bills had company, Missouri's SB364 is the only bill in 2007 introduced to remove local authority over anything related to farming.

Legislators seem to be responding to the wishes of the people. Already in 2007, state capitols are filled with bills aimed at protecting small family farming systems and consumers from the impacts of genetically modified foods. Perhaps it is a combination of continued public outcry, along with the rice contamination fiasco that occurred in August 2006 (when an unapproved genetically engineered rice variety caused billions of dollars of damage to farmers throughout the United States), that is giving legislators enough backbone to defy the wishes of the multinational corporate agriculture industry.

Under current US law, the makers of the genetically modified crops bear no responsibility for damages caused when the crops spread through environmental or human action. Now, four states are carrying bills making the agricultural biotechnology industry liable in the event another contamination occurs. Three states are hearing bills calling for a moratorium on food crops genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals. Illinois and Tennessee are calling for labeling of foods derived from genetically engineered crops. Five states, California, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York, and South Dakota, are calling for notification systems in which genetically modified foods become a part of the public record.

After ten years of national public debate over the effects of commercializing genetically modified organisms, we seem to be turning a regulatory corner. Perhaps State legislators have recognized that federal regulations are inadequate to protect their state farming interests. Perhaps they have recognized that the regulatory offices of Monsanto and Dow are simply too close to the offices of the USDA, FDA, and Congress. As states continue to introduce bills protecting against the impacts arising from growing genetically modified organisms, will the federal government act next to preempt the states?

All of this begs the question, where is the oversight of farming and agriculture best deliberated - at the local, state, or national level? Given the federal government's track record on the issue, we may want keep it local and allow communities and farmers to decide how best to regulate their soils and foods.

To stay up to date on GMO bills introduced in states across the United States, see Environmental Commons' "Food Democracy Tracker," http://environmentalcommons.org/gmo-tracker.html

UK: Environmental warning on biofuels

BBC News, 13 May 2007

The drive to switch over to biofuels could lead to rising food prices and deforestation, a report has warned.

The government and EU have said by the year 2020 they want 10% of all fuel in cars to come from biofuels.

But a study by the Co-op Insurance Society suggests achieving this could have a severe environmental impact.

It comes days after a UN report with similar warnings said that biofuels are more effective when used for heat and power, rather than in transport.

Biofuels can be anything made with vegetable matter that burns.

They are seen as a potential solution to climate change because they can reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

'Radical effects'

The Co-op report claims there is a future for biofuels, but current targets for growing so much fuel could have unintended consequences, BBC correspondent Damian Kahya says.

Professor Dieter Helm, a senior advisor to the British government, told the BBC: "The sort of targets being set for biofuels will have quite radical effects on agriculture and therefore will have very substantial consequences for food prices and agriculture more generally."

The report says that around nine per cent of the world's agricultural land may be needed to replace just 10% of the world's transport fuels.

This means the production of biofuels could lead to a decrease in land available for food production in countries where famine already exists.

"People are felling rainforests to plant crops to grow energy fuels, biofuels," Professor Helm said.

"Think of the energy involved in felling those rainforests. Think about the damage to the climate being done by the loss of those trees. Think about the ploughing and the cultivation of fields.

"Think about the transport of those fuels, and you start to realise the carbon imprints are about much more than simply what happens to grow in a particular field at a particular point in time."

India: Government withholds GM food info

NDTV, 13 May 2007. By Prachi Bhuchar.

Earlier this week the Supreme Court gave the go ahead to the Centre to conduct field trials of some [already approved] Genetically Modified (GM) crops.

The court also directed the Centre to give details about the toxicity levels of these crops.

But last month, in response to a Right to Information application, the government had refused to share these details.

We should know what we eat. That was the premise on which an environmental group filed a petition under the Right to Information Act last month, asking for specific data on field trials of genetically modified food crops, including their toxicity and allergicity levels.

The Information Commission directed the department of biotechnology to provide this information within 10 days but when the response from the government came it was far from satisfactory.

''Multi-location field trials are okay but bio-safety information cannot be disclosed,'' the government said in a reply. The reason had more to do with addressing commercial interests than safeguarding public health.

Surprisingly, though it has approved their multi-location field trials, the government said the data on rice, bhindi and mustard was yet to be evaluated. This answer, experts say, is less convincing and more confusing.

''It is ridiculous that the government does not want to provide information on something that affects our health. We asked them a straightforward question and they did not want to give an answer,'' said Geneticist Dr Suman Sahai.

But the health ministry feels stricter norms should be in place before GM foods can be consumed.

''I have expressed my concern to the ministry of environment and the science and tech ministry as well. Before they give a go ahead for field trials they have to ensure there is more information available, otherwise there is a serious health concern,'' said Union Health Minister Dr Anbumani Ramadoss.

Absence of proper mechanism

Some of the other concerns are that is no mechanism in place for GM food labeling and consumers are in dark about what they are eating.

Even the farmers are clueless about bio-safety hazards during field trials and people who regulate field trials are also on committees that give approval to firms to enter India.

In most countries field trials of GM crops have been on the decline since 2003. Also, there's evidence that genetic engineering have dangerous consequences.

In India, both farmers and scientists have always stopped short of greeting trials of GM food crops.

While farmers say it would damage other crops, scientists feel its still is a potential health and environmental hazard.

''Nowhere in the world has GM foods led to food security. Once we introduce GM organisms into the environment there is no control. There is crossing over onto other organisms. Companies have been accused of taking bribes [presumably a reference to their bribing of officials] in other countries. How can the government deal with such companies,'' said Dr Pushpa Bhargava, Scientist.

But biotechnologists at the genetic engineering approval committee, which gives these trials the go-ahead, say safety norms have never been compromised.

Does India need GM food at all? Experts say with Asia being the next big market for biotech firms, it is here that the future of these foods will be decided, especially since it is a growing nation where food security remains a constant concern.

12 May 2007

Thailand: Rice exports could hit 8.8 mln tonnes

Bangkok Post, 12 May 2007.

DPA - Natural calamities elsewhere in Asia and a GMO scandal rice in the US and Australia could push Thailand's rice exports up to 8.8 million tons this year, up from 7.4 million tons in 2006, industry sources said Saturday.

Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines are not expected to reach their rice production targets this year because of natural disasters, said Chookiat Ophaswongse, president of the Rice Exporters Association.

Meanwhile rice production in the US and Australia is decreasing this year due to reports of discovereries of GMO-strains of the grain there, resulting in import bans in some markets such as Europe.

That's all good news for Thailand, the world's largest rice exporter, that is expected to ship between 8.5. to 8.8 tons this year, Chookiat told a seminar on the world outlook for the rice trade.

While China is now the biggest importer of Thai rice, Chookiat expects Indonesia to become a major market in 2007 because of declining production in the archipelago nation.

The world's top five rice exporters are Thailand, Vietnem, India, US, and Pakistan, in that order.

Vietnam's rice exports during the first four months of 2007 reached 1.3 million tons, worth 400 million dollars, a 18.8 per cent decrease in volume and 7.0 per cent decrease in value, said Huynh Minh Hue, Deputy Secretary General of Vietnam Food Association.

Hue blamed the declines on limited supply, delays in the winter- spring crop harvest and difficulty in contracting vessels.

India: Ban on trials of GM crops to continue

The Times of India, 12 May 2007. By Nitin Sethi.

NEW DELHI: The GM industry has nothing to cheer about. SC [Supreme Court] has not vacated its order on fresh field trials of genetically modified crops.

The apex court has only allowed ongoing and earlier approved trials to continue, while not vacating the ban that it had imposed in an interim order of September 22 2006, banning any fresh field trials of GM crops.

The court, in its order, said, "The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) shall take sufficient precautions to see that these (ongoing and already approved) trials are not causing any contamination to the cultivation in the neighbouring fields."

In order to pin down responsibility in case of any mishap, the court said: "In all trials that are being conducted, the name of the scientist and other details of who will be responsible for all aspects of the trials should be reported to GEAC and there should be regular supervision by them."

The court, in fact, tightening the leash on the government, has also ordered that the government release data on any tests of toxicity and allergenicity that may have been conducted on the four species of Bt Cotton already approved by the government. The precedent setting order has elated the green groups as they have been constantly asking for such data to be put out in the public domain.

Meanwhile, the lawyer for the petitioners in the case, Prashant Bhushan, has sent a legal notice to the environment ministry for the λmisinterpretation' of the SC order by minister of state for environment and forests, Namo Narain Meena.

In a speech, the MoS was quoted as saying, "The stay on Genetic Engineering Approval Committee has been vacated today (May 9) during judicial hearing.

USA: Would it kill you to eat well?

Kennebec Journal / Morning Sentinel (Maine), 12 May 2007. By Liz Soares.

I've discovered the perfect diet: reading stories about our nation's food supply.

It kills my appetite.

The latest unappetizing tidbit involves poultry feed. The bits of pet food clinging to the sides of giant factory mixing bowls aren't wasted, they're incorporated into chicken meal. Who knew?

Normally I am a cheerleader for "using up and making do." And, on the face of it, there should be nothing wrong with feeding cat and dog food to chickens. Except, of course, that most cat and dog food is not human-grade and often contains unsavory meat byproducts.

Hmm. So the stuff that goes into chicken may be a byproduct of a byproduct.

Most recently, some of these pet foods have also contained the chemical melamine. This substance is believed to have killed more than 4,000 dogs and cats. Now it is showing up in chicken feed. That's right. Eaten by a chicken that was destined to come to your dinner table.

I wish ignorance was bliss. Life was easier when I did not connect a steak on a plate with a cow in a meadow, when I thought any nonchocolate cereal was nutritious, when I didn't even wonder how it was possible to eat tomatoes in Maine in February, never mind debate the morality of eating one.

Now I assume a defensive posture as I troll the supermarket aisles.

I spurn imported produce because it may have been treated with chemicals banned in the U.S.

I skim labels to make sure they don't list high fructose corn syrup or trans fats or Red 40 food dye.

One day I spent a good five minutes in the dairy aisle ricocheting back and forth between the Oakhurst light cream and the organic variety. Oakhurst is local. Few cows in Maine are treated with growth hormones, probably because of Oakhurst's policy of not buying milk supplied from animals who have been. The company also began using biofuel in its trucks.

But the organic product is ... well, organic.

Constantly weighing what is good for me, what is good for the planet and what is good for the New England farmer is exhausting.

But I've moved on to a new level: What is least likely to kill me?

As I write this, I realize I haven't given much thought to genetically modified organisms lately. I am not always willing to invest the time, energy and money it takes to eat a totally organic diet.

My laziness may have allowed a few GMO morsels to slip by my lips. Great.

I don't like the way factory-farmed animals are treated.

I don't like the way crops are sprayed.

Too much of our food is coming from overseas.

Should an energy crisis occur, how many of us would be able to survive with local sources, as our ancestors did?

Knowing too much about the food supply makes me nervous, but food is the stuff of life. I am not doing my part as a responsible human being if I ignore the truth.

That darn truth that is making me lose my appetite.

My grandfather had the right idea -- a backyard pig, strawberry patch and grape arbor.

Wine and strawberries? Sounds like a plan.

Liz Soares is a freelance writer and the author of "All for Maine: The Story of Gov. Percival P. Baxter." She welcomes e-mail at Baxter24@aol.com.

11 May 2007

The Netherlands: Dutch to increase import checks following GM discovery

FoodQualityNews.com, 11 May 2007. By George Reynolds

Dutch inspections of US shipments will increase following the discovery of genetically modified (GM) maize banned in the EU as part of a Netherlands bound cargo.

The control measures may allay fears that GM imports are slipping into the European supply chain undetected, but they could also lead to delays.

The discovery also highlights the need for processors to have tracking and traceability of their supplies in place.

The Dutch Food Safety Authority (VWA) announced that it was recalling part of a cargo containing the corn and intended to increase inspections to one in four shipments from one in ten.

Dutch authorities traced the origin of the corn, Herculex RW 59122, back to producers Pioneer/Dow and now plan to destroy the crop.

Monsanto's MON863, currently under review by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), was also found to be a contaminant in the shipment.

The crop was intended for animal feed, but Greenpeace also found maize flour containing 1.9 per cent GM crops - above the legal limit of 0.9 per cent - on board the ship.

Described as GM-free on official documents, the maize was identified in samples taken from a ship by environmental group Greenpeace, with the permission of the captain, in April.

"Greenpeace supports the Dutch authorities' attempt to contain the spread of illegal contaminated maize but criticises both EU and Dutch authorities for being unable to detect and prevent the entry of illegal GE varieties into the EU," Greenpeace stated on its website.

Access to the ships documents has been requested by Greenpeace, which said that it believed the latest discovery is the tip of the iceberg.

"The system is not designed to find these kinds of breaches. This is fourth time that GM products have entered the EU illegally in the last two years and none of these incidents were originally discovered by the authorities," a Greenpeace spokesperson said.

In October, EU countries stepped-up testing of US long-grain rice shipments after two banned GM strains were accidentally imported.

In 2005 the VWA carried out 1,582 tests and inspections on ships for GM contamination. Last year it carried out just 175, Greenpeace claimed

Europe: How much Bt toxin do genetically engineered MON810 maize plants actually produce?

Executive Summary
Antje Lorch and Christoph Then
via Genet, 11 May 2007
http://www.gene.ch/genet/2007/May/msg00060.html

Original as a pdf file:

http://www.greenpeace.de/fileadmin/gpd/user_upload/themen/gentechnik/greenpeace_bt_maize_engl.pdf

Executive Summary

In the growing season 2006, Greenpeace took leaf samples of commercially cultivated MON810 maize plants in Germany and Spain to determine the Bt toxin (Cry1Ab) concentration. A total of 619 samples from 12 fields were analysed using ELISA tests.

MON810 maize is genetically engineered to produce a modified insecticide (Cry1Ab) that naturally occurs in the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The production of this toxin is supposed to protect the maize plants from European corn borer larvae (ECB, Ostrinia nubilalis).

This Greenpeace study shows a surprising pattern of plants that contained only very low Bt toxin levels. However, high levels could be observed in some plants. The variation found on the same field on the same day was considerable, and could differ by a factor of as much as 100. This is in agreement with the results of a new study published in April 2007 that concludes that "the monitoring of Cry1Ab expression [of MON810 plants] showed that the Cry1Ab concentrations varied strongly between different plant individuals."

In total, the Bt concentrations were much lower than those available from Monsanto for cultivation approval in the US and the EU, with a arithmetic mean of 9.35 ?g Bt/ g fresh weight (fw; standard deviation 1.03; range 7.93-10.34 ?g Bt/g fw). Here, our data also corroborate the results of Nguyen and Jehle (2007), who also found lower Bt concentrations (with means between 2.4 and 6.4 ?g Bt/g fw) than those known from the literature. The data recorded by Greenpeace, however, deviate even more from the data published so far. The means ranged from 0.5 to 2.2 ?g Bt/g fw, while Bt concentrations ranged from a minimum of no or 0.1 ?g Bt/g fw to concentrations of about 14.8 ?g Bt/g fw.

The results presented here raise far-reaching questions about the safety and the technical quality of the MON810 plants as well as some fundamental methodological questions.

1. The variation of Bt concentrations

Since the Bt concentration on the field can vary greatly even between neighbouring plants, the MON810 plants do not appear to be sufficiently stable in their biological traits. The reasons for the high variation in Bt contents could be related to genetic or environmental factors (e.g. weather or soil conditions), or both. Nguyen & Jehle (2007) not only found high variation between plants on a field, but also statistically significant differences between different locations in Germany. Since the reasons for such differences and the range of variation cannot be identified, the commercial cultivation of the crops should be stopped to avoid interactions with the environment that could lead to adverse and unpredictable effects.

To investigate these questions further, studies should be conducted under contained conditions (such as glasshouse experiments) to study the environmental effects (e.g. drought, moisture, temperature, soil, nutrients) on the plants. Next to no studies of this type have yet been published.

2. The risk assessment of the plants

Risk assessment studies with non-target organisms or feeding studies in which the actual Bt concentration has not been determined appear to be of little use. Studies in which the toxin concentration is unknown cannot be used to give approval for the commercial growing of these plants.

3. The actual Bt toxin concentrations

If the Bt toxin in GE Bt plants were more effective in considerably lower concentrations than previously described, this would not be identical with the naturally occurring Bt toxin. This would annul a central aspect of the EU cultivation approval, which is based on the assumption that the Bt toxin in plants could in general be equated with the natural Bt protein from soil bacteria.

However, if the toxin is not effective in such low concentrations as we have recorded, then serious concerns about the effectiveness of the plants in controlling ECB larvae need to be raised.

Additional problems would then also concern insect resistance management, as resistance development could be accelerated by sub-lethal toxin doses.

4. The methods for determining Bt concentrations

The methods used by Monsanto to determine the Bt concentration of their original MON810 plants are not available from the publicly available documents. In order to make a reliable comparison of new data with Monsanto's data, it is essential that the test protocols as well as the original data are published. All interested laboratories need unrestricted access to relevant sample material. The authorities need to define standardised and sufficiently reliable methods for determining Bt concentrations in plants for risk assessment studies and for post-market monitoring.

Until the open questions regarding risk assessment, monitoring and product quality have been satisfactorily answered, the commercial cultivation of MON810 needs to be stopped, because the legal basis for approving MON810 for cultivation has not been fulfilled.

Australia: Organics industry rejects GM canola crop report

ABC Rural, May 11 2007

The organics industry has rejected a report which suggests they would not be greatly affected by the growing of commercial genetically modified (GM) canola crops in Australia.

The Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) says organic canola farmers already have to separate their crops from canola grown with the use of pesticides.

But Organic Federation of Australia (OFA) spokesman Andre Leu disputes ABARE's conclusion that export markets would accept a low level of GM contamination in organic products.

"There are no markets around the world that will allow products to be called organic if they have a level of contamination from GM products, so organic growers would lose their premium on the market," he said.

India: 'Bt cotton has failed in Vidarbha'

The Times of India, 11 May, 2007

NAGPUR: If any proof about failure of genetically modified Bt cotton in the main cotton growing area of Vidarbha was needed, it came on Wednesday from Maharashtra agriculture minister Balasaheb Thorat.

After a meeting with agriculture experts, officials, people's representatives for the coming Kharif season, Thorat admitted that the much-hyped, and high-priced Bt seeds were only adding to the burden of Vidarbha's farmers.

Thorat said the opening of Bt to more private companies was likely to bring down the prices and make it more affordable for farmers.

India: SC ruling on GMOs restarts seed supply
Seed farmers, like contract farmers, cultivate crops for the company to produce desired kinds of seeds

LiveMInt.com, 12 May 2007. By Jacob P. Koshy

The Supreme Court's recent order allowing the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) to consider granting approvals to more than 24 items, including genetically-modified cotton and rice, couldn't have come soon enough for Vibha Agrotech Ltd.

The Hyderabad-based hybrid-seed company's chief managing director, P. Vidyasagar, says he can now go back to selling hybrid seeds developed by his company to delivery agents, who, in turn, provide them to farmers.

Vibha Agrotech is one of the 35 companies that had submitted applications to GEAC, the apex body that approves genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), seeking permission to market hybrids of Bt-cottonσthe only GM seed that can be marketed in India.

"We have had to go back on our packing and delivering commitments, signed before the stay order. Moreover, I still had to continue paying my λseed' farmers," he said.

Seed farmers, like contract farmers, cultivate crops for the company to produce desired kinds of seeds.

"In the last eight months, I've lost over Rs15 crore," Vidyasagar claimed. That includes licensing fees that Vibha pays seed-technology developers. GEAC's work has been halted since 22 September. The committee met on Friday to discuss approving varieties of cotton for North and Central India. The sowing season is expected to begin in the South around the first week of June. "For every month approvals are delayed, the industry suffers losses worth Rs50 crore," Vidyasagar said.

R.K. Sinha, a spokesperson for the National Seed Association of India, the country's largest seed-industry consortium, said while he couldn't comment on the exact loss to the industry from the delays, "Vidyasagar knows the ground and financial realities well".

Hema Chawda, owner of VNR Seeds Pvt. Ltd, also pegged her current losses at around Rs10 crore.

USA: Black Farmers Call for Boycott of Monsanto Products

USAgNet, 11 May 2007.

The National Black Farmers Association is calling on its 66,000 members to launch a nationwide boycott of agricultural giant Monsanto to protest a proposed a $1.5 billion merger by the company that would reduce competition and crush small farmers.

Dr. John Boyd, president of the community-based farmers' advocacy group, will lead a news conference at the U.S Department of Justice on Wednesday to announce the boycott as part of the group's opposition to the proposed merger between Monsanto Corporation and the Delta and Pine Land Company, the largest cottonseed company in the country.

"If the Department of Justice allows this merger goes through, it will create a Godzillian-monopoly that will have a drastic effect on black and other small farmers around the country," said Boyd, whose organization joins the growing chorus of agriculture and consumer groups, legal experts and politicians who have registered their opposition.

The Department of Justice is now conducting a review to determine whether the acquisition violates antitrust rules. Legal experts expect the department to issue its decision this month.

Boyd has petitioned the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on the matter and has indicated the NBFA is prepared to file suit to seek an injunction against the merger.

India: Genetically modified rice sales facing resistance

Business Standard, May 11 2007. By Dilip Kumar Jha.

MUMBAI -- Continued resistance over sales of genetically modified (GM) rice in the US and its non-acceptance in the European Union (EU) have threatened the success of the transgenic hybrid seeds in the agriculture sector, according to a Rabobank report published on Thursday.

India, the world's second largest rice producer after China with a capacity of 91 million tonnes (MT) is also facing resistance over the use of GM seeds. The US rice sector has a 12 per cent share in international trade, with about 1.5 per cent of share in world production. The US sector is threatened by many challenges such as high fuel and fertiliser costs, limited increases in farm prices and intensifying international competition, particularly from low-cost Asian exporters.

This has also impacted the overall rice acreage in 2006-07 as it fell 16 per cent to 2.8 million acres, the lowest level since 1996-97.

In 2006-07 marketing year (MY), US rice production is estimated to fall by 13 per cent to 194 million hundredweight (cwt, 1 ton = 20 cwt) , with long-grain production down about 18 per cent to 146 million cwt, and medium- and short-grain production up by 4 per cent to 48 million cwt. These levels are similar to 2003-04 levels, when a smaller crop lifted prices, subsequently pushing production to record levels. According to the report, rice acreage in the US in 2007-08 is likely to decline even further due to concerns over the effects of GM contamination, high prices for alternative crops and the banning of a number of GM contaminated rice.

This may tempt farmers to grow alternative crops wherever possible. Burdened with strict regulations, the EU has banned imports of US rice. Until the discovery of the GM variety LL 601, the EU had purchased about 250,000 tonnes (milled-equivalent basis) of rice annually from the US. While sales of milled rice to other markets may increase, these sales will not cover the gap left by the loss of a major share of the EU market, the report said. The Supreme Court of India recently passed an order allowing the Centre to conduct trial runs of genetically modified seeds with certain restrictions.

According to an expert, about 50 per cent of children below five years of age and their mothers are malnourished in India. So the promotion of GM seeds would fit the bill in India, he said.

10 May 2007

USA: Groups oppose genetically engineered trees

United Press International, May 10 2007

WASHINGTON, May 10 (UPI) - A group of environmental organizations wants to prevent a U.S. tree genetics firm -- ArborGen -- from growing genetically engineered trees in Alabama

The Stop GE Trees Campaign involves such environmental groups as the Sierra Club, Dogwood Alliance, WildLaw, Southern Forests Network and the Global Justice Ecology Project.

ArborGen says its trees will allow growers to cultivate more wood on less land, in less time and with fewer inputs, thereby protecting native forests and ecosystems.

The company has asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture to allow flowering and seed production in 355 genetically engineered Eucalyptus hybrid trees in Alabama, near the Gulf of Mexico.

"This is an area heavily impacted by severe storms, including tornadoes and hurricanes," said Neil Carman of the Sierra Club.

"There has been no consideration as to what happens if these seeds escape into native ecosystems. Seeds from these trees could travel for hundreds of miles."

"If the request is approved, it would mark the first time genetically engineered trees would be allowed to produce flowers and seeds on the U.S. mainland," said Orin Langelle, coordinator of the STOP GE Tree Campaign.

USA: Effort Launched to Stop GE Eucalyptus Plantations in US Southeast

Southern Forests Network / Sierra Club / Global Justice Ecology Project press release, May 10 2007.

As the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) wraps up its annual convention in Boston, the STOP GE Trees Campaign and member groups from around the U.S., including Dogwood Alliance, WildLaw, Southern Forests Network, Sierra Club and Global Justice Ecology Project are uniting to stop the plans of GE tree giant ArborGen to release genetically engineered eucalyptus trees in the southeast U.S.

ArborGen, which was a co-sponsor of the BIO convention, is laying the groundwork for massive plantations of non-native eucalyptus trees genetically engineered to be cold tolerant for biofuels and paper pulp. In addition to the cold tolerance trait, these eucalyptus have been engineered for other traits which ArborGen refuses to reveal. News articles and reports indicate these traits likely include reduced lignin content and the ability to kill insects.

The first goal of this effort is to stop the USDA's approval of ArborGen's GE eucalyptus field trials in Alabama.

"ArborGen wants approval from the USDA to allow their genetically engineered eucalyptus trees to flower and produce seeds," stated Dr. Neil Carman of the Sierra Club and the STOP GE Trees Campaign.

"There has been no consideration as to what happens if these seeds escape into native ecosystems. This is an area heavily impacted by severe storms, including tornadoes and hurricanes--seeds from these trees could travel for hundreds of miles," he added.

ArborGen petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service or APHIS) in 2006 for permission to extend their GE Eucalyptus field trials to allow flowering and seed production in 355 GE Eucalyptus hybrid trees grown on 1.1 acres in Baldwin County, Alabama close to the Gulf Coast of Mexico. APHIS is currently accepting comments on their Environmental Assessment (EA) in which they recommend approval for these field trials.

"Approval of this field trial represents the first time that a GE tree would be allowed to produce flowers and seeds on the U.S. mainland," stated Orin Langelle, Coordinator of the STOP GE Tree Campaign. "Once this GE tree flowering and seed production is allowed, it will be easier for APHIS to approve outdoor field trial releases of other GE trees, such as poplars and pines for flowering and seed production. This could spell disaster for our native forests," he concluded.

The STOP GE Trees Campaign is demanding that APHIS reject this permit and order ArborGen to destroy the existing field trials. Other groups want APHIS to conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that comprehensively addresses all relevant issues related to the proposed GE Eucalyptus field trials.

Eucalyptus species are not native to the U.S. but grow well in certain warm climates such as the southern and southeast U.S. regions. Escape of GE Eucalyptus trees through seeds and vegetative plant material are quite likely due to severe wind and rain events that are common to Baldwin County, Alabama where the field trials are located. In other countries where eucalyptus have been introduced, they are well known for escaping and colonizing native ecosystems.

"The federal courts have been clear. In their recent decisions on genetically engineered perennial plants including GE bentgrass and GE alfalfa, they concluded that the USDA has inadequately assessed the risks of these species escaping into native ecosystems," insisted Ray Vaughan of WildLaw, an Alabama organization that has monitored the development of genetically engineered trees. "The escape of non-native, potentially invasive, genetically engineered trees into the forests of the Southeast could be devastating to our ecosystems and our timber industry."

Global warming and climate change will allow more extensive southern and southeast regions of the U.S. to have weather patterns conducive to the introduction and propagation of escaped GE Eucalyptus hybrids.

In regions where droughts occur, eucalyptus are known to be at high risk of catching fire. The southeast U.S. is currently in the midst of such a drought. Additionally, eucalyptus plantations have been documented to deplete ground water and cause or exacerbate drought situations. None of these potential impacts were evaluated in the EA.

APHIS is accepting comments on ArborGen's proposal until May 21.

Contact:

Alyx Perry, WildLaw-- Southern Forests Network, 828.277.9008
Neil Carman, Sierra Club--512.472.1767
Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project--802.578.0477 (mobile)

STOP Genetically Engineered Trees Campaign
http://www.stopgetrees.org
email: info@stopgetrees.org

A project of Global Justice Ecology Project
P.O. Box 412
Hinesburg, VT 05461 U.S.A.
+1.802.482.2689 ph/fax
email: info@globaljusticeecology.org
http://www.globaljusticeecology.org

UK: Freeze demands Extension to Outrageously Short EC consultation on GM contamination of seeds

GM Freeze press release, 10 May 2007

GM Freeze has written to Mariann Fischer Boel, European Agriculture and Rural Development Commissioner, demanding the extension of a European Commission (EC) consultation on the threshold for GM contamination of agricultural seeds from 4 weeks to a minimum of 12 weeks.

In a letter to Fischer Boel, the Freeze points out that while the EC discussion of the controversial topic of setting GM contamination threshold for non-GM and organic seeds began in 2001, they want responses to their current consultation, issued last week, to be submitted by 5th June.

Any GM in seeds will prevent producers of food and animal feed being able to deliver what their customers demand - no detectable GM presence. The current consultation is therefore of interest to all parts of the food chain, from seed growers to final processors, retailers and consumers.

GM Freeze are concerned that the EC will try and force through a GM contamination threshold for seed that is as high as possible while still permitting final food and feed products to be below the legal threshold for labelling GM content (0.9%). The organisation insists that any discussion of a threshold for seed should not focus on the consumer labelling threshold, but must also include the protection of the environment and health.

GM Freeze's letter points out that the current EC consultation period coincides with a very busy period for farmers, who will be sowing late crops, forage harvesting and tending planted crops in the period up to 5th June.

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

"It is outrageous that such an important issue as GM presence in seeds should be subject to such a short period of consultation. This is a very busy time for farmers who will want to respond to this consultation. The tone of the consultation is that GM contamination of seeds cannot be avoided. This is not so if non GM seeds can be grown in sufficient isolation. In fact, the production of seeds without any detectable GM presence might offer many European farmers new business opportunities to provide for the huge non GM market in the EU. However, to take up these opportunities they will need the full support of a tough and well thought through legal framework and enforcement system. The European Commission is in danger of losing even more credibility on the GM issue if they persist with these poorly thought through proposals".

ENDS

Calls to Pete Riley 07903 341065

EXTRACT from invitation to particpate in consultation:

* This consultation is open until 5th June 2007. I would kindly ask you to actively participate in this consultation through the detailed and prompt completion of the questionnaire, which is accessible from the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=Seedlabel

* Please do remember to identify yourself in order to permit the consideration of your replies (subject to the privacy statement included in the questionnaire). I am grateful for your participation*

* Ludmilla Couturiaux
On behalf of Chantal Bruetschy
Head of Unit B.3
Biotechnology, Pesticides & Health

9 May 2007

Australia: GMO emergency laws too risky, say Greens

The Age, May 9, 2007.

Allowing authorities to release genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the event of an emergency would be too risky, the Greens say.

Parliamentary secretary for health Dr Brett Mason said the Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2007 would give the health minister the right to release such organisms on the advice of experts in the event of a GMO release gone wrong.

"This legislation strengthens the Australian government's component of the gene technology regulatory scheme," he said.

"This scheme protects the health and safety of people and the environment from any risks that may be posed by genetically modified organisms."

He said the legislation would be enacted with the knowledge that governments must always be judicious with any release of any GMO into the community.

But Greens Senator Rachel Siewert said her party would oppose the bill because it would allow the chance of a cure that is far worse than the original disease.

"As they stand, these provisions would essentially enable the fast-tracking of potentially untested GMOs ... into the environment which would attempt to solve an emergency potentially unrelated to GMOs," she told parliament.

"The proposal is to dispense with the full assessment process of the potential impact of a GMO, not merely to expedite it or to speed up the process, but to dispense with it in some circumstances.

"We are deeply concerned that this means an unknown, potentially harmful organism may be released without any fail-safe provisions or any understanding of how it may interact with other organisms or our environment."

Senator Siewert said a harmful organism release could create a situation beyond recall.

"You could possibly be doing this forever without understanding the possible consequences," she said.

"GMOs released into our environment without proper assessment and testing may potentially have far-reaching and dangerous and disastrous consequences."

Labor will support the government's amendment, ensuring it will pass.

Debate was adjourned.

Illegal genetically engineered maize let loose in Europe - Dutch authorities order partial recall

Greenpeace press release, 9 May 2007.

Amsterdam -- The Dutch Food Safety Authority (VWA) announced today that it is recalling part of a cargo containing illegal Genetically Engineered (GE) maize imported from the United States of America. The VWA has also announced that it will step up inspections of US ships, from 10 to 25%. A press release issued by VWA confirms Greenpeace's announcement made on 27 April 2007 (1) that the vessel Pakrac, which arrived in the port of Rotterdam on 10 April, brought maize containing GE Herculex RW maize gluten, produced by Pioneer/Dow. This type of GE maize is grown in the US, but is not allowed in the European Union.

Greenpeace supports the Dutch authorities' attempt to contain the spread of illegal contaminated maize but criticises both EU and Dutch authorities for being unable to detect and prevent the entry of illegal GE varieties into the EU. In the case of the Pakrac, despite the early warning issued by Greenpeace, the recall was ordered only after part of the illegal maize had already entered the food chain.

"The Pakrac cargo is just the tip of the iceberg; many more illegal GE shipments could be slipping into the EU, given the lack of systematic controls. The EU should suspend all imports of US maize and other agricultural products that are under suspicion of being contaminated by GE organisms until they can institute a proper system to protect consumers, farmers and the environment from the risks of unwanted GE food and animal feed," said Myrto Pispini, Genetic Engineering campaigner, Greenpeace International.

On 10 April 2006, members of a Greenpeace Biosafety Patrol took samples of maize from the cargo of the Pakrac. Scientific analysis of these samples confirmed the suspicion that the shipment contained illegal varieties of genetically engineered maize (Pioneer/Dow Herculex RW), including Monsanto's MON863 variant, which is currently under review in EU for potential health risks. (2) Greenpeace released these test results and called on the VWA to clamp down on all maize imports from America, and to prevent the tainted maize from being distributed.

However, VWA has recalled only the maize gluten that has not yet been processed, and not the quantity already processed into animal feed. The recalled maize will either be sent back to the US or burned in the Netherlands. According to VWA, the processed products are not being recalled, because "there is no risk for animals' or consumers' health. The same approach was followed last year when illegal GE rice entered The Netherlands." VWA also states that the body "expects that the illegal Herculex maize will be legalised in the European Union in the near future."

"The role of the EU Commission and EU governments is not to support the biotech industry but to monitor it strictly! On what basis is the VWA assuming that this maize will be legalised? And even if it were to be legalised at a future date, as of now, this contaminant maize has not been approved for imports in the EU ‚ and is clearly an illegal import. According to EU law authorities must recall the entire tainted cargo and either destroy it, or return it to the original senders for proper disposal," concluded Pispini.

For further information please contact:

Myrto Pispini, Genetic Engineering campaigner, Greenpeace International: +306979443304

Namrata Chowdhary, Greenpeace International Communications: +44 77 261 751 48

Notes to the Editor:

(1) http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/new-illegal-gmo-found-in-us-sh

(2) MON863 maize is authorised for food-and feed use in the EU. However, GE maize MON 863 is under suspicion of posing significant health risks and is currently under review by the European Food Safety Authority, after Professor Seralini, a French scientist, published a study which demonstrates that laboratory rats, fed with a genetically engineered (GE) maize MON 863, have shown signs of toxicity in kidney and liver. Seralini, G-E, Cellier, D. & Spiroux de Vendomois, J. 2007. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Published in: "Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology".

Netherlands refuses GM corn shipment from US

Agence France-Press (AFP), May 9 2007

The Netherlands will return, or burn, a United States shipment of genetically modified corn that lacks clearance from European authorities, the Dutch food security authority said Wednesday.

Environmental organisation Greenpeace recently denounced the corn gluten shipment, which arrived at the Rotterdam port on April 10. The genetically modified corn was not authorised by the European Union, the Dutch authority said in a statement.

The name of the product in the shipment was Herculex RW from US company Pioneer, the authority said. It is used in the production of animal feed.

The portion of the shipment not yet used will be recalled and either returned to the United States or burnt in the Netherlands, according to the authority.

The product is currently being tested by the European food safety agency, with EU experts set to decide on June 8 whether it will be authorised. For that reason, Dutch authorities did not order the destruction of products that have already incorporated it.

Food safety authorities in the Netherlands have also decided to increase testing for genetically modified foods. From now on, 25 percent of corn imports from the United States will be tested, compared to the previous 10 percent.

Germany: Germany Tightens Restrictions on Genetically Modified Corn

Der Spiegel, May 9 2007

The German government has imposed stricter regulations on the food company Monsanto regarding the sale of genetically modified corn seeds. The new rules are tantamount to an outright ban.

Genetically modified (GM) crops have long been controversial in Germany, where organic agriculture is booming. Now the cultivation of GM corn has been effectively banned by the government, according to media reports.

In its Wednesday edition, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel reports that it has obtained a letter sent from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture to the agricultural company Monsanto, which sells the GM corn MON 810 -- which has been legal in Germany up until now -- as seed. In the letter, the ministry writes that GM corn from the MON 810 product line can only be delivered to third parties if the firm also provides an accompanying monitoring plan which researches the effects on the environment. The German news agency DPA also reported Wednesday they had obtained a copy of the same letter.

"This amounts to a de facto ban on the cultivation of genetically modified corn," said Peter Rudolph, who is responsible for genetic technology in the Brandenburg state ministry of agriculture, in remarks to Der Tagesspiegel Tuesday. He said the letter basically means Monsanto will no longer be allowed to sell MON 810, as the company has not presented any monitoring plan up until now. Brandenburg is the German state with the largest quantity of GM corn under cultivation.

In the letter, the federal ministry justifies its decision by writing that new information "gives reasons to suppose that the cultivation of MON 810 poses a danger to the environment."

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Agriculture told the newspaper that the letter should not be interpreted as a ban, but rather as a tightening of the regulations concerning the cultivation of the GM corn.

The new ruling could mean that crops already planted may not be allowed to be harvested. Brandenburg farmer Jorg Piprek told Der Tagesspiegel the new ruling was absurd: "We've already planted the corn. They can't tell us after the fact that it was illegal."

The cultivation of genetically modified crops has been controversial all over Europe, with anti-GM activists going as far as ripping up crops. The German Agriculture Minister Horst Seehofer has up until now justified the cultivation of GM crops in Germany by arguing they are allowed under European Union regulations.

Russia: Russian researchers present new data on negative influence of GMO on human health

http://www.regnum.ru/english/813298.html (translation from several sources)

"Results of our research on the effects of GMOs upon living organisms indicate that they are not harmless," President of the National Association for Genetic Safety Alexander Baranov said at a news conference held at the REGNUM press center in Moscow today. "This research must form the basis for serious reflection at official governmental institutions," Baranov said.

Members of the association presented the results of research conducted at Vavilov Agriculture University (Saratov). The research registered pathological deviation in experimental animals that ate GMO. As author of the test, Russian biotechnologist Maria Konovalova, who was personally conducting the research, said the Monsanto Roundup Ready GM-soy used during the tests on rats and mice caused serious mutilations of their internal organs (liver, kidneys, testicles) and in histological and cellular construction. Besides, it influences the number of babies in a litter, caused increased death rates among descendants, and results in increased aggressiveness and loss of maternal instinct.

"In mice fed on a protein isolated from GM-soy, there has been an increase in the weight of internal organs," she says. In addition, there has been an increase in aggressive behaviour by females towards their young. The really sad thing is that we found deformities and abnormalities in mice whose mothers drank GM-soy."

Maria Konovalova submitted a photo of a typical mouse from the GM test group which had been fed on GM soy for 5 months, and another photo of a mouse from the control group fed on normal soy. The difference in bodyweight and general condition was apparent, with the GM-fed mouse apparently in very poor condition.

At the press conference, President OAGB Alexander Baranov also said that the association sent an open letter to the chief sanitary doctor of the Russian Federation Gennadi Onishchenko. "The letter asks for the suspension of already approved GMOs in food products and the declaration of an interim moratorium on the registration of new GMOs to fully determine their effects on the human organism," said Baranov. "It was surprising to see that in our country, where a number of GM lines is allowed in the food supply, none of those lines have been fully explored," concluded President OAGB. According to him, the RAMN Nutrition Research Institute recently confirmed that the overwhelming majority of GM-lines have been tested in only one generation of rats.

"Only in one case was there a two generation study," said Alexander Baranov. "Methodical medical-biological guidance on assessing GM food products was signed by the same Onishchenko in 2000, and researchers are encouraged to check 5 generations of the test animals. But at the moment, there is a terrible situation: we feed our children food which no one can claim to be one hundred percent safe," says President OAGB Aleksandr Baranov. "We do not want to seek scapegoats. In our letter to Gennadi Onishchenko, we propose concrete measures for a speedy solution to the problem."

As REGNUM reported earlier, in October 2005, Russian reseracher Dr. Irina Ermakova made public the results of her experiment that showed that genetically modified soy affects posterity in rats.

See: http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/ermakova.htm

8 May 2007

USA: Monsanto tastes defeat

GristMill, 8 May 2007. By Tom Philpott.

Monsanto has barreled its way toward dominance over the global seed market with strong-arm tactics and friends in high places. http://story/2006/1/9/13258/06199/

As evidence of the former, the roguish company once threatened to sue me -- then a neophyte blogger with 30 readers -- on the most trivial grounds possible. As for the latter, software monopolist Bill Gates, evidently impressed with the way Monsanto tosses around its market girth, has tapped a former Monsanto exec to help lead his foundation's "Green Revolution" in Africa.

The company wins plenty of battles, but it loses sometimes, too. In fact, it suffered two bitter defeats last week.

Last Thursday, a U.S. district judge upheld a ban on new plantings of a genetically modified alfalfa variety that's designed to withstand copious lashings of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

Alfalfa is grown nationwide as a perennial fodder crop for livestock. If so-called Roundup Ready alfalfa becomes ubiquitous, farmers would be encouraged to dump huge quantities of Roundup on pastures -- a direct attack on plant biodiversity. Worse, it could create "superweeds" resistant to Roundup -- at best conjuring up the need for a new and even more fierce herbicide than Roundup, at worst creating an invasive weed that could take over pastures and other fields.

The decision delivers a firm rebuke to the USDA and its matador style of vetting applications for new GMO seed varieties. According to Reuters, the same judge responsible for Thursday's ruling:

... had issued a preliminary injunction in March, ruling U.S. regulators improperly allowed the commercialization of the biotech alfalfa without a thorough examination of its effects. That marked the first time a federal court overturned USDA approval of a biotech seed and halted planting, according to the Center for Food Safety.

Meanwhile, over in Europe, Monsanto was getting clobbered by a Munich judge, who struck down the giant's continent-wide patent on GM soybeans.

Hope Shand of the formidable ETC Group previewed the case on Gristmill last week.

It's worth reading ETC's report on the ruling in its entirety [see "Revoked! Monsanto monopoly nixed in Europe" press release of 3 May, below - Ed]. The group says that although the patent was due to expire soon anyway, the rejection forms a useful precedent in fighting the seed giant's attempts to declare ownership over huge swaths of the world's agricultural genetic heritage.

On Wall Street, Monsanto's share price has managed to shake off these setbacks, continuing its meteoric rise.

Why? These defeats are puny compared to the company's long string of easy regulatory victories. Roundup Ready alfalfa may be out of commission for a while -- though Reuters reports that 220,000 acres of it have already been planted -- but Roundup Ready corn and soy are rampant in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and the biofuel craze is only ramping up demand.

World: Global rush to energy crops threatens to bring food shortages and increase poverty, says UN

* Winners and losers in huge biofuel industry
* Oil price will stabilise but small farmers at risk

The Guardian, May 9 2007. John Vidal, environment editor.

But the UN urges governments to beware their human and environmental impacts, some of which could have irreversible consequences.

The report, which predicts winners and losers, will be studied carefully by the emerging multi-billion dollar a year biofuel industry which wants to provide as much as 25% of the world's energy within 20 years.

Global production of energy crops is doubling every few years, and 17 countries have so far committed themselves to growing the crops on a large scale.

Last year more than a third of the entire US maize crop went to ethanol for fuel, a 48% increase on 2005, and Brazil and China grew the crops on nearly 50m acres of land. The EU has said that 10% of all fuel must come from biofuels by 2020. Biofuels can be used in place of petrol and diesel and can play a part in reducing emissions from transport.

On the positive side, the UN says that the crops have the potential to reduce and stabilise the price of oil, which could be very beneficial to poor countries. But it acknowledges that forests are already being felled to provide the land to grow vast plantations of palm oil trees. Environment groups argue strongly that this is catastrophic for the climate, and potentially devastating for forest animals like orangutans in Indonesia.

The UN warns: "Where crops are grown for energy purposes the use of large scale cropping could lead to significant biodiversity loss, soil erosion, and nutrient leaching. Even varied crops could have negative impacts if they replace wild forests or grasslands."

But the survey's findings are mixed on whether the crops will benefit or penalise poor countries, where most of the crops are expected to be grown in future. One school of thought argues that they will take the best land, which will increase global food prices. This could benefit some farmers but penalise others and also increase the cost of emergency food aid.

"Expanded production [of biofuel crops] adds uncertainty. It could also increase the volatility of food prices with negative food security implications", says the report which was complied by UN-Energy.

"The benefits to farmers are not assured, and may come with increased costs. [Growing biofuel crops] can be especially harmful to farmers who do not own their own land, and to the rural and urban poor who are net buyers of food, as they could suffer from even greater pressure on already limited financial resources.

"At their worst, biofuel programmes can also result in a concentration of ownership that could drive the world's poorest farmers off their land and into deeper poverty," it says.

According to the report, the crops could transform the rural economy of rich and poor countries, attracting major new players and capital, but potentially leading to problems. "Large investments are already signalling the emergence of a new bio-economy, pointing to the possibility that still larger companies will enter the rural economy, putting the squeeze on farmers by controlling the price paid to producers and owning the rest of the value train," it says.

The report also says the crops are not guaranteed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Producing and using biofuels results in some reductions in emissions compared to petroleum fuels, it says, but this is provided there is no clearing of forest or peat that store centuries of carbon.

"More and more people are realising that there are serious environmental and food security issues involved in biofuels. Climate change is the most serious issue, but you cannot fight climate change by large scale deforestation," said Jan van Aken, of Greenpeace International in Amsterdam.

"Bioenergy provides us with an extraordinary opportunity to address climate change, energy security and rural development. [But] investments need to be planned carefully to avoid generating new environmental and social problems," said Achim Steiner, executive director of UN Environment programme yesterday.

Plant power

Biomass energy can be obtained from just about any plant or tree but is most commonly obtained from maize, soya beans, oil palms, sugar cane, sunflower and trees. The carbohydrates in the biomass, which are comprised of oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen, can be broken down into a variety of chemicals, some of which are useful fuels. At its simplest, plant matter is simply burned but much of the energy is wasted and it can cause pollution. So, the plant is either heated and refined to break down into gases, fermented and turned into grain alcohol or ethanol, or chemically converted to make into biodiesel.

USA: Nine Massachusetts Towns Vote Against Genetic Engineering

www.nofamass.org, 8 May 2007.

Since May 1, nine towns in Western Massachusetts have passed resolutions at their annual Town Meetings opposing genetic engineering of food and agricultural crops. These resolutions represent the latest wave of a region-wide effort that has been underway since 2002.

"The success of these resolutions at town meetings this year reflects a deepening opposition to genetic engineering in Massachusetts and across New England," said Ben Grosscup, a field organizer for the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Massachusetts and a leader in petitioning for the resolution in Amherst

In the largest such effort to date in Massachusetts, 9 new towns have put articles on their town meeting warrants calling for major policy changes for the biotechnology industry. Each town placed slightly different wording on its warrant, but all called for three key policy changes: 1) mandatory labeling of all genetically engineered foods; 2) liability protection to strengthen farmers' legal rights when dealing with biotechnology corporations; and 3) a moratorium on further growing of GE crops until independent scientific evidence proves them to be safe, and they can be demonstrated not to harmfully affect family farms.

So far this year, all nine towns in Massachusetts that debated these resolutions voted to support at least some of the appeals, and five of these voted to support all three. The towns include Charlemont, Shutesbury, Bernardston, Amherst, Granby, Ware, Sandisfield, Williamstown, and New Salem.

Since 2000, 111 towns and cities in New England have passed resolutions that put themselves on record questioning genetic engineering of food and crops. With the votes of the nine new towns from 2006, Massachusetts now has 21 towns, and one city, Boston, that have passed such resolutions. In Vermont, where these efforts first took off on a wide scale, 85 towns and cities have passed measures on the issue, along with 2 towns in Maine and 2 in New Hampshire. Earlier this year, residents of Montville, Maine voted to amend their town plan to prohibit growing of GE crops. This may be the first such resolution to carry the force of law in any New England town.

Accompanied by a spirited debate that lasted for over 40 minutes, on June 13, the New Salem Town Meeting approved all three articles that pertained to genetic engineering: a request for labeling GE food by 28-4, a call for farmer liability protection by 33-9, and a moratorium by 18-12. One New Salem citizen, Joseph Cuneo answered comments that genetic engineering has been going on for thousands of years, by pointing out that the GE crops that have been on the market on a wide scale since 1996 are produced in dramatically new, and untested ways. Another citizen said that the farmer liability protection measure was a key step toward establishing legal rights for farmers that have been sued by Monsanto for patent infringement and suffered economic damages due to crop contamination. Jennifer Cuneo commented on the significance of town meeting taking up the issue of genetic engineering: "It's a louder voice when towns vote on these issues than when each individual calls up their representative. It's got to start here at town meeting, because that's what democracy is all about."

On Monday May 8, Amherst Town meeting debated the 3 articles on its warrant for over an hour and a quarter. The labeling resolution passed by voice vote. The liability legislation resolution passed by 115-60, and the moratorium resolution passed by 82-77.

The Amherst Town Meeting, whose participants, or "members," are elected by town residents, includes several scientists, some of whom spoke against the resolutions, but others spoke in favor. Members pointed out that genetic engineering is dramatically different than various from of plant breeding and hybridization that have gone on for thousands of years, because never before have genes been so separated from their own evolutionary contexts, implanted into crops from entirely different kingdoms, and patented for commercial profit. Many town meeting members were pleased to have the chance to voice their opinions in the intelligent debate that took place.

In the town of Ware, over 100 people attended their Town meeting. The farmer liability resolution, passed quickly by 55-44. Then, the petition sponsor, Heidi Bara, spoke in favor of the call for a moratorium on genetic engineering. An organic farmer in Ware, Matthew Biskup, also spoke in favor of the moratorium, citing concerns that his corn crop is in danger of contamination. That measure, however, was defeated by voice vote. When the labeling resolution came up, one woman said "I want to know what I'm eating," and it passed by a voice vote.

Starting at the very beginning of their town meeting, citizens of Granby debated the 3 articles on genetic engineering. With nearly 200 people in attendance, each resolution passed without tallying. Although petitioners have generally anticipated the greatest controversy from their calls for a moratorium on GE crops, they insist that a moratorium is necessary to fully address the threats posed by genetic engineering in agriculture. Organic Farmer, Ryan Voiland, who sponsored the articles said, "I'm glad that Granby is supportive of a more responsible approach to agriculture and that they have showed their support for a moratorium on genetic engineering until further study is done. I wasn't sure how people would feel, and I was pleasantly surprised that people were so in favor of them." At the same meeting, Voiland brought forth a measure to form an agricultural commission in Granby, which also passed.

On May 6, Organic gardener, Linda Avis Scott and her husband, Michael Baines, presented an anti-GE resolution to the Shutesbury town meeting, which voted unanimously to support. Along with other local activists, Scott had been educating the community about the threat of genetic engineering. "The resolution we put on the warrant in Shutesbury really taps into my fundamental belief of what town meeting is about -- the true democracy that allows us to express ourselves freely and to be heard," Scott said. The same day Bernardston passed a measure for mandatory labeling of GE foods and seeds and it referred two other measures on farmer liability and a moratorium to the newly founded agricultural commission for further discussion.

On May 1, the Charlemont Town Meeting, which went until 11:30pm, passed a resolution to "encourage a local moratorium on the growing of Genetically Engineered crops until there is adequate scientific evidence that these products are not harmful to us or our environment," and calling on legislators to enact mandatory labeling and farmer liability protection.

Organic Farmer, John Hoffman, who sponsored the Charlemont article said "neither I nor many others at town meeting are late night people." Nonetheless, more than half of the 80 or so who attended stayed until the very end when the article came up. Although the vote was not unanimous, a vast majority voted in favor. "Many told me after the meeting that they appreciated having the opportunity to vote on the resolution and to support it," Hoffman said. Hoffman, intends to continue discussion on this issue in the agricultural commission that has just formed in Charlemont. Charlemont's choice to "encourage a local moratorium," although it lacks binding legal authority, is viewed as a statement of moral authority by the town.

These kinds of resolutions have exerted significant influence on state policy. In 2004, Vermont passed a first-in-the-nation law requiring clearer labeling of all genetically engineered seeds sold in the state. Then, in May 2006, the Vermont House and Senate passed landmark legislation permitting farmers to sue GE crop developers under private nuisance law in cases where damages over $3500 can be demonstrated. The bill passed the Vermont House in April by 77-63 and passed the Senate a week later by 19-8. The multi-year town meeting effort that resulted in 85 towns passing resolutions against genetic engineering significantly heightened the debate in Vermont. On May 15, however, Governor Jim Douglas vetoed the bill, disappointing many farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates

The liability issue has gained traction due to the practices of Monsanto, which is the largest developer of GE crop varieties. Monsanto patents novel gene sequences in their GE crops, which are able to affect non-GE crops through wind pollination and seed spillage from trucks. Organic farmer John Hoffman, said, "This issue affects me directly because of the possible contamination of my corn crop. We know that with wind pollinated crops like corn, GE pollen will cross with non-GE varieties. For me, that means that my organically grown crop is no longer organic."

The corporate patent rights that come with these novel gene sequences pose liability threats that leave many farmers concerned. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported in 2003 that Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million and a staff of 75 devoted to investigating and prosecuting farmers for patent infringement.

So far, Monsanto has filed 90 lawsuits against U.S. farmers, according to a 2005 report by the Center for Food Safety, and has been awarded judgments totaling over $15 million. Many farmers settle with the company out-of-court, accepting mandated gag orders and leaving scant information about their cases. Gloria Meluleni, an organic farmer who runs Coyote Hill Farm and brought forth resolutions on GE to the Bernardston Town Meeting said, "It is so unjust and ridiculous that Monsanto can sue people when its GE pollen crosses over to someone else's crop."

To get in touch with, NOFA/Mass field organizer, Ben Grosscup: ben.grosscup@nofamass.org, or contact NOFA/Mass: info@nofamass.org.

India: Supreme Court removes curbs on field trials of GMOs

Reuters, May 8, 2007.

NEW DELHI - The Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted curbs on field trials of genetically modified (GMO) crops, provided tests are conducted under stringent conditions to prevent contamination.

The court allowed field trials of cotton, rice, mustard, tomatoes, potatoes, cauliflower and groundnuts.

"These trials will be conducted under stringent conditions to prevent any contamination," a court bench said.

The court asked the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee in September last year not to allow such tests until concerns about the impact of GMOs on the environment and human health had been addressed.

India has so far not allowed commercial planting of any gene-modified crops for human consumption. Cotton is the only GMO crop grown on a commercial scale.

Environment groups say India's existing bio-safety system is flawed as the government has not undertaken any independent field trials of its own and instead accepted the results of industry-driven tests.

They have demanded a strict protocol to evaluate all aspects of bio-safety before any gene-modified crop is released into the environment.

The government says the use of such crops would improve yields and check use of insecticides.

It said over 300 proposals for use of GMOs had piled up before the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee since the court placed curbs on field trials last year.

"Scientific assessment and not moratorium is the answer to bio-safety concerns," the government said in court, adding that the order had stopped research work on the use of GMOs.

The court on Tuesday also allowed cotton producers to commercially use four new BT cotton varieties.

7 May 2007

USA: The real conflict over genetic modification

Morning Sentinel - Maine Today, 7 May 2007.

Some of the most insightful testimony on the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) liability bill (April 24) pointed out that conventional growers as well as growers with organic certification serve markets that demand genetically engineered (GE)-free products. So the divide is not between organic and conventional farmers, but between the biotech industry and GE-free advocates. Bill opponents testified that GM crops are safe and are planted to reduce pesticide use. In response, supporters of LD 1650 pointed out that genetic modification is a haphazard experimental process that relies on the profligate use of pesticides. Damage to soil microorganisms and beneficial insects is inevitable, as is the reality of herbicide-resistant weeds. When weeds become resistant to herbicides, more chemical use is considered necessary to eradicate them.

A federal district judge ruled last month that USDA must halt all new field trials of GM crops until more rigorous environmental reviews are conducted (www.non-gmoreport.com). Why? Because escaping pollen threatens public health and the environment. Although multiple farmers testified that it's impossible to build fences high enough or tight enough to keep out pollen drift, Robert Tardy of the Biotechnology Industry Organization wants LD 1650 amended to require organic (non-GMO) growers to establish buffer zones to prevent commingling. This is tacit admission that genetic drift onto non-GMO fields will ruin farm operations, both conventional and organic, whose marketing depends on being GE-free.

Jody Spear
Harborside for Sierra Club

Europe: EU Must Speed Response To New GMOs -farm Chief

TruthAboutTrade.org, 7 May 2007. By Jeremy Smith.

Brussels - Europe must speed up its approval process for new biotech crops and foods to avoid future problems with key suppliers like Argentina, Brazil and the United States, Europe's farm chief said on Friday.

Shipments of maize feed products had fallen in the past few months due to efforts to keep out genetically modified (GMO) materials that were approved elsewhere but not in the 27 countries of the European Union.

EU regulators had to consider what would happen if imports had to be blocked altogether from given origins to avoid unwanted contamination, EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said.

"Many of our trade partners have a different perspective on GMO regulation from ours," she told delegates at an international cereals and oilseeds conference.

"One part of the problem seems to be that, when the European Union considers authorising a new GMO, the approval process takes a considerable time. We are examining why this is, and whether we can speed it up without compromising on the risk assessment," Fischer Boel said.

Soybeans and soy products were a bigger potential headache than maize since EU imports of maize feed were low, she said, adding that it would be hard to replace the larger volumes of soybeans and soymeal with other protein-rich feed.

"We hope to avoid having to block soya imports from our main suppliers -- the United States, Argentina and Brazil," Fischer Boel said. EU importers took more than 40 percent of Argentina's soy shipments and more than half of Brazil's, she said.

"Whereas this could be difficult in the case of the US, Argentina and Brazil ought to work with us actively on this issue, given that we take a high proportion of their soyabean exports," she said. "Nevertheless, we can't rely on hope alone."

For many years, little has changed in the split of opinion on biotech policy among EU governments, which are consistently unable to secure the weighted majority that is legally required to vote through a new GMO approval.

An application to approve a new GMO product usually takes many months, if not years, as EU governments raise objections that lead to extra scientific risk assessments. The application then goes to a committee of EU-27 experts, then is often escalated to ministers when the experts cannot agree.

European consumers are well known for their antipathy towards GMO foods but the biotech industry says its products are safe and no different to conventional foods. Europe's hostility to GMO foods is unfounded, it says.

USA: Ingredients for cheap?

FoodProductionDaily, 7 May 2007. By Ahmed ElAmin

As recent incidents of food contamination demonstrate, the cheapest source for ingredients may not turn out to be so cheap after all.

Two such incidents - one involving contaminated pet and human foods, the other a shipment of illegal genetically modified (GM) rice to Europe - highlighted problems with sourcing ingredients from China.

While the ingredients may have seemed cheap to processors at the time, they ended up costing a lot in terms of the subsequent withdrawals, the loss of consumer confidence in brands, increased regulatory scrutiny, and the effort it took some companies to search for alternate sources.

Contaminated ingredients from a variety of countries, including China, have made their way through borders in the past (think Iranian pistachios for example). However, the increasing focus of food regulators on stopping unsafe products at the borders will surely catch more companies out.

All of a sudden ingredient price is being trumped by food safety and quality concerns.

Probably the best example is the incident in the US last month with wheat gluten products imported from China for use by the pet food industry. The ingredients were found to have been contaminated with the banned chemical melamine and were blamed for the deaths of hundreds of dogs and cats.

Then regulators discovered last week that the pet products had also been fed to a herd of hogs and three million broiler chickens, leading to regulatory fears of the further spread of the contamination to the human food chain.

The Food and Drug Administration subsequently give its inspectors the power to detain without inspection all vegetable protein imports from China for use as animal or human foods if they suspected the products might contain the chemical.

In an import alert guidance, the FDA singled out a number of wheat, rice, corn, soy and mung bean imports from China for regulatory attention.

Any increase in detention rates could mean processors will find their ingredient imports from China are not available when they need them, or worse they will have to pay to store and then send them back.

But would any processor currently dare to continue depending on China for a source, with the fear that they could themselves fall prey to further contamination incidents?

China has since banned its food exporters from using melamine. As an emerging powerhouse supplier to the world, the country will surely have to ensure its products are not just cheap, but also meet standards set by other countries.

Unfortunately for the country, one or more of its exporters also caused a problem in Europe last week. The UK reported that unauthorised genetically modified rice intended for animal feed had entered the market from China via the Netherlands.

The alert was sparked off after regulators found that an unapproved GM line had been found in rice protein concentrate imported to Cyprus from China via the Netherlands.

Businesses in Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain were also named as receiving consignments of the rice protein concentrate.

While such contamination incidents initially dealt with pets and animal feed, they highlight the potential for disaster in the human food supply chain.

The recent problems highlight the need for better traceability and food safety controls along a processor's supply chain. The supply chain manager with his eye on the ball probably has such proceedures in place already.

But as the recent incidents demonstrate, many still do not.

Ahmed ElAmin is editor of FoodProductionDaily.com. He is a business journalist who specialises in development issues, food, wine, technology, international business and offshore finance.

India: Supreme Court hearing on GM crops ban today

Financial Express, May 7 2007. By Ashok B. Sharma.

NEW DELHI, MAY 6: The biotech industry has appealed to the Supreme Court to vacate its ban order on fresh approval of genetically modified (GM) crops. A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan is slated to hear the industry's petition on May 8.

The apex court, in the course of its hearing of a public interest litigation filed by Aruna Rodrigues, PV Satheesh and others on September 22, 2006, had directed the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) not to clear any GM crop for fresh field trials. Earlier on May 1, 2006, it had also said the GEAC and not the Review Committee for Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) under the department of biotechnology should be responsible for field trials and approval of GM crops.

"We have filed an impleadment application in the Supreme Court for vacation of the ban order," said RK Sinha, executive director of All India Crop Biotechnology Association (AICBA). Sinha is also the executive director of National Seeds Association of India, a body formed with the merger of AICBA and three seed industry bodies.

Sinha said, "There is no other options before the country, but to adopt transgenic technology in agriculture. Agriculture land is shrinking and we need to grow more as the population is rising. Transgenic technology will help bail us out of this situation."

He said Bt cotton had benefited farmers by raising their levels of income and reducing their costs of farming.

Sinha said apart from AICBA, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, University of Delhi and Dharwad University had also sought vacation of the ban order. On the other side, farmers' organisations led by Bharat Krishak Samaj have filed an impleadment supporting the PIL for a moratorium on GM crops. The All India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA) has filed an impleadment expressing concerns over the possibility of export prospects being damaged on account of genetic contamination due to GM crops. AIREA has urged that a tough regulatory regime and adequate biosafety measures are put in place before final approval.

Speaking to FE, Prashant Bhushan, who is the advocate for the petitioner, Aruna Rodgrigues, said, "The government has not yet disclosed the locations of trials relating to 91 applicants. It has not also complied with the court's order of February, 2007 which called for bio-safety reports of field trials. The department of bio-technology has not given us toxicity data on transgenic rice, okra, brinjal and mustard, despite the verdict of the Central Information Commission."

In reply, the government has claimed that "it has put in place a stringent regulatory regime" for ensuring health and environment safety, and has appealed for either removal or modification of the ban order.

On the safety aspect, the government said in its reply, "It is pertinent to mention that no scientific technological development may be attained in any country, developed or under developed, without taking calculated risks and chances. As a matter of routine, tests are conducted, many of them fail, some leave behind adverse effects, but still such tests continue to be conducted in the interest of development. It is impossible to eliminate all hazards connected with technological development. However, all precautions are taken to minimise the adverse effects which may follow."

5 May 2007

USA: Judge Declares GM Crop Illegal
Federal Court orders first-ever halt to planting of a commercialized genetically-altered crop
Judge Orders Complete Environmental Review of Monsanto's Gene-Altered Alfalfa

Cornucopia Institute and Center for Food Safety press release, 5 May 2007

A Federal judge on May 4 made a final ruling that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) 2005 approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) "Roundup Ready" alfalfa was illegal. The Judge called on USDA to ban any further planting of the GE seed until it conducts a complete Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the GE crop.

In the decision, Judge Charles Breyer in the Federal Northern District of California affirmed his preliminary ruling, which echoed the Center for Food Safety's arguments in their lawsuit against USDA, that the crop could harm the environment and contaminate natural alfalfa. This ruling also requires Forage Genetics to provide the locations of all existing Roundup Ready alfalfa plots to USDA within 30 days. The Judge ordered USDA to make the location of these plots "publicly available as soon as practicable" so that growers of organic and conventional alfalfa "can test their own crops to determine if there has been contamination."

"This permanent halt to the planting of this risky crop is a great victory for the environment," said Will Rostov, a Senior Attorney for CFS. "Roundup Ready alfalfa poses threats to farmers, to our export markets, and to the environment. We expect the USDA to abide by the law and insure that American farmers are protected from genetic contamination."

Today's decision is consistent with Judge Breyer's ruling of February 13th, in which the judge found that the USDA failed to address concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa. In calling today for a permanent injunction, Judge Breyer noted that contamination of natural and organic alfalfa by the GE variety has already occurred, and noted that "Such contamination is irreparable environmental harm. The contamination cannot be undone."

"This ruling is good news for organic farmers and most conventional farmers across the country," said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. "This crop represents a very real threat to their crops and their livelihood. This ruling is a turning point in the regulation of biotech crops in this country," Kimbrell concluded.

The permanent injunction ordered today by Judge Breyer follows his ruling last month finding that USDA violated national environmental laws by approving GE alfalfa without a full Environmental Impact Statement. Monsanto and Forage Genetics, the developers of the GE alfalfa seed, failed to convince the Judge that their corporate interests outweighed the public interest in food safety, freedom to farm natural crops, and environmental protection. In fact, Judge Breyer specifically noted that Monsanto's fear of lost sales "does not outweigh the potential irreparable damage to the environment."

With the integrity of organic food, and conventional export markets at stake, farmers have been watching this court action carefully. Organic alfalfa seed producer Blaine Schmaltz, Rugby ND, said the ruling helps farmers in a time of uncertainty. "The judge's order to make public the location of Roundup Ready alfalfa fields is a critical part of the decision," said Schmalz. "It allows GM-free and organic producers like me make sound planting decisions."

Judge Breyer found that USDA failed to address the problem of Roundup-resistant "superweeds" that could follow commercial planting of GE alfalfa. Commenting on the agency's refusal to assess this risk, the judge stated, "Finally, the court rejects defendants' assertion that allowing an expansion in the Roundup Ready alfalfa market is in the public interest because it promotes the use of less toxic herbicides. The record reflects that organic and most conventional forage alfalfa is grown without the use of any herbicides. In any event, a finding that increasing the use of Roundup is in the public interest is premature in light of APHIS's failure to analyze the potential for the development of Roundup-resistant weeds."

"This ruling protects the ability of farmers producing organic meat and milk to obtain non-GMO alfalfa seed to grow feed for their animals and preserve the organic integrity of their products," said Jim Munsch, a certified organic livestock producer from Coon Valley, Wisconsin who represents The Cornucopia Institute, one the plaintiffs. "This is precedent-setting. For the first time the courts have intervened on a USDA ruling to ensure that proper environmental evaluation and consideration for the livelihood of family farmers are accounted for and balance the desires of large companies," Munsch added.

The Center for Food Safety initiated the legal action resulting in today's ruling in February 2006, representing 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.

"As a consumer of organic foods, I'm relieved to know that a U.S. District Court judge understands the regulatory role USDA plays, even though the agency itself seems to have forgotten," said Dean Hulse, an organic food consumer from Fargo and past chair of Dakota Resource Council. "Judge Breyer's ruling forces USDA to do its job--that is, to conduct the research necessary to determine the effects of Roundup Ready alfalfa on the environment."

"I'm hopeful that Judge Breyer's precedent-setting ruling will induce a rebirth of values at the USDA, in particular, and federal regulatory agencies generally," added Hulse. "The USDA's role with respect to regulating transgenic crops should be that of watch dog, not lap dog."

"This landmark decision curtails a genetically engineered crop that, among other serious environmental problems, increases farmers' dependence on toxic weed killers that hurt farmers, food consumers, and the environment," said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. "This is a huge victory for family farmers in the livestock and diary industry," said Bill Wenzel, National Director Farmer to Farmer Campaign on GE. "It is unfortunate that it took lengthy and expensive litigation to achieve what should have been apparent to the bureaucrats at the USDA - that nobody but Monsanto benefits from the commercialization of GE Alfalfa."

For more information, please visit www.centerforfoodsafety.org or www.cornucopia.org

World: Switch to organic crops could help poor

Associated Press, 5 May 2007. By Nicole Winfield.

ROME - Organic food has long been considered a niche market, a luxury for wealthy consumers. But researchers told a U.N. conference Saturday that a large-scale shift to organic agriculture could help fight world hunger while improving the environment.

Crop yields initially can drop as much as 50 percent when industrialized, conventional agriculture using chemical fertilizers and pesticides is converted to organic. While such decreases often even out over time, the figures have kept the organic movement largely on the sidelines of discussions about feeding the hungry.

Researchers in Denmark found, however, that food security for sub-Saharan Africa would not be seriously harmed if 50 percent of agricultural land in the food exporting regions of Europe and North America were converted to organic by 2020.

While total food production would fall, the amount per crop would be much smaller than previously assumed, and the resulting rise in world food prices could be mitigated by improvements in the land and other benefits, the study found.

A similar conversion to organic farming in sub-Saharan Africa could help the region's hungry because it could reduce their need to import food, Niels Halberg, a senior scientist at the Danish Research Center for Organic Food and Farming, told the U.N. conference on "Organic Agriculture and Food Security."

Farmers who go back to traditional agricultural methods would not have to spend money on expensive chemicals and would grow more diverse and sustainable crops, the report said. In addition, if their food is certified as organic, farmers could export any surpluses at premium prices.

The researchers plugged in data on projected crop yields and commodity prices until 2020 to create models for the most optimistic and conservative outlooks.

Alexander Mueller, assistant director-general of the Rome-based U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, praised the report and noted that projections indicate the number of hungry people in sub-Saharan Africa was expected to grow.

Considering that the effects of climate change are expected to hurt the world's poorest, "a shift to organic agriculture could be beneficial," he said.

Nadia El-Hage Scialabba, an FAO official who organized the conference, pointed to other studies she said indicated that organic agriculture could produce enough food per capita to feed the world's current population.

One such study, by the University of Michigan, found that a global shift to organic agriculture would yield at least 2,641 kilocalories per person per day, just under the world's current production of 2,786, and as many as 4,381 kilocalories per person per day, researchers reported. A kilocalorie is one "large" calorie and is known as the "nutritionist's calorie."

"These models suggest that organic agriculture has the potential to secure a global food supply, just as conventional agriculture today, but with reduced environmental impacts," Scialabba said in a paper presented to the conference.

However, she stressed that the studies were only economic models.

The United Nations defines organic agriculture as a "holistic" food system that avoids the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, minimizes pollution and optimizes the health of plants, animals and people. It is commercially practiced in 120 countries and represented a $40 billion market last year, Scialabba said.

The FAO conference website is at www.fao.org/organicag/ofs/index_en.htm.

4 May 2007

UK: 'Frankenstein food' crops could be here in two years

The Daily Mail, 4 May 2007. By Sean Poulter.

Genetically modified crops could be grown commercially in Britain within two years amid official efforts to water down policing of the controversial "Frankenstein food" technology.

Advisers to the Government claimed yesterday that the farming regulatory regime is unfairly weighted against the growing of GM crops.

ACRE - the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment - wants a lighter touch system that concentrates more on the claimed benefits of GM farming rather than any potential harm to the countryside and health.

It suggested GM crops could solve future food famines caused by climate change and population growth.

The committee, largely of scientists, also argued that GM crops could become the only effective alternative to using oil for producing plastics and other chemicals.

The chairman, Professor Chris Pollock, has been in the vanguard of efforts to overturn blanket consumer opposition to GM farming.

He believes that if GM crops with health benefits can be developed - such as wheat protein that protects against heart disease - the technology's negative image among consumers will be reversed.

However, GM critics such as Friends of the Earth dismissed the claimed benefits as "fantasy".

They said UK trials had found that GM farming practices disrupt the natural balance, threatening wild plants, insects and birds.

ACRE's proposed radical overhaul of the way new farming practices are regulated would involve watering down the policing of GM, while introducing an assessment regime for other new farming systems.

Professor Jules Pretty, the deputy chairman, predicted that the UK will get its first commercial production of GM crops within two to five years, probably oilseed rape or forage maize.

UK: Advisers urge more emphasis on crop experiment benefits

The Guardian, May 4 2007. By Ian Sample, science correspondent.

British farmers are being denied access to the most promising agricultural advances because regulators place too much emphasis on the negative impacts they have on the environment, according to a government body.

Trials to assess the impact of new farming techniques and novel crops, such as genetically modified varieties, should balance any damaging environmental effects with the benefits they bring, a report yesterday by the advisory committee on releases to the environment said. The report was prompted by the government's field scale evaluations of herbicide-tolerant GM crops, which were completed in 2003. The evaluation concluded that conventional crops were among the best and worst for the environment, with GM crops falling in between.

The document is being considered by the environment secretary, David Miliband, ahead of discussions with the European Food Safety Authority in Brussels.

Under the proposals, novel crops and farming practices would be assessed for any detrimental effect on the environment, but these would be considered alongside the benefits they may also have on biodiversity, yields and soil quality. If the crops were judged to have an overall benefit, they would be approved for planting.

Chris Pollock, committee chairman, said the future sustainability of British farming would be in grave jeopardy if farmers were not permitted to adopt new technologies that were proven to increase yields or have other benefits. "If we are serious about sustainable agriculture, we have to be open to new technologies. This is the first shot in what I expect will be a long war."

Anti-GM campaigners voiced concerns that the report will see untested GM crops facing less scrutiny before being allowed on to the market. Claire Oxborrow, of Friends of the Earth, said: "It should absolutely not lead to a reduction in the rigorous application of legislation to test GM crops for their safe use."

The report follows a surge of interest in using genetic modification to create biofuel crops for green transport and plants that produce pharmaceutical compounds which allow farmers to turn their fields into vast drug production sites.

Julian Little, a spokesman for the GM crop industry, welcomed the plans, but said the way crops would be assessed under the new proposals might be too vague, and so open to political interference.

India: Bitter harvest

The Times of India, 4 May 2007

Farmers of India are facing a deep crisis - 150,000 have committed suicide in the last decade of trade liberalisation. Farmers' incomes are falling. India's anti-farmer policies are heavily influenced by the World Bank - a pity that the Bank's economists do not acknowledge this ('Produce And Perish', April 26).

The crisis of farmers' falling incomes has evolved in two phases. First came the Green Revolution (1965-1990). The second phase is the structural adjustment and trade liberalisation phase. First, the Bank pushed India on a monoculture path of chemical addiction. It provided credit to introduce a capital intensive agricultural model.

The Bank and USAID exerted pressure for favourable conditions for foreign investment in India's fertiliser industry, import liberalisation and elimination of domestic controls to import fertilisers, seeds and pesticides. The World Bank provided the credit.

The World Bank finances were an important element in the spread of a vast network needed for distribution of Green Revolution varieties. In 1963, the National Seed Corporation was established. In 1969, the Terai Seed Corporation was started with a World Bank loan of $13 million. This was followed by two National Seeds Project (NSP) loans.

The overall objective of the projects was to develop state institutions and create a new infrastructure for increasing the production of certified seeds. In 1988, the World Bank gave India a fourth loan for the seed sector to make India's seed industry more market-responsive.

The involvement of the private sector, including multinational corporations, in seed production is a special objective of NSP III ($150 million). This was viewed as necessary because sustained demand for seeds did not expand as expected. In self-pollinated crops, especially wheat and rice, farmer retention and farmer-to-farmer transfer accounted for much of the seed used. The Bank pressure enabled the entry of seed corporations like Monsanto. Today, most farmer suicides are precisely in those areas where Monsanto's seeds have spread.

Monsanto has been taken to court for its monopolistic practices. The hoarding and monopolistic practices of corporations like Cargill, Lever and ITC have pushed up the price of wheat. Farmers are earning less and the poor are paying more for food. The universal public distribution system was dismantled under World Bank pressure as have the APMC Acts. India's food security and sovereignty is being severely undermined by every policy intervention of the World Bank. Trade liberalisation and structural adjustment have added to the burden of Indian farmers.

Liberalisation under the structural adjustment programme of World Bank consists of the following elements: Liberalising fertiliser imports and deregulating domestic manufacturing and the distribution of fertilisers; removing land ceiling regulation, subsidies on irrigation, electricity and credit and creating conditions to facilitate the trading of canal irrigation water rights; deregulating the wheat, rice, sugarcane, cotton and edible oil and oilseed industries; dismantling the food security system; and removing controls on markets, traders, and processors, and subsidies to cooperatives.

Other elements are abolishing the Essential Commodities Act; the general ban on futures trading; inventory controls; and selective credit controls on inventory financing; treating farmers cooperatives on an equal footing with the private sector.

The Bank is recommending that India stops focusing on food grains and instead focus on export crop such as vegetables, shrimps and flowers. The World Bank's recent report only addresses horticulture for exports. This will not improve farmers' incomes; it will rob them of land and livelihoods. Export crops are at the root of the land conflicts in Barnala, Punjab. An Action Aid report shows how giant corporations drive down prices of agricultural produce. Hooking India's agriculture to Wal-Mart and TESCO will dispossess and deprive Indian farmers.

Our recent report on Corporate Hijack of Retail also shows how the model of corporate industrial globalised agriculture - that the World Bank is promoting - leads to falling prices for farmers and rising prices for consumers.

Canada: An American court bans genetically modified alfalfa - How will Ottawa react?

CNW Telbec, 4 May 2007.

MONTREAL - Multinational biotech companies yesterday were dealt a severe blow, suffering a major legal setback when a California judge reconfirmed his earlier ruling that the U.S. government failed to follow its own rules for assessing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), in particular Monsanto's Roundup Ready genetically modified (GM) alfalfa.

Yesterday's decision makes the previously temporary ban permanent. Monsanto's GM alfalfa can no longer be sold in the United States and alfalfa that is already in the ground will be tightly controlled to prevent genetic contamination.

In a harsh decision, Judge Charles Breyer reaffirmed that the GM seed can harm the environment and contaminate naturally planted alfalfa. He also stated that the U.S. Department of Agriculture failed to discharge its responsibilities by ignoring the fact that there were doubts surrounding the likelihood of contamination by the GM seed. The ruling requires companies to reveal the locations of all their Monsanto Roundup Ready GM alfalfa fields in the U.S. within 30 days. Judge Breyer has also asked the companies to make the information public as soon as possible to enable conventional and GM alfalfa producers to determine whether their crops have been contaminated. In pronouncing the ban, Judge Breyer noted that contamination of natural alfalfa by its GM counterpart has already occurred, stating, "Such contamination is irreparable environmental harm. The contamination cannot be undone."

GM alfalfa by Monsanto has been approved for use in Canada since September 7, 2004. According to Eric Darier, who heads the anti-GMO campaign for Greenpeace, "It was reviewed using criteria similar to those used in the U.S., which even the Royal Society of Canada considered to lack scientificm rigour in 2001. We have every right to doubt the seriousness of the GMO assessments conducted by Ottawa."

In a report to the government, the Royal Society of Canada - the highest independent scientific body in the country - recommended 58 precautionary measures regarding GMOs, but to no avail. Among other things, the 14-member expert panel criticized the lack of transparency in GMO assessments. Indeed, practically all the data supplied by the companies - the same ones that are trying to obtain GMO approval - are confidential and not available for scientific scrutiny.

"It took a judge in the United States to confirm the worst fears voiced by the Royal Society in 2001," stated Mr. Darier. "Greenpeace demands that the Canadian government withdraw its approval of this GM variety of alfalfa immediately and impose the same measures ordered by the judge in California. The government must then take real action to implement the Royal Society's 58 recommendations. In the meantime, it must suspend all GMO approvals in Canada."

Greenpeace is warning Ottawa of the impact that its laisser-faire attitude could have on international markets. "If the government does not act immediately, Canada is in danger of becoming THE dumping ground for GM alfalfa seeds," said Mr. Darier.

For further information: Eric Darier, Greenpeace GMO campaign head, + 1 (514) 605-6497; Jocelyn Desjardins, Communications - Public Relations, + 1 (514) 212-5749, http://blogues.greenpeace.ca/

Africa: Environmental groups condemn IPCC call for large scale biofuels as a climate disaster in the making

Joint press release by Global Forest Coalition, Biofuelwatch, Global Justice Ecology Project, Grupo de Reflexion Rural (Argentina), Rettet den Regenwald e.V., Econexus, Munlochy Vigil, and Noah (Friends of the Earth Denmark), Corporate Europe Observatory, and Gaia Foundation, 4th May 2007.

The IPCC Assessment Report Four has made a compelling case on what global warming means to the planet this century. It is the IPCC's strongest warning yet that drastic cuts in carbon emissions are vital if we are to avoid a catastrophic acceleration of climate change. Environmental groups are, however, deeply concerned that the IPCC's Summary for Policy Makers on climate mitigation, released earlier today, includes a recommendation for large-scale expansion of biofuels from monocultures, including from GM crops, even though monoculture expansion is a driving force behind the destruction of rainforests and other carbon sinks and reservoirs, thus accelerating climate change. The IPCC also recommend the expansion of large-scale agroforestry monoculture plantations. These plantations, which will include GM trees, are similarly linked to ecosystem destruction. Monoculture expansion is a major threat to the livelihoods and food sovereignty of communities many of which are already bearing the brunt of climate change disasters caused largely by the fossil fuel emissions of industrialised countries.

Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch stated: "It is already clear that the burgeoning demand for biofuels that has been created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is actually increasing them by deforestation in the tropics and accelerating climate change. So far, only 1% of global transport fuel comes from biofuels, yet already biofuels cause steep rises in grain and vegetable oil prices, threatening the food security of poor people and spurring agricultural expansion into forests and grasslands, on which we depend for a stable climate".

The IPCC recommend second generation GM biofuels, which are widely believed to be at least 10-15 years away from commercialisation. There are serious concerns about the risks involved in technologies which will rely heavily on GM microbes and fungi for the refining process, as well as GM crops and trees.

Mayer Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at Policy Studies Institute said: "There is an inherent and acutely serious problem within the report. On the one hand, it leaves us in no doubt to how vital conservation of the planet's ecosystems and carbon sinks are to averting the worst predictions made in the previous sections of the report. On the other, it proposes the large scale use of the biosphere to satisfy demand in the transport and energy sectors." Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition, a worldwide coalition of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples Organizations added: "It is difficult to see how an emphasis on protecting rainforests and curbing deforestation is compatible with using biofuels as a solution to climate change when there are no policy instruments that guarantee biofuel expansion without accelerating deforestation."

The IPCC report would appear to suggest that the climate can be stabilised at a safe level without reducing growth. The signatories to the press release believe that only large-scale reductions in energy use in the industrial nations, together with investment in sustainable forms of renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, can avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Contacts:

Almuth Ernsting, Biofuelwatch, UK: +44 ‚(0)1224 324797 (mornings and evenings); 01224 553195 (afternoons).

Simone Lovera, Global Forest Coalition (Paraguay office) +595-(0)21-663654 (English, Spanish and Dutch)

Anthony Jackson, Munlochy Vigil, UK +44-1381-610740

Helena Paul, Econexus,, UK +44-(0)20 7431 4357

Notes to Editors:

1. For details of the signatory organisations see: Global Forest Coalition: www.wrm.org.uy/gfc ; Biofuelwatch: www.biofuelwatch.org.uk; Global Justice Ecology Project: www.globaljusticeecology.org ; Grupo de Reflexion Rural: www.grr.org.ar ; Rettet den Regenwald e.V.: www.regenwald.org ; Econexus: www.econexus.info; Munlochy Vigil: www.munlochygmvigil.org.uk ; Noah: www.noah.dk/english.html ; Corporate Europe Observatory: www.corporateeurope.org ; Gaia Foundation: http://www.gaiafoundation.org/

2. Indonesia's biofuel plans, are set to expand Palm Oil production 43-fold [tinyurl.com/33lb7r] and threaten most of that country's remaining rainforests and peatlands. If those plans are implemented, up to 50 billion tonnes of carbon are likely to be released into the atmosphere. This is the equivalent of over six years of global fossil fuel burning would clearly stand in the way of our common objective of stabilizing the climate before feedback mechanisms make this impossible.

3. NASA have shown that the rate of Amazon deforestation directly correlates with the world market price of soya [tinyurl.com/2pfga4] That price is expected to rise sharply as demand for soya biodiesel grows. Soya expansion is linked to deforestation not just in the Amazon but also elsewhere, including the Pantanal, South America's Atlantic Forest and a portion of the Paranaense forest in Paraguay and North of Argentina. In Argentina, more than 500000 ht of forest land were converted to soya plantations between 1998 to 2002 [tinyurl.com/28upep].

4. Governments like the Brazilian government claim that they will only expand on degraded lands. The Brazilian National Agro-energy Plan has qualified no less than 200 million hectares of Brazilian territory as "degraded" and thus suitable for the expansion of biofuel monocultures. However, most of these so-called "degraded" lands are either biologically rich dry forest or grassland ecosystems that form the livelihood basis of Indigenous Peoples and other local communities, or lands that are used for cattle ranching or small-scale subsistence farming. If these lands are taken over by biofuel plantations, cattle ranches and small farms will be forced to move further into the Amazon and Atlantic forests and other precious ecosystems, causing accelerated deforestation.

5. From The UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report: "human actions are depleting Earth's natural capital, putting such strain on the environment that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted. At the same time, the assessment shows that with appropriate actions it is possible to reverse the degradation of many ecosystem services over the next 50 years, but the changes in policy and practice required are substantial and not currently underway." "Although individual ecosystem services have been assessed previously, the finding that 60% of a group of 24 ecosystem services examined by the MA are being degraded is the first comprehensive audit of the status of Earth's natural capital." http://www.maweb.org/en/Article.aspx?id=58

6. The main GM crops (soya, maize and oilseed rape) are already being used for biofuels, leading to competition between food/animal feed and fuel production, notably with maize in the US. There is strong evidence [tinyurl.com/35o36j] of the genetically modified RR soya undermining food sovereignty and security in Argentina and being linked to accelerated deforestation and biodiversity losses, including in the Gran Chaco forest, which remained fairly intact prior to the advent of GM soya. GM soya depends on widespread use of pesticides, which encourages herbicide-resistant weeds. For further information about the negative impacts of GM crops, including cross pollination and GM contamination, see www.econexus.info and www.gmfreeze.org .

7. The US Department of Energy website [tinyurl.com/2phn7z] details the fundamental barriers to producing cellulosic ethanol which yields more energy than is used in the refining process. It is not known whether those barriers can ever be overcome. The aim of cellulosic ethanol research is to create GM plants with reduced lignin, and to create enzymes through GM technologies which can effectively break down cellulose and hemicellulose, fundamental building blocks of plants, on which all higher life forms depend. No risk assessment has ever been carried out. For further information, see tinyurl.com/2vhzow.

Thailand: Plan for GM crop field trials revived
Draft guidelines to go to cabinet next month

Bangkok Post, 4 May 2007

The Agriculture and Cooperatives Ministry has revived a plan to conduct field trials of genetically modified crops. Minister Thira Sutabutra yesterday said he had told the Agriculture Department to draft guidelines on how the open-field trials should be conducted to ensure the environment and human health were not affected.

The department is expected to complete the transgenic crop trial framework by the end of the month, and the ministry would ask cabinet for approval of the draft next month, he said.

GM crops must pass three levels of biosafety tests - laboratory, greenhouse, and open field trials - before being endorsed for mass production.

Mr Thira said experiments on GM crops in the country had so far only been at the greenhouse level.

Open field trials were necessary if scientists wanted to know the possible impact of GM plants on the environment.

Field trials and commercialisation of GM crops were put on hold under a cabinet resolution in 2001, shortly after the spread of GM cotton which raised fears among the public of the adverse impact of GM plants on human health and the environment.

In the past six years, the ministry, which oversees experiments and planting of GM crops, has repeatedly tried to lift the ban, but failed due to opposition from environmentalists and farmers.

Protests against transgenic crop growing resurfaced in 2004, when GM papaya grown at an experimental field inside the department's research station in Khon Kaen were found in non-GM papaya plantations nearby.

Scientists say that genetic engineering technology will help reduce the use of harmful farm chemicals and fertiliser.

Mr Thira said the ministry decided to press ahead with field trials of GM crops because some neighbouring countries have been working on the technology and had yielded research outcomes that could put Thailand at a competitive disadvantage in the farm sector.

He said that many farmers suffered low farm yields from disease and pest outbreaks, which could be corrected by GM technology. ''We care about farmers, and we are not working on this issue without reason,'' he said.

Adisak Sreesunpagit, the Agriculture Department chief, said the department would try figuring out how the open field trials should be conducted.

He said the trials should be conducted under tight controls, while the experimental fields should be located away from other farms to prevent the plants from spreading into conventional crop areas.

If cabinet approves the trial, the potential crops which could be planted would be papaya, tomato, chilli, and pineapple, he said.

Mr Adisak said it was unreasonable to ban GM crop field trials.

''Can anyone tell me how exactly GM crops are harmful?'' he said.

Witoon Lianchamroon, director of BioThai, a non-profit organisation promoting biodiversity, said the ministry had not yet shown the public how it could stop GM crops spreading to conventional farms.

He said the ministry should drop the idea for the public good.

See related article "Advice on GMOs for the prime minister":

Bangkok Post, 28 August 2004

We are writing to express our dismay at the news that you intend to give the green light to GM crops in Thailand. Your doing so risks grave harm both to Thailand's standing in the world and to the marketability of Thai agricultural produce.

We strongly support your exporters, farmers, consumers and civil society groups who are warning you that this is not in the interests of Thailand.

You have talked about the need for Thailand to jump aboard the biotech train before it's too late. This makes us wonder what you have been led to believe about where that train is heading? Were you told, for instance, of a recent report from one of the world's leading business advisory firms, Ernst & Young, showing that publicly traded biotechnology companies in the US are estimated to have suffered cumulative losses of more than $41 billion in the last decade or so?

Were you told that the economist and biotech-industry specialist, Joseph Cortright has described as a "bad-idea virus" the fever that sweeps through political leaders leaving them believing they must succour the money-losing biotech industry or suffer a competitive disadvantage?

Cortright's research on the biotech industry leads him to conclude: "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable."

Outside the developing world, GM crops are in serious retreat, as witnessed by Monsanto's recent announcements that it will: Stop all further efforts to introduce GM wheat globally; stop its GM canola breeding programmes in Australia; withdraw its cereal programmes from Europe. Other GM firms, like Bayer and Syngenta, have suffered similar setbacks.

You have said that Europe has opened its doors to GMOs but that is certainly not the view of countries like the US, who are trying to export GM crops to Europe. That is why the US is pressing ahead with its WTO action against the EU.

In fact, the EU has just brought in the world's most stringent rules on GMOs. Many European food companies and supermarkets also have policies of not allowing GMOs in their products.

This is the reason why the biotech industry, with the unprecedented backing of the US government, is trying to push its dubious wares in countries in Asia. Countries like Thailand have become the principal targets of a desperate industry.

GM crop supporters have doubtless told you that you are in danger of falling behind in Asia's "biotech race".

But look more closely and you'll see that that is nonsense. Monsanto has already pulled out of GM in Indonesia, where it is under investigation for corruption.

China's political leaders appear at best ambivalent about going further down the GM route because of increasing evidence of consumer hostility while experts like Prof Dayuan Xue warn that GM crops have brought no "significant benefits" to China's many small farmers.

One particularly intractable problem for your farmers and exporters is that GM contamination is difficult to contain or avoid, and the costs of trying to do so can be prohibitive. In addition, no studies have been conducted on the long-term effects of GM crops on the environment or on human health.

We therefore ask you not to base your decision solely on the advice of biotech advocates and the demands of Washington and corporations eager to export seeds and products to Thailand that are unwelcome elsewhere in the world. We ask you not to ignore the rights of your farmers and consumers just because of the hype and pressure that is coming from the US and the biotech corporations and their local supporters.

We ask you not to put at risk Thailand's excellent name for quality agricultural produce. And, most of all, we ask you to consult your farmers and consumers about whether they want GM crops.

JONATHAN MATTHEWS
Director, GM Watch
www.gmwatch.org

3 May 2007

Europe: REVOKED!! Monsanto Monopoly Nixed in Munich
but little joy in foiling soy ploy at this late date

ETC Group News Release 3 May 2007
www.etcgroup.org

Munich - The European Patent Office today put the brakes on Monsanto's over-the-top corporate greed by revoking its species-wide patent on all genetically modified soybeans (EP0301749) - a patent unprecedented in its broad scope. ETC Group, an international civil society organization based in Canada, won its 13-year legal challenge against Monsanto's species-wide soybean patent when an EPO appeal board ruled that the patent was not new or sufficient (i.e., the invention claimed was not sufficiently described for a skilled person to repeat it). The patent challenge was supported by Greenpeace and "No Patents on Life!" Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher of UK-based EcoNexus also joined the opposition team in Munich as a scientific expert.

The patent was vigorously and formally opposed by Monsanto itself until the company purchased the original patent assignee (Agracetus) in 1996. The technology related to the now-revoked patent has been used, along with other patents in the company's portfolio, to corner 90% of the world's GM soybean market. [For more information, see ETC Group News Release, "Monsanto's Soybean Monopoly Challenged in Munich," April 30, 2007: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=616]

"It's shameful that it took the European Patent office 13 years to kill Monsanto's immoral patent, which was ultimately revoked on technical grounds. Though we're relieved that the species-wide patent on all genetically modified soybeans - both seeds and plants - was not allowed to stand, the delay of more than a decade demonstrates just how broken the patent system is. The patent had barely a year to go before expiring!" said Hope Shand, who represented ETC Group in Munich today.

"It was particularly satisfying," said Shand, "that Monsanto's own blistering 1994 arguments against the patent were ultimately key in defeating it." One of Monsanto's top scientists testified in 1994 that the genetic engineering process described in the patent was insufficient to allow a skilled scientist to replicate the procedure - a necessary criterion for patentability.

ETC Group, which first challenged the patent in 1994 (as RAFI), was represented in Munich by UK barrister Daniel Alexander and patent attorney Tim Roberts of Brookes Batchellor, LLP.

According to patent attorney Tim Roberts, "It is very satisfying that the European Appeal Board has completely revoked this patent. This decision sends a message to greedy patentees - don't claim more than you are entitled to."

Patent expert Dr. Christoph Then of Greenpeace commented on the outcome of today's hearing, "The EPO's decision to throw out the patent will have implications for Monsanto and the EPO. It is now shown that the Patent Office is granting patents covering broad sectors of agricultural diversity with no real invention to back them up," said Then.

Ruth Tippe from the European-wide initiative, "No Patents on Life!" asserts, "This is an important step against patents on seeds because it shows that civil society will keep on fighting and can ultimately succeed against powerful multinationals."

According to Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher of EcoNexus, "Monsanto's patent couldn't even survive on its scientific merits. It was a thoroughly bad patent - from both a technical and moral perspective."

Multinational firm Syngenta also made oral arguments today opposing the patent. While their technical expertise may have contributed to the patent's ultimate downfall, their opposition is viewed by civil society as cynical. In January 2005, ETC Group reported on three Syngenta patent applications that also make breathtakingly broad claims - multi-genome patents with claims on gene sequences that extend to 40 plant species. Despite assurances from Syngenta that the company would let the patents lapse, all three applications appear to be active still at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). [See ETC Group Communique, "Syngenta - The Genome Giant?" January/February 2005
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?id=73]

This isn't ETC Group's first successful battle against species-wide patents. Most notably, another Agracetus patent - this one granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office in 1992 and claiming all genetically engineered cotton varieties - was eventually revoked in India and the US in 1994.

Other overly broad, unjust patents have yet to be revoked, however. The formal challenge to the notorious "Enola Bean" patent, US Patent No. 5,894,079, granted on a yellow bean genetically identical to a pre-existing Mexican bean variety, has entered its seventh year. [See ETC Group Genotype, "Whatever Happened to the Enola Bean Patent Challenge?" 21 December 2005
http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/41/01/genotypeenola05.pdf]

Note to editors: The final wording of today's ruling by the EPO appeals board will not be released for several more weeks.

For further information:

ETC Group (Carrboro, NC, USA)
Hope Shand (back from Munich on 7 May) or
Kathy Jo Wetter
hope@etcgroup.org
kjo@etcgroup.org
Tel: +1 919 960-5223

ETC Group (Ottawa, Canada)
Pat Mooney
etc@etcgroup.org
Tel: +1 613 2412267


ETC Group (Montreal, Canada)
Jim Thomas
jim@etcgroup.org
Tel: +1 514 516-5759

Europe: European Patent Office Revokes Monsanto's Species Patent On GE Soy Beans

NewMediaExplorer, 3 May 2007.

Munich, May 3, 2007. In a public hearing at the board of appeal at the European Patent Office a basic patent (EP 0301749) of US company Monsanto was revoked today. Reasons were that parts of the patent were not really new and others details were not described in a way that the invention could be really repeated by other experts.

The final decision was the outcome of appeals which were filed by Canadian civil society organisation ETC Group and the European Company of Syngenta. Further oppositions were filed orginally by the NGO 'No Patents on Life!' and four other companies when the patent was granted in 1994. Even Monsanto filed an opposition, but then bought the company Agracetus which originally owned the patent, withdrew its opposition and started to defend the patent.

According to Hope Shand of ETC Group, "The decision comes pretty late, 13 years after the patent was granted. But the decision to revoke the patent is wonderful news. The species wide soybean patent of Monsanto is not allowed to stand."

In its orginal version as granted the patent covered all genetically engineered plant species and especially soybeans and was seen as one of the broadest species patent ever granted on plants and seeds. The background of the so called invention was a 'particle gun' method by which plants get bombarded by metallic particles and so introducing foreign genes into plant material. A similar version of the particle gun (which does not allow a precise transfer of gene sequences) is still being used today to produce not only in Monsanto's plants.

Ruth Tippe from the organisation "No Patents on Life!" says: "This is an important step against patents on seeds, because it shows that civil society will keep on fighting and can finally succeed even against powerful multinationals."

The outcome of the procedure will not only affect Monsanto but also the European Patent Office: "It is now shown that the Patent Office is granting patents which are covering broad sectors of agricultural diversity without really invention behind. There are many others patents which simply satisfy the greed of companies but do not give benefits to society," says Christoph Then from Greenpeace.

Greenpeace which was supporting the legal challenge of No Patents on Life and ETC Group, is urging for a worldwide ban on patents on seeds and currently cooperating in a global coalition with farmers organisation (http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org ).

Eric Darier
Responsable de la campagne OGM
Greenpeace
Montreal, Canada

USA: Police bracing for biotech protests 20,000 delegates to convene in city

The Boston Globe, May 3 2007. By Suzanne Smalley, Globe Staff.

When 20,000 delegates, including scores of dignitaries, descend on Boston for an international biotechnology conference starting Sunday, they will be met by dozens if not hundreds of protesters and by police bracing for what could be the biggest demonstrations in the city since the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Police and protest organizers said they expect the demonstrations to be peaceful, but authorities are monitoring Internet chatter on websites frequented by anarchists and radical environmentalists from across the country, and are preparing for significant disruptions and violence.

Just in case, police have set up a block-long protest zone with room for hundreds of people across the street from the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center in South Boston, which is hosting the conference, the world's largest annual gathering of corporate executives, scientists, and politicians involved in biotechnology.

During the four-day conference, State Police will provide security for a dozen or so governors who are expected to attend, and the State Department will coordinate with local officials to safeguard Queen Noor of Jordan, who is scheduled to give the keynote speech on Tuesday.

Jeffrey Joseph, a vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which is sponsoring the conference, said organizers are concerned that Boston's large concentration of universities and biotech companies will lead to more aggressive protests than at recent conferences. There were limited demonstrations in Chicago last year and in Philadelphia in 2005, though a police officer died after a heart attack during a scuffle with protesters there. The group met uneventfully in Boston in 2000.

"We have been paying particular attention to Boston . . . because Boston has a unique confluence of a highly engaged academic community . . . and it is one of the top biotech centers in the world," Joseph said yesterday.

The activists, who plan a press conference tomorrow on their plans, have their own schedule of protests covering such issues as animal rights and the Boston University biological research laboratory currently under construction in the South End, where scientists will work with some of the world's most deadly viruses and bacteria. The activists also plan panel discussions on international farming, and on the topic of medicine and human rights.

Erin Ryan Fitzgerald, an organizer with the local environmental group BioJustice 2007, said that local activists have set up a meeting place for out-of-town activists in Chinatown.

"They can exchange literature or throw out ideas to other groups and organize from there," Ryan said. "We care about our city and we don't want anybody getting hurt or getting put in danger."

Fitzgerald said that her group does not plan to protest at the convention, but other groups are likely to do so.

"It'll probably be similar to years past with the BIO -- convergence, marches, mass demonstrations," she said in a telephone interview yesterday. "It's all pretty much peaceful, but people are pretty outraged."

James Rooney, executive director of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority, said that his security officers and Boston police attended the Chicago conference last year to hone security plans and have been planning for the convention since then.

He said officials are optimistic that protests will be peaceful, since there have been no major protests at recent biotech conventions. Rooney said his worst fear is a repeat of the violent demonstrations in Seattle for the 1999 World Trade Organization conference that led to the arrests of more than 600 people. A small minority among the 40,000 protesters lit fires in the streets and broke store windows.

Boston Police Superintendent Robert Dunford said that besides a march approved for Sunday afternoon to weave through Dudley Square in Roxbury, past the controversial Boston University biolab on Albany Street, and into the South End, police are also aware of an animal rights group seeking a permit for a demonstration outside the World Trade Center in South Boston on Tuesday night.

Citing operational security, Dunford would not say how many additional officers will be on duty. He said officers will not wear riot gear, but will be a visible presence on horses, bicycles, and motorcycles. He said that while there will be a major deployment of police and emergency medical workers, it will not be as extensive as during the Democratic National Convention, when officers patrolled with machine guns. Police do not plan to close any streets for the duration of the conference, he said, though there may be some temporary closures for the Sunday march.

"Anyone who wants to peacefully demonstrate is welcome," he said in a telephone interview yesterday. "We will not tolerate property damage. We will not tolerate violence."

The department's main concern, he said, is violent protestors hijacking peaceful marches to wreak havoc.

"BioJustice, some of the animal rights groups -- they're legitimate groups. They peacefully demonstrate," he said. "There may be some people who take advantage of that."

Joseph said that his organization is covering the bulk of security costs inside the convention center, but the Boston Police Department is paying for security outside the building.

Department officials would not say how much they expect to spend. The department is talking to state officials about sharing security costs, but no agreement has been reached, Dunford said. Charles McDonald, spokesman for the Executive Office of Public Safety, declined comment yesterday.

Dunford said groups hosting conventioneers at private parties around town have agreed to hire police details for extra security.

Unlike Massachusetts, which has not provided any financial support to the conference organizers, Illinois officials spent $1 million to bring the conference to Chicago, Joseph said.

Dorothy Joyce, a spokeswoman for Mayor Thomas M. Menino, said that the security costs show why the city needs a meals tax. Chicago has a 2.5 percent local tax and New York a 4.125 percent tax, she said, higher than the 1 percent tax Menino hopes to attach to meals.

"The people coming to the city to enjoy our city should help pay for the public safety and upkeep of our city," she said.

Suzanne Smalley can be reached at ssmalley@globe.com

USA: Consumers Flood FDA With Over 130,000 Comments Opposing Food From Cloned Animals
Americans urge agency to adopt a mandatory ban on untested, cloned food

http://truefood.blogspot.com, 3 May 2007.

A coalition of consumer, environmental and animal welfare organizations today announced the submission of more than 130,000 comments to the Food and Drug Administration from consumers who oppose the Agency's proposed plan to introduce food from cloned animals into the U.S. food supply.

The Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union, Food and Water Watch, The Humane Society of the United States, the American Anti-Vivisection Society, the Consumer Federation of America and the Organic Consumers Association joined together to send a strong, unified message to the FDA that the public opposes the introduction of cloned animals in food. Today is the last day of a public comment period that began in January in response to FDA's proposal to allow products from cloned animals in the food supply unlabeled. Members of the meat and dairy industries, and several nonprofit organizations urged the Agency to take time to consider comments from the widest possible sample of Americans in consideration of the untested nature of cloning technology.

Recent public opinion polls show the majority of the American public does not want milk or meat from cloned animals in their food. A December 2006 poll by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that nearly two-thirds of U.S. consumers were uncomfortable with animal cloning. The comments submitted today strongly reinforce this national sentiment.

"Food from cloned animals has no place on our supermarket shelves or on our dinner tables," said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. "FDA needs to heed consumer concerns and ban animal clones in food."

Another controversial aspect of FDA's plan is that labeling of any kind on meat or milk products from clones or their offspring would not be required. This would rob Americans of their right to choose what they eat and feed their families.

"More than 130,000 people have said 'No' to unlabeled food from clones," said Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association. "People are tired of the biotech industry meddling in the food system, tired of government rubber-stamping approvals, and tired of not having the right to choose what they eat and feed to their families."

"This flood of public comments should send a strong signal to FDA that the public is not ready for food from animal clones, and if such food is put on the market they want it labeled" said Michael Hanson of Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, and author of CU's scientific critique of FDA's risk assessment. "We hope the agency will listen and rethink their proposal in light of public sentiment and the many unanswered questions about the science of animal cloning."

Citing animal welfare concerns, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) have also asked the FDA to block sales of products from cloned farm animals and their offspring.

"Animals who go through the cloning process suffer terribly. Death and deformities in cloned animals is the norm, not the exception" said Tracie Letterman, Executive Director of AAVS. "Just because we can clone animals for food, doesn't mean we should."

"American consumers are increasingly concerned about the treatment of animals raised and slaughtered for food," said Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. "Considering the numerous studies that have shown that animals in cloning research can and do suffer, the FDA must disallow cloned animals and their progeny and surrogate mothers in food production industries."

In its risk assessment of cloned food, the FDA claims to have evaluated extensive peer reviewed studies on the safety of food from clones to support its conclusion, yet a recent report issued by the Center for Food Safety, Not Ready for Prime Time, shows the assessment only references three peer-reviewed food safety studies, all of which focus on the narrow issue of milk from cloned cows. What is even more disturbing is that these studies were partially funded by the same biotech firms that produce clones for profit. None of the studies focus on the safety of meat from cloned cows or pigs, or milk or meat from the offspring of cloned animals, and there was absolutely no data on milk or meat from cloned goats - all major issues critical to determining the safety of the proposal.

"FDA's willingness to allow the sale of meat and milk from cloned animals is yet another example of the Agency's disregard for safety in the face of industry pressure," said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. "The FDA should not be allowed to use a skimpy body of evidence to allow this controversial product onto consumers' dinner tables."

Proponents of animal cloning have asserted that the technology will lead to better and less expensive dairy and meat products, but Chris Waldrop, Director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America says this simply isn't true, "Consumers don't want or need cloned animals for food. Cloning will not produce safer or cheaper milk and meat. Having cloned cows produce more milk won't reduce milk prices. U.S. farmers already produce more milk than we drink and the government is required to buy the surplus. Since 1999, dairy support programs have cost taxpayers over $5 billion."

The FDA has said it will review all the public comments, and will likely make a decision on food from cloned animals by the end of the year.

New Zealand: Report Reveals Risks to New Zealand's Insects and Soils

GE Free NZ press release, 3 May 2007

Plants containing "Bt" toxins could severely damage New Zealand soil, and beneficial insect populations, suggests a published review of international scientific studies.

The report by Hillbeck and Schmidt examines the published literature on Bt toxins - widely incorporated as a feature of GM plants - in scores of laboratory feeding studies.

It shows a range of important insect species including bees, butterflies and moths can be fatally and chronically affected by Bt "Cry" genes. Lady birds had increased death rates after two weeks of eating one version of the toxins.

The studies also observed that Bt expressed in transgenic plants was far more detrimental to reproduction, growth and lifespan in important insect populations. Non-target insects had a higher death rate from GM-plant Bt than the commercial Bt sprays.

The report is a strong indication that New Zealand native insect species could be severely affected by transgenic Bt (Cry gene) crops as they carry out a much bigger pollination role than previously thought. (Cronshaw T, 2005).

It also shows Bt plants put could undermine other scientific work to develop natural bio-controls for problem insects.

"Any chronic, sublethal effects of this toxin in soil or plants on non-target predator species could severely damage the management methods of bio control where predator insects are used to manage prey pests," said Claire Bleakley of GE Free (NZ) in Food and Environment.

"Any threat to this farming method is of concern as the prey /host relationship is a major tool in IPM (integrated pest management) farming methods, which is part of our international position as a clean-and green producer."

In New Zealand a comprehensive range of fungi, protozoa, nematodes, bacteria and predator insects moths, wasps have become available to farmers for pest control. Many of these bio control agents live in the soil and are an important part of ecosystems. This review has collated the research showing that these organisms been shown to be highly susceptible to Bt toxins.

"In light of these adverse effects authorities must require that long term indoor safety and diagnostic tools are developed for testing of these plants. The research when completed must be peer reviewed and published before any plant is allowed to grow outdoors," says Claire Bleakley. "ERMA must not approve the field testing of Bt brassica (cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli and forage kale)".

ENDS:

Contact:

Claire Bleakley (06) 3089842 027 348 6731

References:

Hillbeck A. and Schmidt J., (2006) Another View on Bt Proteins - How Specific are they and What Else Might They Do? Biopestcide.In: 2 (1): 1-5. http://www.gmo-guidelines.info/public/publications/download/HilbeckSchmidt06.p df

Tim Cronshaw, Flies show pollen power. The Press, October 2005, http://gefreesonoma.org/documents/Fliesshowpollenpower

USA: Judge prohibits planting of genetically engineered alfalfa

Associated Press, 3 May 2007. By Paul Elias.

SAN FRANCISCO ‚ A federal judge on Thursday barred the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa nationwide, ruling that the government didn't adequately study the biotechnology crop's potential to mix with organic and conventional varieties.

U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer made permanent a temporary ban he ordered in March on alfalfa with genetic material from bacteria that makes the crop resistant to a popular weed killer.

The ruling is a major victory for anti-biotech crusaders, who have been fighting the proliferation of genetically engineered crops. It is the first ban placed on such crops since the first variety ‚ the Flavr Savr tomato ‚ was approved in 1994.

Breyer said the U.S. Department of Agriculture must conduct a detailed scientific study of the crop's effect on the environment and other alfalfa varieties before deciding whether to approve it.

USDA spokeswoman Rachel Iadicicco said the agency would conduct such a study.

Some 220,000 acres of genetically engineered alfalfa were planted this year before the judge's ban went into effect.

Monsanto Inc., the St. Louis-based biotech firm company that developed the crop, had asked Judge Breyer to allow continued planting this year while the USDA compiled its report, which the agency said could take up to two years to complete.

Breyer's order only affects alfalfa farmers, which grow the crop primarily for livestock feed. But many crops, including soy, corn and cotton, have been engineered with the same trait, which enables farmers to more easily spray herbicide over their fields.

Alfalfa is grown on about 21 million acres nationwide. California is the nation's largest alfalfa producer, growing the crop on about 1 million acres, primarily in the San Joaquin Valley.

Monsanto and Forage Genetics Inc., the company licensed to sell its genetically engineered seed, argued that the biotech alfalfa ‚ dubbed Roundup Ready because of its resistance to Monsanto's popular herbicide Roundup ‚ would actually benefit the environment because fewer weed killers would be used.

But Breyer sided with organic farmers and conventional growers who fear lost sales if their crops are contaminated by genetically engineered plants.

"The harm to these farmers and consumers who do not want to purchase genetically engineered alfalfa or animals fed with such alfalfa outweighs the economic harm to Monsanto, Forage Genetics and those farmers who desire to switch to Roundup Ready alfalfa," Breyer wrote Thursday.

Monsanto officials didn't have an immediate comment Thursday. The company's share price rose 92 cents to $59.55 in afternoon trading.

About 136.5 million acres of the nation's 445 million acres of farmland were used to grow biotech crops last year, an increase of 10 percent over 2005 plantings, according to the industry-backed nonprofit International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.

Ireland: GM-free island could cost € 40m a year

Irish Examiner, 3 May 2007. By Stephen Cadogan

A COMPLETE ban on genetically modified crops and animal feed stuffs could cost Ireland nearly € 40 million per year.

But the net economic cost could be as low as € 7 million, if Ireland adopted a voluntary ban on the import and cultivation of GM crops.

Dr Fiona Thorne, Teagasc Rural Economy Centre, recently presented the findings from research which examined the economic implications for Ireland of voluntarily becoming a GM-free island.

Dr Thorne said: "From this research, it is clear that the likely costs to the livestock industry in particular are significant, when a total ban on the import and cultivation of GM crops is considered. While the net benefit, for crop, livestock and dairy farms, resulting from the growing of GM cereal crops is not as significant as the benefits arising from the use of imported sources of GM soyabean and maize, it is important not to consider these two scenarios in isolation from each other."

Presently, no GM crops are cultivated in Ireland. However, it is anticipated that the introduction of co-existence guidelines could encourage the uptake of certain GM varieties.

Africa: Meeting the Food Security Challenge Through Organic Agriculture

FAO press release, May 3 2007

Rome: "Organic agriculture is no longer a phenomenon in developed countries only, as it is commercially practiced in 120 countries, representing 31 million hectares and a market of US$40 billion in 2006," FAO underlines in a paper, Organic Agriculture and Food Security, presented here at an International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security (3-5 May 2007).

The paper identifies the strengths and weaknesses of organic agriculture with regards to its contribution to food security, analyzes attributes of organic supply chains against the Right to Food framework and proposes policy and research actions for improving the performance of organic agriculture at the national, international and institutional levels.

"The strongest feature of organic agriculture is its reliance on fossil-fuel independent and locally-available production assets; working with natural processes increases cost-effectiveness and resilience of agro-ecosystems to climatic stress," the paper says.

"By managing biodiversity in time (rotations) and space (mixed cropping), organic farmers use their labour and environmental services to intensify production in a sustainable way. Organic agriculture also breaks the vicious circle of indebtedness for agricultural inputs which causes an alarming rate of farmers' suicides."

The paper recognizes that "most certified organic food production in developing countries goes to export" and adds that "when certified cash crops are linked with agro-ecological improvements and accrued income for poor farmers, this leads to improved food self-reliance and revitalization of small holder agriculture."

Knowledge and labour intensive

The paper underlines that some requirements should be met when converting to organic agriculture, mainly agro-ecological knowledge and labour availability. "Organic management is a knowledge-based approach requiring understanding of agro-ecological processes and it remains a constraint where labour is scarce, such as in populations decimated by HIV/AIDS."

However, labour requirements on organic farms, and the better return on labour, provide employment opportunities where this resource is most abundant, thus safeguarding rural livelihoods, according to FAO expert Nadia Scialabba.

The paper also quotes recent models of a global food supply grown organically which indicate that organic agriculture could produce enough food on a global per capita basis for the current world population.

"These models suggest that organic agriculture has the potential to secure a global food supply, just as conventional agriculture is today, but with reduced environmental impact," according to FAO.

The paper calls on governments to "allocate resources for organic agriculture and to integrate its objectives and actions within their national agricultural development and poverty reduction strategies, with particular emphasis on the needs of vulnerable groups."

It also insists on investment in human resource development and skill training in organic agriculture as part of sustainable development strategies.

Definition of organic agriculture

According to the Codex Alimentarius Commission and all existing national regulations, "organic agriculture is a holistic production management system that avoids use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified organisms, minimizes pollution of air, soil and water, and optimizes the health and productivity of interdependent communities of plants, animals and people."

World: FAO Convenes International Conference to Demonstrate the Huge Potential of Organic Agriculture for Food Security

IFOAM press release, May 3 2007

From May 3rd until Saturday May 5th, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is holding an international conference Organic Agriculture and Food Security at its headquarters in Rome, Italy. The conference is organized in partnership with the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). The results of the conference will be presented to the Committee on World Food Security.

The overall objective of the Conference is to shed light on the contribution of Organic Agriculture to food security through the analysis of existing information in different agro-ecological areas of the world. The conference will identify Organic Agriculture's potential to address the food security challenges, including conditions required for its success.

According to the paper Organic Agriculture and Food Security that the FAO has published in connection with this conference, "The strongest feature of Organic Agriculture is its reliance on fossil-fuel independent and locally-available production assets; working with natural processes increases cost-effectiveness and resilience of agro-ecosystems to climatic stress." The paper calls on governments to "allocate resources for organic agriculture and to integrate its objectives and actions within their national agricultural development and poverty reduction strategies, with particular emphasis on the needs of vulnerable groups."

The outcome of the Conference will be a thorough assessment of the state of knowledge on Organic Agriculture and food security, including recommendations on areas for further research and policy development. The Report of the Conference will be submitted to the 33rd Session of the Committee on World Food Security, both to inform government delegations from around the world and to provide a basis for tangible actions to be taken by the FAO.

"Given the global conditions of war, climate change, disasters and inequity, food security is not just a matter of production figures," stated IFOAM Executive Director Angela B. Caudle, noting that the positive contribution of Organic Agriculture to food availability, food access, food stability and food utilization - all aspects of food security - will be carefully analyzed and discussed during the conference. "IFOAM member organizations from all over the world will present their positive examples and share how the conversion to organic made a significant difference in the livelihoods of people," such as with the organic farmers' organization AOPEB in Bolivia and with Masipag in the Philippines.

Representatives of all sectors of the IFOAM network will share a wealth of experiences and the challenges they face with participants - government delegates and country representatives to the FAO - and answer questions regarding Organic Agriculture that they might have.

From May 7th to 10th, IFOAM will advocate that the outcomes of the conference are taken into consideration by the 33rd Committee on World Food Security, which should result in policy changes within the FAO that favor Organic Agriculture.

Brazil: Update from the GM-Free Brazil Campaign

Open letter from GM-FREE BRAZIL - Published by AS-PTA Assessoria e Serviços a Projetos em Agricultura Alternativa, May 03, 2007

Greetings from Brazil!

We finally have good news from Brazil! For the first time in the history of the CTNBio (the National Technical Biosafety Commission) its regular meeting has been opened to outside observers. The most important direct result was that the commercial release of GM maize, on the agenda for immediate approval, has been postponed indefinitely.

For eleven years, the Commission's meetings were always held behind closed doors, although civil society organizations were able to access the content of the decisions and debates held within the Commission in minutes published some months after each meeting.

The struggle for greater transparency and participation runs counter to the government's priorities. President Lula simply wants Brazil's economy to grow, and has often declared that environmental issues are a hindrance to his plans. Having been convinced that GMOs are good for the country's economy, for example, he signed new rules into law last month to speed up GMO authorizations.

Also in March, after a public hearing imposed by federal court order was held, the commercial release of Bayer's gluphosinate-ammonium tolerant GM maize was expected to be approved at CTNBio's next meeting. But Greenpeace representatives walked into the CTNBio meeting room and requested observer status, without the right to speak. Rather than back down, the Commission's president simply threw up his hands and canceled the March meeting.

A month of confusion ensued in the wake of that decision. First, CTNBio president Colli threatened to suspend the meeting again if "outsiders" insisted on attending. Meanwhile, several more civil society organizations and independent scientists also formally requested authorization to be allowed in.

Groups of professors from two major Brazilian universities published letters criticizing the Commission, its procedures and the way it deals with science, as well as demanding more transparency and public participation.

A court decision in response to a suit filed by a Regional Federal Prosecutor in Brasilia was issued early the first day of the April meeting, and forced the CTNBio's doors open to the public.

Although the people authorized to enter the room did not have the right to speak, the powerful effect of the Commission having "witnesses" to its debates and decisions was amazing.

The Commission always portrays itself as a "technical" body and argues that "ignorant" people should not interfere in such complex matters as GMOs, on which they have nothing to contribute.

Indeed, closing the CTNBio's doors is the only way that the federal government had maintained the appearance of a "science-based" commission. Those who witnessed this most recent meeting watched even its own internal rules being ignored and broken by its members. Field trials are almost automatically authorized, "following a historical pattern," as declared one of the members.

When the representative of the Agrarian Development Ministry proposed that Syngenta be required to provide more data, to comply with the CTNBio's internal rules before being granted authorization for a field trial, the matter was put to a vote and 16 members voted for immediate authorization (and only 6 for the delay).

Just like at the GM maize public hearing held in February, once again the best scientific argument mustered by pro-GM members of the CTNBio is the same one used by biotech companies: "GMOs have been planted for over ten years in many countries and no negative impact has been recorded so far." Some members, however, do go straight to the point, explaining that "my project will be affected" if the CTNBio starts to demand more risk analyses.

Even so, the awareness caused by the presence of civil society was enough to have the commercial release of Bayer's GM maize taken off the agenda. CTNBio members were certainly ashamed to decide "in public" an authorization so full of both technical fragilities and administrative irregularities.

CTNBio president Walter Colli and the Science & Technology minister himself have indeed promised to fight hard to close the CTNBio's doors again.

Colli actually changed his earlier stance and declared last week that the commercial release of GM maize "is not a priority for the Commission at this time" and may not even be put on the next meeting's agenda in May. He seems to be following orders to wait until the Commission's doors are closed so that they can "be alone" to decide the matter "scientifically". If this happens, Brazilian democracy will be the biggest loser. For the GMO promoters who always say that opposition to GMOs is merely ideological, it is important that the CTNBio's decisions be taken in secret, to keep their myths alive. The veil over supposedly science-based decisions also helps keep the real economical interests behind them in the shadows.

GM-FREE BRAZIL - Published by AS-PTA Assessoria e Serviços a Projetos em Agricultura Alternativa. The GM-Free Brazil Campaign is a collective of Brazilian NGOs, social movements and individuals.

AS-PTA an independent, not-for-profit Brazilian organisation dedicated to promoting agroecology and sustainable rural development. Head office: Rua da Candel·ria, 9/6† andar/ CEP: 20.091-020, Centro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Phone: 0055-21-2253-8317 Fax: 0055-21-2233-363

This article can be found on the AS-PTA website at http://www.aspta.org.br

Should you have any comments, suggestions or questions, feel free to contact us at livredetransgenicos@aspta.org.br

Do participate! Indicate this bulletin to a friend.

To subscribe email: gmfreebrazil-subscribe@listas.aspta.org.br

USA: Ways to avoid biotech food

Chicago Tribune, May 3 2007. By Julie Deardorff.

If you're trying to avoid eating genetically engineered food, good luck. An estimated 75 percent of processed food on supermarket shelves contains at least one genetically engineered ingredient, but it's not labeled.

The safety of genetically modified food has not been studied over the long term, which is why some consider it one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history.

The good news, says Andrew Kimbrell, in "Your Right to Know: Genetic Engineering and The Secret Changes in Your Food" (Earth Aware, $24.95), is that it's pretty easy to avoid biotech foods if you eat whole foods, including fruits, vegetables, rice wheat and other grains and beans.

And so far, genetically engineered animals are not commercialized.

But four widely used crops-corn, soy canola and cotton-have been genetically altered and they're in the majority of packaged food in the supermarket, according to Kimbrall, the executive director for the Center for Food Safety, a consumer watchdog group.

Most GE soy and corn becomes animal feed while the rest is incorporated into processed foods, Kimbrall says. That means the best thing you can do is avoid processed food and eat organic.

Here are some other tips from Kimbrell's book, which includes a removable pocket shopper's guide and lists GE-free brands.

If your papaya is grown in Hawaii, it could be genetically engineered. Look for papaya from countries like Brazil and Mexico and areas of the Caribbean where GE varieties are not cultivated.

Remember GE corn includes corn oil, cornmeal, cornstarch and corn syrup. GE soy includes soybean oil, soy flour, soy protein and soy lecithin.

Farm grown fish (trout, catfish, salmon) can be raised on genetically engineered feed. Look for wild rather than farmed.

To avoid GE corn syrup, which is often used as a sweetener in products like yogurt, look for foods sweetened with sugar, natural fruit, honey or pure maple syrup.

Teething crackers and biscuits can contain GE-grown corn syrup and soy lecithin.

The top ten children's food containing GE ingredients are: hot dogs, macaroni and cheese, cereal chips, tomato sauce, French fries, ice cream, soda, peanut better and granola bars.

India: AP govt holds introduction of Bollgard II cottonseed

BharatTextile.com, May 3 2007

HYDERABAD: The State Government at a high-level meeting held here in the city has directed the Agriculture Department to hold the introduction of Bollgard-II variety of cottonseed in Andhra Pradesh, industry sources said here on May 02.

Mr N. Raghuveera Reddy, Minister for Agriculture who attend the meet commented that the introduction of Bollgard cottonseed at a higher rate at this juncture would only create confusion among farmers.

However, the decision to hold the introduction has hit a roadblock to the hopes of cottonseed companies to introduce Bollgard-II in Andhra Pradesh as the Agriculture Department officials has been directed not to be in a hurry to allow it.

Despite a high price of Rs 1850 for a packet of 450 gm, the Bt cotton acreage has gone up significantly in the last two years in the State; whereas on the other hand, seed manufacturers in the last year had agreed to reduce the price to Rs 750, following a legal conflict between the Andhra Pradesh Government and Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech Ltd (MMBL).

Further, MMBL announced introduction of Bollgard II technology even the companies agreed to sell Bollgard I seeds at Rs 750.

The price of Bollgard II cottonseed has been fixed at Rs 975, the price variation could trigger confusion as most of the farmers, who are not literate, don't distinguish between Bollgard I and Bolgard II.

The Bollgard I variety protects the cotton plant only from bollworm, while the Bollgard II offers a two-way protection against bollworm and heliothis.

UK: GMO crop rules should also weigh pluses: report

Scientific American, 3 May 2007. By David Evans.

LONDON (Reuters) - Europe should weigh benefits as well as risks when evaluating new farm technologies like biotech crops to avoid stifling innovation that may be key to future food security, a report for the UK government said on Thursday.

With agriculture facing huge challenges from climate change, rising world wealth levels and new crop-based biofuels, ACRE (Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment) said it was time for a more balanced and holistic approach to regulation.

"We need to get a better balance between the good and bad sides of novel technologies," ACRE chairman Chris Pollock told a press conference.

"We can't wall off avenues we may need in the future."

In an advisory report for David Miliband, UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, ACRE said the current approvals system for genetically-modified (GM) crops of focusing purely on potential risks was unbalanced.

The report cited genetically modified herbicide tolerant beet, which was denied clearance for cultivation due to negative effects on weeds and invertebrates of the herbicide used.

But as under European Union rules only the risks were considered, evidence of any potential environmental benefits such as the reduced herbicide use leading to lower Co2 emissions were not considered.

Biofuels too

And this wider approvals process should be expanded to include changes in farming practices like biofuels that also have an environmental impact, the report said.

"Environmental benefits are now a major focus in the introduction of a number of other novel crops (e.g. energy crops) and agricultural management practices in the UK. There is no regulatory requirement to assess potential environmental costs in a fashion similar to GM crops," it said.

The report, which is designed to stimulate discussion at European Union level, listed changes in agricultural practices that have been shown to have had an environmental impact at least as significant as those with GMO crops.

These included the change from spring to winter sowing for arable crops and a shift from hay cutting to silage production.

The prospect of some farmers switching into new crops to produce biofuels could have unforeseen consequences if left completely uncontrolled, particularly given the strains on food production that are likely in the years ahead.

"We could end up covering the land with crops that don't actually produce food, and that may be a problem in the future," Pollock said.

"It was only a generation ago that British agriculture was given the task of feeding the nation. That role may come back."

2 May 2007

Canada: Biodiversity - Farming Will Make or Break the Food Chain

Inter Press Service, May 2 2007. By Stephen Leahy.

BROOKLIN, Canada, May 2 (IPS) - As the world population swells to nine billion by 2050, global biodiversity will be under extreme pressure unless new ways to grow food are developed, experts say.

An additional one billion hectares of wild lands -- mainly forests and savanna -- will be converted to food production fields by 2050. While this may provide enough food, it is likely to result in a massive decline in biodiversity, undermining ecosystems that provide vital services such as clean water and air, and capture carbon to slow the build-up of climate-altering gases in the atmosphere.

Sixty percent of the Earth's ecosystems are in trouble right now, warned the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report last year.

What state will they be in by 2050?

It depends how society decides to feed itself, says Louise Jackson of the University of California at Davis, and head of an agro-biodiversity task force at Diversitas, an international scientific organisation devoted to biodiversity research based in Paris, France.

"If all agricultural lands adopt the industrial, monocultural model, there will be enormous impacts on water and other essential services provided by diverse ecosystems," Jackson told IPS.

Societies need to recognise the value of ecosystem services and encourage farmers to use methods that benefit biodiversity, she says.

Biodiversity refers to the amazing variety of living things that make up the biosphere, the thin skin of life that covers the Earth and is, as far as we know, unique in the universe. The trees, plants, insects, bacteria, birds and animals that make up forest ecosystems produce oxygen, clean water, prevent erosion and flooding, and capture excess carbon dioxide, among other things.

"There is an unbreakable link between human health and well being and ecosystems," Walter Reid, director of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) and a professor with the Institute for the Environment at Stanford University, told IPS last year.

The MA is a 22-million-dollar, four-year global research initiative commissioned by the United Nations, and carried out by 1,360 experts from 95 countries. Its mission has been to examine ways to slow or reverse the degradation of the Earth's ecosystems, including a look at what the future may be like in 2050.

The more species and diversity there are in an ecosystem, the more robust it is. Remove some species and it will continue to function. However, like a complex house of cards, removing key cards or too many cards results in a collapse.

For many ecosystems such as oceans, scientists do not know what the key cards are or how many lost species is too many.

Agriculture has been the biggest contributor to species loss in the past, but Jackson and others believe that valuing agricultural lands as both sources of food and biodiversity could slow the loss of future species.

"There are ways to enhance biodiversity even here in California where there are very intensive agricultural monocultures," Jackson said.

Crop rotation, re-vegetating farm edges and integrating thin strips of land into farm fields to provide habitat for insect predators boosts biodiversity while reducing pesticide use and the impacts of chemicals on water and soil, she said.

The benefits to farmers include less spending on pesticides and fertilisers and improved soil quality due to enhanced microbial biodiversity.

However, such benefits often take years to emerge and pose short-term-financial risks for farmers. To offset these, society should support farmers with some form of payment for increasing biodiversity since everyone benefits from ecosystem services. At the same time, there ought to be strong penalties for chemical pollution, she says.

Conversion of the one billion hectares of wild lands into farmland can also be done in ways that preserve some biodiversity by leaving corridors of connected habitat so species can move from one place to another. Research in the Amazon has shown that islands of untouched forest surrounded by agricultural lands quickly begin to fray at the edges and slowly shrink.

"We can do better in terms of preserving biodiversity in converting forest into farmlands," said Truman Young, an ecologist who is also at University of California, Davis.

"The problem in feeding the world is poverty not food production," Young said in an interview.

While agreeing that more land will be needed in the future, the biggest current and future threats to biodiversity are food and timber export markets, and biofuels, he says.

"Brazil's rural population is in decline even as more Amazonian rainforest is being cleared and turned into soy fields," Young said.

Although some poor farmers are still trying to farm the Amazon, the main pressure today is large industrial farm operations that grow soy for export to Europe. The soy and timber barons of the Amazon have tremendous influence and power, making it difficult to slow deforestation of the region, he said.

The international community needs to counteract that by applying pressure on Brazil because the carbon that is being released by deforestation affects everyone on the planet, he argued.

The other major threat to biodiversity is the thirst for biofuels, derived from corn and sugar cane, among other things, and which experts say have already caused deforestation in Asia and parts of South America.

"Brazil, because of its size and climate, could become the biofuel capital of the world," Young said.

And that could devastate the country's biodiversity without adding much to the world's energy supply. Europeans are turning away from biodiesel made from palm oil because it is causing deforestation. Biofuels only offer a benefit when agricultural waste products are used for conversion into fuel. The technology for doing that is not yet here, he said.

"Improving fuel efficiency is the fastest and easiest way to reduce use of fossil fuels," Young noted.

Just as boosting ethanol or biodiesel production fails to solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, so does investing billions of dollars in research into genetically engineered crops, says Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute, a U.S. think tank.

"We already know how to grow enough food to feed the world. The problem is the food distribution system," Mittal told IPS.

That system favours large-scale monocultures of a few specialised crops, and is destroying biodiversity. Ultimately that approach is a recipe for global famine, she said.

"We know how to end hunger and preserve biodiversity, but there are powerful corporate interests in opposition," Mittal said.

1 May 2007

The Netherlands: Brussels urges the Netherlands to trace down bad maize

ANP, 1 May 2007.

BRUSSELS (ANP) The Netherlands has to find the maize that according to Greenpeace contains illegal maize varieties. This was said by a spokesperson of the European Commission in respons to a call for action by Greenpeace on Monday.

According to EU regulations The Netherlands has to investigate the maize which contains the illegal substances. The maize has to be traced and taken off the market.

The maize has been mixed with illegal GM maize varieties. Among them was also MON 863 maize, that -according to Greenpeace- can have considerable health risks.

UK: EC slammed for "complete breakdown of GM testing and labelling scheme"

Press Notice from GM Free Cymru, 1st May 2007.

The EC has been heavily criticised for a complete breakdown of its GM testing and labelling scheme, which is supposed to protect consumers across Europe from exposure to unauthorised and toxic GM products. In a letter to EC Commissioners Dimas and Kyprianou, watchdog organization GM Free Cymru has complained that the US regulatory authorities have gone back on their promise to prevent illegal GM contamination of food and animal feed cargoes destined for Europe through careful testing and "GM Free" certification.

Recently there was another reported case of American long-grain rice contamination by the illegal variety LL601. Pre-packaged long-grain rice which arrived in Sweden in January tested positive for the banned GM material (1) in spite of the fact that it was certified as GM Free following the EU agreement with the USA in September 2006. About 600 tonnes of rice had to be recalled from stores where it was already on sale.

Also, it is now known that US long-grain rice supplies are contaminated by not just one GM variety (LL601) but by four and possibly five different GM lines (2). One of these lines has still not been identified. There appears to have been extensive out- crossing between experimental GM lines of rice and non-GM varieties grown nearby. Because of the extent of the contamination incident, Europe is now virtually closed off to US long-grain rice supplies, and the economic effect upon the rice industry of the Southern States has been catastrophic.

Much more serious was yesterday's announcement that a cargo of maize unloaded in Dublin and Rotterdam, and certified on export as "non- GMO" by the US authorities, was in fact heavily contaminated by MON863 maize and by a new illegal GM variety known as Herculex, patented by Pioneer and Dow Agrosciences (3). The GM Free Ireland Alliance stated: "This total breakdown of our food safety and traceability system is a clear breach of EU Regulation 1829/2003. It proves once again that the existing mechanisms of EU legislation concerning GMOs are not effective and can not protect consumers, farmers, companies and the environment from unwanted GM contamination."

Greenpeace International (which discovered the contamination in a cargo that had not been tested by either the Irish or Dutch authorities) has now requested the European Commission to take immediate steps to halt all maize and other food and feed shipments imported from the USA, until a rigorous comprehensive testing programme and traceability system is fully implemented in compliance with EU law. In the case of the Herculex GM maize, it could not at first be identified because the testing laboratories did not know what DNA characteristics to look for.

Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: "It is now clear that cargoes of GM contaminated feedstuffs from the United States are routinely coming into EU ports accompanied by false certification. We warned at the time of the LL rice contamination fiasco that American millers and exporters could use crude GM testing methods designed to produce negative results, so that the "non-GMO" label could be applied to cargoes destined for Europe. That may be the reason why contaminated materials are slipping through the net. Alternatively, the Unites States Dept of Agriculture (USDA) is involved in fraud and is cynically manipulating the testing and certification system in pursuit of a policy of "contamination by stealth." The American administration knows that neither USDA nor the exporters will be prosecuted in Europe. The EU nation states have dropped their guard, and it is an indictment of the system that we now have to depend upon Greenpeace to identify contamination and raise the alarm."

Dr John said that GM Free Cymru supported the Greenpeace call for a moratorium on all imports of food and animal feed containing soy, maize and canola from the United States on the basis that they are likely to be contaminated with illegal toxic GM materials. He added that his organization is calling for that moratorium to remain in place until such time that USDA puts in place a proper and verified GM testing, traceability and labelling system for all cargoes leaving US ports; and until all EU countries have in place a testing regime which provides adequate protection for the public.

ENDS Contact:

Brian John
GM Free Cymru
Tel 01239-820470

NOTES

(1) USA Rice Daily, Tuesday, April 10, 2007 LLRice601 Found in U.S. Shipment

(2) http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice6March2007.htm

The varieties responsible for contamination are LL601, LL62, LL604, LL06 and another which may be a Roundup Ready (Monsanto) variety.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/10/ AR2007031001323_pf.html

(3) http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac/

India: Are regulators for regulating or for popularising GM crops?

Kheti Virasat Mission / Centre for Sustainable Agriculture Press Release, May 1 2007

Hyderabad/Bathinda, May 1, 2007: Reacting to media reports on several GM regulators in the country themselves claiming huge benefits from GM crops, that too in the name of "trainings on biosafety", Kheti Virasat Mission and Centre for Sustainable Agriculture questioned the role of regulators of GE crops in the country. Are they meant to take objective, scientific and pro-people assessment of the impacts of GE or are they meant to popularize GM crops as though the verdict is already out, the civil society organisations asked. The two groups which are part of the Coalition for GM-Free India also questioned the role of World Bank in such 'biosafety capacity-building' projects, one of which is being implemented by the Ministry of Environment & Forests through the Global Environment Facility.

"It is not clear on what basis are such claims of benefits being made such as pesticide reduction or farmers shifting away from water-guzzling crops like rice (linked to Bt Cotton adoption!) when we know very well that monitoring of GMOs right from field trials stage is almost completely absent/unscientific in this country", said Ms Kavitha Kuruganti, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, based in Hyderabad. She said that given the absence of monitoring (absence of political will as well as capabilities) it had fallen upon civil society groups to take up careful monitoring of the GM experience so far in the country.

"Hundreds of farmers are reporting health problems like skin allergies but the government chooses not to assess such impacts and therefore will always claim that there is no authentic report. A report from Madhya Pradesh by a team of doctors has been submitted to GEAC on this issue - as a member of GEAC how can Dr Ananda Kumar claim that there is no such report from any part of the cotton belt? They said the same thing with impacts on livestock after open grazing on Bt Cotton fields ‚ today, the animal husbandry department of Andhra Pradesh state government itself is advising farmers not to graze their animals on Bt Cotton fields suspecting some yet-to-be-identified toxin in the GM plant", she added.

Umendra Dutt of Kheti Virasat Mission, Punjab further pointed out ‚ "Mr Balachandran, Joint Secretary, MoEF (who claimed yesterday in Chandigarh that Bt Cotton resulted in the focus shifting away from water guzzling crops like rice) is the same person who admitted recently in an international context that India faces a major constraint due to the lack of capacity to effectively implement the Biosafety Protocol. [1] It is surprising that without setting up effective systems or without actually building capacities related to biosafety assessment and without justifying the source of his claims, he can get so enthusiastic about GM crops", he said. "If adoption is equal to something being 'biosafe', pesticides should also be encouraged by the regulators", he argued.

"It seems that most regulators who are supposed to be independent, scientific and pro-people in their assessment of this particular agricultural technology have already concluded in favour of the technology rather than to take a precautionary approach towards it! We have earlier heard about the Co-Chairperson of Genetic Engineering Approval Committee [the apex regulatory authority] also being on the Board of industry-funded bodies like ISAAA. They do not deserve to be sitting in regulatory posts in such a case. Public funds collected from tax-payers are being spent on popularizing the technology and creating more markets for the companies in the name of 'trainings on biosafety', including with the help of the World Bank. The World Bank should stop such funding", said Kavitha Kuruganti.

For more information, contact:

1. Umendra Dutt, Kheti Virasat Mission at umendradutt@gmail.com

2. Kavitha Kuruganti, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture at kavitha.kuruganti@gmail.com

Schlossser, the FDA and clones

GM Watch, 1 May 2007

The current edition of the UK magazine The Big Issue (April 30 - May 6) is a Fast Food Nation Special guest edited by Eric Schlossser, author of Fast Food Nation.

There are a number of interesting articles, including one by Soil Association director Patrick Holden - 'Dwindling world energy supplies will mean rethinking how we source our food' - and Eric's own article: 'Clone rangers', which covers the issue of the FDA's support for the consumption of meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring.

Here's an extract:

The FDA's proposed rules on cloning are just one more indication of how the agency and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - the two pillars of the federal food safety system - have been captured by special interests and no longer serve the public interest. The FDA once argued that it was perfectly safe to feed dead cattle to other cattle. We know otherwise - and the United States still has remarkably weak safeguards against the spread of mad cow disease.

The FDA once argued that Vioxx was perfectly safe and ignored the warnings that instead of relieving pain, it might be causing tens of thousands of heart attacks. The recent outbreaks of the lethal E. coli linked to spinach and lettuce revealed how underfunded the FDA's food safety programs have become. And the recent poisoning of an estimated 40,000 dogs and cats showed that the FDA cannot even guarantee the safety of pet food in the United States.

It's worth keeping in mind that until the Fall of 2005, the head of the FDA was a former executive vice president at the National Food Processors Association. And for the past 6 years, the chief of staff at the USDA has been the former chief lobbyist for the beef industry. Today the food safety policies of the FDA and the USDA are virtually indistinguishable from those of the industries they are supposed to be regulating.

Give Bees a Chance

TheSimon.com, May 1 2007. By Matt Hutaff.

The disappearance of bee colonies around the world could ravage agriculture -- and it's all our fault.

Rumor has it Albert Einstein once declared humanity could only outlive the bee by about four years. His reasoning was simple: "no more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man."

Nothing like entomological doomsday scenarios from a classical physicist, right?

Nonetheless, it looks like we're poised to find out if the godfather of relativity is right. Bees are disappearing at an alarming rate, particularly in the United States and Germany. And while it's normal for hive populations to fall during colder winter months, the recent exodus is puzzling beekeepers and researchers around the world. Are we witnessing the death throes of the human race firsthand? Will the bee go the way of the dodo? Not likely, but I'll tell you one thing - whatever's driving the collapse of the bee population, it's man-made.

"During the last three months of 2006, we began to receive reports from commercial beekeepers of an alarming number of honey bee colonies dying in the eastern United States," says Maryann Frazier, an apiarist with Penn State University. "Since the beginning of the year, beekeepers from all over the country have been reporting unprecedented losses," including one gentleman who's lost 800 of his 2,000 colonies in less than four months.

Those losses are atypical. The usual causes of death, aside from climate, are varroa mites, hive beetles, and wax moths, which infest hives weakened by sickness and malnutrition. Annual casualties tend to hover in the 20th percentile, and beekeepers work with entomologists to protect their investments via antibiotics, miticides, and advanced pest management.

Not so today. The current blight has spread across the country rapidly, leaving abandoned hives full of uneaten food and unhatched larvae. Natural predators brave enough to enter behave erratically, "acting in a way you normally don' t expect them to act," says beekeeper Julianne Wooten. And whereas naturally abandoned hives are infested by other insects within a short period of time, hives affected by what is tentatively labeled colony collapse disorder (CCD) are avoided.

California and Texas have been hit particularly hard by the sudden disappearance of bees, but dozens of other states are reporting major losses as well.

And when you consider bees are big business as well as a critical part of the food chain, that vanishing act is no laughing matter. Consider:

bees are essential for pollinating over 90 varieties of vegetables and fruits, including apples, avocados, blueberries, and cherries;

pollination increases the yield and quality of crops by approximately $15 billion annually; and

California's almond industry alone contributes $2 billion to the local economy, and depends on 1.4 million bees, which are brought in from all over the United States.

Bees stimulate the food supply as well as the economy. So what's the cause of colony collapse? Suspicions are pointed in several different directions, including cell phone transmissions and agricultural pesticides, some of which are known to be poisonous to bees. But if these two factors are responsible, why are the deaths not a global phenomenon? The bee collapse began in isolated pockets before progressing rapidly around the nation. If cell phones are to blame, shouldn't the effect have been simultaneous, and witnessed years ago? And if pesticides are strictly to blame, shouldn't beekeepers near major farm systems be able to track those pollutants and narrow the field of possible suspects?

Perhaps they have - and the culprit is bigger than we imagine.

Several scientists have come forward with the startling claim that genetically modified food - you know, that blessing from above that would solve famine and put food in the belly of every undernourished, Third World child - is destroying bees. How could something so wondrous as pest-resistant corn kill millions upon millions of bees? Simple - by producing so much natural pesticide that bees are either driven mad or away.

Most genetically-modified seeds have a transplanted segment of DNA that creates a well-known bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), in its cells. Normally Bt is not a problem - it's a naturally-occurring pesticide that's been used as a spray for years by farmers looking to control crop damage from butterflies. And it's effective at helping beekeepers keep bees alive, too - Bt is sprayed under hive lids to keep those pesky wax moths from attacking.

But "instead of the bacterial solution being sprayed on the plant, where it is eaten by the target insect, the genes that contain the insecticidal traits are incorporated into the genome of the farm crop," writes biologist and beekeeper John McDonald. "As the transformed plant grows, these Bt genes are replicated along with the plant genes so that each cell contains its own poison pill that kills the target insect.

"Canadian beekeepers have detected the disappearance of the wax moth in untreated hives, apparently a result of worker bees foraging in fields of transgenic canola plants. [And] the planting of transgenic corn and soybean has increased exponentially, according to statistics from farm states. Tens of millions of acres of transgenic crops are allowing Bt genes to move off crop fields."

McDonald's analysis stands up under scrutiny. A former agronomist has commented that the one trial of GM crops in the Netherlands quickly led to colony collapse within 100 kilometers of the fields, and it's reasonable to hypothesize nature's pollinators would bear an averse reaction to plants with poison coursing through every stem.

"The amount of Bt in these plants is enough to trigger allergies in some people, and irritate the skin and eyes of farmers who handle the crops," writes Patrick Wiebe. "In India, when sheep were used to clear a field of leftover Bt cotton, several sheep died after eating it." If it can kill a sheep, it can certainly kill a bee.

What can be done? Precious little if gene-modified plants are the genesis of colony collapse. "There is no way to keep genetically modified genes from escaping into the wild," says Mike Rivero. "Wild varieties of corn in Mexico have been found to contain artificial genes carried by the wind and bees. Indeed it is probable that the gene that makes the plant cells manufacture a pesticide has already escaped, which means this problem will only spread.

"This is far more dangerous than a toxic spill, which confines itself to the original spill and the downwind/downstream plumes. A mistake in a gene, once allowed into the wild, can spread across the entire planet."

Genetically-modified food is produced by companies such as Monsanto (how many of its scientists do you think drive a hybrid?). Despite a number of tests, the food created by these gene-spliced crops are considered a failure. It consistently makes animals ill, increases liver toxicity, and damages kidneys. What's the incentive to grow this food? What's the incentive to eat it?

In our dash to trademark the very building blocks of our food supply, companies experimenting with "upgrading" crops may have irreparably damaged one of nature's most important contributors. Instead of approaching famine from a balanced perspective, corporations have patented the right to subsist. If Einstein's lesser-known theory is right, they have unwittingly become Shiva, the destroyer of worlds.

Wait - that was Oppenheimer. I need to stop quoting dead German physicists.

Give bees a chance. Roll back the Frankenfood and pray the bee colonies return to pollinate our way to a full stomach.

The Philippines: NGO hails GMO ban

The Visayan Daily Star, 1 May 2007.

The recent passage of a provincial ordinance banning the entry, importation and introduction of genetically-modified plants and animals in Negros Occidental received favorable response from groups pushing for organic agriculture.

The Negros Occidental Organic Agriculture Movement hailed the ordinance as a "long-awaited step" that boosts the campaign to develop organic a agriculture in the province. Benjamin Ramos, Jr., executive director of Paghidaet sa Kauswagan Development Group, said the ordinance represents a milestone and an achievement of political will in the area of legislation.

"With the passage of the ordinance, a great challenge is ahead of us in terms of program implementation. We hope that both provincial governments (Negros Occ. and Oriental Negros) would see to it that the interest of small farmers and farmworkers would be taken cared of," Ramos said.

He added that the landmark legislation partly fulfills the commitment of Governors Joseph Maranon and George Arnaiz to achieve a unified sustainable agricultural and rural development using the organic agriculture as a framework for development.

"Our counterparts in Oriental, the Organic Negros Alliance are now also working towards the passage of a similar ordinance. We hope that this ordinance will become another impetus towards moving the entire island to the achievement of the goal of Negros as Organic Food Bowl," Joel Alapar, executive director of People's Agruculturl Plan for the 21st Century said in a press statement. - NAB

How Safe Is Bt Cotton For Livestock?

CounterCurrents.org, 1 May 2007. By Kavitha Kuruganti.

Not many seem to be aware that a serious controversy is dogging GM crop cultivation in India after repeated reports emerged about livestock getting killed or falling sick after grazing on Bt Cotton fields. The limelight is once again on two important aspects related to GM crops ‚ their safety and their regulation.

As the area of Bt Cotton kept increasing year after year within the Cotton extent in various states, right from 2004-05, there have been reports of goats and sheep taking ill and dying after grazing on these fields. It has to be noted that open-grazing of animals on cotton fields, after the cotton is harvested and before the stalks are removed, is a traditional practice in many parts of the country. Further, given the shrinking grazing lands in villages, open grazing on residual crop plants is unavoidable. No experiences of cotton plants being toxic to animals are present hitherto. It is also important to note that such practices don't exist elsewhere, especially in the developed world from where we seem to import our biosafety assessment protocols. The regulators here obviously did not foresee a situation of open grazing given that they are cut off from the reality of rural India. No studies have been done to this day to test toxicity in conditions that simulate real life open-grazing situation of farmers/shepherds of the country.

In 2006, civil society organizations like the Andhra Pradesh Goatherds' & Shepherds' Union, Anthra (an organization consisting of veterinary scientists, working on livestock issues) and Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (consisting of agriculture scientists working on ecological alternatives in agriculture) pointed out an unusual phenomenon on a widespread scale, of animals falling sick and dying after grazing on residual Bt Cotton fields. Interestingly enough, the fact finding visits of these groups happened after eleven shepherds from eleven different blocks of Warangal district brought their animals to the Animal Diseases Diagnostic Laboratory [ADDL] in Warangal town for postmortem analysis as they found that their animals were dying of unusual symptoms. There was a mix of nervous, respiratory and digestive symptoms observed. Amongst other observations, the concerned veterinary surgeon wrote "Poisoning fed on Bt Cotton", as tentative diagnosis in her postmortem register. It was quite by chance that a representative of the Shepherds' Union saw the postmortem register of February and March 2006 and in the month of April, a fact finding visit was commissioned by these three organizations.

The initial response to these reports was ridicule. The reports in 2005 in the local media were completely ignored. How can Bt toxin kill mammals, was the usual argument - it only works on lepidopteran pests with an alkaline medium in the intestines, it was argued. It could be pesticide residues that were causing the toxicity, said others. The shepherds must be making up the reports in a bid to claim insurance, speculated yet others. It seemed as though complete negation of the phenomenon is the only response possible from the regulators and the biotech industry. There was no scientific temper exhibited with regard to wanting to investigate the reports further nor was there a sense of responsibility on the part of the regulators to put speculation at rest, to act in the interest of farmers and shepherds. After all, it was the very livelihoods of poor people at stake here with each death setting the farmer back substantially on the economic front.

Unfortunately, one small team that went to the affected villages on behalf of the animal husbandry department of Andhra Pradesh could not come back with much evidence. The few Bt Cotton plant samples that they analysed tested positive for nitrates and nitrites. Nitrate content was found to be more than 2% [strong positive] and symptoms matching nitrate poisoning.

The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee [GEAC], the apex regulatory body for GM crops in the country whose mandate is to assess the biosafety of every product that it allows for release into the environment, did not pursue the matter beyond discussing it in a couple of meetings, that too under pressure from civil society groups. The Department of Biotechnology [DBT], a strong advocate of GM crops, was instructed by the GEAC to take up a systematic foliar material feeding toxicity study. The DBT found many excuses for not doing so! Other than prescribing such foliar toxicity studies for future biosafety assessment, the GEAC ordered no such studies by the Bt Cotton companies nor did it keep other issues in abeyance until some transparent, scientific, independent and systematic investigations were completed. It was business as usual for the regulators and the industry.

In January 2007, the first reports of animals getting affected started emerging again and Centre for Sustainable Agriculture sent a preliminary assessment report to the GEAC, DBT, animal husbandry and agriculture department officials. In February, in Adilabad district, after coming across the hitherto-unknown phenomenon of animals getting affected after grazing on Bt Cotton fields, the animal husbandry department pro-actively put out an advisory to farmers asking them not to graze their animals on Bt Cotton plants. The department officials here are convinced of the toxicity of the Bt Cotton plant but are waiting for laboratory analyses to understand what the exact toxin at work here is.

What is amazing to hear however is that no protocols have been put in place in the past one year in case such a phenomenon erupts again! The initial samples that have been sent from Adilabad by the department veterinarians have reportedly been rejected since they were not fit for analysis. A special team was then sent to Adilabad for collecting samples and investigations are on to understand the presence of toxins, if any, in these samples. Initial analysis shows that the samples have tested positive for HCN. The investigations will obviously not be conclusive and comprehensive until it is understood wherefrom such nitrogen-compounds are accumulating on Bt Cotton plants. Is it because of the genetic engineering process itself which is known to result in unpredictable effects? Is it related to higher application of nitrogenous fertilizers that farmers are being asked to use on Bt Cotton? Is it a combination of the Bt Cotton plant's interaction with its environment that is resulting in the toxicity and which was never captured in the field trials because such trials are done mostly for agronomic assessment? Aren't there some indications of such a phenomenon in the sub-chronic toxicity test on goats in the case of Bt Brinjal that the crop developer submitted to the GEAC, when statistically significant changes were found in haemotological and clinical parameters ‚ why did not the GEAC ask for the raw data on this?

Farmers whose animals are affected are reporting that because of low pest incidence this year, they have not used much pesticides and in any case, the last time pesticides have been used on the crop, it was in the month of October ‚ if it is pesticide residues that are indeed causing the toxicity, it is important to ask insecticide regulators in the country why they are registering such toxic pesticides in the country which leave such lethal impacts even after four mont