NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • November 2007

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

30 November 2007

Australia: Councils have power to stop GM crops: VLGA

ABC, 30 November 2007

The Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) believes local councils can effectively make their municipalities free of genetically modified (GM) crops.

It says local health plans can be altered to make it very difficult for GM crops to be grown or distributed in a region.

The push follows the Victorian Government's decision to lift a ban on GM canola crops early next year.

The VLGA's Warren Moloney says councils should inform residents of GM crop trials and use any other method to deter GM products entering their region.

"To look squarely at the labelling of these products as well as to look squarely ... at the distribution of the growing of these products throughout their shire, and thirdly and most importantly they can act as a very strong advocate on behalf of their community to the State Government to see if perhaps they could reconsider their position," he said.

Meanwhile, the Greens are urging Ballarat council to declare the shire a GM-free zone.

The Greens' candidate for Ballarat at the federal election, Belinda Coates, says the council must play a role in representing the community's views to the Government.

"[I'm] really upset at the whole process, that it's just really been pushed through without that consultation in view of the fact that it's about 90 per cent of the public that are just really not in support of GM, and farming in GM products, so it's just a slap in the face I think for this decision to be pushed through," she said.

29 November 2007

EU health chief sees no move on GMO zero tolerance

Reuters, Nov 29 2007

NICOSIA, Nov 29 (Reuters) - The European Union's health chief on Thursday said he could not see an easing of legislation now keeping genetically modified crops out of the bloc, saying such changes would not gain approval among its members.

EU Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou acknowledged there was potential that a "zero tolerance" approach toward unauthorised GMO strains could affect feed imports, but said better understanding from the biotech industry on the GMO concerns within the union could help.

"The mood among the member states is such that I believe there will be no possibility of reaching a qualified majority to amend legislation," Kyprianou told Reuters after delivering a speech in Cyprus.

"I have some doubts whether this should be our proposal ... it is moot question because even if we did (propose an amendment) it would not receive a qualified majority."

The EU has not approved any new GMOs for growing since 1998, in large part because of huge public resistance to what are sometimes called "Frankenstein foods."

European Union member states discussed the GMO issue on Monday. Kyprianou said the debate focused on whether member states would be ready to accept moving away from zero tolerance for those GMOs which have received a positive assessment from the European Food Safety Authority but have not completed the authorisation process yet.

"It is very important to try to coordinate with the industry and with producing countries, to take more into consideration our sensitivities, our legislation and our authorisation process," Kyprianou said.

Pressure has been rising for the Commission to do something about the speed at which the EU approves new GMOs. The EU last month authorised imports of four GMO crop products for sale across its 27 national markets for the next 10 years.

An internal study published by Commission agriculture experts in June said the EU took a minimum of 2-1/2 years, and often longer, to complete new GMO authorisations compared with an average of 15 months in the United States.

Kyprianou said the approval process was "very thorough" rather than slow. "Many of the delays are also a responsibility of the industry itself ... the authorities ask for more information and it takes a long time for the industry to provide that information," he said.

"What we will do, as part of an action plan, is to make it more clear to the industry what is expected from them from the beginning so they can produce more detailed and complete dossiers when they should," he said. (Editing by Matthew Lewis)

Ireland: Organic 'slur' sparks call for FSAI resignations

Irish Examiner (farming supplement), 29 November 2007.

Leading food writer John McKenna has called for the resignation of Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) executives who recently described organic food as "a lifestyle choice".

Echoing ex-British environment minister David Milliband, the FSAI stated that organic food "is really a lifestyle choice. There is no ban food and no good food, but the key is a balanced diet."

McKenna, provocative and polemical in equal measure, labasted conventional agriculture, suggested that it was dressed up chemical farming.

These words and many more were uttered at the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association's (IOFGA) food seminar and AGM, held in Mellow's College, Athenry, Co. Galway, recently.

Well attended and upbeat, as many organic events are these days, it attracted about 150 people to hear an assortment of orators cover a diversity of topics, from GM and soil quality, to history, climate change and the benefits of the organic path.

Minister of State with responsibility for organic farming, Trevor Sargent, spoke of the need for better training to be developed in organic horticulture and tillage, of the fossil fuel dependency of conventional farming, and even of switching some departmental consumption of food over to organic. He also suggested at a recent local food conference that State institutions should consider serving some organic options. Dr Charles Merfield from Teagasc spoke about soil health. "Merf" – as New Zealander Dr Merfield prefers to be called – is knowledgeable and infectiously enthusiastic. According to Merf, a kilometer of ploughed soil contains 10 billion bacteria, 10,000 kilometres of fungal growth, and immeasurable levels of algae. And only 6% of soil life is categorised.

Considering how utterly dependent we are on soil, our understanding of how it functions is "heart stoppingly thin", said Merf. He suggested that soil science is only now coming of age. Previously it was just soil chemistry, whereas now it encompasses physics, biology, ecology and chemistry.

Soil is central to so much of what happens on the planet: the carbon cycle, life and ecoystems, maintaining landscapes, food production, water storage and filtration, and bioremediation (the locking away of toxins). According to Merf, science has come to agree with the organic movement's vision of soil; and society is hopefully following. "Never treat soils like dirt!" he concluded.

Peter Melchett, a former minister in the Labour administration in Britain, who is a 900-acre farmer and policy director with the Soil Association, spoke about the threat of climate change, and the role of organic farming in its mitigation.

He also referred to the global threat of genetically engineered food and the need for direct action to halt it. According to Melchett, comprehensive research had not been carried out to evaluate the impact of GM food on the environment, or animal and human health.

Michael Hickey spoke about the previous 25 years of IOFGA, as well as the future. He was one of the first native Irish members of the organisation, founded in 1982. Most members back then came from other countries and were described as "blow ins". Michael and a brave few others joined this merry band of homesteaders by the mid-1980s, when the organic movement was changing.

Around then, Irish farmers started to join, an era of professionalism was inititated, and governmental recognition began to emerge.

As ever, one of the first items on the agenda was a split, with Michael in the thick of it. And yet, the organic movement carried on, developed, and now, as Michael said, "IOFGA will no longer be an organisation acting on the fringes."

With 150 people turning up on a Sunday morning in November in Co. Galway to hear people talk about the challenge, the politics, the science and the history of organics, who can argue with him?

Brazil: Warning labels for transgenics

RadioAgencia Noticias do Planalto, Nov 29 2007

A judicial sentence on Nov. 12 requires all manufacturers of products that contain transgenics will now have to use a warning label with the symbol "T".

Federal Judge Isa Tania Barao Pessoa da Costa determined that even products containing less than 1 percent of genetically-modified material must apply the warning label. Before the ruling, the requirement was only in place for those products containing more than 1 percent.

For Paulo Pacini, legal coordinator of the Consumer Defense Institute, the former 1 percent-limit for transgenics to be publicized is contrary to the Consumer Defense Code that states consumers have "the right to full and unrestricted information on the product that he or she is going to consume."

He added that the Brazilian population consumes transgenic products without knowing it and that the government is resistant to accept judges' decisions due to considerable pressure [from] the food industry.

"If it is necessary to spend loads of money so that the consumer receives the information he or she has a legal right to, the industry will have to run with that cost," said Pacini.

Russia: Surprising Soya Sweets

Science News / Russia Info Centre, 29 November 2007. By Anna Kizilova.

http://www.nkj.ru/news/11521/

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) make trouble between scientists.

Current research in world laboratories still gives no answer to the question what genetic organisms are - a treasure to defeat hunger on our planet and to create effective treatment for dangerous diseases, or a time bomb, waiting to explode, when no one expects it to. During recent scientific symposium "Physiology of a transgenic plant and safety issues" eminent biologists discussed reasons for controversial attitude towards GMO. These reasons include insufficient information about mechanisms of functioning and regulation of plant genome, unpredictability of artificial genetic structures' "behaviour", instability of said structures and "technological garbage" inside them.

We can illustrate controversial results of modified GMO safety studies by means of reports on scientific research. Fellows from Russian Mechnikov science and research centre of vaccines and wheys say that natural soybeans are more powerful allergens than genetically modified ones. However, this information is quite unexpected, since GMO enemies predict multiple allergic reactions spreading around after people consume food with genetically modified proteins. Biologists from Moscow extracted allergenic substances from natural and modified soybeans and analysed blood serum samples of 220 patients with food allergy and atopic dermatitis, healthy people served as a control. Most powerful allergens were proteins of natural soybeans, which are close in structure to main allergic agent of birch pollen, that is why they are able to cause not only food allergy, but also intensify allergic response of patients with hay fever (pollinosis).

At the same time studies performed in Saratov showed adverse effect of genetically modified organisms on health of laboratory mice. For five months mice were fed with modified soybeans and results were sad - test mice showed up to 18% increase in weight, 39.5% reduced spleen and their liver enlarged up to 18.5% compared to control group. Blood enzymes of poor mice also showed low activity. Fellows from the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology recently received new data on effect of GM-soybeans on higher nervous activity of rats. They added soya flour to rat food 2 weeks before animal breeding, during breeding, pregnancy and baby rats feeding. Such food had its impact on test rats - during "light-darkness" tests male rats and their babies demonstrated excessive anxiety - they spent much longer time in the darkness than control rats. Female rats were running from dark corners to light places and back, thus showing their disturbance. Behaviour of newborn rats of both genders resembled that of their parents. Researchers observed even more discouraging results, when they put experimental animals to cages. Rats were extremely aggressive - they attacked other rats and bit them and vivarium employers. One fifth of female rats, who ate modified food, showed complete absence of maternal instinct - they scattered little rats around a cage instead of building a "nest" for them. Rats of the control group, who never ate GM-soybeans, didn't show any behavioural deviations.

28 November 2007

Australia: No segregation intended for conventional non-GM farmers in Victoria

Network of Concerned Farmers press release, 28 November 2007

The Network of Concerned Farmers has slammed the Victorian "independent review" on GM canola claiming the concerns of non-GM farmers were ignored and conventional farmers are expected to market on the consumer rejected GM market. It was assumed that there was insufficient premium to pay for the additional costs for conventional farmers to market as GM-free. The report claimed that consumers will be offered a choice to avoid GM canola oil by purchasing organic canola oil, not conventional canola oil but very little organic canola oil is produced in Australia.

"The report included benefits that are not there while ignoring additional costs and market risks." said Julie Newman, NCF national spokesperson. "Non-GM farmers are to market as GM and the obvious proof of price penalties associated with marketing as GM was disgregarded claiming that these obvious price penalties could have been due to other factors. Unfortunately and unacceptably, it is expected that non-GM farmers are to pay if our concerns are proven right by getting a lower price for our product."

"Even the National Party is claiming a "lower price" benefit to consumers which directly contravenes the patronising promise that there is no price difference if non-GM farmers marketed as GM."

The committee report promoted a yield advantage of between 10-30% which the NCF disputes claiming trials have shown the GM companies own trials have revealed similar or less yields to non-GM varieties. Neither Monsanto or Bayer Cropscience have agreed to participate in independent performance trials despite having government approval to allow exemptions to do so.

"Not only did the committee promote a yield advantage that is not there, they promoted advantages such as earlier sowing, reduced tillage and lower fuel use that would be no different using the non-GM herbicide tolerant canola varieties that we currently grow. They also failed to incorporate the additional costs to farmers for using GM crops," said Mrs Newman.

The reason for not incorporating the costs of the technology was given that, although farmers would pay a higher cost, 75% of this payment would remain in Victoria and therefore is not considered a direct cost to the State of Victoria.

"It was nothing more than a public relations exercise. The majority of the quotes referenced were from organisations with direct vested interests while any genuine concerns were countered by vague assumptions."

Contact: Julie Newman 08 98711562 or 08 98711644

Link to committee report: http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nrenfa.nsf/...

Australia: Canada 'leaving Aust behind' on GM crop production

ABC (PM), 28 November 2007. Reporter: Alison Caldwell.

MARK COLVIN: Both the Victorian and New South Wales governments have argued that one of the main reasons why they are lifting the ban on GM crops is to provide farmers with choice.

Both cited farmers in Canada who they said had made millions of dollars as a result of growing GM crops, leaving Australian farmers out of the race.

Alison Caldwell reports.

ALISON CALDWELL: Australian farmers are being told that Canadian and US farmers have cornered the market when it comes to GM canola, and unless they start planting soon, they'll miss out entirely.

In Victoria alone it is claimed it could be worth $157-million to the state's farmers over four years

But there could be a downside - some farmers are worried at the risk of contamination.

Yesterday one of the country's most respected immunologists Sir Gustav Nossal suggested the fears were overstated, saying he was reasonably confident GM crops and non-GM crops could be kept separate.

In Canada however, the experience of farmers growing GM canola and their neighbours who don't isn't quite as it's been described here.

Percy Schmeiser is a 76 year old farmer from Saskatchewan in Canada's midwest.

Since the late 1990s, he's been in and out of the courts with one biotech giant, who sued him for having it's patented GM seeds in his non-GM crop.

He's astounded by the Australian decision to lift the ban on GM crops.

PERCY SCHMEISER: I really feel disappointed that they would lift the moratorium because too bad they can not profit by the experience that we have here in western Canada and in many other parts of Canada. The fact that with GMOs what it really means, it hasn't meant increased yields or a better quality or anything like that but what it has meant is a massive increased use of chemicals, more damage to our environment and also the health of human beings.

ALISON CALDWELL: Biotech companies have developed and patented GM canola seeds which are immune to pesticides.

Canadian farmers are contractually required to buy new seeds each year from the bio-tech companies. Ten years ago in Canada that was costing farmers about $70-a hectare.

In 1998, Percy Schmeiser realised that his GM-free canola property was contaminated with Monsanto's pesticide resistant canola.

The company took him to court claiming he'd illegally planted it's canola without paying for it.

Over the years, most farmers settled out of court but Percy Schmeiser didn't.

Six years later, Canada's Supreme Court ruled Monsanto's patent was valid. Percy Schmeiser wasn't forced to pay anything because he didn't profit from the presence of the GM canola in his fields.

At the time his story made headlines around the world.

He says Canadian farmers who grow GM canola have lost their traditional markets.

PERCY SCHMEISER: You used to say it was more nutritious and it was - farmers would use less chemicals. That all turned out to be false after the first, second and third year, farmers found that out.

And now, because of our loss of sales to many countries of the world and I know that Australia has taken a lot of our sales to Japan and some other countries because Australian was GMO free but now what has happened, a lot of our canola is no longer used for food or cooking oil, it is used for biodiesel.

ALISON CALDWELL: The politicians here have also warmed to the idea that eventually farmers can have drought-proof seeds.

PERCY SCHMEISER: OK, but this is what they said 10 years - well actually 1996 here but none of those things have ever happened. You know it was just a gimmick to get farmers to use GMOs.

All it has been so far, there has only been, in 1996 here there was four crops introduced GMO and that was grape seed or canola, soy beans, corn and cotton. There has been no new GMO crops introduced since 1996 here because farmers don't want it.

It basically has been a disaster because the massive increased use of chemicals. Now I assure you, if you introduced GMOs in Australian, you're increased use of chemicals will be at least three times more.

MARK COLVIN: Saskatchewan farmer, Percy Schmeiser ending Alison Caldwell's report.

Greenpeace appeals to EU to reject use of 2 new biotech corn products

The Associated Press, November 28 2007

BRUSSELS, Belgium: Greenpeace appealed to European Union officials Wednesday not to approve the use of two genetically modified corn crops.

The environmental group staged a protest at EU headquarters, arguing the crops pose a major risk to insects like butterflies and could damage local ecosystems.

Under heavy pressure from both industry and environmental groups, the EU's executive office is deliberating on whether to approve license applications for two biotech seeds for cultivation.

The products are the Bt-11 corn seed made by Switzerland's Syngenta AG and the corn 1507 product made by the U.S.-based Pioneer Hi-Bred and Dow Agrosciences.

Both varieties offer resistance to insects, including corn borers and certain butterfly species, and were deemed safe by the EU's food safety authority in 2005.

On Wednesday, Greenpeace activists called on EU executives to back EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas' preliminary conclusions not to approve the two products for use in the 27-nation bloc.

Opponents of the two products fear they could threaten population levels of much cherished butterflies, like the Monarch species, as well as other insects.

"The proposal of Mr. Dimas is based on hard science," argued Marco Contiero from Greenpeace. He said Bt variety corn crops "are harming the environment, having unexpected and unpredictable effects."

Meanwhile, the European Federation of Biotechnology, a group of scientists and companies promoting the use of biotech crops, sent a letter to Dimas backing the products.

"GMOs are absolutely needed, there is no danger for health. No danger to the environment has been demonstrated," said Marc Van Montagu, who heads the group.

He rejected claims that the two GM seeds threaten insects other than those that try to feed off the crops during cultivation.

"There are no studies where scientists agree ... that butterflies die," Montagu said.

EU spokesman Johannes Laitenberger told reporters the approval was still under consideration by the European Commission's executive, which remains deeply divided on the issue. Unanimous backing is needed to approve the licenses.

The issue poses a headache for the Commission, which is trying to force reluctant EU governments to drop some national GM crop bans, amid increasing global pressure by Europe's trade partners.

The World Trade Organization has backed claims by the United States, Canada and others that a previous de facto moratorium on the use of GMO products in Europe is an unfair trade barrier.

EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel warned European farm ministers this week that continuing biotech bans could risk future supplies of cereals to farmers, threatening the supply of animal feed for Europe's pork, beef and chicken sectors.

EU: Greenpeace parody highlights conflict within Commission between industry profits and science

Greenpeace press release, 28 November 2007.

Brussels, 28 November 2007 -- Greenpeace is today staging a parody protest outside the EU Commission's Berlaymont headquarters, posing as lobbyists for companies that produce genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and are trying to get them approved for sale and planting in Europe.

Over the coming days, European Commissioners are expected to vote on a proposal from Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas to refuse EU authorisation for two genetically modified varieties of maize, because they are toxic to certain butterfly species and pose a threat to other insects and soil health. The two new maize varieties are produced by agrochemical firms Syngenta and Pioneer/Dow, and are designed to kill insect pests.

Recent research has shown that toxin-producing GM plants can have a range of unexpected effects, from harming beneficial insects, to contaminating streams and poisoning aquatic life. These findings show that growing the GMOs for which the biotech industry is seeking EU authorisation could entail considerable environmental damage.

Current EU legislation requires the European Commission to apply the precautionary principle and take various aspects relevant to GMO plants into account, when deciding on GMO authorisations, such as new scientific evidence and social factors.

Public opinion polls constantly show that most Europeans oppose the presence of GMOs in the food chain and in the environment. A majority of EU member states have also repeatedly expressed opposition to GMOs. Yet, the European Commission constantly authorises them, with the keen backing of the US government.

"Behind our parody is a serious call for greater transparency. We are protesting about the disproportionate influence of the GMO industry in certain Commission departments. Industry lobby-groups such as the European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) and EuropaBio, which represent the interests of agrochemical companies, have "excellent working relations" with the Commission," explained Marco Contiero of Greenpeace. "We call on the European Commission to stop listening to the powerful biotech lobby and support Commissioner Dimas' call to refuse authorisation for the two pesticide-producing GM maize."

As with all parodies, the performance by Greenpeace projects a dangerous truth. This is confirmed today by the public lobbying activity of the European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB), a pro-GMO lobbying organisation promoting the use of biotechnology in Europe and defending GMO industry interests. Among its members are Monsanto, Bayer, the American Biotechnology Industry Organisation and the German Association of Biotech Companies: hardly a collection of independent scientists.

"The EFB is a front for companies like Monsanto. This lobby group is obviously trying to mask commercial interest with dubious scientific credentials. We expect the EU Commission to see through the sham and treat them as an ordinary industry pressure group," added Contiero.

Contact information

Marco Contiero , Greenpeace European Unit, GE Policy Director +32 2 2741906, Mobile: 0032-477777034.

For Photos, contact John Novis, Greenpeace International Picture Desk, +44 207 865 8230

For Video, contact Maarten van Rouveroy, Greenpeace International video producer, 0031 646197322

Mock letter from EuropaBio

Dear President Barroso and fellow Members of the European Commission,

We in the GMO industry would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to those of you who are doing a fine job lobbying on our behalf within the Commission. We thank you for sweeping under the carpet pesky new scientific evidence that shows our GMOs to pose a threat and for promoting our interests while ignoring EU legislation on the environment. We should like to single out for special recognition Commissioners Mandelson, Verheugen and Fischer Boel, who have been most supportive in promoting GMOs in Europe, whistling to our tune and ignoring public opinion. Christmas hampers all round!

We must say that we are less pleased with Commissioner Dimas, whose insistence on invoking EU law and unearthing new research is proving most unhelpful. His forthcoming proposal that two GM maize varieties should not be authorised in Europe because of concerns for their environmental impact is most inconvenient. Who needs precautionary principles when you can get mutant maize that produces its own insecticide? Not us. This fuss about harms to butterflies and beneficial insects is namby-pamby nonsense. Aquatic organisms? Insects? Soil organisms? Zap 'em, that's what we say. And why not zap Mr Dimas too, while you're at it? He's getting in our way.

We at Monsanto, Dow, Pioneer, BASF, Bayer and Syngenta are in the business of selling chemicals. As such, any regulation that interferes with our core business is most unwelcome, as you know. That's why we are so proud of the excellent working relationship we have built with the EU Commission, and count on you to dismiss Mr Dimas' proposal when you will come to vote on it, as well as any other scientific advice that casts doubt on the safety of GMOs. Our mutual friends in Washington will of course expect the same of you.

It's quite simple: just stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly whenever anyone - independent scientists, the European Parliament, NGOs, member states - dares to question the value of pursuing pro-GM policies and investing research money in a technology which has singularly failed to deliver in agriculture. Keep on humming if they mention the irreversible land contamination that will result from planting GMOs, or the increased use of herbicides on farms that grow GM crops. What do they know? Far better to let the biotech industry decide on issues affecting public welfare, food safety and the future of farming. Finally, we don't want to miss this opportunity to offer a hearty slap on the back to the wonderful European Food Safety Authority, which never fails to give our products the thumbs-up!

Love and hugs to all our pals in Parma.

Pesticidely yours,

EuropaGMO

European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB)
A few facts behind the myths

•

Established by European scientists in 1978, the European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) is Europe's non-profit federation of National Biotechnology Associations, Learned Societies, Universities, Scientific Institutes, Biotech Companies and individual biotechnologists working to promote Biotechnology throughout Europe and beyond (http://www.efb-central.org/index.php/Main/why_join)

•

The EFB has claimed to be a "voluntary association of European non-profit-making scientific and technical societies active in the field of biotechnology" but this is misleading because it has an extensive corporate membership of around 100 Public and Private Companies with direct biotech interests. These include firms as big as Monsanto Europe (http://www.efb-central.org/index.php/Members/public_and_private_companies)

•

It also has a number of National Bio-industry Associations as members, including the US industry's major trade association - BIO: the Biotechnology Industry Organization (http://www.efbweb.org/who/natbio.htm) and the Association of German Biotech Companies (VBU), (http://www.v-b-u.org/), of which Bayer is also a member.

•

EFB's advocates that they maintain good contacts with and serve in an advisory capacity to the European Commission (http://www.efb-central.org/index.php/Main/why_join).

•

Its president is Marc Van Montagu who is presented as a public scientist - Emeritus Professor at Ghent University, Belgium - who's interested in helping the developing world but he has had significant longstanding commercial interests in the uptake of GM crops worldwide. (http://www.ipbo.rug.ac.be/aboutus/mvm.html) He founded the biotech company Plant Genetic Systems Inc. in 1982, of which he was Scientific Director and member of the board of Directors. PGS Inc. was regarded as one of Europe's most successful biotech companies in the early days of biotech and went on to be bought in 1996 by the German multinational AgrEvo/Hoechst which was later incorporated into Aventis which, in turn, was taken over by Bayer. Van Montagu was also involved in founding the biotech company CropDesign, of which he was a Board member from 1998 to 2004. CropDesign was recently acquired by BASF Plant Science. He links to several other lobby groups for biotech, including PRRI.(http://www.efb-central.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/20/)

•

Several members of their Board have direct links with GM industry. A few examples:

Klaus Ammann:

He sits on steering committees for Gensuisse, a GM promotion group funded by the pharmaceutical industry body Interpharma Internutrition - a promotion group for GM foods. It has in its working group representatives from the food industry (e.g. NestlÈ) as well as chemical/GM companies Monsanto, Hoffmann LaRoche, DuPont, and Syngenta. Ammann is co-editor of the Bio-Scope Frankfurt-Bern website, supported by GM industry group Europabio. He was an early and active supporter of the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI) which seeks to limit biosafety controls on GM crops. (http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=8&page=A)

Patrick Rüdelsheim:

Involved in various companies, in 1996 he became Global Head of Biotechnology Regulatory Affairs for the AgrEvo group. After the creation of Aventis S.A. by the merger of Hoechst and RhÙne-Poulenc, he became Global Head Regulatory Affairs BioScience of Aventis CropScience and following the acquisition of Aventis CropScience by Bayer in 2002, he was confirmed in that position for Bayer CropScience. (http://www.efb-central.org/index.php/Members/profiles/31037 )

Marc Zabeau:

Director Research of Plant Genetic Systems N.V. Gent, Belgium, has founded four biotech companies (Helix CV in Belgium, the agricultural biotech company KeyGene N.V. in Wageningen, The Netherlands, a human genetics biotech company GenScope Inc., and Methexis N.V. in Gent, Belgium). (http://www.epsoweb.org/Catalog/TP/docs/bio_zabeau.PDF)

David McConnell:

Chairman, EAGLES Health Programme & EFB EAGLES Task Group, Co-Vice Chairman of EAGLES, Trinity College Dublin. The EFB funds the biotech lobby group EAGLES - European Action on Global Life Sciences (http://www.efb-eagles.org). EAGLES perpetuates the biotech industry myth that GM technology will end world hunger and "solve the problems of illness, starvation and environmental degradation". EAGLES used its supposed concern for such humanitarian causes to seek EC funding from taxpayers in 2003. The request was turned down but EAGLES is applying for EC support once again.
(http://www.gmfreeireland.org/mediawatch/index.php)

_______________________

European scientists to hand Commissioner Dimas open letter warning against undermining science on Biotech crop approvals

European Federation of Biotechnology [via Agnet], 27 November 2007.

Christian Suojanen

The European Federation of Biotechnology is the non-profit association of all national and cross-national Learned Societies, Universities, Institutes, Companies and Individuals interested in the promotion of Biotechnology throughout Europe and beyond.

The EFB invites you to witness the handing over of an Open Letter to Commissioner Dimas at the EU Commission head quarters‚ the Berlaymont - in Brussels on Wednesday November 28th at 11:30.

A group of Europe's leading scientists will hand over the letter.

Photo opportunities and interviews

Who: EU scientists on plant biotechnology

What: Handing over an Open Letter to Commissioner Dimas

When: Wednesday, November 28th, 2007 11:30 am (Brussels Time)

Where: EU Commission
Berlaymont (Front Entrance)
Rue de la Loi
Brussels

Australia: There's abundant evidence to warn people against GE crops

Sydney Morning herald, November 28 2007.
By Jeffrey M. Smith Executive Director, Institute for Responsible Technology Iowa, USA

Announcements in Victoria and NSW that genetically engineered (GE) crops will be allowed threaten more than just the income of Australia's farmers and food companies. There is irrefutable evidence that GE foods are unsafe to eat.

Working with more than 30 scientists worldwide, I documented 65 health risks of GE foods. There are thousands of toxic or allergic-type reactions in humans, thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals. Government safety assessments, including those of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), do not identify many of the dangers, and analysis reveals that industry studies submitted to FSANZ are designed to avoid finding them.

The process of inserting a foreign gene into a plant cell and cloning that cell into a GE crop produces hundreds of thousands of mutations throughout the DNA. Natural plant genes may be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds can change their function. This is why GE soy has less protein, an unexpected new allergen and up to seven times higher levels of a known soy allergen.

The only human feeding study conducted on GE foods found genes had transferred into the DNA of gut bacteria and remained functional. This means that long after we stop eating a GE food, its protein may be produced continuously inside our intestines.

Lab animals fed GM crops had altered sperm cells and embryos, a five-fold increase in infant mortality, smaller brains, and a host of other problems.

Documents made public by a lawsuit revealed that scientists at the US Food and Drug Administration warned that gene-spliced foods might lead to allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. When 25 per cent of US corn farmers planted GE varieties, corn sales to the European Union dropped by 99.4 per cent. All corn farmers suffered as prices fell by 13 to 20 per cent. In North America a growing number of doctors are prescribing a non-GE diet. Next year, the US natural food industry will remove all remaining GE ingredients.

Consumer buying pressure will likely force the entire food chain in North America to swear off GE within the next two years. Such a tipping point was achieved in Europe in April 1999. Australia should be taking notice of the response to GE foods throughout the world. It is certainly not the time to let the state bans expire.

New Zealand: GE Plants Spread Genes into Wild Relatives

GE Free New Zealand press release, 27 November 2007.

A recent study by Warrick (1) has confirmed that genetically modified Ready Roundup (RR) Brassica can escape and outcross with wild relatives.

The study conducted in Canada with GE RR Canola (Brassica napus) and the weedy relative Wild Mustard (Brassica rapa). Scientists reported that the RR Canola transgene outcrossed readily and persisted in the weedy mustard relative and was passed on to further generations. This supports earlier findings in England that outcrossing is very common in brassica species.

The findings add to concerns about the risks of GE brassica being developed and trialled by Crop and Food Research in New Zealand. Brassica is the name given to plants belonging to the Cabbage family from cauliflower, broccoli, to turnips and forage kale. Brassica are highly promiscuous and readily transfer genes between plant relatives.

The study was carried out over 6 years and found that the transgene was stably integrated into the weedy descendants over that time. However, the transgenic Brassica plants had reduced male fertility and reduced pollen viability.

One FI GM hybrid plant still produced 480 seeds of which 22 carried the transgene. The plants persisted regardless of Roundup spraying and fitness costs associated with selection pressure.

"This transgenic escape into wild weedy relatives supports concerns that GE brassica are a threat here," said Claire Bleakley of GE Free (NZ) in food and environment "Once released out of laboratory containment, GM pollen will spread to other brassica species both weedy and food plants, contaminating the environment and food chain".

"The worst part of this is the plants may contain mixtures of GM insecticidal and herbicide resistant toxins that could affect pollinating insects and the wider food chain and it will be the farmers, market gardeners and Councils who will be liable for cleanup and compensation costs.

GE Free (NZ) in food and environment believe that ERMA and Crop and Food Research must look into the new information on the ability of transgenes to outcross, integrate and survive in the wild under competitive selection pressure.

There are no studies on human safety and if levels of toxins cannot be controlled there may be long term health effects on animals and people. The research is reason to re-assess their approval of the Bt GM Brassica trial.

References:

(1)The case of an herbicide resistance transgene in a weedy Brassica rapa population To cite this article: S. I. WARWICK, A. LEGERE, M.-J. SIMARD, T. JAMES Molecular Ecology 2007 Oct 29 2007; http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03567.x

Wilkinson M., Elliott L., Allainguillaume J., Shaw M., Norris C., Welters R., Alexander M., Sweet J., and Mason D. Hybridization Between Brassica napus and B. rapa on a National Scale in the United Kingdom Science 17 October 2003: Vol. 302. no. 5644, pp. 457 - 459 DOI: 10.1126/science.1088200 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/302/5644/457

Spilled GM canola keeps on contaminating

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8179

EXTRACTS: According to Professor Kawata, "There are leaf mustard and conventional rapeseed growing around the spilled GM canola plants, so it is only a matter of time before they are crossed and contaminated by GMOs. Also, some other cruciferous vegetables like Japanese radish and Chinese cabbage are in danger of GM contamination."

Keisuke Amagasa of NO! GMO Campaign notes that, "Japan does not produce any GM crops. However, because Japan imports GM canola from Canada, GM contamination has already occurred and it is spreading to a much greater degree than one could imagine. If GM crops are cultivated, then this kind of pollution will spread even more. Judging by the ominous precedent of Canada, once GM crops are cultivated, segregation between GM and non-GM will become almost impossible, and keeping pure non-GM varieties away from GM contamination will be very hard. The clear conclusion from the findings is that cultivating or importing GM crops, leads to GM pollution and once this pollution begins, it can cause irreversible damage." (Spilled GM canola growing in Japan - Citizens' survey results 2007)

Australia: GM Canola will be everywhere and that is inevitable

Press release from GM Free Cymru (Wales), 28th November 2007

In the light of the decisions in NSW and Victoria (1) to give a "green light" to the commercial growing of GM canola in those two states, one has to wonder what possible benefits to the consumer or to the farming community the two governments had in mind. No wonder that there is uproar amongst NGOs and consumer groups who have actually done some homework on GM canola and on the matter of coexistence.

Four items which are relevant to the debate in Australia:

1. GM Canola is impossible to contain
2. Contamination thresholds are not based on science
3. GM Canola spread by wild animals
4. Uncontrollable GM Canola Contamination in Japan

1.

GM canola is impossible to contain

Comments made by Dr Jeremy Sweet, then of NIAB [and later part of EFSA] (2), at the GM Science debate held at IGER, Aberystwyth (3) on 17 March 2003.

1. .. 'people who have studied oil seed rape in seed banks have found that you get this persistence of a low level, of about 100 plants per square metre for several years. It could be up to 10 years'.

2. 'We looked at a combine harvester leaving actually a GM rape field, this was in the early days before we got too sensitive about these things. We found 6 kilos of seed in that combine harvester. It then went into a field of barley and harvested the barley, and that barley flushed out the rape seed and it all dropped into the ground. Now if you start doing that repeatedly on the farm you very rapidly start to have oil seed rape spread all around the farm and occurring in seed banks, and it becomes quite difficult to manage'.

3. 'the number of erucic acid crops has always been quite low, and usually fairly well managed and maintained in the production system. I think where the concern arises is that if oil seed rape..if GM oil seed rape becomes very widely grown, becomes say more than 20% or 30% of the area of oil seed rape, then it becomes much more difficult to manage these sorts of things. If you are just talking about a few crops here and there around the country, it is much easier to manage than if you are talking about it becoming a mainstream part of agriculture.'

4. 'we do have to accept the fact that once GM oil seed rape is commercialised it will be everywhere and that is inevitable, because conventional rape is everywhere, there is no reason why its going to behave differently from conventional rape. So once we start growing GM rape it will become as widely dispersed as conventional rape'

5. 'I think realistically it's going to be very difficult for GM oil seed rape to coexist with non-GM on the same farm'

2.

Contamination thresholds are not based on science

Dr Jeremy Sweet at the same meeting (4):

Well, we have thresholds for varietal purity in seeds, so that a farmer knows that when he buys a batch of seed it's that variety and not another one and also it doesn't contain off types or dead seed or whatever. For GM seed, there was a feeling that a threshold was needed but the reason for it was in fact a political one, because the EU had decided that the product threshold would be 0.9 and if you are going to produce say oil seed rape at 0.9% you have to have seed with a considerably lower level than that to allow for the fact that contamination will occur during the growing of the crop to allow for pollen coming in and seed contamination and so on. So there was a group of us who got together in Brussels and pondered over this, and we came to the conclusion, that, in order to allow enough margin for the farmer to achieve the threshold of 0.9 we would have to set the seed threshold at about 0.3 for oil seed rape, so that allowed him effectively about 0.6 to play around with in growing his crop and that's how we achieved the threshold.

Very unscientific I know but that's basically how we did it, because we were basically worked into a corner. The EU said that 'politically we will set a level at 0.9 and therefore we want scientific advice on how you can achieve that and what is required for seed.'

John Tanner, Department for International Development:

It's a question for Dr. Sweet. I am intrigued that these threshold figures you talk about seem to be arbitrary, I think that's the word, I don't know if you actually used that word but they are arbitrary. You suggest also that they may be used as non-tariff barriers to trade. Do you want to make any further comment on that comment that you made?

Dr Jeremy Sweet:

Well, I would draw your attention to the fact that this is a scientific meeting and therefore I couldn't possibly comment on these things, except for saying that there was no scientific foundation or basis used for the setting of what was first of all 1% and now has changed to 0.9% threshold. I mean it's not based on food safety. And it's not based on any other standards or whatever they use in certified crop production. It is based on political and sociological grounds.

3.

GM canola spread by wild animals
Germinable GM seeds survive in faeces

A new paper (5) has confirmed what has long been suspected -- that GM canola seed can be spread across a farming landscape by grazing wild animals such as fallow deer. The researchers (1) found that fallow deer fed on a varied diet of natural weeds and herbs, GM maize and GM canola could spread germinable GM canola seed through their faeces. It is already known that such seeds can be spread through transport on coats and hooves. Gene flow from GM canola (Brassica napus) to native relatives, such as Brassica rapa and Raphanus raphanistrum could then occur.

Although the authors argue that the transported GM canola seeds would have no enhanced fitness by comparison with wild relatives (Steward et al. 2002), they conclude that uncontrolled dispersal of GM traits is more likely with GM canola than with GM maize; and they say that this fact should be "further taken into account when liberating GM plants with a small seedling size like rape."

Quote:

Our investigations on the subject of endozoochory of germinable maize seeds and rapeseed by fallow deer revealed that excreted rapeseed were able to germinate, while no intact maize seeds were detectable in faeces and rectum content. In this context, Heinken et al. (2001, 2005; Heinken and Raudnitschka 2002) reported that fallow deer transport various diasporas (seeds and fruits) in the coats and hooves (epizoochory). In fallow deer faeces, 42 vascular plant species, among them economically valuable plants, were found (Heinken et al. 2005). Despite finding no intact maize seeds in this study with fallow deer, it cannot be excluded that intact maize grains or rather intact plant material might be detected in other deer species such as red deer or moose as the efficacy of the mastication process might be influenced by other factors such as body size, developmental stage (juvenile vs adult), illness (e.g. diarrhea) or distinct species characteristics. Rapeseed is known to retain its germination capacity up to 5 years, sometimes even longer. Its germination capacity will be maintained, and development of a plant could be possible if seeds were placed in favorable environmental conditions (Pekrun et al. 1998).

4.

Uncontrollable GM canola contamination in Japan

Extracts from recent reports (6):

GM canola pollution is much more widespread than expected.

According to this year's findings, GM canola found near to an oil extraction factory in Chiba prefecture was tolerant to both Roundup and Basta. As there is no GM canola variety currently available which has transgenes for both types of herbicide tolerance, this GM canola must have been crossed at a seed or cultivation stage, or possibly at the spot where it was spilled.

Another finding, according to surveys conducted by a team lead by Professor Masaharu Kawata (Yokkaichi University) in Mie prefecture between 2005 and 2007, is that GM canola is becoming perennial. It is not common for canola to be biennial due to the cold Canadian winters, but in the warmer winters in Japan, canola can survive for several years and became like a bushy tree, and pollen from GM canola then continues to spread year after year. Thus, the environmental impact caused by spilled GM canola seeds is potentially very serious in Japan.

According to Professor Kawata, "There are leaf mustard and conventional rapeseed growing around the spilled GM canola plants, so it is only a matter of time before they are crossed and contaminated by GMOs. Also, some other cruciferous vegetables like Japanese radish and Chinese cabbage are in danger of GM contamination."

Keisuke Amagasa of NO! GMO Campaign notes that, "Japan does not produce any GM crops. However, because Japan imports GM canola from Canada, GM contamination has already occurred and it is spreading to a much greater degree than one could imagine. If GM crops are cultivated, then this kind of pollution will spread even more. Judging by the ominous precedent of Canada, once GM crops are cultivated, segregation between GM and non-GM will become almost impossible, and keeping pure non-GM varieties away from GM contamination will be very hard. The clear conclusion from the findings is that cultivating or importing GM crops, leads to GM pollution and once this pollution begins, it can cause irreversible damage."

Notes:

(1) GM canola gets the go-ahead in NSW and Victoria
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/GM-canola-gets-goahead-in-NSW-and-Vic/
2007/11/27/1196036858648.html

see also http://www.bfa.com.au/_files/VIC%20BFA%20Submission%20-%20A%20Review%20of%20
the%20Evidence%20August%202007.pdf

(2) Jeremy Sweet is now Vice Chair EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Member_WG/gmo_cv2006_sweet,0.pdf

He lists his experience in risk assessment and scientific research as follows:

ï Research on monitoring, gene flow and environmental impact for UK Government

ï Co-ordinator EC SIGMEA Project studying impacts of GM crops and coexistence.

ï Chairman, Steering Committee of the European Science Foundation project on Assessing the Environmental Impact of GM Crops (AIGM)

ï Member BBSRC Steering Committee on Gene Flow in GMOs programme.

ï Member Prime Minister's Strategy Unit on Costs and benefits of GMOs.

ï Co-existence: Participant in COEXTRA, EC/IPTS study and EC Round Table.

(3) Sweet's full statement is on pages 16-26 at
http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/meetings/pdf/170303-transcript.pdf

(4) http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/meetings/pdf/170303-transcript.pdf

(5) Reference:

P. Guertler, B. Lutz, R. Kuehn, H. H. D. Meyer, R. Einspanier, B. Killermann and C. Albrecht, 2007, "Fate of recombinant DNA and Cry1Ab protein after ingestion and dispersal of genetically modified maize in comparison to rapeseed by fallow deer ( Dama dama )", European Journal of Wildlife Research Received: 8 February 2007 / Revised: 11 April 2007 / Accepted: 11 April 2007 http://www.springerlink.com/content/g8463t7n5424x888/

(6) Spilled GM canola keeps on contaminating http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8179

Spilled GM Canola Growing in Japan - Citizens' Survey Results 2007. By Keisuke Amagasa, NO! GMO Campaign, Posted August 6, 2007

Australia: Lifting GM bans may trigger legal landslide

Australian Associated Press, November 28 2007. By Melissa Jenkins.

THE lifting of bans on genetically modified (GM) canola in NSW and Victoria will trigger a landslide of lawsuits from producers, Australia's largest organic farming body said today.

The warning follows concerns from the nation's largest publicly-listed food company that the axing of the bans will damage Australian exports to Europe.

The NSW and Victorian governments this week ended bans on GM canola crops, which are resistant to the widely used pesticide glyphosate.

Up until now, Queensland has been the only state in Australia where farmers were allowed to grow GM canola.

Scientists and farmers' groups applauded the move from the southern states, arguing GM canola was more environmentally sustainable, drought-resistant and better yielding than regular crops.

The Australian Greens and organic farming groups have slammed the decision, arguing canola is such a small grain, contamination via the wind, farming equipment and insects is inevitable.

Food manufacturer Goodman Fielder, which owns brands such as Meadow Lea, White Wings and Pampas, lobbied against lifting the bans.

Biological Farmers of Australia is the largest organic farming group in the nation and represents farmers, retailers, wholesalers and exporters.

Its subsidiaries oversee the certification of about 70 per cent of Australia's organic products.

Spokesman Scott Kinnear said he had no doubt there would be a string of law suits from non-GM and organic farmers next year, following contamination of their produce.

"It is one of the most promiscuous crops out there in terms of pollen flows,'' he told AAP.

"It is inevitable that there is going to be contamination.

"It will lead to litigation - there is no doubt at all in my mind.''

Contamination will occur not just between GM canola to regular canola but from GM canola to other types of grains, Mr Kinnear said.

Mr Kinnear warned unlabelled GM canola oil would flood the market.

He said governments had ignored the health risks linked to GM foods, which contain ingredients that can turn genes on and off.

A study in Russia where rats were fed GM soy found the animals had a high infant mortality rate, and their offspring were sterile and much smaller than the non-GM soy control group, Mr Kinnear said.

"It is really alarming that these sorts of adverse reactions have been found but not been followed up,'' he said.

"There is the potential there for really serious things to go wrong.

"Why would you want to take that risk with your family and your kids?''

Greens GM spokeswoman Rachel Siewert said it was not possible to segregate GM and traditional crops and non-GM farmers would unfairly be cut out of the European and Japanese markets.

"They have taken choice away because now non-GM farmers will be shut out of markets because if markets truly don't want GM material, they just won't be buying from Victoria and NSW because of the risk of contamination,'' she told AAP.

Goodman Fielder wrote to state premiers and ministers for agriculture.

"Goodman Fielder is of the view that, in a world of ever-increasing globalisation, Australia's current status as a GM-free crop producer gives the country an essential international competitive advantage that it would be counter-productive to place in jeopardy,'' chief executive Peter Margin wrote.

"It is our view that the alleged economic advantages of growing genetically modified crops will be more than negated by our weakened market positioning and inevitable lower financial returns.

"In this context it should be emphasised that European markets continue to be reliant on non-genetically modified crops and that these markets would be expected to be closed to Australian grain should our current non-GM status change.''

Australia: Farmers threaten legal action over GM crops decision [shortened]

ABC, The World Today, 28 November 2007. Reporter: Tanya Nolan.

TANYA NOLAN: Scott Kinnear is the spokesman for Biological Farmers of Australia, the largest organic farming organisation in the country representing not only growers, but suppliers and exporters. It also covers the licensing of around 70 per cent of all organic products.

And he says organic farmers are reserving the right to take legal action should any of their products be contaminated with GM canola.

SCOTT KINNEAR: Canola is the most promiscuous grain that they could have chosen if they wanted to choose something that doesn't pollinate, then it wouldn't have been an issue. Pineapples for example is a good example of something that doesn't pollinate, it comes from cuttings.

But canola is the worst of the worst and, you know, it's the Trojan horse of GM to get it in there and there's this perception that once we get canola in there, everything else will flow, and that's a real concern.

TANYA NOLAN: Biological Farmers of Australia says that the millions of dollars offered to farmers by GM crops would not compare with the losses potentially faced by Australia's organic food industry, should it be contaminated by GM products.

Scott Kinnear says his organisation doesn't agree that organic and GM farming can co-exist, but has some minimum standards if it does go ahead on a commercial level.

SCOTT KINNEAR: If they insist on growing it, then we would like to see a similar system come in to what's been imposed in Europe, which is strict liability on the GM farmers, and also the GM farmers have to contribute to a fund which provides for all of the testing requirements, looking for evidence of contamination.

TANYA NOLAN: The Australian Grain Harvesters Association is also aware of the risks of liability. It's been demanding its 500-odd members be protected from any potential legal action if there is any cross contamination, something treasurer, Rod Gribble, says has been ignored by every government except in Western Australia

ROD GRIBBLE: As in the T and C, the terms and conditions of the Technology Users Agreement, which the biotech companies will request the growers to sign, all responsibility is handed onto the grower, and all the liability, and so that's what we'll be doing as well.

TANYA NOLAN: But Simon Ramsay from the Victorian Farmers Federation says it's something farmers have been copping for years, and the risks of GM cropping are no greater

SIMON RAMSAY: Just because they ð a GM plant, if you like, is grown on a particular property, does it pose a greater risk to a next-door property? I don't see why. There is common law in place to deal with issues of economic loss.

TANYA NOLAN: Farmers appear to be ambivalent about their GM future. Rural newspaper The Land conducted a survey in October of more than 700 farmers and more than 50 per cent said they did not want to see GM crops grown in Australia.

And there is a chance, however small, that the commercial planting of GM canola, will not go ahead. The minister responsible has the right to veto any application if the risks are deemed too high. But the New South Wales Primary Industries Minister Ian Macfarlane is convinced all the right protections are in place.

IAN MACFARLANE: If the protocol is not up to scratch, I certainly would veto it, but I believe that it is possible to segregate and to have its own chain.

ELEANOR HALL: That's the New South Wales Primary Industries Minister Ian Macfarlane, speaking to Tanya Nolan.

Full story: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s2103515.htm

Australia: Premier comes a cropper with GM claim

Australian Associated Press, November 28 2007. By Catherine Best.

VICTORIAN Premier John Brumby has blown a hole in his argument for consumer choice over genetically modified (GM) foods, admitting the public won't always know the origins of what they are eating.

Mr Brumby today said the overnment's decision to allow GM canola crops had nothing to do with federal food labelling standards because there was already a proliferation of imported GM foods in the state.

He went on to say that eating GM foods was a matter of consumer choice but in the same breath acknowledged not all GM products would be labelled.

Opponents hit out at the Pemier's "misinformed" remarks, saying no GM foods were labelled in Australia and consumers would be unwittingly exposed.

The debate rages after the Victorian Gvernment yesterday announced it would lift a ban on GM canola crops on February 29.

"Our decision yesterday really doesn't have anything to do with food labelling or food standards since large amounts of (GM) food are already imported to our state," Mr Brumby said.

"Where there are low levels these things are not declared. Where there are significant levels they are declared and I think that's a good thing because it's about giving consumers choice so they can choose organic, they can choose GM-free or they can choose other food products which may have low levels of GM food in them."

Mr Brumby said 92 per cent of the world's soy products were genetically modified.

Vegetable oil and cotton seed were also GM staples, he said, declaring: "The reality is that many of the foods around the world that we consume in our daily lives have elements of GM in them".

Mr Brumby said Food Standards Australia had strict protocols to regulate the labelling of GM foods.

But Gene Ethics spokesman Bob Phelps said that was "absolutely untrue".

Of the 32 GM products approved for sale in Australia only soy containing oleic acid had to be labelled and there was none on the Australian market.

Mr Phelps said the only known GM product in the home-grown food chain was cotton seed oil, used in fast frying.

The extent of other, imported, GM foods was unknown.

"Nothing is labelled so we can't tell," Mr Phelps said Gene Ethics is pushing for all foods produced using gene manipulation to be labelled.

"To put this stuff out there while keeping people in the dark is just unfair ... they're taking every shoppers' choice away by not labelling and they're also, of course, taking away the majority of the food industry that doesn't want it either," Mr Phelps said.

Australia: Angry activists protest decisions to end GM bans

Food Week, 28 November 2007

Widespread outcry continued across the nation today after Victoria and New South Wales yesterday announced they were lifting bans on growing genetically modified (GM) canola.

As Greenpeace activists picketed the NSW Parliament, the Network of Concerned Farmers warned that the introduction of GM crops would cause a loss to canola farmers of more than $143 million a year. They also said non-GM farmers would suffer an unjust burden of at least $65 million a year for contamination testing.

The NCF called on the new Federal Minister for Agriculture and all State politicians to intervene immediately to prevent any decision to lift State moratoria

"If introduced, Australia will be the first country to introduce large scale commercial release of a patented GM food crop without subsidising farmers to compensate for higher costs and associated market loss." said NCF spokesperson, Julie Newman.

Greenpeace said recent polls show that only 27.6% of Australian farmers want to grow GE grain crops and the majority of Australian consumers don't want to eat them. More than 250 Australian companies have recently spoken out against GE crops including Coles and Australia's biggest lamb exporter, Tatiara Meats.

Organic food growers are also angry. "The announcement by Victorian and NSW governments is a major affront to the organic food industry, and in turn consumers in Australia," said Scott Kinnear, BFA GMO spokesperson.

He said it would be necessary to conduct expensive tests to find if non-GM crops had been contaminated by tainted pollen.

Australia: GE, Rocks protesters converge on Parliament

ABC News, 28 November 2007 [shortened]

There have been duelling protests outside New South Wales Parliament in Sydney, with Greenpeace activists competing for space with angry stall-holders from The Rocks.

Dressed in white contamination suits, the Greenpeace activists have marched to highlight what they say are the hazards of lifting bans on genetically-engineered (GE) food crops.

The NSW and Victorians governments yesterday became the first in Australia to end the moritaria on GM canola crops, saying the move would put farmers on a level playing field with overseas competitors.

But campaigner Louise Sales says the legislation, introduced into the Upper House today, is ill-judged.

"There's been no long-term human health studies to show whether eating GE food is safe," she said.

"Those studies that have been done have given ample cause for concern."

Full text: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/28/2103625.htm

Australia: GM crops: Organic farmers to 'lose their choice'

North Queensland Register, 28 November 2007

The announcement on Tuesday by Victorian and NSW governments that they will allow the planting of genetically modified (GM) food crops next year has been blasted by the organic food industry.

"It's a major affront to the organic food industry, and, in turn, to consumers in Australia," says Biological Farmers of Australia (BFA) GM spokesperson, Scott Kinnear.

"The planting of GM herbicide tolerant canola will make it impossible to know whether organic or non-GM farmers are at risk, where GE canola has been planted and its pollen remains floating in the environment.

"Unless farmers undertake expensive tests, they will not know if they have been contaminated.

"Organic and non-GM food processors will be burdened with additional requirements for tests of grains and oils to manage and eliminate contamination risk.

"In addition, costly supply chain segregation such as containerisation will need to be considered by grain farmers and food processors.

"Other potential costs may include expensive food recalls where contamination has occurred.

"The support for GM canola flies in the face of significant evidence of costs to the economy, health and environment presented to the panels in both Victoria and NSW.

"The BFA put in a submission to both governments outlining substantial issues in all three areas and it is of significant concern that our submission appears to have been completely overlooked.

"The organic food industry is the global good news food story that is growing by 15-20pc per year. "Governments would reap benefits for the environment and public health by supporting more organic food production rather than GM foods."

SOURCE: Breaking national grains news, with full report in the November 29 issues of Rural Press weekly rural newspapers.

Australia: Western Australia and Tasmania urge States to maintain GM moratoria

Media-Newswire.com, 28 November 2007.

Western Australian Agriculture and Food Minister Kim Chance and Tasmania Primary Industries and Water Minister David Llewellyn have jointly called on Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia to maintain their moratorium on the commercial production of Genetically Modified ( GM ) crops.

The Ministers urged the governments of these States to respect the wishes of Australian consumers, food manufacturers and farmers for the moratoria to be maintained.

"If Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia lift their GM moratoria, it will increase the risks to WA and Tasmania's GM-free agriculture and threaten Australia's overseas markets," Mr Chance said.

"Opening up other parts of Australia to GM crops could lead to large-scale contamination, subsequent risks to market access and price premiums currently enjoyed by Australian canola farmers, while imposing higher costs on them for product segregation."

Mr Llewellyn said that the likelihood of contamination of non-GM canola crops throughout Australia would undoubtedly be increased by any decision to lift the moratorium.

"In 2004, GM canola managed to contaminate crops in all canola growing States of Australia, despite the fact that each State had a moratorium in place," he said.

The Ministers said the safest and most secure future for Australia's farmers and consumers was in the production and consumption of GM-free foods and not in pursuing GM food crops that had been rejected by consumers because of health concerns.

Mr Chance said Australian farmers currently produced food of the highest quality and safety for both local consumption and export to a range of overseas markets.

"We are heavily reliant on our export markets and lifting the GM moratorium could jeopardise this trade relationship," he said.

Mr Llewellyn said it could damage Australia's international reputation as a source of reliable, safe and GM-free food.

"Clearly Australian consumers are concerned about the food they eat, and value Australia's "clean and green, GM-freeÇ status," he said.

In Tasmania, there is currently a Joint Select Committee reviewing its GMO moratorium, which is due to end in mid-2008.

Mr Llewellyn indicated that it was very untimely for New South Wales and Victoria to lift their bans following Federal Labor's win in the election, as this was an area of national policy that needed to be reviewed for the Australian brand and market advantage internationally.

"Unless consumers tell us otherwise, WA will not be changing its policy on GM food," Mr Chance said.

"The moratorium supports Australia's 'clean and green' status and is also reflective of overwhelming public opinion in WA and consumer sentiment around the world."

Media contacts:

Minister Chance's office: 9213 6700
Minister Llewellyn's office: 03 6233 2451

Australia: Eating GM foods is a health risk
The Premier's decision to allow genetically modified crops is also bad for the economy.

The Age, November 28 2007. Jeffrey Smith.

JOHN Brumby's announcement to allow genetically modified (GM) foods to grow in Victoria threatens more than just the income of Australia's farmers and food companies. There is irrefutable evidence that GM foods are unsafe to eat.

Working with more than 30 scientists worldwide, I documented 65 health risks of GM foods. There are thousands of toxic or allergic-type reactions in humans, thousands of sick, sterile and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in laboratory animals.

Government safety assessments, including those of Food Standards Australia New Zealand, do not identify many of the dangers, and a careful analysis reveals that industry's superficial studies submitted to FSANZ are designed to avoid finding them. The process of inserting a foreign gene into a plant cell and cloning that cell into a genetically engineered crop produces hundreds of thousands of mutations throughout the DNA. Natural plant genes may be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds can change their function. This massive collateral damage is why GM soy has less protein, an unexpected new allergen, and up to seven times higher levels of a known soy allergen. It also may explain why British soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% soon after GM soy was introduced.

But there is another possible cause. Genes inserted into GM soy produce a protein with allergenic properties. Moreover, the only human feeding study ever conducted on GM foods found that those genes had transferred into the DNA of our gut bacteria and remained functional. This means that long after we stop eating a GM food, its potentially dangerous protein may be produced continuously inside our intestines.

GM corn and cotton have genes inserted that produce a pesticide called Bt. If the gene transferred from corn snacks, for example, it could turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories. Farmers on three continents link Bt corn varieties with sterility in pigs and cows, or deaths among cows, horses, water buffaloes and chickens. Hundreds of farm workers who pick Bt cotton get allergic reactions.

When sheep grazed on the cotton plants after harvest, one out of four died within a week - about 10,000 sheep died last year. Lab animals fed GM crops had altered sperm cells and embryos, a five-fold increase in infant mortality, smaller brains, and a host of other disturbing problems.

Documents made public by a lawsuit revealed that scientists at the US Food and Drug Administration warned that gene-spliced foods might lead to allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems.

Although they urged superiors to demand long-term studies, official FDA policy claims they never heard such concerns and that no safety tests are required. The person in charge of that FDA policy was the former attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto - and later the company's vice-president.

In the US, the White House had instructed the FDA to promote GM crops, hoping it would increase US exports. They were wrong. When 25% of US corn farmers planted GM varieties, corn sales to the EU dropped by 99.4%. All corn farmers suffered as prices fell by 13 to 20%. Soy and canola markets also closed, and the US now spends an additional $3 to $5 billion per year in subsidising the GM crops no one wants. The US Department of Agriculture admits that GM crops do not increase farmer profit and can actually hurt incomes; they do not increase yield and often produce less.

Canadian canola yields were down 7.5% and profits plummeted as exports were diverted from the premium-paying EU market to the low-priced Chinese. What was bad for Canada was good for Australia, as Australia captured non-GM markets and soon enjoyed a $63 price advantage.

Food marketers in North America deeply resent GM crops, which don't offer a single consumer benefit. In fact 29% of Americans are strongly opposed to GM foods and believe they are unsafe. A growing number of doctors are prescribing a non-GM diet. Next year, the US natural food industry will remove all remaining GM ingredients and non-GM shopping guides will appear in stores nationwide.

Consumer buying pressure will likely force the entire food chain in North America to swear off GM within the next two years. Such a tipping point was achieved in Europe in April 1999, when virtually all major manufacturers vowed to go non-GM in a single week.

So with all this evidence, why is Australia turning a blind eye to the dangers of genetically engineered foods?

Australia should be sitting down and taking notice of the response to GM foods throughout the world.

With GM markets closing, the negative impact of GM in North America, and the overwhelming evidence of harm from GM food, it is certainly not the time to let the state ban expire.

With the state ban lifting in Victoria and now NSW, before we know it there won't be any food on our tables that is not genetically engineered.

Jeffrey Smith, the author of Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception, is executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology in Iowa, USA.

Australia: Furore as ban on crops lifted

The Age, November 28 2007. By David Rood.

A decision to allow genetically modified canola to be grown in Victoria has inflamed dissent in the Brumby Government and sparked warnings that non-GM farms could be contaminated.

Anti-GM activists have also lashed the decision, saying consumers face a growing array of food made from GM material - without always knowing when they are buying it.

But the move was welcomed by rural interests as sensible, and backed by scientists who say the risks of adverse consequences are minimal.

Farmers in Victoria and NSW will be free to plant genetically modified canola from early next year after both states yesterday announced the lifting of bans on the controversial crops - despite appeals not to do so from Western Australia and Tasmania.

The Brumby Government accepted a recommendation from a scientific panel headed by Victoria's chief scientist, Sir Gustav Nossal.

Announcing the decision, Premier John Brumby said it would boost the economy and help the environment.

Cabinet approved the lifting of the ban on Monday, despite stinging criticism of the Premier from some of his own MPs.

Copies of Sir Gustav's review were released by the Premier only after it was announced that the ban would be removed.

Labor MP Tammy Lobato said she was disappointed that MPs had been left out of the process. She said an independent panel should have investigated the issues and its report released for public discussion.

Another MP, who declined to be named, said Mr Brumby was "treating caucus like idiots".

But another MP came to Mr Brumby's defence, saying he had been open on the issue and given all sides a good hearing.

The Age revealed on Saturday that Mr Brumby faced a revolt over the issue, with one MP branding him arrogant and criticising his "crash-through" style. "He just won't listen," the MP told The Age. "He's good at numbers but he can't read people."

Five Labor MPs wrote to Sir Gustav's panel expressing fears about GM crops and calling for the moratorium to be kept.

Yesterday Mr Brumby was unapologetic, saying it was the "nature of politics" that people with strong views would be critical of views they didn't like.

"I have listened to the views of caucus and in my own heart I have done everything right in terms of listening," he said.

Mr Brumby said removing the ban would deliver greater choice to farmers and consumers and generate $115 million in economic activity in Victoria over eight years.

He said GM canola would also benefit the environment by requiring less pesticide on crops, and argued that GM technology could bring other benefits such as salt-resistant and drought-resistant grains and allergy-resistant grass.

Sir Gustav said he was confident that industry could keep GM products segregated from the farm gate to the supermarket. Keeping the moratorium, on the other hand, would have had a negative impact on scientific research and development.

He said he was "sure as I can be of any other thing that the health and environment aspects of GM canola have been thoroughly examined". But he conceded that in some people's eyes, there would be damage to Victoria's clean, green image.

Bob Phelps of Gene Ethics said there was no labelling of GM canola foods so the food on shelves would leave shoppers without a choice.

Canola products, such as margarine and oil, are heavily refined and are therefore not covered by labelling requirements on GM products.

The organic food sector criticised the Government for not introducing buffer zones around GM crops.

The Victorian Farmers Federation, backing the decision, said farmers had to compete against 10 million farmers in 22 countries using GM products. "It is unfair to the Australian farmer not to have the choice to use that technology," the federation's Simon Ramsay said.

The Nationals said the decision was a victory for common sense. "GM crops will require less pest and weed control, use less water and potentially reclaim salt-affected land," leader Peter Ryan said.

But Greens upper house MP Greg Barber said GM canola could contaminate nearby crops and genetic traits, such as herbicide resistance, could cross into weed species.

27 November 2007

USA: Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary working for Monsanto
The Pennsylvania Government Thinks You Are Too Dumb to Make Your Own Shopping Choices

New York Times November 11, 2007

As of January 1, 2008, Pennsylvania will ban all labels on milk and dairy products that indicated they come from cows that haven't been treated with artificial bovine growth hormone, also know as rBGH or rBST. State officials say that such labels are "confusing".

Farmers use artificial bovine growth hormone to increase milk production. The U.S. government has long maintained that it is safe, but it is illegal in many other countries. Many American consumers dislike the idea of milk that comes from cows that are treated with artificial hormones, and many national grocery store chains have begun offering rBGH-free options, or stopped selling milk from rBGH-treated cows entirely.

In reaction, Monsanto, which manufactures rBGH, has spent more than a decade trying to persuade federal and state authorities to ban non-rBGH labels, and they have now managed to convince Dennis Wolff, Pennsylvania's agriculture secretary to play it their way.

Wolff argues that "hormone free" labels are misleading, as cows produce hormones naturally. But even labels that are more carefully worded, such as "contains no artificial hormones" will be banned in Pennsylvania because Mr. Wolff says that there is no scientific test which can verify such a claim.

The ban will also extend to phrases such as "pesticide free" and "antibiotic free." Wolff says such labels are confusing for consumers because they suggest milk without those labels is unsafe.

Mr. Wolff said his office had received many calls from confused consumers. However, his office could not provide a single survey showing that consumers were confused, or the name of even one consumer who had complained.

USA: Round 2 for Biotech Beets

New York Times, November 27, 2007. By Andrew Pollack.

Each growing season, like many other sugar beet farmers bedeviled by weeds, Robert Green repeatedly and painstakingly applies herbicides in a process he compares to treating cancer with chemotherapy.

"You give small doses of products that might harm the crop, but it harms the weeds a little more," said Mr. Green, who plants about 900 acres in beets in St. Thomas, N.D.

But next spring, for the first time, Mr. Green intends to plant beets genetically engineered to withstand Monsanto's powerful Roundup herbicide. The Roundup will destroy the weeds but leave his crop unscathed, potentially saving him thousands of dollars in tractor fuel and labor.

For Mr. Green and many other beet farmers, it is technology too long delayed. And the engineered beets could pave the way for the eventual planting of other biotech crops like wheat, rice and potatoes, which were also stalled on the launching pad.

Seven years ago, beet breeders were on the verge of introducing Roundup-resistant seeds. But they had to pull back after sugar-using food companies like Hershey and Mars, fearing consumer resistance, balked at the idea of biotech beets. Now, though, sensing that those concerns have subsided, many processors have cleared their growers to plant the Roundup-resistant beets next spring.

It would be the first new type of genetically engineered food crop widely grown since the 1990s, when biotech soybeans, corn and a few other crops entered the market.

"Basically, we have not run into resistance," said David Berg, president of American Crystal Sugar, the nation's largest sugar beet processor.

"We really think that consumer attitudes have come to accept food from biotechnology."

A Kellogg spokeswoman, Kris Charles, said her company "would not have any issues" buying such sugar for products sold in the United States, where she said "most consumers are not concerned about biotech."

If some other big food companies are now open to genetically modified sugar, though, they are not talking about it. Both Hershey and Mars declined to comment. "There's just nothing we have to say on the topic," a Mars spokeswoman said.

Many sugar refiners and seed developers also refused to comment, hewing to an industrywide plan to coordinate the introduction of the genetically engineered beets and carefully control what is said about them.

When it comes to genetically modified crops, there is a reason to keep one's corporate head low - to avoid protests. Some opponents of biotechnology are only now getting wind that the sugar beets have been resurrected.

"When I first saw this I said, 'No, it can't be,'" said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association. "I thought we had already dealt with this."

His organization issued a call to arms and thousands of identical e-mail messages were sent to Mr. Berg at American Crystal Sugar warning that "profit margins of your company and its supporting farmers" would be hurt by consumer resistance.

Mr. Berg said he received 681 messages in a 24-hour period before having the e-mail blocked. He said he still believed that most consumers would accept biotech crops. Mr. Cummins, however, said he would next try to persuade consumers to pressure food companies to boycott the sugar. "I don't think companies like Hershey are going to want any more hassles than they already have," he said, referring to recent earnings pressure and management turmoil at the chocolate company.

About 10,000 American farmers grow sugar beets on about 1.3 million acres, mainly in Northern states from Oregon to Michigan. That makes the beets a minor crop compared with corn, at about 90 million acres, and soybeans, at almost 70 million.

And yet beets account for about half the nation's sugar supply, with the rest coming from sugar cane. The sugar from beets and cane, generally considered interchangeable, is used in candies, cereals, cakes and numerous other products, although some food manufacturers have switched to high-fructose corn syrup, which is cheaper.

When genetically engineered versions of soybeans and corn - as well as cotton and canola - were introduced in the mid-1990s, farmers quickly adopted them. But opposition to genetically engineered crops then took hold, particularly in Europe. Food companies, fearing protests or loss of customers, pressured farmers not to grow the crops.

Sugar was not the only crop affected. Insect-resistant potatoes developed by Monsanto were withdrawn from the market in 2001 after fast-food companies resisted them. Monsanto gave up on developing Roundup-resistant wheat in 2004, in part because American wheat farmers feared losing exports. The rice industry, also heavily dependent on exports, has never grown herbicide-tolerant varieties.

Even if the situation has now changed for sugar, however, other crops might still meet resistance. For one thing, sugar is a refined product that contains no DNA or proteins, just the chemical sucrose. "While the sugar beet is genetically different, the sugar is the same," said Luther Markwart, executive vice president of the American Sugarbeet Growers Association and co-chairman of the Sugar Industry Biotech Council.

By contrast, the foreign DNA and proteins in genetically modified wheat, rice or potatoes can be eaten by consumers, which at least theoretically raises food safety questions.

Moreover, only about 3 percent of American sugar is exported, Mr. Markwart said, compared with about half of wheat and rice.

The sugar industry's organizational structure also helps. Virtually all sugar processors - the companies that buy the beets from farmers and then extract the sugar and sell it - are owned by the farmers themselves. That makes them more likely to accept the biotech crops than an independent processor might be.

Among farmers, demand for the Roundup Ready beets, as they are known, is expected to be strong. "The sugar beet growers are going to adopt this technology immediately," said Alan G. Dexter, the extension sugar beet specialist at North Dakota State University and the University of Minnesota. In a survey he conducted, 57 percent of beet growers cited weeds as their biggest problem, with diseases the distant runner-up at 16 percent.

The seeds will be most attractive to those with the biggest weed problems. With a technology fee of a little more than $100 per 100,000 seeds paid to Monsanto, the genetically engineered seeds will cost at least twice as much as conventional seeds. That translates to about $50 to $65 in extra seed costs per acre.

But Duane Grant, who grows about 5,000 acres of sugar beets in Rupert, Idaho, said the extra seed outlays would be offset by other savings. He said his annual herbicide costs would drop to $35 an acre, from $70, and he would no longer have to hire migrant workers to pull weeds by hand, at a cost of $35 to $150 an acre.

Mr. Grant, who was designated by the national beet growers' association as its spokesman on this issue, also said Roundup would have to be sprayed only two or three times during the spring-to-fall growing season, while the existing herbicides must be sprayed five times or more. The existing herbicides are decades old and some weeds have developed resistance to them, Mr. Grant said.

Some weed experts say there are also some weeds resistant to Roundup and its generic equivalent, glyphosate, as a consequence of the heavy use of the herbicide spurred by the proliferation of Roundup Ready crops. But such weeds are not found in beet fields, Mr. Grant said.

He said that with conventional beets, Roundup can be used only before the seedlings emerge from the ground, because after that the Roundup would kill them.

Bringing back the biotech beets took a long, coordinated effort involving Monsanto, seed companies, growers, processors and trade groups under the auspices of the Sugar Industry Biotech Council.

Rival seed companies all agreed to use seeds descended from a single genetic transformation done by Monsanto and KWS, a German seed company.

That meant the industry had to win federal approval only once. The new genetically engineered sugar beet was reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration in 2004 and approved for unrestricted growing by the Agriculture Department in early 2005.

And before planting the beets, farmers have waited for approvals in other important markets. Just last month Europe approved the beets for food and feed use, although not for planting.

Because such foods would have to be labeled in Europe as containing genetically engineered ingredients, some American food companies might use cane sugar, which is not genetically modified, for products they export to Europe. But in the United States, foods containing sugar made from biotech beets would not have to be labeled.

The sugar beet industry conducted field trials in Idaho last year and Michigan this year. Mr. Grant, who was part of the Idaho test, said the biotech seeds actually had slightly higher yields and sugar output than very similar conventional varieties.

Some environmentalists say the use of Roundup on sugar beets could contribute to the growing problem of Roundup-resistant weeds.

But the Agriculture Department said it expected little, if any, environmental effect from growing the beets.

One factor that could help keep the trait from spreading is that beets produce seeds only in their second year, after passing through a winter.

So beets grown in most parts of the country never produce seeds, because farmers harvest beets every fall and plant new seeds the next spring.

But in California, beets stay in the ground through the winter and there are weeds that can mate with sugar beets. So growers there may be more cautious about the Roundup revolution.

"We have to make sure we don't cause ourselves more problems than we're curing," said Ben Goodwin, executive manager of the California Beet Growers Association.

Australia: GM canola will cause economic loss to canola farmers of over $143 million

Network of Concerned Farmers, 27 November 2007

The Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF), an alliance of Australian farmers, have released a report today on the economic costs of genetically modified (GM) canola, revealing that the introduction of GM canola will cause a loss to Australian canola farmers of over $143 million a year with non-GM farmers carrying an unjust burden of over $65 million a year. NSW Minister for Agriculture announced the lift of the moratorium for GM canola in NSW before it has had official government approval. Premier Brumby of the Victorian Government announced his decision on lifting the GM moratorium at 2pm today. The NCF is calling on the new Federal Minister for Agriculture, and all State politicians to intervene immediately to prevent any decision to lift any State moratoria on GM food crops due to evidence of unreasonable costs on existing farmers.

NCF National Spokesperson Julie Newman said, "economic reports to date on GM crops have included benefits that are not relevent to farmers, excluded additional costs to farmers and ignored the reality that markets are rejecting GM crops. When these factors are integrated, there is a very different picture. The key problem is that non-GM farmers will be burdened with a heavy loss of over $65 million a year for the introduction of a crop we do not want and do not need. Furthermore, non-GM farmers will have little or no legal recourse against the GM industry for this economic loss caused."

The NCF report highlights that since GM adoption, Canada experienced an inability to segregate and suffered price penalties and market rejection associated with marketing as GM. Using similar assumptions both, Australian non-GM and GM canola farmers would conservatively face at least $81.9million less for their canola every year. If 20% of Australian farmers adopted GM canola, the additional costs for GM growers would total $10.83 million without including further additional costs such as volunteer control, resistance management compliance and crop management compliance. While Bayer Cropscience's own yield data shows similar yields to non-GM canola, Roundup Ready canola trials showed an average of 13% less yield than non-GM varieties and therefore, farmers would likely experience a shortfall of a further $50.2 million. A conservative estimate of losses amounts to $143million.

"We insist governments stand by their 2003 committment to ensure unreasonable costs are not imposed on existing producers," said Julie Newman. "Its not good enough for farmers to be told there is no risk when we are expected to pay if our concerns are proven right. There is clear evidence of the risk to non-GM farmers and we should not be expected to bear unjust costs."

"Non-GM farmers should not be forced to subsidise the GM industry," said Mrs Newman.

Mrs Newman, a past vice president of WAFarmers Federation Grains Council, claim farm organisations such as the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) are misrepresenting the majority of farmers with legitimate concerns. She finds it even more disturbing to find that VFF has indirect investments in GM canola via Graincorp and their Nufarm alliance.

If GM canola is introduced, non-GM farmers will be expected to carry the costs and liabilities in keeping GM canola from the non-GM supply. The recent Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) portrayed industry acceptance of coexistence plans but Mrs Newman claimed non-GM farmers were undemocratically represented by ex Monsanto manager Mr David Hudson and that the genuine concerns of non-GM farmers were ignored.

"There is no intention to provide workable coexistence plans and all farmers will be expected to market as GM, a product markets do not want." said Mrs Newman. "The aim of the industries with a vested interest, is to try to convince farmers that GM is in our interests when it is not, and to portray that "industry" has self regulated and agreed to unworkable coexistence plans when this is completely false," she added.

"If introduced, Australia will be the first country to introduce large scale commercial release of a patented GM food crop without subsidising farmers to compensate for higher costs and associated market loss." said Mrs Newman. "This is about industries making money from farmers, not for farmers."

Links to report: The Economics of Genetically Modified Canola

GM canola report - print version 85.9kb http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/documents/GM%20Canola%20report-small.txt

GM canola report - full version 2.39MB http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/documents/GM%20Canola%20report-full.pdf

Contact Julie Newman Phone 08 98711562 or 08 98711644 or 0427 711644

Australia: Health & safety before GM canola crop 'choice'

Victorian Local Governance Association, 27 Nov '07

You can download the letter to Agriculture Minister Joe Helper at: http://www.vlga.org.au/news/items/2007/11/183084-upload-00002.pdf

VLGA President Cr Beth Davidson has expressed disappointment at the Victorian State Government's decision not to renew a four-year moratorium on GM Canola crops.

"We question whether the economic benefit of just $115 million over several years is really worth the health and agricultural risks we believe have not been adequately dismissed," Cr Davidson said.

"The VLGA Board has passed a resolution stating its support for a precautionary approach to this issue. We opposed the moratorium being lifted because local communities across Victoria have told us they deserve certain scientific evidence that GM Canola crops are safe and can be contained.

"We've also called for more consultation with affected communities (especially rural and regional), community organisations, local governments, farmers, food processors and consumers.

"There is concern in the community that the membership of the Moratorium Review Panel was always going to support lifting the Moratorium as its membership lacked balance. The Panel contained GM foods advocates, biotechnology company directors, ex-members of the pro-GM Victorian Farmers Federation executive and a member of the Southern Panel of the Grains Research and Development Corporation which promotes acceptance of GM research, development and commercialisation.

"While we believe the decision of the State Government today is pre-emptive and based on inadequate consultation, we now call on them to at the very least create a 2 register of GM crop trials and commercial releases, to contain all the following information:

- all studies submitted by licence applicants;
- GM reference data;
- A valid GM detection test; and
- All health and environmental research data.

"The VLGA will now consider conducting more consultation with interested local governments as this has not been adequately undertaken by the process to date," Cr Davidson added.

UK: GM crops are not needed to beat climate and population challenges

Friends of the Earth, Press release, 27 November

GM crops are not needed to deal with growing populations and climate change, Friends of the Earth said today. The environmental campaign group was responding to comments by the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, who said today that he believes there is a moral case for the UK and the rest of Europe to grow GM crops. He told the BBC this morning that GM crops will be essential to deal with an ever-growing population and diminishing water supplies.

Friends of the Earth's GM campaigner, Clare Oxborrow said:

"Despite 30 years of research, over ten years of commercialisation, and massive financial support from the UK Government, GM crops have failed to deliver the sustainable solutions that are urgently needed. GM crops often need more pesticides, provide lower yields and cause widespread contamination. The main benefits they have brought are to the handful of multinational companies who have gained an increased control of the food system.

"The vast majority of GM crops are grown in monocultures and are used to feed animals, not people. Intensive meat and livestock farming is itself a significant contributor to climate change and biodiversity loss. We need to urgently tackle the environmental challenges we face. This requires an investment in worldwide sustainable farming methods which meet local environmental and social needs, a reduction in global meat and livestock production and a freeze on the rush to develop agrofuels."

An official review into last year's GM food scandal where unlicensed GM rice was illegally imported into the UK and sold to British consumers, is to be held by the Food Standards Agency on Thursday. Friends of the Earth campaigners will attend and are available for comment.

UK: King Exaggerates GM Progress

GM Freeze press release, 27 November 2007.

GM Freeze have accused Chief Scientist Professor David King of greatly exaggerating the progress made in developing new GM crops around the world and of ignoring the other ways to tackle global climate and poverty challenges.

Professor King, interviewed on the BBC's Today programme this morning (27 November), said that GM crops were needed to cope with a growing population and climate change. At the same time Professor King defended Europe's rigorous safety assessment for GM crops and foods.

King's views contrast markedly with those of Ossama El-Tayeb, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Industrial Biotechnology at Cairo University [1]:

"I wish to add that transgenicity for drought tolerance and other environmental stresses (or, for that matter, biological nitrogen fixation) are too complex to be attainable in the foreseeable future, taking into consideration our extremely limited knowledge of biological systems and how genetic/metabolic functions operate.

"Those who propagate the ideas that any biological function could be genetically manipulated are optimists who are probably victims of a consortium of arrogantÇ scientists and greedy business who have strong control on policy making and the media. Having said that, I feel we should not lose hope of reaching such noble goals and should continue to fund such research whose fruits may be reaped by a future generation. These goals have been used by the proponents of currently available genetically modified organisms (GMOs) under the control of big business, who propose that GM crops will alleviate poverty soon while in fact currently available ones mostly contribute negatively to poverty alleviation and food security and positively to the stock market.

"The holders of intellectual property rights for present day GM crops keep teasing us about the potential of GMOs resistant to abiotic stresses and the like while doing nothing about developing such crops for this generation. These are simply not easily exploitable in a business market and are accordingly not on their agenda. Basic research in this area is being funded almost exclusively by public funds."

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

"Listening to David King you would think that there is a GM magic wand that will enable farmers to overcome all challenges facing them - drought, pests, poor soil. He is guilty of exaggerating the progress that has been made in developing GM crops for extreme conditions. GM drought resistant crops have been talked about for well over a decade and are still not close to being available to poor farmers, who rarely get asked what they think or want from plant breeding or agricultural development. Professor King studiously avoided the socio-economic and political blockages to progress. We wish Professor King well in his retirement. We hope his successor will take exaggerated claims about GM crops with a large pinch of salt and that the UK research is directed to the right solutions that the people in the Global South actually want."

Contact

Pete Riley + 44 (0)7903 341065
Eve Mitchell + 44 (2)07 837 0642 / 07962 437 128

Notes

1. http://www.fao.org/biotech/logs/C14/280307.htm

UK: Chief scientist says atomic power and GM crops are the future

The Times, November 27 2007. By Mark Henderson, Science Editor.

Gordon Brown should approve a new generation of nuclear power stations immediately and give active government backing to genetically modified crops, the departing chief scientist will say today.

Professor Sir David King, who steps down as the Government's chief scientific adviser next month, will use his valedictory speech to urge the Prime Minister to support both controversial technologies. A day after Mr Brown told business leaders that nuclear power has a role to play in Britain's energy future, Sir David will say that the time is already right to give the go-ahead to new atomic plants.

He will infuriate green activists further, many of whom oppose nuclear power, by suggesting that ministers should abandon their official neutrality on agricultural biotechnology and campaign actively for the development of GM crops.

He believes that nuclear power is essential if Britain is to make significant cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.

"Alternative technologies and energy-efficiency gains will certainly help the UK to achieve our target of reducing emissions by 60 per cent by 2050," he will tell the Foundation for Science and Technology. "But we will also need to look at other low-emission ways of making energy. It is now the time to give the green light to nuclear energy. While I have high hopes for new zero-emissions technologies in the future, efficient nuclear-fission power stations are already available. I am also hopeful that fusion power stations, without the problems of nuclear-waste disposal, will emerge over the coming three or four decades."

The chief scientist, who was appointed by Tony Blair in 2000, says that GM crops should play an important part in Britain's agricultural future, despite public misgivings about their likely environmental effects.

Sir David has long been known to support GM crops and nuclear power, but this will be the first time that he has asked ministers to take explicit action on these issues. His successor is Professor John Beddington, a population biologist from Imperial College, London.

USA: Scotts to pay $500,000 fine over biotech bentgrass

REUTERS, Nov 27 2007. By Christopher Doering.

WASHINGTON, Nov 26 (Reuters) - The Scotts Co. will pay a $500,000 fine over allegations that it failed to comply with U.S. rules for field-testing a genetically engineered variety of grass used on lawns, athletic fields and golf courses, the U.S. Agriculture Department said on Monday.

The settlement involves field tests in Oregon and 20 other states of creeping bentgrass modified to resist weed killers such as Monsanto's Roundup. A golf course, for example, could be sprayed, killing weeds without hurting the grass.

The civil penalty is the largest allowed by the Plant Protection Act of 2000, according to the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

An APHIS spokeswoman said the allegations included failure by Scotts to follow proper equipment-cleaning procedures and to have all required buffer zones around the genetically engineered crop to prevent mixing with traditional crops.

She said the company has implemented measures to comply with performance standards and permit conditions related to these allegations.

A spokesman for Scotts did not return calls seeking comment.

"USDA takes compliance with its biotechnology regulations very seriously," said Bruce Knight, under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs. "Compliance is, and will always be, our highest priority and we will continue our rigorous oversight of regulated genetically engineered plants."

In addition, APHIS alleged Scotts failed to prevent bentgrass or its offspring from persisting in the environment following a field trial in Oregon in 2003.

The government instructed Scotts in 2004 to locate and remove any accidentally released bentgrass to address past allegations that the company failed to notify APHIS of the problem. Since then, there have been more findings of the genetically engineered crop in the environment.

As part of the agreement, Scotts will conduct three public workshops for other potential developers of genetically engineered plants and other interested parties within one year that focus on the best ways to grow biotech crops and how to quickly resolve biotechnology compliance incidents.

A U.S. district judge ruled in February the Agriculture Department must conduct a more thorough review of applications for field trials of genetically engineered crops to determine if they pose a threat to the environment.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy said APHIS failed to adequately consider whether field tests for genetically engineered bentgrass from Scotts could harm the environment.

The lawsuit, filed by the Center for Food Safety and other groups in 2003, alleged APHIS violated environmental regulations when it approved field tests without determining whether genetically modified bentgrass was a plant pest and could breed with native plants.

(Reporting by Christopher Doering; Editing by David Gregorio)

Australia: Major Australia Supermarket Chain says "No" to GMO
Move to lift ban in biotech crops getting opposition from food sellers.

FreshPlaza.com, 27 November 2008.

Australian supermarket giant Coles has joined the organic industry in speaking out against genetically modified food as State Governments appear closer to lifting of their bans on the commercial growing of GM food crops, according to a report from Fairfax Media's Farm Online Web site.

When asked what Coles' position was, at a Parliamentary forum on Tuesday, Coles representative Chris Mara stated that, "Coles listens to our customers and over 90 per cent do not want GM ingredients in their food and Coles whole private label range of 'Smart Buy', 'You'll Love Coles' and 'Coles Finest' exclude all GM ingredients in response to customer concerns".

The statement follows similar sentiments from Goodman Fielder, Australia's largest food company, Tatiara Meats, Australia's largest lamb exporter and 250 other food companies calling on the State Governments to extend their bans of GM food crops.

Biological Farmers of Australia spokesman, Scott Kinnear, said, if genetically engineered crops were introduced in Australia, non-GE and organic farmers will have to bear the crippling costs of testing, segregation, supply chain management and will be held liable if they sell non-GE product that is contaminated.

"Australian farmers will lose valuable export markets and the country will lose its lucrative GE-free status forever," Kinnear says.

World: Journal "sets up" scientist for brutal attack by GM advocates

Press notice from GM-free Cymru (Wales), 27 November 2007.

Jeremiah 11:19: ÝBut I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter; And I did not know that they had devised plots against me....

Independent scientists and NGOs across the world have been outraged by the editorial malpractice of a well-known biotechnology journal, which helped to "set up" a Russian scientist for a brutal attack by four GM industry advocates (1).

The journal involved was "Nature Biotechnology", and the scientist who was led "as a lamb to the slaughter" was Dr Irina Ermakova, whose discoveries concerning the toxic effects of GM soya on laboratory rats (2) were deemed to be immensely harmful to the commercial ambitions of Monsanto and the other GM multinationals. She has been attacked before, largely on the grounds that her work has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal; but this year four scientists with a long history of advocacy for the GM industry (3) decided that they would mount a comprehensive assault on her with the agreement of Andrew Marshall, the Editor of "Nature Biotechnology."

The four men wrote to Marshall in the summer to suggest a feature article based upon a "question and answer" session, in which Ermakova would be asked a series of questions about her research methods and results, and in which they would be given free space to criticise her replies. The editor agreed, and wrote to Ermakova to ask for her participation (4). Eager for an open scientific debate, she willingly provided the answers to the questions which she was asked. So far, so good. But as publication day approached, she began to suspect that everything was not quite as simple as it appeared; and it was only on the day of publication in September that she discovered:

(a) that the article as published did not have her name on it as author, but the name of the Editor instead;

(b) that all but four of her references had been deleted, to be replaced by 20 references chosen to bolster the case made by her critics;

(c) that the "dummy proof" she had been sent prior to publication (with her name on it as author) bore little relationship to the final article;

(d) that the critiques of her detractors were lengthy and detailed -- and were indeed longer than her printed answers; furthermore, they were all unattributed, making it impossible for any reader of the journal to know who had said what.

This whole "set-up and betrayal" was even more serious than it appeared initially, since over the past two months we have established that Ermakova was never told the names of her detractors, and never given an opportunity to examine their comments, let alone respond to them (5). Indeed, the journal Editor told Ermakova in writing that her answers would be presented together with "community feedback", implying some balance between critics and supporters.

In the final (published) version of the article the Editor wrote:

"Nature Biotechnology approached Ermakova to ask for a detailed account of her work in her own words. Her answers are presented below together with comments solicited from a group of researchers working in the field."

The first sentence is true, but the second is not. The comments were not "solicited" but offered; and the researchers were not working in Ermakova's field at all. Indeed, by their own admission they had no experience whatsoever of animal feeding experiments or animal physiology. They would never have been chosen as experts if Ermakova had submitted her material for peer review; and yet they were given the freedom to make a whole range of aggressive and cynical comments without, apparently, any checks on their scientific validity.

Such has been the storm of protest that Marshall has at last agreed to publish letters about the behaviour of the journal in a future edition. That will not satisfy those who see in this episode evidence of a serious decline in ethical standards in the bioscience publishing world (6). GM Free Cymru spokesman Dr Brian John says: "This miserable business would not have come to light had not Dr Ermakova asked us whether the behaviour of Nature Biotechnology in this instance was acceptable or not. We were able to examine her correspondence file, and discovered the worst case of editorial malpractice we have ever seen. She has been comprehensively "set up" here, and we have never before seen a "dummy proof" such as the one she was sent prior to publication.

"It has not gone unnoticed that "Nature Biotechnology" is a near relative of "Nature" -- which was involved in the appalling publication and subsequent "disowning" of the Quist & Chapela article on GM contamination of Mexican maize in 2001-2002 (7).

"Sadly, we are seeing the rise of "tabloid science journalism" in which editors can use grubby and dishonest techniques and hope to get away with them; in which publishing priorities are set by magazine owners and biotechnology multinationals; and in which political and commercial interests are more important than the old-fashioned virtues of truth and integrity."

Contact for further information:

Dr Brian John
GM Free Cymru
Tel + 44 (0)1239 820470

Notes:

(1) ÝNature Biotechnology 25, 981 - 987 (2007) Ý"GM soybeans and health safetyóa controversy reexamined" ÝbyÝAndrew Marshall http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n9/abs/nbt0907-981.html

(2) Ýhttp://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/ermakova.htm

(3) ÝThe four scientists involved wereÝBruce M Chassy, L. Val Giddings, Alan McHughen and Vivian Moses. They have a long history of advocacy for the GM industry, and have on many occasions in the past been involved in attacks on the reputations of scientists whose findings they find unpalatable.

(4) Ýhttp://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/rottweiler.htm

(5) Ýhttp://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8470 http://www.woz.ch/artikel/inhalt/2007/nr44/Wissen/15584.html

(6) Ýhttp://www.i-sis.org.uk/LetterToNatureReErmakova.php

(7) ÝQuist D and Chapela IH. 2001. Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414: 541-543.

Cleveland DA, Soleri D, Cuevas FA, Crossa J, Gepts P.Ý Detecting (trans)gene flow to landraces in centers of crop origin: lessons from the case of maize in Mexico.Ý Environ Biosafety Res. 2005 Oct-Dec;4(4):197-208; discussion 209-15. Epub 2006 Jun 22.

Australia: Labor MPs fight to keep GM ban

The Age, November 27 2007. By David Rood.

STATE Labor MPs have expressed "grave fears" that lifting the Brumby Government's controversial ban on genetically modified crops would harm the environment and economy, as well as damage the state's green image.

Newly elected MP Martin Foley has joined four caucus colleagues from across Labor's factions in calling for the ban on genetically modified canola crops to remain.

The group have all written to a scientific panel chaired by Sir Gustav Nossal, which has handed its report on the economic impact of removing the ban to Premier John Brumby. The moratorium expires next February.

Just two days after being sworn in as the member for Albert Park replacing John Thwaites, Mr Foley wrote to Agriculture Minister Joe Helper arguing that lifting the ban would harm Victoria's grain and dairy industries.

Mr Foley was chief-of-staff to former agriculture minister Bob Cameron.

"I hold grave fears that the move towards lifting the current moratorium on the commercial release of genetically modified canola - and possibly by extension other GM commercials - will disadvantage Victoria's relative position in regards to both its international export competitors and ð our status as a trading partner," he writes in the letter, which was also sent to Sir Gus' panel.

The Age has revealed that Mr Brumby is facing a backlash from his Labor caucus over the GM issue, with one MP attacking the Premier's "arrogance" and "crash-through style".

In a display of dissent last week, a special meeting of caucus attended by about half of Labor's 74 MPs put concerns about the health, environmental and economic impact of lifting the ban directly to Mr Brumby and criticised the decision making process.

"This is Brumby's arrogance and crash-through style at play here," said a Labor MP who declined to be named. "He's good at numbers but he can't read people."

Mr Brumby has been a supporter of GM technology and in a recent interview with The Age, flagged that the moratorium was likely to be lifted.

Labor MPs with seats in regional areas and those with a large number of Greens supporters have also expressed concern at the political impact of lifting the ban.

The other MPs to make submissions to the review were Tammy Lobato, Christine Campbell, Carlo Carli and Jenny Mikakos.

In his submission, Mr Carli proposed that the moratorium be extended for at least four years. "The risks of lifting the moratorium are greater than the risks associated with keeping it," he said.

Upper house MP Ms Mikakos argued that the introduction of GM crops posed a major threat to Australia's reputation as producing clean and green agricultural products.

Yesterday, Mr Brumby said the Government had received the report from Sir Gus, and that it would be considered by cabinet, with a decision to be made on the moratorium before Christmas.

Removing the ban has the support of the Liberal and National parties.

Victorian Nationals leader Peter Ryan said GM crops would advance Australia's position in world markets, and there was no longer the need for the moratorium.

"There is simply no basis to the assertion that GM crops will do damage to the state's clean, green image," he said.

26 November 2007

Germany calls for review of how EU approves new biotech crops

International Herald Tribune (Associated Press), 26 November 2007.

BRUSSELS, Belgium: Germany's agriculture minister called on the European Union on Monday to suspend its approval procedure for new biotech crops and seeds, demanding governments undertake a wide-scale review of how genetically modified products can be used in Europe.

"This (system) should be stopped and we should check: can the procedures stay as they are," Horst Seehofer said before EU farm ministers talks which were discussing the contentious issue on the use of biotech crops in Europe.

He said that the current system in place, which has already received criticism from several EU nations, is "highly unsatisfactory."

Germany has called for a debate on the 27-nation bloc's policy on genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, at an EU leaders summit in December.

The bloc's biotech policy, meant to open its agricultural markets to more genetically altered crops, continues to be opposed by many EU governments including Germany, France, Austria, Greece, Luxembourg and Poland.

These countries remain wary of biotechnology and are fighting to keep the crops from their fields and out of their supermarkets. EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel warned Seehofer and other EU ministers to "know what are the consequences" national biotech bans have on the supply of cereals.

She said that limiting the import of new crops for cultivation or use threatened the supply of animal feed for Europe's pork, beef and chicken sectors.

Fischer Boel reminded them not to forget the current global historic shortages of such staples as wheat, corn and barley, the costs of which are at record highs, and are leading to higher costs for farmers and consumers.

"To postpone any new approvals will have dramatic consequences ... and the result will be the production will move out of Europe and then we will have to import meat that is fed with GM products that are ... not approved in Europe, but we will be eating it anyway because that is the only solution."

She said the price of corn on the European market was 55 percent higher than in the United States partially because of burdensome and complex EU rules on the use of biotech crops.

Seehofer said the approval procedure, which tasks the EU's European Food Safety Authority or EFSA to assess possible risks GMOs could cause to human and animal health as well as effects on the environment, was also influenced by the biotech industry. The European Commission has already said it would toughen the EU's approval system in wake of national criticism that the current system was unreliable.

A majority of EU governments led a revolt last year against the GMO procedures demanding changes in the way decisions are made in the EU's complex approval system for biotech crops.

Only three countries ó Britain, the Netherlands and Ireland ó have said the current system was rigorous enough to meet high public safety concerns.

A final decision to place a GMO product for use on the EU market can be made solely by the European Commission, if EU governments fail to reach a majority decision on an approval recommended by EFSA.

Seehofer said leaving such decisions to the EU executive was too risky.

"Whether something is suitable for authorization or too risky is a scientific question that has to be taken by a competent authority," Seehofer said. Politicians should then decide on rules for cultivation and labeling of the products, he said. The EU is under growing pressure to open its market up to GMO products after trade rivals the United States, Canada and others won a case at the World Trade Organization last year that the EU's de facto moratorium on biotech products was an unfair trade restriction.

Earlier this month, the world trade body called on the EU to lift its moratorium by Jan. 11.

The Commission is trying to force Austria and other nations to lift national bans on already approved biotech corn products.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

The article above, sent around the world this morning by the Associated Press, is an embarassment for Ireland. The article states:

"A majority of EU governments led a revolt last year against the GMO procedures demanding changes in the way decisions are made in the EU's complex approval system for biotech crops. Only three countries - Britain, the Netherlands and Ireland - have said the current system was rigorous enough to meet high public safety concerns."

Our Fianna Fáil / Green coalition government should be ashamed, as well as Fine Gael and the PDs which support genetically modified food and farming.

Ministers Mary Harney, Mary Coughlan, John Gormley and Trevor Sargent have been extensively informed about the health and environmental dangers of GM food and farming, as well as the EC's unscientific and undemocratic GMO approvals process, since 2003. But they have failed to issue a single statement on the latter, despite being repeatedly lobbied to support the regulatory reforms demanded by Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland and other member states. At the Council of Ministers meeting on 30 October, our Environment Minister John Gormley did support a call by the Italian Environment Minister, Alfonso Pecorano Scanio, for a ban on all new GMO approvals until the European Food Safety Authority fixes its flawed risk assessment system that relies on scientifically flawed data provided by the applicant companies. Despite being urged to do so, however, Minister Gormley failed to issue any related media statement.

The Ministers also failed to issue any statement in support of the recent call by Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas for a ban on all new GMO approvals.

As a result, the AP wire service informed the world today that our Government still trusts the European Commission's regulatory process for GM food and feed, which is based on unacceptable risk assessments provided by Monsanto and other applicant companies, which fails to take the views of independent scientists into account, which ignores the views of member states, and which automatically rubberstamps the release of GM products even when most member states oppose them.

If our Government wants to restore its credibility, Ministers Coughlan, Gormley and Harney must follow Scotland's lead (see second next article below), and formally request Charlie McCreevy and the other EC Commissioners to (a) support the call by the Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas for a ban on all new GMO approvals and (b) refuse to accept any European Food Safety Authority GMO approvals based on risk assessments provided by the agri-biotech companies it is supposed to regulate.

Government failure to take immediate action on both of these issues will totally discredit Ireland's policy on GM food and farming.

EU: Germany in push against GM plants

Agence France-Presse, 26 November 2007

BRUSSELS (AFP) - Germany called on Monday for authorisations of new genetically modified (GM) plants in the European Union to be temporarily halted to make sure that safety checks are thorough enough.

German Farm Minister Horst Seehofer said the complicated current authorisation procedure failed to sufficiently take into account public opinion.

"We should stop and see if the procedure is adequate," Seehofer told journalists at a meeting of EU agriculture ministers focusing in part on GM plants.

Under his proposal, the halt to authorisations would target both the imports of GM products and the planting of GM crops in Europe, but only briefly while checks were carried out.

Under the current procedure, the European Commission makes recommendations to member states to authorise or forbid a plant strain on advice from the European Food Safety Agency.

However, because member states often cannot agree on whether to authorise a plant or not, the decision reverts back to the European Commission.

Seehofer found some support from Italy and France.

French Farm Minister Michel Barnier told journalists that "we should take the time to put incontestable (checking) procedures in place" although he preferred to target only the planting of new GM crops, not imports.

However, EU Farm Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel warned that calling a halt to any new authorisations while the procedure is reviewed would lead to harmful, unintended consequences.

"To postpone any new approvals will have dramatic consequences," Fischer Boel said.

"The result will be that the production of meat will move out of Europe and we will have to import meat that is fed with GM products that are approved in third countries but not in Europe," she added.

Fischer Boel said that maize, or corn, prices were already 55 percent higher in Europe than in the United States due in part to the higher cost of keeping GM and non-GM grains separate.

The European Union is already under pressure from the World Trade Organisation to lift import bans on some GM products that the global free-trade referee has deemed to be illegal.

The World Trade Organisation has given the European Union until January 11 to lift the ban on imports of nine GM products, mainly maize and soya, which Germany, Austria, Belgium, France, Italy and Luxembourg have in place.

EU: Germany calls for EU moratorium on GM crops

Forbes.com, 26 November 2007.

BRUSSELS (Thomson Financial) - German agriculture minister Horst Seehofer said he is in favour of a moratorium on genetically-modified (GM) crops in the EU, although the European Commission has warned of serious economic consequences.

'It's better to stop them now and see if the (authorisation system) is adequate,' Seehofer said to reporters on the margins of the agriculture ministers' meeting here.

The current system sees the commission making proposals to member states based on recommendations by the European Food Safety Agency.

Seehofer says leaving these decisions to politicians is 'highly unsatisfactory'.

However, the commission says that with the price of maize and other animal feeds already far higher in the EU than the US, failure to allow GM crop production in the EU will push up the price of meat and see production moving out of Europe. frances.robinson@thomson.com

EU: France, Germany seek to break deadlock on GMO foods

Reuters, 26 November 2007. By Jeremy Smith.

RUSSELS, Nov 26 (Reuters) - Agricultural powerhouses France and Germany sought on Monday to break the deadlock that has kept genetically modified crops out of most of Europe, saying rules must be changed to ease their approval.

"This authorisation process of GMOs is highly unsatisfactory and worrying, it cannot stay like this," German Agriculture Minister Horst Seehofer told reporters on arriving for a meeting of EU farm ministers.

"One commissioner says it's okay and another says it's not. (It's not acceptable) that we politicians decide according to a majority and current mood. This is not how we can deal with it." The EU has not approved any new GMOs for growing since 1998, in large part because of huge public resistance to what are sometimes called "Frankenstein foods".

At present, EU biotech policy involves some five or six departments of the executive European Commission, who can often be at odds.

But with international grain prices soaring and supply shortages being faced by the EU's livestock and animal feed sectors, pressure has been rising for the Commission to do something about the speed at which the EU approves new GMOs.

French Agriculture Minister Michel Barnier echoed Seehofer's comments, saying time might be needed to review the process. "There is a very high public sensitivity (over GMOs), a lot of fears," he said. "And we don't want to limit imports."

"We have to take time to put procedures into place that can't be challenged," he told reporters. "I back my German colleague that we have to take time at European level."

"No Compromise"

An internal study published by Commission agriculture experts in June said the EU took a minimum of 2.5 years, and often much longer, to complete new GMO authorisations compared with an average of 15 months in the United States.

The other main issue is that since EU law does not give a tolerance threshold for the accidental presence of unauthorised GMOs that have been approved in exporter countries, trade flows can be disrupted if an EU-bound cargo is found to contain them. In the past, that has resulted in temporary import bans that are a result of what are known as "asynchronous authorisations".

For the Commission's agriculture unit, this is a big problem. However, its food safety department, responsible for the temporary bans, is keen to keep unauthorised GMOs out of the EU food chain with a "no compromise" policy -- but has also suggested reaching agreements with exporter countries aiming at better coordination between approval processes and rules.

"It is obvious that the problems of asynchronous approvals will be increasing and we will face huge problems in the agricultural sector," EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel told a news conference.

"To postpone any new approvals will have dramatic consequences. The production of meat will move out of Europe and then we will have to import meat (from animals that are) fed with GMO products. So we will be eating it anyway," she said. (Additional reporting by Yves Clarisse, Ilona Wissenbach, editing by Michael Roddy)

EU: A Kernel of Wisdom
Europe may ban two types of genetically modified corn

Grist Magazine, 26 Nov 2007

Europe may end up sans two types of genetically modified corn, as E.U. environment officials have proposed a ban on the seeds. Officials say the GM corn, made by powerful biotech companies DuPont Pioneer, Dow Agrosciences, and Syngenta, could harm wildlife and disrupt food chains. E.U. Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said the genetically modified corn could have "unexpected ecosystem-scale consequences" and that "potential damage on the environment" could be "irreversible." Well, we're convinced -- but the European Commission will have the final say.

Australia: Vic Govt urged to extend GM crops moratorium

ABC, 26 Nov 2007

Groups opposed to genetically modified (GM) crops are calling on Victorian Premier John Brumby to extend the moratorium on GM canola.

The Government is due to make a decision on the moratorium this month.

Scott Kinnear from the Biological Farmers of Australia says support to maintain the moratorium is growing in the community and the State Government backbench.

He says the supermarket giant Coles and about 250 other food companies are speaking out against genetically engineered food.

"The markets have not opened up for our GM product internationally, in fact they appear to have tightened," he said.

"The contamination in North America from the long grained rice scandal is estimated to cost the grains industry $1.2 billion, so why on earth would we want to go down this path?"

25 November 2007

UK - Scotland: Holyrood bid to ban GM crops in Europe

The Sunday Herald, 25 November 2007. By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor.

THE SCOTTISH government will this week make an unprecedented intervention in Brussels to try to help ban genetically modified (GM) crops throughout Europe.

The environment minister, Michael Russell, is planning to back a controversial bid by the European environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, to block applications by three multinational companies to grow GM maize.

The move is likely to heighten tensions with Westminster, which has been increasingly irritated by Holyrood's anti-GM stance. It will also annoy the GM industry - but delight environmentalists who want to see Europe remain GM-free.

There has been an effective moratorium on GM crops in the European Union, with none approved for cultivation since 1998. This has sparked fierce conflict with the US, which regards the ban as a breach of free trade rules.

Now Syngenta, Dupont and Dow, three of the world's most powerful agricultural companies, are seeking permission for two types of GM maize: Bt-11 and 1507. They had expected their applications to be approved by European commissioners, most of whom are thought to favour GM crops, including UK trade commissioner Peter Mandelson.

But in October, Dimas revealed he was opposing the applications because the damage the crops could do to the environment was "irreversible" and "unacceptable". There was evidence of potential harm to butterflies, food chains and water life, he said.

Since then, commissioners have been unable to agree on the applications, with a decision being postponed twice. Meanwhile, anti-GM groups across Europe have mounted a major campaign in support of Dimas, asking governments to publicly back him.

That is the call to which the Scottish Nationalist government is now going to respond. "We think that the commissioner's stance is worthy of support," Russell told the Sunday Herald.

"The Scottish government is profoundly opposed to the cultivation of GM crops in Scotland."

According to Russell, the precautionary principle should apply. "We don't know enough about the risks," he said. "Scotland's reputation is based on having a clean and clear environment. This reputation would be sullied if GM crops were grown here."

Russell is planning to write to Dimas this week, offering him the backing of the Scottish government. This will not please the London government, which is more supportive of GM crops.

But it was warmly welcomed by environmentalists yesterday. "This is excellent news," said Pete Riley, campaign director of umbrella group GM Freeze.

"It's good to see the Scottish government lining up to keep Scotland GM-free and to support moves to keep Europe GM-free. It will give encouragement to the millions of consumers and farmers across Europe who have serious misgivings about GM crops."

Green MSP Robin Harper said Greens across Europe were delighted at the stand being taken by Dimas. "GM food is not wanted and not needed," he said.

"The agribusiness multinationals must not be allowed to use their allies on the commission, like Peter Mandelson, to overturn this. We fully support the minister's stance."

The GM industry was less happy. "This seems a little superficial," said Nathalie Moll, executive director of Europabio, which represents more than 80 GM companies in Europe.

She argued that Dimas was breaching EU procedures by ignoring the all-clear given to the GM maize crops by the European Food Safety Authority. "If his proposal goes ahead, it will set a precedent for other commissioners not to respect the approved procedures," she said.

GM food should be a matter of choice, Moll argued. "It should be on the shelves so that consumers have freedom of choice. I don't think governments should deprive them of that."

24 November 2007

Ireland: Applied genetics

Irish Farmers Journal, 22 November (dated 24 November) 2007.
By Nórín Buckley, Gallen Community School, Ferbane, Co. Offaly.

[Excerpt]

Genetically Modified (GM) foods can be produced by altering the genes or DNA present in the nucleus of plant or animal cells.

This process carried out by scientists is known as genetic engineering. For example, in natural circumstances, maize can be damaged by the corn borer caterpillar. A bacterium was discovered to produce poisons against such pests.

Scientists have taken this gene from the bacterial cell and inserted it into the nucleus of the maize cell. The maize plant is no longer susceptible to the catterpillar and fewer pesticides are used during the growth stages.

This is a 'cut and paste' mechanism as the desired gene from the bacterium is 'cut' from it and 'pasted' into the DNA of the maize cell.

GM foods are not permitted for sale in Ireland as of yet but are widely available in the USA and more recently in Britain. It is a topical issue with many arguments for and against.

ADVANTAGES OF GM:

1) Better resistance to pests and diseases
2) Higher tolerance to herbicides
3) Increased tolerance to cold conditions
4) Improved nutritive value

DISADVANTAGES OF GM:

1) Can be harmful to other organisms in the ecosystem
2) Pesticides that are sprayed may be less effective
3) May cause allergies when consumed
4) Unknown effects to human health

Comment from GM-free Ireland

The editor of the Irish Farmers Journal has great untapped potential for responsible journalism. Contrary to what this article claims:

•

GM foods approved by the EC are permitted for sale in Ireland, and most non-organic meat and dairy produce comes from livestock fed on GM-ingredients. The latter is sold without a label to inform consumers.

Moreover, many food and animal feed products containing illegal GM ingredients have also been sold to consumers and farmers because of our government's failure to implement rigorous sampling and testing of feed and food imports.

Many hotels, restaurants, caterers and retail outlets knowingly sell GM food without informing customers.

Numerous GM products can legally be marketed in the EU: these include soya, maize, processed foods derived from oilseed rape and maize and oil from cottonseeds. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) has identified GM ingredients in the following types of food:

breadcrumbs for chicken and burger
corn snacks derived from maize
gluten-free reduced sugar rusks
infant formula
lecithin granules derived from soya bean and maize meal
rice
soya cooking oil
soya protein mince
soya protein chunks
soya biscuits and cakes
soya bran
soya flour
soya cream
soya yogurt
soya drink
soya dessert
taco shells
tortilla chips
vegetable casserole

•

No GM crops with higher tolerance to cold or improved nutritional qualities exist on the EU market. Such traits require complex combinations of multiple genes which may be obtained via natural breeding, but which are only hypothetical, difficult and /or impossible for experimental GM crops.

•

The article's use of the "cut and paste" metaphor to describe the genetic modification process is profoundly misleading. Foreign DNA with the "desired trait" taken from a plant or animal (together with foreign DNA from viruses and bacteria used to introduce, identify the presence of, and "turn on" the "desired trait" gene or genes) is introduced into totally random and unpredictable locations of the recipient plant genome. Far from the precision implied by the term "cut and paste", the methods involve either biolistic transformation (a shotgun technique in which a gene gun fires microscopic metal particles coated with the transgenic DNA into random locations of the target organism), or infection using the soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens. These modification techniques do not enable the site of transgene insertion to be selected and usually damage the DNA of the target organism, leading to scrambled genomes whose medical, agronomic, and ecological implications are scientifically impossible to predict.

•

Maize modified with the pesticide-producing Bt gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringensis is unlikely to reduce the overall amount of pesticide released into the environment, because every cell of the modified crop is itself a pesticide factory! The resulting poison is thus released into the topsoil, and directly into the food chain via insects, wildlife, farm animals and humans who consume resulting produce such as corn flakes. Monsanto's Bt maize is the only GM crop authorised for cultivation in the EU but is now banned in France, Austria, Hungary and Poland because of the resulting health and environmental dangers.

•

The article fails to mention the following disadvantages of GM crops:

widespread long distance irreversible contamination of conventional and organic crops,
related patent infringment and liability lawsuits,
increased used of toxic weedkiller (for weedkiller-resistant GM crops),
plagues of weedkiller resistant GM superweeds,
accumulation of Bt pesticide in ecosystems,
loss of biodiversity,
20 documented health dangers,
45 suspected health dangers,
loss of market share for contaminated farmers,
appropriation of contaminated farmers seeds and crops via patent law,
increased control of world agriculture by Monsanto and other unaccountable transnational agri-biotech corporations,
loss of food sovereignty and food security.

Australia: Anti-GM farmers in legal warning on canola crops

The Age, November 24 2007. By Jason Dowling.

FARMERS planting genetically modified canola in Victoria could risk legal action, it has been claimed.

The State Government is expected to announce this week if a four-year ban on planting GM canola will be extended beyond February.

With Premier John Brumby a strong supporter of GM technology, opponents said the ban would likely be lifted and have warned farmers considering planting the crops there could be legal consequences.

Biological Farmers of Australia is pushing for a fund to be created to compensate non-GM farmers financially affected by removal of the ban.

Australia: Brumby faces caucus revolt over GM crops

The Age (Australia), November 24 2007. By David Rood.

PREMIER John Brumby is facing a caucus revolt over his push to introduce GM crops, with Labor MPs attacking his arrogance and "crash-through style" in dealing with the controversial issue.

In a rare uprising, up to 40 Labor MPs attended an extraordinary caucus meeting at Parliament House on Thursday to voice concerns about the possible lifting of a moratorium [in the state of Victoria] on genetically modified crops to Mr Brumby and Agriculture Minister Joe Helper.

At the meeting, MPs asked the Premier to show them a report by Victoria's chief scientist, Sir Gustav Nossal, on the impact that lifting the ban would have on farmers and the state's food exports, but were rebuffed by Mr Brumby.

MPs opposing the removal of the ban on genetically modified canola crops, which expires in February next year, fear the decision will be made at cabinet level without going to the 74-member caucus.

The Thursday caucus meeting put concerns about the health, environmental and political impacts of lifting the moratorium to the Premier, including potential damage to the state's green image and challenged Mr Brumby over how the decision was being made.

One MP, who declined to be named, said that people at Thursday's meeting were more outspoken than they had been when Steve Bracks was Premier.

"Brumby is like a break-through kind of character. He's like a bull in a china shop. He just won't listen," the MP told The Age. "This is Brumby's arrogance and crash-through style at play here. He's good at numbers but he can't read people."

The Premier has previously backed GM technology and recently indicated to The Age that the moratorium was likely to be lifted. Mr Brumby said the main farm groups advocated four years ago for the ban as they feared GM crops would damage the state's reputation in key agricultural export markets.

"Most of those groups have now said publicly that they would support lifting the ban," he said earlier this month.

Thursday's special caucus meeting, attended by MPs from across Labor's factions, was not the first time the Brumby cabinet has been confronted with opposition from within caucus over the GM issue.

Concerns about the GM decision-making process were raised by several MPs at a recent caucus meeting, chaired by Deputy Premier Rob Hulls.

On Tuesday, a forum at Parliament organised by MPs opposed to GM crops heard a presentation by US GM-food opponent Jeffrey Smith.

At a regular caucus meeting on the same day, several MPs criticised the decision-making process and asked Mr Brumby to release Sir Gustav's report to caucus.

The Premier is believed to have knocked back the request, saying the decision is to be made by cabinet.

Among the MPs believed to have attended the Thursday meeting are Christine Campbell, Tammy Lobato, Carlo Carli, Fiona Richardson, Jenny Mikakos and Michael Crutchfield.

Mr Carli is believed to have put a compromise proposal to the meeting with a limited lifting of the ban under strict conditions. Ms Lobato also put a compromise model to the meeting.

Yesterday, the Victorian Local Governance Association expressed concern about the level of consultation with regional communities over the GM moratorium.

"The VLGA has consulted with our council members and discovered that many of our council members are concerned with the environmental and public health aspects relating to the commercial release of GM crops," the association said.

The decision on whether to lift the ban is expected to be consider by cabinet on Monday and announced next week.

India: Ask? And the experts answer

Tehelka Magazine, Vol 4, Issue 46, Dec 1 2007

Gaurav Sinha, Mumbai

Are genetically modified (GM) crops the answer to India's food concerns? Do they have any adverse impact on the environment?

Suma Sahai, scientist

Genetically modified crops are not the answer to our country's food concerns. Our food security problems are different from those in other parts of the world, and need a different approach. India's food problems are related to land fragmentation, poverty and the inability to buy food. Poor people, who subsist on marginal land holdings, live at starvation levels because they are neither able to grow enough food for themselves nor do they have any alternative means of income.

India has more than enough buffer stocks to feed its poor - the need of the hour is to increase the purchasing power of those who live below or near the poverty line, instead of indiscriminate genetic alteration of crops. Big corporations create genetically modified foods so that they can claim them as their inventions and take out patents on them. Their focus is not on addressing food concerns, rather on increasing the number of patents.

It is pathetic that our State-run research labs are toeing the line laid down by such business interests. Instead of using genetic engineering to solve real life problems, they are aping the agenda of these companies and are draining away the taxpayer's money on such crops. Unwarranted genetic engineering is to be avoided at any cost.

As it is, India is extremely rich in genetic diversity and should tread very cautiously around the genetic engineering option. India is the place of origin for many crops, so fiddling with the genetic make-up of plants may lead to the contamination of their gene pool. Of particular concern is rice, which is at great risk as it is native to India.

Countries like Mexico and Peru - the centres of origin for corn and potato, respectively - do not allow tinkering with the genetic make-up of these crops and I find no reason why India should not do the same for rice.

23 November 2007

Australia: Federal Labor's policy on GM crops and foods

Media Release 23 November 2007

Just a day before the election, the Labor Party has joined the Greens and Democrats by promising tougher labelling laws on genetically manipulated (GM) foods. In an email message received overnight Shadow Agriculture Minister Kerry O'Brien says:

*"A Rudd Labor Government will develop comprehensive labelling for genetically modified food in Australia to provide an additional level of information for consumers."*

"If Labor delivers on this promise, it is great news for food processors and shoppers," says Gene Ethics Director Bob Phelps.

"The community is now kept in the dark on the GM content of many everyday foods as the Howard government has exempted most GM products from labelling.

"It also sounds as though Labor in government would be more inclusive and that's a good sign. For instance, Senator O'Brien's letter says:



"Federal Labor recognises ongoing community concern about genetically modified crops being grown in Australia. Safe and beneficial standards must be established beyond reasonable doubt and standards must be met to the satisfaction of the government, the scientific community, the consumer community and the farming community.

"More open-ness and full GM and GM-free labelling on all foods and animal feeds are essential for farmers, processors and shoppers to get the real GM-free choice that over 90% of Australians want," Mr Phelps concludes.

More comment: Bob Phelps 03 9347 4500 (O) 03 9889 1717 (H) 0408 195 099 (M)

UK: The GM potato war
Colin Barras explains the latest row triggered by genetic modification

Daily Telegraph, 23 November 2007.

Where genetic modification of crops is concerned, environmental groups are as vehemently opposed today as they were at the height of the GM food controversy of the 1990s.

But is GM science now in a position to allay some of the fears of environmental groups?

The GM food controversy looks likely to re-ignite in the coming months, as the European Union is poised to give the green light to commercial cultivation of a genetically modified potato. BASF is expected to begin commercial growing of Amflora, their GM potato, early in 2008.

Although Amflora is intended primarily for industrial purposes - it contains a starch that is useful in the paper industry - it may also be used in animal feed, which is where the controversy begins, says Marco Contiero, Policy Director of Genetic Engineering at Greenpeace's European Unit.

The potato carries a gene, neomycin phosphotransferase II (nptII), that bestows on the potato resistance to a number of antibiotics, including kanamycin and neomycin. Both the World Health Organisation and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) have judged those antibiotics "critically important" for human health, says Contiero.

He worries that if the gene passes to bacteria in the environment or in the gut of animals that eat the potato, antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains could appear with the potential for a negative impact on human and animal health.

"Under EU law, genes of this kind which "may have adverse effects on human health and the environment" should have been phased out by December 2004," Contiero says.

The fact that, in February, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) judged BASF's potato safe for commercial planting despite the presence of nptII is evidence that the EU is pushing for a commercial license regardless of the scientific evidence, thinks Kirtana Chandrasekaran, Real Food Campaigner at Friends of the Earth.

"There is tremendous pressure at the EU level to approve these crops for cultivation and a lot of attempts to push the application through," she says. "Member States have consistently rejected GM applications [but] they tend to be approved at the Commissions' level."

But Peter Oakley, a member of BASF's Board of Executive Directors, disagrees. "There's always a scepticism to new technology," he says. Amflora is likely to be granted a commercial license because it has been shown to be safe by the most stringent of tests, says Oakley.

"If we tried to register a kiwi fruit [for commercial planting] in the EU today we would fail," Oakley says. The kiwi fruit has so many proteins that are foreign to the European palate that, despite its natural origins, it would be refused a license under the EU's rigorous rules because of its potential to cause allergic reaction, he says.

Arno Krotzky is Managing Director of Metanomics, a subsidiary of BASF Plant Science, the company that has produced the potato. He says that Amflora can pass the tough tests required by EU law because genetic modification of crops has become a precise science in recent years.

GM science is often described as a crude tool with unpredictable consequences, but Krotzky thinks that, following a decade of study, GM scientists can offer greater precision than their critics realise.

"Back in the 1990s everyone was sequencing genes," he says. There were projects to map every gene in anything from bacteria to humans, but there was little emphasis on studying how those genes worked, says Krotzky.

"At BASF we were actually looking at the function of genes," he says. "Now we not only know that the gene is there, we know what it does."

Studying the function of genes in crops is a lengthy process that involves removing one gene at a time from the plant genome and growing the modified crop in controlled greenhouse conditions through a number of generations, says Krotzky.

Over this time, researchers can assess the precise impact each gene has on plant growth, and identify those that increase yield or benefit agriculture in some other way.

The information from this new technique offers the prospect of GM crops tailor-made for specific situations, and because the science is controllable, such crops will carry minimal risk of unwanted side effects, says Krotzky.

For BASF's GM potato, the modification process involved turning off a gene responsible for the production of an uneconomic form of starch.

Amflora contains only the form of starch that is useful for the paper industry. "GM plant technology is now about doing something in a well-defined, directed way," says Oakley.

But Contiero worries that, even if BASF researchers can control the precise properties of the GM crop, they have conducted too little research into the environmental impact that their GM crops could have.

[The] effects [Amflora has] on biodiversity were not considered by BASF," he says. "And the data analysed [by EFSA during their assessment of Amflora] concern the effects of surrounding wildlife on the potato, rather than the impact of the potato on the environment."

Contiero thinks that this is why BASF included the nptII gene in their GM potato. The gene will help protect the potato from the environment, but the impact that nptII may have on the environment was not fully considered, he says.

Oakley admits that the addition of the gene has worried environmentalists, but says the scientific evidence suggests the gene is safe. "The types of antibiotics [that nptII offers resistance to] are found all over agriculture and have been used of 20-30 years," he says.

"We could replace nptII with another gene, but it would take 6-7 years and double the cost of development of Amflora. That's why we don't just replace it."

Oakley argues that the environment poses a much greater threat to the GM potato than the potato does to the environment. "Cultivated crops [including GM crops] only survive because you farm them," he says.

'If you stopped farming, most crops would disappear; they're just not competitive [in the natural world]."

But GM crops are [not?] so vulnerable, or incapable of impacting on the environment, says Chandrasekaran. She points to evidence that pesticide resistant GM crops are passing their resistance to weeds by pollen transfer. "This results in a vicious circle of escalating use of weed killers to tackle the resistant weeds," she says.

"Given its failure to deliver on any of the benefits promised so far, there is no reason to believe that we need GM to face the current challenges," says Chandrasekaran.

She says that conventional breeding programmes are helping to produce drought-resistant crops, often touted as a goal of genetic modification.

"A team of Japanese Researchers at Shizuoko University has been experimenting with crossing African and Asian rice to produce strains that perform well under drought conditions," she says. "The crossing is by conventional breeding techniques only; no genetic modification or other forms of biotechnology are involved."

Colin Barras of Imperial College London was one of the winners of the 2007 Bayer/Telegraph Science Writer awards. Open to those aged 15-28, click for details of the 2008 competition: http://www.science-writer.co.uk

EU given extra time to end GMO bans

FoodNavigator.com, 23 November 2007. By Laura Crowley.

The European Union yesterday won a two month extension for ending its ban on imports of genetically modified (GMO) foods.

The extension means the EU has more time to reach conclusions over those member states implementing their own GMO bans and will avoid disciplinary action for the moment.

Last November, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ordered Europe's ban be lifted following a case brought by leading GMO producers Argentina, Canada and the US under claims that their farmers were losing millions of euros annually because of the EU.

The WTO had previously faulted the EU for undue delay in approving GMO products for a four-year period ending in 2003 and accused a number of member states of maintaining unjustified bans on those products already found safe by the EU.

Peter Power, EU spokesman for trade, confirmed to FoodNavigator.com that a negotiation has been made extending the ban, with a new deadline set as 11 January 2008. However, he was unable to comment on the reasons for requesting the extension, and what developments will be made before meeting new deadline.

However, EU member states have operated their own GMO bans, making it difficult for the Commission to comply with the WTO ruling.

Last month, EU environment ministers failed to agree on whether to force Austria to lift its national ban on two types of GM maize, produced by US biotech company Monsanto and German drugs group Bayer. The decision has now been left in the hands of the Commission.

It was the third time since 2005 that ministers had failed to reach a majority verdict, and meant the EU could not meet the WTO's original deadline of 21 November 2007.

When the EU was given this time limit, it decided not to appeal, much to the anger of green organisations who are concerned about the effect of genetic modification on the environment.

Friends of the Earth trade campaigner Sonja Meister said: "The WTO is the wrong body for settling trade disputes. It has a long history of putting corporate interests firmly ahead of environmental protection, public safety and democracy."

EU can feed livestock without new GMOs
Friends of the Earth Europe opposes attempts to water down EU GMOs safety standards

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 23 November 2007.

Brussels, 23 November 2007 -- Friends of the Earth Europe today warned EU Farm Ministers not to slacken safety rules for imports of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The issue is up for debate at the Agriculture Council on Monday and follows a lobbying campaign by the animal feed and biotechnology industries to persuade politicians that Europe could run out of animal feed as a result of the EU's strict line on GMOs - an argument which Friends of the Earth Europe strongly disputes.

Helen Holder, GMO Campaign Co-ordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe said: "The animal feed and biotech industries are deliberately spreading panic that the EU's tough GMO standards are threatening Europe's ability to feed its livestock. But these arguments are fatally flawed. The real reasons that animal feeds are becoming scarce are that land is being used to grow agrofuels and countries such as China are increasing their consumption of meat. The EU should not sacrifice its hard-won safety standards on the basis of illogical, scaremongering arguments from industry."

The debate on Monday centres on industry arguments that:

•

the EU's "zero tolerance" policy towards any contamination of imports with GMOs not approved as safe should be weakened, because it is harming trade with countries that grow GM crops and have widespread contamination.

•

the process for approving new GMOs should be sped up in line with the US.

Friends of the Earth Europe highlights that changes to the EU standards are not justified, because the threat of animal feed shortages is exaggerated and because rising feed prices are not caused by the EU's strict GMO standards.

MAIZE

A report prepared by the European Commission's DG Agriculture [1] clearly states that even if all countries currently exporting to the EU switched to growing GM maize crops not approved as safe in Europe, the EU could feed its animals with home-grown maize or from imports from other countries instead. And the EU's capacity for growing cereals is even greater since the European Commission agreed that farmers are not obliged to set aside land under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 2007 or 2008.[2]

SOY

The price of soy is rising, not as a result of the EU's zero tolerance policy on GMOs, but instead because less soy is being grown for feed as more land is used to grow agrofuels - also known as biofuels. For example, the amount of land used by the United States - the world's biggest soybean producer, to grow soybeans fell by over 15 percent in 2007 due to American farmers growing maize for agrofuels instead.[3]

At the same time, the total consumption of soy-based animal feeds (soy meal/cake) is increasing by 5 percent (5 million tonnes) per year as Asian and Chinese livestock production increase to meet new demands for meat. Global supplies of soy-based feeds are decreasing by 2 percent per year. [4]

(The EU is limited in its capacity to produce protein crops by the Blairhouse Agreement with the United States which results in the EU having to import 70 percent of its plant protein).[5]

As a solution Friends of the Earth Europe is calling for the EU to:

•

drop its proposals for increasing the use of agrofuels in transport

•

reform the EU livestock industry to decrease its demand on protein from abroad

•

address international trade issues that constrain the EU to import plant protein from abroad

•

maintain zero tolerance to GMO contamination

The WTO ruling on the GMO dispute did not question the right to strict biosafety legislation nor the right of countries to ban individual GMOs.

For more information, please contact:

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

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

Notes:

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/gmo/economic_impactGMOs_en.pdf

[2] European Commission press release IP/07/1101. Environmental groups are however concerned about the negative impact this proposal will have on biodiversity.

[3] FAO Food Outlook, November 2007

[4] FAO Food Outlook, November 2007

[5] Agreement first established in 1966, restructured since to Blairhouse Agreement:
http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=222

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

On Monday, there will be a debate during the meeting of EU Agriculture Ministers on animal feed and zero tolerance to genetic contamination.

The animal feed and biotech industries are lobbying hard with a message that if Europe doesn't authorise more GMOs more quickly, the EU livestock sector will fail. Major scare tactics, to which they are adding a call for the EU to drop its zero tolerance policy regarding contamination of imports with GMOs not authorised in the European Union. According to a recent article in the Irish Farmers Journal, Mary Coughlan said she supports this call for a relaxation of EU rules to allow routine contamination of animal feed by illegal varieties of GM maize and soya from countries like the USA, Canada and Argentina.

This industry spin has been taken up by the European Commission's DG Agriculture which put out a report on the issue this summer. No mention of course of the impacts of agrofuels and climatic conditions which are contributing to the rise in cereal prices and causing lower availability for food and feed.

UK: Rethinking agriculture
The main danger of genetic modification is the control over agriculture it grants to transnational companies. We need to get back to first principles on farming

Prospect, December 2007 ª Web exclusive ª By Colin Tudge.

Dick Taverne [Chairman of the pro-GM lobby group, the Association of Sense about Science, and the author of "The March of Unreason"] is a clever man who has been led astray by hype. Genetic modification (GM) may have useful roles to play in agriculture, but it does not offer the bounty Taverne and his fellow enthusiasts believe it does. GM crops do not routinely outperform those bred by traditional means, and there has been no demonstration that GM crops can sustain their high performance in the real world, as opposed to the cosseted plots of the showpiece farm. More broadly, the good that GM might in principle do is far outweighed by the harm, in particular the control of world agriculture by transnational companies. Whatever the theoretical advantages of GM, the world is unlikely in the foreseeable future to use it in an advantageous way.

The example with which Taverne opens his article - "golden rice" -is a case in point. As Taverne says, golden rice contains carotene, the precursor of vitamin A, courtesy of a gene from a daffodil. But Taverne does not mention that carotene is one of the commonest organic molecules in nature. It is present in all dark green leaves-the many that manifest worldwide as "spinach" and cabbage-in yellow roots such as carrots and varieties of cassava, and in fruits such as papaya and mango.

Vitamin A deficiency is indeed a huge health problem. But this is because millions of people no longer have access to horticulture. English country people had their cottage gardens; much of traditional African agriculture is horticulture; and in China, the islands of higher ground around the traditional paddy-fields are dripping with green leaves and fruits of all kinds. What happened to local horticulture? One answer is that it has been swept aside to make way for industrialised, monocultural agriculture that insists on rice or another cash crop to the exclusion of all else.

How come traditional horticulture has been swept aside to make way for cash crops? Why is there such enthusiasm in high places for such a shift? Behind this absurdity lies the idea that economic "growth" - increases in GDP - correlates with human wellbeing. So long as governments are fixated on GDP, agriculture will be encouraged to maximise wealth rather than wellbeing, and cheap, local horticulture will fall foul to the monoculture of cash crops that produce oodles of wealth but do not grow what people need. In short, if we really want to solve the world's food problems, then we have to rethink the way that agriculture is designed from first principles, as I explain in my most recent book, "Feeding People is Easy." Throwing fancy technologies like golden rice at fundamentally flawed systems is obviously ridiculous. Zambia's decision, in 2002, to reject imports of GM maize probably had less to do with health fears and more to do with the observation that accepting GM means accepting systems of agriculture designed to make rich people richer rather than feeding poor people.

Taverne tells us that 10m farmers, including 9m in poor countries, are growing GM cotton. This may be true, but it's not particularly interesting. There are between 1 and 2bn farmers worldwide. Ten million is therefore between 0.5 and 1 per cent of the whole; not exactly overwhelming, particularly when you consider that poor farmers, and their governments, are under constant pressure to make the switch to GM. Also, cotton is not for eating; it is, and always has been, a cash crop. If from the outset you are growing a crop for cash, then you might as well get the best yield. If it fails, you lose money, but need not starve. With staple food crops - rice and horticulture - the equation is different. Besides, cotton is beset by particular pests that do yield to particular resistant genes. Here, the GM technology seems to work.

On the less pressing issue of biology, one often hears the glib assertion that genetic engineering does nothing unparalleled in nature, as transfer of genes between unrelated species also occurs in the wild (mediated by viruses). Not so. One important detail is that genes in a state of nature are shot through with "introns" - lengths of DNA that do not code for protein. Introns were once written off as "junk" - but we now know that they are serious regulators and modifiers of gene function. But genes for engineering purposes are transferred without their introns. Important? Who knows? Scientists who should know better offer such glib assurance that nothing can possibly go wrong - just as they did with nuclear power, and thalidomide. Why? Because they are obliged to work for commercial companies who want quick results. As the commercial competition increases, it gets harder and harder to work for humanity as a whole.

Why should Dick Taverne be taken in by all this? For the same reason most politicians are taken in. They are not scientists, and to get up to speed they talk to directors of successful laboratories and flick through company brochures which show people getting richer by growing GM crops, but do not show the much larger group of people getting poorer as they are thrown off their land. Taverne and other people in positions of influence need to rethink from first principles: how in practice agriculture operates, and what it is for.

Colin Tudge is a science writer. To obtain Feeding People is Easy, his latest book, email info@scimednet.org. http:// www.colintudge.com

UK: Genetic escapism
Dick Taverne's GM fantasies are emblematic of his failure to recognise the unsustainability of modern agriculture

Prospect, December 2007 ª Web exclusive ª. By Jonathan Porritt.

The pro-GM lobby has always had a tendency to shoot itself in the foot. From Monsanto's bully-boy tactics trying to force its GM products on reluctant EU countries back in the 1990s, through to today's inept combination of legal threats and would-be seduction, the GM lobby knows how to alienate people more effectively than any other sector. Dick Taverne operates comfortably in this tradition.

His starting point is simple: that anyone who has reservations about the use of genetic modification (GM) in agriculture is simply "anti-science." Taverne then attributes to GM opponents an almost superhuman capacity to whip up fear and hostility among ordinary citizens, whom he portrays in turn as ignorant, gullible folk who should just sit back quietly and put their faith in the men in white coats.

I resent this on both counts. I am not an anti-GM fundamentalist. I have always been open to the possibility that GM might have a role to play in securing a more sustainable food production system, and have said so in public. I recently caught up on various cutting-edge projects on a recent visit to the John Innes Centre near Norwich, and have just finished a radio documentary on agricultural biodiversity, which I like to think was reasonably balanced. But the fact that I still have concerns over GM - on health, environmental, agronomic and governance grounds - marks me down in Taverne's world as an emotionally flawed dipstick.

I also despise Taverne's contempt for the general public. He adheres rigorously to the "empty vessel" school of science education: most people are stupid and ill-informed on most issues, and it is the task of scientists to fill them up with objective "facts." But Taverne's own abuse of science makes him a dodgy vessel-filler. He states, for instance, that: "there is not a shred of any evidence of risk to human health from GM crops." Yet he must know that this is a seriously misleading statement. When GM crops were introduced into livestock feed in the mid-1990s, trials into the potential health effects were not required, and even now are still not routinely required. Taverne must also know that there is a body of emerging evidence that demonstrates a range of unexplained - and potentially health-threatening - effects from the consumption of genetically modified organisms.

Taverne is therefore right that there is no evidence of people keeling over and dying as a direct consequence of ingesting GM products; he is totally wrong in seeking to persuade people that there is no evidence regarding potential health risks. Hence the continuing need for strict regulation based on the proper application of the "precautionary principle," which Taverne dismisses out of hand as further evidence of anti-scientific obstructionism.

Taverne also states that there is little evidence of environmental damage from GM crops, and that "worldwide experience of GM crops to date provides strong evidence that they actually benefit the environment." To demonstrate this evidence, he quotes from one recent (assertively pro-GM) study without even mentioning that there is a substantial body of strong evidence (as published in peer-reviewed science journals) detailing substantial damage to the environment.

Taverne also does a fine line in exaggeration. For instance, his account of the interesting case study of "golden rice" - genetically modified in such a way as to address the problem of vitamin A deficiency in poor countries - is laughably one-sided. He pins the blame for delays in bringing golden rice to market entirely on over-zealous regulators and environmental campaigners. But the problems with golden rice have much more to do with underperformance (early strains would have necessitated the consumption of at least 12 bowls of rice a day to achieve the required dosage of vitamin A), controversy among nutritionists (many of whom believe the answer lies more in a proper diet, including green vegetables), and even aesthetics - Taverne may not like this, but a lot of people still prefer their rice white.

A lot of the overclaiming is done by allusion. Taverne refers repeatedly to the supposed contribution GM crops make to reducing hunger and disease, and to combating drought and high levels of salinity in soil. This will appear odd to anyone in the business - there is little published research supporting Taverne's claim. This is hardly surprising given that almost all GM crops today are grown either for non-food purposes (primarily cotton), or to produce the protein needed to feed the livestock for our ever more meat-intensive diets. On balance, given the latest evidence about the impact of meat-eating on the incidence of cancer, let alone a host of other health impacts, GM feedstuffs are probably responsible for killing far more people than they have rescued from drought, disease or famine.

That's precisely the kind of cheap shot that will enrage Taverne. But I use it deliberately. Because what angers most people about Taverne's GM fantasies is his refusal to confront harsh truths about the inherent unsustainability of modern agriculture - a reality reinforced by GM products at every turn. Today's resource-intensive monocultures are depleting and polluting ground water, degrading soil quality, damaging biodiversity, consuming vast amounts of energy and contributing significantly to climate change. GM or non-GM, this is simply unsustainable, and dangling in front of people the chimera of genetically modified monocultural techno-fixes is classic escapism of the worst kind.

In his editorial introducing Dick Taverne's article, David Goodhart talks of the challenge of avoiding "a Malthusian crunch," and the potential contribution that GM might make. But there is no avoiding that Malthusian crunch until we understand that people are short of food today not because of a lack of food, but because of poverty, high levels of wastage throughout the food chain, and our meat-intensive diets - which are not sustainable for the 2bn or so people who enjoy them today, let alone the 9bn with whom weÇll be sharing this planet by 2050.

Get your head around those facts, and then let's have a serious, balanced discussion about the potential of GM to bring forward solutions in what is going to be a very different world.

Jonathon Porritt is founder director of Forum for the Future (http:// www.forumforthefuture.org.uk), and author of "Capitalism as if the World Matters; Revised Edition 2007" (Earthscan Paperback) - available from the Forum for the Future website

Corporations, agro-fuels and GM seeds

Znet, 23 November 2007

The wave of bio-fuels continues to advance, not because it is good for the environment or offers some solution to global climate change - de facto it will worsen it - but rather because the most powerful industries on the planet see it as a source of juicy profits and so make sure that many governments help them with laws and subsidies. The main interests are the motor vehicle companies (who hope that with the new fuel people will have to change their cars), the oil companies (who control fuel distribution), the companies controlling world grain production (who will win both from increased demand for bio-fuels and from higher prices for foods trying to compete with them) and the multinationals producing genetically modified agricultural products.

Other sectors on the lookout for bio-fuel business are the big forestry and cellulose multinationals (Stora Enso, Aracruz, Arauco, Botnia, Ence and others), currently producing for the paper industry, but who with minimal technological changes can convert production to ethanol processing plants. Likewise, the industrial producers of cattle and chicken feed concentrate like Tyson Foods have made alliances with oil companies (in Tyson's case with Conoco-Phillips) to make bio-diesel from animal fat.

Why the multinational interest in genetically manipulated (GM) seeds? To begin with they are practically the same outfits that control most of the sales of commercial seeds. Currently, all the GM seeds commercially sown in the world are controlled by Monsanto (about 90%), Syngenta, Dupont, Bayer, Dow and BASF. At the same time the top three, Monsanto, Syngenta and Dupont, together own 44 per cent of the sales of patented seeds worldwide. If they manage to consolidate new sales niches "needing" their patented seeds, they will increase their profits and their control of seed - key to the whole human and animal food chain - with a venture into another key sector: fuels

All the transnationals that control GM seeds already have investment in research and development on bio-fuels. The majority are GM crops with a high oil content, like sugar or starch, but also with enzymes and GM bacteria which would be incorporated into crops or trees so as to accelerate post-harvest processing.

Those transnationals already win a great deal with the expansion of bio-fuels, for example with the devastating growth of GM soya cultivation in the Southern Cone and throughout Brazil and with the growth of GM maize in the US. With the advent of their use for biofuels, or in some cases combining forage and fuels, they hope to introduce new GM seeds to the market. Such seed would certainly be unable to get approval from regulatory agencies for human consumption, thus introducing new risks of contamination of crops and grains for human use.

But above all, this handful of multinationals dominating world seed markets aims at taking ownership of more of their existing market at the same time as they extend it towards small farmers who currently use little or no commercial seed but, with the bait of contract planting to produce bio-fuels, will begin to do so.

All this is creating new powerful corporate alliances. For example, Monsanto and Dow have just signed an agreement to create GM seeds that will combine in the same plant both resistance to 8 herbicides as well as making them insecticides. This in part reflects the recognition that GM seeds create resistance to herbicides and therefore require more and more. And if the seeds are not for human use it will be possible to use more toxic herbicides in greater quantities

Monsanto also allied with BASF with an investment of US$1.5bn to create new GM seeds for maize, soya, cotton and canola. Together with Cargill it created the Renessen company dedicated to GM maize and soya for biofuels and forage. For Monsanto all this means augmenting its monopoly as it tries to displace its nearest competitors, Syngenta and Dupont, from the biofuel market

For its part Dupont created with Bunge (one of the world's biggest cereal companies) the Treus company dedicated to maize and soya hybrids for biofuels and also made an alliance with British Petroleum to produce ethanol from wheat and bio-butanol. Syngenta signed a 10-year collaboration deal with the Diversa Corporation (a worldwide bio-pirate of micro-organisms) to develop GM enzymes for production of ethanol, either for incorporation straight into seeds or during processing. Syngenta works with sugar cane producers in Brazil on this and is the first of the giant GM companies to seek approval in the United States for a maize with an enzyme specially designed for biofuels.

The next step in this escalating threat to humanity and the planet's common good for the sake of private profit is synthetic biology, seeking to create living entities built from scratch. For example, Synthetic Genomics, the company created by controversial geneticist Craig Ventner, is working on the creation of totally artificial living organisms for producing energy.

Along with the plans of multinationals and scientists in the service of unscrupulous profit, resistance and awareness on a global scale is growing. With all that is at stake, it will without any doubt be a hard battle.

India: Disclose Biosafety Data of GM Crops: CIC

Financial Express, November 23 2007. By Ashok B. Sharma.

New Delhi, November 23: Bringing to an end the controversy over the disclosure of bio-safety data on genetically modified (GM) food crops, the Central Information Commission (CIC) on Thursday directed the department to make the data for Bt brinjal public.

The CIC set aside the seed company, [Monsanto-] Mahyco's argument before the Commission that the disclosure of such data has significant commercial implications to the company.

The CIC bench headed by its chairman, Wajahat Habibullah said: "any further grounds for non-disclosure are invalid even if the information is in the process of development". It directed the CPIO and the department of biotechnology to provide the information within 10 working days. The appeal was filed by Divya Raghunandan of Greenpeace India on February 23, 2006 asking the toxicity, allergenicity and other relevant data for GM brinjal, rice, okra and mustard.

In its impleadment petition to the CIC, the seed company, Mahyco had claimed that the public disclosure of anything beyond the summaries of the bio-safety data for brinjal would affect the competitive interests of the company. The bio-safety data is generated completely by the company either in its own labs or in other private labs.

The commission has set a precedent across the world where bio-safety data of a yet to be commercialized transgenic crop has to be made public.

The DBT had claimed during the hearing that it has not generated relevant data on these crops as yet, despite the fact that it has been sanctioning open-air field trials of the GM crops for past three years, said Raghunandan

Taking cognizance of the willful delay by the DBT in the disclosure of the information, interpreted by the commission as non-compliance of its previous order in April this year, and thereby, causing loss of time and effort to the appellant, the CIC offered a financial compensation for the appellant, Divya Raghunandan of Greenpeace.

In his reaction to this verdict, Shekhar Singh of the National campaign for people's Right to Information said, "this is a very important decision because it has positive implications not only on making public the data regarding GMOs but also sets a precedent that all information regarding public health and safety should be made available under the RTI act."

The Philippines: Negros Oriental unlikely to avail of subsidy for Bt corn farmers; GMOs banned

Philippine Information Agency, 23 November 2007.

Dumaguete City -- "GMOs are banned in Negros Oriental under the NISARD program, also the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers," Provincial Agriculturist Gregorio Paltinca stressed in an interview with PIA. "Bt corn is GMO and we don't allow GMOs here in the province," Paltinca stressed.

The clarification was issued as the Department of Agriculture (DA) earlier announced that the genetically improved Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn will now be included in the Ginintuang Masaganang Ani (GMA) program of the government.

Assistant Secretary for Operations Dennis Araullo said corn farmers who choose to plant Bt corn instead of hybrid corn shall receive corn subsidy under the program to boost the country's corn productivity.

Around 50 Bt corn farmers, some who came as far as Mindanao, trooped to the DA's Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM) recently to express their support to the government's ongoing programs and policies in promoting the safe and responsible use of biotechnology.

Corn areas in Negros Oriental total to 50,000 hectares. The NISARD program was approved in the province in 2005, but the ban on GMOs started here last year, said Paltinca.

It can be recalled that Paltinca in an earlier interview stated that any breakthroughs in agricultural production is welcome as long as it does not involve GMOs. (PIA/RMN)

22 November 2007

USA: UC/BP Pact Worries Critics, Concerns of Land and Legacy

The Berkeley Daily Planet. By Richard Brenneman.

Supporters of the $500 million biofuel research pact between UC Berkeley and British oil giant BP have compared it to the Manhattan Project.

And one inevitable parallel stems from the visions of cheap, world-saving energy supplies promised from the technology spawned by that massive World War II effort to build war-ending nuclear weapons.

"Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter" declared Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chair Lewis L. Strauss to science writers in 1964, promising as well as the end of "great periodic regional famines in the world."

And all of it the gift of nuclear power.

The AEC, eloquent promoter of nuclear power in the 20th century, was later renamed and elevated to cabinet status as the Department of Energy, today the ultimate sponsor of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where the BP-sponsored Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) will be headquartered.

It's the very same lab was the site of critical discoveries at the dawn of the atomic era, further cementing the Manhattan Project legacy.

But a look backward at the history of atomic energy reveals a different and far more complex story, with a darker legacy woven in.

While nuclear reactors do supply a significant portion of Europe's electricity, the atomic legacy has also created massive contamination and hazards. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island weren't factored into the original equations, nor the legacies of radiation-contaminated water and farmlands and the threats of cancer and long-term debilities.

So too the promised energy bonanzas flowing from the Berkeley and Illinois labs of the Energy Biosciences Institute may have other legacies, perhaps those raised by critics such as UC Berkeley scientists Miguel Altieri and Ignacio Chapela.

They and other scientists and social researchers warn of biological hazards and charge that lands which grow food to feed hungry billions in the Third World will be co-opted by corporate giants to sate the fuel demands of American vehicles, leading to grave social consequences.

Land and patents

Critics of what EBI and its proponents call biofuels use another word to describe fuels harvested from planted crops: Agrofuels.

Environmental activists and supporters of indigenous people and the poor campesinos of Latin America charge that large-scale growing of genetically engineered crops for fuels have already scarred the global landscape, threatened critical food supplies and led to shootings of indigenous peoples who resist the powerful owners of the vast plantations of South America.

Soy plantation owners of Paraguay - the people behind the 2005 shootings witnessed by a UC Davis doctoral student - are recent Brazilian immigrants who have been buying up small tracts and consolidating the land into same kinds of plantations already thriving in their former homeland.

Brazilian government raiders earlier this year freed more than a thousand slaves on plantations where sugar cane is grown to produce ethanol, currently the world's leading agrofuel.

Meanwhile, Monsanto has found itself in confrontations with Latin American countries where it contends that its patented pesticide-resistant soy strains are being planted illegally on biofuel plantations without payment of royalties to the North American patent holder.

That St. Louis-based company is also a major funding source for the private research company created by Chris Somerville, executive director of EBI.

Critics contend that the high prices paid for patented seeds of Monsanto and other gene-tweaking companies are too high for small farmers, driving them from the land and paving the way for a new era of giant latifundia.

During a June breakfast meeting of the United States Energy Association, Berkeley nuclear physicist Dan Kammen, who sits on EBI's executive committee, said that BP had already funded three Berkeley students to head to India and Africa in search of native plants - "germ plasm," in Kammen's words - that might serve as new fuel crops.

Kammen told the gathering that "from the beginning," EBI researchers would be "looking at the social dynamics that you've got to work with, not against, to make sure the fuels that you start to work on are supported by communities (and) lead to better food security."

Kammen's own lab is in Nairobi, Kenya.

U.S. land worries

As for the U.S., EBI's Somerville told the gathering that most crops for domestic biofuel production would be grown "east of the Mississippi [where] there is adequate rainfall to grow very highly productive species."

That focus was the reason that led UC Berkeley and LBNL to team up with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), in the heart of America's farm belt.

While EBI backers say the farmlands will be marginal for food crops, the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations warn that Acting Secretary of Agriculture Chuck Conner has announced that he is thinking of opening up some of the country's most environmentally sensitive protected lands to farming because of the push for agrofuels.

Conner's department may allow farmers to withdraw from the 22-year-old Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) without incurring the currently mandated penalties.

Farmers have currently enrolled 34 million acres of easily eroded land in the CRP program, acreage which environmentalists say provides critically needed wildlife habitat.

Crops and GMOs

The major research effort of EBI seeks an economical way to make fuels from plant fiber, rather than the more easily refined sugars found in the juices of such crops as corn, soybeans and sugarcane - currently the main staples of ethanol production.

They also seek more efficient fuels than ethanol, which is considerably less energy-charged than gasoline and other petroleum distillates.

The EBI's project relies heavily on genetic modification to produce both the "feedstock," as fuel-makers refer to crops, and the microorganisms they plan to engineer to break down the complex sugars in plant fibers for refinement into fuels.

While Somerville has focused on switchgrass, Steve Long, another member of the EBI executive committee, focused on another grass, miscanthus, in his lab at UIUC.

"Steve has calculated that, in his plots in Illinois, that on an annual basis he's getting about two percent of the solar energy fixed by the plants into useful energy," said Somerville.

If production proves feasible at those levels, he said, "we're talking slightly more than one percent of the terrestrial surface to meet all human fuel needs. That's why so many of us feel optimistic about the long-term potential of the field."

But research projects aimed at creating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have emerged as a stormy political issue across the globe because they give ownership of the stuff of life to corporations which create an economy of scale that favors massive plantations in place of traditional small holdings.

Other concerns focus on the wisdom of large-scale introduction of man-made genes into a vastly complex biosphere, while others worry that GMOs could produce unknown forms of illness.

EBI boss Somerville has ridiculed GMO health fears, contending that the worst result that's ever happened "has been a mild rash," while opponents cite reports of intestinal ailments in GMO-fed animals killed to provide meat for human tables. Others point to the infiltration of GMO strains into native foodstuffs, an issue which almost cost Chapela his job at UCB.

Economic pressures resulting from GMO rice strains in India have led to suicide, and Australia currently bans GMO crops, while three million Italians just signed a petition calling for a ban on GMOs in their country.

But GMOs have played little part in the media coverage of EBI.

Critical questions

While the EBI proponents say they are confident they can develop crops that will reduce the global emissions of the greenhouse gasses cited as the key factor in the ongoing global warming crisis, other scientists aren't convinced.

Leading biofuel critics include Rajendra K. Pachauri, chair of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change - the organization which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

The two best-known American biofuel critics are UC Berkeley's Tad Patzek and David Pimentel of Cornell University.

They have been joined by Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), who has urged immediate adoption of standards that ensure that biofuel crop production doesn't lead to destruction of more rain forests.

Forests in Steiner's native country of Brazil have been cleared to make way for fields planted in genetically modified soybeans and for sugarcane.

Steiner also told BBC news that biofuel producers should be required to prove their fuels don't produce more carbon dioxide emissions than they eliminate.

Burning of forests to make way for palm trees for biofuel production have sent CO2 emissions soaring in Indonesia, as well as destroying the habitats of endangered species, including the orangutan.

Meanwhile, BP is hedging its bets. On Nov. 5 the company announced that it was funding collaborative research at Arizona State University on transforming photosynthetic cyanobacteria into a feedstock for high energy transportation fuels.

While no dollar amount was revealed, the university described the project as "significant."

BP also provides $1 million a year to the University of Texas as part of energy consortium which hopes to develop microscopic "nanosensors" to map oilfields.

[Editor's note: This is the second of two articles on concerns arising from UC Berkeley $500 million biofuel program. Part 1 ran in the Nov. 20 issue.]

Australia: Coles speaks out against GM crops

North Queensland Register, 22 November 2007

Supermarket giant Coles has joined the organic industry in speaking out against genetically modified food as State Governments appear closer to lifting of their bans on the commercial growing of GM food crops.

When asked what Coles' position was, at a Parliamentary forum on Tuesday, Coles representative Chris Mara stated that, "Coles listens to our customers and over 90 per cent do not want GM ingredients in their food and Coles whole private label range of

'Smart Buy', 'You'll Love Coles' and 'Coles Finest' exclude all GM ingredients in response to customer concerns".

The statement follows similar sentiments from Goodman Fielder, Australia's largest food company, Tatiara Meats, Australia's largest lamb exporter and 250 other food companies calling on the State Governments to extend their bans of GM food crops.

Biological Farmers of Australia spokesman, Scott Kinnear, said, if genetically engineered crops were introduced in Australia, non-GE and organic farmers will have to bear the crippling costs of testing, segregation, supply chain management and will be held liable if they sell non-GE product that is contaminated.

"Australian farmers will lose valuable export markets and the country will lose its lucrative GE-free status forever," Mr Kinnear said.

SOURCE: BFA and FarmOnline.

Ireland: GM identified in many soya foods sold here

Irish Examiner (Farming Supplement), 22 November 2007.

Genetically modified products have been identified in many soya-based foods for sale in Ireland.

No information is available to the Department of Health and Children in regard to the quantities of genetically-modified products placed on the Irish market, the Dáil was recently told by the Minister of State Pat 'The Cope' Gallagher.

The following GM foods, he said, are authorised in EU member states: vegetable oil from oil seed rape and cotton seed, maize products, soya products and sugar beet products.

"These are normally used as food ingredients and have been identified in products such as vegetable casseroles, gluten-free reduced sugar rusks, soya protein mince, soya protein chunks, soya biscuits and cakes, soya bran, soya flour, infant formula, soya cream, soya yoghurt, soya drink, soya dessert, lecithin granules from soya bean and maize meal, tortilla chips, taco shells, breadcrumbs for chicken, and burger and corn snacks derived from maize. This list, however, is not exhaustive."

Comment from GM-free Ireland

Irish food processors wishing to go GM-free should attend the European Non-GMO Soya Conference co-hosted by the EU Committee of the Regions and the European GMO-Free Regions Network in Brussels on 5 - 6 December: www.gmofree-euregions.net

This event provides an unique opportunity for leading players in the Irish farm and food sector to learn about the GM-free quality agriculture strategy being adopted by many EU Regions, and to build the Irish market for certified non-GMO soya food and animal feed ingredients.

The Minister of State Pat Gallagher failed to mention the following:

•

Most processed foods including chocolate and pastries are made with GM soya products including GM soya meal, GM soya lecithin, and GM maize.

•

Many Irish hotels, restaurants and caterers serve food made with or cooked in GM soya oil, GM maize oil and GM rapeseed oil, without informing customers. These include members of the Irish Hotels Federation and the Restaurants Association of Ireland. However, restaurants and hotels whose chefs are members of Euro-Toques Ireland (the European Community of Cooks www.eurotoquesirl.org) have a rigorous GM-free food policy; but in most cases this policy does not apply to meat, eggs, or dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients.

•

Musgrave Cash and Carry is selling cooking oil made from GM soya or GM rapeseed. This company is part of the Musgrave Group which owns SuperValu and Centra, Budgens and Londis (in the UK), and Musgrave Wholesale Services including Musgrave Cash and Carry, Musgrave Foodservices, Daybreak and Day-Today. This clearly violates every single one of the corporate social responsibility, sustainable development, labour and human rights values claimed in Musgrave's Ethical Trading Policy.

•

Tesco Ireland is currently selling Lifeforce pure soya oil made from GM soya. The words "manufactured from genetically modified soybeans" don't appear in the list of ingredients, but on the back of the label in a location that most consumers would not notice. This product is manufactured by Lifeforce Foods Ltd, Marley's Lane, Drogheda, Co. Louth. The www.lifeforcefoods.ie website, under construction, carries the name of the Boyne Valley Group, Platin, Drogheda, Co. Louth, with a Swiss telephone number at + 41 987 0300. Boyne Valley Group has a § 70m turnover. The Boyne Valley Group's production companies comprise Boyne Valley Honey, Killeen, Lifeforce, Lakeshore, Carroll Marie and Irish Breeze whose products compete in significant sectors: food ambient, non-food, snacks & cereals, confectionery and chilled/frozen. All of these companies products may be suspect.

•

Nearly all the milk, dairy products, pork and red meat as well as many frozen and processed meat and dairy products sold in in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are now being produced from livestock fed on legal as well as illegal varieties of GM soya meal, GM maize gluten and GM distillers' grains (from GM maize).

All of this food is being sold without the GM labels needed to inform consumer choice. The only exception is certified organic produce, and fresh meat and dairy produce sold by Marks & Spencer.

•

The Irish GM labelling system can not be trusted as numerous animal feed and food products containing both legal and illegal GM ingredients have been sold without a GM label, including illegal varieties of US long-grain rice sold for years by most supermarkets and retail outlets until this was accidentally discovered in 2006. In April 2007, thousands of tonnes of illegal GM maize products entered the EU through Ireland and were sold to farmers for animal feed. The Deparment of Agriculture's Animal Feedstuffs Section said most imported animal feed products are not tested for GM content.

•

The Chief Scientific Officer of Ireland, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Teagasc (the Irish Govt. Agriculture and Food Authority), the Irish Farmers Association, the Irish Grain and Feed Association, the Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association, and the biotech industry still continue to claim that consumers are not exposed to GM material by eating meat and dairy products from livestock fed on GM feed. These claims are based on outdated studies which failed to detect GM DNA in meat, milk, or eggs. All of these organisations also deny the existence of any scientific evidence of health risks from GM animal feed and GM food.

•

New scientific evidence shows that small quantities of GM material can end up in food produced from GM animals, and that the use of GM feed can cause a range of impacts on animal health. Two peer-reviewed studies have now detected GM DNA from GM feed in blood, liver, kidneys and intestinal tissue. In addition, a peer-reviewed study and an unpublished study have detected GM DNA in milk. Further research is needed, but it now seems that the public is likely to be consuming GM materials in foods from GM-fed animals, albeit in small quantitites.

•

There is now abundant scientific evidence that food containing or derived from GM ingredients poses significant risks to human health. For details see www.geneticroulette.com

_______________________

Australia: Whey ban on GM canola must stay

Points from the Biological Farmers Australia group http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=44690 [extract from article only]

•

The continuation of the moratorium produces security for the growth of Australian farm business including the rapidly growing organic sector.

•

The global crop area of GM canola has not increased since 1999

•

The claims by GM proponents that we will fall behind and be unable to compete have no foundation and ironically bear the hall marks of emotion and hysteria that the anti GM sector is accused of.

•

The GM canola being pushed for commercial release is not drought or salt tolerant and will not use less fertiliser.

•

The USA and Canada pay billions of dollars of direct subsidies to farmers and this comes at the expense of health and education spending.

•

North American farm incomes have fallen disastrously.

•

Australia remains, of the three players on the global market, the only GM free canola producer

•

Strict labelling laws in the EU makes our canola the preferred product for food and biofuel use.

•

The premiums cannot be denied: Australian canola wins by up to $US120 per tonne, and an average of $US68 more over 2 years than in the previous 10 years.

•

Consumer resistance has increased, even according to loaded opinion surveys.

•

It is not just organic vs GM canola. Commercial release of GM crops will affect organic and non-GM farming across the board, including grains and stock feeds.

•

The cost of segregation has been conservatively estimated again at 5-15pc, even at high admix thresholds and will need to be borne by the GE free and organic farm sector, not the GE sector.

•

Many more processors and retailers now have absolute GM free purchasing policies and marketing claims (Goodman Fielder, etc).

•

The US has lost markets for its organic products due to GM contamination.

•

The main impediment to the growth of the organic sector is lack of supply, which means if certain crop specifications cannot be guaranteed (as in Canada), opportunities cannot be developed.

•

We do not oppose biotechnology, but fully support the use of non GM biotechnology to assist in progressing desirable traits such as drought and salt tolerant crops.

•

There is a growing alliance of farmers and consumers in North America and worldwide opposed to GM wheat being released there next, while litigation is continuing surrounding existing GE crops

_______________________

21 November 2007

USA: Rice in Geary County

27 News (www.ksnt.com/news), 21 Nov 2007. By Beth Vaughn. [shortened]

A group in Junction City harvested its first crop of genetically altered rice. Ventria Bioscience calls its product "medical food" and coins it as an advancement for childhood health.

Ventria Bioscience harvested less than 200 acres this year, a fraction of what they could harvest in years to come. Deeter says, "We're able to change the plant in a unique way so that we can make those types of medicines more affordable."

He has a global vision for the "medical food". However, Ventria has faced it's share of resistance. Is this genetically altered rice dangerous?

Deeter answers, "These proteins are safe, we're regulated by USDA, USDA takes into account all of the issues related to the safety of producing this crop."

Safe or not, this crop has some scientists concerned about it's effects on other crops. Deeter would not release the location of these fields. It's a company secret to protect their project.

World: Company Research on Genetically Modified Foods is Rigged

responsibletechnology.org, Nov 21 2007

[Exerpt only. See full article]

In 2004, four advocates of genetically modified (GM) foods published a study in the British Food Journal that was sure to boost their cause. [1] According to the peer-reviewed paper, when shoppers in a Canadian farm store were confronted with an informed and unbiased choice between GM corn and non-GM corn, most purchased the GM variety. This finding flew in the face of worldwide consumer resistance to GM foods, which had shut markets in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere. It also challenged studies that showed that the more information on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) consumers have, the less they trust them. [2]

The study, which was funded by the biotech-industry front group, Council for Biotechnology Information and the industry's trade association, the Crop Protection Institute of Canada (now Croplife Canada), was given the Journal's prestigious Award for Excellence for the Most Outstanding Paper of 2004 and has been cited often by biotech advocates.

Stuart Laidlaw, a reporter from Canada's Toronto Star, visited the farm store several times during the study and described the scenario in his book Secret Ingredients. Far from offering unbiased choices, key elements appeared rigged to favor GM corn purchases. The consumer education fact sheets were entirely pro-GMO, and Doug Powell, the lead researcher, enthusiastically demonstrated to Laidlaw how he could convince shoppers to buy the GM varieties. He confronted a farmer who had already purchased non-GM corn. After pitching his case for GMOs, Powell proudly had the farmer tell Laidlaw that he had changed his opinion and would buy GM corn in his next shopping trip.

Powell's interference with shoppers' "unbiased" choices was nothing compared to the effect of the signs placed over the corn bins. The sign above the non-GM corn read, "Would you eat wormy sweet corn?" It further listed the chemicals that were sprayed during the season. By contrast, the sign above the GM corn stated, "Here's What Went into Producing Quality Sweet Corn." It is no wonder that 60% of shoppers avoided the "wormy corn." In fact, it may b e a testament to people's distrust of GMOs that 40% still went for the "wormy" option.

Powell and his colleagues did not mention the controversial signage in their study. They claimed that the corn bins in the farm store were "fully labelled" - either "genetically engineered Bt sweet corn" or "Regular sweet-corn."

When Laidlaw's book came out, however, Powell's "wormy" sign was featured in a photograph, [3] exposing what was later described by Cambridge University's Dr. Richard Jennings as "flagrant fraud." Jennings, who is a leading researcher on scientific ethics, says, "It was a sin of omission by failing to divulge information which quite clearly should have been disclosed." [4]

Jennings is among several scientists and outraged citizens that say the paper should have been withdrawn, but the Journal refused. Instead, it published a criticism of the methods by Canadian geneticist Joe Cummins, and allowed Powell to respond with a lengthy reply. [5]

In his defence, Powell claimed that his signs merely used the language of consumers and was "not intended to manipulate consumer purchasing patterns." He also claimed that the "wormy" corn sign was only there for the first week of the trial and was then replaced by other educational messages. But eye witnesses and photographs demonstrate the presence of the sign long after Powell's suggested date of replacement. [6]

This incident illustrates how so-called scientific papers can be manipulated to force conclusions favorable to authors or funders and how peer-reviewed journals may be complicit. While the subject of this particular study provided ammunition in the battle to deny choice to consumers in North America, there is similar "cooked" research in the more critical area of GMO safety assessments.

EU officials propose ban on genetically modified corn seeds

International Herald Tribune, November 21 2007. By By James Kanter.

PARIS: European Union environment officials have determined that two kinds of genetically modified corn could harm butterflies, modify food chains and disturb life in rivers and streams, and they have proposed a ban on the sale of the seeds, which are made by Pioneer Hi-Bred, Dow Agrosciences and Syngenta.

The preliminary decisions, seen by the International Herald Tribune, are circulating within the European Commission, the EU executive, which has the final say. Some officials there are skeptical about a ban that would upset the powerful biotechnology industry and could exacerbate tensions with important EU trading partners like the United States.

In the decisions, the EU environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, says that the genetically modified corn, or maize, seeds - which are not now available on the European market for cultivation - could affect certain butterfly species, specifically the monarch, and other beneficial insects. For instance, research from 2007 indicates that larvae of the monarch butterfly exposed to the genetically modified corn "behave differently than other larvae."

In the decision concerning corn seeds produced by Dow and Pioneer, Dimas calls "potential damage on the environment irreversible." In the decision on Syngenta's corn, Dimas says that "the level of risk generated by the cultivation of this product for the environment is unacceptable."

A decision by the EU to disallow cultivation of the genetically modified crops would be the first of its kind in the trade bloc, making the current battle over genetically modified corn ferocious.

Since 1998, the commission has not approved any applications for the cultivation of genetically modified crops - but neither has the commission actively rejected any applications, as would be the case with the genetically modified corn products.

Banning the applications for corn cultivation also would mark a bold new step for EU environmental authorities, who already are aggressively pursuing regulations on emissions from cars and aircraft that have set it at odds with the United States and angered industries.

"These products have been grown in the U.S. and other countries for years," said Stephen Norton, a spokesman for the United States Trade Representative. "We are not aware of any other case when a product has been rejected after having been reviewed and determined safe by" European food safety authorities, Norton said.

In 2005, the European Food Safety Authority, a European agency based in Parma, Italy, that operates independently of the commission, ruled that the products - 1507, produced by Dow and Pioneer, and Bt11, produced by Syngenta - were unlikely to have an adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment. In the draft decision, Dimas said that other studies had since come to light on the potential effects of the seeds, and that further investigation was needed.

Environmentalists are seizing on the issue, too.

On Wednesday they called on Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, to resist delaying the date for a meeting where the bans could be decided on, and they told him that a ban would have the support of many members of the European public.

"We believe that all commissioners should be given the right to express their views on this matter, which is of great concern to European citizens in all member states," Jorgo Riss, director of the European unit of Greenpeace, wrote in a letter to Barroso co-signed by Friends of the Earth and a number of other groups dedicated to farmers and consumers. "The vast majority of European citizens and consumers are opposed to genetically engineered plants in agriculture and for food," Riss wrote.

Barbara Helfferich, a spokeswoman for Dimas, declined to comment on the specifics of the procedure because commissioners had not yet made a final decision. But she said that the EU was within its rights to make decisions based on the "precautionary principle," even when scientists have found no definitive evidence proving products can cause harm.

"The commission has the authority to be a risk manager when it comes to the safety and science of genetically modified crops," said Helfferich.

She said that the decisions by Dimas could go before the commission within the next few weeks, but she, as well as a spokesman for Barroso, said that no date had yet been set.

In the decisions, Dimas cited research from 2007 showing that consumption of genetically modified "corn byproducts reduced growth and increased mortality of non-target stream insects" and that these insects "are important prey for aquatic and riparian predators" and that this could have "unexpected ecosystem-scale consequences."

Although still preliminary, Dimas's decisions could dramatically tilt the EU policy against future approvals of genetically modified crops, said Nathalie Moll, a spokeswoman for Europabio, an industry group with 80 members including Syngenta, Pioneer and Dow.

The decisions "would be setting a precedent for EU officials to reject products based on nonverified scientific data," said Moll.

Europabio says that the crops grown using the genetically modified corn already are imported into several EU countries, including France and Germany, where they are used to feed animals like cows and chickens.

Rob Gianfranceschi, spokesman at the U.S. Mission to the EU in Brussels, said it was too early to comment on a decision that had not yet been formalized. But he made clear that the United States remained frustrated with EU policies on genetically modified crops.

"The United States has consistently stated that the EU continues to lack a predictable, workable process for approving these products in a way that reflects scientific rather than political factors," Gianfranceschi said.

Last year, in a victory for the United States, Canada and Argentina, the World Trade Organization ruled that the EU was wrongly delaying approvals of genetically modified products and that some countries, like Austria and Hungary, were wrongly banning the import and cultivation of crops.

Moll said the industry still was waiting to see whether the United States and Canada decide to retaliate against the EU for its policies on genetically modified crops.

Only one genetically modified crop is currently grown in Europe, a form of corn produced by Monsanto and nine other companies. Spain began growing that crop 10 years ago, followed by France, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Portugal and Germany. But in a major blow to the biotechnology industry in France, President Nicolas Sarkozy last month vowed to suspend the cultivation of genetically modified crops.

Austria, Hungary and Poland also have banned the Monsanto corn, according to Greenpeace.

Moll of Europabio said the two genetically modified corn varieties Dimas proposed to ban are engineered to produce a toxin, commonly called Bt, that is poisonous to certain insect pests that lodge inside cobs and stalks and eat the plant from the inside. Protecting plants from these insects is important, she said, because the damage leaves the plants open to attack by fungi that produce a different toxin, fumonisin, which can enter the food chain and make products like milk unusable.

"Farmers in Europe must see a benefit in Bt corn because it protects against attacks by one of the major maize pests in Europe," said Moll, adding that there had been a 77 percent increase in cultivation over the past year. Even so, corn represents only 14 percent of European agriculture, with the genetically modified product representing just 1 percent of that amount.

Across the rest of the world, said Moll, more than 200 genetically modified crops are being grown in countries from the United States to the Philippines.

Mexico: NAFTA and Biotech: Twin Horsemen of the Ag Apocalypse
The Last Days of Mexican Corn

CounterPunch, November 21 2007. By John Ross.

Mexico City.

The single, spindly seven foot-tall cornstalk spiring up from the planter box outside a prominent downtown hotel here was filling out with new "elotes" (sweet corn) to the admiration of passer-bys, some of whom even paused to pat the swelling ears with affection. Down the centuries most of the population of this megalopolis migrated here from the countryside at one time or another over the course of the past 500 years and inside every "Chilango" (Mexico City resident) lurks an inner campesino.

But the solitary stalk, sewn by an urban coalition of farmers and ecologists under the banner of "No Hay Pais Sin Maiz" ("There Is No Country Without Corn") in planter boxes outside the downtown hotels, museums, government palaces and other historical monuments can just as easily be seen as a signifier for the fragile state of survival of Mexican corn.

As the year ripens into deep autumn, the corn harvest is pouring in all over Mexico. Out in Santa Cruz Tanaco in the Purepecha Indian Sierra of Michoacan state, the men mow their way down the rows much as their fathers and their fathers before did, snapping off the ears and tossing them into the "tshundi" basket on their backs.

In the evenings, the families will gather around the fire and shuck the "granos" from the cobs into buckets and carry them down to the store to trade for other necessities of life. It is the way in Tanaco in this season of plenitude just as it is in the tens of thousands of tiny farming communities all over Mexico where 29 per cent of the population still lives. But it is a way of life that is fading precipitously. Some say that these indeed may be the last days of Mexican corn.

In fact, this January 1 may prove to be a doomsday date for Mexican maiz when at the stroke of midnight, all tariffs on corn (and beans) will be abolished after more than a decade of incremental NAFTA-driven decreases. Although U.S. corn growers are already dumping 10 million tons of the heavily subsidized grain in Mexico each year, zero tariffs are expected to trigger a tsunami of corn imports, much of it genetically modified, that will drive millions of Mexican farmers off their land - in NAFTA's first 13 years, 6,000,000 have already abandoned their plots - and could well spell the end of the line for 59 distinct "razas" or races of native corn.

Corn was first domesticated eight millennia ago in the Mexican states of Puebla and Oaxaca and Mexico remains the fourth largest corn producer on the planet but its 22,000,000 ton annual yield pales in comparison to U.S. growers who are expected to harvest near 300,000,000 tons this year, accounting for 70 per cent of the world's maize supply. A third of U.S. corn acreage is now under genetically modified seed.

Big Biotec has had its guns trained on Mexican corn for a long time but under the national biosecurity law, Monsanto and its ilk have been barred from selling their GMO seed here. Now the transnationals are putting a full court press on the CIBOGEN, the inter-secretarial committee on bio-security, to vacate the prohibition on GMO sales - the measure was originally enacted in the late '90s in an effort to protect native seed from contamination and homogenization by genetically modified materials.

This September, the CIBOGEN was on track to designate experimental GMO farms in the north of Mexico (Sonora's Yaqui Valley and the Valley of Culiacan) where there are no native corns that could be corrupted by the engineered seeds but the designation was abruptly postponed around issues of potential contamination to the great frustration of a powerhouse pro-GMO coalition motored by the Biotec giants and including the Mexican National Farming Council (big growers), the National Association of Self-Service Stores (Wal-mart - now the biggest tortilla retailer in the country), and the National Farmers Central (CNC) which groups together rank and file farmers attached to the once-ruling (71 years) PRI party.

A dubious milestone in the history of corn was reached in July when scientists at the National Genetics & Biodiversity Laboratories announced that they had successfully mapped the genome of Mexican maiz. That was the good news. The bad news is that the genome will be available to anyone who can pay the Institute's asking price.

Who owns the genome is crucial to the survival of Mexican corn. There is little doubt that the Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis Missouri would love to get its hands on this breakthrough information so that for-profit scientists could design seeds modeled upon the DNA of native corns for commercial sales.

Mexican corn is a rich source of genetic history. Millions of adaptations to specific conditions have created a seed stock with extremely variegated properties. For millennia, native seed savers have set aside corn seed that is resistant to drought whose DNA structure Monsanto will now be able to simulate in its laboratories and market under its brand.

Monsanto took a giant step in locking up the genetic wealth of Mexico this past April 18 when it signed an agreement with the National Association of Corn Producers (CNPMM), a section of the CNC that groups together big corn farmers, to establish regional seed banks in the center and south of the country. CNC members were designated "guardians of the seed" and charged with assembling collections of native corn to be housed in Monsanto-financed repositories.

(Big bucks from Cargill and Maseca-ADM have also funded the seed banks.) "Allowing Monsanto to get so close to the secrets of Mexican corn is like asking Herod to baby-sit," writes Adelita San Vicente, an activist with the "No Hay Pais" coalition in a recent agrarian supplement of the left daily La Jornada.

55 per cent of the crops needed to feed the human race are now grown by just ten corporations. The biggest players in this monopoly game are Bayer, Dow, Dupont, Syngenta (once Novartis), and Monsanto. None of these conglomerates is a seed company. They all began their corporate life selling chemicals for war and farming.

Monsanto, which dominates 71 per cent of the GMO seed market, has operated in Mexico since the post-World War II so-called "green revolution" that featured hybrid seeds ("semillas mejoradas") that only worked when associated with pesticides and fertilizers manufactured by the transnational chemical companies. Selling hybrid seeds and chemical poisons in Mexico continues to be profitable for Monsanto whose total 2006 sales here topped 3,000,000,000 pesos ($300 million USD.) It doesn't hurt that Monsanto Mexico sells hybrid seed for $2 Americano for a packet of a thousand when its states-side price is $1.34.

22,000,000 Mexicans, 13,000,000 of them children, suffer some degree of malnutrition according to doctors at the National Nutrition Institute and Monsanto insists that it can feed them all if only the CIBOGEN will allow it to foist its GMO seed on unwitting corn farmers. But the way Monsanto sells its GMO seed is severely questioned.

Farmers are forced to sign contracts, agreeing to buy GMO seed at a company-fixed price. Monsanto's super-duper "Terminator" seed, named after California's action hero governor, goes sterile after one growing cycle and the campesinos are obligated to buy more. By getting hooked on Monsanto, Mexican farmers, once seed savers and repositories themselves of the knowledge of their inner workings, become consumers of seed, an arrangement that augurs poorly for the survival of Mexico's many native corns.

Moreover, as farmers from other climes who have resisted Monsanto and refused to buy into the GMO blitz, have learned only too traumatically, pollen blowing off contaminated fields will spread to non-GMO crops. Even more egregiously, Monsanto will then send "inspectors" (often off-duty cops) to your farm and detect their patented strains in your fields and charge you with stealing the corporation's property.

When Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser came to Mexico several years back to explain how Monsanto had taken his farm from him for precisely these reasons, local legislators laughed that it was a science fiction scenario. "It is going to happen to you," the old farmer warned with all the prescience of an Aztec seer.

Mexican corn is, of course, not the only native crop that is being disappeared by global capitalism. Native seeds are under siege from pole to pole. In Iraq, where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers come together to form the birthplace of agriculture, one of the very first acts of George Bush's neo-colonial satrap L. Paul Brenner was to issue the notorious Order 81 criminalizing the possession of native seeds. The U.S. military spread out throughout the land distributing little packets of GMO seeds, the euphemistically dubbed Operation "Amber Waves." To make sure that Iraq would no longer have a native agriculture, the national seed bank, located at Abu Ghraib, was looted and set afire.

The threat to native seed has become so acute that the United Nations Food & Agricultural Organization is funding the construction of a doomsday vault on remote Svalbard Island in northern Norway 800 miles from the North Pole. It was thought that seeds cryogenically frozen and stored in deep underground bunkers would be insured of survival. But as the polar bears of that gelid bioregion now know only too well, nothing is safe from the globalizers' hunger to destroy the planet and what it grows.

John Ross is preparing to return to Mexico for the holidays equipped with a new - if uneasy - eye. Mil gracias to everyone who kicked in to help buy it. Contact: johnross@igc.org

20 November 2007

China: Illegal Genetically Modified Rice Found in Chinese Market

EnvironmetalGraffiti.com, 20 November 2007.

Greenpeace recently announced that they have found unauthorized genetically modified rice from the United States for sale in a Beijing supermarket.

Greenpeace found the GMO rice by collecting ten samples of US food from two supermarkets in the Chinese capital. One of the samples contained the Liberty Link strain of GMO rice. The Liberty Link rice, created by Bayer Crop Science, led to a sharp decline in U.S. rice exports after its discovery in U.S. commercial rice supplies last year.

Rice is the staple food for much of Chinaís population. The sale or import of GMO rice is illegal in the country. However, some GMO imports, such as soy beans or corn, are allowed to be processed into other products or sold as animal feed. China does not import a large amount of rice from the United States. The Chinese Ministry of Agriculture is investigating the case.

Sweden: Unapproved GM rice Bt63 contamination in Sweden

Newsdesk (Sweden), 20 November 2007.

(Unofficial brief translation by Akiko Frid)

The National Food Administration (Livsmedelsverket, SLV) in Sweden announced on November 20, 2007, that they found unapproved GM rice Bt63 in a rice noodle from China while they conducted spot checks concerning food from Asian countries. The contaminated noodle was from a company called Hong Kong trading in Stockholm found by the City of Stockholm's Environment and Health Administration (miljöf

rvaltningen i Stockholm).

18 products from Asian countries, especially food from China, were tested. And one of those products had trace of unapproved GM rice Bt63, even though the company had certified the product was free of GMOs. The other 17 products did not have any traces of GMOs.

"The Bt63 which was found was a very small amount, but when it concerns GM materials that are not approved by the EU, there should be none at all as a general rule", said Zofia Kurowska, the national food inspector.

The company, Hong Kong trading, urgently recalled the suspected products.

The National Food Administration reported the matter to the EU via the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF).

More information:

Zofia Kurowska, the national food inspector: Tel: +46-18-17 55 08

Official press release:

http://www.slv.se/templates/SLV_NewsPage.aspx?id=20702&epslanguage=SV&epslanguage=SV SpÂr av otillÂtet genmodifierat ris hittat i kinesiska risnudlar (Urnyhetsarkivet 2007-11-20)

China: U.S GMO rice found in China supermarkets: Greenpeace

Reuters UK, 20 November 2007.

BEIJING (Reuters) - The environmental group, Greenpeace, said unauthorized genetically modified (GMO) rice from the United States was found in Beijing's supermarkets.

China does not allow sales and imports of GMO rice as rice is the staple food for most of the country's population, though it does allow imports, particularly GMO soybeans and corn, to be processed into products, or used as animal feed.

Greenpeace in Beijing collected 10 U.S food samples from two supermarkets in Beijing in August and September and testing showed one of the samples contained Liberty Link rice strain, it said in a statement.

Liberty Link RICE601, a genetically modified strain made by Bayer Crop Science, was discovered in U.S commercial rice supply last year and led to a sharp fall in U.S export sales, especially to countries in Europe.

China is a not a big rice importer from the United States. A Ministry of Agriculture biosafety official told Reuters that the ministry was investigating the case.

There was no immediate comment from the U.S embassy in Beijing. Greenpeace two years ago said it had found GMO rice being sold in markets in Chinese cities in the south. The strain was being test-grown at a university in Wuhan, central Hubei province.

(Reporting by Niu Shuping and Vivi Lin, Editing by Peter Blackburn)

European Agencies and Input Legitimacy:
EFSA, EMeA and EPO in the Post-Delegation Phase

Journal of European Integration, 29:5, 583 - 600
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/07036330701694899
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07036330701694899

By Susana Borrás*, Charalampos Koutalakis** & Frank WendlerÜ

*Center for Business and Politics, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark
**Department of Political Science and Public Administration, University of Athens, Athens, Greece,
ÜFaculty of Law, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT Most studies about the role of independent agencies in the European context focus on the driving forces that condition the incentives of political actors to delegate policy-making competencies, and that influence the agency design and the consequences of delegation for democratic control. However interesting, these studies often disregard the question of the legitimacy of the agencies in the post-delegation phase.

This article aims at redressing this important blind spot in the current literature by highlighting the need for procedural input-legitimacy at the stage of agency opera-tion. It argues that procedural credibility is a fundamental property that explains the need for an increased interaction between agencies and stakeholders at the post-delegation stage. The article examines three prominent cases of agencies in Europe ó the European Food Safety Authority, the European Medicines Agency and the European Patent Office ó in order to assess the extent to which the institutionalization of stake-holder networks facilitate credible knowledge that enhances their input and output legitimacy. The concluding remarks bring these results under the general perspective of democracy and new modes of governance in the EU.

KEY WORDS: EU agencies, legitimacy, stakeholder involvement, EFSA, EMeA, EPO

UK: The secret GM invasion

New Statesman, 20 November 2007. By Gundula Azeez.

A Soil Association study has found that many supermarkets are selling products from animals fed on GM crops, despite having 'non-GM' policies

For over a decade, the public has rejected GM foods. Intuitive concerns had been reinforced by the highly publicised findings of the first Government sponsored animal trials, in which strange lesions were found in the guts of GM-fed rats. To their credit, the supermarkets adopted non-GM policies and, by October 2002, they were using no GM (genetically modified) ingredients in their own-brand products.

Yet, for some years the Soil Association and other organisations have been concerned about the use of GM animal feed. Due to a legal loop-hole, although foods or animal feeds that directly contain GM ingredients must be labelled as 'GM', there is no such requirement for meat and dairy foods produced from animals fed on GM crops.

Any use of GM animal feed could thus be kept hidden from consumers. Last year, in noticeably evasive replies to letters from our supporters, the supermarkets admitted that their non-GM policies did not cover animal feed. The Soil Association decided to conduct an in-depth investigation.

Our findings - presented in our report, Silent invasion: the hidden use of GM crops in livestock feed - are deeply concerning. By testing animal feeds and reviewing the industry's sourcing policies, we have found that high levels of GM animal feed are being used. 73% of the feeds we tested contained some GM soya and 75% were labelled as 'GM'. Based on our findings, around 60% of the maize and 30% of the soya in the dairy and pig sectors are GM.

What this means is that nearly all non-organic milk, dairy products (such as cheese and yoghurt) and pork products sold in UK shops and restaurants are produced from GM-fed animals. So, most consumers are unwittingly eating foods produced from GM crops every day.

We also reviewed progress on the science of the safety of GM crops, since the early days of the debate when there was little to go on. The Food Standards Agency had been assuring consumers that they would not be exposed to GM material by eating foods from GM-fed animals. However, four studies by different scientific teams have now found that small amounts of GM DNA can be detected in milk and tissues from GM-fed animals.

It also turns out that the first animal feeding trials were not flukes. Very many of the animal trials carried out since then have found deeply worrying effects. These include toxic effects in body organs, allergic reactions, unexplained deaths and stunted growth in the offspring. This raises serious questions about how GM-fed animals can be considered suitable for producing human food.

In the view of the Soil Association, there has been a failure of both the market and the scientific advisory process. The biotechnology industry has managed to persuade many normally clear-minded people, sadly including many scientists, that they should support GM crops if they are 'pro-science'.

The important fact that the science has actually emerged against GM crops has gone unnoticed. Perhaps it would help to point out that genetic engineering is not a science, it is only a technique. Rejection of GM does not mean a rejection of science.

Until the scientific community come to terms with the research and supports a responsible - and genuinely science-based - approach, the Soil Association strongly recommends that people try to avoid foods produced from GM-fed animals. Among the supermarkets, Marks & Spencer is far ahead of the others, with all of their milk and fresh meat produced from non-GM feed. We urge other supermarkets and catering companies to follow their lead and to meanwhile to label any products from GM-fed animals so that at least people can choose.

UK: We don't need genetically modified crops to improve our diet

The Guardian (Letters), November 20 2007.

It is a shame your article didn't dig a little deeper into industry claims over GM nutrient-enhanced crops (GM plants that produce fish oils could help fight heart disease, November 16). A key reason for the low levels of nutrients in our diets is the excessive processing carried out by food companies. But if the food industry was serious about tackling diet-related health problems, it would commit to cutting down on the high levels of salt, sugar and fat in our food rather than investing in expensive, and unproven, GM solutions.

In the drive to produce ever-cheaper food, the food and GM industries have contributed significantly to health and environmental problems. Now they want to profit further from a techno-fix solution to these problems. This research is just another attempt to convince the public to accept GM food rather than a genuine effort to tackle the consequences of our diets.

Clare Oxborrow
Food campaigner, Friends of the Earth

Surely feeding animals crops that have been enhanced with genes from algae is a convoluted way of consuming omega-3 fatty acids. It makes far more sense to eat plant sources directly. Scientific studies show that the richest sources of omega-3 fats can be found in seed oils such as linseed and rapeseed, as well as soya oil, seeds, nuts and leafy vegetables such as spinach. Plant oils are twice as effective as fish oils at reducing the risk of a secondary heart attack. Not surprising, then, that those who consume a plant-based diet suffer less diet-related diseases than meat eaters.

Kelly Slade
Campaigns officer, Animal Aid

Unilever and the German biotech company BASF Plant Sciences are partners in the European Lipgene project. The food industry is simply copying the tobacco industry's old tactics when it suggests that genetically engineering healthy oils into the food chain will tackle the epidemic of obesity. GM crops with altered oils or nutrients could harm health or the environment. Unlike supplements or processed foods they cannot be recalled if anything goes wrong.

Dr Helen Wallace
Director GeneWatch UK

A significant contributing factor in rising heart disease, especially in low-income families, is a lack of knowledge about healthy diet. The long-term effects of GM plant production on human health are as yet unknown. Mercury levels in fish are an indicator that marine pollution is reaching dangerous levels. Surely this shows we should stop playing with nature. We must adopt a long-term approach to renew the planet's natural balance through education of individuals and by lobbying political players, instead of being driven by profit-based mechanisms that benefit few and cause irreparable damage to our planet.

Susannah Bayley
Paris

UK: Some comments posted on The Times website:

The problem with this article, as is so often the case with reporting on genetic engineering (GE), is what is left unsaid by Prof. Napier. There are many excellent vegetable sources of the omega3 fatty acid ALA (especially good ones are flax seed and several tree nuts), which the body may then convert to the needed types of omega3. The problem is that we sometimes consume too much of omega6 fatty acids, which slow the conversion process. This may be remedied by simple dietary changes. But I suppose common sense is more difficult for GE corporations to sell.

Doug Gurian-Sherman, Ph.D., Washington, DC.

"No alternative"? - rubbish!! There is no shortage of Herring or Mackrel in the UK - it's a vastly underexploited resource and it would be far better to encourage people to eat more of it, which would help our beleagured local fishing industry too, rather than mess about with the basic building blocks of our food-chain, with no real idea of where it will lead us.

John Willis, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Force feed gm concentrates to these fools for two years and if there is no reaction i may just and i mean just consider eating a tiny amount, ps and i farm 1020 acres.

P.W. Johnstone, Aberdeenshire, UK

So what about the generations of humans who didn't live near the sea or whose communities didn't do fishing? What did they do for Omega3?

Inge Jones, London, UK

USA: BS-free milk

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Letter to the editor, November 20, 2007

I'm glad the Trib chose to cover the Pennsylvania milk-hormone labeling story on Page 1 and in great detail ("Got hormones?," Nov. 19 and PghTrib.com).

Here is a perfect storm of state ineptitude and cronyism, both hallmarks of Pennsylvania government.

I doubt that "BST-free" or "organic" products have any special benefits, but that isn't the point.

In a free country, one might let dairies that want to use the BST hormone in milk production fight it out in the market with smaller competitors that wish to label their products "BST-free." But this is Pennsylvania, where the state Department of Agriculture finds it necessary to actually prevent us from knowing whether the hormone was even used!

Whose interest does that serve? Corporate dairies, and the hormone producer Monsanto, certainly. The Monsanto spokesman thinks we're too stupid to know whether BST makes any difference and so we are to be spared the strain of thinking about it. State Agriculture Secretary Wolff thinks BST-free might be offered at an "unjustified higher price." News flash, Mr. Secretary; if it costs too much we just won't buy it!

If our government worried more about its output of BS rather than BST, we'd all be better off.

Bob Simeone
Shadyside

Comment from GM Watch

Monsanto's rBST is a genetically engineered growth hormone injected into cattle to increase their milk yield. It's banned in the European Union, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and even Canada, on either human health and/or animal welfare grounds.

World: 2008: Ban-GMOs Year + People's No GE Day: 8th of April

CALL FOR PARTICIPATION

Because bio-technologies generated by an infant science should not be allowed to modify the genetic structure of food, because natural seeds should not be artificially modified in order to become the property of private companies...

Citizens from around the world decided to celebrate 2008 as a 'Ban-GMOs Year', in a series of information events happening worldwide, including a People's No GE Day on the 8th of April.

2008 is the right time to react globally to a small subset of businessmen, scientists and politicians - a coalition which only serves itself, as it tries to take over our staple foods, as it wrongly develops agro-fuels at the expense of small farmers and rainforests, as its only response to all the prdicted genetic contamination is to keep native seeds frozen in a Doomsday Seed Vault (to be launched in March 2008).

Despite the recent unexplained death of honeybee colonies, despite the reduction in healthy soil bacteria due to industrial agriculture, they are still allowing the GM contamination of natural seeds. As long as we cannot stop the wind blowing, GMOs must be banned from our fields.

GM plants are one drop too many in the overflowing tank of industrial agriculture, the principles underlying which must be replaced by sustainable ones if we are to save the planet. Let's make it happen in 2008!

Current Global Agenda at: http://www.altercampagne.net

Register at: alter.campagne@yahoo.fr

Australia: Farmers Are Earning Significant Premium for Staying GM Free Says Minister

GM Free New Zealand press release from Jon Carapiet, 20 November 2007.

The Minister of Agriculture in Western Australia is backing calls for a moratorium on commerical release of GMO's and says farmers are earning a significant premium by preserving their products as GM-free.

Kim Chance says there is a major international competitive advantage from Australian farmers staying GM-free.

But New Zealand farmers also need to be protected to preserve their clean-green positioning, and are at risk given the absence of an official moratorium in New Zealand. Having allowed the legislated moratorium to lapse, the New Zealand government is allowing applications to ERMA for trials and commercial crops.

Figures supplied by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics (ABARE) show Australian non-GM canola is now commanding a substantial price premium over that of Canadian farmers who used to regularly receive a premium for their non-GM canola.

"By September 2007, Australian non-GM canola prices had exceeded Canadian GM canola prices by some US$58 a tonne." (Source: ABARE).

"This represents a turnaround of some US$120 per tonne in favour of Australia's non-GM canola producers," said Mr Chance.

Mr Chance said ABARE's figures showed it was now Australia's canola farmers who were being paid a substantial premium for their GM-free product.

New Zealand has an informal moratorium on GM crops by virtue of the market demand for GM-free foods and the devastating impact contamination would have on our trade. But this may not be enough to protect farmers.

The lesson from overseas use of GMO's is that contamination is inevitable and there can be no co-existence without widespread contamination of conventional and organic production systems. "It is time for the moratorium to be re- introduced in New Zealand to assert our national identity and focus scientific efforts on projects which better fit with our values and market position," says Jon Carapiet from GE free NZ (in food and environment).

"There are already uses of gene science in containment that are ethical and do not contaminate the environment."

"New Zealand needs a new biotechnology strategy so that Farmers can benefit from ethical research and still maintain there GE-free status," says Mr Carapiet.

Australia: A Bitter Harvest

Herald Sun, November 20 2007. By Peter Flaherty.

Whatever ppro[Victoria's] Premier John Brumby decides after a four-year moratorium on genetically-modified crops is certain to reap a whirlwind.

The moratorium ends on February 29 and those in the know believe the Government is positioning itself for life in a GM world.

The Premier could decide to extend what has been effectively a ban, but more likely farmers will be allowed to start planting GM canola.

Earlier this year, the Government set up an independent panel to review the ban.

Headed by Sir Gustav Nossal, the state's chief scientist, the panel was asked to examine the trade implications for Victorian farmers and food exporters if the ban was lifted.

The review centred on trade issues and not the possible health risks associated with GM foods because this was not part of its brief.

It submitted its findings to Agriculture Minister Joe Helper earlier this month and he is expected to announce the Government's position shortly.

The Victorian Farmers Federation wants the ban lifted. It believes farmers will gain significant financial benefits growing canola crops that promise herbicide tolerance and increased yields.

But opponents of GM foods are starting to gather significant allies.

Goodman Fielder, the nation's largest Australian-owned food company, sent a letter to Premier Brumby saying consumers were becoming increasingly concerned at the possible health risks associated with GM foods.

It asked for the moratorium to stay.

Last week, Tatiara Meats, Australia's largest lamb exporter, said lifting the moratorium would compromise Australia's green image and reduce prices for Australian lamb in Europe, the US and Japan.

Meanwhile, one of the world's leading critics of GM food, US author Jeffrey Smith, has arrived in Melbourne to add his weight to the debate.

Smith, who has written two books on the issue, believes the rush to embrace GM foods has exposed everyone to serious health risks.

Supporters say GM foods are being consumed around the world and there is no proof of any side effects.

But Smith says there has been very little independent testing on the possible health impacts of eating GM food.

Instead, it has been left to the companies creating new strains of GM food to offer assurances.

Hardly independent and it begs the question, why didn't the State Government add health issues to the review conducted by Sir Gustav Nossal?

Why was it limited to trade?

And why is Agriculture Minister Helper refusing to meet Smith to discuss concerns raised by scientists around the world?

Smith is guest speaker at a public forum at Parliament House at noon today. It wouldn't take much for Minister Helper to wander in and hear what he has to say.

Significantly, Helper's counterparts in Western Australia and Tasmania have already done so. And the signs are they intend to keep their moratoriums in place.

Genetic technology, which has the potential to do much good in the world, is being driven by multi-nationals, which stand to make a great deal of money out of GM.

These companies should be allowed to profit from their technology, but only after it is proved to be safe.

In his latest book, Smith outlines 65 possible risks to human and animal health from scientific studies and medical research from around the world.

It's sobering stuff and makes the need for more research from independent organisations vital.

Until that takes place, the moratorium should stay.

Farmers are only one part of our food chain and Premier Brumby would do well to consider that before he commits to a brave new world where at least two other states fear to tread.

Peter Flaherty is Herald Sun environment editor

19 November 2007

UK: Supermarkets caught up in GM label row

The Ecologist Online, 19 November 2007.

Supermarkets have been accused of misleading consumers by not labelling food produced from genetically modified crops.

A major investigation has found that the majority of milk, dairy and pork products sold in UK supermarkets are being produced from animals fed on GM crops.

While UK supermarkets have removed many products made directly with GM ingredients they continue to allow the use of GM animal feed. There is no mandatory requirement on them to label food produced from GM-fed animals.

The Soil Association, which conducted the investigation, said it was tantamount to a "GM stealth invasion of the UK food-chain". It said consumers were being denied their right to make a fully informed buying decision.

Around 60 per cent of the maize and 30 per cent of the soya fed to dairy cattle and pigs is GM. In addition around a third of eggs are from GM-fed hens.

Soil Association director Patrick Holden said supermarkets were guilty of deceiving consumers.

"This is not just accidental contamination, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of GM grain are being used to produce our food each year. Biotechnology companies have clearly used imported animal feed as a Trojan Horse to introduce GM into the UK food chain, despite the fact that the British public have voted overwhelmingly against GM.

"We urge the public to only buy meat and dairy that is known to be produced from non-GM fed animals, and to write to the supermarkets and ask them to stop allowing the use of GM feed. All retailers and food sectors should follow their lead. We also call on the supermarkets to label these products so they are being honest with their customers," added Mr Holden.

UK consumers unwittingly eating GMO food

FreshPlaza.com, 19 November 2007.

British consumers are unwittingly eating food produced from genetically modified crops with nearly all milk, dairy products and pork produced from GMO-fed animals, Britain's largest organic certification body said on Friday.

The Soil Association, which opposes GMO crops, said that a survey estimated about 60 percent of maize and 30 percent of soya fed to dairy cattle and pigs is genetically modified. "Biotechnology companies have clearly used imported animal feed as a Trojan Horse to introduce GM into the UK food chain," Soil Association director Patrick Holden said in a statement.

There has been significant opposition to GMO crops among British consumers.

The Soil Association, which certifies about 70 percent of the organic food sold in Britain, said there was no requirement to label foods produced from GMO-fed animals so shoppers found it hard to avoid these products.

Poultry producers have widely adopted non-GMO feed policies, in contrast to dairy and pig sectors, but around one-third of eggs are from GMO-fed hens, the Soil Association said.

UK: Council is granted special status

Burnham and Highbridge Weekly News, 19 November 2007. By Laura Thorpe

SOMERSET County Council's Scientific Services laboratory has been granted membership of the European Network of Genetically Modified Organism Laboratories after nomination by the Food Standards Agency.

Only five other laboratories in the UK have been awarded membership to the network.

ENGL is an organisation based in Italy and is the leading official enforcement body in Europe for laboratories that specialise in the analysis of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

By becoming members of the organisation Somerset Scientific Services will be given access to cutting edge laboratory technology.

The membership was obtained following work carried out with the Food Standards Agency to analyse GMO levels in a range of foods and animal feeds.

Gerald Hudd, Somerset County Council's Group Manager for Scientific Services, said: "GMOs are increasingly being used in food and animal feeds so it is important that we know exactly what is in food and consumers know what they are buying. Members of ENGL can access new methods and information before anybody else. This will ensure that Somerset consumers will be protected from the presence of illegal GMO's and ensure that where permitted GMO's are present, they are labelled correctly so that consumers can choose to avoid them if they wish."

UK: GM feed warning could spark additional consumer resistance

FoodProductionDaily.com, 19 November 2007. By Ahmed ElAmin

Nearly all the milk, dairy products and pork in the UK are produced from animals fed on genetically modified (GM) crops, and none are labelled, according to a study by an organic lobby group.

The Soil Association is a lobbying and certification organisation for organic food and farming.

The report could instil further fears in a public already skittish about the safety of GM foods due to the apparent lack of long-term scientific studies into the health risk of modified crops.

If pressure is brought on supermarkets to enforce an anti-GM policy, the study could eventually lead to processors having to track and trace the source of their meat supplies.

The organisation also claims that new scientific evidence, reviewed in the report, shows that small amounts of GM DNA end up in milk and animal tissues of GM-fed animals, contrary to the assurances from the FSA.

"In addition, at least 13 animal feeding trials now show a range of alarming health effects in animals fed GM -- lesions in the gut, toxic effects in body organs, unexplained deaths and stunted growth in their offspring," the Soil Association claimed.

The Soil Association said its study found around 60 per cent of the maize and 30 per cent of the soya used as feed by dairy and pig farmers is made up of GM crops.

"This means that most of the non-organic milk, dairy products and pork being sold in the UK is from GM-fed animals," the Soil Association concludes.

The organisation noted that all supermarkets are widely allowing the use of GM feed in their meat supplies, except for their fresh own-label chicken, turkey and eggs.

"Due to a loophole in the law, none of this food is labelled as 'GM' so it is difficult to avoid," the Soil Association stated.

M&S was commended for being "ahead" of the competition as as all milk and fresh meat from the chain is sourced from non-GM fed animals.

However M&S does not not require non-GM fed animals for their frozen and processed products.

At the moment, 'organic' is the only food type which prohibits GM feed, the Soil Association stated.

The Soil Assocation called for public action to stop the use of GM in animal feed, including bring pressure to bear on supermarkets, food processors and restaurants.

The Soil Association report is available here: http://www.soilassociation.org/gm

Australia: Democrats to bid to extend GM ban in SA

AAP, 19 November 2007

The Australian Democrats will move to extend a ban on genetically modified crops in South Australia until 2013.

The current moratorium on GM crops is due to expire at the end of March next year.

State Democrat MP Sandra Kanck said there had been no moves from the state Labor government to extend the ban despite growing support from consumers for SA to remain GM free.

"Australian governments have ignored nature's limits with climate change," Ms Kanck said.

"We can't make the same mistake with our food sources.

"If Australia wants to keep its clean, green image and ensure food security it must keep GM crops out."

Ms Kanck will introduce her bill to state parliament on Wednesday to extend the GM moratorium until 2013.

She said that would give scientists a chance to provide some definitive answers on the benefits or dangers associated with GM foods.

"But until they can prove its safety, we should not take the risk of letting this technology free" Ms Kanck said.

Australia: Company listens to consumer concerns

Rural Report for Monday, November 19 2007

Food giant Goodman Fielder wants Australia's GE moratorium to be extended by five years. South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales are all reviewing whether to keep the ban on genetically-engineered crops, as it is due to end next April.

GE Free New Zealand president Claire Bleakley says Goodman Fielder is a trans-Tasman body listening to consumers' concerns about GE. She says it may force the GE companies to do the research that is needed to ensure human and environmental health is safe.

Ms Bleakley says more stringent research data is needed to show how bad genetic engineering is.

Australia: Praise for Trans-Tasman Giant's GM-Free Policy

Press Release: GE Free NZ, 19 November 2007

GE Free NZ (in food and environment) is welcoming food giant Goodman Fielder's decision to support continuation of Australia's GM moratorium and to put the wishes of their consumers first.

Despite federal government pushing for GM releases most states in Australia have backed moratoria and are seeing their farmers and food producers benefit from being able to a supply the massive market for GM-free ingredients.

Over the last few months the Australian government has been visited by Jeffery Smith a science journalist specialising in GMO's, as well as by a Japanese delegation representing 23 of their largest consumer groups. Both delegations warned the Australian government and farmers about the strong consumer aversion to GM foods.

New Zealand producers are already heeding similar warnings and have stayed GM-free.

Jeffery Smith's new book documents the problems and unknown risks posed by GMO's and raises serious questions about the environmental and health impacts of these crops.

The decision on GMO's in Australia directly affects New Zealand as it has very close ties with Australia. Both countries benefit from a positive market image, including being GM-free, and a trans-Tasman body: Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), sets food standards for both countries.

"It is good to know that Goodman Fielder, our biggest staple food company, is listening to consumers and supporting the need to have reliable data on the environment and health effects of these crops," said Claire Bleakley of GE Free NZ (in food and environment).

As concern for environmental issues and sustainability continues, the way food is grown and even the way it is packaged is increasingly important feature for consumers, especially in New Zealand's and Australia's most high-value export markets.

The decision by Goodman Fielder follows on from a large smoothie company 'Innocent' also confirming it is choosing to stay with recycled packaging (PET) instead of polylactic packaging (PLA) derived from a GMO corn starch plastic. In explaining the decision they cited virgin land being used for production of packaging and the use of corn that is genetically modified.

"The environmental benefit of being able to produce GM-free, organic and low-residue conventional foods is also matched by the economic benefits," said Jon Carapiet from GE Free NZ ( in food and environment).

"Australia and New Zealand farmers and food manufacturers must be on guard to protect their reputation or risk a collapse in consumer confidence and in exports vital to both economies".

18 November 2007

The Philippines: Kalinga Farmers Hit Use of Hybrid Seeds, Agri Plans

Northern Dispatch, Vol. VII, No. 41, November 18-24, 2007. By Virginie Dammay.

TABUK, Kalinga -- Farmers in this rice-producing province have hit the introduction of hybrid varieties of rice here, saying the increased use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) has been taking its toll on them and their families.

Particularly addressing their question to the Department of Agriculture (DA), the farmers said the Agriculture Department has been promoting hybrid seeds, instead of traditional varieties, at the expense of the farmers and the environment. Representing DA in the dialogue during the recently-concluded fourth general assembly of the Tignayan dagiti Mannalon iti Kalinga (TMK), where some 250 farmers gathered, Dr. Julie Aclam said the department has to promote the planting of hybrid seeds because the government has poured out millions for the said program.

The promotion of GMOs is an initiative by multinational companies who spend millions to come up with hybrid seeds of rice, corn and other crops, and register its patent as their own, according to Fernando Bagyan of the Alyansa dagiti Pesante iti Taeng Kordilyera (Apit Tako). Ý

In his keynote address, Rev. Fr. Denver Marrero of the Episcopal Diocese of Northern Luzon-Philippines, who since his youth is also a farmer,Ý stressed these GMO seeds cannot be re-planted for the next cropping, meaning that farmers have to buy every cropping season - thus bringing in more profits to the multinational companies.

"Worst is the excessive use of chemicals that goes with these GMO seeds which is destructive to the environment and to humans as well," added Marrero.

Meanwhile, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP or Peasant Movement of the Philippines) secretary-general Danilo Ramos told the Cordillera farmers the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) and the RP-China Agricultural Agreements would take away at least two million hectares of agricultural lands, one-half of which would be devoted to hybrid crops. Ý

Ramos said seven out of 10 farmers do not own the land they till, as he hit the government's claim that it has distributed lands to more than two million farmers.

"Poverty and exploitation has worsened through the U.S.-Arroyo policies of deregulation, privatization and liberalization," Ramos told the farmers, saying these are imposed by the International Monetary Fund-World Bank (IMF-WB) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Bagyan also questioned the government's sincerity in addressing the plight of Cordillera farmers, citing the aggressive mining investment campaign of the GMA administration that opens up the whole region to local and foreign mining exploitation.

Malapiat farmers criticized the delayed government response to the Rizal land issue, which has claimed several lives in demolition attempts sanctioned by local government.

17 November 2007

USA: According to your religious faith, is genetic engineering morally acceptable?
Ask right question

McClatchy Newspapers, 17 November 2007.

Lama Chuck Stanford, Rime Buddhist Center & Monastery, Kansas City, Mo.: Genetic engineering is such a new technology that obviously most ancient faiths, such as Buddhism, won't have any mention of it in their sacred texts.

Those opposed to genetic engineering say it is wrong because it is "doing the work of God." However, this is an over-simplified view that ignores the benefits of genetic engineering we have been enjoying for many years. For example, since 1982 most insulin has been produced from genetically engineered bacteria at a much-reduced cost.

So genetic engineering, like most technologies, has the potential for great benefit and also great harm. In Buddhism it is said that you must combine compassion with wisdom. One without the other is incomplete. This would seem to be especially true when it comes to genetic engineering.

From the Buddhist perspective, we are all connected through a vast web of interconnectedness. For Buddhists, this is true not only from a spiritual perspective, but it is also true from an environmental perspective.

Subsequently, you can't change one thing without affecting everything else. One of the unknown dangers of introducing genetically altered plants and animals into the environment are the potential dangers of long-term human consumption of those modified foods.

So asking if genetic engineering is morally right or wrong is the wrong question to ask. Instead we should ask if genetic engineering is being conducted in a careful and responsible way so as not to harm the environment or us.

Unacceptable - Pastor Raymond Davis Jr., Greater Corinthian Church of the Christ, Kansas City, Mo.:

In these days of booming technology advances, this particular science is very critical to our thinking and its usages. Because of my limited knowledge regarding the subject, my moral perspective concerning this science is aided by what has been put into public view and well-documented by those in the profession, as well as those who are deemed as watchmen of the profession.

For example, the point has been made that the concept of genetic engineering is an "imprecise technology," and, as such, has fundamental dangers.

Side effects have been loosely described as "like performing heart surgery with a shovel."

Also, it has been noted that scientists themselves do not yet understand living systems completely enough to guarantee against harm to our health or environment.

From a personal faith perspective, being Christian, there is a critical theological point of view that is not lost to many Christians.

This theology speaks to the moral consequences that this science feeds into. The entire concept nurtures the pride and arrogance of human nature. Scripturally speaking, man becomes like the Great Deceiver who said, "Ye shall be as gods " Genesis 3:5 ).

Therefore, not to minimize the quest for good and healthy living, genetic engineering is not morally acceptable.

USA: Biotechnology as religion

Nature Biotechnology 22, 659 - 660 (2004) doi:10.1038/nbt0604-659: Commentary, by Leigh Turner.
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nbt/journal/v22/n6/full/nbt0604-659.html

Since the early days of the Human Genome Project, numerous scholars have explored how genetics often serves not just as a scientific research program, but also as a theology or quasi-religious belief system. Dorothy Nelkin, a longtime observer of popular understandings of genetics, drew attention to "promotional metaphors" characterizing the genome as "The Book of Life" and the Human Genome Project as the quest for the "Holy Grail" [1]. Nelkin noted the spiritual aspects of "genetic essentialism" in which genes are imbued with all the properties of the person or self. Developing this line of analysis, Brian Alexander's book [2] explores the prophets, disciples and spiritual creed of biotech.

Many individuals draw a bright line between religion and the sciences. Religious narratives, according to this account, contain beliefs about the universe, the creation of the cosmos and notions of afterlife and resurrection. Science, in contrast, is asserted to provide not value-laden beliefs, but factual understandings of the world denuded of theological or religious significance. Popular accounts of genetics, however, do not merely include scientific understandings of natural processes. Rather, genetics-and biotech more broadly-has all the social power of a belief system or surrogate religion.

Although religious understandings extend far beyond notions of immortality and models of an afterlife, many religious traditions provide an important existential function. They provide followers with notions of a life beyond death. Human existence does not end at the moment of death. Rather, the soul crosses into another world - heaven, hell, purgatory or some other place - and the material body is either reconstituted or rendered irrelevant. In part, many sociologists of religion argue, religions provide belief systems that negate the finality of death and transience of the person. What doctrines of resurrection and transmigration of souls once offered, the mythology of biotech now provides.

Within religious traditions, spiritual narratives concerning immortality typically include a journey to another world. Within the belief systems of transhumanists, posthumanists and other technological enthusiasts, biotech offers the prospect for life extension and (more fancifully) even immortality within this world. We can recognize how biotech serves as a surrogate religious system whenever we encounter technological enthusiasts convinced that somatic cell nuclear transfer, stem cell research and regenerative medicine, gene therapy, artificial organs and prosthetic implants will enable researchers to slow or reverse aging processes and permit humans to lead prolonged lives [3]. The identification of aging genes, the creation of long-lasting artificial organs and prostheses and the use of telomerase and stem cell therapies will all supposedly enable individuals to avoid the harmful effects of aging and escape mortality [4]. Fantasies about artificial intelligence and advanced robotic technologies are often added to such biotechnological dreams. Technoevangelists refer to the prospect of achieving immortality through downloading human minds into computers or using cybernetic technologies to creation human-machine cyborgs with long-lasting, replaceable parts.

Traditional religious cosmologies place eternity on some other plane of existence. Biotechnological fantasies locate immortality here on earth. Both religious mythologies concerning immortality and biotechnological fantasies about controlling aging and conquering mortality respond to understandable human anxieties surrounding death. Death represents an end to human existence, the destruction of the self and the breaking of social bonds. Religious notions of resurrection and eternal life and popular biotechnological fantasies about creating immortal bodies both respond to fears about death, impermanence, human vulnerability and the dissolution of the self. Both religious theological frameworks and quasi-religious biotechnological fantasies suggest that aging and fragility can be conquered and death overcome.

Many biotech enthusiasts have no interest in traditional religions. They identify themselves as atheists, agnostics or 'brightists.' Religion, for them, offers no framework for salvation. Instead, biotech provides a surrogate religious narrative. Biotech offers the prospect of a this-worldly form of life extension. In some respects, what could be more different than belief in theological dogmas and enthusiasm for developments in life sciences research, biotech, robotics and artificial intelligence? 'Science' and 'religion' are often juxtaposed as polar opposites. However, science and technology can very easily provide surrogate religious systems promising many of the insights and rewards offered by traditional religious cosmologies.

Biotech, in a similar manner to many religious movements, has its charismatic prophets, enthusiastic evangelists and enrapt audiences. Like religions, it offers a comforting message of salvation. Instead of imagining a day of rapture when the dead rise from their graves to begin eternal life, biotech enthusiasts imagine the era when medical technologies provide a renewable, largely imperishable body.

Many religious beliefs carry little threat of individual or social harm. However, religious cosmologies can have pernicious consequences. Belief in an afterlife can lead cult members to commit mass suicide. Notions of a glorious afterlife can lead believers to treat this-wordly existence with contempt. Similarly, biotech fantasies about immortality can have disturbing consequences. Trusting individuals can purchase costly 'antiaging' products that have no discernable effect upon the prolongation of life. Enthusiasm for biotech can create unrealistic expectations about the capacity of biomedicine to control illness and aging. Belief in the imminent arrival of radically innovative biotech therapies can create unhelpful expectations when individuals or their loved ones show signs of illness or aging. An obsessive quest for the elixir of immortality can build a cult around the youthful, unwrinkled body.

Biotech is not just an assemblage of research programs and techniques. In a scientific and technological era, biotech also offers a surrogate religious framework for many individuals. We might want to explore the dangers associated with turning biotech into a belief system. With little reason to think that the biotechnological rapture of posthuman bodies is imminent, we might want to start paying more attention to how biotech enthusiasts prey upon deep-rooted fears and anxieties and offer familiar messages about how death shall be no more. The religion of biotech needs to be challenged by debunkers and skeptics as 'antiaging' potions and nostrums become increasingly popular and profitable.

About the author

Leigh Turner is in the Biomedical Ethics Unit, Department of Social Studies of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 3647 Peel Street, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1X1, Canada and 2003 - 2004 member of the Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA. turner@ias.edu

References

1. Nelkin, D. Public Understanding Sci. 3, 25-31 (1994).

2. Alexander, B. Rapture: How Biotech Became the New Religion (Basic Books, New York, 2003).

3. Hall, S.S. Merchants of Immortality: Chasing the Dream of Human Life Extension (Houghton Mifflin, New York, USA, 2003).

4. West, M. The Immortal Cell: One Scientist's Quest to Solve the Mystery of Human Aging (Doubleday, New York, 2003).

16 November 2007

UK: Public unaware that most milk, dairy products and pork from GM

Soil Association press release, 16 November 2007.

Nearly all the milk, dairy products and pork in UK supermarkets are being produced from animals fed on GM crops, and none of this is labelled, according to a Soil Association investigation. Tests of animal feed and a survey of company policies have revealed that all the supermarkets are widely allowing the use of GM feed. The report found that around 60% of the maize and 30% of the soya fed to dairy cattle and pigs is GM. [1] Most consumers are unwittingly eating food produced from GM crops everyday.

Supermarkets have been trumpeting their non-GM food policies, having removed all of their own-label foods made directly with GM ingredients by October 2002 in response to consumer concerns. However, unknown to most of the public supermarkets did not prohibit the use of GM animal feed. Because of a legal loophole, there is no requirement to label food produced from GM-fed animals so shoppers will find it hard to avoid food produced from GM. [2]

Currently, the only food standard that guarantees the non-use of GM feed is organic. The basic food industry mark, the ëLittle Red Tractor', allows the use of GM feed. Even ethical labels like ëFreedom foods' allow animals to be fed GM crops. For non-organic food, Marks & Spencer offers the only refuge in offering all its milk and fresh meat from non-GM feed, but it does allow GM feed for its frozen and processed foods. All meat and dairy foods can and should be produced from non-GM feed. Unlike the dairy and pig sectors, the poultry sector has widely adopted non-GM feed policies, though around a third of eggs are from GM-fed hens. [3]

This GM stealth invasion of the UK food-chain is denying consumers their right to make fully informed choices. For years, the Food Standards Agency has been assuring consumers they would not be exposed to GM material by eating meat and dairy products from GM-fed animals. Scientific studies have now found small amounts of GM DNA in milk and animal tissues from GM-fed livestock. [4] And studies on GM-fed livestock are finding horrendous effects, including lesions on the gut, toxic effects in body organs, unexplained deaths and stunted growth in their offspring. [5] This raises concerns about the long-term health impacts on humans consuming products from GM-fed animals.

Patrick Holden, Soil Association director said: "This amounts to deception on a large-scale. This is not just accidental contamination, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of GM grain are being used to produce our food each year. Biotechnology companies have clearly used imported animal feed as a Trojan Horse to introduce GM into the UK food chain, despite the fact that the British public have voted overwhelmingly against GM.

"The research on the presence of GM DNA in food from GM-fed animals and the impacts on animals is alarming. We urge the public to only buy meat and dairy that are known to be produced from non-GM fed animals, and to write to the supermarkets and ask them to stop allowing the use of GM feed. While it is excellent that Marks & Spencer and the poultry industry have restricted GM feed already, all retailers and food sectors should follow their lead. We also call on the supermarkets to label these products so they are being honest with their customers."

A key concern is that future supplies of non-GM feed will be threatened unless there is wide-spread consumer awareness on this issue and pressure on the food industry to ensure that meat and dairy products come from livestock raised on non-GM feed. [6]

In the past, supermarkets have resisted direct demands for the use of non-GM feed, citing inadequate supplies of non-GM soya or excessive costs for farmers. The Soil Association has established that supplies are abundant and can expand to fit demand. The retail cost is minimal and should be paid for by the retailers, not farmers. The example of the poultry sector shows it can be done. [7]

Although food from GM-fed animals does not have to be labelled, animal feed does have to be labelled if it contains GM ingredients. Most feed (75%) is now labelled as ëGM', however, our survey found that most farmers (59%) did not know if their feed was GM. Soil Association tests also revealed a high level of breaches of the EU labelling laws - nearly 20% of feed contained GM soya above the 0.9% labelling threshold but bore no GM label. [8] The FSA are responsible for enforcing the legislation but are not conducting any tests to do so.

Ends

For further information please contact:

Gundula Azeez, Soil Association policy manager, 0117 987 4560 / gazeez@soilassociation.org
Soil Association press office, 0117 914 2448 / press@soilassociation.org

Notes to editors:

[1] Silent Invasion - the hidden use of GM animal feed in the UK, Soil Association, November 2007. Full report available on request. A pdf of the report will be available on the Soil Association website from Friday 16 November - http://www.soilassociation.org See pdf of Executive Summary.

The Soil Association tested 35 feed samples from dairy, pig and poultry farmers and surveyed supermarket and feed company sourcing policies. 73% of the feeds tested contained GM soya, with 27% containing soya that was over 70% GM. The company information showed that GM maize (used in the refined form, maize gluten, and so hard to identify in tests) is also widely used.

The dairy sector is worst: in the tests, 51% of the soya was GM and it is widely using maize estimated to be around 60% GM. The pig sector is also a concern: the soya was 20% GM and soya makes up a larger proportion of the feed. (See Chapter 3.1 to 3.3)

Based on our findings, we estimate that around 400,000 tonnes (290,000t of GM maize gluten and 146,000t of GM soya) are imported each year to produce manufactured feed for the dairy, pig and poultry sectors (out of a total of 467,000t of maize gluten and 1,123,000t of soya used in manufactured feed for these sectors). Note, the total amount of imported soya and maize gluten that contains GM is far higher. If imported grain used for ëhome-mixing' of feed by farmers and the small amounts used for fattening beef and sheep (but not wholly grass-fed animals) are included, the total GM feed used would be higher. (See Chapter 4)

[2] The Soil Association is calling on the Government and European Commission to introduce a legal requirement for GM labelling for foods produced from GM-fed animals. This is supported by the public:

An NOP survey in 2006 found that 87% of the UK public believe food from GM-fed animals should be labelled (up from a finding of 79% by the National Consumer Council in 2001). A European-wide petition for such labelling collected a million signatures by February 2007. (See Chapter 6) NOP poll of 1000 UK adults carried out 9-11 June 2006 and weighted to be nationally representative. "One million EU citizens call for labelling of GM foods", by Helena Spongenberg, 5 February 2007, EU Observer.

[3] The only general sources of meat and dairy foods from non-GM-fed animals are:

For milk and pork: Marks & Spencer provides the only major source of non-organic milk and fresh pork produced from non-GM fed animals. In all other supermarkets, milk and pork is produced from GM-fed animals, apart from organic food and Sainsbury's ëFarm Promise' milk available in some stores.

For chicken: the British poultry industry is the one sector to have mostly excluded GM feed. Apart from Iceland, own-label fresh chicken and turkey in the major supermarkets and Lloyd Maunder poultrymeat, is all produced from non-GM feed. However, frozen chicken, processed chicken products (eg. chicken nuggets), chicken served in restaurants and take-aways are often not British but supplied by importers, and probably from GM fed animals.

For eggs: own-label eggs in the major supermarkets are produced with non-GM feed, except for Iceland. All organic eggs and the following egg brands are produced with non-GM feed: ëWoodland', ëCorn Gold', ëColumbus omega-3 rich', ëand ëChurch and Manor' duck eggs. Nearly all ëfree range' and ëbarn' eggs are produced from GM feed. And there is no requirement for Lion Quality Eggs or ëfree range' eggs to be produced from non-GM feed. This means non-organic eggs sold by independent retailers, including some ëfree range' eggs, may, unless labelled otherwise, be from GM-fed chickens. About half of caged eggs, including probably most used in processing and catering are produced with GM feed.

For frozen and processed meat and dairy foods: organic is the only general option for products such as yoghurt, cheese, cream, butter, ice cream, frozen meat, bacon, ham, sausages, meat pies, corned beef and ready meals.

M&S is well ahead of the other supermarkets. However, the Co-op, Sainsbury's and Waitrose offer a few non-organic meat and/or dairy items produced from non-GM feed, besides their own-label fresh chicken, turkey, eggs and farmed fish. Iceland offers no non-organic products from non-GM fed animals.

[4] Until 2005, studies which tried to detect GM DNA in milk, eggs and tissues from GM-fed animals had only detected non-GM DNA from the crops, indicating that GM DNA was also probably present in low quantities even if it had not been detected (Chowdhury et al, 2004; Phipps et al, 2003; Einspanier et al, 2001). On this basis, although it was not strictly supported by the science, the FSA and biotechnology industry claimed consumers would not be exposed to GM material by eating food from GM-fed animals. Now, however, four studies by different scientific teams have detected GM DNA in milk and pig and sheep tissues from GM-fed animals (Sharma et al, 2006; Agodi et al, 2006, Mazza et al, 2005; reports by Ralf Einspanier, 20 October and 20 December 2000). (See Chapter 5.1)

[5] The report includes a review of GM feeding trials (12 animal and 1 human) that found negative health effects (all controlled against non-GM crops). Our report also describes some of the ways in which these findings were dismissed by the FSA / European Food Safety Authority and the biotechnology companies, and lists seven scientific reasons why genetic engineering changes the biology of plants, posing risks to health (See Chapter 5.2):

Russian rat trial of GM soya: very high mortality and stunted growth in the offspring (Ermakova, 2005)

Italian mice trial of GM soya: metabolic effects on body organs (Malatesta et al, 2002 and 2003; Vecchio et al, 2004)

FSA-commissioned human trial of GM soya by Newcastle University: GM DNA transfers out of food into the body's gut bacteria (Netherwood et al, 2004)

Monsanto rat trial of GM maize: changes in body organs indicating toxic effects (report by Monsanto, 2002; review by Dr Pusztai, 2004; SÈralini et al, 2007)

Aventis chicken trial of GM maize: mortality doubled and significant change in composition of meat (reports for the Chardon LL hearing, 2002; review in "Food safety - contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing, 2003) Aventis rat trial of the novel protein of GM maize: reduced body weight and metabolic effects (same references as for Aventis chicken trial) UK study on sheep: in a few minutes, the genes in the GM maize move into the bacteria in the mouth, changing their characteristics (Duggan et al, 2003)

Monsanto rat trials of GM oilseed rape: reduction in body weight and increased liver weight (significant as the liver is the organ of detoxification) (US FDA, 2002; Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms, 2004)

Australian mice trial of GM peas: allergic reactions, including inflammation of lungs (Prescott et al, 2005)

Calgene mice trials of GM tomatoes: gut lesions and 7 of 40 died within two weeks (review in "Food safety - contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing, 2003)

UK Government-commissioned rat trial of GM potatoes by Rowett Research Institute: gut lesions (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999)

NB: These studies were all designed to identify health impacts; the animal trials often referred to by the biotechnology companies are largely irrelevant as proof of safety, being mostly studies carried out for commercial purposes on the efficacy of the feed, rather than ëtoxicological' studies involving tissue analysis.

[6] Due to promotion by the biotechnology companies, the area of GM soya is rapidly expanding in Brazil, the main global supplier of non-GM soya. GM soya now accounts for 45-50% of the total, up from 20-25% in 2005. The market for certified non-GM feed must be secured to ensure the current non-GM area remains and that the industry segregates the GM and non-GM crops.

[7] Based on calculations by the Royal College of Agriculture, the increase in costs of using non-GM feed at the retail end would be only 2-4p/kg for pork and bacon, and 0.4p/l for milk, if the non-GM soya premium is 7%. (See Chapter 6)

[8] Since 18 April 2004, according to EU legislation, feed containing GM material or derivatives of GM crops must be labelled as GM. The only exception is if the feed producer uses a non-GM source but some EU approved GM material up to 0.9% is later found to be present due to contamination. 19% of the feed samples we tested (seven of the 37 samples) had no GM label, yet contained GM soya over 0.9% threshold. Remarkably, the soya in five of these samples was over 80% GM. Worse, two were pure soya feeds made of 100% GM soya. (See Chapter 3.1)

USA: Genetically modified seeds raise contamination fears

Morning Sentinel (Maine), November 16, 2007. By Alan Crowell.

C.R. Lawn, founder of Fedco Seeds, holds a variety of sweet corn seed in the company's warehouse in Clinton that showed a trace amount contamination when tested for genetically modified organism.

WATERVILLE - C. R. Lawn plans to testify today before the Maine Board of Pesticides Control on the need to protect against the spread of pollen from genetically engineered corn.

Founder of FEDCO Seeds, a gardening supply cooperative that pledges not to sell genetically engineered seeds, Lawn has firsthand experience with the problem.

For seven years, FEDCO has tested random samples of corn seed to ensure it is not contaminated by genetically engineered plants. For the first time this year, three samples from the same supplier tested positive -- evidence that pollen from genetically altered corn contaminated the supplier's crop.

"The problem with pollen is you can't fence it in," said Lawn, who would like to see the state adopt a 660-foot buffer around Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn, a type of corn that is genetically altered to produce its own pesticides.

For about a decade, Maine was the only state in the country where the use of Bt corn was not allowed. That changed in July, when the Maine Board of Pesticides Control licensed the use of Bt corn.

Farmers argued that new Bt lines offered growers competitive advantages.

According to the National Science Foundation, Bt corn accounts for about 35 percent of the corn acreage in the United States and is gaining in popularity.

What remains to be determined before crops are planted next spring, however, are the rules under which farmers can use it.

Among the rules under consideration are requiring growers to keep records of their use of the seeds and receive special training.

At today's hearing, the public is invited to weigh in on those regulations.

Lawn said he favors a buffer because corn in one farmer's field has the potential to pollinate corn in another farmer's field, potentially spreading unwanted genes.

Of the three seed samples that tested positive this year for the presence of genetically engineered material, two showed a trace amount of contamination and one came back positive, meaning it showed more than a trace amount.

The test used was very, very sensitive, said Lawn, but the results were still cause for concern.

"My feeling is that the seed industry is going to have to be adamant about protecting their (seed varieties)," said Lawn

All three lots that tested positive were taken off the market, he said. Two of those varieties will not be included in this year's catalogue. He said the other variety will be tested before orders are shipped.

"Corn pollen is scattered by the wind. If you are selling contaminated seeds .... there is the risk that it could spread to other people's corn who don't want it," said Lawn.

Some studies have found that the pesticides produced by the plants, not only protect them against crop-damaging insects but may also have negative impacts on aquatic insects that serve as food for fish.

Logan Perkins, campaign organizer for Protect Maine Farmers, said there are simply too many questions that haven't been answered about the short-term and long-term effects of the Bt plants.

"Bt corn has only been on the market for ten years and in the world of agriculture that is only the blink of an eye," she said.

Perkins said that her organization advocates the use of a mile-wide buffer around Bt corn crops.

John Jemison, an extension professor of water quality and soil science at the University of Maine Cooperative Extension and member of the pesticide board, said several of the state's large dairy farmers argued in favor of using the Bt lines.

Jemison said his own research has not shown significant yield benefits when the Bt lines are used, but he said the genetically altered seeds do provide farmers with another tool.

Use of the Bt lines also allows farmers to avoid spreading pesticides and potentially exposing themselves to the chemicals, said Jemison. As far as the unknowns with genetically altered seeds, Jemison said there are also questions about the effects of the insecticides farmers use to counter the same pests controlled by Bt crops.

"There is always going to be a certain amount of uncertainty related to everything," he said.

He said he suspects that the rules that the board of pesticides develops for the use of the Bt seeds will be more conservative than those used by other states.

Contact:

Alan Crowell
474-9534, Ext. 342
acrowell@centralmaine.com

Brazil: Europe wants environmental guarantees for the production of biofuel

Agrenco News / Ambiente Brazil - Paraná, 16 November 2007.

The targets set out for the addition of biodiesel and ethanol to fossil fuels, which is expected to reach 20% in the next two decades in most countries, have made Europe a highly promising market for Brazilian biofuel. But the European Union is giving signs that it would be a cautious consumer and that it still holds many doubts about the sustainability of this new alternative energy source.

The subject was discussed at the beginning of the month at the International Conference for Energy Cooperation between Europe and Latin America organized in Berlin, Germany. Questioned by government representatives, business leaders, academics and environmentalists who participated in the meeting, the secretary of Extraction and Sustainable Rural Development, Egon Krakhecke, who represented the Minister of the Environment, reiterated the position of Minister Marina Silva that Brazil would have to exclude the Amazon and Mato Grosso Pantanal regions through ëagro-ecological' zoning for the cultivation of sugarcane, which will be concluded by July 2008. "Europe will need biofuels and it knows that it does not have the conditions to produce them in sufficient volumes. But from there, it is positioning itself on the sustainability of its production, in case it occurs", the secretary stated.

According to Egon, Europe's main concerns are related to the energy efficiency of biofuels, the eventual risk that they may pose to food production and the environmental impacts of the sugarcane crop, especially in the Amazon.

"These concerns were evidenced both in the conference - in a very strong way by participating NGOs - and in the private meeting we had with Germany's Minister of the Environment, Mr. Urban Rid", the secretary said.

Despite the certainty among the Europeans that ethanol from sugarcane would be the best alternative in reducing carbon emissions and that the Brazilian product represents a much better energy balance than corn-based ethanol produced in the United States, concerns remain about the possible invasion by sugarcane crops into fertile lands, compromising the production of food and stimulating deforestation.

"I explained that Brazil has the conditions to produce ethanol sustainably because it has an ample availability of land in already-opened and degraded areas, and I informed them that the agro-ecologic zoning of sugarcane would be an instrument on the part of the government in guaranteeing the sustainability of the production".

Germany's Minister of the Environment studied the possibility of Brazil's creating a certification to guarantee the sustainability of the production of ethanol to meet the demands of the European consumer. The subject is expected to return to the discussion table between the two countries at the start of 2008, when a visit is planned for a German committee to Brazil. The International Conference on Energy Cooperation between Europe and Latin America was carried out through an initiative of the EU Parliament's Socialist Forum.

Row erupts in Italy over GM study results

FoodNavigator.com, 16 November 2007.

By Laura Crowley

Accusations have flown in Italy this week over theÝgovernment's alleged suppression of field trial results suggesting the benefits of two Monsanto Bt maize varieties.

FieldÝtrials were conducted on land owned by the University of Milan to determine the benefits of GM crops and the possible dangers they pose to consumers.

The outcome showed that, as well as resisting the corn borer pest without the use of pesticides, the P67 and Elgina maize varieties helped reduce the contentÝfumonisin toxins, say the scientists.

But theÝresults of the trialsÝwere never formally published, spurring scientists to accuse the government of suppressing the information because of its anti-GMO stance.

Meanwhile, the state-run National Institute for Research of Food and Nutrition (INRAN) today issued a statement saying it had not actually received the results as claimed.

INRAN added that it has actuallyÝconducted its own analysis, which goes further than the original results, and that it now deems suitable for publication.

Fury over fumonisins

Fumonisins are toxins produced by fungi that can infect a growing maize plant. There is evidence to suggest they increase the risk of spina bifida in humans, and can cause other illnesses in horses and pigs.

Roberto Defez, group leader in microbial biotechnology at the Institute of Genetics and Biophyscis, explained that Italy has serious problems with fumonisins. "The problem is officially known," he said. "Over forty per cent of the maize produced contains more than the maximum levels of fumonisin."

The information on the study only came to light when Tommaso Maggiore, the agronomist who conducted the trial, realised the results would not be published and approached the scientific community through Defez, and scientists at the University of Milan, to get the information into the public domain.

Defez told FoodNavigator.com that, as it stands, the results from the study are not a major contribution to scientific research. He said: "What we are asking for is that the ban be lifted so the trial can be repeated by the scientific community, to compare and evaluate to see whether this is a usual result, and can therefore benefit Italian agriculture."

Legal issues in Italy

Defez explained this was the first trial on genetic modification in Italy for seven years as such studies are illegal in Italy.

Funded by the ministry of agriculture under an investment of §6.2m, it did not come under the ban as the maize is allowed for consumption in Europe, therefore not described as experimental, and it was not planned for commercial cultivation.

When the results were allegedly handed to the INRAN early last year, they were never formally published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

In addition to denying it had received any results, INRANÝsaid it had not asked Maggiore to perform the fumonisin analysis.

Study results

The fumonisin-producing fungi infect a maize plant by entering through a wound, which can be inflicted by the European corn borer.

At the trials, no corn borer larvae were found on the Bt varieties, while an average of 29 of the pest were found on each stalk of the conventional varieties.

In INRAN's statement today, it said that its analysis actually found 81 per cent higher levels of the fumonisin in the maize that was not genetically engineered.

According to Maggiore's results, using the GM maize also increased the volume of grain produced, yielding between 14.1 and 15.9 tonnes per hectare compared to between 11 and 11.2 tonnes of grain per hectare.

This relates to a yield increase of between 28 and 43 per cent, translating into a difference in profit of between §300m and §1bn.

Opposition to government policies

The issue has now been documented in the Italian media, and opposition parties have spoken out against the government's anti-GM stance.

Radical MP Marco Cappato accused the government of "prohibitionism and violation of the freedom of research", while Tortoli from Forza Italia called for an increase in research. Belloti, from the Alleanza Nazionale, said: "The demonisation of GMOs is the result of an ecological ideology that smells of hypocrisy."

Issues surrounding GMOs

Despite the beneficial effects on plant disease of GM maize found in this single study, concerns have been raised over its health risks to humans.

In March, it was revealed that the Monsanto maize MON863, authorised for human consumption since 2006, showed signs of liver and kidney toxicity in a rat study performed by French researchers. However, after reviewing the data, the European Food Safety Authority rejected the concerns in June this year.

Genetic engineering goes against the increasing consumer trend for natural and organic products as fears have arisen over a lack of knowledge of its long-term effects.

Environmental campaigners have also highlighted the impact on non-target species and there have been worries over the risk of contaminating non-GM crops.

Bangladesh: Social movement against GM foods underscored

The New Nation, 16 November 2007.

Speakers at a discussion in the city yesterday called for building up a social movement against the genetically modified (GM) foods, which they said pose serious threat to human health.

Alliance of Food Sovereignty Campaign (AFSC) organised the discussion at National Press Club in the city.

GM foods are foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms (GMO) that have had their genome altered through genetic engineering. GM Foods have been available since the 1990s. The most common modified foods are derived from plants: soybean, corn, canola and cotton seed oil and wheat. The process of producing a GMO used for GM Foods may involve taking DNA from one organism, modifying it in a laboratory, and then inserting it into the target organism's genome to produce new and useful traits or phenotypes. Such GMOs are generally referred to as transgenics. Other methods of producing a GMO include increasing or decreasing the number of copies of a gene already present in the target organism, silencing or removing a particular gene or modifying the position of a gene within the genome.

Consumer rights groups, such as the Organic Consumers Association, and Greenpeace emphasise the long term health risks which GM could pose, or that the risks of GM have not yet been adequately investigated.

With AFSC president ATM Zakir Hossain in the chair, the discussion was participated by BELA's programme director Syeda Rezwana Hasan, Commerce Ministry's deputy director Sharifa Khan, Pavel Perth, AM Badrul Hasan, Mahfuzullah, and Sharif Khan, among others.

15 November 2007

EU: MEPs win veto right on GM and biocide decisions

ENDS Europe DAILY 2429, 15 November 2007.

The European parliament approved compromise deals with EU governments on Wednesday to amend two environmental directives in line with new EU rules on committee-based decision-making, or 'comitology' (EED 11/07/07 http://www.endseuropedaily.com/23582).

A 2001 directive on genetically modified organisms will be revised to give the parliament enhanced scrutiny rights - in effect, a veto - on technical decisions concerning labelling, risk assessments and national "safeguard" bans (EED 17/07/07 http://www.endseuropedaily.com/23622).

And a revision of the 1998 biocides directive will see the parliament's veto extended to technical changes and research decisions.

See texts on GMOs
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//
TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2007-0520+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN

and biocides

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP// TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2007-0521+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN.

UK: Milk, cheese and pork 'are being invaded by GM'

Daily Mail, 15th November 2007. By Sean Poulter.

Most of our milk, cheese, yoghurt and pork comes from animals raised on genetically-modified food, a campaigning group claims.

The Soil Association said the widespread use of GM crops, such as maize and soya, flies in the face of consumer opposition to the controversial technology.

It believes the public is being kept in the dark about farmers and supermarkets' reliance on GM animal feed because there is no legal requirement to mention it on food labelling.

A spokesman said: "This GM stealth invasion of the UK food chain is denying consumers their right to make fully- informed choices."

It is thought more than 70 per cent of dairy cattle and pigs are given GM feed at some point.

Campaigners said there is evidence that genetically-modified DNA is getting into the milk and meat that reaches consumers.

A Daily Mail campaign over the socalled "Frankenstein foods", coupled with mass consumer opposition, was instrumental in the decision by all the major supermarkets to ban GM ingredients from their own-brand foods.

But these bans, which were imposed more than five years ago, did not extend to the feed given to animals. Only Marks & Spencer took a stand by removing GM ingredients from the diet of meat and dairy animals. GM feed is also banned by organic farmers.

Waitrose, the Co-op and Sainsbury's offer a few non-organic meat and dairy items produced from non-GM feed. These include Sainsbury's "farm promise" milk. Most modified animal feed crops have been altered to include a gene that gives them resistance to spraying with certain chemicals, which means they can survive being treated with weedkillers.

A spokesman for the Soil Association, which has long lobbied against GM, said: "Most consumers are unwittingly eating food produced from GM crops every day."

Unlike the dairy and pig industry, poultry farmers have largely dropped the use of GM feed. However, a third of eggs come from GMfed hens.

A spokesman for the British Retail Consortium, which speaks for supermarkets, said: "Our view is that all the evidence shows that there is no transference of GM material from feedstuffs to meat and dairy products.

"Given that this is the case, there is nothing to be gained from labelling the use of GM feed."

The Agriculture Biotechnology Council, which represents GM companies such as Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience, accused the Soil Association of "scaremongering".

"If they have any evidence to support their claims, it should be submitted to the official regulatory authorities," a spokesman said.

USA: Many Italians support GMO free country

AllAboutFeed.net, 15 November 2007.

32 associations of farmers, consumers, environmental campaigners and cooperative retailers obtained the signatures of three million Italians who support their anti GMO stance.

Mario Capanna, spokesman for the 'Italy/Europe free from GMOs' coalition announced on November 10 that over 3 million signatories had responded "yes" to the question: "Do you want the agri-food sector to be GMO-free?" The majority of the signatures were collected at some 2,000 events across the country, but Capanna said there were also a surprising number of unsolicited votes.

The promoters of the consultation are pressing Rome for an "unlimited moratorium" on the cultivation of GM crops. At present, 14 of the 20 Italian regions have declared themselves 'GMO-free'. Ultimately, the coalition wants to see GMOs banned throughout Europe.

The Philippines: NGO asks gov't to deny Bayer petition

Inquirer, 15 November 2007. By Amy R. Remo.

An international nongovernmental organization has asked the government to deny an application of pharmaceutical giant Bayer for commercial distribution of its genetically modified rice, Liberty Link Rice 62, on grounds that the evaluation process is "concealed from the public."

The Southeast Asia Regional Initiative for Community Empowerment (SEARice) raised the alarm, saying the "concealment" also posed serious questions on the independence of the government's Scientific and Technical Review Panel from GMO-producing firms.

"We urge the Department of Agriculture to divulge the composition of the STRP and assure the public of the members' independence from any GMO firm's interest," said Socrates Lugasip, SEARice technical officer.

According to the DA, the STRP is composed of at least three "reputable and independent scientists ... to evaluate the application, particularly the risk assessment studies conducted and actions taken by relevant regulatory authorities in the country of origin."

Lugasip said allowing the importation of this GM rice required transparency and public knowledge as rice is the Filipinos' staple food.

"The people need to know the reasons behind the government's rush to allow this, despite the fact that the rice has not been grown commercially elsewhere nor does it have any history of safe consumption by humans," Lugasip said.

Bayer, for its part, said it could not issue an official statement due to a pending case on the commercialization of the LLRICE62.

Greenpeace filed this year a petition against the use of Bayer's LLRice62 for food, animal feed and processing.

SEARice said a member of the STRP had said he would dismiss the application of LLRICE62 for lack of merit.

"Would it enhance agricultural productivity, global competitiveness, lower the price of rice in the market, alleviate poverty and hunger, improve the health of the rice-eating Filipinos?" said STRP member Emerlito Borromeo.

Borromeo added that the evaluation of GMO applications should not be left to STRP alone because the panel's perspective was confined only to technical aspects, and does not cover the economic and sociocultural implications of a particular GMO.

EU: Support proposed bans on GM maize

Open letter from Save Our Seeds, 15 November 2007.

Dear friends of "Save our Seeds" and GMO-Free Europe,

On November 28th the European Commission will take a far-reaching decision regarding the future cultivation of GMOs in Europe, and we urge you to take immediate action on this.

The EU-Commissioner for the Environment, Stavros Dimas, for the first time suggests not to approve the cultivation of two new GM maize varieties, Bt-11 (Sygenta) and 1507 (DuPont/Pioneer). These maize varieties contain the pesticide Bacillus Thuringiensis, which renders them toxic to a broad spectrum of butterflies and moths, including the European corn borer, which is a pest in some areas of Europe and can cause damage to yields especially in maize monocultures. The Commissioner argues that despite a positive risk assessment of the European Food Safety Agency EFSA, there is new scientific evidence of the potential long-term risks involved in cultivating such BT varieties.

The GMO industry is now lobbying strong against this laudable, precautionary approach and hopes that the colleagues of Mr. Dimas will overrule his proposed Commission decision. We understand that a number of Commissioners is inclined to actually take this unusual step, which would undermine the responsible Commissioner's authority and could set a precedence for industry lobbying in the future.

From our assessment, Commissioner Dimas took the only justifiable decision in line with the precautionary principle as required by European legislation. There has been widespread criticism of the EFSA's "rubberstamping" of GMO applications in the past, including from the Commission and various member States of the Union. We furthermore believe that the European Commission is obliged not only to base it's decision on scientific risk assessment, but must also consider the consequences of approving the commercial release of new GMOs into the environment under the aspect of risk management. This inevitably includes taking into account the possibility that present scientific knowledge about the risks of a GM organism may prove insufficient or even false in the future. This has been frequently the case with e.g. pesticide approvals and the scientific assessment of other toxic substances in the past.

Finally, we believe that the Commission is also entitled and obliged to take into account other, so called socio economic and ethical considerations, including the widespread rejection of GM food by European citizens and the undue burden of potential GM contamination for EU farmers, who do not wish to cultivate genetically engineered maize.

We therefore urge you to send letters via email, fax and post to the EU Commissioners who might be tempted to outvote the Environment Commissioner on this crucial decision and let them know that the citizens of Europe are actually closely watching their decision.

For further online information please go to the "Save Our Seeds" website www.saveourseeds.org

You can also use the email addresses of some of the Commissioners listed below and may find the suggested text useful to formulate your own letter of support for the decision of Mr. Dimas.

For a full list of all EU Commissioners go to: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/index_en.htm

Thanks for your swift support! Please also share with others.

Benedikt Haerlin
Save our Seeds
Foundation on Future Farming
Marienstr.19-20, 10117 Berlin, Germany
tel +49 30 27590309, fax +49 30 27590312
www.saveourseeds.org
www.planet-diversity.org
www.gmo-free-regions.org

Draft letter text:

Dear European Commissioners,

I am writing to express my full support for the proposal of the EU's Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas to reject the authorisation of the two varieties of GM (genetically modified) maize (Bt 11 and 1507) developed by the chemical companies Syngenta and Pioneer/Dow. Scientists have recently shown that these GMOs have negative impacts on the environment and can cause more damage than previously thought.

I urge you to take these scientific findings into consideration and to ensure that these risky crops, whose real consequences are unpredictable, will not be cultivated commercially in Europe. Such a precautionary approach would be in line with the stance of a growing number of EU Member States that have banned or suspended the cultivation of GMOs.

By rejecting these authorisations, the Commission would be acting in compliance with EU legislative requirements, namely implementing the precautionary principle and respecting the EU's provisions on risk assessment. The majority of European citizens have continuously stated that they do not want GMOs to be grown in Europe.

I expect the European Commission to put environmental safety and the health of its citizens before the commercial interests of two chemical companies.

I call on you to put the environment and health first and support the proposal by Commissioner Dimas not to authorise these new GM maize varieties.

Comment from GM-free Ireland

Please sign letter online on Greenpeace International web site: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/getinvolved/support-dimas-on-maize?MM_URL=RSSthings-can-do

The EC has installed SPAM filters to stop the tens of thousands of incoming emails to the Commissioners but Greenpeace will deliver what you send to them.

Australia: Genetic Manipulation: a nation in conflict

Gene Ethics News Media Release, November 15 2007.

The political parties are polarised on Genetically Manipulated (GM) crops and foods according to Gene Ethic's scorecard of party policies. This reflects the contest between the GM giants and citizens that rages in the wider community. Voters should heed this divide when voting next week.

"The Greens topped the poll, with proactive plans to deal with GM's environment, health and economic risks on global, national and state levels," says Gene Ethics director Bob Phelps.

"Both The Greens and Democrats are responsive to the views of most farmers, food processors and shoppers, reflected in opinion poll results.

"For instance, these parties back full labeling of GM foods which has always had over 90% support from Australians.

"But under rules set by the Howard government, with [Australian Labor Party] ALP agreement, the law exempts most GM foods from any labeling.

"In stark contrast to the Green and Democrats, the Coalition has sought to rule out the GM-free future that most Australians want, for the past 11 years.

"The Coalition remains firmly committed to promoting the spread of GM crops and foods around the world and in Australia.

"This only serves the interests of foreign governments and companies.

"But hundreds of Australian businesses have said they want the safety, simplicity and certainty of GM-free.

Mr Phelps says: "The biggest disappointment with our survey was Labor's repeated refusal to answer our questions, leaving voters in the dark on their intentions for GM.

"Despite the ALP's promise to announce a GM policy, Kevin Rudd [ALP's leader] was silent on GM when he launched their campaign this week.

"And there are no good signs that the ALP would adopt progressive policies if it wins government on the 24th.

"Statements by Shadow Agriculture Minister Kerry O'Brien show the ALP would not even try to lead state governments toward a consensus on extending their GM food crop bans.

"Without national leadership and a uniform policy approach, the ALP's claim to be an honest broker on GM issues is meaningless.

"The products of Genetic Manipulation technologies are dangerous to public health and the environment.

"Gene Ethics hopes that voters will consider our GM versus GM-free future, along with other key issues, when casting their votes next week," Mr Phelps concludes.

More comment: 03 9347 4500 (O) 03 9889 1717 (H) 0408 195 099 (M)

See also: http//:www.geneethics.org.

14 November 2007

USA: Cloned foods approach shelves, opposition increases

FoodProductionDaily.com, 14 November 2007. By Lorraine Heller.

Foods from cloned animals could enter the US food supply by the end of the year, despite calls for further review of the long-term risks of such products.

The outcome currently lies with Congress and its decision to review an amendment to the 2007 Farm Bill.

Amendment 3524, introduced by Senators Mikulski and Specter, calls for more information on food products from cloned animals, with specific focus on elements that have not been addressed by the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) initial risk assessment.

FDA in December issued draft guidance on allowing meat and milk from cloned cows into the food chain. According to its assessment of the available scientific evidence, the agency said there are no additional safety risks posed by the technology when compared to other assisted reproductive technologies currently in use in US agriculture.

The regulator collected a multitude of comments during a 120-day comment period that closed in May this year.Ý It said it planned to review these and would likely make a decision on food from cloned animals by December.

However, FDA today told FoodNavigator-USA.com that it is in the process of updatingÝits cloning risk assessment (RA) and reviewing the public comments.Ý

"There is no estimated timeframe on when this will be finished," it said.Ý

Opposition to the approval of clone foods has been raised by scientists, health groups, consumer advocacies and even industry, sparking a fierce debate that shows no signs of abating.

At the forefront of this is the Center for Food Safety (CFS), a non-profit science-based public interest group, which earlier this year released a review of the FDA's risk assessment.

The report said that the assessment was based on "flawed assumptions and misrepresented findings", and claimed that FDA found virtually no scientific evidence to support the commercial release of these experimental foods.Ý

"Animal cloning is a new technology with potentially severe risks for food safety. Defects in clones are common, and cloning scientists warn that even small imbalances in clones could lead to hidden food safety problems in clones' milk or meat. There are few studies on the risks of food from clones, and no long-term food safety studies have been done," the group states on its website.

In response to such concerns, the proposed amendment to the Farm Bill calls for studies that would evaluate the health effects of allowing the commercialization of milk and meat from cloned animals.

It also asks for an evaluation of the costs of this action, and its impact on overseas markets, which may ban exports from the United States.

In addition, it seeks an evaluation of the effectiveness of programs already in place at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to monitor food products from cloned animals.

A major aspect of FDA's plan that has invited significant opposition is that the labeling of meat and milk products from cloned animals would not be required. Consumer concerns at this level are reflected in a number of state bills thatÝhave been recently introduced calling for labeling of cloned food products.

On the other side of the coin, over 200 scientists have signed a public statement in support of FDA's draft risk assessment.Ý The sign-on letter was distributed by the Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS).

The statement has been signed by some of the leading global scientists in the field, including Dr Terry Etherton, who was on the National Academy of Sciences panel that evaluated the safety of food from cloned animals and their offspring, and Dr Ian Wilmut, one of the 'fathers' of Dolly the Sheep.

FASS also targeted skeptic consumers through an advertisement in the Wednesday, May 2 Washington Post, which claimed thatÝ"the scientific evidence is absolutely, robustly clear.Ý There is no food safety risk from the meat or milk from clones, or from their conventionally bred offspring."

To read the Mikulski-Specter amendment to the 2007 Farm Bill, click here: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/Mikulski-Specter%20Amdt%203524%20studies.pdf

USA: UC Berkeley officially enters Faustian deal with oil giant BP
"Our Generation's Manhattan Project" is now reality; students, faculty, citizens outraged

Student Campaign to Stop BP at Berkeley press release, 14 November 2007.

Berkeley, Calif. - As the San Francisco Bay Area reels from the worst oil spill in living memory, UC Berkeley and oil giant BP secretly signed a $500 million deal despite public criticism and calls for transparency. The contract will create an "Energy Biosciences Institute" (EBI) to do research on genetically engineered agrofuels (also known as biofuels) and microbes for enhanced oil and coal production. The final agreement, released today, allows BP to conduct secret research in the publicly-funded EBI building, while reaping the benefits of the open research done by university scientists on the same project.

The deal has become infamous since its preliminary announcement on February 1, 2007, as a threat to public research at the world's premier public university. Its signing has been fraught with controversy as Berkeley faculty charged administrators with bypassing standard processes of governance. UCB administrators, who said the deal was negotiated "at warp speed," also disregarded an external review the University commissioned in the wake of the equally ill-received Novartis-Berkeley deal of 1998, which advised them to "avoid industry agreements that involve complete academic units or large groups of researchers." The university's student government passed a strong resolution calling for the deal to be delayed so its terms could be studied.

The BP/Berkeley research, and schemes for large-scale agrofuel production in general, are facing strong popular resistance around the world, for instance from farmers in Africa, peasants and consumers' groups across South America, and environmentalists from Papua New Guinea to Denmark and Germany. The use of land for large-scale agrofuel farming would place the unconstrained energy "needs" of first-world consumers into direct competition with cash-poor countries' food supplies and conservation of rare and important ecosystems. These conflicts are already reality, even in today's tiny agrofuel market, as U.S. ethanol production has led to riots over skyrocketing corn prices in Mexico earlier this year, and palm-oil farming for export threatens to drive the orangutan to extinction in Indonesia and Malaysia.

BP scientists will be treated like tenured faculty at Berkeley, with privileges such as teaching classes, mentoring students, and conducting research in a building constructed with $70 million of taxpayer funding.

The Institute's researchers, including both Berkeley and BP scientists, will be housed in Berkeley's Strawberry Canyon, a mere few hundred meters from the Hayward Fault, probably the most dangerous earthquake fault in Northern California. Untested genetically-modified organisms could easily be released in case of a serious earthquake.

This new development is a direct continuation of UC Berkeley's past involvement in global devastation and inequality, from its participation in the devastation of native tribes and desecration of native remains to the development of nuclear weapons, all of which continue to this day. The research and technologies the EBI is designed to create are a direct threat to indigenous and traditional communities around the world. They have the potential to create new global catastrophes beyond the climate crisis, ranging from predictable extinctions and financial crises resulting from excessive pressure on the global agricultural economy to ecological collapses brought on by escaped genetically modified organisms.

BP and Berkeley administrators have referred to this project as "our generation's moon shot" and compared it to the Manhattan project, the unprecedented large, fast and secret research project that created the Atomic Bomb. Like the Manhattan Project, the EBI is unprecedented in scale, is being initiated at Berkeley, and has been rushed into existence in secrecy. Democracy has no more place in this project than in its predecessor, and the damage it ultimately causes may be just as severe.

Resistance to the BP project, and any further violations of the UC's responsibility to California and the world, will continue undeterred by this latest disgrace committed by the university's administration. The Student Campaign to Stop BP at Berkeley (http://StopBP-Berkeley.org) has opposed the deal unequivocally since it was announced. Its recent international petition calling for transparency and a halt to negotiations quickly received nearly 1,000 signatures from people in over 50 countries.

For further information:

Student Campaign to Stop BP at Berkeley http://StopBP-Berkeley.org

Related recent news:

BP Executive pied in Europe
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/383831.html

BP/Berkeley deal featured on Boston Legal season premiere
http://chronicle.com/blogs/facevalue/index.php?id=683

http://stopBP-Berkeley.org
(info [at] stopBP-Berkeley.org)

USA: Hawaiian King Joins U.S. Presidential Candidates in Rejecting GMO's

TheCampaign.org, 14 November 2007.

Maui, Hawaii - The Kingdom of Hawaii hosted a GMO Awareness Event in the first week of November at Baldwin Beach Park in Maui, Hawaii. The conference hosted Hawaii State Senator Mike Gabbard, who is drafting a bill to require the labeling of genetically engineered foods in Hawaii, and Lorrin Pang, MD, a World Health Organization consultant, selected for three years as one of Americas Best (top 3%) Doctors. Also speaking at the conference was Dr. Sabry Shehata, University of Hawaii Professor of Agricultural Economics, and Anne Dietrich, Executive Director of The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods. Jerry Konanui, a Hawaiian farmer who grows taro, the staple food crop of the Hawaiian people, also spoke.

This conference was unique. As well as presentations on the scientifically validated dangers of genetically modified organisms (GMO's) in our food supply, the Royal Family was consulted. His Majesty Akahi Nui, whose official title is, Lineal Descent Sovereign Heir of the Hawaiian Islands & Trustee of the Kingdom of Hawaii Nation Ministry Trust, proclaimed that genetic engineering is a violation of the ancient Hawaiian laws of living in harmony with nature.

His Majesty stated: "We don't want the purity of our Hawaiian lands polluted with GMO's - there's nothing natural about GMO's. We are supported by many countries which refuse to accept this technology. We feel safety is the best policy for Hawaii. Genetic engineering unnaturally alters the structure of a plant's expression, without knowing the outcome for our beautiful Hawaiian Islands, its diversity of people, plants and animals. Our ecosystem is sacred. Genetic engineering unleashes changes in organisms and ecosystems that cannot be recalled. Hawaii can not blindly accept this technology without question. The burden of solid proof is upon the makers of this technology, not us."

Taking a similar stand are candidates for the 2008 U.S. Presidency, including Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, Senator Dodd, and Governor Richardson. Each candidate has stated that, if elected, they would require mandatory labeling of GM foods in our supermarkets. Over 60% of processed food in U.S. grocery stores is now genetically modified, and food safety is becoming a defining issue of the election. In over 40 countries, genetically engineered foods are either banned or are required to be labeled. These countries include all of the European Union, plus China, Brazil, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Mexico, Israel, Japan, Hong Kong, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Australia and New Zealand.

USA: New questions on genetically modified corn

Morning Sentinel (Maine), 14 november 2007.

What do you get when you mix genetically modified corn and caddisflies? That's not the preamble to a joke.

Last month, researchers funded by the National Science Foundation published a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences providing the first documented evidence that toxins from genetically modified corn may get into streams and harm insects that are an essential food for fish.

The corn is known as BT corn, and it is designed to manufacture a toxin that provides protection against agricultural pests -- essentially, the plant that grows from BT corn seed is a pesticide. The seed is manufactured by a number of large biotechnology companies, and up until last summer, growing BT corn was prohibited in Maine.

But a group of dairy farmers in the state who wanted to grow the corn to feed their cows made the case that BT corn can be grown more cheaply than conventional corn and thus offered them competitive advantages -- advantages already enjoyed by farmers in other states where the corn wasn't prohibited.

They pressed their case with the state's Board of Pesticides Control, which was the agency responsible for permitting the corn's planting because it is considered a pesticide. Their case was met with resistance by the state's growing number of organic dairy farmers, who asserted that pollen drifting from the genetically modified corn would contaminate organic corn used for feed, jeopardizing essential organic certification for their operations.

The board made a Solomon's judgment in July and declared it would permit BT corn to be planted in the state -- but only under a set of strict rules to be devised by late this year designed to protect organic farmers.

But while they were working on devising those rules this fall, the study about BT corn and caddisflies was released.

The data in the study is worrisome enough that the board, which was due to discuss the new rules later this week, should reverse course and reconsider its permitting of BT corn use in Maine.

When the board first considered the request for permission to plant BT corn, the major issue of contention was the genetic contamination of organic corn by genetically modified corn. That's because the EPA had previously performed tests to determine the corn's effect on water resources -- and found no significant effects.

But those EPA tests were problematic -- they didn't look at insects more closely related to the ones the BT corn's pesticide targeted. So EPA's researchers potentially missed an entire biological community that could be effected by the corn. That's what the most recent study looked at. Where the EPA looked at the crustacean species known as Daphnia, the more recent study looked at caddisflies, one of the most important food sources for fish.

And what it found, according to the National Science Foundation, was that the corn's "plant parts are washing into local streams." BT corn pollen was also "being eaten by caddisflies." In laboratory tests, "consumption of BT corn byproducts increased the mortality and reduced the growth of caddisflies," and thus "the toxin in BT corn pollen and detritus can affect species of insects other than the targeted pest."

Maine's farmers are an important part of our state's economy, social fabric and our landscape. Giving them more of a competitive edge is something we should do -- if possible. But in this case, there's a competing value that's potentially at risk if BT corn is planted and damages our water resources. Maine's rivers and streams, the species that depend on them and the fishing they provide are an equally important part of our economy, social fabric and landscape. The introduction of a technology that benefits one, but threatens another, must be carefully weighed.

At the very least, the Board of Pesticides Control should revoke the BT corn permits until they can be reconsidered in light of further study.

We need to know the degree of toxicity posed by BT corn to caddisflies and other aquatic insects. We need to know how long the toxins persist in streams and how far the toxicity may travel once it gets into a stream. The University of Maine's Mitchell Center for Environmental and Watershed Research has strong staff expertise in stream ecology and would be ideally suited to pursue this work.

In the meantime, BT corn should not be planted in Maine.

Ireland: Senators oppose GM farming

Seanad Debate on Food Safety, 8 November 2007
Extracts only. The full transcript is available at
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=SEN20071108.xml&Node=H4&Page=5

Senator David Norris:

...This leads me to the question of genetically modified foods. I would like the Minister of State to take this very seriously, as the Minister of State, Deputy Trevor Sargent, does. I draw the attention of the Minister of State to a very interesting book, entitled Genetic Roulette, by Jeffrey M. Smith. The information contained in it is very worrying. It is compiled by scientists and it demonstrates clearly that in terms of genetically modified crops, frequently the pollen from those crops can adversely affect the health of people living in the area. We have noticed, even in this country, an increase in allergies. This situation will only be made worse if we do not retain our status as a GM free country. I note the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, is committed to this position and I applaud him for it.

It is important we would remain committed to this position even if there were not scientific worries. From a marketing and labelling point of view, it would very advantageous for us to be able to indicate that our food products were free of this material. However, it is a position that is very difficult to maintain. Tesco, for example, has a GM free policy but this has been vitiated because their own brand American long grain rice was recently contaminated with Bayer CropScience's genetically modified American long-grain GM rice variety LL601. It was discovered in two packs of Tesco dried American long grain rice. This is illegal in the EU and the USA, yet it managed to get into the shops in Ireland. That is how penetrative it is.

Monsanto is behind most of this. Monsanto claims, through Mr. Robert Shapiro, the chief executive officer, to be interested in all kinds of ideals of feeding the world and so on. In the introduction to the book Genetic Roulette it is recounted that somebody who was idealistically motivated by the speeches, words and writings of Mr. Shapiro took a job there and was told by senior management that what Robert Shapiro says is one thing but what they do is something else. They are there to make money. He is the front man who tells a story. They do not even understand what he is saying. That is what we are dealing with. A scientific committee which was established in the United Kingdom made certain quite worrying findings. Subsequently it was disbanded. It is time we looked at the question of genetically modified food, the idea of patenting life forms and the questions raised about whether there can be pollution of neighbouring areas from genetically modified crops. There have been court cases about that where neighbouring farmers found their crops were contaminated but were then sued by Monsanto. The judgment of the Canadian court was that regardless of whether the farmer was responsible, and it was found he had not stolen the material, he was responsible. He owed money to Monsanto precisely because it had patented the life form and was entitled to a return on it, regardless of whether he had taken it from elsewhere or planted it. It was due to the fact that it crept in –

Acting Chairman (Senator O'Toole)

Your time is up, Senator.

Senator David Norris

This is an extraordinary takeover of our food resources and the Government would be right to resist it.

Senator Deirdre de Burca:

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and the opportunity to speak about the Government policy on food safety and health promotion.

The point has been made already that the food sector is an important sector in the Irish economy. It is estimated that it directly employs approximately 300,000 people and that in 2006, the sectors of food retailing and tourism, respectively, contributed €12 billion and €5.9 billion to the economy, almost €20 billion between them. It is clearly a very important sector and our national policy on food safety is central to protecting the reputation of our food sector and improving the image of Irish food exports abroad.

I am delighted that my Green Party colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, is now the Minister of State with responsibility for food and horticulture at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He has a major interest in the issue of food and food safety and the promotion of Irish food internationally as a quality product.

I look forward to many of the initiatives my colleague will support and promote during his term of office. In the programme for Government, some of the goals that have been agreed will make a positive contribution towards general food safety and food promotion here, one of them being the agreement to convert a minimum of 5% of national acreage to organic farmland by 2012. That will be no small feat because currently less than 1% of our farmland nationally is dedicated to organic farming and as we are aware, organic produce offers significant health benefits to consumers because it is produced without the use of chemical herbicides, pesticides and fertilisers.

I recently attended, with the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, a meeting of the Irish Organic Trust in the Brook Lodge Hotel in my constituency of Wicklow, which has put itself on the map as the leading Irish hotel with the only fully certified organic restaurant. Some frustration was expressed by those involved in organic farming about the difficulties they are experiencing in trying to access organic produce. The chief executive of Flahavan's spoke at the AGM and told us he has to import 90% of organic oatlets for the organic porridge he sells because it is impossible to source organic oats here. We must provide many incentives to encourage conventional farmers to be part of the move to dedicating a greater percentage of our national acreage to organic farming. The more organic produce we can produce here, the more it will enhance the reputation of the food we are producing because there is a growing consumer demand for organic produce which Ireland would be foolish not to exploit. We have a strong green image and given the growing public concerns about genetically modified foods, which other speakers mentioned also, it is important that Ireland would capitalise on its clean, green image and the opportunity to develop this island as a GM-free island. I was delighted to see that objective in the current programme for Government and the decisions recently made in Brussels by the Government reflected that change in emphasis.

Other European countries have clearly placed restrictions on GM organisms and produce ranging from Austria, which has a strong ban, to other countries, in particular regions in France, Italy and so on, which have strong organic markets and restrictions on the growing and cultivation of GM produce. It is important to point out, however, that there are difficulties because of WTO rules which are placing great pressure on the European Union to open its markets fully to GM produce, often coming from very large producers such as the United States, Australia, Canada and so on. We must have an enlightened policy at EU level. I hope that the fact that many individual member states already have these restrictions in place, and Ireland will join them in having a very proactive policy on becoming a GM free island, will be reflected in the kinds of decisions that are made within the Council of Ministers in the coming years.

Another issue close to this one is the issue of GM feed and the current dependence of Irish farmers on imported GM feed. Unfortunately, Irish consumers are not aware that in terms of much of the meat they are eating, the animals have been fed GM feed because it is the most affordable feed available to the majority of farmers. Those who have expressed an interest and sought to source non-GM feed find it prohibitively expensive. There is an onus on the Government, given the commitment we have made in the programme for Government, to work towards making Ireland GM-free. We must help farmers and the farming sector to access affordable GM-free feed to ensure that Irish consumers can be confident that the meat they are eating is genuinely GM-free.

That leads on to the issue of labelling. Currently, food must be labelled as GM if it contains above 0.9% of GM ingredients. An EU wide survey of food products was carried out in 2006 ó it was carried out here by the State Laboratory. Unfortunately, low levels of GM rice that had been illegally imported from the US were found in five out of the 19 food products it examined. That obliged food retailers like Tesco and Marks & Spencer to withdraw those products from their shelves. The correct labelling of food is essential to a healthy food sector and is something consumers are increasingly demanding. It is important that if there are GM ingredients in the food we are eating, they should be clearly labelled as such. There should be proper implementation of the requirement that any foods containing over 0.9% of GM ingredients would be so labelled...

Senator Phil Prendergast

...The Minister of State noted the increased complexity of food safety in the area of genetically modified organisms. I also acknowledge Senator de Burca's contribution on this issue. The Minister of State noted:

"Although Ireland has traditionally adopted a precautionary but positive approach, the Irish public appears to be divided on this issue. Government policy in this area is currently being re-evaluated to ensure that as far as possible the views of supporters and opponents of the use of GMOs are taken into account."

When will this re-evaluation be completed? Who is contributing to the debate? In what forum is information on GMO foods being collated?

It was interesting to learn that when animals fed GMO foods are sold on, there is no obligation to label the resulting food products as GM modified. It is a serious error to allow members of the public to be denied the full facts...

Senator Jerry Buttimer

It was Socrates who said that we should eat to live and not live to eat.

Comment from GM-free Ireland

The Canadian Court case which Senator Norris refers to is Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser. Monsanto wanted the profits from his entire crop, a "technology charge" (patent royalty), plus a million dollars in court costs. The court ruled that although Mr. Schmeiser did not owe Monsanto a penny, his contaminated seeds and crops had now become the property of Monsanto under applicable patent law.

Percy Schmeiser and his wife Louise won the prestigious 2007 Right Livelihood Award (the alternative Nobel Prize) for giving the world a wake-up call about the dangers to farmers and biodiversity everywhere from the growing dominance and market aggression of companies engaged in the genetic engineering of crops. The Jury honoured the Schmeisers "for their courage in defending biodiversity and farmers' rights, and challenging the environmental and moral perversity of current interpretations of patent laws".

For details see:

Percy Schmeiser's warning to Irish farmers: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/P.Schmeiser.pdf.

Monsanto's onerous farmer contract: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/exhibits/A.php

Monsanto extortion letter sent to contaminated farmers: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/exhibits/D.php

USA: Study: GMO corn harms aquatic ecosystems

Chicago Tribune / Julie's Health Club, 14 November 2007.

Genetically modified Bt corn has been licensed since 1996, but the risks of the widespread planting have not been fully assessed, according to researchers who have found the transgenic corn has the potential to harm aquatic ecosystems in the Midwest.

The scientists established that pollen, leaves and other plant parts from corn, including the genetically modified Bt corn, are leaving the corn fields and washing into nearby streams.

Lab studies then showed that when these materials are eaten by mothlike aquatic insects called caddisflies, it can cause reduced growth and increased mortality.

Caddisflies, a food for fish and amphibians, are closely related to the European corn borer, which is the target insect, said Emma Rosi-Marshall, lead author of the study and an assistant professor of Biology and Natural Sciences at Loyola University. Bt corn is engineered to include a gene from the micro-organism Bacillus thuringiensis, which produces a toxin that kills pests, including the European corn borer. In 2006, about 35 percent of the corn acreage planted in the U.S. was genetically modified, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Before licensing Bt corn, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tested its impact on a crustacean creature called Daphnia, not insects that are more closely related to the target pests.

"When the European corn borer eats [Bt corn] and dies, it reduces the need for pesticides. But these closely related caddisflies might be affected too," said Rosi-Marshall.

What concerns the researchers who spent two years studying the effects of Bt corn on aquatic ecosystems, is the "potential for unintended and unexpected consequences," said Rosi-Marshall.

"The extent to which aquatic ecosystems are affected depends on lots of factors but we feel these kind of unanticipated effects need to be investigated."

Australia: Anti-GM crops group happy companies back ban

ABC, November 14 2007

An anti-GM (genetically modified) crops group says support from some of Australia's biggest food companies in the past week is a significant turning point in the debate on GM crops.

This week has seen Australia's biggest frozen lamb exporter, Tatiara Meats, support the continuation of a GM crop ban.

The company joins multinational food producer Goodman Fielder in saying the ban should extend for another five years.

The executive director of Gene Ethics, Bob Phelps, says it is a king-hit to plans for the GM industry, with 250 major companies now supporting the ban.

"In the case of Goodman Fielder, the biggest user of canola oil in Australia, says that it wants to stay GM-free," he said.

"The biggest producer and exporter of Australian lamb says that it wants to stay GM-free and there are many many other companies out there who have similar concerns but have remained silent.

"The message is loud and clear to Government - GM-free is the way to stay."

Three million Italians sign anti-GM petition

Agence France Presse, 14 November 2007.

Rome -- More than three million Italians have signed a petition against genetically modified organisms, organisers said Tuesday. "We have reached our goal of three million signatures," said Mario Capanna, a spokesman of the Italy/Europe GMO-Free coalition, bringing together 32 organisations of farmers, consumers and environmentalists.

The coalition claims a combined membership of nearly 11 million and includes Italy's largest farmers unions, main consumer groups, environmental organisations such as Greenpeace and the Worldwide Fund for Nature and COOP, a major chain of cooperative stores.

Organisers hope the government will impose an "unlimited moratorium" on growing GMO produce.

So far, 14 of Italy's 20 regions have declared themselves GMO-free.

In launching the campaign, Capanna said: "This isn't 'technophobia'. We want a strictly scientific approach, we want more research."

13 November 2007

Australia: Esperance GM canola trial delayed

WA Business News (subscription), 13 November 2007

Western Australia's first large-scale commercial trial of genetically modified canola has hit a major stumbling block, with the seed companies unwilling to ...

Read the article: http://www.wabusinessnews.com.au/story/1/58478/Esperance-GM-canola-trial-delayed

USA: Pre-opening corn market report

Farms.com, 13 November 2007

[Extract only. Full text at http://www.farms.com/news/readstory.asp?storyid=13539]

Brazil corn exports are expected to reach a record 11 million tonnes this year due to a surge in demand for non-GMO corn in Europe. Last year, Brazil exported 4 million tonnes. A senior Agriculture official in the Philippines believes that corn production for 2007 could reach 6.9 million tonnes, up 13% from last year.

Comment from GM-free Ireland

Are the IFA and the Farmers Journal still claiming that GM-free maize is not available?

Free marketism should not be Europe's 'creed', says Sarkozy

EU Observer, 13 November 2007.

[Photo caption: "If we agree to discuss only the subjects on which everyone agrees, the crisis of Europe lies not behind us but before us"]

Brussels -- French president Nicolas Sarkozy has outlined a vision for Europe that would see "untramelled" capitalism pushed far down the political hierarchy to be replaced by a focus on cultural and spiritual issues with more than a hint of European protectionism.

Speaking to an unusually full European chamber in Strasbourg on Tuesday (13 November), Mr Sarkozy said that despite recently fixing its institutional set-up, Europe remains in a state of "moral and political crisis."

The new Reform Treaty allows Europe to "take decisions and to act. But it does not say with what goals and with what purpose," said the president.

"Political questions still have to be dealt with," he said, adding that is why he is proposing the creation of a wise committee to discuss "without taboos" where Europe is going."

According to Mr Sarkozy, who has put France firmly back at the centre of the European stage since his May election, Europeans are having a "profound identity crisis (..) linked globalisation and the commercialisation of the world."

Noting that "economic values seem to win the day over other values," Mr Sarkozy said that it is a mistake to overlook culture.

"Europe can only be Europe in the eyes of all men if she defends spiritual values and civilisational values, if she gathers all her forces, all her energy for defending cultural diversity."

The French leader gave a lot of time to protectionism - a concept that has fallen out of favour in the EU since the more market-oriented eastern member states joined the bloc in 2004, coupled with the current European Commission with its strong liberal profile.

"The word protection should be not be outlawed," said the president adding that "we must be able to protect ourselves as much as others do."

"If others have the right to protect themselves against dumping, why not Europe? If other nations put industrial policies in place, why not Europe? If others defend their farmers, why shouldn't Europe defend its farmers?", he asked.

While Europe is "associated" with competition, it cannot be "alone in the world in making it a creed."

He went on to say that while Europe has chosen a market economy and capitalism, this should not give rise to "untrammelled capitalism."

His 30 minute speech - greeted with a standing ovation by MEPs - also drew to attention to the issues that France will focus on during its presidency of the EU in the second half of next year.

This is to include reform of the EU's farm policy after 2013, discussions on an eco-tax, and defence issues.

"How can Europe be independent (..) and have influence in the world if it is itself unable to guarantee its own security," said Mr Sarkozy.

But the French president, whose limelight-stealing activity on the European stage has both riled and charmed in almost equal measure, left one major topic out of his speech: enlargement and the issue of Turkish membership of the EU.

Some fear his wise group is front for halting Turkey's progress into the EU.

Since becoming president Mr Sarkozy has been credited with giving Europe the political impetus to agree a new treaty, he has also made suggestions for a Mediterranean union and has often spoke about the importance of European defence.

Meanwhile, he has caused friction in some quarters with his open criticism of the European Central Bank, falling back on promises to curb France's deficit and speaking of European industrial champions.

Australia: Lamb exporter backs GM ban

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 13 November 2007

A meat producer says a premium is being paid for lamb exports, but allowing GM food could put that at risk.

Frozen lamb exporter, the Tatiara Meat Company (TMC), says a ban on commercial genetically modified (GM) food crops should continue.

South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales are all reviewing whether to extend a moratorium on GM crops, with the local moratorium due to end next April.

TMC, with operations in SA and Victoria, joins multinational food producer Goodman Fielder in saying the ban should be extended by five years, even though some farming groups want the moratorium to end.

TMC's managing director, Eckard Huebl, says there is a risk it will lose a premium now being paid for Australian lamb.

"Our company is now selling its lamb to the US and Europe as all natural, no artificial, no hormones, no GM and that is very much the acceptable standard for Australian lamb," he said.

"So therefore we see a premium being paid for our product, as compared to probably even domestic lamb."

Thailand: NHRC calls on govt not to allow GM trials
Wants bio-safety law enforced first

Bangkok Post, Nov 13 2007. By Apinya Wipatoayotin.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) yesterday urged the government not to approve open-field trials of genetically-modified (GM) crops until the bio-safety law is in effect. The agency also asked the government to come up with a clear explanation about the extent of GM contamination in the environment.

The agency made its call amid speculation that the cabinet would soon give the nod to GM open-field trials as requested by the Agriculture and Cooperatives and the Natural Resources and Environment ministries.

Buntoon Srethasirote, head policy strategist at the NHRC's Tropical Resources Base division, said the agency wanted to know how and why the release of GM papaya and BT cotton was still continuing onto farmland.

''The government has failed to investigate the GM crop contamination cases, despite the fact that the results obtained would be key to drawing up effective preventive measures against possible disasters.

''If it fails to gives us an answer, it should never approve the field trials,'' said Mr Buntoon.

According to the expert, all parties concerned should be aware that large-scale or commercial-scale planting of GM crops may not be possible due to the strong anti-GM movement here.

He cited a recent move by French President Nicolas Sarkozy to suspend the cultivation of GM crops nationwide, due to environmental concerns.

Several other European Union (EU) countries have enforced similar bans.

In addition, many EU members have also agreed to ban the growing of GM maize of the BT-11 variety created by the Syngenta company, and the Pioneer company's 1507 variety, following reports of water contamination at GM plantations.

''We don't think the country will benefit that much from GM crops. It is apparent that many international markets are going to say 'no' to such crops,'' he added.

Meanwhile, Somchai Ratanashueskul, a lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Thai Chamber of Commerce University, said it was necessary that the bio-safety law be put in place before the GM field trials are allowed, or there would be no preventive measures against contamination and farmers would be left legally defenceless if they were hit by such contamination.

''A mere ministerial regulation is insufficient, as it does not include any penalties for violators.

''We have already experienced contamination from GM cotton in 1999 and GM papaya in 2004, even though the state authorities had repeatedly assured us that field trials would be carefully conducted with maximum preventative measures,'' said Mr Somchai.

The Thaksin Shinawatra government in 2001 agreed to put on hold a plan to hold open-field GM crop experiments after strong opposition from the Assembly of the Poor. It also promised to suspend the field trials until a bio-safety law came into effect.

Until now, little progress has been made on the law's passage.

The law, which was drafted by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, has so far only been approved by the ministry's permanent secretary.

Cabinet approval is needed before the draft can be tabled before parliament.

The law also contains clauses stipulating measures placing restrictions on GM imports and exports, as well as safety guidelines for field trials and compensation for those affected by GM crops.

12 November 2007

Australia: Vic govt told to say no to GE crops

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 12 Nov 2007

Anti-genetic engineering campaigners (GE) have delivered 15,000 signatures to the Victorian Government, ahead of its decision on genetically-modified crops.

The Government is deciding whether to continue a five-year moratorium on genetically-engineered crops, over the next few weeks.

Gene ethics campaigner Bob Phelps says GE crops could spread, if they are farmed in Victoria.

"Genetically manipulated canola pollen and seed cannot be contained," he said.

"It does cross state boundaries and we think that it would be highly irresponsible of the Victorian Government to go it alone on GM."

11 November 2007

USA: Consumers Won't Know What They're Missing

New York Times, November 11 2007. By Andrew Martin.

THE Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has decided that consumers are too dim to make their own shopping decisions. Agriculture officials in Ohio are contemplating a similar decision.

As of Jan. 1, Pennsylvania is banning labels on milk and dairy products that say it comes from cows that haven't been treated with artificial bovine growth hormone, which is sometimes known as rBGH or rBST. State officials say the labels are confusing and impossible to verify.

If you have stepped into the dairy aisle anytime recently, you have probably noticed that some of the milk now for sale has a carton label saying it is free of artificial growth hormones. Consumers are demanding it, and a growing number of milk bottlers, grocery stores and retail chains have taken notice.

It might not surprise you to learn that Whole Foods Market, Trader Joe's and Starbucks offer rBGH-free milk. But Kroger, Publix and Costco also use it for their house brands.

And Dean Foods, the nation's largest milk bottler, has told suppliers in some regions of the country like the Northeast and Texas that they should make the transition to milk without the artificial hormone.

Farmers use artificial bovine growth hormone to increase a cow's milk production by a gallon or more a day. The federal government maintains that it is perfectly safe, but it remains illegal in many other countries and critics continue to question its safety. Regardless, many American consumers buy rBGH-free milk because they are uncomfortable with the idea of milk that comes from cows that have been shot full of artificial hormones and because it's cheaper than organic milk, which, of course, doesn't allow use of the artificial hormones.

But the backlash against rBGH has unsettled its manufacturer, Monsanto, and the dairy farmers who have come to rely on it to raise production. They have spent more than a decade trying to persuade federal and state authorities to ban or restrict non-rBGH labels on the grounds that there is no difference in milk from cows that are treated with the hormone and those that are not.

They finally found an ally in Dennis Wolff, Pennsylvania's agriculture secretary.

Late last month, Mr. Wolff announced a crackdown on "absence labeling" on milk, meaning labels that tell consumers what isn't in a product rather than what is.

He argues that "hormone free" labels are misleading because cows produce hormones naturally. Even labels that are more carefully worded, such as "contains no artificial hormones" will soon be verboten in Pennsylvania because Mr. Wolff said that there were no scientific tests to prove the truth of such a claim.

His ban also extends to phrases like "pesticide free" and "antibiotic free," which he maintains are confusing for consumers because they suggest that milk without those labels contains pesticides or antibiotics. In fact, he said, processed milk is tested repeatedly in Pennsylvania to make sure that it doesn't contain those substances.

"It confuses them," he said. "It seems to imply there is a safe, nonsafe dimension."

A former dairy farmer, Mr. Wolff said he decided to look into the issue after he received calls from farmers complaining that they were being forced to stop using bovine growth hormone if they wanted to continue selling their milk to certain dairies. He also said his office had received many calls from confused consumers.

Mr. Wolff's office could not provide surveys or research showing that consumers were confused by the issue, and was unable to come up with even one name of a consumer who had complained.

The Ohio Department of Agriculture held a hearing on the milk labeling issue last week, though no decision has been made.

The proliferation of labels making health claims on food is clearly a source of confusion to consumers. And governments can play a useful role in making sure that the labels are accurate. But Mr. Wolff's edict doesn't have anything to do with helping consumers. Otherwise, he would have tried to refine the labels or create a system for verifying dairy farmers' claims (a process for which the Food and Drug Administration issued guidelines - in 1994).

Rather, Mr. Wolff is bucking consumer demand, which will benefit Monsanto and a bunch of whiny dairy farmers. Monsanto certainly doesn't need his help. On Thursday, the company told investors that its gross profits should double in the next five years. And I find it hard to muster sympathy for farmers who refuse to change to meet consumer demands. Most businesses certainly don't have that luxury.

It's harder still to find much merit in Mr. Wolff's arguments for the labeling ban.

He defends the labeling decision by arguing that the non-rBGH labels can't be verified by scientific testing because there is no difference between milk from cows that has been treated with bovine growth hormone and those that have not. But the same argument could be made about organic milk.

He also argues that absence labels such as "no artificial hormones" suggest that products without those labels are inferior. So what? As long as the claim is accurate, isn't the point of labels to differentiate one product from another?

Using Mr. Wolff's reasoning, you could argue that organic labels on milk are unfair because they suggest that non-organic food is inferior. The same goes for labels for "natural," "from grass-fed cows" and "locally produced."

But here Mr. Wolff contradicts his own argument. There are exceptions to his rule, for what he describes as "puff" claims like "farm fresh" and "locally produced."

Isn't he saying that milk produced in New Jersey is inferior? And how do you scientifically prove it's from Pennsylvania anyway?

Todd Rutter, president of Rutter's Dairy in York, Pa., said he was particularly incensed that he learned about the new standards the day after the decision was made, when he was called by reporters. Mr. Rutter's dairy began labeling its milk as having "no artificial growth hormones" on Oct. 1, using labeling guidelines from the F.D.A. He said his label was reviewed and approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture last summer.

"I'm not arguing that it may be bad for you, may not be bad for you," he said. "We just feel that consumers, when given the choice, for the same price point, will always choose a product that they believe is the most naturally produced available."

Leslie Zuck, executive director of Pennsylvania Certified Organic, said she, too, was disappointed with the ruling. But she offers a sensible compromise. Instead of banning the labels, why couldn't dairy farmers who use the artificial growth hormone use their own labels?

Ms. Zuck suggests this: "We use rBGH and it's great stuff!"

Any buyers?

Australia: Food giant enters fight to keep GM bans

The Age, November 11, 2007. By Jason Dowling.

ONE of Australia's largest food companies has joined consumers in urging the State Government not to lift bans on genetically modified crops when it considers the issue this week.

In a letter to Premier John Brumby, as well as other premiers, Goodman Fielder, which owns brands including Meadow Lea, Praise, White Wings, and Helga's, warned that "consumers are increasingly concerned about the uncertainty surrounding the possible long-term effects of consuming genetically modified material".

The warning comes as the Victorian Government is considering whether to renew a ban on genetically modified canola crops when the four-year ban expires on February 29.

Bob Phelps, of Gene Ethics, said he would deliver to Mr Brumby tomorrow morning a list of more than 200 businesses opposed to lifting the ban and postcards from 15,000 people who want the ban to continue indefinitely.

The protest would be timed to occur just before cabinet was expected to consider the issue at 10.30am, Mr Phelps said.

An independent panel headed by Victoria's chief scientist, Sir Gustav Nossal, has been considering what impact ending the ban would have on farmers and Victoria's food exports.

The panel's report has been sent to Agriculture Minister Joe Helper and Mr Brumby is expected to make an announcement on the ban by the end of the month.

Goodman Fielder's chief executive, Peter Margin, warned state premiers in a letter sent on November 1 that once genetically modified crops were introduced, the decision could never be reversed.

"I strongly urge you to maintain the current state moratorium on genetically modified crops," he wrote.

"Our products cover every meal and every day we deliver our products to around 30,000 supermarkets, convenience stores and food service customers through Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands." Mr Margin said in the company's experience "most consumers prefer foods that are not genetically modified".

"Goodman Fielder is of the view that, in a world of ever increasing globalisation, Australia's current status as a GM-free producer gives the company an essential international competitive advantage," he wrote.

The Western Australian Agriculture Minister, Kim Chance, released a statement backing the call from Goodman Fielder.

Western Australia is opposed to any easing of bans on genetically modified crops, while other states, including NSW, are considering removing the bans.

Mr Brumby has previously expressed his support for GM technology and his handling of the issue has caused concern among some state Labor MPs.

Four Government MPs - Steve Herbert, Bob Stensholt, Carlo Carli and Tammy Lobato - recently raised concerns, in a reportedly tense caucus meeting, about the GM decision-making process.

The Labor members were concerned that backbenchers would have no say in the final decision on whether to lift the ban.

As it stands, the Government does not require a vote over the ban because the current moratorium will simply expire in February if it is not renewed.

Opponents of the process were also incensed that the Premier had allowed his parliamentary secretary, Luke Donnellan, to lead the pro-GM push within the party.

It is not just Mr Brumby's role in the GM debate that has come under scrutiny.

Questions have also been raised about the independence of the head of the "independent panel" - Sir Gus - appointed by the Government to consider lifting the ban.

Ms Lobato said she was concerned about the "impartiality of the panel" after it emerged that Sir Gus had expressed on ABC radio last year his support for lifting the ban. Sir Gus said the ban on GM crops amounted to "crass populism" and he considered it to be "bad politics and I think it's bad policy".

Ms Lobato has also questioned the timing of what she called a "biased" GM forum held at Parliament House for MPs.

In an email to all Labor MPs last month, Ms Lobato questioned if the Brumby leadership was attempting to influence the outcome of the review by holding the forums.

A Government spokesman, Licardo Prince, said the review's findings would "inform our decision" on whether or not to introduce a new ban.

Sir Gus could not be contacted yesterday.

Ireland: Sargent calls on Councillors to make regions GM-free
- Food Minister urges party colleagues to table motions on GMO-free councils

Green Party press release, 11 November 2007. At a meeting of Green Party councillors in Tipperary this weekend, the Minister of State for Food and Horticulture Trevor Sargent TD urged his party colleagues to declare their local authorities GMO-free zones.

Minister Sargent said: "We are making progress on the Green Party's Programme for Government commitment to establish a GM-free zone for the whole island of Ireland. I am working with my cabinet colleagues at national and European level to implement this commitment, but there is plenty of complementary work to be done at a local level. Some local authorities - including in Clare, Meath, Cork and Bray - are ahead of the curve, and have already voted to declare their regions GM-free. Nearly 200 regions and over 4500 municipalities in Europe have declared themselves GMO-free, expressing a commitment to not plant genetically modified organisms in their territories.

"I am encouraging all of my colleagues on county, city, town and district councils to pursue this initiative, table a motion, and respond to the vast public opinion that does not want genetically modified organisms either grown or sold in their areas."

Over 20 Green councillors from around the country gathered in the Aherlow House Hotel, in the Glen of Aherlow Nature Park in Tipperary, to discuss the Party's strategy for the 2009 local and European elections and its transition since entering Government in June. The Green Party Leader and Minister for the Environment John Gormley TD addressed the meeting last night. He told Green councillors that in just four months in Government the Party had already achieved a great deal and that he and his ministerial colleagues would be announcing significant new initiatives in the next months. He also warned that there were tough political challenges ahead, and urged his colleagues to maintain their enthusiasm and discipline.

Cllr. Caroline Burrell (Convenor of the Local Government Group) who organised the weekend stated, "This weekend has been very good for allowing Green Party Cllrs. to get together to discuss various issues and exchange information relating to them and the Party in general. We were delighted to have Trevor Sargent to speak on the GMO-free issue, we have already passed a Motion on Bray Town Council declaring ourselves a GMO-free zone and hope that this can be replicated around the country."

Green TD and Deputy Leader Mary White, and senators Deirdre de Burca and Dan Boyle also participated in the meeting. The Greens have elected representatives on 32 county, city, town and district councils across Ireland.

Note to editors:

A high-resolution photo from this meeting is available for download at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thegreenparty/1964001279/

For more information, contact:

Cllr. Caroline Burrell
Bray Town Council
The Green Party
Wicklow
Tel: 00353 - 86 - 314 0453
Email: cburrell@eircom.net
Website: www.greenparty.ie
www.wicklowgreens.org

9 November 2007

GM-Free Europe Beginning?

ISIS, 9 November 2007

A remarkable sequence of events since ISIS' European Parliament Briefing Scientists and MEPs for a GM free Europe [1] may mean the beginning of the end of genetically modified crops in Europe Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

EU Environment Commissioner proposes bans on GM maize for good reasons

For the first time since GM crops hit Europe, EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas proposed on 25 October 2007 to ban two genetically modified (GM) maize because of the risks they pose to the environment [2]. He could have mentioned the risks to animal and human health as well.

The two GM maize are Syngenta's Bt11 [3] (Approval of Bt11 Maize Endangers Humans and Livestock, SiS 23) and Pioneer/Dow 1507 (see [4] GM Food & Feed Not Fit for "Man or Beast", ISIS Report).

Bt11 was found to be genetically unstable [5] (Transgenic Lines Proven Unstable, SiS 20), and expresses the biopesticide protein Cry1Ab from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, known to toxic to many non-target species including humans [6-8] (GM Ban Long Overdue, SiS 29; More Illnesses Linked to Bt Crops and Mass Deaths in Sheep Grazing on Bt Cotton, SiS 30), and caddies flies, an important family in aquatic ecosystems, as recently documented [9,10] (Bt Crops Threaten Aquatic Ecosystems, SiS 36).

The maize 1507 contains another Bt toxin, Cry1F, which is totally untested, and is also engineered to be tolerant to glufosinate, a herbicide linked to birth defects and neurotoxicity (see Chapter 7 of The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World [11], ISIS Publication).

European Commissioners Mandelson (Trade), Verheugen (Industry) and Fischer Boel (Agriculture) among others, are expected to oppose Dimas' proposal.

France suspends GM plantings

Also on 25 October French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced he was to suspend the planting of GM pest-resistant crops until he gets the results of a review to be launched later this year or early in 2008 [12].

"I don't want to be in contradiction with EU laws, but I have to make a choice. In line of the precautionary principle, I wish that the commercial cultivation of genetically modified pesticide GMOs be suspended," he said to a Reuters reporter.

The only GM crop grown in the European Union is MON 810, developed by US. biotech giant Monsanto, and containing Cry1Ab (same as Bt 11). It was also found to be unstable [5] and one of its hybrids was suspected of causing illnesses to villagers in the Philippines [6]. But Monsanto maintains the protein contained in its maize has selective toxicity to corn borer and is harmless to humans, fish and wildlife. Some 22 000 hectares -1.5 percent of France's cultivated maize - has been sown with GM maize this year.

During a visit to Paris the day before Sakozy's announcement, European Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said a full ban on GM crops would clearly go against the rules and that France would lose in court if it implemented such a ban.

Sarkozy stressed that his move did not mean a halt to GMO research. Already during his election campaign last year, Sarkozy had expressed "doubts and reservations" about the commercial use of GM products which for him "had little interest"

Sarkozy's move is generally welcomed in France. Some point out that France's policy shift on GMOs will also have implications for the rest of the EU [14].

Several other EU countries have already refused to let their farmers grow MON 810 maize or other GM crops, and many more countries and local regions around the world have done likewise within the past 18 months [15] (see No to GMOs, No to GM Science, SiS 35).

Austria triumphs again

Austria was the first European country to impose bans on GM crops, and has successfully resisted two previous attempts by the European Commission to declare its bans on two GM maize - MON 810 and T25 maize made by German company BayerCropscience - illegal.

On 29 October, the European Commission's third attempt to stop Austria was defeated yet again at a meeting held in Luxemburg.

The Netherlands, Great Britain, Estonia and Sweden supported the Commission. According to these countries, the Austrian hesitation was based on "emotions and not on scientific facts", as already stated by the commission last December; but Austria was supported by 14 other EU countries.

This move will trigger a conflict at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Argentina, the US and Canada have complained about Austria's position. They say Austria is violating the international trade rules.

References

1. Burcher S and Ho MW. Scientists and MEPs for a GM Free Europe. Science in Society 35, 21-25, 2007.

2. "Corrected - EU's Dimas opposed to growing 2 GMO maizes-document" 25 October 2007, Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRU00606620071025.

3. Ho MW. Approval of Bt11 maize endangers humans and livestock. Science in Society 23, 26-27, 2004.

4. Ho MW and Cummins J. GM food & feed not fit for "man or beast". ISIS Report 7 May 2004, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ManorBeast.php.

5. Ho MW. Transgenic lines proven unstable Science in Society 20, 35, 2003.

6. Ho MW. GM ban long overdue, dozens ill & five dead in the Philippines. Science in Society 29, 26-27, 2006.

7. Ho MW. More illnesses linked to Bt crops. Science in Society 30, 8-9, 2006.

8. Ho MW. Mass deaths in sheep grazing on Bt cotton. Science in Society 30, 12-13, 2006.

9. Ho MW. Bt corn threatens aquatic ecosystems. Science in Society 36 (in press).

10. Rosi-Marxhall EJ, Tank JL, Royer TV, Whiles MR, Evans-White M, Chamgers C, Griffiths NA, Pokelsek J and Stephen ML. Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. PNAS 2007, 104, 16204-8.

11. Ho MW and Lim LC. The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, Independent Science Panel Report, Institute of Science in Society and Third World Network, London and Penang, 2003; republished GM-Free, Exposing the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of Our Food Supply, Vitalhealth Publishing, Ridgefield, Ct., 2004 (both available from ISIS online bookstore http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/books.php#1).

12. "France suspends planting of GMO crops", Sybille de La Hamaide REUTERS, Oct 26 2007 http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-30164820071025

13. "French skepticism of GMO crops signals policy shift", Deutsche Welle, 27 October 2007, http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2848857,00.html

14. Ho MW. No to GMOs, no to GM science. Science in Society 35, 26-29, 2007

15. "Austria wins GM corn debate", Animal Feed & Animal Nutrition News, 30 Oct 2007, http://www.allaboutfeed.net/news/id102-28123/austria_wins_gm_corn_debate.html.

Britain 'to be growing GM crops by 2009' (front page)

Daily Telegraph, 09/11/2007. By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor.

Ministers are set to push ahead with plans to introduce genetically-modified crops across Britain, despite widespread public opposition.

Officials expect the go-ahead for the commercial cultivation of GM crops to be given next year

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs yesterday published the results of a consultation involving more than 11,000 people on the growing of GM crops.

It showed that more than 95 per cent of the public are opposed to the produce.

Despite the backlash, a written statement slipped out in Parliament by the Government appeared to indicate that plans were now afoot to introduce GM crops.

Phil Woolas, the environment minister, said: "GM crops may be approved for cultivation here in the future, if they pass the rigorous safety assessment procedure that is in place."

He said the Government was awaiting the results of research on "co-existence" - the safeguards needed to grow GM crops alongside conventional ones.

Officials expect the final go-ahead for the commercial cultivation of GM crops to be given next year, with the first batch possibly planted as soon as 2009.

'Your View: Should Britain embrace genetically-modified crops?'

Daily Telegraph, 09/11/2007. Comment from Gundula Azeez, Soil Association policy manager:

We greatly welcome the fact that the overwelming majority of the 11,000 responses oppose Defra's plans to allow non-GM crops to be contaminated up to 0.9% and for the locations of GM crops to be kept secret from the public. This would prevent the production of GM-free food by organic and other farmers in the UK in future in areas where GM crops are grown, which is a totally unacceptable situation.

In particular, we welcome the fact that nearly all responses from the public support our position that contamination of organic crops should be kept below the 0.1% limit of detection, through measures taken by GM farmers, and that the GM sector should be fully economically liable for any costs or loss of market if contamination occurs.

More comments here

Do escaped transgenes persist in nature?
The case of an herbicide resistance transgene in a weedy Brassica rapa population

To cite this article: S. I. WARWICK, A. LEGERE, M.-J. SIMARD, T. JAMES Molecular Ecology 2007 Oct 29 2007; (advanced online pre-publication) [authors details at end]
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03567.x

Keywords: Brassica napus, Brassica rapa, gene flow, genetically modified crops, hybridization, transgene escape

Abstract

The existence of transgenic hybrids resulting from transgene escape from genetically modified (GM) crops to wild or weedy relatives is well documented but the fate of the transgene over time in recipient wild species populations is still relatively unknown. This is the first report of the persistence and apparent introgression, i.e. stable incorporation of genes from one differentiated gene pool into another, of an herbicide resistance transgene from Brassica napus into the gene pool of its weedy relative, Brassica rapa, monitored under natural commercial field conditions. Hybridization between glyphosate-resistant [herbicide resistance (HR)] B. napus and B. rapa was first observed at two QuÈbec sites, Ste Agathe and St Henri, in 2001. B. rapa populations at these two locations were monitored in 2002, 2003 and 2005 for the presence of hybrids and transgene persistence. Hybrid numbers decreased over the 3-year period, from 85 out of ~200 plants surveyed in 2002 to only five out of 200 plants in 2005 (St Henri site). Most hybrids had the HR trait, reduced male fertility, intermediate genome structure, and presence of both species-specific amplified fragment length polymorphism markers. Both F1 and backcross hybrid generations were detected. One introgressed individual, i.e. with the HR trait and diploid ploidy level of B. rapa, was observed in 2005. The latter had reduced pollen viability but produced ~480 seeds. Forty-eight of the 50 progeny grown from this plant were diploid with high pollen viability and 22 had the transgene (1:1 segregation). These observations confirm the persistence of the HR trait over time. Persistence occurred over a 6-year period, in the absence of herbicide selection pressure (with the exception of possible exposure to glyphosate in 2002), and in spite of the fitness cost associated with hybridization.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Eastern Cereal and Oilseeds Research Center, Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A OC6.

S. I. WARWICK* *Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Eastern Cereal and Oilseeds Research Center, Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A OC6, A. LÉGÈREœ œAAFC-Saskatoon, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 0X2, M.-J. SIMARD› ›AAFC-CRDCGC, 2560 Boul. Hochelaga, QuÈbec, QC, Canada G1V 2J3 and T. JAMES* *Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Eastern Cereal and Oilseeds Research Center, Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A OC6, *Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Eastern Cereal and Oilseeds Research Center, Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A OC6, œAAFC-Saskatoon, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 0X2, ›AAFC-CRDCGC, 2560 Boul. Hochelaga, QuÈbec, QC, Canada G1V 2J3

Correspondence: Dr Suzanne Warwick. Fax: (+01) 613 759-1701; E-mail: warwicks@agr.gc.ca

Australia: Goodman Fielder backs Chance's GM moratorium

WA Business News, 9 November 2007. By Janelle Macri.

Food giant Goodman Fielder has urged all state governments to continue their moratoria on genetically modified food crops, providing support for agriculture minister Kim Chance's decision to continue a moratorium.

In a letter to all state premiers, Goodman Fielder chief executive Peter Margin said consumers preferred GM-free food because of the uncertainty surrounding the long-term effects of GM crops on human health.

He added that Australia's current competitive advantage on international grain markets because of its GM-free status, and uncertainty about the performance of GM crops compared to traditional crops, were further reasons to continue the moratorium.

Mr Chance said he remained unconvinced that consumers in both domestic and international markets would support GM food.

"When you have the largest buyer of canola in Australia, Goodman Fielder, coming out and saying we don't want GM...you've got to listen," he told WA Business News.

Mr Chance said the government was maintaining its cautious approach to GM food crops, and was skeptical about claims made by GM supporters of increased yields and economic benefits to growers, in the absence of commercial trials in WA.

The minister said he had received only one application to conduct a commercial trial of GM canola, by the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association, in Esperance. But despite the application being granted, the trial has been delayed due to the unwillingness of the GM seed company to relinquish seeds for the independent trial.

While his stance on GM food crops is one of caution, Mr Chance said he believed growing GM cotton in the state's far north could be a viable option.

In August, the minister released a discussion paper into the potential for GM cotton production in the Ord River Irrigation Area, which industry groups say would underwrite the development of Ord Stage Two and bring significant economic and social benefits to the region.

The public submissions period has closed, with the minister expected to put forward his recommendations towards the end of the year.

EU: Commission should name lobbyists at meetings, EU court rules

EU Observer, 9 November 2007.

An EU court has dealt a blow to the use of privacy protection laws by the European Commission to blank out the names of lobbyists it has interacted with.

On Thursday (8 November), the European Court of First Instance annulled a Commission decision refusing to disclose the names of all beer industry representatives and other participants at an antitrust meeting in 1996.

Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd, a UK-based importer of German beer, had demanded access to the full participants list.

While the commission provided minutes of the meeting, it blanked out five names, saying that two of the people concerned had expressly objected to disclosure of their identity and that the commission had not managed to contact the other three.

According to the commission, the disclosure of these five names would have undermined the protection of the privacy and the integrity of the individual.

But the court argued that the right of access to documents containing personal data must be guaranteed on condition that the communication of those data does not undermine protection of the privacy and integrity of the person concerned.

The mere fact that a document contains personal data, such as names, does not necessarily mean that the privacy or integrity of the persons concerned is affected, the court said.

If the commission wishes to do so, it can make an appeal against the ruling, limited to questions of law only, before the European Court of Justice within two months.

Corporate Europe Observatory, a transparency watchdog, welcomed the court's verdict.

"The Court of First Instance's judgement is very good news for all those (both inside and outside the institutions) who want to improve transparency in EU decision-making," said Erik Wesselius, of the organisation, according AFP news agency.

The court ruling follows a separate complaint by the EU ombudsman. In July, ombudsman Nikiforos Diamandouros expressed his opposition against the Commission's practice of blanking out of lobbyists' names in released documents.

The lobbyist issue - who lobbies where and how much access they have - has become a hot political topic in Brussels.

Earlier this year, the Commission issued a blueprint for a voluntary lobbyists' register, which would give insight into whom lobbyist are working for and how much money they are paid.

In all, some 15,000 to 20,000 people work in Brussels as lobbyists - for trade associations, in-house corporate PR departments, law firms, public service NGOs or specialist PR firms.

Comment by GM-free Ireland

The EU's DG Internal Market, run by Commissioner Charlie McCreevy (from Ireland) received the Corporate Europe Observatory "Worst Privileged Access 2006" award for giving corporations undue influence in EU patent policies.

For details see http://www.worstlobby.eu/2006/showinfo.php?id=6

Corporate Europe Observatory: http://www.corporateeurope.org

8 November 2007

Paraguayan Film Looks at Dark Side of South American Soy Production Boom

SoyaTech.com/news, 8 November 2007. By David Vargas.

ASUNCION, Paraguay -- Nov. 8, 2007 -- (IPS/GIN) -- A sea of green stretches as far as the eye can see on both sides of the dirt road leading to the Paraguayan communities of Lima, Capiibary and Guayaib°. The huge fields are planted with genetically modified soy, Paraguay's leading export product. As it takes over more and more land, the crop is leaving sick people, displaced communities and trampled rights in its wake, according to the documentary "Soberan°a violada," which means "Violation of Sovereignty."

The documentary, produced by a Paraguayan team, portrays the drama of campesino (small farmer) communities that experience the spread of soy plantations as a threat to their survival. Many of these plantations are located 250 kilometers from the capital, in the northern Paraguayan department of San Pedro, one of the country's poorest provinces.

"The economic interests of large landowners -- most of them foreigners -- and multinational corporations are destroying entire communities, felling forests, polluting streams and rivers, making children sick, causing miscarriages, killing campesinos and forcing them to abandon their land and their culture," according to the synopsis of the 40-minute documentary.

Paraguay has become the world's fourth largest exporter of soy, after the United States, Brazil and Argentina. According to the Agriculture Ministry, soy is grown on 2.4 million hectares of land and accounts for 38 percent of the country's agricultural production.

The Paraguayan Chamber of Cereals and Oilseeds Exporters announced that its goal for 2008 is to expand soy cultivation to 4 million hectares and to double export revenues from the commodity, which in the first quarter of 2007 amounted to $780 million.

But that figure fails to reflect the social and environmental consequences of the expansion of soy cultivation, which are reflected in the documentary through dozens of testimonies from campesinos.

"The idea for the film came from the provincial Coordinating Committee for the Defense of Sovereignty, an umbrella group for representatives of organizations and leaders of different communities in San Pedro," said Arturo Pe§a, one of the producers of the documentary.

"Soberan°a violada" is scheduled to be screened Nov. 18 at the One World Berlin Film Festival, which will be held this month in the German capital.

The filmmaking team's general coordinator was Catalina Serv°n, and the documentary was written, directed and filmed by Malu Vázquez and edited by José Elizeche, with music by W. Krauch.

Members of the team said their aim was to create a tool that could be used to raise awareness on the problem, which has worsened over the last five years as transgenic soy has expanded in the area.

"Thousands of families have already left the province after selling their land, usually because they were surrounded by the soy crops and endangered by the spraying of toxic agrochemicals. They had no choice," Pe§a said.

The soybean boom has also brought unemployment. It requires little labor, and in the east of Paraguay soy has displaced cotton, which used to employ large numbers of people, according to the documentary.

Small-scale farmers, who make up a large proportion of the country's 6 million people, have been displaced by large-scale soy producers.

According to a study by the nongovernmental social research organization Base-IS, 70 percent of Paraguay's farmland is presently in the hands of foreign landowners, who are mainly Brazilian.

Some small-scale farmers, however, have refused to budge. One example is Manuel Cuevas, who has cultivated beans, maize and other subsistence products near the village of Lima for 30 years. His 10-hectare property is surrounded by Brazilian-owned soy fields.

Cuevas has received several offers for his land, but he and his family have turned them all down. "So far we're doing all right," he said in a resigned tone of voice.

"I will never leave. I have everything I need here: land, running water, electricity. There is no reason for me to leave my land," said Reinaldo Casco, another farmer, who added proudly that his parents were among Lima's first settlers.

"These are just two testimonies out of the dozens shown in the documentary, which reflect the abandoned state of these rural villages, left to fend for themselves for decades, with obsolete health systems, authorities who serve the interests of the big landowners and roads in terrible condition," Pe§a said.

"And now they are also threatened by the crushing advance of the agroexport model," he said.

Sociologist Tom s Palau, one of the authors of the book "Los refugiados del modelo agroexportador" (Agroexport Refugees), described the main effects of the rise of soy monoculture on rural communities.

"There is strong pressure on the campesinos' land, because the market value has skyrocketed," he said. The campesinos are displaced in various ways: their land is bought or leased, or they are forced to leave because of massive spraying with agrochemicals.

"There are also armed groups operating in the area. It's really an eviction army," he said.

Spraying with toxic agrochemicals has negative effects on both human and animal health, "causing illnesses ranging from allergies and respiratory problems to cancer, fetal malformation and miscarriage," Palau said.

The environment also suffers. The toxic chemicals "poison rivers and the earth, kill microorganisms in the fertile layers of soil and increase deforestation," he said.

But according to Palau, the least visible aspect of soy agribusiness is the fact that the revenues from soy exports do not remain within the country, because they belong to large foreign producers and corporations.

"Without realizing it, we're finding ourselves in a situation where an extremely high percentage of Paraguayan exports is controlled by three or four multinational corporations: Monsanto, which supplies seeds to 90 percent of the producers, and companies like Cargill, Louis Dreyfus and ADM," he said.

Soy cultivation in Paraguay began to expand in the mid-1960s and boomed in the late 1990s with the introduction of genetically modified seeds by companies such as Monsanto.

Intensive soy production has caused a decrease in traditional activities such as timber extraction, cattle ranching and even the production of cotton, which used to be the country's main agricultural export. The area under cotton cultivation has dropped from 509,000 hectares in 1990 to only 160,000 hectares in 2006.

UK: GM crops 'should not be approved'

BBC News, 8 November 2007

Ministers must not approve commercial planting of GM crops in England, until it is proved safe, say the Lib Dems.

Chris Huhne said responses to a Defra survey show planting should not be allowed until ministers can prove non-GM crops will not be contaminated.

Most respondents opposed Defra's plan to allow GM crops to be grown in fields at least 35m (114ft) from non-GM crops.

A Defra spokesman said they would await the results of three reports, due next spring, before plans are taken further.

No commercial GM crops are yet grown in the UK and are not expected for several years, but the government wants to have measures in place in England for the "coexistence" of GM, conventional and organic crops.

Cross-pollination

EU regulations state that food containing more than 0.9% of genetically modified ingredients have to be labelled as GM produce - even if they were grown as a conventional crop.

The government is proposing having compulsory separation distances between crops to minimise cross pollination of non-GM varieties.

And farmers intending to sow GM crops would be required to notify neighbouring farmers.

The three-month consultation attracted 11, 676 responses - 11,442 from "members of the public".

Defra said about 80% were in the form of stock letters or petitions, which conveyed a "basic disagreement" with Defra's proposals and said 0.9% was too high and in organic produce, it should be less than 0.1%.

Responses 'polarised'

Of the remaining 20% about 1,370 people registered a "general opposition to GM crops" while about 390 people were mainly concerned about "a perceived threat to organic farming".

Other responses included those from farming organisations, councils, organic farmers, biotechnology companies, scientific bodies and other organisations.

Defra said responses were "polarised" between pro and anti-GM views - with some favouring the government's proposals as "pragmatic and proportionate".

Mr Huhne, environment spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said: "People want to be safe and not sorry on GM foods, as the overwhelming bulk of responses to the government's consultation show.

"Ministers should not give any go-ahead for commercial planting until they can state confidently that GM varieties would not contaminate non-GM foods and that they are safe.

"This is essential for consumers who prefer non-GM foods, but also for organic farming which is the fastest growing part of British agriculture."

Environment Minister Phil Woolas said the government was still awaiting three important research projects on co-existence, due to be published next spring - and EU guidance on labelling GM presence in seeds. But the intention was to have "pragmatic measures in place".

He said: "GM crops may be approved for cultivation here in the future, if they pass the rigorous safety assessment procedure that is in place.

"We need to be ready for that possibility and the consultation on coexistence measures has been an important step forward in that process."

Is Africa being bullied into growing GM crops?

Business Daily Africa (Kenya), November 8 2007. Written by David Fig.

November 8, 2007: Africa is rapidly becoming a focal point for multinational crop and chemical corporations clearing the way for the extended uptake of their products and technologies. In particular, African governments are facing enormous pressure to endorse and adopt genetically modified (GM) crops.

Organisations like the Alliance for the Green Revolution in Africa - bank rolled by the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations - are partly to blame through their heavy investment in infrastructure aimed at supporting the development and distribution of GM crops and seeds.

But the African Union (AU) itself is now also encouraging the adoption of GM technology. Working in tandem with its development wing, the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), the AU's High Level Panel on Modern Biotechnology is soon to release a Freedom to Innovate plan - the clearest expression yet of the trend to back this controversial and risky technology.

And it does so uncritically, rather than taking a more rational precautionary position that would safeguard Africa's rich biodiversity and agriculture.

The AU is also engaged in efforts to revise the carefully crafted African Model Law on Biosafety, which outlines the biosafety provisions necessary for African environmental conditions.

The revisions emanate from those seeking to make the biosafety content less stringent, placing Africa under even more pressure to conform to the needs of the gene corporations.

Support for GM technology, though, is by no means universal across the continent.

The AU's efforts in shaping the Freedom to Innovate plan and model law contrast with the leadership role that the Africa Group took in developing the Cartagena Protocol to ensure more stringent biosafety precautions.

Indeed, a number of African governments and civil society organisations are increasingly speaking out against the pressures from gene companies - and the foundations that back them - to adopt their technologies.

For example Angola, Sudan and Zambia have resisted pressure to accept GM food aid, while non governmental groups such as the African Biodiversity Network, based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, defend community and farmers' rights to reject GM seed. At one stage Burkina Faso implemented a moratorium on the planting of GM crops.

The Freedom to Innovate document does little justice to the debate raging around Africa.

Instead it seeks to institutionalise the pro-GM position of larger countries like Nigeria and South Africa for the entire continent.

There is no question that Africa needs technology to develop. But it must be appropriate to a country's chosen path of development.

New technologies aimed at development must be evaluated in depth by, among others, scientists with no vested interests.

Natural scientists must assess GM technology's likely impacts on both the environment and human and animal health.

Social scientists must also examine the potential socio-economic consequences of such innovation - such as impacts on local food security, trade or indebtedness.

Stake holders, including those who safeguard traditional knowledge, could further enrich such assessment by indicating proven alternatives.

This model of technological assessment could serve Africa very well. It could enable governments to formulate appropriate policies and development priorities.

Most importantly, if a technology is found to be questionable or negative in terms of its impacts - or if there are no clear development benefits to be derived from its adoption - a precautionary mechanism must exist that can delay and carefully regulate its introduction.

The Freedom to Innovate plan tries to advocate the idea that all biotechnology benefits Africa and fails to analyse the risks attached to their adoption.

While some aspects of modern biotechnology might prove useful in African agriculture, this does not mean that one aspect of this - GM crops - can increase continental food security and farmer prosperity.

GM technology forces Africa into high-input, chemical-dependent agriculture which impacts on biodiversity and creates debt burdens for small farmers.

In addition, the regulatory steps required for control of GM crops are so demanding of resources that, even when other budgetary areas relating to food security may need more pressing attention, Africa is forced to prioritise their set up.

Gene corporations, together with the scientists that work for them, have invested a lot of time, effort and money in developing GM crops.

Not surprisingly, they are the ones who propound the idea that transgenic crops can rescue Africa from poverty and underdevelopment.

But Africa must not let itself be bullied into accepting a technology that has yet to prove itself as appropriate for solving the continent's hunger problems.

The AU's role should be one of providing governments with well-reasoned technological evaluation, rather than acting as a proxy for promoting a specific industry's commercial needs.

Fig is an independent environmental policy analyst based in Johannesburg, and a trustee of Biowatch South Africa

US spins GMO hype

AgWatch Europe, Autumn 2007
http://wwww.foodandwaterwatch.org

Recent statements by US officials represent the latest efforts by the United States to pressure Europe to accept genetically modified foods, despite near-universal opposition to these products.

Nicholas Taubman, the US ambassador to Romania, recently said the EU's strict regulation of GMOs is inappropriate because it is based on deception, and called Europeans' concerns about GMOs "science fiction." Growing GMOs in Romania, Taubman said, would mean "more nutritious food on the table and more money in your pocket."

Taubman's message may fall on deaf ears. Romania banned GM soy when it joined the EU this past January and has been trying to eliminate the widespread illegal planting of GM soy, potatoes and plums.

Around the same time as Taubman's statement, the US Department of Agriculture claimed Italy is softening its opposition to GMOs. In reality, Italy is one of the EU's strongest GMO opponents. Mario Capanna, Chair of Fondazione Diritti Genetici, said that if the EU moves to fine Italy for its stance, "We will not be afraid, we will say: 'Tell us how much it will cost and we will pay it.'"

For more information on efforts to ban GMOs in Europe, contact Giuseppina Pagano of Food & Water Watch Europe at gpagano@fwwatch.org.

7 November 2007

Ireland: Conflicting GM reports

Irish Examiner, Letter to the Editor, 7 November 2007.

In his otherwise excellent article, 'GM food debate will soon be on the main menu' (October 31), Brian O'Mahony said how, to date, "the EU has stood steadfast and banned the use of GM crops in Europe". But the previous day, EuropaBio reported that more thatn 110,000 hectares of GM crops were successfully harvested in the EU this year.

Contrast this with what the European Commission itself reported in January when it said "the EU is the world's largest importer of GM crops".

Given all this conflicting information, how does the ordinary reader make an informed choice? I'd have thought that if the NGOs were correct in their continued repetition that non one wanted GM crops, then sensible farmers wouldn't keep on growing them year after year.

Tony Combes
1 Centrium
Woking GU22 7PB
England

Comment from GM-free Ireland

•

The total area of GM crop cultivation in the EU is 0.05% of arable land - a hundred times less than organic farming.

•

Only one variety of GM crop (Monsanto's patented MON810 maize) is authorised for commercial cultivation in the EU, but only for use as animal feed. However, as of October 2007, MON810 is banned in Austria, France, Greece, Hungary and Poland; and other EU member states may ban it soon. Switzerland has a total moratorium on GM crops and GM livestock.

•

The EU is the largest importer of GM crop produce, the vast majority of which is used for animal feed - not food.

•

Sensible farmers in the EU do not grow GM food crops for the simple reason that there is no market for GM food in Europe.

•

But a giant loophole in EU law allows meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients to be sold to consumers without a GM label. Earlier this year, a million EU consumers signed a petition demanding that the EC impose mandatory labelling for such produce, based on the consumer's right to know what he or she is eating.

_______________________

6 November 2007

GMO Rice: An Economic and Ecological Time Bomb

Infoshop News, 6 November 2007.

Greenpeace warns of an impending economic and ecological disaster should plans to introduce and commercialize genetically modified (GMO) rice in the Southeast Asian region succeed. Citing a recent report by an independent economist, Greenpeace said that the economic costs associated with the contamination of US rice stocks sold in the international market are staggering, with losses expected to exceed US 1.2 billion.(1)

Traces of the GMO rice variety LL601, owned by Bayer, were discovered in US rice supplies in 2006. The contamination arose from experimental field trials of LL601 in the US which had ended in 2001. The discovery triggered the largest financial and marketing disaster in the history of the US rice industry. At least 30 countries were affected by the contamination and many closed their markets to US rice, including major importers such as the European Union and the Philippines.

"Thailand remains a GMO rice-free country. Promoting GMO rice here is like bombing Thailand's agricultural future." said Greenpeace Southeast Asia Genetic Engineering campaigner Natwipha Ewasakul. "The contamination of the US rice supply had an impact on thousands of farmers and businesses all over the world. It is absolutely outrageous for Thailand, being one of the world's largest exporters of rice, to even entertain the risks of tinkering with this dangerous technology," Natwipha added.

The report is the first quantification of the costs of the Bayer GE rice scandal across the grain supply chain. Rice growers, harvesters, processors, millers and retailers were unwittingly caught up in the scandal which affected 63 percent of US rice exports. The overall cost to the industry, estimated at over US $1.2 billion, included losses of up to US $253 million from food product recalls. Future export losses amount to US $445 million. Hundreds of US farmers and European businesses have filed lawsuits against Bayer in attempts to recoup their losses.

Punitive or statutory damages which may be awarded against Bayer may double or even triple the final cost of the GE contamination incident.

Greenpeace discovered last year that US long grain rice being sold in Philippine supermarkets under the brand name Uncle Sam was contaminated by this illegal, unauthorized and unapproved GMO rice variety. The scandal later forced the Philippine National Food Authority to demand GMO free certification from US rice traders and a halt to US rice imports amounting to US$ 20 million. The moratorium on US rice imports to the Philippines continues to this day.

"Filipinos have been exposed to the inherent risks of this genetically altered rice without knowing it," said Greenpeace Southeast Asia Genetic Engineering campaigner for Philippines Daniel Ocampo. "Aside from the inherent risks to human health and the environment, this report clearly shows that GMO crops could also ruin the agriculture exports and economy of a country like the US. Asia should focus on other means of developing rice varieties."

The scandal serves as an object lesson for developing nations where the GE industry is currently attempting to extend its reach, among them India and Thailand, two of the world's leading rice exporters.

"Greenpeace is extremely concerned that governments in the region are entertaining notions of introducing and experimenting with GMO rice. If GMO rice field trials commence, it could threaten markets for Thai rice varieties, including jasmine rice. Who will compensate Thai farmers, millers and traders if the Thai rice trade suffers a catastrophe similar to the scale of the US scandal?," asked Natwipha. "There is only one way for the rice industry to protect itself from another billion dollar debacle and that is to prevent GMO rice from ever being grown," she concluded.

Note

(1) The Greenpeace report is entitled, Risky Business: Economic and regulatory impacts from the unintended release of genetically engineered rice varieties into the rice merchandising system of the US. The report and briefing document is available online at www.greenpeace.org.ph

UK: An Agricultural Crime Against Humanity
Biofuels could kill more people than the Iraq war

The Guardian, 6th November 2007. By George Monbiot.

It doesn't get madder than this. Swaziland is in the grip of a famine and receiving emergency food aid. Forty per cent of its people are facing acute food shortages. So what has the government decided to export? Biofuel made from one of its staple crops, cassava(1). The government has allocated several thousand hectares of farmland to ethanol production in the county of Lavumisa, which happens to be the place worst hit by drought(2). It would surely be quicker and more humane to refine the Swazi people and put them in our tanks. Doubtless a team of development consultants is already doing the sums.

This is one of many examples of a trade described last month by Jean Ziegler, the UN's special rapporteur, as "a crime against humanity"(3). Ziegler took up the call first made by this column for a five-year moratorium on all government targets and incentives for biofuel(4): the trade should be frozen until second-generation fuels - made from wood or straw or waste - become commercially available. Otherwise the superior purchasing power of drivers in the rich world means that they will snatch food from people's mouths. Run your car on virgin biofuel and other people will starve.

Even the International Monetary Fund, always ready to immolate the poor on the altar of business, now warns that using food to produce biofuels "might further strain already tight supplies of arable land and water all over the world, thereby pushing food prices up even further."(5) This week the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation will announce the lowest global food reserves in 25 years, threatening what it calls "a very serious crisis"(6). Even when the price of food was low, 850 million people went hungry because they could not afford to buy it. With every increment in the price of flour or grain, several million more are pushed below the breadline.

The cost of rice has risen by 20% over the past year, maize by 50%, wheat by 100%(7). Biofuels aren't entirely to blame - by taking land out of food production they exacerbate the effects of bad harvests and rising demand - but almost all the major agencies are now warning against expansion. And almost all the major governments are ignoring them.

They turn away because biofuels offer a means of avoiding hard political choices. They create the impression that governments can cut carbon emissions and - as Ruth Kelly, the British transport secretary, announced last week(8) - keep expanding the transport networks. New figures show that British drivers puttered past the 500 billion kilometre mark for the first time last year(9). But it doesn't matter: we just have to change the fuel we use. No one has to be confronted. The demands of the motoring lobby and the business groups clamouring for new infrastructure can be met. The people being pushed off their land remain unheard.

In principle, burning biofuels merely releases the carbon they accumulated when they were growing. Even when you take into account the energy costs of harvesting, refining and transporting the fuel, they produce less net carbon than petroleum products. The law the British government passed a fortnight ago - by 2010, 5% of our road transport fuel must come from crops(10) - will, it claims, save between 700,000 and 800,000 tonnes of carbon a year(11). It derives this figure by framing the question carefully. If you count only the immediate carbon costs of planting and processing biofuels, they appear to reduce greenhouse gases. When you look at the total impacts, you find that they cause more warming than petroleum.

A recent study by the Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen shows that the official estimates have ignored the contribution of nitrogen fertilisers. They generate a greenhouse gas - nitrous oxide - which is 296 times as powerful as CO2. These emissions alone ensure that ethanol from maize causes between 0.9 and 1.5 times as much warming as petrol, while rapeseed oil (the source of over 80% of the world's biodiesel) generates 1-1.7 times the impact of diesel(12). This is before you account for the changes in land use.

A paper published in Science three months ago suggests that protecting uncultivated land saves, over 30 years, between two and nine times the carbon emissions you might avoid by ploughing it and planting biofuels(13). Last year the research group LMC International estimated that if the British and European target of a 5% contribution from biofuels were to be adopted by the rest of the world, the global acreage of cultivated land would expand by 15%(14). That means the end of most tropical forests. It might also cause runaway climate change.

The British government says it will strive to ensure that "only the most sustainable biofuels" will be used in the UK(15). It has no means of enforcing this aim - it admits that if it tried to impose a binding standard it would break world trade rules(16). But even if "sustainability" could be enforced, what exactly does it mean? You could, for example, ban palm oil from new plantations. This is the most destructive kind of biofuel, driving deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia. But the ban would change nothing. As Carl Bek-Nielsen, vice chairman of Malaysia's United Plantations Bhd, remarked, "even if it is another oil that goes into biodiesel, that other oil then needs to be replaced. Either way, there's going to be a vacuum and palm oil can fill that vacuum."(17) The knock-on effects cause the destruction you are trying to avoid. The only sustainable biofuel is recycled waste oil, but the available volumes are tiny(18).

At this point the biofuels industry starts shouting "jatropha!" It is not yet a swear word, but it soon will be. Jatropha is a tough weed with oily seeds that grows in the tropics. This summer Bob Geldof, who never misses an opportunity to promote simplistic solutions to complex problems, arrived in Swaziland in the role of "special adviser" to a biofuels firm. Because it can grow on marginal land, jatropha, he claimed, is a "life-changing" plant, which will offer jobs, cash crops and economic power to African smallholders(19).

Yes, it can grow on poor land and be cultivated by smallholders. But it can also grow on fertile land and be cultivated by largeholders. If there is one blindingly obvious fact about biofuel it's that it is not a smallholder crop. It is an internationally-traded commodity which travels well and can be stored indefinitely, with no premium for local or organic produce. Already the Indian government is planning 14m hectares of jatropha plantations(20). In August the first riots took place among the peasant farmers being driven off the land to make way for them(21).

If the governments promoting biofuels do not reverse their policies, the humanitarian impact will be greater than that of the Iraq war. Millions will be displaced, hundreds of millions more could go hungry. This crime against humanity is a complex one, but that neither lessens nor excuses it. If people starve because of biofuels, Ruth Kelly and her peers will have killed them. Like all such crimes it is perpetrated by cowards, attacking the weak to avoid confronting the strong.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. IRIN Africa, 25th October 2007. Swaziland: Food or biofuel seems to be the question. http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=74987

2. Energy Current, 29th October 2007. Swaziland joins biofuel drive despite mounting food crisis. http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php?id=3&storyid=6359

3. Grant Ferrett, 27th October 2007. Biofuels "crime against humanity". BBC Online. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7065061.stm

4. George Monbiot, 27th March 2007. A Lethal Solution. The Guardian. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/27/a-lethal-solution/

5. Valerie Mercer-Blackman, Hossein Samiei, and Kevin Cheng, 17th October 2007. Biofuel Demand Pushes Up Food Prices. IMF Research Department. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2007/RES1017A.htm

6. Jacques Diouf, quoted by John Vidal, 3rd November 2007. Global food crisis looms as climate change and fuel shortages bite. The Guardian.

7. John Vidal, 3rd November 2007. Global food crisis looms as climate change and fuel shortages bite. The Guardian.

8. Department for Transport, October 2007. Towards a Sustainable Transport System: Supporting Economic Growth in a Low Carbon World. http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/transportstrategy/pdfsustaintranssystem.pdf

9. Department for Transport, 2007. Transport Statistics Great Britain 2007. Table 7.1. Road traffic by type of vehicle: 1949-2006 http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/tsgb/2007edition/sectionsevenroadsandtraffic.pdf

10. HM Government, 2007. The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2007/draft/20078818.htm

11. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, October 2007. Biofuels - risks and opportunities, p4. http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/environment/rtfo/289579

12. PJ Crutzen, AR Mosier, KA Smith and W Winiwarter, 1 August 2007. N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions 7, pp11191-11205. http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11191-2007.pdf

13. Renton Righelato and Dominick V. Spracklen, 17th August 2007. Carbon Mitigation by Biofuels or by Saving and Restoring Forests? Science Vol 317, p902. doi 10.1126/science.1141361.

14. AFP, 17th October 2007. IMF concerned by impact of biofuels on food prices. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h0RVoVwPFlD8MXLYyQbxHamr9NYw

15. Lord Bassam of Brighton, 29th March 2007. Parliamentary answer. Column WA310. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70329w0004.htm

16. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, October 2007. Biofuels - risks and opportunities, p5. http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/environment/rtfo/289579

17. Benjamin Low, 24th February 2006. CPO Prices Seen Up In 06 As Biodiesel Fuels Demand http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/060224/15/3yy2x.html

18. You can see the calculations here: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/

19. Helene Le Roux, 27th July 2007. Singer, songwriter and activist promotes green energy in Africa. Engineering News Online. http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=112872

20. John Vidal, ibid.

21. Mark Olden, 25th October 2007. Observations on: biofuels. New Statesman. www.newstatesman.com/200710250020

EU gene crop cultivation rises sharply in 2007

ENDS Europe Daily, 6 November 2007. The area of EU territory devoted to growing genetically modified crops increased by 77 per cent in 2007 to 110,000 hectares, according to figures from biotech industry association EuropaBio. Spain remains the EU's major cultivator with 75,000ha, a growth of 40 per cent since 2006. France more than quadrupled its area under GM in 2007, planting over 20,000ha. EuropaBio said the growth of biotech cultivation had been achieved despite the fact that only one GM crop variety (a Bt maize) has been approved for cultivation in the EU. See EuropaBio press release http://www.europabio.org/GBE_media/GMOfigures/PR_Industry_Biotech%20Figures_FINAL29102007.pdf and background documents http://www.europabio.org/ne_GMOfigureslaunch.htm.

Help save Europe's family farmers!

Leter from Food & Water Watch Europe, 6 November 2007.

Dear ...

Family farmers, for centuries the backbone of Europe's economic and social well-being, are in serious jeopardy. Every year, 300,000 farms go out of business in the European Union -- most of them small-scale, family-based farms that have been passed down for generations.

We can stop this from happening if we act now.

Today's farmers are up against unimaginable odds. Low-cost imported meat, fruit and vegetables are pouring into the EU from Asia, Latin America and elsewhere in record numbers -- undercutting prices already too low for European farmers to make ends meet. Multinational agri-businesses from the United States and other countries are constructing factory-style farms throughout Europe -- producing low-cost, low-quality food that threatens not just family farmers but human health and the environment, too.

With farming in severe decline, rural communities across the continent are suffering from high unemployment and population losses.

Politicians in Brussels have not only been ignoring these problems for many years, they have actually been making them worse. Incredibly, 85 percent of EU farm subsidies -- through the Common Agricultural Policy, or CAP -- go to the largest 18 percent of Europe's farms. The EU is paying experienced, veteran farmers to retire because they are "non-competitive," while not providing enough CAP funding for young farmers to get into the business. And instead of funding new equipment, training and sustainable farming practices, the EU is spending billions of Euro in CAP money on tourism and other projects that have nothing to do with farming. Ý

Right now, the EU is deciding who will get critical agricultural funding through 2013. If we act by November 17, we can make a difference.

Can you tell EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel right now to support Europe's family farmers by ensuring that every cent of agriculture funding go directly to farmers?

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1185/t/741/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=20797

This may be the last chance to help farmers get their fair share of CAP money until 2013. By then, it will be too late for many of them. Farmers simply want to grow food and be paid a fair price for their products and services, so they can support their families and contribute to their communities.

Taking action today will help keep thousands of family farmers in business, keep rural communities healthy, and ensure Europe can feed itself for many years to come.

Thank you and best regards,

Wenonah Hauter
Executive Director, Food & Water Watch Europe
whauter(at)fwwatch.org
http://www.fwatch.org

World: Costs of Bayer GE rice scandal could exceed 1.2 billion USD
Greenpeace activists in India take action with Farmers' Union to say no to GE Rice

Greenpeace International press release, 6 November 2007

[image caption: Greenpeace and Bharatiya Kisan Farmers Union unfurl a giant banner in a rice field 25 km from Lucknow, protesting against any genetically engineered rice field trials in the region.]

When an unapproved genetically engineered (GE) crop was discovered in American rice last year, it triggered the biggest marketing and financial disaster in the history of the US rice industry. We commissioned an independent economist to do some maths; he found that total costs could exceed USD$1.2 billion.

In August 2006, traces of the uncertified GE crop LL601, known as "Liberty Link" and owned by biotech giant Bayer were found in US rice supplies. 63 percent of US rice exports were affected, the contamination spread to at least 30 countries, from Austria to Ghana to United Arab Emirates. Major importers such as the EU and the Philippines closed their markets to US rice, they remain closed today. Up to US $253 million was lost from food product recalls, and future export losses could reach $445 million.

Contamination came from field trials

What is particularly scary is that Liberty Link was never even grown commercially. The contamination was the result of experimental trials, which ended in 2001 - five years before the contamination was discovered. In a desperate attempt to lessen the damage after the scandal broke, the US government decided to approve the rice strain. It didn't work; as the report shows, the US rice industry is still reeling.

India, an even bigger rice exporter than the US, is the new battleground for GE crops. The Indian government is preparing to start field trials next month. Greenpeace urges them not to make the same mistakes as the US, and to stop all plans for GE experimental trials. Greenpeace India took action with the Bharatiya Kisan Farmers Union today. They visited one of the 12 areas approved for GE rice trials, and with a giant banner reading "Save our Rice" sent the Indian government a clear message.

As Greenpeace GE campaigner Doreen Stabinsky says: "There is only one way for the rice industry to protect itself from another billion dollar debacle and that is to prevent GE rice from ever being grown."

Bayer attempts to blame God

Hundreds of US farmers and European businesses have filed lawsuits against Bayer in attempts to recoup their losses. Punitive or statutory damages which may be awarded against Bayer may double or even treble the final cost of the GE contamination incident.

Bayer's response to the disaster, which has destroyed the livelihoods of thousands of people, from growers to producers to sellers, was to blame God. Seriously, they claimed that the contamination scandal was probably caused by "an Act of God." Even by biotech industry standards, this is beyond grotesque.

India, don't make the same mistakes as the US

In India, the pro-GE government, its regulators and companies such as Monsanto are preparing to start field trials of damaging GE crops next month. The decision ignores the will of farmers and traders and even the Indian Supreme court, which ruled in August that no new field trial approvals could happen until a full court hearing takes place.

The decision also threatens the Indian basmati rice industry, which is committed to remaining GE free. Many of the planned GE field trials will take place right next to where basmati is grown, and as genes do not understand political boundaries basmati and non-basmati rice types will face serious danger of contamination.

If their rice gets contaminated, it is Indian farmers, traders and millers whose livelihoods could be destroyed. India and the rest of the world must learn the lessons from the US disaster. The only way to ensure crops are safe from contamination is to ensure that GE crops do not exist at all.

Kenya: Minister - GMOs a Challenge to Nema

The East African Standard, 6 November 2007.

Nairobi -- The National Environmental Management Authority (Nema) does not have the ability to assess the impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Environment and Natural Resources minister, Mr David Mwiraria, said the State watchdog lacked the capacity to identify, verify and stop adverse impacts that might arise from the introduction of GMOs into the environment.

"Most GMO innovations are done in the West and transferred to Kenya. In most cases, there is no adequate research to verify the impact on people and the environment," said the minister.

According to Mwiraria, the process of drafting the bio-safety Bill might not have been all-inclusive partly due to the technical nature of the subject.

"Due to the abstract nature of the topic, bio-safety and GMO negotiation was a preserve of expert groups that could have been managed and directed by Kenya scientists developing and promoting GMO deployment," he said.

Mwiraria's remarks were in a speech read on his behalf at a training workshop for Nema environmental inspectors on GMO Biosafety Risk Assessment in Nairobi.

A team of specialists from BiosafeTrain - a biosafety and ecological risk assessment project - is conducting the course that will teach Nema inspectors how to assess GMOs.

BiosafeTrain is a collaboration among scientists from the University of Nairobi and Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Makerere University in Uganda, University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania and the universities of Aarhus and Copenhagen in Denmark.

Ireland: Anti-GM activists are not in sales

Irish Independent, Letter to the Editor, 6 November 2007.

My "wild unsubstantiated statements" about GM foods (letter from Patrick O'Reilly of Monsanto) are far from unsubstantiated, as he must know well.

One simple question for him and his ilk.

Why would I (and hundreds of other very concerned and educated people all round the world) be objecting so strongly unless we knew them to be fully substantiated and feared for our health and many other issues?

I and the hundreds of others who actively protest are not selling anything.

The millions of others all over Europe who do not want their food and economies polluted by GM mutations are also not selling anything.

However, Mr. O'Reilly is from Monsanto and GM foods will be worth billions to their profits.

Space is too limited in a letters column to challenge Mr. O'Reilly's wild, unsubstantiated denials.

However, anybody who wants the whole sordid story should contact Michael O'Callaghan of the Irish anti-GM campaign (website is on the internet).

He is also not selling anything.

Dick Barton
Tinahely, Co.Wicklow

USA: North Sacramento-based Ventria sowing a storm with altered rice

Sacramento Bee, November 6 2007.

In a little town in Kansas, Sacramento's Ventria Bioscience is about to turn one of the biotechnology industry's long-held dreams - and one of its critics' nightmares - into reality.

For 14 years, Ventria has inched toward its vision of growing fields of genetically modified rice plants that would serve as cheap factories for medicine.

Next year, promises Chief Executive Scott Deeter, Ventria finally will release a mass-market product: an over-the-counter rehydration solution fortified with two anti-bacterial ingredients of human breast milk that grow in the company's proprietary rice.

The drink is meant to help children recover from diarrhea more quickly. It would be the first genetically engineered "medical food" ever commercialized.

But as the company moves toward the launch, the controversy that has followed it for years is intensifying.

Consumer groups say the product is untested and potentially dangerous. The rice and food processing industries worry Ventria's medicine-rice will get mixed up in the food supply, leading to costly recalls.

Deeter says he plans to sell the rehydration solution to customers ranging from drugstore shoppers to the U.S. Army to international health groups. But he's vague on the details, saying everything from the brand name to marketing to a distribution strategy has yet to be determined. Meanwhile, the company has yet to win over the aid organizations it hopes will become buyers.

Still, federal regulators have given Ventria a tacit go-ahead to sell the rice drink, and the company is ramping up production at a newly built facility.

After being essentially chased out of California by rice farmers in 2004 and then stumbling in Missouri the following year, Ventria has found a home in Junction City, Kan. The company planted more than 200 acres of rice near the town in the spring, and in the summer opened a processing plant to make the drink. Its headquarters and laboratory remain in an office park in North Sacramento.

In interviews, Deeter, a tall, solidly built native of Kansas who has led Ventria since 2001, returns often to what he says is the company's humanitarian purpose: saving the lives of some of the nearly 2 million children, nearly all in poor countries, who die of diarrheal diseases each year.

"If we could make a difference there, that would make it all worthwhile," he said. "It'd be hard to argue with it."

Ventria's critics, though, believe the company's progress has been reckless.

The rice industry and major food processors say the potential value of Ventria's product is swamped by the risk that the rice will get mixed up with the general food supply, leading to recalls and lost export sales. They want the U.S. Department of Agriculture to tighten restrictions on plantings of new genetically modified crops.

Since 2006, genetically engineered strains of rice have been found three times in Southern rice stores. The industry says that has cost farmers and processors untold millions in lost export sales. A USDA investigation failed to identify the source of the contamination.

While most corn and soy planted in the United States is genetically engineered, virtually no genetically modified rice is grown for food anywhere in the world because of strong opposition in European and Asian markets.

Junction City, 65 miles west of Topeka, is hundreds of miles from the nearest rice field. But Steve Hensley, director of regulatory affairs for the industry group USA Rice, said a few fertile grains of Ventria's rice might still be transported to commercial fields via birds, a flood or tornado, or by a mix-up in transportation.

"It's obvious from immediate past history that the regulatory controls have not worked," Hensley said. "We feel it's just too risky to trust the same industry again."

Consumer groups have another concern: safety. They say the special proteins in Ventria's rice - lactoferrin and lysozyme - differ in subtle but potentially important ways from the mother's milk originals. The rice-grown proteins, they argue, haven't been tested adequately on humans and could prompt dangerous immune reactions.

"In terms of risk assessment, it's really a very new area," said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a molecular biologist with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It's hard to predict when and where these effects are going to occur."

The groups want the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to force the company to conduct clinical trials before releasing the proteins to the market.

"They're drugs. They're potent. They're bioactive," said Bill Freese, senior policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety. "They haven't been approved by any regulatory authority, so they shouldn't be out there in an uncontrolled way."

Deeter says Ventria's rehydration solution will be as safe as breast milk or rice.

So far, federal regulators haven't challenged Ventria's position, backed by an expert panel, that its product is not a pharmaceutical but rather a "food" that meets federal standards exempting it from the clinical testing required for new drugs.

That means Ventria is free, for now, to market its product. It risks a future recall, but Marc Scheineson, a Washington, D.C., food and drug attorney with Alston & Bird LLP, said the odds are probably in Ventria's favor.

It's another question whether Ventria will be able to sell its product to the aid organizations that work in the world's poor countries, and which could be significant customers.

Miriam Aschkenasy, a children's health expert with Oxfam America, said more testing is needed to evaluate the drink's effectiveness. While she encourages innovation, Aschkenasy said the scope for saving lives with a new product is limited.

"The problem with current oral rehydration solutions is not effectiveness," she said. "It is mainly a problem of access" - getting people to health facilities where they can learn about and obtain the solutions.

The promise of Ventria's technology has attracted some of the biggest names in biotechnology and agribusiness. The company's board members include Bill Rutter and Pablo Valenzuela, co-founders of Chiron, which developed the first blood tests for hepatitis C, and Tom Urban, who for many years headed seed giant Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.

Ventria is privately held; its board has provided more than 85 percent of the company's financing, Deeter said.

That backing has allowed Ventria to survive a long and rocky gestation marked by several public setbacks.

By the time Deeter took over as chief executive, Ventria was already the target of Greenpeace campaigners. In a theatrical protest in 2004, anti-biotechnology activists drove to Ventria's headquarters in a moving van to present an "eviction notice," demanding it leave the state.

Probably more damaging was the opposition from within the rice industry, with Sacramento Valley farmers growing anxious that Ventria's rice would mingle with theirs and shut down exports to touchy markets in East Asia.

In 2004, Ventria abandoned plans to plant its rice in California. In late 2005, it gave up on Missouri after a subsidy package fell through. Earlier, rice farmers and Anheuser-Busch Co., which uses Missouri rice in its breweries, had protested the company's planting plans.

Ventria's odyssey has drawn international media attention. But in Sacramento, the 30-employee company keeps a low profile. It did not allow a Bee photographer into its building and would not supply a photograph of Deeter.

In Junction City, population 16,000, Ventria's goals, its high-powered board of directors and Deeter himself all inspired confidence in local leaders. Eager to diversify an economy long dependent on nearby Fort Riley, an Army base, Junction City welcomed Ventria with a $5.5 million loan package. The loans will convert to grants if the company meets planting, hiring and growth targets.

Adrian Polansky, Kansas' secretary of agriculture, said Ventria has promised farmers a premium for growing its rice - a return of $150 an acre on top of what they would have received for their usual corn or soybeans.

"We got convinced by the (Ventria) leadership pretty quick that this would be a good investment," said Josh McKim, who heads the Junction City-Geary County Economic Development Commission.

Tracy Taylor, president of the Topeka-based Kansas Technology Enterprise Corp., which has invested $500,000 in Ventria, was confident the rice drink ultimately will yield profits.

"It's a good product. It's a safe product," he said. "The world needs it."



Comment from Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS): The food industry's concerns that production of this pharmaceutical protein in rice could have negative impacts on sales or exports are well founded. The industry's now long track record of contamination should not give anyone confidence that they can keep their pharma rice out of our food.

This article mentions that the Ventria company intends to market this product as a "medical food". This is an ill-defined regulatory category at the Food and Drug Administration that, similar to other GE crops, requires little regulatory oversight or safety testing.

The human-derived protein, called lactoferrin, that Ventria is producing in rice, is modified compared to the human version. This is the same class of modification that occurred in peas containing an engineered bean protein, reported several years ago to have acquired the ability to cause adverse immune responses in mice, and causing the CSIRO in Australia to cancel the project after a decade of work.

One type of adverse immune response that may be possible (although no one really knows for sure) is autoimmunity to the altered protein. This means that the body's built-in ability to distinguish its own proteins from foreign ones (e.g. from bacterial or viral pathogens), and thereby avoiding a dangerous immune response against one's own body, is lost. Well known autoimmune diseases are diabetes, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis. The disease that might be caused by an autoimmune response against one's own lactoferrin is not well understood, but any immune attack against important proteins in the body is cause for concern.

Especially troubling is that Ventria apparently is able to declare that this protein should be classified as a medical food rather than a drug, which would require rigorous safety testing. For example, another company, Agenix, is producing human lactoferrin in yeast in a contained facility for treating cancer, and is going through the typical drug safety-testing route. The actions of Ventria are yet another demonstration of the recklessness of the industry.

5 November 2007

USA: Chipotle Mexican Grill is Nation's First Chain to go Entirely rBGH-Free
Survey Shows That 81 Percent of Consumers Would Prefer to Purchase Dairy Products Produced without Added Hormones

Business Wire, 5 November 2007.

DENVER - Before the end 2007, Chipotle Mexican Grill will no longer serve any cheese made with milk from cows treated with the synthetic hormone rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone). That will make Chipotle the first national restaurant chain to eliminate rBGH entirely from items on its menu.

Chipotle began serving 100% rBGH-free sour cream last year, and has begun shifting to rBGH-free cheese over the last several months, a move it will complete by year-end, making 100% of its cheese rBGH-free. It also serves rBGH-free, organic milk at some of its locations.

rBGH, also called recombinant bovine somatotropin or rBST, is a synthetic hormone that stimulates milk production in dairy cattle. Use of rBGH has been banned in a number of countries, including 25 European nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1993, the use of the hormone in this country has been controversial for many reasons, including potential health concerns for humans and the animals treated with the hormone.

"We want to change the way the world thinks about and eats fast food," said Chipotle Founder, Chairman and CEO, Steve Ells. "Serving our customers cheese and sour cream without rBGH is the responsible thing to do. It's better for our customers, better for the animals, and better for the food system."

Today's announcement represents the latest development in Chipotle's Food With Integrity mission - a commitment to making socially responsible, gourmet food available and affordable so everyone can eat better. To that end, Chipotle now serves more naturally raised meat than any restaurant in the world - meat raised humanely without antibiotics or added growth hormones, and fed a pure vegetarian diet. Beyond naturally raised meat and rBGH-free dairy, 25 percent of the black and pinto beans Chipotle serves are organically grown.



"We care about the quality of the ingredients we are serving," said Ells. "Everyone should have access to great-quality, great-tasting food. So, we look for ingredients that are grown and raised with care and respect." According to the results of a recent survey conducted by Opinion Research Corporation, 81 percent of respondents would prefer to buy dairy products derived from cows that do not receive synthetic hormones, assuming little or no pricing difference. Other findings from the Opinion Research Corporation survey include:

Of those who said they would not prefer to buy rBGH-free dairy products, 64 percent said that they would buy rBGH-free dairy products if the synthetic hormone was linked to health issues with humans, and 42 percent said they would if the use of rBGH was linked to health issues with dairy cattle.

Fifty-eight percent of respondents were aware that many dairy cows in this country are treated with rBGH.

Nearly half of those who had no preference said they would prefer to buy rBGH-free dairy products if they knew the hormone was banned in a number of other countries.

"Chipotle has been making positive changes to the food supply system for a number of years, and we're extremely pleased that they've chosen to make being rBGH-free part of that commitment," said Rick North, director of the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility's Campaign for Safe Food, a non-profit group that's been collaborating on a nationwide education campaign opposing rBGH. "As consumers become more aware of the issues associated with rBGH use and the alternatives companies like Chipotle are providing, they are clearly stating their preference for rBGH-free dairy products."

About Chipotle

Chipotle Mexican Grill (NYSE: CMG and CMG.B) offers a focused menu of burritos, tacos, burrito bowls (a burrito without the tortilla) and salads made from fresh, high-quality raw ingredients, prepared using classic cooking methods and served in a distinctive atmosphere. Through our vision of Food with Integrity, Chipotle is seeking better food not only from a variety of fresh ingredients, but ingredients that are sustainably grown and naturally raised with respect for animals, the land, and the farmers who produce the food. Chipotle opened its first restaurant in 1993 and operates more than 670 restaurants today. For more information, visit www.chipotle.com.

Contact Chipotle Mexican Grill Chris Arnold, 303-222-5912 carnold@chipotle.com

USA: GMO rice caused $1.2 bln in damages -- Greenpeace

Reuters, 5 November 2007. By Lisa Shumaker.

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Trace amounts of genetically modified varieties of rice that were found commingled in the U.S. rice supply in 2006 caused more than $1.2 billion in damages and additional costs, the environmental group Greenpeace International said on Monday.

U.S. rice exports fell sharply after Bayer CropScience, a division of Bayer, reported in 2006 that trace amounts of its biotech LibertyLink rice variety LLRICE601 were found in a widely grown variety of U.S. rice called Cheniere. Later, a second variety called Clearfield 131 was found to be contaminated with LLRICE604.

"Until we've seen the report, we really can't comment," said Bayer spokesman Greg Coffey.

The discovery of GMO-tainted rice triggered the largest financial and marketing disaster in the history of the U.S. rice industry, according to Greenpeace. At least 30 countries were affected by the contamination and many closed their markets to U.S. rice, including major importers such as the European Union and the Philippines.

The overall cost to the industry, estimated at $1.2 billion, included losses of up to $253 million from food-product recalls in Europe, U.S. export losses of $254 million in the 2006/07 crop year and future export losses of $445 million, Greenpeace said.

"It's impossible to know what the cost is," said David Coia of trade group USA Rice Federation. "It's certainly the most significant event in the history of the U.S. rice industry. The current rice crop is in pretty good shape. We've been able to eliminate most of the genetically engineered material."

Hundreds of U.S. farmers and European businesses have filed lawsuits against Bayer in attempts to recoup their losses, said the environmental group.

Greenpeace is urging India not to go ahead with field trials of GMO varieties because it could risk suffering a similar contamination and loss of exports.

A lengthy U.S. investigation failed to pinpoint how the biotech rice entered the U.S. supply. However, all three varieties of rice were grown at a research station in Louisiana from 1999 to 2001.

France casts doubts on timing of GMO evaluation

Reuters, 5 November 2007.

PARIS (Reuters) - It may take longer than expected to assess pest-resistant genetically modified (GMO) crops for use in France, the agriculture minister said in remarks published on Monday.

"I cannot be absolutely sure how long it will take to carry out the scientific evaluation," Michel Barnier told the farming publication Agra Press.

"I cannot say today that everything will have been completed in February," he added.

Last month, President Nicolas Sarkozy said he would suspend the planting of pest-resistant GMO crops until an assessment on their use had been carried out later this year or in early 2008 and a new GMO law had been passed in France by the spring.

Barnier's comments drew a sharp response from the main maize producers' group AGPM, worried the appraisal will not be completed before the next sowing season.

"We want to know the rules of the game and to clarify the calendar so maize sowings can proceed as expected in April 2008," AGPM head Christophe Terrain told Reuters.

Jacques Pasquier, general secretary of the Confederation Paysanne, one of the main farm unions, said it could take up to 18 months to carry out a serious evaluation.

"It is highly probable that there will be no GMO plantings in France next year," he told Reuters by telephone.

Sarkozy's actions could have an impact on the future use of the sole GMO crop currently grown in France and the rest of the European Union -- a maize variety reliant on the MON 810 technology developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto.

French farmers who have used maize seeds incorporating MON 810 technology have cited greater protection against certain insects.

If France is able to offer scientific proof that the MON 810 is harmful to either the environment or humans or if the assessment drags on beyond March or April, farmers may have to revert to using conventional non-GMO maize in 2008.

Only 22,000 hectares, or around 1.5 percent, of France's cultivated land has been sown with GMO maize this year.

Several European Union countries have dug in their heels on use of MON 810 maize, including Hungary and Germany.

Unlike the United States, where GMO crops are widely used, resistance is running high, especially among ordinary French consumers who fear the potential impact on the nation's biodiversity and human health.

Analysts say France will have to provide solid evidence that GMO crops like the MON-810 put either the environment or humans at risk to be able to pursue with its suspension.

EU: Deadline looms for decision on Austrian maize ban

FoodNavigator.com, 5 November 2007. By Laura Crowley.

The decision on whether to force Austria to lift its national ban on genetically modified maize now lies in the hands of the European Commission, after EU environment ministers failed to agree at last week's Council meeting.

This is the third time since 2005 that ministers have failed to find a majority for or against a Commission proposal to lift Austria's restrictions on two types on GM maize.

Time is now running out as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruled in September 2006 that the ban was illegal, and gave the EU a deadline of November 21 2007 to lift the ban or the WTO will take disciplinary action.

In April 1998, the Commission authorised two types of maize - MON810, produced by US company Monsanto, and T25, produced by German drugs and chemical group Bayer - to be placed in the European market for all uses of the product (import, food processing and cultivation).

Austria chose to enforce a ban on the import and processing of MON810 in June 1999, expressing concern about the effects on non-target organisms and the development of resistance to toxins by target organisms.

It then banned T25 in April 2000 because of the risk of cut-crossing the maize with wild relatives and conventional crops.

GM maize is currently cultivated in the EU for animal feed only. It contains a gene that defends the crop against the European corn borer, an insect pest that eats the stem, present primarily in southern and middle Europe but moving northwards.

Under EU laws, a member state can apply a temporary ban on GM if it presents new scientific information to back its claims. Austria has failed to provide sufficient evidence, leading to calls to lift the ban.

The Commission has now twice consulted with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the safety of the maize, and it concluded that there was no reason to believe that the continued sale of these products is likely to cause any adverse effects for human and animal health or the environment.

The first proposal to force Austria to retract its ban was rejected by the Environment Council in June 2005.

In October 2006, the Commission re-submitted its proposals to repeal the Austrian safeguard measures on the grounds that there are no scientific elements to justify the ban. But again, the Environment Council rejected the Commission proposal.

The most recent proposal issued by the Commission concerned only Austria's ban on the food and feed aspects of the two products, not on cultivation. However, in last week's meeting, 21 out of 27 EU Environment ministers refused to force the ban to be lifted, leaving the decision to the European Commission ahead of the WTO's deadline.

Once a decision has been made, Austria would have to respond within 20 days. Any non-compliance to the final decision could mean the debate would go to the European Court of Justice.

Environment charities have urged the Commission to respect member states' wariness and allow the ban to stay in place.

Helen Holder, GMO Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe, said: "The European Commission has tried to make its proposal to lift the bans as palatable as possible by focusing only on imports instead of growing, but still member states haven't supported it. The Commission must respect the right of Austria to respond to scientific uncertainty and public opinion by keeping its bans in place."

Last week, figures released by EuropaBio, showed that the cultivation of GM crops in Europe has increased 77 per cent in the past year, with over 110,000 hectares of biotech crops in seven EU member states.

The biotech industry association claimed the use of GM crops is beneficial to farmers, giving them the freedom of choice to help them protect their crops and increase their competitiveness.Ý

Northern Ireland: Organic best says QLIF

Belfast Telegraph, 5 November 2007. By Linda McKee.

Early results from a major food study suggest organic fruit and vegetables contain 40% more antioxidants than non-organic foodstuffs.

The £12 four-year Quality Low-Input Food (QLIF) study revealed higher levels of other beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc in organic food, the Soil Association has said.

The latest findings reinforce the growing body of scientific evidence that indicates significant positive nutritional differences in organic food.

Patrick Holden, Soil Association director, said: "For the past 60 years the Soil Association has sought on the basis of practical information, underpinned where available by sound science, to show the benefits of sustainable, organic farming to the health of people and planet.

"The Soil Association agrees with Professor Leifert, co-ordinator of the project, who said there is enough evidence now that the level of good things in higher in organics.

"Therefore, we challenge the Food Standards Agency to recognise and publicly acknowledge the nutritional benefits of organic food."

The association said that in 2001 it had published a review of over 400 scientific papers by an independent nutritionist which found indicative evidence of nutritional differences between organic and non-organic food, including higher levels of vitatmin C, minerals and trace elements.

"These findings can be considered in the general context of the decline of key minerals found in UK produce as shown from long-term government studies. For example, annual analysis over 50 years by Defra's predecessor, MAFF, revealed a 12-76% decline in the trace mineral content of UK grown fruit and vegetables from 1940 to 1991," Mr Holden said.

UK: Brazilian land activist killed in dispute over experimental GM farm

The Independent, 5 November 2007. By Leonard Doyle in Washington.

When a Brazilian peasant organiser led a group of landless farmers on to a European-owned farm last month he was making an environmental protest as well as seeking farmland for about 20 families to cultivate.

Within hours, Valmir Mota de Oliveira, 42, and known as "Keno" would be dead, killed execution-style by two shots to the chest. A security guard was also killed in the shooting.

Keno died trying to stop the development of a research farm for genetically modified soya and corn next to the environmentally sensitive Iguacu National Park, becoming in the process a martyr for the anti-GM movement.

What happened at the seeds research site of the Swiss multinational Syngenta is hotly disputed. What is agreed is that the land invaders - who had been evicted from the same farm in July - set off fireworks as they arrived on the morning of 21 October, causing the unarmed guards to flee and seek help. Within a few hours, an armed militia showed up at the farm on a minibus and, shortly afterwards, Keno was killed and several more protesters were seriously injured. What role Syngenta may have played in ordering the militia to drive away the peasants is at the centre of a bitter dispute. It has turned the incident at its Cascavel research farm into a cause celebre for the landless workers movement in Brazil where four million peasant families are trying to get access to farmland.

For Syngenta, which was formed from an alliance of Novartis and Astra Zenica, the episode has turned into nightmare of accusation and counter-accusation amid suspicion that it gave free rein to an armed militia to protect its lands as it develops GM corn and maize seed for the expanding Brazilian market.

"Here we have a European company, Syngenta, effectively going around shooting people on its farm," said Sarah Wilson of Christian Aid which helps fund the Movement of Landless Workers (MST) in Brazil.

Syngenta says it does not know exactly what happened on its farm 10 days ago and that it has sent a team of lawyers from its headquarters in Basle to investigate.

"We don't know what happened and we are waiting for a full police report," said a company spokesman, Medard Schoenmaeckers, while strongly denying accusations from the landless farmers that it sent an armed militia to the farm to evict them. "We have a specific clause in our contract with the security firm stating that at no time can the guards carry or use arms," he said. "Until the police issue a report, I don't want to speculate about what happened."

The farmers organisation has issued a detailed description of what it claims happened. "A Via Campesina encampment located at Syngenta's 127-hectare farm ... was attacked by an armed militia. During the brutal attack, a leader and activist ... was killed at point-blank range."

Two other MST leaders were pursued by the gunmen but managed to escape. "We are sure that they came here to kill Keno, Celinha and me," said Celso Barbosa, one of those who escaped, adding that they had both received death threats since the beginning of the year. Several workers were seriously injured in the clashes.

Amnesty International was quick to express its concern with the apparent use by Syngenta of an "armed militia" which the landless farmers movement says acted through a front company, NF Security, controlled by a rural producers organisation linked to agribusiness.

Threats and intimidation by landowners are common in Parana province, according to Amnesty. As recently as 18 October, local human rights groups presented a dossier of evidence to the state human rights commission complaining about armed men hired by landowners and agricultural companies.

They complained that they often used violent and illegal methods forcibly to evict, threaten and attack activists squatting on land.

GMO: Kenyan Minister disowns draft biosafety law

Africa Science News Update, 5 November 2007. By June Ngetich.

It has been in the public domain for close to 15 years, but the Biosafety Bill, needed to move adoption and development of crop biotechnology forward in Kenya has never fallen short of controversy. Ý

THE controversy surrounding the planned introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into Kenyan came into the public again with the government distancing itself from the draft Biosafety Bill.Ý

Environment and Natural Resources Minister, David Mwiraria told a gathering of scientists in Nairobi yesterday that, currently, the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) does not have adequate capacity to make decisions regarding introduction of modified organisms to the environment and market.Ý

In a speech read on his behalf by the Ministry's deputy secretary, Dr Timothy M'mella at the official opening of a six-day training for NEMA staff on introduction to GMO Biosafety Risk Assessment, the minister noted that recent social science studies show that environmental and civil society groups consider GMO innovations and its concurrent bio-safety process as unaccountable and non-transparent.

Ý The course is designed to educate inspectors on the basic skills on the use of scientific data regarding the bio safety and ecological risk assessment of Living Modified Organism (LMO's).ÝBiosafety training's focal intention is to build a competence in Eastern Africa by providing the countries with the facility to make autonomous decision regarding the use of biotechnology through capacity building in bio safety.

Mwiraria said that the process towards development of the Biosafety Bill could have been managed and directed by the very Kenyan scientist that were developing and promoting GMO deployment.Ý"Little wonder that the recent National Biotechnology Development Legislation has attracted a lot of concerns especially from the civil society," he said.

Ý At the same time NEMA conceded that it lacks capacity to identify Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), verify and mitigate impacts brought about by the technology.Ý

Speaking during the ceremony, Dr.Gabor Lovei the project leader from the University of Nairobi said, the Cartagena Protocol on LMO's requires transparent, scientific and case- by- case bio safety with special consideration for the receiving environment consequently African countries which need all the capacity to do all elements of researching, gene