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 publi