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 contaminationÖ

"Our understanding is their investigation is continuing Ö 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 ó 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 Ö 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