NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • September 2007

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

30 September 2007

USA: rBGH-free trend sheds light on genetically engineered food
Kroger is latest company to ban use of controversial GE hormone in milk production

The Organic & Non-GMO Report, September 2007

When it comes to genetically engineered (GE) foods, most Americans eat in the dark. Surveys consistently show that a majority of Americans are unaware that more than 70% of processed foods they eat contain ingredients from GE corn, soybeans, canola, and cotton.

However, Americans are increasingly aware of one GE product in their food, and they don't like it. And the food industry is responding. Food retail giant Kroger recently announced that by February 2008 all its processed milk will be from cows not injected with a genetically engineered growth hormone known as recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) or rBGH.

Tipping point

Kroger's announcement is the latest indication of an rBGH-free trend sweeping the nation's dairy industry. The number of dairies using the hormone is dropping dramatically. All milk produced in Oregon is now rBGH-free. Other rBGH-free dairy producers include Wilcox Dairy in Washington, Great Plains Dairy in North Dakota, Darigold Farms and Meadow Gold in Montana, Associated Food Stores in Utah, Sinton Dairy in Colorado, Promised Land Dairy in Texas, Kleinpeter Farms Dairy in Louisiana, Byrne Dairy in New York, Rutter's and Swiss Premium dairies in Pennsylvania, Garelick Farms in New Jersey, and H.P. Hood in Massachusetts. And these are just a few companies.

Major companies are banning the hormone. Dean Foods, the nation's largest dairy processor, has converted to rBGH-free production in several of its New England facilities, and grocery giant Safeway has done the same in Washington and Oregon. In May, Publix Super Markets, with 900 stores in the South - hardly a hotbed of anti-genetic engineering activism - went rBGH-free in its branded milk products. California Dairies, which produces 8% of the milk supplied in the US, banned the use of rBGH this past August.

The trend isn't limited to dairies. Starbucks plans to transition to rBGH-free milk in all its stores by the end of the year. Denver-based Chipotle Mexican Grill is serving only rBGH-free sour cream in all of its 530 or more restaurants.

Then there are organic dairy companies, who are required to not use genetically engineered products like rBGH. Organic milk is now nearly a $1 billion per year industry and growing 14% per year.

As Rick North, project director, Program for Safe Food at Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, says, "A helluva lot of dairies have gone organic or rBGH-free since 2002."

Like "steroids for athletes"

All these dairies are going rBGH-free for one reason: consumers don't want genetically engineered hormones in their milk. The dairies say they are simply responding to this demand. Kroger based its rBGH-free decision on customer feedback. Publix's director of media and community relations, Maria Brous, said, "We wanted our customers to enjoy the wholesome goodness of milk, without added hormones."

Consumers are also willing to pay more for milk labeled rBGH-free, according to several studies, including one published last year in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Controversy has surrounded rBGH, the creation of Monsanto Company, since it was approved by the FDA in 1994. An estimated 20% of dairy cows in the United States are injected with rBGH to increase milk production. While the FDA says the hormone is safe and doesn't affect milk quality, consumer groups claim that milk from cows injected with rBGH contains high levels of Insulin Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), which is considered a potent tumor promoter. A Canadian study found that rBGH significantly increased the risks of mastitis, failure to conceive, and lameness in cows. As a result, rBGH is banned in Canada and Europe. New Hampshire's commissioner of agriculture Stephen H. Taylor has likened rBGH to "steroids for athletes."

Misleading consumers?

Dairy producers inform consumers that their products are rBGH-free with label statements such as, "No rBGH in our products mean better and healthier cows" or "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones."

Monsanto despises the labels, has sued some companies that use them, and now wants the FDA and Federal Trade Commission to crack down on them. The company recently sent letters to the agencies stating, "For years now, deceptive milk labeling practices have misled consumers about the quality, safety, or value of milk and milk products from cows supplemented with rBGH." Monsanto goes so far as to claim that the rBGH-free labels "present a serious regulatory and public health concern."

Doesn't Monsanto realize that many consumers view rBGH as a "public health concern?"

North says Monsanto is complaining because the rBGH-free trend is hitting them where it hurts - the bottom line. "Monsanto is getting clobbered in the marketplace because dairies nationwide are going rBGH-free," he says.

Shedding light on GE foods

The rBGH-free trend is happening despite the fact that the US, unlike the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Ukraine, Switzerland, Norway, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries, doesn't require labeling of genetically engineered foods.

So, you won't find a milk carton with a label that says, "produced from cows treated with rBGH." US dairy processors that use the hormone prefer that consumers don't know.

Meanwhile, dairy processors and other companies committed to GE-free food production must resort to "negative" labels, which state that a product is "rBGH-free" or "non-GMO."

Monsanto and the majority of US food companies prefer that Americans continue to eat genetically engineered foods in the dark. They are afraid, and rightly so, that if a little light is shed on GE food, Americans will reject them, which is happening with rBGH.

"The more consumers know about this, the less they want it," says North.

Australia: Food shock as 'agflation' sees prices rise

The Age, September 30, 2007. By Stephen Cauchi.

IN THE 1970s it was "stagflation", the simultaneous combination of economic stagnation and high inflation. Now, in the noughties, we have "agflation" - price inflation of agricultural products, especially grains and related foodstuffs. Just last week, while announcing the Federal Government's aid package to drought-hit farmers, former deputy prime minister and Nationals leader John Anderson warned of a global food shock.

"This comes at a time of unprecedented concerns globally of very low grain stocks. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that we will see a food shock in the next few years," said Mr Anderson. "We talk about oil shocks. We have gone on assuming that the supermarket shelves will always be loaded . this affects everyone from the farmers right through to those people who are dependent on countries like Australia to feed them."

It's a neat analogy. In the 1970s there was stagflation and oil shocks; in the 21st century, agflation and food shocks. Nor is it confined to Australia. "Bread leads the big food price hike" was the headline in London's Sunday Times earlier this month, detailing the doubling of grain prices and the flow-on from that: more expensive bread, pasta, noodles, barley and, because animal feed is grain-based, more expensive meat.

The Independent was even more bearish, headlining "The fight for the world's food": "Population is growing. Supply is falling. Prices are rising. What will be the cost to the planet's poorest?"

With agflation, economists are blaming the rocketing economies of India and China on the demand side; on the supply side, drought in the world's breadbaskets - possibly driven by climate change - and diversion of grain into biofuels in the United States are the main culprits. "As these two forces combine they are setting off warning bells around the world," said The Independent.

"It has even revived discussion of the work of the 18th-century British thinker Robert Malthus. He predicted the growth of the world's population would outstrip its ability to produce food, leading to mass starvation."

Terry Sheales, from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, said all grain-producing countries - Australia, Canada, the US and Europe - had suffered drought, cutting output. At the same time importers, such as Egypt, had placed early orders, spiking demand.

"The wheat situation is very serious, as you can see from how prices have escalated. They're about 30 per cent higher compared to last year," said Dr Sheales. "Stocks at the start of the year were pretty low, around 117 million tonnes, (and) overall the expectation is that stocks will be run down further."

Wheat supplies have hit a 26-year low, pushing prices to a record $US9.16 ($A10.35) a bushel last week. Despite the drought, an Australian crop of 13 to 14 million tonnes is tipped, which is better than last year.

The high price is a mixed blessing for farmers: those whose crop has withstood the drought will do very well, those without a crop won't having anything to sell.

But consumers are suffering, their plight worsened by shortages of other grains. The US decision to encourage biofuel made of corn has sent prices of that crop rocketing to $US157 ($A177) a tonne. That in turn has prompted farmers to grow corn at the expense of other crops, including soybeans, pushing up their price as well.

"We haven't had this emphasis on producing biofuels before. That's a new important added factor in the world grains market," said Dr Sheales.

Monash University economist Robert Brooks said: "A number of the large agricultural producers have been in drought conditions for a long time (but) the question that's triggered a lot of the agflation concern is fuel substitution."

Agflation was, however, "a new term for something that's gone around a bit". "Agricultural prices and production goes through cycles at different points in time . the extrapolation from that - the old Malthus stuff - has been proved wrong many times."

John Freebairn, of Melbourne University, said the American policy of encouraging biofuels was "rather stupid". "It's taking corn and wheat and sugar away from food so the price gets ramped up on consumers, and burning biofuels creates nearly as much greenhouse gas as burning petroleum."

But no economist The Sunday Age spoke to thought there was a looming catastrophe. Markets tend to be self-correcting, as high prices induce suppliers to produce more and encourage consumers to look for substitutes. "We went through this in the mid-'70s, where we had a big boost in prices and then prices went down again, especially in real terms," said Dr Sheales.

Professor Brooks said: "Most of the previous Malthus-style predictions have been proven wrong by significant technological improvements in agricultural production. GM (genetically modified) crops are just a continuation on a theme that's run for a long time. Anything that leads to a technological improvement in agricultural production deals with supply-side issues."

Nevertheless, according to the United Nations' most recent food report, of the world's 6.7 billion people, a billion are undernourished. The UN has two

hunger objectives, the World Food Summit Target and the Millennium Development Goal, which aim to halve the number of undernourished people to 500 million by 2015, from a world population of 7.4 billion. How much of a hurdle will agflation be?

If climate change really sets in, said Professor Freebairn, "it is going to require big changes in the way we organise food production". But that was not necessarily a problem. "The technological potential (of GM) is quite enormous (and) if food really went expensive we'd shift from resource-intensive meat products and become more fruit and vegetable types."

The major obstacle to feeding the developing world, he said, remained political and not economic. "If you look at China and India, I think you can be optimistic. if you look at Africa and Latin America it's easy to be pessimistic. They're just not going to get their economic house in order."

This story was found at:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/09/29/1190486635630.html

29 September 2007

EU: CODEX Paving The Way For Safety Assessment Of Products With GM Low Level Presence

Medical News Today, 29 September 2007.

European industry representatives welcome the decision taken by the Codex ad hoc Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology to advance a proposal addressing the risk assessment of low-level presence of biotech plant materials, found in food or feed, which have been authorised in one or more countries but not yet in the importing country. The decision follows negotiations by members of the Codex ad hoc Task Force meeting this week in Chiba, Japan. The proposal which will be submitted to the CODEX Commission next July for approval will be incorporated in the Codex Plant Guidelines as an annex including information-sharing mechanisms.

This system would not substitute the full food safety assessments under the Codex Guidelines for products to be marketed in an importing country. In addition, this work will not address risk management measures, so countries subsequently will need to decide when and how to use the guidelines within the context of their regulatory systems.

We congratulate CODEX as it looks to set the international standard for low level presence. Low level presence of GM material in food and feed is recognised to be a reality for global grain production, grain handling and food handling systems today under all conditions, including where good agricultural and manufacturing practices are rigorously applied. It is an issue that all countries face as part of international trade. Especially in Europe, failure to address this issue in a preventive way results in major trade disruptions which could lead to a dramatic drop of livestock production, job losses and a significant increase of price for meat products in the coming years in Europe according to a recent Commission report (1).

"The delays in approval of biotech products in Europe compared to the rest of the world as well the absence of a science-based approach to address low level presence is already leading to trade disruption and seriously impacting the supply of feedstuffs." said Johan Vanhemelrijck, Secretary General of EuropaBio - the EU association for bioindustries. He continued, "Moreover, this unresolved issue that bears no relationship with safety is having a damaging effect on public confidence towards biotech products. In light of the Codex decisions, we hope that the EU will revisit its "zero tolerance" policy towards low level presence, speed up its approval process and define the appropriate science-based approach so that European food and feed supplies are secured",

It is important that this issue be addressed in a globally consistent way to ensure that all countries have an equal opportunity to trade food and feed materials freely with one another.

Currently 10.3 million farmers, across 63 countries are either growing or experimenting with 57 different GM crops. The vast majority of these farmers are in the developing world.

(1) EU Policy on Low-Level Presence of GM in Agricultural Commodities: Issues and Scenarios for European Farm Operators, Feed and Food Companies and Consumers
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/gmo/economic_impactGMOs_en.pdf

(2) Joint Industry Reference Document
http://www.europabio.org/articles/Final%20Low%20Level%20Presence%20Reference%20and%20Key%20messages.pdf

A low level presence of genetically modified materials in food which has been produced according to accepted agricultural and manufacturing practices is called "adventitious presence."

Due to increasing numbers of biotech plants developed and authorized for commercialization around the world, products from biotech plants may be incidentally present at low levels in shipments between producing and importing countries.

While the agricultural biotechnology industry is committed to seeking regulatory authorizations in countries with functioning authorization processes and which import significant amounts of the crop in which a biotech product has been introduced, those approvals are not reviewed or obtained simultaneously in all countries.

As such, and despite the application of good agricultural and manufacturing practices by operators in the agri-food chain, more and more countries are going to face the challenge of low-level presence of biotech plant materials that have been authorized as safe in one or more countries but not in the country of import.

Due to the vast infrastructure dedicated to moving grain from farms to consumers around the world, adventitious presence is virtually inevitable, even in the most stringent identity preservation systems.

About EuropaBio

EuropaBio, the European Association for Bioindustries, has 85 direct members operating Worldwide, 12 associate members and 5 bioregions as well as 25 national biotechnology associations representing some 1800 small and medium sized enterprises involved in research and development, testing, manufacturing and distribution of biotechnology products. http://www.europabio.org

About Codex

The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations.

More about the Codex ad hoc Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology see here. http://www.europabio.org

___________

Comment from GM-free Ireland

Contaminate first, leglislate later, control the food chain, and rule the world.

28 September 2007

Ireland: Calls to expand as Cork declared GM-free zone

Irish Examiner - Cork edition, 28 September 2007. By Eoin English.

CORK has been declared a genetically modified (GM) food- and crop-tree zone.

City councillors voted this week, 13 to nine, in favour of a Green Parts' motion to promote and maintain the city as a GM-free zone. The decision fol- lows similar motions adopted by Bantry and Clonakilty last year. Minister of State for Food and Horticulture Trevor Sargent said the move will help protect the economic interest of Ireland's food and farming future as a clean, green, GM-free food island.

Leading chefs and restaurateurs welcomed the decision.

"This is fantastic for Cork city," Darina Allen said. "Let's follow-up by declaring the whole of Co Cork as a GM-free zone."

Seamus O'Connell, presenter of the Soul Food TV programme, head chef at the Parknasilla Hotel and owner of the Ivory Tower restaurant, said he was proud that the city in which he lives "has stood up to the agribusiness gombeens".

Giana Ferguson of Slow Food Ireland, which protects and promotes local GM-free food and gastronomic traditions, also backed the decision.

Friends of the Irish Environment co-ordmator Tony Lowes, who is based in Allihies on the Beara Peninsula, welcomed the move as a step forward.

"GM seeds or crops would contaminate Ireland's ecosystem in perpetuity. Cork city's protective measure should be extended as soon as possible to the whole of Co Cork, in order to protect its unique biodiversity and national parks."

The motion was tabled by Cllr Chris O'Leary, who said the decision sends a strong message of support for Cork's food producers, food processors, restaurants and hotels, and will help position this whole area as an eco-tourism destination.

GM-free Ireland co-ordinator Michael O'Callaghan congratulated the council, and urged all town and county councils to declare themselves GM-free zones.

GM crops are totally or partially banned by nine governments, along with 236 regional governments, local authorities, and 4,500 smaller areas in 22 EU member states, and Switzerland.

GM-free Irish zones include counties Cavan, Clare, Fermanagh, Kildare, Kerry, Meath, Roscommon, Monaghan, and Westmeath, the District of Newry & Mourne, and the towns of Bantry, Bray, Clonakilty, Cork city, Derry, Galway city, Letterkenny, and Navan, along with 1,000 smaller areas, representing more than one million citizens on both sides of the Border.

USA: Feeding the World Without Genetic Engineering

Press release, Kansas State Universuty, 28-Sep-2007

The work of a Kansas State University professor is challenging the assumption that genetically engineered plants are the great scientific and technological revolution in agriculture and the only efficient and cheap way to feed a growing population.

Newswise - The work of a Kansas State University professor is challenging the assumption that genetically engineered plants are the great scientific and technological revolution in agriculture and the only efficient and cheap way to feed a growing population.

Jianming Yu, an assistant professor of agronomy, is teaming with Rex Bernardo, a professor of agronomy and plant genetics at the University of Minnesota, on research with marker-assisted selection. This agricultural technology offers a sophisticated method to greatly accelerate classical breeding through genetic analysis and selection of existing natural diversity in various crops without having to resort to alien species. Currently, marker-assisted selection has been a routine in many private seed companies with large-scale fingerprinting, global germplasm assessment and comprehensive bioinformatics support.

Yu's and Bernardo's research is focused on breeding methodology, finding more efficient ways to breed better varieties of corn, sorghum, wheat or barley that yield higher, require less irrigation and are resistant to diseases in farmers' fields. The pair's work was recently published in an edition of the scientific journal Crop Science.

"With abundant molecular markers that can be routinely processed with modern genomic technology, we found it is more efficient to focus on selection based information all across the genome rather than the traditional way of genomic regions containing signals that pass a threshold," Yu said.

Their research is "a result of our constant deliberation of how to incorporate modern genomic technologies into breeding process, a more general term as genomic-assisted plant breeding, which differs from what scientists have been doing -- using markers to guide the introgression of single or multiple disease resistance genes," Yu said.

"The traditional way is to identify genome regions that show significant information," he said. "The new way is to consider all information genomewide. In other words, we strategically shifted the focus from finding the most interesting genome areas to considering all information simultaneously. This is critical, especially given that most of traits with agricultural importance are controlled by many interacting genomic regions and their individual effects are relatively small."

Yu and Bernardo plan to conduct experiments with sorghum in Kansas and maize in Minnesota.

"It will provide breeders, public or private, a powerful tool to advance their breeding practices," Yu said.

Note from GM Watch:

For more on Marker-Assisted Selection (MAS) see:

The Acceptable Face Of Ag-biotech
www.nlpwessex.org/docs/monsantomaspossibilities.htm

This crop revolution may succeed where GM failed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1931467,00.html

Nature Biotechnology paper must be retracted

Andrew Marshall
Editor, Nature Biotechnology
New York office

28th September 2007

Dear Andrew,

PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
Ref: Nature Biotechnology 25, 981 - 987 (2007) GM soybeans and health safety - a controversy reexamined http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n9/abs/nbt0907-981.html

Further to our letter of 17th September, we understand that you have now offered Dr Ermakova space for the publication of a letter in the pages of Nature Biotechnology in which she can outline her grievances against the methods employed by you and your journal, and address some of the issues raised by the self-appointed "reviewers" who set out to destroy her reputation. In our view this is an entirely unsatisfactory recompense for the deliberate and cynical damage which you have done to Dr Ermakova's good name, since you will reserve the right to edit whatever she may say, and since a letter will have virtually no status academically and will have no interest as far as the media are concerned. An effective way of "closing down" the issue........

This miserable business has distinct echoes of the sinister happenings of 2002, when your sister publication "Nature" published a peer-reviewed and important paper by Quist and Chapela on GM maize contamination, and then retracted it following sustained and intense pressure from the GM industry and from parts of the GM research community. That was an unprecedented and thoroughly distasteful episode which did immense damage to Nature's good name (1). Afterwards Philip Campbell, the Editor, sought to justify the retraction on the grounds of a "technical oversight" by the journal which led to the mistaken publication of a flawed paper (2).

Well, in the current case we have a whole series of "technical oversights" which have led "Nature Biotechnology" to publish an article which was written by the Editor of the journal and which would not have been out of place in the cheapest tabloid newspaper.

It should never have seen the light of day. To remind you:

1.

Was it through a technical oversight that you allowed four of the best-known apologists for the GM industry to have "free space" in the pages of "Nature Biotechnology" for a premeditated attack on Dr Ermakova, whose findings they happened to find distasteful?

2.

Was it through a technical oversight that you connived with them to induce Dr Ermakova to outline her findings in response to your questions, and then to publish their not-attributed responses? (I remind you that their comments were published as "joint comments" for which no particular person took responsibility, which were presumably not subject to a review process of any sort, and which were quite probably ghost written in any case?)

3.

Was it through a technical oversight that Dr Ermakova was never told the names of the four men who were out to destroy her reputation, and was never shown their comments prior to publication?

4.

Was it through a technical oversight that some of Dr Ermakova's key references were removed from the article and replaced by 20 new references brought in the bolster the case made by the four GM industry spokesmen?

5.

Was it through a technical oversight that in the correspondence we have seen, Dr Ermakova was clearly given the impression that this was to be "her" article, and was then sent a proof (the only proof she saw) which had her name on it as author?

6.

Was it through a technical oversight that she was advised by your colleague Dr Kathy Aschheim that she would not accept a paper from Dr Ermakova for consideration and peer review on the grounds that it would be more appropriate for another journal, while at the same time you were pressing on with the publication of a "feature" devoted to the destruction of her scientific reputation?

We have outlined the full story of this catalogue of lies and deceit here: http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/rottweiler.htm

Possibly the most serious instance of professional malpractice we have ever seen relates to the "dummy proof" which you sent to Dr Ermakova on 20th August 2007. We gather that you have explained this away as down to a "mistake" in your office. We cannot accept that, and none of the scientists with whom we have had contact has ever encountered such a blatant example of malpractice before.

If the above instances of "technical oversight" were indeed down to administrative errors within your office, that does not say much for the efficiency and competence of you and your staff. If they were down to a deliberate and predetermined strategy to destroy the academic reputation of Dr Ermakova (and that is indeed our interpretation) that is without doubt a resigning matter.

We therefore ask you immediately to retract the paper which you published. If a retraction was deemed by your publishers to be appropriate in the case of the Quist and Chapela article in 2002, it is infinitely more appropriate in this case. We look forward to your confirmation that this will be done.

We also ask that in your retraction statement you give a full apology to Dr Ermakova for the manner in which she has been lied to and misled, and for the damage done to her reputation. We think you should specifically apologize for the dummy proof.

You should also give the aggrieved scientist space in a future edition of the journal (and not just in a letter) to defend herself and to answer the ill-considered and inaccurate points made by Giddings, Chassy, McHugh and Moses. The article should be published as a feature, with Dr Ermakova as the named author, with the following words at the head of the article: "Through an oversight the author was not given the names of her critics or shown the comments on her work before they were published. Nature Biotechnology has therefore offered her this opportunity to respond to them."

We imagine that Dr Ermakova and the rest of the "GM community" would be happt to see a further commitment to publish letters that you might subsequently receive (from scientists who may wish either to support or criticise her work) in the normal way.

We know that Dr Ermakova been advised to seek legal redress for the damage done to her reputation through the publication of your article, and no doubt matters will become clearer on that account in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Brian John
GM Free Cymru

(1) http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/ v414/n6863/abs/414541a0_fs.html
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE3/Chapela-Transgenic-Maize-Oaxaca- Nature29nov01.htm
http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/Alumni/Cal_Monthly/June_2002/ Food_fight.asp

(2) http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit6.html

Note from GM Watch:

It's been drawn to our attention that the Quist/Chapela article in "Nature" in 2002 was never formally "retracted" or "withdrawn" by the Editor, although he did use the word "retract" himself in later correspondence. At the time Philip Campbell said, in response to the brutal lobbying of the GM apologists: "In light of these discussions and the diverse advice received, Nature has concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper." The journal's response, involving the publication of two critiques of the original article, was widely interpreted by the media as having been feeble, confused, and highly influenced by political and commercial considerations rather than scientific ones.

Ireland: City bans genetically modified food and crops

Irish Examiner, 28 September 2007. By Eoin English.

CORK has been declared a genetically modified (GM) food and crop free zone.

City councillors voted this week in favour of a Green Party motion to promote and maintain the city as a GM-free zone.

The Minister for Pood and Horticulture, Trevor Sargent, said the move will help protect the economic interest of Ireland's food and farming future.

Leading chefs and restaurateurs welcomed the decision.

Seamus O'Connell, presenter of the Soul Food TV programme, head chef at the Parknasilla Hotel, and owner of the Ivory Tower restaurant, said he was proud the city in which he lives "has stood up to the agribusiness gombeens".

Giana Ferguson of Slow Food Ireland also backed the decision.

Friends of the Irish Environment co-ordinator Tony Lowes, who is based in Alihies on the Beara Peninsula, welcomed the move as a step forward.

"GM seeds or crops would contaminate Ireland's ecosystem in perpetuity. Cork city's protective measure should be extended as soon as possible to the whole of County Cork, in order to protect its unique biodiversity and National Parks."

The motion was tabled by Cllr Chris O'Leary, who said the decision sends a strong message of support for Cork's food producers, food processors, restaurants and hotels, and will help position this whole area as an eco-tourism destination."

GM crops are totally or partially banned by nine governments, along with 236 regional governments, local authorities, and 4,500 smaller areas across 22 EU member states, and Switzerland.

GM-free Irish zones include counties Cavan, Clare, Fermanagh, Kildare, Kerry, Meath, Roscommon, Monaghan, and Westmeath, the District of Newry & Mourne in counties Armagh and Down, and the towns of Bantry, Bray, Clonakilty, Cork City, Derry, Galway City, Letterkenny, and Navan, along with 1,000 smaller areas, representing over one million citizens on both sides of the border.

Canada / UK / Ireland: Corn fakes

Private Eye, No. 1194, 28 September-11 October 2007

Heavy-handed libel threats on the part of a biotech researcher have done little to silence criticism of a scientific paper claiming that shoppers prefer GM produce.

Published in the British Food Journal three years ago, the paper was based on the findings from a Canadian farm store where customers were offered a choice of GM or non-GM sweetcorn. The four researchers concluded that 50 percent more people opted for the GM crop. The journal branded the study its "most outstanding paper" of the year.

Alas, the paper did not disclose that above the non-GM corn was a sign asking shoppers: "Would you eat wormy sweetcorn?", while the GM crop was signed: "quality sweetcorn." The Canadian journalist who originally uncovered the story said there had been pro-GM literature in the shop, but nothing from GM's critics.

UK campaign group GM Watch published a photo of the wormy sweetcorn sign under the title 'Award for Fraud'. Following its expose, in May last year, the New Scientist carried demands from a researcher on scientific ethics at Cambridge University that the British Food Journal withdraw the paper.

The journal's editor refused, although he did print a letter condemning the paper alongside one from one of its authors, Douglas Powell of Kansas State University, dismissing the allegations. Powell said the signs were only up for a week, contained the language of consumers and were "not intended to manipulate consumer purchasing patterns".

Then, last month another of the paper's authors, Canadian government analyst Shane Morris, threatened a libel action against GM Watch's internet service provider.

Morris said the wormy signs had been taken down long before he joined the research team on 27 September 2000. He put two photos on his blog that he said showed the "wormy" sign had been removed and replaced.

But a computer scientist who saw the images disputed this. And a Toronto-based food policy expert, Dr Rod MacCrae, who visited the shop on September 27 2000, told the Eye: "All I can tell you is that a wormy corn sign looking very much like the one in GM Watch's photo, was there at the farm the day I visited."

Dr Richard Jennings, who lectures on scientific practice at Cambridge University, is adamant the paper should have been withdrawn. "The case is a flagrant fraud, as far as I see it. It was a sin of omission by failing to divulge information which quite clearly should have been disclosed." But then, if the researchers had disclosed the wormy corn labels, would any respected scientific journal have published it?

Comment from GM-free Ireland

Shane Morris is an Irish citizen employed by the Canadian Government to sabotage Ireland's GM-free policy. His most recent intervention involved threats of libel action against GM-free Ireland for exposing his misleading "scientific" paper. Although his work has been widely discredited, his letters to the editor continue to be printed in the Irish Farmers Journal and other newspapers (see next two items below).

For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris

27 September 2007

Ireland: GM technology gives more options

Irish Farmers Journal, 27 September 2007 (dated 29 September)

DEAR SIR,

As someone who in 1997 organised the first Irish public debate on GM crops, it is interesting to see the hardened anti-GM lobby remain closed minded to the scientific facts. Even though Professor Paddy Cunningham, the Irish Chief Science Adviser, is featured in the Irish Farmers Journal saying there are no known health concerns to GM food, we still have Nick Cullen and Con Cremin making scaremongering claims on GM food. It is reassuring to see, however, that Mr Cremin has moved from providing inaccurate and false scientific claims to providing inaccurate and false personal attacks, a sure sign of his weak argument. I am no fan of patents but I find it strange that Mr Cremin cites the Percy Schmeiser case as Mr Schmeiser clearly found GM traits quite attractive as evident by the Supreme Court of Canada ruling (paragraph 87) that states:

'Mr Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention. However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he next planted them; and why, through this husbandry, he ended up with 1030 acres (4.2 km) of Roundup Ready (GM) Canola which would otherwise have cost him $15,000.'

Mr Cullen's statement that 'All independent published studies have found reason for concern with GM products' is wholly incorrect. One example is that of German Government researchers from the Federal Institute of Organic Farming and the Institute of finimal Nutrition who published a study in the peer-reviewed journal, Animal Feed Science and Technology, stating: 'In agreement with more than 100 animal studies available to date, results [from 18 German Government studies] show no significant differences in the nutritional value of feeds from GM plants of the first generation in comparison with non-GM plant varieties. To date, no fragments of recombinant DNA have been found in any organ or tissue sample from animals fed GM plants' (Flachowsky et al, 2007). Agriculture innovative technologies provide farmers with options in today's constantly shifting market conditions.

GM technology is one such technology and, ultimately, farmers will have to make their own decisions on the adoption of such innovation into their own practices. However, those who wish to force their beliefs onto all Irish farmers, often based on scientific disinformation, do so at the expense of others' freedom to farm.

Shane Morris
6 Coolkill, Sandyford, Dublin 18 /
Woodford Way, Ottawa, ON Canada

Ireland: GM food claim is grossly misleading

Kilkenny Voice, letters to the editor, 28 September 2007. (Published 27 September)

[Photo of Noel Dempsey with caption: "Positive: Noel Dempsey says there should be no risk to health or the environment from GM organisms"]

Dear Editor,

JOHN Heney's suggestion that there is a current campaign to "literally force GM food down the throats of unwilling and unsuspecting Irish consumers" (The Kilkenny Voice, Sept 7,2007) is grossly misleading.

Minister Noel Dempsey, in 1999, spent time and Irish tax payers' money to hold a public consultation on GMOs, headed by no less than the Right Hon. Dr Turlough O'Donnell, Q.C, Member of the Law Reform Commission, and former Lord Justice of Appeal in Northern Ireland and former Chairman of the Bar Council of Northern Ireland. An RTE news cast on October 9, 1999, stated:

"The Minister for the Environment, Noel Dempsey, has said that, if Ireland operates a policy of transparency and scientific assessment with regard to genetically modified organisms, there should be no risk to health or the environment. Noel Dempsey has accepted as government policy a report published today, which rules out a ban on crop trials in this country, but stresses the need for full labelling of GM foods.

"The report also said that it would not be legally possible to ban trials of such crops here. The report also warns that, if Ireland rejects or ignores biotechnology, it will not remain attractive to investors in high-tech industries or competitive in food production.

"This report had been compiled by the chairing panel for the Government's first ever national debate on GMOs held earlier this year. The debate dealt with the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment, mainly through crops. Its conclusion is that it is not open to an individual EU member state to ban either field trials or the importation of genetically modified products approved at EU level."

The question that should be asked is: Did Noel Dempsey, in his discussions with the Greens, forget the conclusions of his own tax payer-supported public consultations?

Yours etc,

Shane Morris
6 Coolkill,
Sandyford,
Dublin 18.

Africa: Alliance for a Green Revolution - a Blunt Philanthropic Arrow

Fahamu (Oxford), 27 September 2007. By Nnimmo Bassey.

Rather than proposing techno-fixes to problems of agricultural development in Africa, donors could better assist in the development of rural infrastructure such as roads and water supplies, and education to empower the younger generation in the study of useful science. African farmers, along with peasants around the world, are seeking respect for their right to decide on what to plant and how to plant it, as well what to eat and how.

It is a common saying that when a man has a hammer in his hand every problem appears to be a nail. It takes a wise man to know that a hammer is just one of the tools in the craftsman's box. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation made money from technology. It is understandable that they should think that problems can always be solved with a technological fix. Nor is it surprising that the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations should plan to jointly plough $150,000,000 into their so-called Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). Tragically, the biotech solutions proposed by AGRA are likely to deepen rather than solve problems of hunger, poverty and malnutrition in Africa.

The Gates Foundation has recently taken on scientists from the biotech industry. It is expected to fund projects in areas such as biotechnology to improve seeds and crop yields; fertilizer, irrigation and other farm management systems; access to markets; and advocacy for improved agricultural policies. They may claim otherwise, but the idea of AGRA is anchored around agricultural modern biotechnology or genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Yet, genetically modified crops, on the admission of the US Department of Agriculture, do not give better yields than conventional crops. In addition, the plan's entire framework would turn African farm practices on their heads, wiping out local knowledge and creating more poverty, hunger and strange new diseases.

What is not being said is that people are not going hungry today because of insufficient food production. Indeed, it is generally agreed that there is enough food in the world to meet everyone's basic needs. An action plan adopted in March by ministers of the Economic Community of West African States admits that food production in West Africa has doubled over the last 20 years and that only 19 per cent of food needs are met from imports.

So what is the real reason behind the emphasis on biotechnology? The biotech industry has invested hugely in attempts to penetrate Africa - through food aid channels and other channels of assistance, as well as through commercial routes. However, the food aid channel blew up in the face of the industry and that of the World Food Programme in 2002 when Zambia rejected genetically modified corn as food aid.

AGRA's biotech thrust is wrong-headed: rather than solving problems of hunger and poverty in Africa, it will deepen them. Genetically modified crops create dependence on chemicals such as herbicides as some varieties are engineered to be herbicide tolerant, which often leads to the emergence of super-weeds. Efforts at popularising GMOs have been carried out by both USAID and the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture in circles that have excluded critical opinion. Wherever contrasting views have been elicited, local people and farmers generally reject this technology. AGRA's suggestion that Africa needs a 'green revolution' does not appear to have considered the many pitfalls of that revolution.

Efforts at introducing GMOs in Africa have so far yielded poor returns. To take just one example, that of cassava engineered to overcome the cassava leaf mosaic disease. This has so far failed. There are already non-GM varieties that do withstand the disease. Why waste resources that could be better used to strengthen agricultural production in Africa, drawing on the rich pool of local knowledge and ensuring food sovereignty, as demanded by farmers and civil society groups at the recent forum in Selingue, Mali? Africa is not seeking handouts in order to improve its agricultural production systems. And certainly not a push towards a so-called green revolution baptised in chemical fertilizers and other imported inputs. African farmers, along with peasants around the world, are seeking respect for their right to decide on what to plant and how to plant it, as well what to eat and how.

Agriculture means far more than the mechanical multiplication of seeds. It is the basis of the African's life. It provides the platform for cultural, religious, economic and even political relations. If the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations wish to extend the hand of fellowship to the African continent, they should move away from strategies that favour monoculture, lead to land-grabs, and tie local farmers to the shop-doors of biotech seed monopolies. Instead, they can assist in the development of rural infrastructure such as roads and water supplies, and education to empower the younger generation in the study of useful science.

This article was first published in Alliance [http://www.alliancemagazine.org/]

Nnimmo Bassey is Executive Director of Environmental Rights Action, Nigeria. http://www.eraction.org

EU: Cereal import duties could be suspended

Just-Food.com, 27 September 2007. By Monica Dobie.

Article summary:

The European Commission looks set to put forward a plan to suspend duties on cereal imports. EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel will shortly propose suspending EU import duties on cereals for the current marketing year - until June 30, 2008.

Read the article (requires subscription): http://www.just-food.com/article.aspx?ID=99845&lk=dm

Ireland: Cork City becomes a GMO-free zone
Minister for Food and Horticulture backs move
Top chefs and restaurants welcome recipe to protect food quality and traditions

GM-free Ireland press release, 27 September 2007.

The City of Cork is now a GMO-free zone, following a motion by Cork City Council on Monday which declares the area off-limits to the release of genetically modified seeds and crops. The decision follows similar motions adopted by Bantry and Clonakilty last year.

The Minister of State for Food and Horticulture, Trevor Sargent, said the move will help to protect the economic interest of Ireland's food and farming future as a clean green GM-free food island.

The City Council's decision was hailed by leading chefs and restaurateurs. "This is fantastic for Cork City", said Darina Allen, of Ballyamaloe Cookery School and Slow Food Ireland, adding "Let's follow-up by declaring the whole of Co. Cork as a GM-free zone".

Seamus O'Connell, presenter of the Soul Food TV programme, head chef at the Parknasilla Hotel, and owner of Cork's famed Ivory Tower restaurant, said "I am proud that the city in which I live and work has stood up to the agribusiness gombeens. It would make our children and grandchildren even prouder if Ireland as an island could have the vision to follow suit, create a haven for pure GM-free seeds and produce, and lead the way in research and management of the same".

Giana Ferguson of Slow Food Ireland, which protects and promotes local GM-free food and gastronomic traditions, also backed the decision. After hearing the news at her Gubeen Farm in Schull (famed for its organic cheese and vegetables and GM-free charcuterie), she said "We are delighted and proud of Cork City Council for taking this vital step to protect the future of Cork's artisanal food producers". Jaques and Eithne Barry of Jacques Restaurant said: "We are extremely pleased at this good news. Let's hope it helps us all to realise that Slow Food is better than fast food!"

Friends of the Irish Environment co-ordinator Tony Lowes, who is based in Alihies on the Beara Peninsula, welcomed the move as a step forward. He said "GM seeds or crops would contaminate Ireland's ecosystem in perpetuity. Cork City's protective measure should be extended as soon as possible to the whole of County Cork, in order to protect its unique biodiversity and National Parks."

The motion was tabled by Green Party Councillor Chris O'Leary, who said "this decision sends a strong message of support for Cork's food producers, food processors, restaurants and hotels, and will help position this whole area as an eco-tourism destination."

GM-free Ireland co-ordinator Michael O'Callaghan congratulated the City Council, and urged all Town and County Councils to declare themselves as GM-free zones without delay, to support the Government's policy goal to declare the whole island of Ireland as a GMO-free zone, in collaboration with the Northern Ireland Assembly.

GM crops are totally or partially banned by nine Governments, along with 236 Regional Governments, Local Authorities, and 4,500 smaller areas across 22 EU member states, plus Switzerland. GMO-free zones on this island of Ireland so far include Counties Cavan, Clare, Fermanagh, Kildare, Kerry, Meath, Roscommon, Monaghan, and Westmeath, the District of Newry & Mourne in counties Armagh and Down, and the towns of Bantry, Bray, Clonakilty, Cork City, Derry, Galway City, Letterkenny, and Navan, along with 1,000 smaller areas, representing over 1 million citizens on both sides of the border.

The WTO and the European Commission claim that national and regional blanket bans on GM crops are illegal. But an EU-wide campaign is underway for the European Commission to recognise the democratic legal right of member states and local authorities to have the final say in whether GM seeds and crops may be released in their areas.

Related links:

GM-free Ireland Network: http://www.gmfreeireland.org

GM-free zones in Ireland: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/map

GM-free zones in Europe: http://www.gmofree-europe.org

Contact:

Michael O'Callaghan
GM-free Ireland Network
Tel + 353 (0)404 43885
mobile: + 353 (0)87 799 4761
email: mail@gmfreeireland.org
web: http://www.gmfreeireland.org

EU: Back to the Commission for GM maize approval

FoodNavigator.com, 27 September 2007. By Alex McNally.

The European Commission will now make the final decision on whether to allow three new GM maize's onto the EU market after agricultural ministers failed to reach a majority vote in Brussels yesterday.

The stalemate highlights continued concern over GMs in Europe, and ministers are not yet won over to allowing them onto the market. The final approval will now go to the Commission to decide on later this year.

The Agriculture and Fisheries Council met to vote on whether to give the final authorisation for 59122 (Herculex), and the hybrids1507xNK603 and NK603xMON810 to come onto the market.

Previously all three had been given a favourable opinion by the European Food SafetyAuthority (EFSA) which is in charge of assessing GM products under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

The three products were seeking to be placed on the market to cover all uses except cultivation.

The issue of GM approval within the EU is one of the most contentious in agriculture. Many Member States, and millions of European consumers, remain steadfastly against the introduction of GM food. But despite the stringent controls in place, it is becoming harder for Europe's regulatory authorities to deny market access to certain GM products. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back was the WTO decision last year that the EU and six member states had broken trade rules by barring entry to GM crops and foods.

The world trade organisation agreed with the United States, Argentina and Canada that an effective moratorium on GMO imports between June 1999 and August 2003 had been put in place. And although Brussels again began authorising imports of GMOs in May 2004, only seven crops and foods were given the green light. Further bans were imposed by France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Luxembourg and Greece.

A Commission spokesperson said that for Wednesday's meeting they were unable to "disclose more information as far as the vote is concerned" when asked by FoodNavigator.com.

It is clear that Member States still need to be convinced that introducing genetically modified ingredients into food production is acceptable. The Commission has asked EU members over ten times to vote on authorising a GM food or feed product, but in the large majority of cases, there was no agreement or simple deadlock.

Luxembourg, Greece and Austria have in the past been some of the more staunch opponents consistently vote against GMO approvals.

The strains discussed yesterday are all said to be insect resistant and herbicide tolerant and were submitted by Pioneer Hibred and Mycogen for 59122 (Herculex) and 1507xNK603 and from US firm Monsanto Company for strain NK603xMON810.

Monsanto won permission last year to import and market three of its genetically modified maize types across the EU for 10 years.

The three products are GA21, a herbicide-resistant maize; MON 863, modified to be resistant to the corn rootworm insect and a hybrid cross between MON 863 and another Monsanto maize strain MON810. The strains were aimed to resits corn rootworm among other insects, which has earned the nickname the "billion-dollar pest" as the United States Department of Agriculture estimates that this pest causes $1 billion in lost revenue annually to the US corn crop alone.

The Agriculture and Fisheries council meeting was also due to discuss milk, wine and sugar production.

UK: Against the grain: 'Economics, not common sense, drives GM crops'
Dr Michael Antoniou argues that genetically modified crops are dangerous and unnecessary

The Independent, 27 September 2007. Interview by Nick Jackson.

Genetic modification technology is a great research tool but it's crude. Some scientists claim that GM is just an extension of natural evolution, a development of cross-breeding, but this is, technically, totally inaccurate. The way genetic modification has been used to manufacture GM crops causes thousands of changes in the DNA of the plants' cells, variations of a different quality and quantity to cross-breeding.

Some of these are benign, but some are going to disrupt one or more functions of the plant. So it may now be herbicide resistant, but unable to stand heat, its nutritional value may be lowered, known toxins increased, or even new toxins introduced into the plant.

This mutagenic effect is well known, research by the Food Standards Agency has found such disturbances in the patterns of gene function, but at the moment we are being too selective about what we are looking for, so the health consequences are completely unknown. The risks of releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment are widely accepted.

In the research I do using genetic modification there are regulatory requirements that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are only used in "contained use" conditions and are genetically crippled, so they cannot escape and interact with the environment. It's totally bizarre that these rules do not apply for the same kind of technology used in GM crops. What we are seeing here is the irresponsible releasing of GMOs in to the environment with unknown consequences. GM crops are not performing as expected: GM cotton suffered cotton ball and root problems while GM soya has shown consistently lower yields than non-GM equivalents.

And animal feeding studies have shown the potentially damaging effects of soya, maize and potatoes. GM potatoes have caused intestinal lesions; GM soya has caused liver cell changes and premature death in the young; GM maize has caused problems with the kidneys and the blood system. Mechanistically, we do not know why this is happening or what the consequences for human health are, but there are clear physiological changes that have been recorded. Once out there we cannot contain it.

We don't need GM crops. Crop genetic diversity is enormous and can be exploited through natural cross-breeding aided by modern genetic screening technologies. The problems we have in agriculture are social and political. What is driving GM crops is economics.

Germany: Eco-test finds GMOs in soy products including baby food and organics

GN-Free-world, 27 September 2007.
Message sent by Christiane L¸st, Aktion GEN-Klage, Germany
Abstract and translation: Giuseppina Pagano, Food & Water Watch

This is the result of a test carried out by the German magazine "Focus".

33 soy products were tested (3 packages of each product). In two thirds of all products tested there was at least one package per product that contained GMOs.

The highest value was found in powder food for babies with cow milk allergy.

It has not been sufficiently demonstrated yet what the exact impacts of GMOs are on human health. However, GMOs are under the suspicion of triggering allergies or even promoting antibiotic resistance, as many plants are engineered to be resistant to antibiotics.

Read the article: http://www.focus.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/news/oekotest_aid_133726.html

USA: Monsanto corn technology approved for innovative crop insurance program
Risk premiums could be up to 24 percent lower for farmers in four-state pilot

PR Newswire, 27 September 2007.

ST. LOUIS - A new pilot program recently approved by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) will provide farmers an opportunity to pay lower premiums if they plant a majority of their corn acres using hybrid seeds that feature YieldGard Plus(R) with Roundup Ready(R) Corn 2 or YieldGard VT Triple(TM) technology from Monsanto Company.

The insurance product will be offered as a pilot program in cooperation with Western Agriculture Insurance Company and will be called the Biotech Yield Endorsement (BYE). Western Agriculture Insurance will make the program available to all other approved insurance providers to offer to their farmer customers.

The pilot program will be initially available in four states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota. Implementation of BYE has yet to be determined pending available resources and priorities for the deployment and administration of the program by the Risk Management Agency (RMA).

To be eligible for the program, a farmer must plant 75 to 80 percent of their corn acres with seeds featuring YieldGard Plus with Roundup Ready Corn 2 or YieldGard VT Triple technology. Refuge requirements must also be respected. Depending on the grower's production history, amount of coverage purchased and other criteria, the farmer may be able to reduce the yield component of their premium up to 24 percent.

"As a technology provider, our goal is to create technologies that help farmers consistently deliver better yields, manage their production risk and capture more value from their corn fields," said Robb Fraley, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer for Monsanto Company. "This program recognizes the consistently high yields that farmers using our technologies are able to deliver. We're pleased farmers will be able to take advantage of this new insurance product."

Under adverse conditions, Monsanto "triple stack" technologies, or seeds that feature three biotechnology genes, have exhibited higher yields and lower yield risk than conventional hybrids without the technology. These triple stack technologies are widely available to farmers and can be purchased through more than 250 corn seed companies that license the technologies.

According to 2006 harvest figures from the National Corn Growers Association, the four pilot states accounted for more than 50 percent of the corn acres harvested for grain in the United States. In 2007 there were more than 90 million acres of corn planted overall, representing the largest crop since 1944.

Monsanto Company is a leading global provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural products that improve farm productivity and food quality. For more information on Monsanto, see http://www.monsanto.com.

Global enzyme growth driven by innovation

NutraIngredients.com, September 27 2007. By Lorraine Heller.

The global market for food and beverage enzymes is forecast to slow but remain strong, resulting mostly from expanding markets and applications, according to a new report by The Freedonia Group.

World Enzymes says the market will reach almost $1.2bn by 2011, following annual growth of almost eight percent.

The report divides the food and beverage enzyme market into three main categories: dairy, bakery and 'other food and beverage'.

In the dairy market - the largest category for food enzymes - the ingredients are used mainly for the production of cheese and the removal of lactose. However, this sector is expected to see only "moderate gains". In contrast, bakery enzymes will continue to post above average growth, along with other smaller applications such as fat and oil processing.

In the food and beverage industry, processors use enzymes as a 'natural' way to improve production efficiency, as well as food quality and consistency.

For example, they can be used as processing aids, where they may be directly involved in food transformation as with the use of chymosin for cheese production, or indirectly involved as with the use of pectinase for fruit juice clarification. Enzymes may also be added to processed foods to enhance certain characteristics or to act as flavor modifiers.

Although the report does not provide a break-down of the different enzymes within the food and beverage categories it examines, it nevertheless considers all of the major enzymes used by the industry today, said Freednoia analyst Ned Zimmerman.

These include naturally-occurring rennet enzymes, synthetic rennet enzymes (or chymosin), and lactase in the dairy sector, as well as amylase, lipase and xylanase in the bakery sector. In the 'other' sector, Freedonia includes protease (for meat, fish and high protein goods), pectinase (for fruit and vegetable products), lipase (for oilseed extraction), and a number of enzymes for alcoholic beverage production, such as alpha amylase, beta amylase and glucoamylase.

Zimmerman told FoodNavigator-USA.com that although the report does not examine enzyme prices, there is an overall trend of downward pricing pressures.

This is because of increasing competition, increasing consolidation in the food and beverage industry, particularly in developed regions, and constant pressure from customers to keep prices down, he said.

According to Freedonia, the use of enzymes allows food and beverage processors avoid using traditional chemical additives viewed as 'artificial' by consumers.

However, another challenge faced by food companies is a growing consumer resistance to any GMO-derived ingredients, and this is forecast to restrain market growth as processors "proceed cautiously", says the report.

The same concerns have led to a resurgence in demand for naturally-sourced enzymes, that can avoid the "GMO stigma". For example, in the case of the dairy enzyme chymosin, which is used to coagulate cheese, the natural enzyme in the form of rennet (derived from calves' stomachs) has experienced a resurgence in popularity in several parts of Western Europe, including Germany, said Freedonia.

The new report reveals that one primary driving force for growth of enzymes is expanding demand from manufacturers seeking more effective ingredients for specific applications.

However, Freedonia notes that enzymes that have undergone some form of optimization to improve performance or properties - such as stability at higher temperatures or greater activity at lower temperatures - cannot exist in a naturally-derived version.

"Such enzymes are inherently derived from GMOs, and despite their great value and usefulness, would also be considered undesirable food ingredients by many consumers," writes the report.

Freedonia's new report, which examines the global market for enzymes used in all industries, is divided into two main sectors: Specialty Enzymes - which includes pharmaceutical, diagnostic and biocatalyst enzymes - and Industrial Enzymes - which includes food and beverage enzymes, and enzymes for detergents and bioethanol.

The total food and beverage enzyme market makes up just under 40 percent of the Industrial Enzyme category, which in turn constitutes 57 percent of the overall enzyme market.

The leading global enzyme manufacturer is Novozymes, which holds 26 percent of the total enzyme market and 46 percent of the industrial enzyme market.

Other enzyme producers are Danisco, Genzyme, Roche, Allergan, DSM, and BASF, with a combined 36 percent share of the market.

26 September 2007

EU: Biotech maize blocked in Europe

Associated Press, 26 September 2007

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM - Agriculture ministers from 10 EU countries on Wednesday blocked approval of three genetically modified varieties of maize for use on the European market, reflecting continued deep divisions among EU nations over whether biotech crops pose a risk to human or animal health.

The products had been given the all-clear by the EU's food safety authority, EFSA, which said they would not have adverse effects on health or the environment.

Diplomats said Austria, Malta, Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania and Luxembourg voted against, while France and Italy abstained, ensuring a deadlock. Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden led the group of biotech crop supporters.

The failure to reach agreement means it will be left to the EU's executive commission to approve the three products, which it is expected to do in the coming weeks.

Two of the GM crops were jointly developed and marketed by U.S. companies Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., a division of Dupont Co., and Mycogen Seeds.

Their maize products are designed to resist insects like the corn rootworm and be tolerant to herbicides. The third maize product, developed by U.S. biotech firm Monsanto Co., is also insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant.

All three products are meant to be used in food and animal feed production but not used for cultivation in the EU.

The European Commission has been trying to get all EU governments on side to open up the EU market to more biotech crops, something the United States, Canada and others have demanded.

The EU ended a six-year moratorium on accepting applications for new biotech products in May 2004, introducing strict approval procedures and labeling regulations, but several EU nations remain reluctant to authorize biotech crops because of public health and environmental concerns.

EU: Biotech lobbies against environmental protection laws

The Ecologist, 26 September 2007.

The GM industry is lobbying against EU directive which would make polluters pay for damage caused to biodiversity and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, a leading protester has revealed.

Writing in the Guardian's 'Society' supplement, GeneWatch researcher Becky Price reports that biotech companies have lodged complaints against closing two loopholes in the proposed Environmental Liability Directive (ELD).

The first loophole would allow a biotech company whose crop had caused environmental damage to claim that they had obtained a 'permit to release' the organism, and the second, that the state of scientific knowledge at the time of the crop trial did not predict a dangerous outcome.

'If the biotech companies have confidence in their industry,' writes Price, 'are happy with current safety assessments, and are keen to win over a distrustful public, why are they so reluctant to take responsibility for environmental damage?'

Since the ELD would only legislate against 'significant adverse effects' upon species, Price argues that the new lobbying indicates a fear within the biotech industry itself over the potential harm its products may cause.

UK: GM industry should put its money where its mouth is

The Guardian, Wednesday September 26, 2007. BY Becky Price/

One of the big issues around the introduction of GM crops is people's lack of trust in biotechnology companies. During the farm-scale evaluations, representatives of companies such as Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto attended hundreds of meetings in village halls and told the British public that genetically modified crops and foods were safe, that they should not be scared of new technology. The people who attended those meetings are entitled to be puzzled. Why is the industry now refusing to take responsibility for the safety of their products?

In 2004, the EU signed up to a new environmental liability directive (ELD), the main aim of which was to make the polluter pay for damage caused to biodiversity and protected nature sites. Many of the arguments during its development have been about the definition of environmental damage and under what circumstances the polluter would actually have to pay. The directive is now in the process of being incorporated into UK law by the government. There has been a first consultation, and the government's response is expected soon, with a second consultation on technical aspects of implementation. The government's initial reluctance to go beyond the minimum requirements was widely criticised by MPs, regulators and environmental groups. It now seems likely that ministers will give more weight to the environment - for example, by including harm to nationally important sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs).

However, biotech companies are fighting hard to keep two important loopholes in case GMOs cause environmental harm. They would be able to argue that, first, they held a permit to release the GMO and, second, that the state of scientific knowledge did not predict a harmful outcome at the time the crop was planted. Allowing these defences would mean that the taxpayer, not the company, would pay if GM crops damaged a protected site or species.

And this is where we are confused: the industry has spent 10 years trying to win over a distrustful public, and yet in the latest Europe-wide opinion poll on biotechnology, 52% of people in the UK still oppose GM crops (Eurobarometer 2005). If biotech companies have confidence in their industry, are happy with current safety assessments, and are keen to win over a distrustful public, why are they so reluctant to take responsibility for environmental damage?

The ELD covers only serious harm to important habitats and species - for example, "significant adverse effects on reaching or maintaining the favourable conservation status" of an already protected species. Furthermore, it would have to be demonstrated that the harm was caused by a specific GM crop. Under the European regulations on GM crops, applicants must also submit a monitoring plan that should identify any "unexpected" problems at an early stage.

GeneWatch can conclude only that, despite the rhetoric, the biotech industry - as shown in a recent report by the UK's Central Science Laboratory - recognises that we don't yet fully understand the long-term, cumulative effects of GM crops on our environment. It appears to be happy to tell us that its crops are safe, but not to put its money where its mouth is.

- Becky Price is a researcher with GeneWatch UK

- Email your comments to society@guardian.co.uk. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication"

EU ministers deadlocked on three GMO maize approvals

Reuters, 26 September 2007. By Jeremy Smith.

BRUSSELS - EU farm ministers fell short of a consensus agreement on Wednesday to allow imports of three genetically modified (GMO) maize types, again revealing their deep differences on GMO crops and foods, officials said.

The three biotech maize types, two of them hybrids, would be imported for processing, for all food and feed uses. They are not meant to be cultivated within the 27-country European Union. Since the ministers failed to achieve the required majority under the EU's weighted voting system, the decision now passes to the European Commission, which should issue a rubberstamp authorisation according to EU legal procedures.

This usually means a 10-year default approval is issued within a few weeks, although EU officials said the authorisations might take a little longer this time.

"There was no change in the positions ... the authorisations revert to the Commission for a final decision," a Commission official told reporters on the margins of the meeting.

"The Commission will in the coming weeks revisit the issue and take a decision. It may take a couple of months," he said.

The first GMO maize, known commercially as Herculex RW and also by its code name 59122, is jointly made by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a subsidiary of DuPont Co. (DD.N: Quote, Profile, Research), and Dow AgroSciences (DOW.N: Quote, Profile, Research) unit Mycogen Seeds.

Herculex is designed to protect against larval stages of corn rootworm, which eats through plant roots and so reduces yield and nutrients. It also resists the active herbicide ingredient glusofinate ammonium.

The same two companies also developed a maize hybrid called 1507/NK603, engineered to resist field pests like the European corn borer, and also the herbicides glufosinate and glyphosate. Corn borers, which attack the plant stalks and kernels, are found across Europe and thrive in warmer climates in southern EU countries such as Spain and Italy.

The third GMO maize is also a hybrid, developed by U.S. biotech company Monsanto (MON.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and called MON810/NK603. The maize plants resist certain insects and also glyphosate -- the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

Industry urges quick approval

For many years, EU countries have not been able to gain the majority needed to vote through a new GMO approval under the EU's weighted voting system. But that may be slowly changing. Analysis of recent GMO voting patterns shows that the consistent blocking minority of EU governments may be eroding as some smaller countries are opting to abstain rather than reject an application outright -- so weakening the anti-GMO camp. "It is heartening that the great majority of member states representing a large and significant majority of the EU population are consistently voting positively for approving biotech products that have been evaluated as safe by the EFSA (EU's food safety authority), said Mike Hall, Pioneer's communications manager for Europe.

"We urge the Commission to move swiftly in giving the final approval ... so that European farmers can import grain and other products containing these safe biotech events," he said. Some countries, like Britain, Finland and the Netherlands, almost always vote in favour of approving new GMOs. They are offset by a group of GMO-sceptic states like Austria, Greece and Luxembourg, which vote against and force a stalemate.Ý

Argentina Pampas Crops Threatened By Glyphosate-Resistant Weed

Dow Jones Newswires, September 26 2007

BUENOS AIRES -(Dow Jones)- Glyphosate-resistant weeds have spread throughout much of Argentina's Pampas, threatening to drive up the cost of growing soybeans and other crops genetically modified for resistance to the herbicide, Daniel Ploper, plant pathologist for the national food and animal health inspection service, or Senasa, in Tucuman Province said Wednesday.

"Isolated cases have been confirmed in Salta, Tucuman, Corrientes, Santiago del Estero, Cordoba and Santa Fe provinces," Ploper said. The glyphosate- resistant weed, known as sorghum halepense, or "Johnson Grass," had previously been confirmed only in Salta and Tucuman provinces.

The government has launched a number of projects to control the spread of the weed, including the use of herbicides other than glyphosate and attempting to mandate cleaning of harvest machinery to prevent spreading the weed between fields, Ploper said.

In addition, Cordoba province Congressman Alberto Cantero introduced a bill this week aimed at eradicating the glyphosate-resistant weed.

Last year, some 120,000 hectares were effected by the resistant weed, according to Cantero. "The invasion is developing rapidly and we are possibly in the beginning phases of the (widespread presence) of this plague," Cantero said in the bill.

The spread of the resistant Johnson Grass could increase agricultural production costs by 500 million to 3 billion Argentine pesos ($160-$950 million) per year, according to Cantero. Combatting the strain will require the use of 25 million liters of herbicides other that glyphosate each year, he said.

"This could double herbicide costs in the effected areas," Senasa's Ploper said.

Around 98% of Argentina's soy crop comes from seeds developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto Company (MON). The soybeans have been genetically modified to resist the herbicide Roundup, generically known as glyphosate. The herbicide is applied to eliminate competing plant species and thus increase output per hectare.

In addition, at the end of August the government approved Monsanto's bundled MG and RR2 transgenic corn seed variety for planting in the 2007-08 season. The seeds are genetically modified to produce a substance toxic to corn borer parasites and for glyphosate resistance.

Monsanto has a small amount of the seeds ready for this year's crop, which will be used to test the technology, Monsanto Argentina spokesman Federico Ovejero said.

The company claims the new variety may boost corn yields by 5-7%. The seeds are expected to be widely used across the Pampas, further adding to the country's heavy reliance on glyphosate.

Monsanto's shares hit an all-time high Wednesday after a top executive said that within the next decade, the agriculture and biotechnology giant could triple the number of acres outside the U.S. being planted with its genetically engineered seeds.

"Strong global adoption of our proven traits coupled with recent approvals paves the way for expanded growth and sets the stage for new growth, as we look to stack and upgrade these products in the coming years," said Brett Begemann, executive vice president of Monsanto's global commercial business.

Argentina figures big in those plans, despite a bitter conflict over royalty fees. The company has been struggling for years to collect royalties on soybean seeds containing its gene for glyphosate resistance, which it introduced in 1996. However, the company has been unable to obtain a patent on the seeds or collect royalties from the majority of farmers.

The company has vowed not to make the same mistake with its second generation of Roundup Ready soybeans, which are easily held over and replanted. Transgenic corn seeds tend to lose their traits through the generations, ensuring that farmers will return to the company for seed supplies.

Only the U.S. produces more genetically modified crops than the South American country. Argentina has more than 17 million hectares dedicated to the production of transgenic crops, according to the International Service for the Acquisition Agri-Biotech Applications, or Isaaa, a non-governmental organization dedicated to the promotion of agricultural biotechnology.

After their introduction, Monsanto's beans quickly came to dominate Argentina's crop as they allowed more no-till farming, thus conserving topsoil and moisture and boosting yields. The country is now the world's third-ranked soybean producer and exporter and the leading soymeal and soyoil exporter.

However, there are concerns that other weed varieties resistant to glyphosate will develop due to the repeated use of the herbicide across Argentina's Pampas each season.

"We were actually surprised that it took so long (for the resistant Johnson Grass) to appear," Ploper said.

Signs of glyphosate-resistant sorghum halepense were first detected in 2004, according to the Argentine Fertilizer and Agrochemical Industry Chamber, or CIAFA.

The glyphosate-resistant strain developed through the process of natural selection following years of glyphosate spraying, according to Armando Allinghi, agricultural engineer at CIAFA.

Sorghum halepense may have originated in the Mediterranean area. The plant is known as "Johnson Grass" in the U.S., named after Col. William Johnson, who introduced it to Alabama in the 1840s for use as animal feed. It was introduced to Argentina for the same reasons and rapidly became a pest as took to the Pampas with a vengeance.

"It is one of the worst weeds ... (affecting) ... the subtropics throughout the world," according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N.

- By Shane Romig, Dow Jones Newswires; 54-11-4314-2757; shane.romig@ dowjones.com

Ireland: Sargent's major opportunity

Irish Farmers Monthly, 1 October (published 26 September) 2007.

A former school teacher whose interest in environmental issues led him to join the Green Party in 1982, Trevor Sargent was first elected to the Dublin North constituency in 1992. Later becoming leader of the party, he stepped down from the position in 2007 to make good a pre-election promise that he would not lead his party into coalition with Fianna Fail. Now Minister of State for Food and Horticulture, Minister Sargent's priorities in office reflect his interests outside it, particularly with regard to organic and local food and the environment. He recently spoke to Donal Nugent about his vision for Irish agriculture over the coming five years.

Is the learning curve of being a minister of state what you expected?

It is really. I've been in opposition, dealing with agncuture for many years. The development of agriculture, particularly given the challenges we face as a country, is a particular passion of mine. Agriculture is extremely dependent on us being able to work within the new reality of oil not being availble to us as it has been, and the impact that this will have on agri-chemical inputs, on transportation and now the race to produce as much biofuel as the Americans are looking for - and how that effects feed prices. This informs my passion for local food, for local markets and for organic farming which doesn't require the same level of agri-chemical input and energy consumption. I'm also concerned about using water more efficiently given that it's going to be a major player in the future of agricultural development.

With that in mind what specific policy goals have you set for yourself over the term of office?

First and foremost, there's a Government commitment to grow the acreage of farmland in organic production - which currently is 0.8 per cent - to five per cent and that ambitious target would take us just above the European average. Austria currently has about 11 per cent so it's not an overly ambitious target but it does require changes and a greater level of conversion, and part of REPS will help farmers considering going organic to convert with the necessary financial supports.

What is fundamentally stopping Irish farmers from copying their Austrian counterparts? Is it a cultural issue or a financial one?

It's quite complex and I suppose there are as many reasons as there are people. Role models are very important. When a number of larger farmers convert to organic, other farmers who look up to those farmers start to take note and that's what's happening. It's a fact of life, and it's a good thing, that you have to be a good farmer to be an organic farmer. It is the top farmers who are the best organic farmers and I can see that happening when I go around on the Teagasc farm walks. Organic famers are getting a good premium for their products because the markets are there. The meat factories cannot get enough organic lifestock to meet demand. So there are opportunities.

Green Party agricultural policy talks about legislating for supermarkets to buy locally produced food. But in an open market that isn't a realistic proposition. Besides encouraging consumers to shop locally there isn't much more you can do, is there?

1 agree that persuasion is probably a better route and persuading people that it's in their own interest as retailers to support local producers, that's probably a better way of supporting the local economy. And I have been doing that. I have been directly contacting the main supermarkets and have met with a number of them to date and, particularly in the wake of the bad weather this summer, a lot of the vegetable growers in the country have had a very difficult time. The price being paid to growers needs to be realistic given that there will be a lower yield. The point I've been making is that a larger percentage of the shelf price has to go to the grower if there is to be a grower in the future. That point has to be got across, and I think it is getting across, but it requires the consumer's support as well. We live in a free market and the customer is king. If the customer decides they are going to be buying strawberries and tomatoes in January then they are indirectly saying they can do without the Irish grower and that means they are completely vulnerable to the import price What I'm saying - and I've been putting out statements to this effect - is that this month (September) there is no excuse for Irish people not to be buying all Irish produce. The full range is there and they should be checking that labelling reflects that.

It's a very positive message from our perspective but how do you square that with the fact that Ireland needs to be a successful exporter in the global market?

Ireland has a climate which makes it possible to be an exporter. Other countries have climates that require them to be importers, as well as large populations that need to be fed, and so it's quite normal for us to be taking advantage of that. I'm adamant we should take advantage of the high end of the market and ensure our exports get a good price. As an island country we should be playing to our strengths.

The supermarkets in France like Carrefour and Monoprix, for example, are indicating clearly that their top lines, in the area of meat for example, are fed on non GM [genetically modified] feed. This is an issue of strategic importance if Ireland is to maintain its strength as a food exporting country in competition with the cheaper products coming from South America for example.

Your perspective on GMOs hasn't changed over the years then? You are adamant that Ireland should remain GM free?

I genuinely bebve that, in the interests of this country and farming in this country, we need to focus on the high end of the market and to ensuring we get the maximum premium for our food. If we slip into an acceptance that we'll take whatever is cheapest as inputs then we cannot sell our products at the highest level of the market, because we will be found wanting if others can deliver an even higher standard. I don't want to compromise Ireland's ability to benefit from the high premium price that's paid for non GM produce. I realise the market is dominated by the US which, because of its policy to produce biofuels will, by 2020, no longer be in a position to export grain. If we lock ourselves into a policy of accepting that we can no longer be GM free, then other countries that have managed to stay GM free will overtake us in terms of the top price being paid for GM-free produce by retailers like Coop Italia and Monoprix and some of the UK chains.

Support for biofuels is part of Green policy but does the downside of it concern you ? that it will lead to increased food prices?

Worldwide, it's certainly going to increase the cost of food. Grain is going to be syphoned off for biofuel production and land is going to be used for biomass production. It really points to an urgent need for us to grow more tillage. I know grain prices are leading a lot of famers in that direction, where they have the opportunity and their land is suited to tillage. I've met with a number of the farm organisations. I'm looking to support farmers that are able to grow more tillage so we have have a greater capability for self reliance in grain. Ultimately, imports in food are going to go up in price. Energy is getting more expensive and transport is getting more expensive. It really does point to a need lor greater self reliance in our own food supply and a greater diversity in food production which we can substitute for imports.

We have in Ireland a huge waste management issue both in the food industry and other sectors of society. In some cases we're exporting waste to Germany to be incinerated. The Green Party is opposed to incineration but this is how it's ultimately being dealt with. What proposals do you have to solve this problem?

Most agricultural waste is easily disposed of if the proper disposal techniques are used, such as anaerobic digestion, composting and it can turn waste ito a resource if it's properly done. We did have a bit of a set back in the anaerobic digestor sector following BSE because there was a ban on using SRM but anaerobic digestion, over all, taking account what can be put in, is very under-utilised in this country. There's a huge amount of nitrogen-rich waste that could be used to make methane.

Does your Department have a role in guiding policy in that and, if so, will you play it?

I certainly will and I'll be working closely with the Minister for the Environment who has a regulatory role in that regard too. It is in everyone's interest, farmers included.

I've been going around the country looking at best practice in this regard. In Camphill in Kilkenny, a number of farms are feeding slurry into a methane digestor and it's a great bonus to the community.

The locals are getting heating and the farmers are getting a product which can be returned to the land. I'd say, in relation to incineration, one of the principles behind good waste management is the proximity issue, essentially that can mean composting taking place close to home, in the case of someone in the town or city in their back garden if they have one. An incinerator needs a far larger quantity of waste and it is not prudent to have a large number of incinerators around the country that need a critical mass in order to stay efficient. A number of the incinerators that are taking Irish hazardous waste overseas actually want that waste to have a critical mass to work efficiently. If we had a similar type of toxic incinerator we also, from time to time, would be importing waste and how does that tie in with our stated national objective as marketing Ireland as a clean, green country? I have to protect that status and I make no apologies for it.

France is one of the key users of incinerator technology in mainland Europe. I don't think anyone would criticise French food as a result of it. Do you think the two are necessarily opposed to one another?

France is not principally a food exporter. We are. Whereas the French may be happy to eat their foods and have great markets and a lot to teach us about marketing food locally, we, as a food exporting country, have to be very careful that we maintain market advantage. There are food buyers who will specify that the source of food needs to be be beyond reproach so we can compete better when we can give these assurances about our dioxin levels and so on.

There are a lot of success stories in our prepared food sector but local food producers often have suspicions about processed food. You as a Green minister might have your sympathies somewhere in between. How do you support the industry as it progresses?

A great deal of food safety legislation rests with the Food Safety Authority. The area that I would be pushing strongly to make sure it is enforced is labelling legislation. Last July, legislation came in requiring labelling ot country of origin in relation to beef. There are still many examples of restaurants around the country that don't have the country of origin of beef on their menus. I'll be writing to the Minister of Health asking that the FSA redoubles its effort to enforce labelling regulations.

I am a great supporter of the artisan sector and there has been progress made to be ensure that food safety standards are high, while not being unrealistic. It has to be within what is feasible for someone on a small operation. The French have a lot to teach us in this regard in being pragmatic rather than over-regulating.

The farmers' market sector and the artisan sector are exciting and offer an alternative but can they ever be as significant a channel of food as the supermakets?

There is a place for both. What a farmers' market does is not just satisfy customer desire to know where food comes from but also offers a knock-on effect to retailers. They create a buzz above and beyond the normal retailing enviroment. They also, which is often easy to forget, provide a very useful market research opportunity for farmers who are able to assess from customer reactions how they might develop their business in other ways. Quite a few people who started off in farmer's markets have developed businesses out of that and I really think that is an important element of the sector.

Both BIM and Bord Bia are among the state agencies earmarked for decentralisation. In the former, there is certainly resistance within the organisation to the proposed move. Is decentralisation something you support?

I support negotiated change so there is no loss of efficiency in the organisations and so they are able to develop and people can work where they choose to work but that's the essence of it - it should be negotiated. Decentralisation as a policy needs to, first and foremost, focus on the decentralisation of decision making and that's something that needs to happen at a local authority level more than any other level.

My colleague John Gormley as Minister for the Environment is spearheading reform in that area that will be the most genuine kind of decentralisation at local authority level.

Is there any particular goal you feel you will have had to achieve for your term of office to be a success?

There are a few. I would like to see direct sales and farmers' markets being available to all farmers in towns and villages throughout Ireland and a much greater sense of an Irish and regional food culture which, in turn, would be the catalyst for value-added food production and a greater number of artisan food producers and a greater amount of producer development that would keep us competing in the high value end of the international maker. I would also hope that would be helped by advocacy of our GM free island status as we would have some advantage over countries whose consumers may want to be GM free but whose industry may find it difficult to gurarantee that status. As part of the genuine marketing of Ireland as a clean, green food island I'd hope a larger amount of food could be grown organically to satisfy the organic markets, which is far greater than we can supply at the moment.

Monsanto Wants to Triple Biotech Acres

Associated Press, September 26 2007

ST. LOUIS (AP) - Monsanto Co. predicted Wednesday it could triple the amount of farming acres planted worldwide with its genetically engineered seeds.

The world's biggest seed maker has seen its overseas sales hindered over the last decade as countries resist biotech crops, derided as franken foods by critics who have blocked their export from the United States.

But Monsanto is paving the way to increase acres planted with its biotech seeds from 95 million today to 270 million, said Brett Begemann, Monsanto's executive vice president of global commercial business.

"Strong global adoption of our (seeds) coupled with recent approvals paves the way for expanded growth and sets the stage for new growth as we look to stack and upgrade these products in the coming years," Begemann told a group of stock analysts and investors at the Credit Suisse Chemicals Conference held in New York.

Monsanto's stock jumped $2.91, or 3.6 percent, to close at a new 52-week high of $83.75 Wednesday.

The overall number of acres planted in biotech seeds has increased in recent years, according to the Biotechnology Industry Organization trade group. Global biotech crop acreage increased 13 percent between 2005 and 2006, growing from 222 million acres to 252 million acres, according to the group.

That doesn't mean grass-roots resistance to the crops will stop, said Laurel Hopwood, chairwoman of the Sierra Club's biotechnology committee. Hopwood said she gets e-mails from activists around the globe who want to slow the spread of biotech seeds.

"It's very clear that people don't want it," Hopwood said. "I would call Monsanto's press release industry spin."

Hopwood said the Sierra Club will continue to lobby in Washington for more safety testing of biotech crops along with labeling any foods that contain them. She said the group's ultimate goal is to win a moratorium on any biotech crops being planted.

In outlining Monsanto's growth opportunities, Begemann highlighted Monsanto's corn seed business, which has gained market share in 2007 in Europe, Argentina, India and South Africa. He said Monsanto continues to expect international corn seed sales to grow at a rate of 1 to 2 percent annually through the end of the decade.

Begemann said Brazil will be a hot spot for sales growth after Monsanto's purchase of the Agroeste seed company. The acquisition boosts Monsanto's market share in Brazil to 40 percent. That will give Monsanto the outlets it needs to introduce new strains of crops like YieldGard Corn Borer, he said.

Monsanto has increasingly invested in "advanced breeding" techniques to develop new crops without genetic engineering. Instead, the company uses gene markers and advanced computers to rapidly breed plants with desirable traits.

The new breeding program could make it easier to introduce crops in countries where resistance to genetic engineering remains strong.

UK: Bluetongue top of agenda at EFSA visit

National Farmers Union press release, 26 September 2007.

BLUETONGUE was top of the agenda when National Farmers' Union vice-president, Paul Temple, visited the European Food Standards Agency this week.

Genetically Modified food and pesticides were also discussed at the EFSA headquarters in Italy on Thursday.

The visit came soon after EFSA published a key statement about food produced by animals fed on genetically modified feed. The research showed there was no DNA from GM feed in the final meat, milk and eggs products tested.

The report, welcomed by the NFU, is the result of research called for following a petition on GM food labelling to the European Commission. It reinforces the current EU legal position.

Mr Temple said: "We welcome this clear, unequivocal statement from EFSA. It gives us strong justification for our own policy on food labelling - products that do not contain any transgenic material from GM feed should not be labelled as GM, just because the process involved GMOs.

"Such labelling could be dangerous and misleading. Tests show DNA from GM plants fed to animals can not be detected so labelling could not be verified."

24 September 2007

Ireland: Letter to Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food - Mary Coughlan
and Minister of State for Food and Horticulture - Trevor Sargent

From Oisín Ó Conail, Wexford Flower and Foliage Producers Group

24 September 2007

As an Irish farmer (and member of the IFA), I would like to strongly encourage you to continue to act against GMO's becoming State-sanctioned here, in any form.

This is not simply about possible health effects down the road; the entire patenting system in this area is becoming little more than a form of transnational protectionism in favour of corporate, oligopolistic cartels.

I am not against technology, nor against entrepreneurs or companies reaping a reward for introducing worthwhile innovations. However, as both a farmer and a businessman, I severely question the motives, methods and results of current "innovation" by biotech and agribusiness companies. These seem to have more to do with "locking in" agricultural producers (e.g. farmers) into what economists would call "path dependency" - a production system determined by previous choices; in this case, by choices of seed, chemical supplies and physical and financial capital investment (often promoted forcefully by State and institutional actors). And these choices are becoming increasingly rigged; for example, we are not even allowed to save seed - even if the variety is a common heritage belonging to no one!

This has less to do with offering choice, and more to do with making it difficult for producers to operate outside of the increasingly vertically-integrated corporate giants of food production world-wide. And I am not against "bigness" in itself; but the term "economies of scale" has become a clichÈ - it is not an iron law, only a variable tendency; if "bigness" is effectively subsidised by Single-Farm payments that are almost entirely passed-on to pay for patented, licensed and path-dependent (or petroleum-based) inputs, it is more likely that we are witnessing state-protected diseconomies of scale. This is not even counting socially- (i.e. tax-) funded transportation infrastructure such as motorways which enable lower average costs for "scaled up" distribution networks.

But if corporate giants are operating in a fixed market (e.g. No competing traditional varieties of seed allowed to be saved and sold),  reand legally empowered to bully and threaten anyone whose seed stock is invaded - even by natural processes! - by patented genetic material, this cannot be regarded as an open market; this instead is arguably just high-tech feudalism.

Aside from health issues, aside from political economy: at a time of ballooning debt, climate change, and at the mid-point of global oil production, is this really wise? To effectively promote decreasing diversity in food production techniques, against long-established and sturdy strains, and in favour of high-bred and engineered varieties that cannot survive in the wild without intense inputs of cartelised seed, petrochemicals, and borrowed capital?

Oisín Ó Conail
email: oisin(at)wexfordfoliage(dot)com

EU: Grain prices could fall as EU mulls reform

Just-Food.com, 24 September 2007.

Grain input prices could fall for European food manufacturers because of a European Commission proposal to temporarily scrap EU limits on grain production.

See full article (requires subscription): http://www.just-food.com/article.aspx?ID=99721&lk=dm

21 September 2007

Ireland: Public still views GM foods with suspicion
The Chief Scientific Adviser highlights the sharp divergence between the scientific evidence and the public perceptions of GM foods.

Irish Medical Times, 21 September 2007.

The Chief Scientific Adviser highlights the sharp divergence between the scientific evidence and the public perceptions of GM foods.

Scientific research to date has uncovered no significant negative health effects from GM foods - despite ongoing public concern that such foods may be harmful, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, Prof Patrick Cunningham, said last week.

"Repeated surveys show that over 70 per cent of European citizens are against Genetically Modified (GM) food. This reality cannot be ignored," Prof Cunningham said at the National Conference of the Agricultural Science Association in Trim.

"At the same time, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that food derived from GM crops, or from animals fed on GM feeds, is safe.

"GM crops and GM foods continue to be one of the most contentious public issues in European society," Prof Cunningham continued.

Obvious benefits

"While there are obvious technical and economic benefits, there is widespread apprehension about the technology due to concerns over the perceived risk to human health, environmental impact, potential to increase the power of multinational corporations, deterioration in food quality, threat to traditional farming and rural society, and general moral acceptability."

He noted the contrast between scientific and public opinion. "Three key sources of scientific research results in relation to GM foods are the Royal Society (UK), the Academie des Sciences (France) and the National Research Council (US). All of these have concluded that GM foods are safe.

Believed danqerous

"However, a Eurobarometer survey of 2003 showed that 56 per cent of Europeans believe GM foods to be dangerous, 70 per cent 'do not want this type of food' and 95 per cent want labelling and the right to choose.

"While scientific research has not uncovered any health impact, very little of the literature actually deals with health effects," the professor continued.

"Most of the published research on GM - over 30,000 papers - concerns development of the technology with less than i per cent dealing with health aspects."

Furthermore, no research on safety aspects of GM has yet been conducted in Ireland. "We could take a lead in Europe by commissioning additional research to address this. Prof Cunningham pointed out that we already have in place a framework to support such scientific research, the Food Institutional Research Measure (FIRM). FIRM is the primary national funding mechanism for food research in third level colleges and Teagasc food research centres. Ireland is working to become a European leader in scientific research, and this area offers an excellent opportunity to provide a valuable service to the Irish and European public on an issue of real public concern."

Referring to the idea that Ireland be declared GM-free, he said: "This could possibly have advantages in marketing the ?8 bilion of food products that we export.

"However, in order to realise this objective, a number of formidable challenges would have to be overcome. The first is that, as Austria and Italy have found, declaring a region GM free may conflict with EU rules permitting authorised GM varieties to be grown.

"The second is that, with effectively open borders between North and South, it would require a declaration in two jurisdictions. And the third is that with GM corn and soybean constituting a growing proportion of global supplies of these two crops, and with Ireland needing to import some two million tonnes per annum of such feed grains for its pig, poultry and dairy sectors, it will be increasingly difficult to source a GM-free feed supply."

20 September 2007

France moves towards a freeze on growing GM crops

Le Monde, 20 September 2007. By Christophe Jakubyszyn and Herve Kempf.

The French government is planning to seriously reduce the spread of GMOs (genetically modified organisms). In the context of the "Grenelle of the environment" it is preparing a freeze on the commercialisation of GM seeds, whilst authorising the continuation of laboratory research.

Jean-Louis Borloo, minister for ecology, development and sustainable management, confided this information to a group of majority parliamentarians whom he invited on Monday 17 September. The minister confirmed to Le Monde : "Everyone is in agreement on the GM issue: it is not possible to control their spread. So we will not take the risk."

This decision is one of the elements which will allow M. Borloo to obtain a general compromise during the Grenelle round-table which will take place at the end of October.

Although this position is still not official, it demonstrates the progress made by the group "OGM du Grenelle de l'environnement". This group, which will meet again on 21 September, is led by Jean-Francois Le Grand (UMP senator for la Manche). He has already been working on the principles of a new law on GMOs which would make growing them more difficult and restrict authorisations more rigorously than at present.

"I have had several conversations with Jean-Louis Borloo", says Jean-Francois Le Grand. "He told me clearly that there would not be a moratorium but that all authorisations are currently frozen and this situation will continue until the law is voted on."

Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, secretary of state for ecology, explained to Le Monde: "The question of a moratorium is being actively discussed and envisaged but the word covers different legal realities : on growing, on trials in open fields, on this or that GMO, by non-renewal of authorisations, etc. Nothing is yet definite."

Interviewed by Le Monde, Michel Barnier, minister for agriculture, defends research on GM crops "when it is conducted in a modest, limited, controlled manner for the purpose of research in open fields." But "there is a second question which must no longer be taboo, that is of the commercial growing of GM crops - 22,000 hectares of maize during 2007 in France. This is an open question, which deserves evaluating after ten years of authorisation, to question the overall benefit for our society."

The freeze will be implemented through the refusal of new authorisations from the point at which the law is voted in. This is made easier by the fact that the only GM crop grown in France is MON 810 maize. Its authorisation expires in 2007 and must be renewed at European level.

Other plants are currently going through the authorisation process. France could refuse to give its agreement which would prevent the large scale growing of transgenic maize from the next farming season.

Creation of a High Authority

The law will reinforce checks on the growing of GM crops. It will create a new High Authority on biotechnology including a broad range of scientific disciplines and associations. "Today", said M. Le Grand, "the scientific evaluation of GMOs is one-sided and is only carried out by biotechnology engineers. It is necessary that this be widened to a multi-disciplinary approach."

The High Authority would give its advice to government on new GMOs, integrating a more stringent toxicological analysis but also the examination of the social and economic interests of the transgenic product.

The law would also see a regime of responsibility in case of contamination and a public register of GM cultivation applications. Coexistence will be determined according to the principle that "the choice of some should not impact the choice of others", says M. Le Grand. "There must not be pollination of organic fields by GMOs."

The government has sent another positive signal to those who oppose GMOs. José Bové and four others appeared in court in Carcassonne on 19 September for having carried out an action at the Monsanto factory in the Aude during 2006. The prosecutor, Jean-Paul Dupont, recommended that the case be postponed.

The tribunal at Carcassonne has gone further, as, at the request of the defence, it decided to postpone "sine die" [Latin: without day], meaning that they are dropping the case.

In other cases, due at Toulouse and Chartres, prosecutors have also requested postponement. This attitude shows that the government would like to appease the debate on GMOs.

Ireland: Pay attention to economic reality

Irish Farmers Journal, 20 September (dated 22 September) 2007. Letters to the editor:

Dear Sir,

Shane Morris complains about "inaccurate media coverage" and "moral panic" regarding patented GM crops. Not surprising, since Morris is an agent of the Canadian government agency, Agri-food Canada.

Canada is the world's second largest producer of GM crops. Canada first tried to use the WTO to force EU member states to accept its unwanted GM produce. When that attempt failed, Canada adopted a strategy to spread misinfor mation and lies about the GM critics, even resorting to threats of legal action after GM watch and GM-free Ire land exposed the fact that a "scientific" paper, co- autho