NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • October / 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
31 October 2007
Demand for GMO labels on food
Norden.org, 31 October 2007.
The Centre Group in the Nordic Council will strengthen Nordic consumer protection and demands labelling on foods which have been produced using genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Labelling will give the consumer a greater chance to control their consumption of GMO products themselves through clear declaration of a product's contents and ingredients.
EU legislation regulates which genetically modified products have been added and how they should be labelled for the Nordic EU countries. As members of the EEA-EFTA, Norway and Iceland follow these regulations on the whole. According to the EU Directive from 2003 products which contain more than 0.9 % GMO must be labelled. However, the Centre Group feels that there are serious shortcomings with this labelling since the legislation has shown to have loopholes because the same principles do not apply for animal products which have been produced using GMO fodder.
"The consumer must know what he is eating and what production chain he is supporting. It is quite simply not acceptable that animal products made from animals fed on GMO fodder are not labelled. The Nordic countries must take action to improve consumer protection and to support research which increases an understanding of the effect of GMO on both the food chain and the eco system", said Ville Niinist– from the Centre Group in the Nordic Council.
In Sweden and Finland, for example, it has been decided to allow feeding animals with GMO. In the rest of Europe the use of GMO fodder is much more common. The risk of finding traces of GMO in imported meat is therefore high in all the Nordic countries", stressed the Centre Group.
Until further notice no GMO crops are cultivated in the Nordic countries and the Centre Group raises the notion of keeping the Nordic Region a GMO-free zone. It is difficult to control the spread of genetically modified crops, and there is a risk of no longer being able to grow crops organically because of 'GMO contamination', if cultivating GMO crops is accepted. By proclaiming the Nordic Region a GMO-free zone it should be possible to guarantee the production of pure organic and GMO-free products, which would be a competitive advantage for the Nordic countries.
The Centre Group stressed the environmental aspect but also the social side of this issue and welcomed a broad discussion on consumer rights.
The Centre Group met in Oslo during the Nordic Council Session at which gathers together a large number of politicians for several days.
UK: Internal Documents Reveal Government Collusion with Industry on GM Potato Trial Licenses
GM Freeze calls for major Shake-Up
GM Freeze press release, 31 October 2007.
GM Freeze has obtained copies of email exchanges between Defra officials and the biotech company BASF in which there is clear collusion to ensure that the conditions on a consent to trial GM potatoes in England were "agreeable to BASF". In a letter sent today to Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Hilary Benn, the group calls for a major shake-up of the GM approvals system to ensure that protecting the environment and the public takes precedence over the interests of the biotech companies.
One GM potato trial took place this year, at a research centre in Cambridge. Local opposition by farmers prevented the trial at the second site, in East Yorkshire, from going ahead [1].
GM Freeze obtained the emails under the freedom of information legislation. The exchange ran from 29th September to 14th November 2006 and clearly shows how Defra civil servants were happy to amend the conditions of the consent put forward by the GovernmentÇs advisory committee, ACRE [2], if BASF were not happy with them. The exchange ran as follows:
On 29 September 2006, Defra to BASF:
"...there is one point that I want to flag up to you regarding ACREÇs advice. ACRE has recommended the that land should be left fallow for two years following each trial, I would like to know if you think this is workable for you? I notice that other member states have specified that berries/true seeds should be removed from the trial, ACRE has not specified this because the Committee that this would be a very big job (and this is partly why the 2 fallow years has been recommended). If you thinks that that this is completely unworkable I think the Committee may be prepared to accommodate a reduction in this fallow period to one year, but there may be other conditions (eg removal of flowers and berries). In addition to this ACRE has recommended a particular tillage regime, hopefully you are able to accommodate this (I can't specify details at the moment because I need to clarify what exactly is required)."
On 6 October 2006, Defra to BASF:
"Please find attached a draft consent for your consideration. This is currently with our lawyers and is likely to be subject to some changes, however the conditions should not alter substantially and I will keep you informed of any changes before the consent is issued. Please let me know if the conditions as they stand would be agreeable to BASF or whether there any conditions that would be difficult to meet. I may need to consult with ACRE if there are problems with the consent and would appreciate if you could respond to this request by 22 October."
On 25 October 2006, BASF to Defra:
"And I would like to thank you for the very fast preparation of the draft consent and for letting us know. I discussed the probable conditions with my colleagues and believe they are agreeable for us.
"As the public consultation period is over now, we would appreciate if you could give us some comments on the public consultation.
"And we hope that the final conditions won't change too much..."
On 9 November 2006, Defra to BASF:
"As discussed, please see the consent attached, we would be very grateful if you could respond by next Monday at the latest because we need to send this to ministers for their approval.
"Please check condition 4(2) in particular does not affect your plans".
On 14 November 2006, Defra to BASF:
"Thanks for sending the agreement through. In order to transparently comply with (the redrafted) Condition 3 (see below) it would probably be best to insert the conditions of the consent into the field compliance guidelines, 5.1 b of your agreement indicates that these may be amended by BPS so a new agreement would not be necessary.
"I have redrafted condition 3(2) of the draft in response to your concerns, I have not received clearance from our legal team for the redraft but I hope this addresses the problem.
"Condition 3. Where the holder of the consent intends to enter into any agreement with a person or persons who will perform the whole or any part of the trial on the holderÇs behalf, then:
(1) such an agreement shall be in writing and it shall incorporate those limitations and conditions in this Schedule (including any variation) as the Secretary of State reasonably requires; and
(2) the first release of the GMO in any year of the trial shall not take place until any agreement or variation of an agreement has received the written approval of the Secretary of State.
"Please let me know as soon as possible whether or not you are content with the redraft."
When the legal consent document was finally issued on 1 December 2006, the then Secretary of State David Milliband insisted on taking the unusual step of signing the document himself [3].
Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:
"The willingness of Defra officials to offer changes to the consent condition for this GM potato trial to suit BASF shows how dangerously close Defra has come to the biotech corporations. ACRE are also involved by putting forward the less onerous conditions to cut BASF compliance costs. This is a disgrace considering that Defra and ACRE exist to protect the environment and public health. Instead Defra offered BASF easier and cheaper options.
"Ministers need to give the GM approvals system a good shake-up, including asking whether ACRE remains impartial and is still able to carry out its role. The negotiations between DEFRA officials and the company should never have taken place à itÇs almost as if Defra and ACRE wanted the GM trial to take place in England!".
ENDS
Calls to Pete Riley 07903 3410965
Notes
1. www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=323&iType=1079
2. the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
3. Note of the GM Policy Coordinating Group 29 September 2006 stated that, "the Secretary of State wished to sign the consent himself". Normally this task is delegated to a senior Civil Servant, as it was when BASF's second consent was issued in April 2007. The Secretary of State at the time was David Milliband. A copy of these notes was obtained by a Freedom of Information request by Friends of the Earth Cymru to the Welsh Assembly Government.
30 October 2007
EU: Austria step closer to lifting GM ban
Financial Times, 30 October 2007. By Laura Dixon in Brussels and Salamander Davoudi in London
Austria may be forced to lift a ban on importing genetically modified maize after EU ministers on Tuesday failed to reach an agreement on the issue.
Although 15 member states supported Austria's decision to restrict the import of GM maize, while only four supported the European Commission's proposal to force Austria to lift the ban, neither side received a qualified majority.
This proposal, which would force Austria to accept the import of two GM products for animal feed (MON810 and T25), was the third time the commission and Austria have come head-to-head on the issue.
Previous attempts by the commission to force Austria to lift its ban were defeated in 2004 and 2006 by environment ministers. Those outvoted proposals had a wider remit- attempting to lift the ban on both the growing and import of crops. The current proposal would allow Austria to keep its ban on cultivation of the product.
The failure of EU ministers to reach a decision by qualified majority voting means that the final decision will lie with the commission.
The environment commissioner Stavros Dimas said that the commission would "take note" of the strong concerns of member states.
"There are two main reasons why people supported Austria here, firstly, out of opposition to GMOs, and secondly, because of a belief that a member states' position should be respected," he said.
Their decision to oppose GM crops, she added, had a political dimension while the commission's decision on was purely scientific.
"If there are objections to our position they should be based on scientific criteria," she added.
Only four member states, the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden and Estonia, supported the commission's proposal to force Austria to lift its ban. Some 15 country's voted against it.
Last year the World Trade Organization ruled that European restrictions on the introduction of GM foods violated international trade rules, and gave the 27-member bloc until November 21 this year to loosen its regime.
Now that the decision about Austria lies in the commission's hands, it could be possible to comply with the WTO deadline. Once a decision has been made, Austria would have 20 days in which to respond.
Any non-compliance on Austria's part to a commission decision could see the subject go to the European Court of Justice.
Marco Contiero, a policy director on GM crops at Greenpeace said: "The commission, supported solely by four EU governments, is trying to force GMOs on to the European market."
"[This is] against the predominant positions expressed in Council and the will of the majority of EU citizens."
One of the crops, MON810, is produced by Monsanto, the US agribusiness that dominates the GM seed industry. It is the only GM product that is allowed to be cultivated in the EU and was approved by the commission in 1998.
GM products for import and cultivation face opposition in a number of member states.
MON810 is banned in Hungary and Poland, and last week the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, decided to postpone any further planting of the crop pending the results of a report due early next year.
USA: UC and BP: A Step in the Wrong Direction
The Berkeley Daily Planet, 30 October 2007. By Ignacio Chapela.
When our students look back in time, it will be easy for them to recognize this as a key moment in history. The signing of the Ñbioenergyâ agreement between British Petroleum and the University of California, Berkeley for a reported $500 million will be clearly visible then, in the future, as a very big step indeed, a decisive step in the wrong direction.
At Berkeley, the bare promise of money has dulled the capacity for critical thinking and transformed our public institution into a secretive society manipulated by special interest grouplets. I shudder to think about the further consequences that the arrival of this money, and the BP associates carrying it, will have on our campus. Before today, the chancellor would already speak of Ñweâ to refer only to those on campus who identify with his ideas, while the others, like me, are already defined as Ñthem.â
Any disagreement continues to be suppressed, dismissed as simply part of the colorful character of our campus, and the signing of the contract will directly fund the mechanisms necessary to entrench this suppression. Nevertheless, biofuels are now known to have been the wrong answer to the global warming puzzle, and the approach to biofuels into which Berkeley will be locked by signing a contract with BP is also already known to bring with it serious problems for human and environmental health. This reality is clear for anyone with eyes to see, most certainly for those unfortunate enough to live under the immediate consequences of its pursuit in places like Argentina and Indonesia. Time, wind and water will bring those consequences back home to us. With information available today, the only reason one could have to go into the biofuel program of BP and its Berkeley associates is to make personal progress, financially for sure and maybe scholarly, from the very flare of public support created by oneÇs own propagandizing.
Other core values have been sacrificed already in the process of bringing BP to our campus and the ink in the contract with BP will seal their fate. Our chancellor and all the promoters of this agreement have systematically avoided reckoning with the destructive force brought about by this contract against academic freedom and also against an unencumbered public voice for the university. By hijacking the Academic Senate through brute force and parliamentary sleight of hand last spring, BP boosters have minted a new definition of academic freedom as the freedom not to be questioned on their financial associations, no matter how damaging for the university or the public. In other times this Orwellian definition would have been rejected as a grab for unaccountable profiteering, and so it shall be recognized in the future.
But today any question relating to conflict of interest is swept under the cover of this new definition, making it possible for BP associates to carry out research, provide guidance in public policy, teach and train from the halls of our university while standing to gain most of their personal wealth from the consequences of their very research, teaching, and public opinion. The promotion of diversity and true academic freedom and the avoidance of conflict of interest are the most delicate values of our profession because once we lose them it becomes practically impossible even to see that we have: as we open our doors to BP employees and their associates, as we use the money that they bring to recruit professors and students who will by definition agree with the New Order for the university, a flood of acquiescence will drown out any memory of what a truly open and diverse campus could have achieved. In this process, society as a whole may gain a few upward ticks in the stock markets but it certainly loses irretrievably the values sown into the university as seeds for the future over many generations.
This tragic moment for the public university and for biology represents, paradoxically, the natural but unfortunate culmination of Dan KoshlandÇs dream, a dream that became by deed of KoshlandÇs fortune BerkeleyÇs and the nationÇs. Koshland can be credited more than any single individual for his obstinate dedication to transform the discipline of biology into what he defined as Big Science, just as it had been done by others for the field of physics that he so admired. In this effort, he conceived of his home, Berkeley, as the ideal place to bring that dream to reality. While this goal may have looked as desirable back in the Ç80s, by the dawn of the 21st century it is clear that it represents the sacrifice of a whole discipline, biology, in the hands of a small, monopolistic political group which has successfully captured the name of science for their own visions, including the vision of Big Money. Whether Professor Koshland was able to see the tragedy in the natural consequences of his dream will remain an interesting question for his biographers. But now without Koshland his dream forges ahead by bringing the biggest players and profiteers in the geopolitical arena to dictate what we, and by consequence, society, should do with the Big Science that we have wrought.
Koshland was wrong, however, in modelling biology after physics, and the jury is in on that judgement. While physics was able to speed from nuclear particle theory to nuclear war in the briefest three decades, biology continues to resist, half a century and many billions of dollars later, the proposals of physicists and chemical engineers. The New Biology going into the BP era at Berkeley may have new names and new faces, but it has not been able to change the fundamentals of living systems, most poignantly those in the open, public space: the loss of biological and cultural diversity, the spread of epidemics and invasive species, the emergence of new diseases for humans and their companion domesticates, all these problems continue not only unabated, but racing at increased pace.
The interventions by our BP-Berkeleyans have already shown what a staggering power they can have in furthering, not solving, all these problems. Physics as an abstraction provides necessary but not sufficient understanding to deal in real life with living individuals, species or ecosystems, and those living systems will continue to resist from their complex biological reality. Part of that biology-in-resistance shows up at Berkeley every year in the form of faculty, students and many others who want to sustain the idea that we can do much better than proposing to steer the world through engineers and lawyers. A lobby of BP boosters, half-a-billion-dollars louder, will most likely overlook to our peril the power of resistance of those living systems which they wish would fade away. But the public would do well to remember, on the day that the contract is signed in their name, that it is from that very suppressed biology that they can expect any real answers to the questions conveniently shelved away for the BP press conference.
Ignacio Chaplea is a professor of ecosystems sciences at UC Berkeley.
EU: Austria wins GM corn debate
AllAboutFeed.com, 30 October 2007.
Austria is allowed to ban two genetically modified corn varieties. At
a meeting held today in Luxemburg, the proposition from the European
Commission to stop the Austrian exceptional position was not backed
enough by other EU ministers.
Austria is the most hesistant to use GMO crops, compared to other EU
countries. The European Commission (EC) is not happy with this
because the GM corn varieties are approved by EU food safety experts
and already used all over the EU and US. The EC therefore tried to
push Austria to start using GM corn.
Enough support
The Netherlands, Great Britain, Estonia and Sweden support the
commission. According to these countries, the Austrian hesitation was
based on "emotions and not on scientific facts", which was already
stated by the commission last December. However, Austria received
support from 14 other EU countries to keep its exceptional position
in banning GM crops.
WTO conflict
Although Austria is happy with the outcome, this move will trigger a
conflict at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Argentina, the US and
Canada already complained about the stand points from Austria. They
say that Austria is violating the international trade rules.
EU: Brussels wins final say over controversial GMO corn
EU Observer, 30 October 2007. By Renata Goldirova
BRUSSELS ‚ Following intense debate, EU governments have failed to agree whether Austria may keep in place its ban on genetically modified corn - something considered illegal by the World Trade Organisation ‚ paving the way for the thorny decision to be taken by the European Commission.
"Europe is not sending out a clear message to the world in this area, it is rather an ambiguous message with a lot of hesitation linked to it", Portuguese environment minister Francisco Nunes Correia said after environment ministers were unable to reach a clear decision on Tuesday (30 October).
Mr Nunes Correia described the ministerial discussion as "intense" and added "this is an uncomfortable situation that we're all in" - referring to the distribution of votes.
Austria's case was supported by 14 member states - Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Poland and Slovakia.
However, it was not enough under the so-called qualified majority voting scheme. Four countries - Estonia, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK - voted against Vienna's national restrictions, while the rest of the 27-nation bloc abstained.
"The majority of member states are against the commission's proposal, but the commission's proposal will prevail against the will of one particular member state", Mr Nunes Correia said, adding "that is something that has to give us pause for thought".
According to the Portuguese minister, two arguments translated into the strong support of Austria's case - either a firm opposition to GMO products as such or a belief that a member state's position should be respected.
Referring to the second reasoning, Mr Nunes Correia said "the commission and member states will have to take some steps to avoid such situations because it is a difficult one".
This was the third time that Austrian government faced pressure from the EU's executive body over the country's ban on the use of two types of genetically modified maize - MON810 and T25 - dating back to 1999.
This time, however, Brussels pressed Austria only on a ban on importing and processing into food and feed of controversial corns. The cultivation ban has not been questioned.
"It's an important point for environment and agriculture policy in Austria. We will remain free of gene-technology in cultivation", Austrian environment minister Josef Proell was cited as saying after the vote by Reuters.
The deadlock at the ministerial table effectively means that EU regulators have won the power to decide on the future of Austria's ban, with EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas saying Brussels "takes note of strong concerns expressed [by member states] against our proposal".
"The commission will now consider the situation before deciding what to do next, including an assessment of the World Trade Organisation implications", Mr Dimas, who personally is seen as a GMO opponent, added.
The EU bloc has to come to a decision by 21 November if it wants to escape sanctions from the World Trade Organisation - the body ruled in 2006 that any barriers break international trade laws.
New temporary moratorium?
However, doubts over GMO products appear to be gaining strength within the 27-nation bloc.
At the meeting, Italy suggested no new GMO products should be authorised in the EU until it is crystal clear on what scientific evidence the European Food Safety Agency bases its recommendations. The agency is used by the commission to justify its GMO decisions.
"I was surprised by the member states' interest [in the issue]", Portugal's Francisco Nunes Correia said, adding a lot of member states informally supported this call.
"The subject will be taken forward and tackled in a more formal way in the future", he concluded.
UK: Suspension of GM Crops in France Welcomed - GM Freeze
GM Freeze press release, 30 October 2007.
GM Freeze Welcomes Suspension of GM Crops in France
GM Freeze has warmly welcomed the statement by French President, Nicholas Sarkozy, that the commercial planting of GM crops in France has been suspended.
The announcement was made at a national conference on the environment held this week [1].
Previous refusals by French governments to approve commercial licenses for GM herbicide tolerant oilseed rape allowed time for new evidence to emerge about the long term harm the crop would cause to farmland wildlife [2].
Yesterday, EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas announced his intention to ban two GM maize varieties resistant to insect pest (Syngenta Bt11 maize and Pioneer's 1507 maize) because of concerns about the Bt toxins they produce harming the non target species such as butterflies [3].
Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said
"The French Government has clearly listened to concerns about the uncertainty surrounding the health and environmental safety of GM crops and we warmly welcome this announcement. It is another clear message to the biotech industry that Europe will not accept poorly tested GMOs. The Sarkozy announcement should kick start a debate on whether the GM intensive farming model is the right way forward for agriculture in Europe and the rest of the world. Many people now recognize that the long term care of the land, biodiversity and natural resources and the production of high quality food is the way forward. Let's hope Number 10 and Defra are also listening."
ENDs
Call to Pete Riley 07903 3410965
Notes
1. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7062577.stm
2. In 1997 the French Government refused to sign commercial marketing consents for two GM oilseed rape varieties produced by Plant Genetics Systems (since taken over and now part of Bayer CropScience) after a qualified vote in favour in December 1996. The Farm Scale Evaluations in the UK (1999-2003) found that GM herbicide tolerant spring and winter oilseed rape both significantly reduced the amounts of weeds and weed seeds in arable fields this reducing the supply of food for farmland birds and other species.
3. See http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRU00606620071025
UK: Bt Crops Threaten Aquatic Ecosystems
ISIS Press Release 30/10/07
Scientists find wastes from transgenic Bt corn impair growth of common aquatic insect and call on future risk assessment to include aquatic ecosystems previously overlooked. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
In 2006, 35 percent of the 33.1 million hectares of the corn planted in the United States was transgenic, modified to express the Bt toxin Cry1Ab from Bacillus thuringiensis. Bt corn is widely planted in the Midwestern US, often next to headwater streams. Yet, no environmental impact studies have been made of Bt crop by-products on stream insects such as caddisflies (trichopterans), which are common in streams, and closely related to the lepidopterans (butterflies and moths) targeted by the Cry1Ab protein in Bt corn.
As a group, the caddisflies have diverse feeding habbits. Some are filter- feeders, others scrape bioflims off submerged surfaces, and still others feed on detritus. All these caddisflies may consume Bt corn by-products.
A team of scientists led by Emma J. Rosi-Marshall at:Loyola University Chicago in Illinois have now carried out the first study on the fate of transgenic Bt corn wastes in headwater streams next to the fields and their impact on the caddisflies [1]
In laboratory trials, leaf-shredding trichopteran Lepidostoma liba fed Bt corn litter had less than half the growth rate of controls fed non Bt corn litter; while 43 percent of Helicopsyche borealis, an algal-scraping trichopteran, died when fed high concentrations of Bt corn pollen (2 to 3 times the maximum input expected during Bt corn pollen-shed) compared with 18 percent mortality in controls fed non Bt corn pollen.
In the field, 50 percent of filtering caddisflies collected during pollen-shed had pollen grains in their gut and detritus-feeding trichopterans were found in the accumulations of decomposing corn litter in the streams after harvest.
Bt crop by-products fall into the streams as pollen and detritus, they are stored in the sediment, eaten, and transported downstream, and hence their impacts could spread widely within the aquatic ecosystem.
The researchers conclude that "widespread planting of Bt crops has unexpected ecosystem-scale consequences", and call on future assessment of potential non-target effects to be expanded to include relevant aquatic organisms such as stream insects.
They fell short of calling a halt to planting Bt corn next to streams, which would be in keeping with the evidence they have provided.
References
Rosi-Marxhall EJ, Tank JL, Royer TV, Whiles MR, Evans-White M, Chamgers C, Griffiths NA, Pokelsek J and Stephen ML. Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. PNAS 2007, 104, 16204-8.
EU Environment Ministers fail to support lifting GM food bans
Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 30 October 2007
Brussels, 30 October - Austria's ban on genetically modified maize now lies in the hands of the
European Commission, after 21 out of 27 EU Environment Ministers refused to force the ban to be
lifted today. [1] Friends of the Earth Europe has urged the European Commission to respect
member states' wariness and leave Austria's ban in place.
The Environment Council was today voting on a proposal from the European Commission to force
Austria to allow import and processing of the GM maize crops. But the necessary majority was
not reached to pass the proposal.
At a previous vote on these national bans [2], EU member states voted against dropping the bans
because of unknown impacts on farming systems. As a result of this opposition, the European
Commission took cultivation of the GM maize out of today's vote.
Helen Holder, GMO Campaign Coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe said:
"The other member states are extremely uncomfortable about bullying Austria over its bans on
genetically modified maize. The European Commission has tried to make its proposal to lift the
bans as palatable as possible by focusing only on imports instead of growing, but still member
states haven't supported it. The Commission must respect the right of Austria to respond to
scientific uncertainty and public opinion by keeping its bans in place."
One of the GM maize banned by Austria is engineered to produce an insecticide. Last week, press
reports revealed that the European Commission's DG Environment is opposed to the cultivation of
similar types of maize crops because of scientific uncertainties. [3]
Also last week, France announced its decision to freeze the cultivation of GM crops because of
inadequacies in risk assessment. [4]
Friends of the Earth Europe continues to highlight that genetically modified crops are not
successful in Europe. Despite constant pressure from the United States and the biotechnology
industry, and following 10 years of commercialisation, GM cultivation in Europe accounts for
less than 2 percent of maize production - as confirmed by the biotech industry yesterday. [5]
Notes:
[1] Information so far indicates that the 21 out of 27 countries failed to support the
Commission's proposal to drop Austria's national bans on import and processing of GM maize
MON810 and T25.
Countries that voted against the lifting of the ban were:
Austria, France, Poland, Denmark, Cyprus, Slovakia, Ireland, Hungary, Italy, Germany,
Lithuania, Malta, Luxembourg, Greece
Abstentions:
Belgium, Romania, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal
[2] Environment Council voted to block Commission's proposal to force Austria to drop its bans,
December 18th 2006. The Council issued a statement raising concerns at the impact of these
crops on farming systems
[3] See http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRU00606620071025
[4] http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2848857,00.html
[5] Yesterday EuropaBio announced a 77% increase, which brings the amount of GM maize to less
than 2 percent.
http://www.europabio.org/GBE_media/GMOfigures/PR_Industry_Biotech%20Figures_FINAL29102007.pdf
Austria defeats EU in GMO battle, may yet lose the war
Earth Times, 30 Oct 2007
Luxembourg - The EU failed Tuesday to persuade enough member states to lift an Austrian ban on two types of genetically modified (GMO) maize, leaving a final decision on the controversial issue to its executive arm, the Commission. EU environment ministers meeting in Luxembourg had been asked by Brussels to drop the ban on the import and processing in Austria of MON810 and T25, two varieties of GMO maize produced by multinationals Monsanto and Bayer.
The ban, in place since the late 1990s, contravenes rules agreed at both EU and World Trade Organization (WTO) level.
But a proposal by the Commission to end Austria's moratorium failed to gain the necessary qualified majority, with heavyweights Germany, France and Italy among the countries backing Vienna on this issue.
"(The vote) means Austrian agriculture will remain GMO-free," Austrian Environment Minister Josef Proll said.
His optimism may be misplaced, however.
Under EU rules, the Commission can take a final decision on the ban in the light of a lack of consensus among the 27 member states.
While the EU says there is no scientific evidence proving that the varieties of GMO maize banned by Austria pose a health or environmental hazard, officials in Luxembourg said the Commission would nevertheless take the outcome of Tuesday's vote into account.
"The Commission cannot ignore the strong support for Austria," one diplomat said.
This is the third time that member states have rejected EU calls for the Austrian ban to be lifted, despite the Commission amending its draft text to exclude the cultivation of the GMO products.
Ireland: Unfair comments on GM foods
Irish Independent, Letter to the editor, 30 October 2007.
It is somewhat surprising that the Irish Independent continues to print wild, unsubstantiated statements concerning GM foods and Monsanto from Dick Barton (Letters, September 20).
He derides the economic benefits of GM crops despite the fact that millions of farmers around the globe, including within the EU, are annually reaping the benefits of the technology.
Put simply: farmers don't waste money, they use GM seed because they provide vastly improved yields with much smaller inputs.
He accuses Monsanto's Roundup of being a health risk. This is totally unfounded. Roundup is extremely safe for humans, animals and birds.
As for the hoary old chestnut the "terminator gene", Dick Barton has it completely wrong again.
This gene does not exist. It is a myth. Dick Barton attacks the integrity of hte Government's chief scientist, Prof. Patrick Cunningham, because of his recent comments on GM foods.
I think we can safely deduce that it is because this eminent scientist has concluded, as so many other scientists also have, that GM crops and GM foods are safe, something which Dick Barton simply cannot accept.
Patrick O'Reilly
Monsanto Ireland
Dunshaughlin, Co. Meath.
Comment by GM-free Ireland
Monsanto's letter is full of lies.
•
Farmers around the world have reported problems with GM crops. These include crop failures, reduced yields, contamination, GM superweeds, liability and patent infringement lawsuits, loss of ownership, and loss of market share. See http://www.gmfreeireland.org/crops/
•
Many farmers use GM seeds only because the seed companies don't offer any alternative. See http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/vshiva.php
•
Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller (the world's most commonly used herbicide) is far more toxic than previously thought. An epidemiological study in the Ontario farming populations showed that glyphosate exposure nearly doubled the risk of late spontaneous abortions.
See http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GTARW.php
A study on the toxicity and endocrine disruption potential of Roundup ("Time and Dose-Dependent Effects of Roundup on Human Embryonic and Placental Cells") by the French Committee for Independent Information and Research on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), published in May 2007 states "Roundup exposure may affect human reproduction and fetal development in case of contamination. Chemical mixtures in formulations appear to be underestimated regarding their toxic or hormonal impact". For details see http://www.springerlink.com/content/d13171q7k863l446/fulltext.html.
A separate study of Roundup published in the June 2005 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, reports glyphosate toxicity to human placental cells within hours of exposure, at levels ten times lower than those found in agricultural use. The researchers also tested glyphosate and Roundup at lower concentrations for effects on sexual hormones, reporting effects at very low levels. This suggests that dilution with other ingredients in Roundup may, in fact, facilitate glyphosate's hormonal impacts. For details see http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7728/7728.html
•
The terminator gene, which makes crops sterile, does exist, and in June 2007, Monsanto bought Delta & Pine Land, the US seed company which jointly holds three US patents on Terminator technology with the US Department of Agriculture. In 2000, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity recommended that governments not approve Terminator for field tests or commercial use. This created what is now recognized as an international moratorium. The top 10 largest seed companies control half the world's commercial seed market. If Terminator is commercialized, corporations will likely incorporate sterility genes into all their seeds. That's because genetic seed sterilization would secure a much stronger monopoly than patents ó instead of suing farmers for saving seed, companies are trying to make it biologically impossible for farmers to re-use harvested seed. For details see http://www.banterminator.org.
•
The chief scientist of Ireland's denial of the health risks of GM food is not surprising, because he a member of EAGLES, an initiative of the European Federation of Biotechnology lobby group designed to secure EU funding for European biotech companies to promote GM food and farming in the developing countries. For scientific evidence of GM food health risks see Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of genetically engineered foods http://www.geneticroulette.com, and
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/index.php.
_______________________
European GM crop cultivation leaps 77 per cent
FoodNavigator.com, 30 October 2007. By Laura Crowley.
The cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in Europe has increased by 77 per cent in the past year, according to figures released yesterday by the biotech industry association EuropaBio.
This year, over 110,000 hectares of biotech crops were harvested in seven EU member states, compared to 62,000 hectares in 2006.
At the moment, the only type of GM crop grown in the EU is maize, which was approved in 1998. It is not cultivated for human consumption but for animal feed.
The maize contains a gene that defends the crop against the European corn borer, an insect pest that eats the stem, present primarily in southern and middle Europe but moving northwards.
The greatest reported increase in GM crop cultivation is in France, which has quadrupled in size from 5,000 hectares in 1996 to over 21,000 hectares this year.
Cultivated acreage in biotech crops has more than doubled in the Czech Republic and Germany, while Spain, the largest cultivator, saw increases of more than 40 per cent.
The biotech industry says this proves its products are appealing to farmers and are environmentally sound.
"We are delighted to see that the uptake of biotech crops is growing despite the fact that only one product is available on the European market," said Johan Vanhemelrijck, secretary general of EuropaBio.
"The cultivation of biotech plants is legally possible in all EU countries and we strongly urge policy makers in Europe to give all farmers the right to choose the products which they think are best to protect their crops and increase their competitiveness."
However, some campaigners are concerned about the impact GM crops have on the environment, and have said the figures are not as encouraging as the biotech industry claims.
According to environmental charity Friends of the Earth, the total maize growing area in 2006 was reported to be just over six million hectares, meaning that GM maize accounts for less than 2 per cent of total production.
"This is after nine years of commercialisation of this product - not exactly impressive," Friends of the Earth campaigner Clare Oxborrow told FoodNavigator.com.
"We have done a comprehensive analysis, using industry and government figures, showing that GM crops have failed to deliver on the EU's own goals of competitiveness, compared with the thriving organic sector."
Oxborrow continued: "It is also worth pointing out that all GM maize grown in Europe goes into animal feed. Consumers in Europe have rejected GM foods, and labelling rules allow us to avoid foods with GM ingredients."
Last week, President Sarkozy announced a moriatum on the commercial cultivation of GM crops in France, pending a review of the sector. This means that no new crops can be planted until the country's biotech position is made clear.
The decision is part of a green revolution embarked upon by the French government. One of the main concerns that sparked the decision was that pollination of GM crops could cross-contaminate non-GM crops grown in the vicinity.
EuropaBio's figures were released in advance of today's Environmental Council meeting in Luxembourg, which discussed proposals on the cultivation of genetically modified organisms.
The Council also voted on Austria's safeguard measures on the import and processing into food and feed of two types of genetically modified maize, MON810 and T25.
Because 21 out of 27 EU environment ministers refused to force the import ban to be lifted, the decision now lies in the hands of the European Commission.
Comment by GM-free Ireland
The total area of EU GM crop cultivation is 0.05% of arable land – a hundred times less than organic farming.
Only one variety of GM crop (Monsanto's patented MON810 maize) is authorised for commercial cultivation in the EU, but only for use as animal feed. But as of October 2007, MON810 is banned in Austria, France, Greece, Hungary and Poland; and other EU member states may ban it soon.
29 October 2007
EU environment ministers gear up for heated GMO debate
EU Observer, 29 October 2007. By Renata Goldirova
BRUSSELS ‚ EU environment ministers are gearing up for a heated debate, which should conclude on the future of a ban on two GMO-maize varieties in Austria - something with profound implications for the union's dispute on GMOs at the World Trade Organisation.
On Tuesday (30 October), the European Commission will once again propose that Austria be forced to drop its national ban on the import and processing into food and feed of two types of genetically modified maize - MON810 and T25 - in order to conform to WTO rules.
All 27 environment ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Tuesday will subsequently vote on the issue, with the so-called qualified majority of votes needed to either adopt or reject the Brussels' proposal.
The table is split fifty-fifty, however.
"There is no great majority in favour and no great majority against", one commission official said ahead of the ministerial meeting, adding that many ministers are set to make up their minds only at the last minute.
Long dispute
This is the third time that Austria finds itself in the spotlight over GMO maize, with the dispute dating back to 1999 when Vienna announced it would provisionally prohibit any use of the two controversial products.
Meanwhile, a new EU directive on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms entered into force and Brussels in 2004 requested Austria to reconsider its safeguard clause in light of the new legal framework.
However, a majority of EU ministers backed Vienna and swept away commission proposals to scrap the Austrian ban in 2005 and 2006, arguing the Austrian measure is justified due to specific agricultural and regional ecological characteristics.
According to Daniel Kapp from the Austrian environment ministry, the green light for cultivation of GMO products would damage GMO-free agricultural production.
"When it comes to smoking, we protect non-smokers against those who smoke", Mr Kapp told EUobserver, adding "the same concept should be applied to cultivation of GMOs".
WTO
The issue is closely linked to a landmark ruling by the World Trade Organisation in 2006.
The international trade watchdog backed the US, Canada and Argentina in their efforts to force Europe to accept genetically modified organisms, stating that Austria's moratorium on such products would break international trade laws.
In the face of continued backing for Vienna among EU member states, the European Commission has now re-drafted its proposal, limiting its requirements only to food and feed aspects of the Austrian prohibition.
The cultivation ban would be allowed to remain in place.
Should member states fail to reach a qualified majority position on Tuesday, it will be up to the commission to decide on the matter under EU rules on GMOs.
EU: Too close for comfort
The relationship between the biotech industry and the European Commission
An analysis by Friends of the Earth Europe (October 2007)
It is no secret that the EU political class has embraced the neoliberal agenda. In food and farming this translates as high-technology intensive farming with patented inputs and outputs that generate wealth for European industry. The basic aim, clearly stated in EU policy objectives such at the Lisbon Agenda, is to make Europe a leader in the global economy. This has been expressed as different policy slogans ‚ the 'Biosociety' in the 1980s, the 'knowledge-based economy' in the 1990s, and the 'Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy' (KBBE) in the current decade.
Friends of the Earth Europe prepared a report to examine one of the results of the KBBE political mindset and agenda: corporate lobby power and its access to one of the key EU institutions, the European Commission. It focuses on one of the key biotech lobby groups ‚EuropaBio - and recent examples of the very cosy relationship between the companies who stand to make considerable profits from agricultural biotechnology, and policy makers at the European Commission.
EuropaBio is one of the main and most active lobby groups on GM food and crops at the EU level, and boasts of its 'excellent working relations' with the European Commission. The group's agri-biotech lobby efforts are headed by Bayer Cropscience, DuPont/Pioneer, Monsanto and Syngenta. As the GM food and crops market is dominated by these very few large corporations, EuropaBio is essentially pushing the interests of these at the European Commission and elsewhere.
You can download the report here:
http://www.foeeurope.org/corporates/pdf/too_close_for_comfort.pdf
France puts the brakes on GM cultivation
FoodNavigator.com, 29 October 2007. By Jess Halliday.
France is putting in a place a moriatum on the commercial cultivation of genetically-modified crops pending a review of the sector, a decision that means no new crops can be planted until country's biotech position will be clear.
The decision comes as part of a package of measures intended to make France greener, which was announced by President Sarkozy last week.
A new expert group on the subject is to be set up in the coming weeks and the government is holding a four-month public forum on what France's environmental policy on GM should be, which is likely to be fiercely fought.
One the one hand, the anti-GM lobby in France is powerful, with some media friendly faces like farmer-activist Jose Bové at the forefront. But on the other, some of the most advanced biotech research in Europe is taking place at French research institutes such as CIRAD.
Moreover, seed producers and grain processors are said to have reacted with outrage to suggestions that GM cultivation in France be banned outright.
France's position is expected to be clear in early 2008. This would mean that, in real terms, last week's decision does not make a difference to seed planting, since planting takes place in the spring.
Following the decision, Monsanto has said it is "deeply disappointed" by Sarkozy's speech. It claims GM technology can actually help France reach its environmental goals of reducing pesticide use and economising on water.
Bové has said that he does not object to research into GM, as long as it happens behind closed laboratory doors. Indeed, Sarkozy has stressed that last week's decision does not mean a halt to research.
One of the main concerns is that pollination of GM crops could cross-contaminate non-GM crops grown in the vicinity - and that ultimately the long-term health effects of GM on humans are not known.
Indeed, a working group has suggested that co-existence of the two kinds of crops be more strictly regulated, and that ultimate responsibility for controlling their crops and preventing cross pollination should rest with the farmers.
At the moment, the only GM maize approved for cultivation in France is Monsanto's MON810, which was approved by the EU in 1998.
It is recommended that the distance between GM and non-GM crops should be twice that required for coexistence of conventional crops - that is, 50 metres.
Moreover, although the growers' association AGPM says that in the natural environment maize does not cross-pollinate with any other plant, information should be given to all maize growers whose crops may be near plots of GM maize.
The association also drew attention to the implementation of a best practice guide for coexistence and traceability of GM and non-GM corn in 2004, and compliance with the prescribed limit of 0.9 per cent.
Greenpeace claimed in 2005 the European Commission gave the green light to Monsanto's MON810 maize into the EU seed catalogue, without a comprehensive monitoring plan, since the plan provided was under the old EU directive that considered only the possibility of resistance to Bt-toxin in corn borer populations. Updated directive (2001/18/EC) was said to be more thorough.
In March the Official Journal of the EU published a number of orders on the commercial production of GM crops, and the provisions of EU directive 2001/18 have been transcribed into French law.
The BCC has reported that figures to be published today will show that the area planted with GM crops in Europe has expanded by 77 per cent since last year.
It says that over 1,000 square km of GM maize was harvested this year.
Indeed, the AGPM said in March that interest in Mon 810 has been piqued by a corn borer epidemic across France in the last few years. The first big leap in land devoted to cultivation of MON810 between 2005 and 2006 - from 500 to 5200 hectares. And last year, as in 2005, 15 growers wishing to grow the crop took part in an introductory programme Programme d'Accompagnement de Cultures Issues des Biotechnologies.
In June, EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson delivered a strong exhortation to the EU to take a lead in shaping global rules on GM trade - particularly in defending objective science as a benchmark - or suffer the economic consequences.
He called biotechnology "the coal face of applied science in the 21st century", and warned that if the EU does not work through the issues raised by GM food, just as the rest of the global market is doing, it will not be working it its own best interests.
The fear, he said, is that if the EU falls behind in approving safe biotechnology, it would open itself up to economic risks.
According to Reuters, EU Commission has indicated France's case may not stand up in court if it ultimately decides to banned GM crops that are allowed by Brussels.
USA: Landless Rural Worker Shot by Security Company Hired by Multinational Syngenta
Corporate Murder in Brazil
CounterPunch, October 29 2007. By Isabella Kenfield and Roger Burbach.
In the Brazilian state of Paran·, Valmir Mota de Oliveira of Via Campesina, an international peasant organization, was shot twice in the chest at point blank range by armed gunmen on an experimental farm of Syngenta Seeds, a multinational agribusiness corporation. The cold blooded murder took place on Sunday, October 21 after Via Campesina had occupied the site because of Syngenta's illegal development of genetically modified (GM) seeds. Via Campesina and the Movement of the Landless Rural Workers (MST), the main Brazilian organization involved in Via Campesina's actions, are calling the murder an execution, declaring, "Syngenta used the services of an armed militia."
Syngenta is the world's largest producer of agrochemicals and the third largest commercial seed producer. Between 2001 and 2004, Syngenta was responsible for the largest case of genetic contamination on the planet when its GM Bt-10 corn, approved for only animal feeds, was mixed with US grain meant for human consumption. Via Campesina first occupied Syngenta's site in March 2006, after it discovered that Syngenta was illegally cultivating GM soybeans and corn. The occupation drew strong international support, and in November state governor Roberto Requi“o signed a decree of intent to expropriate the Syngenta farm, proposing to turn it into an agroecological research center that would benefit poor rural families. The decree was a huge political victory for the rural and environmental movements, challenging the power of agribusiness in Brazil.
When the MST organized a march to the Syngenta site in late November last year, its busses were halted by a blockade of tractors formed by about a hundred members of the Rural Society of the West, a group representing large landowners and commercial agricultural producers in western Paran·. It is part of a larger network known as ruralistas, which represent reactionary landed and agribusiness interests at the regional, state and national levels. Some Society members were on horseback and armed with guns. As the marchers began to cross the barricade, the Society fired shots into the air, and beat the marchers with sticks and clubs, resulting in the injury of nine people.
When asked why the organization had confronted the MST, Alessandro Meneghel, President of the Rural Society, responded: "to show that the rural producers do not peacefully accept land invasions and political provocationsAttitudes such as these, of legally questionable [land] expropriations, send a bad message to investors, chasing them away and provoking 'Brazil risk.'" Meneghel threatened: "For every invasion of land that occurs in the region, there will be a similar action by the Society. We are not going to permit the rural producers to be insulted by ideological political movements of any kind."
Syngenta, through its alliances with the Rural Society and other large landed interests, succeeded in overturning Governor Requi“o's decree. In July of this year, the Via Campesina was evicted from the site, re-locating to the MST's Olga Ben·rio settlement, located next to Syngenta. The de-occupation occurred in conjunction with a peaceful march by the movements, after Requi“o ordered the police to stop the Rural Society from confronting the marchers. Control of the property was returned to Syngenta, and it was then that the corporation hired the private NF Security company to guard the site.
A statement on Syngenta's web site claims the corporation "specifically agreed in the contract with [NF] security company not to use any force or carry weapons." Yet in late July, families at Olga Ben·rio were threatened by armed NF security guards, which entered the settlement and remained there for about 40 minutes. At night, the guards would fire shots in the air. These events were reported to the authorities.
As a result, in October the federal police raided NF Security's headquarters, where it confiscated illegal arms and ammunition. The police report concludes that the NF Security company contracts individuals, many with criminal records, to form armed militias that carry out forced land evictions, and that the Rural Society numbers among its clients.
At dawn on October 21st, about 150 members of Via Campesina reoccupied Syngenta's site, where they encountered four armed security guards, who were disarmed and left the site. At about 1 in the afternoon, Via Campesina reports, "a bus stopped in front of the entry gate and about forty armed gunmen got out, firing machine guns at the people that they saw in the encampment. They broke down the gate, then shot [Mota]. The militia attacked the encampment to assassinate the leaders and recover the illegal arms of the NF Security company."
Five MST/Via Campesina members were wounded and remain hospitalized. Security guard F·bio Ferreira, who apparently returned to the site, was also killed. The reason for his death is unclear, although one MST member believes Ferreira was murdered because he had incriminating information he might have divulged. MST members CÈlia LourenÁo and Celso Barbosa were chased and shot at, but managed to escape. It appears the two were targeted to die like Mota. Earlier this year, Meneghel of the Rural Society verbally threatened LourenÁo at a public forum, and the MST reports that on March 27th, its office in Cascavel, Paran· received an anonymous phone call advising Mota, LourenÁo and Barbosa to be careful because "a trap was being prepared for them." Mota himself registered the death threats with the local authorities. On August 28, Terra de Direitos, a human rights organization, registered the threats with the National Program of Human Rights Defenders, and requested protection for the three.
The owner of NF Security, Nerci Freitas, has admitted he gave the order for the attack on Syngenta. He has been arrested and charged with homicide and formation of gangs. No one has claimed that the Via Campesina/MST occupants were armed. The organizations are calling for the immediate arrest of Meneghel, and are demanding that Syngenta leave Brazil immediately, declaring, "Syngenta Seeds should be held responsible for what occurred."
Mota's murder exhibits an unsettling arrogance and dismissal of the law and the government by the Rural Society, NF Security and Syngenta, not unlike that being played out on a grander scale by the Blackwater security company and US corporate interests in Iraq. It also highlights the increasing number of conflicts between agribusiness and rural civil society sweeping Latin America, as the alliance between national and international agribusiness deepens from country to country. Mota's death could well signal a new era of continental violence and bloodshed as the powerful agribusiness interests come up against the progressive social movements that are shaking the Americas.
Isabella Kenfield is an associate of the Center for the Study of the America (CENSA) who has just returned from living in Brazil. She writes on agribusiness, agrarian conflicts and social movements.
Roger Burbach is director of CENSA who has written extensively on Latin America and US policy. He is currently at work on "The New Fire in the Americas."
28 October 2007
UK: Time for a fresh start on GM
The Independent on Sunday, 28 October 2007
One of Gordon Brown's many chances for a fresh start, after the high-pitched certainties of his predecessor, is the Government's policy on genetically modified food. In truth, the battle is already over. Those who urged caution, including this newspaper which launched a campaign against GM food in 1999, have won. Those who advocated a rush towards the white heat of a biotechnological future, including Tony Blair, have lost. What is required now is for Mr Brown to accept that outcome and to take the debate on to more level ground.
When we began our campaign, 60 per cent of the food on British supermarket shelves contained GM ingredients. Today there are only two products. Public opinion has spoken and the market has responded. Few people want to eat GM. They have made up their minds even though its safety is still in dispute, with little firm evidence on either side of the argument. And there are other reasons for opposing the growing of GM crops - the loss of biodiversity shown by the Government's trials and the likelihood that genes will escape to contaminate organic and conventional produce. In the absence of a compelling argument to set against these important drawbacks we think that British consumers have made the right choice. If we do not need it, why have it?
That logic has killed off GM as a commercial proposition in this country and most of the rest of Europe for the foreseeable future. When our campaign began, it was widely assumed that consultation and trials were a formality, that GM crops would soon be planted all over Britain and that protests were futile. Mr Blair was enthusiastic about the possibilities, and how Britain could take a leading role on this frontier of human knowledge. Since then, that frontier has become a less exciting place. The hype of "feeding the world", or "super-crops" that do not need weedkiller or pesticides, has given way to a more complex and prosaic reality.
Crops with higher yields have proved harder to engineer than hoped and tend to be overtaken by gains in the traditional technology of selective breeding. And instead of developing crops that might help the world, the biotech companies have concentrated on ones that benefit only their own bottom lines, for example by having to be cultivated with their own proprietary pesticides
So: people do not want it; the great predicted benefits have failed to materialise; the GM juggernaut has stalled. Campaigners for GM have not given up, however. Dick Taverne, a member of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, writes (again) in next month's Prospect about how "moralising" about GM in the West is costing millions of lives in the poor world. But his argument is unconvincing. Development charities, who know better than most how things work in the often complex Third World grassroots, oppose the technology because it increases, rather than reduces, hunger.
Yet the Blairite mission seems to be carried on by inertia, even after the former Prime Minister and David Sainsbury, his science minister and biotech cheerleader, have gone. As we report today, public funding is still skewed in favour of this one vision of the future of food. Funding for research into GM science seems to be about 20 times that devoted to organic methods. Yet people want organic not GM food, while the emphasis of policy in other parts of the Government machine is on biodiversity and environmental sustainability. (This month the Treasury even published targets for "wild breeding bird populations" and "plankton status".)
What is more, the secrecy with which the Government treats GM policy bears all the defensive hallmarks of the Blair period, when public policy was bent to promoting an unpopular cause on the quiet in the hope that opinion would turn. Geoffrey Lean, our Environment Editor, describes today how difficult it proves to obtain what ought to have been straightforward information on spending on GM research.
Mr Brown has the chance to be more open; to balance policy so that, at the very least, it is more even-handed between GM and organic. And he has the chance to move the debate about the future of biotechnology on to a sounder footing. We are not opposed to genetic manipulation on principle. We do not share Prince Charles's view that it is interfering in matters that are the province of God. If GM technology was really designed to help to feed the world, or produce drought-resistant or salt-resistant crops to help humankind adapt to global warming, then there would be reason to welcome it.
But this has to be subject to transparent assessment of all the environmental impacts, including on human health, without the Government seeking to pick winners and advocating any particular technological fix - especially one that the people of the country reject so overwhelmingly.
UK: The Secret Files
The Independent on Sunday, 28 October 2007
Ministers are funding genetically modified crop projects with scores of millions of pounds every year and are colluding with a biotech company to ease its GM tests, the IoS can reveal. Geoffrey Lean on a murky tale that Whitehall tried to hide
Ministers are secretly easing the way for GM crops in Britain, while professing to be impartial on the technology, startling internal documents reveal.
The documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, show that the Government colluded with a biotech company in setting conditions for testing GM potatoes, and gives tens of millions of pounds a year to boost research into modified crops and foods.
The information on funding proved extraordinarily difficult to get, requiring three months of investigation by an environmental pressure group, a series of parliamentary questions, and three applications for the information.
Friends of the Earth finally obtained still partial information last week which shows that the Government provides at least GBP50m a year for research into agricultural biotechnology, largely GM crops and food. This generosity contrasts with the GBP1.6m given last year for research into organic agriculture, in spite of repeated promises to promote environmentally friendly, "sustainable" farming.
Publicly ministers claim to be neutral over GM. Four years ago, at the height of controversy about plans to introduce modified crops to Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted that the Government was "neither for nor against" them. The then Environment minister, Elliot Morley, added: "There is an open and transparent process for their assessment and all relevant material will be put in the public domain." Last month the Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, reiterated: "There is no change in the Government's position."
But the documents show that ministers have been far from even-handed. One set, obtained by the campaigning group GM Freeze, clearly demonstrate that the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) allowed the biotech giant BASF to help to set the conditions for field trials it has conducted on modified potatoes. On 1 December last year the company was given permission to plant 450,000 modified potatoes in British fields over the next five years, in a series of 10 trials. The set of emails and letters between Defra and the company reveal that officials repeatedly went to remarkable lengths to make sure the trial conditions, supposed to protect the environment and farmers, were "agreeable" to BASF.
On 29 September a department official emailed BASF to inform it of a recommendation by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (Acre), its official advisers on risks to health and the environment from GM, that "the land should be left fallow for two years following each trial" and added "I would like to know whether you think that this is workable for you". The official pointed out that other EU countries had specified that "berries/true seed should be removed from the trial" but that Acre had "not specified this because the committee believes that this would be a very big job". The email went on: "If you think this is completely unworkable, I think the committee may be prepared to accommodate a reduction of this fallow period to one year but there may be other conditions (eg removal of flowers/berries)."
The writer added: "In addition to this, Acre has recommended a particular tillage regime, hopefully you are able to accommodate this."
On 6 October Defra sent BASF a draft of the consent to the trials, adding: "Please let me know whether or not the conditions as they stand would be agreeable to BASF or whether there are any conditions that would be difficult to meet."
BASF replied on 26 October that it believed that the "probable conditions" were "very agreeable to us", adding: "We hope that the final conditions will not change too much."
On 9 November Defra again emailed BASF to check that one of the conditions "does not affect your plans", and five days later was in touch again to say that it had "redrafted" another "in response to your concerns".
Yet the department insisted in a written statement last week: "There is no truth in any allegation that Defra was in any way influenced by BASF in relation to the terms under which BASF could conduct trials on GM potatoes in the UK."
Pete Riley, the campaign director of GM Freeze, said: "That is simply not correct. The documents clearly show that Defra colluded with BASF to ensure that Acre's conditions for growing their GM crop were to their liking. Its role is to protect the environment and public health. It is supposed to be a watchdog, but the documents reveal it to be the industry's lapdog."
Peter Ainsworth, the Conservative environment spokesman, added: "This is a government department that claims to be objective and science-based in its approach to biotechnology, but clearly it has bent over backwards to model its conditions on the requirements of BASF."
A spokesman for BASF said: "I do not think that they granted us any concessions that would not normally have been granted."
The funding disclosure came when the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) - which is funded by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills - revealed that it gave GBP39.3m to its seven sponsored institutes for research on "agricultural biotechnology" in 2006-07.
The sum has more than doubled, from GBP15.5m, since 1997, even though the prospects for GM crops in Britain have been declining in this period, with ministers admitting three years ago that none would be grown commercially "for the foreseeable future".
Besides this "core strategic grant", the BBSRC also gives tens of millions of pounds a year for similar research to universities and other institutes.
In 2003-04 this sum totalled GBP27.1m. The BBSRC told Friends of the Earth that it could not provide it with up-to-date information until January, unless it paid a fee of GBP750, because this "would take considerable effort, beyond the appropriate limit" to assemble. But the figure is believed not to have fallen over the past three years. On top of the BBSRC funding, Defra provided GBP12.6m for agricultural biotechnology research in 2005-06, the last year for which figures are available.
Nor is it clear how much money goes to genetic modification, since the BBSRC defines agricultural biotechnology as "the application of molecular genetic and other modern biological techniques to crops, livestock and disease-causing organisms".
It says it is not yet able to provide information on the proportion that has recently been devoted to GM, as opposed to other techniques. But figures on its website show that in 2000-01 about half of its core strategic grant to the seven institutes was spent on the technology.
In contrast, Defra spent GBP1.6m on research "relating to organic farming", while BBSRC refuses to provide any funds at all, saying it "does not fund applied work on entire farming systems".
It justifies spending so much taxpayers' money on GM before, as it admits, "there is any clear evidence that the public wants them" by saying that research must retain "the flexibility to remain competitive and to respond to changing global situations and changes in consumer demand".
Yet when the Government officially asked the public, four years ago, about their preferences, 86 per cent said they would not be happy to eat GM foods. By contrast, sales of organic produce rose by 22 per cent last year to break through the GBP2bn barrier. More than half of Britons now buy it, at least from time to time.
The BBSRC says that its funding for the research on GM crops would continue even if there was "a Europe-wide ban" on growing them commercially.
Kirtana Chandrasekaran, Friends of the Earth's food campaigner, said: "The Government's support for GM crops and foods is out of all proportion to its non-existent benefits, let alone the public's non-existent desire to consume them.
"Despite continually promising to support sustainable agriculture, it is spending tens of millions on a technology that has fallen flat on its face while starving organic farming, which is producing food that people want to buy.
"It is also staggering that there is no clear information in the public domain on exactly how much money is going into GM research, and that it has proved so hard to get even partial figures out into the light of day."
UK: A farmer's story: 'It's all about control of food production'
The Independent on Sunday, 28 October 2007. By Jonathan Owen.
The spectre of GM contamination has cost John Turner dear. A succession of trials near his 250 acre farm in Little Bytham, South Lincolnshire, between 2000 and 2002 forced him to stop growing certain crops - suffering heavy financial losses as a result.
"It was a nightmare and we just felt absolutely powerless to do anything over it at all," he recalled. "Without any real protection against contamination, we were forced to stop growing crops like maize that could be vulnerable to cross-pollination. It wasn't easy but it was preferable to the damage that could have been done if our crops were no longer GM-free. We feel that we are in remission at the moment, but every few months there seems to be a new PR push from the GM lobby."
The facts are being twisted to fit a commercial agenda, according to Mr Turner: "There is no sound science behind the push for GM crops. It's all about money and control of not only the seeds but also food production from one end to the other. The more I find out about it the less I understand why there has been this impetus to force this technology on farming. It has been hugely over-hyped by those trying to promote it. There are plenty of ways of improving crops that don't involve swapping genes around.
"But farmers could sleepwalk into using GM crops and by the time they realise the proposed benefits just aren't there they will not be in a position to go back to a GM-free style of agriculture - that's the danger and that's been the experience of farmers in other parts of the world."
UK: Official: organic really is better
The Sunday Times, October 28 2007. Jon Ungoed-Thomas.
THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's lives.
The evidence from the GBP12m four-year project will end years of debate and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food is no more than a lifestyle choice.
The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as 40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of cancer and heart disease, Britain's biggest killers. They also had higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.
Professor Carlo Leifert, the co-ordinator of the European Union-funded project, said the differences were so marked that organic produce would help to increase the nutrient intake of people not eating the recommended five portions a day of fruit and vegetables. "If you have just 20% more antioxidants and you can't get your kids to do five a day, then you might just be okay with four a day," he said.
This weekend the Food Standards Agency confirmed that it was reviewing the evidence before deciding whether to change its advice. Ministers and the agency have said there are no significant differences between organic and ordinary produce.
Researchers grew fruit and vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent organic and nonorganic sites on a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle University, and at other sites in Europe. They found that levels of antioxidants in milk from organic herds were up to 90% higher than in milk from conventional herds.
As well as finding up to 40% more antioxidants in organic vegetables, they also found that organic tomatoes from Greece had significantly higher levels of antioxidants, including flavo-noids thought to reduce coronary heart disease.
Leifert said the government was wrong about there being no difference between organic and conventional produce. "There is enough evidence now that the level of good things is higher in organics," he said.
UK: Eat your words, all who scoff at organic food
The Sunday Times, October 28 2007. Jon Ungoed-Thomas.
ITS unassuming location belies its importance. Sandwiched between Hadrian's Wall and the busy A69 road to Newcastle upon Tyne is a 725-acre farm that will help to determine the nationÇs future eating habits.
In a unique experiment, its rolling pastures and ploughed fields have been split into two so that conventional and organic produce can be grown side by side. It has enabled scientists to test the alternative foods rigorously and answer a question that most shoppers ask themselves on a regular basis: is buying organic better for you?
Findings from the GBP12m European Union-funded project, the biggest of its kind and the first to investigate systematically the physiology of produce from the different farming techniques, will be peer reviewed and published over the next 12 months.
But already one conclusion is clear: organically produced crops and dairy milk usually contain more "beneficial compounds" - such as vitamins and antioxidants believed to help to combat disease.
"We have a general trend in the data that says there are more good things in organic food," said Professor Carlo Leifert, leader of the QualityLowInput-Food (QLIF) project. "We are now trying to identify the agricultural practices that are responsible for this."
The research has shown up to 40% more beneficial compounds in vegetable crops and up to 90% more in milk. It has also found high levels of minerals such as iron and zinc in organic produce.
The findings from the farm, which is part of Newcastle University, appear to conflict with the official government advice that buying organic food is a lifestyle choice and there is no clear evidence that it is "more nutritious than other food".
The new research comes after a seven-year stand-off between the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the organic sector over the nutritional benefits of organic food. Lord Krebs, the FSA's first chairman, even said that organic food may not be good value for consumers.
The organic market has boomed in recent years, growing by 25% annually on average, and is now worth nearly GBP2 billion a year. Organic produce is typically about 30% more expensive, although for products such as cherry tomatoes and carrots it is almost double the price. Supermarket organic milk is 18% more expensive.
The FSA has recently offered a more conciliatory approach to organic groups such as the Soil Association. One internal e-mail, sent on August 1, 2006 and obtained under freedom of information laws, states: "[There is] a perception among a range of stakeholders that the agency is antiorganic. Part of the action to address this is to change the tone of our statements."
However, the agency has not changed its scientific advice. As David Miliband, then the environment secretary, told The Sunday Times last January: "It's a lifestyle choice that people can make. There isn't any conclusive evidence either way."
However, the evidence of the nutritional differences has been mounting. Last summer a 10-year study by the University of California comparing organic tomatoes with those grown conventionally found double the level of flavonoids - a type of antioxidant thought to reduce the risk of heart disease. Other studies show milk having higher levels of omega3 fatty acids, thought to boost health.
Over the past four years, the QLIF project, involving 33 academic centres across Europe and led by Newcastle University, has analysed the 725-acre farm's produce for compounds believed to boost health and combat disease.
Like other studies, the results show significant variations, with some conventional crops having larger quantities of some vitamins than organic crops. But researchers confirm that the overall trend is that organic fruit, vegetables and milk are more likely to have beneficial compounds. According to Leifert, the compounds which have been found in greater quantities in organic produce include vitamin C, trace elements such as iron, copper and zinc, and secondary metabolites which are thought to help to combat cancer and heart disease.
Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, said the research could help to contribute to a "seismic" change in the food industry: "If you know there are significant nutritional differences in these foods, any sensible citizen would conclude it must have health implications."
Andrew Wadge, the FSA's chief scientist, said the agency had ordered a review of evidence on the nutritional content of organic and conventional produce. He said that even if the review found significant differences, the government would still need to assess any possible impact on health.
He added that the debate over the relative benefits of organic food should not blur the key message on diet and health. "The organic brand has been hugely successful," he said. "But the most important issue is not whether people are eating organic or not, but whether they are eating a healthy balanced diet."
27 October 2007
Germany: French Skepticism of GMO Crops Signals Policy Shift
Deutsche Welle, 27 October 2007
France is the latest EU country reluctant to use genetically-modified crops with President Sarkozy suspending their cultivation. The issue remains a subject of heated debate in the EU's largest agricultural producer.
France lags behind its European neighbours on environmental issues such as recycling and using renewable sources of energy. But this week environmentalists were full of praise for French President Nicolas Sarkozy for saying no GMO crops would be planted in France until the government had received the results of an evaluation by a new authority on GMOs set to be launched later this year.
Green campaigners have long warned of the dangers of GMO crops, saying they are potentially toxic since the seeds have been genetically modified to resist pests and weeds.
"Instead of spraying pesticides and herbicides, the toxins are produced in all of the plant's cells," said Geert Ritsema, a Greenpeace International anti-GMO campaigner in Amsterdam, who attended a high-profile environmental submit convened by Sarkozy.
The conference, attended by former US vice president and Nobel laureate Al Gore and head of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, was in keeping with Sarkozy's election pledge to put green matters at the top of the French government's agenda.
Sarkozy stopped short of an outright ban on all GMOs, which would have contravened EU agricultural rules, and stressed that his move does not call for halting biotech research.
Critics say GMOs unsafe and toxic
The future of GMOs has long been the subject of heated debate in France with powerful farming lobbies and environmentalists at loggerheads over the safety and viability of using GMO crops.
In the EU, the MON810 corn variety, which is produced by US-based biotech firm Monsanto, is the only GMO maize that has been approved for cultivation.
Although the GMO share of total maize production in France, the EU's largest agricultural producing country, is barely 1.5 percent this year, maize growing increased fivefold from only 0.3 percent in 2006. Some farmers have urged greater use of GMO crops to boost yields.
Green lobbyists say GMOs contaminate conventional crops and create imbalances in the ecosystem where wildlife has to coexist with farming.
"You have a built-in insecticide that is part of the plant's genetic make-up, which not only kills pests," said Adrian Bebb, a GM food expert at the Munich-based Friends of the Earth Europe. "Pollen from maize falls into streams and impacts on ecologically useful or harmless insects, such as butterflies," he explained.
Greenpeace says that even though GMO maize is primarily used as animal feed in Europe, the toxicity of such crops could have unforeseen longer term health implications for humans. When one type of maize was fed to rats in a laboratory study at the University of Caen, their immune system was weakened.
Agricultural lobby pooh-poohs claims
Still, GMO soya, corn and oil seeds have been widely planted by farmers all over the world in the last decade or so, with more than 90 percent of the global supply coming from the US, Canada, Brazil and Argentina.
Multi-national companies that supply the seeds argue that health risks have not been scientifically proven and biotechnological processes are kinder to the environment since they reduce the need for fertilizer and chemical killers.
Pascal Ferey, vice-president of SNSEA, a union which represents big industry agriculture interests in France said that environmental groups are using scare tactics by misrepresenting the hazards of GMO crops to the public, which are unfounded in his view.
"We consume GMO traces everyday in our meat, cheese, mayonnaise and ketchup without even knowing about it. How many shoppers truly read the labels down to the last detail when they buy groceries?" he asked.
Maiz Europ, an association of French maize growers was also critical of how ecological groups have manipulated public opinion and health studies to support their views.
"Do you think Brussels would have authorized GMO seeds if they were so dangerous?" asked spokesman Pascal Hurbault, who pointed out that gene techniques have been the best defense against two particularly voracious rootworms that have ravaged maize crops in southwest France.
European GMO skepticism in stark contrast to US
France becomes the latest European country to voice doubts over the use of GMOs. Several European Union countries have dug in their heels on whether their farmers may grow MON 810 maize.
Hungary, one of the EU-27's biggest grain producers, banned the planting of MON 810 seed in January 2005. Germany earlier this year decided that maize produced from MON 810 seeds could only be sold if there was an accompanying monitoring plan to research its effects on the environment.
Austria too could face an attempt by European Union regulators to force it to lift bans on two GMO maize types.
This past Wednesday, the European Commission authorized three more corn varieties and a sugar beet to enter the market, but the GMO crop seeds will be imported, not grown in Europe.
The raging debate over the future of GMOs in Europe is in sharp contrast to the United States, where GMO technology is much more widely accepted.
Genetically modified ingredients have found their way onto supermarket shelves in the form of cooking oils and processed foods, said Bebb of Friend of the Earth Europe.
"Since GMO labeling is not required in the US, consumers don't know what is in their food," he said.
Campaigners agree that there is more awareness in European nations about the dangers of genetically-modified food partly due to the fact that food producers are required by the EU to label products containing GMO ingredients. Various opinion polls show that at least 80 percent of the French public are against GMO foods, which are viewed as unnatural and unhealthy.
Despite the strong passions evoked by GM crops among both advocates and critics, most have welcomed Sarkozy's push for a leadership role on environmental issues that has long been neglected by his predecessors at the Elysée Palace.
Some point out that France's policy shift on GMOs will also have implications for the rest of the EU.
"Earlier the government was under pressure from industry groups to be pro-GMO," said Bebb. "So the precautionary shift now in Sarkozy's tone is a seismic one."
---
"Je veux revenir sur le dossier des OGM : la vérité est que nous avons des doutes sur l'intérét actuel des OGM pesticides ; la vérité est que nous avons des doutes sur le contrôle de la dissémination des OGM ; la vérité est que nous avons des doutes sur les bénéfices sanitaires et environnementaux des OGM." - President Nicolas Sarkozy
26 October 2007
USA: James Watson's Legacy: Promoting a New Eugenics
Genetic Crossroads: newsletter of the Center for Genetics and Society, 26 October 2007.
Dr James Watson's apology and resignation in disgrace from his post at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory lay to rest his troubling legacy? The world now knows about the blatant racism of the twentieth century's most famous geneticist. Those tracking the story have also learned of Watson's other assorted bigotries - his denigration of "ugly girls," "stupid" children, and "fat people"; his endorsement of paying rich people to have more children and aborting affected fetuses when tests for a "gay gene" are developed.
But that's not all. Though neither media nor blogosphere have emphasized it so far, Watson - and a small but disturbing number of other prominent figures - have over the past decade been actively promoting a renewed program of eugenics, this time using twenty-first century reproductive and genetic technologies.
The new eugenics crowd is hardly coy Various among them have explicitly endorsed "seizing control of our [human] evolutionary future" and "engineering the human germline." Back in 1998 they held a high-profile conference - covered on the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post - to plan how to make this high-tech eugenics "acceptable" to the American public.
At that event, Watson called for "mak[ing] better human beings" by "add[ing] genes." A few years later, he wrote that "Hitler's use of the term Master Race" should not make us "feel the need to say that we never want to use genetics to make humans more capable than they are today."
We've accumulated an impressive number of other revealing Watsonisms [SEE BELOW]. Please send us more; weÇll add them to our collection.
USA: James Watson's Legacy
Posted by Center for Genetics and Society on October 22nd 2007.
Over the past half century, millions have known James Watson for his Nobel Prize and double-helix fame. Only last week did most learn about James Watson, bigot and eugenics enthusiast.
Watson now says, "That is not what I meant." But take a look at these statements by him, stretching back years. And he's not the only one; some of his colleagues have joined him in advocating for a new high-tech eugenics.
Do you have a Watson quote we've missed? Post it as a comment below, and we'll add it to the list. Please be sure to include citation.
On race and intelligence
"[A]ll our social policies are based on the fact that [Africans'] intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not reallyð [P]eople who have to deal with black employees find [equality] is not true."
Interview with The Times of London, October 14, 2007
"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science (2007)
On "stupid" kids, ugly girls, and enhanced children
"If you really are stupid, I would call that a disease.... The lower 10 percent who really have difficulty, even in elementary school, what's the cause of it? A lot of people would like to say, 'Well, poverty, things like that.' It probably isn't. So I'd like to get rid of that, to help the lower 10 percent...."
"It seems unfair that some people donÇt get the same opportunity. Once you have a way in which you can improve our children, no one can stop it. It would be stupid not to use it because someone else will. Those parents who enhance their children, then their children are going to be the ones who dominate the world..."
"People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great...."
"I think it's irresponsible not to try and direct evolution to produce a human being who will be an asset to the world."
DNA, British documentary, March 2003
"Then I am a eugenicist"
"My view is that, despite the risks, we should give serious consideration to germ-line gene therapy. I only hope that the many biologists who share my opinion will stand tall in the debates to come and not be intimidated by the inevitable criticism ... If such work be called eugenics, then I am a eugenicist."
DNA: The Secret of Life, 2003
On sex and discriminating against overweight people
Watson proposed that skin color and sex drive are linked. "That's why you have Latin lovers. You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."
Watson proposed that thinness and ambition are linked, and thus thin people are better hires. "When you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them."
"The Pursuit of Happiness: Lessons from pom-C," Watson's lecture at University of California, Berkeley, October 2000
Let's play God
"If scientists don't play God, who will?"
Addressing members of the British Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, May 2000
Embracing the Master Race
"Here we must not fall into the absurd trap of being against everything Hitler was for.... Because of Hitler's use of the term Master Race, we should not feel the need to say that we never want to use genetics to make humans more capable than they are today."
A Passion for DNA: Genes, Genomes, and Society, 2000
On inheritable human genetic modification
"I'm afraid of asking people what they think. Don't ask Congress to approve it. Just ask them for the money to help their constituents. That's what they want.... Frankly, they would care much more about having their relatives not sick than they do about ethics and principles. We can talk principles forever, but what the public actually wants is not to be sick. And if we help them not be sick, they'll be on our side....
"If we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we? What's wrong with it?ð Evolution can be just damn cruel, and to say that we've got a perfect genome and there's some sanctity?"
Engineering the Human Germline, symposium at University of California Los Angeles, March 20, 1998
Aborting fetuses with a "gay gene"
"If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her."
The Telegraph, February 16, 1997
On the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications program of the Human Genome Project
"I wanted a group that would talk and talk and never get anything done," Andrews quotes Watson as telling a meeting. "And if they did do something, I wanted them to get it wrong. I wanted as its head Shirley Temple Black."
Quoted by Lori Andrews in The Clone Age: Adventures in the New World of Reproductive Technology
More on Hitler
The time has come to "put Hitler behind us," Watson said, urging Germany to put more resources into genetic research.
Keynote speech to a conference on molecular medicine in Berlin, May 1997
France suspends planting of GMO crops
Reuters, 26 October 2007. By Sybille de La Hamaide
PARIS (Reuters) - French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Thursday he would suspend the planting of genetically modified (GMO) pest-resistant crops until the results of an appraisal of the issue later this year or early in 2008.
Unveiling the country's new environment policy, Sarkozy said no GMO crops would be planted in France until the government had received the results of an evaluation by a new authority on GMOs set to be launched later this year.
"I don't want to be in contradiction with EU laws, but I have to make a choice. In line of the precautionary principle, I wish that the commercial cultivation of genetically modified pesticide GMOs be suspended," he said.
The only GMO crop grown in the European Union is a maize using the so-called MON 810 technology developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, which is designed to resist the European corn borer, a pest that attacks maize stalks and thrives in warmer climates in southern EU countries.
Monsanto says the protein contained in its maize has selective toxicity but is harmless to humans, fish and wildlife.
Just 22,000 hectares -- 1.5 percent of France's cultivated maize land -- have been sown with GMO maize this year but some farmers have urged greater use of GMO crops to boost yields.
During a visit to Paris on Wednesday, European Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said a full ban on GMO crops would clearly go against the rules and that France would lose in court if it implemented such a ban.
Research to continue
The future of GMOs has long been the subject of heated debate in France and its reluctance, along with other European countries, to use GMO crops compares starkly with the United States, which has a far higher take-up of GMO technology.
A ban on GMO maize growing for the coming months would not affect maize production in France because sowings do not take place until spring.
Sarkozy stressed that his move did not mean a halt to GMO research.
"This suspension of commercial cultivation of pesticide GMOs does not mean -- I want to be clear on this -- that we must condemn all GMOs, notably future GMOs," he said.
During his election campaign last year, Sarkozy said he had "doubts and reservations" about the commercial use of GMO products which for him "had little interest", but he stressed that he had wanted research to continue.
Several European Union countries have dug in their heels on whether their farmers may grow MON 810 maize, one of Europe's oldest GMO crops.
Hungary, one of the EU-27's biggest grain producers, outlawed the planting of MON 810 seed in January 2005.
Germany earlier this year decided that maize produced from MON 810 seeds could only be sold if there was an accompanying monitoring plan to research its effects on the environment.
And Austria may soon face a third attempt by EU regulators to force it to lift bans on two GMO maize types, including Monsanto's MON 810 and T25 maize made by German drugs and chemicals group Bayer.
25 October 2007
Australians Viewing Developing Technology With Mixed Feelings
Medindia.net, October 25 2007
Research from Australia's Swinburne University shows that the majority of Australians are more comfortable with the idea of wind farms than with the Internet or nuclear power.
The reports were part of the annual study of how people feel about technological change. The National Technology and Society Monitor also found most people are still not comfortable with genetically modified plants and animals for food, despite a government report to the contrary.
Every year, the nationwide survey is carried out by a team of researchers at the Australian Center for Emerging Technologies and Society. The reports largely reflect views of the overall population.
For the first time in 2007, the question of wind farms was raised. The Monitor found 81 percent of respondents had some level of comfort with them, and surprisingly, the overall 'comfort rating' was higher than the rating for the Internet.
According to Director of the Center, Professor Michael Gilding, most people now are quite comfortable with the Internet but the results do also reflect the fact that some people have been left behind, and these lot are not comfortable with it. "What is striking is this high level of comfort with wind farms. However, for most people itÇs an abstract kind of support because they don't live near wind farms and don't have much to do with them," Gilding explained.
Gilding added that even though the same could be said for nuclear plants, there is still widespread discomfort with them. "In the last twelve months weÇve seen the issue come back onto the public agenda, but the mood of the public hasn't shifted and people remain highly concerned about the technology."
The survey also found gender to influence ratings of comfort about nuclear power. Also, Liberal voters were found to be more comfortable with nuclear power than Labor voters.
Another interesting finding in the Monitor report, according to Gilding, is people's reactions to genetically modified food and animals. The survey found just over half of those questioned were uncomfortable with GM plants, while two thirds felt the same way about GM animals for food. "In this country, governments are in fact moving towards a more permissive position on genetically modified plants, and earlier this year, a government report suggested landmark shifts in attitudes," expresses Gilding. "But in the Monitor, there wasn't any change in reaction to genetically modified plants and overall most people remain uncomfortable with GM agriculture. There's certainly no evidence for a major sea change on that score", he observes.
Other findings were that most people were quite comfortable with the rate of change in the world today, with men being significantly more comfortable than women, and young people more comfortable than older people.
According to Professor Gilding, Australians are on the whole optimistic about technology. The annual survey shows that Australians believe science and technology are continually improving the quality of life, he adds. However, Gilding points out that this optimism should not be taken for granted as it depends heavily upon confidence in public and scientific institutions.
EU: Dimas calls for GM maize ban in Europe
Friends of the Earth Europe / Greenpeace press release
Thursday 25th October 2007
Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace have today welcomed the news that EU Environment
Commissioner Dimas is for the first time proposing to ban two types of genetically modified
(GM) maize because of the risks they pose to the environment. The green groups urge the whole
of the European Commission to put environmental safety first and support the proposed ban.[1]
The two GM maize varieties (Syngenta's Bt11 and Pioneer/Dow's 1507) are engineered to produce a
toxin (commonly called Bt) that is poisonous to certain insect pests. However, scientific
studies show that these GM maize are toxic to certain butterfly species and may also affect
other beneficial insects and have long term negative effects on soil health.
The proposal is apparently based on clear scientific evidence proving that the cultivation of
these two GM crops has the potential to cause environmental harm. Commissioners Mandelson
(Trade), Verheugen (Industry) and Fischer Boel (Agriculture) are among a small group of
Commissioners that are expected to oppose the proposal and the application of the precautionary
principle to this case.
Several scientists have recently published studies showing that the effects of GM Bt maize are
far from predictable and that their potential risk is greater then previously thought. These
studies demonstrate that the current EU risk assessment procedure is not able to evaluate the
risks posed by GM Bt crops.[2]
An announcement is expected shortly as to whether France will also ban a Bt maize on similar
environmental grounds.
In addition, during the World Trade Organisation dispute over GM products, the EU had already
argued that Bt crops should not be currently grown because of the incomplete knowledge about
their long-term environmental impact. [3]
Friends of the Earth Europe's GMO campaigner, Adrian Bebb said:
"This is a major blow to the GM industry. For the first time there is a European Commission
proposal that GM crops should not be approved in Europe - and crucially this relates to two
maize varieties for commercial growing. The Commission has raised serious concerns about the
environmental impact of growing these crops."
Greenpeace GMO Policy Director, Marco Contiero said:
"The Commission has no other option than to reject the authorisation of these GM crops if it
intends to comply with EU provisions on risk assessment and the precautionary principle. If, on
the other hand, it authorises the cultivation of these crops, caving in to pressure from
Commissioners with a pro-GMO agenda, it would be bluntly violating EU law and new scientific
findings."
For more information, please contact:
Adrian Bebb: Friends of the Earth +49 8025 99 91 51 mobile +49 1609 490 1163
Marco Contiero: Greenpeace EU Unit, Policy Director - GMOs +32 2 274 1906 mobile +32477777034
NOTES
[1] See http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRU00606620071025
[2] For example:
•
Recent research shows that GM crops producing Bt toxins could seriously affect aquatic
ecosystems, since pollen and agricultural wastes from Bt maize enter streams where they may
become toxic to aquatic life. This toxicity pathway for Bt toxins has not been considered
previously
•
The level of Bt toxin produced by one of these GM varieties varies strongly between different
locations and between plants on the same field. The reasons for these differences are not
known. This raises serious questions about the current capacity to assess the impact of Bt
toxins on the environment.
•
Unexpectedly, another recent study found that one type of GM Bt maize has significant higher
amino acid levels compared to its non-GM counterpart, which made it much more susceptible to
aphid infestation. Again this is another demonstration that Bt maize is subject to unexpected
and unpredictable negative effects.
(All references to the studies are available from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace)
[3] European Communities - Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products
(DS291, DS292, DS293). Comments by the European Communities on the scientific and technical
advice to the panel. 28 January 2005. See Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace summary:
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/hidden_uncertainties.pdf
Rosemary Hall
Communications Officer
Friends of the Earth Europe
Rue Blanche 15
B-1050 Bruxelles
Belgium
Tel.: +32 2 542 6105
Mobile: +32 485 930515
Fax:Ý +32 2 537 5596
rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org
http://www.foeeurope.org
For the people, for the planet, for the future
Irish Times slammed for bias on GM issues
Irresponsible journalism stifles informed debate
Conflict of interest with biotech lobby group
GM-free Ireland press release, 25 October 2007.
DUBLIN -- The Irish Times, regarded as the country's journal of record, systematically represents the interests of the biotech industry lobby group EAGLES [1], whose Co-ordinator Prof. David McConnell of TCD is also the Chairman of the Irish Times Trust which owns the paper.
In Debating GM: An analysis of GM coverage in the Irish Times and the Irish Farmers Journal from March 2004 to February 2006, a Dublin Institute of Technology thesis by journalism student Emma Somers made a quantitative analysis of the sources, and a qualitative analysis of GM coverage in these two papers.
The study revealed significant bias towards the biotech industry. Of the 48 articles published in the Irish Times, 65% quoted official sources, 13% quoted biotech industry sources, 10% quoted farming sources, and 6 % quoted biotech industry lobby groups. Only 21% quoted NGOs (which have the most expertise on the subject) and 10% quoted farming sources (which are most affect by GM policies). Most articles framed the issue as scientists versus Luddites.
Disinformation
Consider the short article "GM feed imports are inevitable" by Marie O'Halloran, in yesterday's edition [2]. The article has just three sentences.
The first sentence begins by creating the false impression that GM animal feed will be introduced at some time in the future. In reality most Irish meat, poultry and dairy produce has come from livestock fed on GM ingredients for the past 11 years.
This sentence continues with a claim that the use of GM animal feed is "inevitable", despite the fact that certified non-GMO animal feed is both available and affordable [3].
The second sentence refers to a statement by Agriculture Minister Mary Coughlan that "new legislation" has been put in place in response to consumer concerns about GM food. No such new legislation exists. The EC's mandatory labelling law for food and feed containing GM ingredients came in to effect over three years ago, in 2004 [4].
The second sentence also signally fails to mention the loophole which enables meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients to be sold without a label, as well as the historic petition, signed by one million EU citizens and delivered to EU Health and Consumer Affairs Commissioner Markos Kyprianou on 5 February, which calls for mandatory labelling of such produce, based on the citizens right to know what's in our food [5].
The third sentence uncritically quotes the Minister for Agriculture's claim that this so-called "new legislation" embodies the "highest possible standards" to protect citizens.
But nothing could be further from the truth:
•
65 different GM health risks have been identified in the book "Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of genetically engineered food" [6] which was launched at the Briefing on Food Safety and GMOs held at the European Parliament Office in Dublin on 15 June, in the presence of Irish Times Trust chairman Prof. McConnell and a journalist from that paper. A leaked European Commission document submitted to the World Trade Organisation admits "there is no unique, absolute, scientific cut-off threshold available to decide whether a GM product is safe or not" [7]. No long-term health studies prove that GM food and feed are safe.
•
The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) does not conduct health risk assessments, but relies entirely on dubious claims made by the European Food Safety Authority [8], which are themselves based on data provided to it by the applicant biotech companies.
FSAI's position - that "GM feed and food are as safe as their conventional counterparts" - is not surprising in view of the conflict of interest resulting from the fact that FSAI CEO John O'Brien is a former boardmember of the International Life Sciences Institute [9], which is funded by biotech giants Monsanto, Bayer AG, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Syngenta and other companies. This biotech industry lobby group has been widely criticised for posing as a Non Governmental Organisation and infiltrating the World Health Organisation and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in order to lower international food safety standards [10].
•
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) also does not conduct health risk assessments [11]. Although EFSA was set up in 2002, long after GM ingredients entered our food chain, its GMO Panel still refuses to conduct scientifically valid health risk assessments on GM food and feed. It has consistently dismissed the concerns of other scientists working for national Governments. It continues to rely on extremely questionable safety claims made by the applicant companies, thus showing that its much-vaunted "independence" is a smokescreen used by the biotech industry and the EC to force GM feed and food into the European market. The GMO Panel disregards statistically significant differences between GM and their non-GM counterparts, instead agreeing with the industry that the results of such tests are not
biologically relevant or treatment related. In addition the Panel ignores EU requirements to identify the level of uncertainty in its assumptions, and fails to take in legal requirements that regard is given to the long term effects of eating or growing GM foods. Despite a call for EFSA reform in November 2004, which was repeated by Markos Kyprianou in 2005, EFSA has failed to do so. At a meeting of the EU Environment Ministers on 30 October, the Italian Environment Minister will call for EFSA to stop all further GMO approvals until it complies with the required reforms.
The fourth sentence quotes Fine Gael's new pro-GMO agriculture spokesperson, Michael Creed, complaining about "the abuse of labelling laws". In reality, it is the EU law which is abusive because it not only allows meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients to be sold to consumers without a label, but also makes it perfectly legal for any Irish food producer to label a product such as bacon made in Ireland from pig meat imported from a foreign country like Brazil to be legally sold as "Irish".
This sentence also implies that Fine Gael came up with the "Green Ireland" brand concept, and that it would apply to GM food. In reality, Fine Gael adopted the idea late last year following the Green Ireland conference on branding for food, farming and eco-tourism organised by the GM-free Ireland Network in June 2006, where international experts urged Ireland to protect our reputation as Ireland - the Food Island by declaring the whole island off-limits to GM crops [12].
Speaking at that event, Brody Sweeney, the CEO of O'Briens Sandwich Bars who subsequently ran as a Fine Gael candidate in the 2007 General Election, gave a presentation called "Project Green" in which he said "There is no one country that said, 'We are the absolute top quality food producers for Europe. We are going to be the guys with the GMO-free environment, where we're going to have more organic, where our food is going to be traceable, where we are really going to care and believe in what we say about our food.' ...Nobody has done it yet. I think it's just a fantastic opportunity for Ireland to be that country" [13].
The Irish Times' biased coverage of GM food and farming issues - and the conflict of interest between Prof. McConnell's dual roles as Chairman of the Irish Times Trust and Co-ordinator of the EAGLES biotech lobby group - are not acceptable for the newspaper of record in Ireland's "knowledge-based economy".
Disinformation of this kind clearly violates the core object of the Trust's Memoranda and Articles of Association, "to publish an independent newspaper primarily concerned with serious issues for the benefit of the community throughout the whole of Ireland, free from any form of personal or of party political, commercial, religious or other sectional control."
Notes for editors:
1.
The Chairman of the Irish Times Trust, Prof. David McConnell of Trinity College Dublin Smurfit School of Genetics, is the Co-ordinator and Co-Vice Chairman of EAGLES - European Action on Global Life Sciences (http://www.efb-central.org/eagles). EAGLES is an initiative of the European Federation of Biotechnology lobby group, designed to secure EU funding for European biotech companies to promote GM food and farming in the developing countries.
Ireland's newly appointed Chief Scientific Officer, Prof. Paddy Cunningham is also a member of EAGLES. He recently told delegates at the Agriculture Science Association's National Conference that "Scientific evidence has overwhelmingly shown that food derived from GM crops or from animals fed on GM feed is safe" (Herculex to be approved by default shortly, Irish Farmers Journal, 22 September 2007)!
2.
The full article reads as follows:
Ireland: GM feed imports are 'inevitable'
The Irish Times, 24 October 2007. By Marie O'Halloran.
It is practically inevitable that genetically modified (GM) crops are going to form a significant part of Irish feed material imports, the D·il has been told.
Minister for Agriculture Mary Coughlan said concerns expressed by consumers about the safety of GM resulted in the intro