NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • August 2008

2008: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep
2007: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2006: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2005: Jan/Feb/Mar • Apr/May/Jun/Jul • Aug/Sept/Oct • Nov/Dec

More GM news is available on our news feed and www.gmwatch.eu

29 August 2008

Ireland: GM Watch comments on ABIC conference
Non-GM crops are more profitable ‚ Prof. Bob Watson

GM Watch, 29 August 2008.

The big ABIC pro-GM jamboree in Ireland this week didn't go entirely to plan. Two contributions in particular proved rather awkward for the organisers.

One came from Defra Chief Scientist, Prof. Bob Watson and the other from Prof. Dennis Murphy, who heads the biotechnology dept at the University of Glamorgan.

Prof. Murphy, despite being pro-GM, has an endearing habit of telling it like it is, and he apparently made statements to the conference such as: "nothing has happened in commercial biotech for 15 years... [we're] relying on 1st generation GM products which have under-performed... we must reduce our obsession with GM ...it will not feed the world, maybe a small section."

And here's a couple of extracts from the press coverage [1] of what Prof. Watson had to say:

"Watson believes the stance taken by GM companies is too positive... financially these crops are not as profitable as conventional crops.

He questioned whether the real reason that there is hunger in Africa is because they do not utilise GM. This, he said, was incorrect."

If such authoritative voices were embarrassingly off-message for the pro-GM hype-fest planned by the Irish/Canadian backers of the conference, then equally damaging for the pro-GM Irish government agencies who'd been drawn into backing it was the controversy that broke about their ears.

GM-free Ireland in comments on a letter from the Canadian government bureaucrat Shane Morris, published in the Irish Examiner [2], note how when they organised a conference which raised concerns about GM, Morris successfully lobbied the one Irish government agency which offered any support to the event to withdraw it on the grounds that the conference did not accord with the then Irish Government's pro-GM policy. But seven Irish agenies happily backed the pro-GM ABIC conference even though the current Government's policy is to work for a GM-free island of Ireland.

And the Irish Green Party, which is part of the ruling coalition, has expressed its displeasure in no uncertain terms. Green Party Chairman, Senator Dan Boyle, declared that the involvement of state agencies in "an event that is unbalanced is wrong. The Programme for Government states quite emphatically that an all-island GM free zone is to be negotiated. This should inform the thinking of State agencies."

Senator Boyle also described the conference as "far from... intellectually honest" [3] while Green Party Senator Deirdre de Burca was still more blunt, declaring the conference the state agencies were backing to be "just a propoganda exercise for the biotech multi-nationals" [4].

Notes:

1. "ABIC conference: Science needs to meet growing food demand", by Darragh Mullin, Irish Farmers Journal, 30 August 2008.

2. "Chef's attitude to State funding of biotech conference is hard to swallow", Irish Examiner (Letters), 29 August 2008

3. Irish Green Party press release, 26 August 2008.

4. Unpublished letter from Senator Deirdre de Burca to the Editor of The Irish Times, 26 August 2008.

Ireland: GM promoter barking up the wrong tree

Letter to the Editor of the Irish Examiner, 29 August 2008.

Shane Morris's letter [Chef's attitude to state funding of biotech conference is hard to swallow, August 29, 2008] is misleading and ill-founded.

Firstly, neither Lorcan Cribbin nor any other member of Euro-toques Ireland was invited to speak at the UCC debate mentioned (which Shane Morris should be well aware of as he organised it), nor did Euro-toques take part any so-called 'political' press conference.

In relation to the 'Green Ireland' conference in Kilkenny in June 2006 to promote a green branding for Irish food, farming and tourism (which I can only assume is the conference referred to), the only sponsorship from the state I am aware of is €1,000 pledged by Bord Bía and then pulled under pressure from Mr. Morris himself, and the venue which was provided to An Taisce for the event.

But if the governmentÝ wishes to fund something which the majority of Irish consumers support, why would we have any concerns about that?

What Euro-toques Ireland is calling for is open and transparent public debate on this issue, and a clear policy from the government which reflects the wishes of the Irish people. Mr. Morris is barking up the wrong tree.

What is certainly of concern though is why Mr. Morris sees fit to pressurise Irish state bodies to withdraw funding for an event and why that body would bow to the pressure? How many Irish citizens does he represent?

If he felt it was inappropriate for Bord Bía (the promoters of Irish Food and creators of the brand 'Ireland-The Food Island') to put paltry €1,000 towards a 'Green Ireland' conference, why has he no issue with tens of thousands of state sponsorship for a biotechnology conference?

A severe case of the pot calling the kettle black, I think.

Ruth Hegarty
Secretary-General, Euro-toques Ireland

Ireland: Chef's attitude to State funding of biotech conference is hard to swallow

Irish Examiner (Letters), 29 August 2008.

Chef Lorcan Cribbin's concerns about unbalanced Government funding of the UCC agriculture biotechnology conference (August 25) are hard to swallow as he expressed no concerns when the Government supported an unbalanced anti-GM food conference on June 16-18 at Kilkenny Castle, which the Government donated for free.

In addition, Mr Cribbin fails to mention that anti-GM speakers pulled out of a public debate planned in UCC preferring to appear at a political press conference organised by Kathy Sinnote [sic] MEP.

Those who attended this one-sided event witnessed misleading and incorrect information debunked by scientists who took the anti-GM food speakers to task. It's a pity the Irish Examiner didn't bother to send a journalist to cover the event but preferred to rely on that fine journalistic skill of 'cutting and pasting' from anti-GM press releases.

Shane Morris
Department of Biochemistry
University College Cork.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

We declined to participate in the above-mentioned debate which Morris tried to organise at the ABIC conference (under the aegis of the TCD Science Gallery), because of the absurdity of its title: "Future Food: Organic, Biotech or Both".

As an employee of the Canadian Government which sponsored the ABIC conference, Morris tries to portray people who oppose GM food and farming as "anti-science". Amusingly, a recent UCC survey co-authored by Morris found that 38% of Irish scientists would not feed GM food to their babies, and 40% would not buy GM food of any kind (see GM Watch item below)!

GM-free Ireland did invite pro-GM Government ministers and scientists from the relevant semi-state bodies to speak at the Green Ireland conference on branding for food, farming and ecotourism which we organised at Kilkenny Castle in June 2006, but none came, in part because Morris convinced them not to accept our invitation. The only public funding pledged for that event was a token thousand euro sponsorship from Bord Bía, but Morris convinced them to renege on their agreement on the grounds that the conference theme was opposed to the then pro-GM government policy. Kilkenny Castle was provided to An Taisce, which co-hosted the event with GM-free Ireland. For details of Morris's attempt to stifle the debate, see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/bordbia.php.

For more on Morris see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris and GM Watch item below.

EU: Commission to be quizzed on cloning safety, ethics

FoodNavigator.com, 29 August 2008. By Jess Halliday.

The debate over products from cloned animals entering the European food chain will enter a new phase next week, as MEPs ask the Commission searching questions about the welfare of cloned animals, ethics, and consumer information.

The European Commission has previously said that meat and milk from cloned animals are "expected to spread within the global food as early as 2010", according to a Parliament communiquÈ. Indeed, the bloc's risk assessor, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), concluded in its final opinion in July that food products from cloned pigs and cattle are "probably" safe.

However, it warned that the data available was 'limited'. Most of the studies conducted to date have been of small sample size and there is little information on animals remaining alive for considerable periods.

The prospect has met with strong resistance from the European Parliament's Agriculture Committee. In June, it called for the Commission to propose a ban on animal cloning and the marketing of products from cloned animals and their offspring ‚ a resolution was approved by the MEP Intergroup on Animal Welfare.

The committee is now preparing to pose pertinent questions to the Commission next Tuesday, at the first September plenary. The questions it has agreed must be answered are:

•

Does the Commission share the view that cloning adversely affects animal welfare?

•

Can the Commission provide long-term animal welfare and health indications for clones and their offspring?

•

What has the Commission done to date in order to inform consumers and promote public discussion on animal cloning?

•

Does the European Commission find the cloning of animals and their offspring for food ethically justified?

•

Does the Commission plan to come forward with concrete proposals to prohibit: animal cloning for food; imports of cloned animals, their offspring and semen; and products from cloned animals or their offspring?

Neil Parish, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, said: "[Cloned] animals suffer from many more ailments and generally live far shorter lives. From an agricultural perspective, there are serious questions over the effect of this on the gene pool, making cloned animals far more susceptible to disease."

High cost of cloning

The animal cloning process uses DNA technology to produce multiple, exact copies of a single gene or other segment of DNA. The resulting animal has exactly the same genetic make-up as another currently or previously existing animal. It could allow breeders to introduce strains of animals with increased disease resistance and other qualities.

It is unlikely, however, that actual clones would be used for food in large quantities, given the very high costs associated with cloning (said to be between US$15,000 and $20,000 per animal at present).

Rather, clones of the very best breeding stock are expected to be used to produce high quality offspring destined for human consumption or milk production. Cloned animals themselves would form only a "miniscule" part of the food supply only when they come to the end of their useful lives.

A number of food companies in the US have said that they will not use cloned meat and milk in their products as the science is still so new; some however, such as Smithfield, have said they will monitor the emerging science.

Consumer attitudes

Consumer resistance is bound to pose a problem to the marketing of produce from clones or their offspring, especially given the level of public feeling against genetically-modified plant foods in Europe.

A survey released at the beginning of the summer by the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) showed that UK consumers believe risk analysis on animal cloning and products from cloned animals and their offspring entering the food chain should be as thorough as drug research.

Particular areas of concern for consumers related to what benefits they may receive from consuming the products, and what the consequences may be.

"[Those surveyed] struggled to find any tangible consumer benefits", said the FSA, and the respondents expressed concern that the main motive would be "financial, for biotech companies, livestock breeders, farmers or food retailers."

USDA seeks to segregate modified livestock

The Wall Street Journal, 29 August 2008. By Bill Tomson.

The U.S. Agriculture Department wants to keep genetically modified animals from mixing with traditional livestock, saying the potential risks are unclear.

The USDA said it is considering the need to regulate the movement -- including the importation, containment and field release -- of genetically engineered animals to ensure that the genetically engineered traits don't present a health risk to traditional cattle, pigs and other livestock.

Biotechnology research and development have resulted in genetically engineered animals and animal products that are ready for commercialization, the department says. So far, no products derived from genetically engineered animals have been approved for human use, although the Food and Drug Administration has approved the safety of meat from cloned cattle.

The USDA, in a posting on the U.S. General Services Administration Web site, said that although genetic modification of livestock "may provide significant agricultural, human [and] animal health, and societal benefits, there are also potential risks, concerns, and environmental impacts associated with the technology that may require Federal oversight."

Barbara Glenn, managing director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group, welcomed plans for governmental oversight.

"We need that guidance to be published so that we can move forward with the industry [and] have investor confidence," Ms. Glenn said.

The trade group says it expects genetic modifications will make animals healthy and improve them as a source of food. They could also produce vaccines to treat illnesses, the group said in a recent report.

Write to Bill Tomson at bill.tomson@dowjones.com

Film review: The World According To Monsanto

Current.com, 29 August 2008.

The most important documentary you will see this year.

How much outrage can a single multinational corporation inspire? How much damage can they inflict? The breathtaking new film, The World According to Monsanto, features a company that sets the new standard. From Iowa to Paraguay, from England to India, Monsanto is uprooting our food supply and replacing it with their patented genetically engineered creations. And along the way, farmers, communities, and nature become collateral damage. The Gazette says the movie "will freeze the blood in your veins." The Hour says it's a "horrifying enough picture" to warrant "fury." But most importantly, this critical film opens our eyes just in time. The film is the work of celebrated award-winning French filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin, whose three years of work on four continents exposes why Monsanto has become the world's poster child for malignant corporate influence in government and technology.

Combining secret documents with accounts by victims, scientists and policy makers, she guides us through a web of misleading reports, pressure tactics, collusion, and attempted corruption. And we learn how the company systematically tricked governments into allowing dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods into our diet-with Monsanto in charge of determining if they're safe.

Deception, Deception, Deception

The company's history with some of the most toxic chemicals ever produced, illustrates why they can't be trusted. Ask the folks of Anniston, Alabama, where Monsanto's PCB factory secretly poisoned the neighborhood for decades. PCBs are Monsanto's toxic oils used as coolants and lubricants for over 50 years and are now virtually omnipresent in the blood and tissues of humans and wildlife around the globe. But Anniston residents have levels hundreds or thousands of times the average. They all know their levels, which they carry as death sentences. David Baker, who lost his little brother and most of his friends to PCB-related diseases such as cancer, says Anniston kids used to run up to him, report their PCB level and ask, "How long you think I got?"

Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group says that based on Monsanto documents made public during a trial, the company "knew the truth from the very beginning. They lied about it. They hid the truth from their neighbors." One Monsanto memo explains their justification: "We can't afford to lose one dollar of business."

Replacing Nature: "Nothing Shall Be Eaten That We Don't Own"

Monsanto is the world's largest seed company and many are concerned. Troy Roush says, "They are in the process of owning food, all food." Paraguayan farmer Jorge Galeano says, "Its objective is to control all of the world's food production." Renowned Indian physicist and community organizer Vandana Shiva says, "If they control seed, they control food; they know it, it's strategic. It's more powerful than bombs; it's more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world." The World According to Monsanto is aptly named. It is about Monsanto seeking to recreate the world in its own image, for its own benefit. They intend to replace (and patent) the entire food supply. And since their genetic pollution self-propagates in the environment, it will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. Such widespread permanent influence may not be safe with any individual or company. With Monsanto's record, the results can only be catastrophic. This powerful documentary might just inspire a global rejection of Monsanto's plans for our world. If so, it will be the most important film in history.

View film trailer:
www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/AboutGMFoods/WorldAccordingtoMonsanto/
index.cfm?&ndrx=99

View film online:
http://vodpod.com/watch/
725926-the-world-according-to-monsanto-wide-eye-cinema-free-conspiracy-videos

Purchase the DVD (English, French and German version):
www.arte.tv/fr/content/tv/02__Communities/C4-knowledge_20and_20discovery/03-
Dossier/2008.01.29__Monsanto/06__Livre/ART_20DVD/1950490.html

USA: Field of participants narrowed in GMO suit
Judge partially excludes Monsanto from sugar beet case

Capital Press, 29 August 2008. By Mateusz Perkowski.

A federal judge has partially barred the Monsanto Co. from participating in a lawsuit over glyphosate-resistant "Roundup Ready" sugar beet seeds.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White ruled Aug. 15 that Monsanto, several sugar beet companies and other interested parties could not intervene in the initial "merits" phase of the lawsuit, which will examine whether the USDA breached federal law by deregulating Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets.

The suit was filed in January by environmental and organic seed groups, which alleged that the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Plant Protection Act by insufficiently reviewing the seed's potential environmental and economic effects.

The plaintiffs fear that pollen from the genetically modified sugar beets will contaminate conventional and organic seed crops grown in Oregon's Willamette Valley, such as table beets and chard. The groups also believe the prevalence of Roundup Ready crops will increase the number of herbicide-resistant weeds.

White ruled that Monsanto and the other parties could not intervene in the merits portion of the case, since they were not responsible for the actual deregulation of the seed.

"Only the federal defendants can be held liable under NEPA and the PPA," he said in the ruling.

However, White ruled that Monsanto and the other parties could intervene in the case if USDA APHIS is found to have violated federal law. During that "remedies" phase, the judge would determine how to rectify the violation, which would directly affect Monsanto and the other parties.

Kevin Golden, attorney for the Center for Food Safety, one of the plaintiffs, said that White's decision levels the playing field in the lawsuit.

If allowed to intervene, Monsanto and other parties would have poured their resources into the case and "amplified the amount of litigation," thereby complicating and prolonging the legal process, he said.

"Without the intervenors, it keeps the issues simple and clear," said Golden. "It makes it a fair case."

Brad Mitchell, spokesman for Monsanto, said the ruling will prevent the company from presenting its own evidence and calling in expert witnesses.

However, the company will still be able to file an "amicus brief" by Sept. 5 that summarizes its arguments, he said.

Though Monsanto's level of involvement in the case won't be as deep as it hoped, the company doesn't see the ruling as a major setback, Mitchell said. "The USDA should be able to handle themselves."

28 August 2008

Ireland: A GM-free zone

Evening Echo, 28 August 2008.

The Green Party chairman, Senator Dan Boyle, has said State agencies must take part in a balanced debate on the issue of genetically modified (GM) foods. At a conference on biotechnology in UCC he said: "The Programme for Government states that an all-island GM-free zone is to be negotiated. This should inform the thinking of State agencies".

The Worm at Work

GM Watch, 28 August 2008.

As many of you will have seen, there's been a hugely controversial pro-GM conference taking place in Ireland this week at University College Cork (UCC). The ABIC 2008 conference, at UCC from August 24-27, is entitled Agricultural Biotechnology for a Competitive and Sustainable Future.

One of the conference's star pro-GM turns was Dr Charlie Spillane of UCC, who's not only chairman of the ABIC Programme Committee but heads the GM lab at UCC that the Canadian Government bureaucrat, Shane Morris, retreated to at the height of the controversy over his "wormy corn" study.

Before the opening of the ABIC event, Kathy Sinnott MEP and Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland held a press conference at which they criticized the support of seven Irish Government agencies for the conference, and called on the Government to fund an independent conference on GM-free food and farming, in line with official Government policy.

According to Michael O'Callaghan, "Shane Morris turned up uninvited at the press conference and then repeatedly held up a series of bits of paper with the words 'bullshit', 'pure bull', 'incorrect', 'lies' etc. whenever one of the speakers said something he didn't approve of, just like a trained monkey! In the questions and answers session after our presentations, he kept interrupting the speakers. I had to ask him to shut up!"

Outside the conference where protesters were gathered, Morris was spotted waving a notice about saying "Down with this kind of thing" - apparently inspired by a scene from the "Father Ted" TV series!

We have also heard from a conference participant concerning a poster exhibit Morris had at the event reporting some research he's doing into the views of Irish scientists about GM, and guess what? There's the suggestion it might have a skewed sample! Here are the comments we received:

"The attached text is from the conference programme.

The text is almost verbatim apart from the several important words, included in the poster.

The writers of this short report claim on the poster that their poll covered academic staff from all 7 Irish Universities, from diverse backgrounds such as 'food science, microbiology, genetics etc... '

Not so diverse, I say.

On their poster they go on to say that medical personnel were not polled.

I'm sure they have a perfectly legitimate reason to leave medics out, but you certainly cannot say that you have analyzed a cross section of Uni staff.

I wonder what the results show with medics included?

Their results are still quite startling.

35% of Irish scientists would not buy GM baby food.
40% would not buy GM food of any kind.

And these percentages come from a questionable sample!"

Wormy corn, anyone?

Notes:

The text referred to above is from the Abstracts of the ABIC 2008 poster sessions (published by the Irish Government agency Teagasc, which co-sponsored the conference): Poster Session II: Longitudinal analysis of Irish university scientists opinion of GM food/crops (1999-2008) by Morris, Shane. H. (1x), Mullins, Ewen (2), and Spillane, Charles (1). 1. Genetics and Biotechonolgy Lab, Dept of Biotechemistry & Biosciences Institute, University College Cork, Ireland. Website: www.ucc.ie/spillane. 2. TEAGASC Crops Research Centre, Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland.

For more on the "wormy corn" scandal see:

Michael Meacher MP - correspondence with High Commissioner for Canada http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/meacher.php

Corn fakes, Private Eye, November 2007 http://www.bioscienceresource.org/news/news10.php

Corn on the cobblers, Private Eye, January 2008 http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/privateeye.php

Leading Experts Demand Retraction of "Wormy Corn" Paper from British Food Journal, January 2008 http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2008/Wormy-Corn-BFJ24jan08.htm

UK House of Commons: Early Day Motion condemns Shane Morris http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=34547&SESSION=891 link

UK: The truth about GM

New Statesman, 28 August 2008. By Colin Tudge.

Will GM technology feed the world - or destroy farming, and human health, in the name of corporate profit? How can we tell, when the science is up for sale?

Genetically modified crops might once have proved useful. In the early days, in the 1980s, scientists I spoke to in India hoped to transfer genes from groundnuts (which are very resistant to heat and drought) into sorghum, the staple cereal of the Sahel, which is also drought-resistant but succumbs in the worst years. In California, there were advanced plans to produce barley that could thrive in brackish water of the kind that is spreading worldwide in the wake of overzealous irrigation. In Brazil, just a few years ago, I found GM being used to make disease-resistant papaya - which grows everywhere in the tropics and is an instant, free source of succulence, energy and Vitamin A. I was all for it.

Of course, the scientists anticipated snags. The GM plants might develop undesirable traits, possibly hazardous to consumer health, not necessarily in the first generation but down the line. That things could go wrong was evident from some of the early forays into GM livestock, which produced sad monsters. Perhaps the GM plants would escape into ecosystems and become pests - as many a crop has done in the past - but the GM super-crops might prove to be super-pests. Perhaps the insect-resistant types with built-in insecticide would kill non-target insects, with disastrous knock-on effects.

Nevertheless, the mood I encountered then was optimistic, essentially altruistic, and cautious. There was no need to hurry, because the conventional techniques of the day, properly deployed, could do what needed doing. Today, the world isn't like that: food production is now private enterprise, controlled by corporations and banks. The main purpose of farming is no longer to feed people but to maximise profits, raise GDP and maintain economic growth.

Critically, farming geared to making money differs in all significant ways from farming that is committed to providing good food today and for the future. Farming that feeds people well and sustainably must in general be mixed (many kinds of livestock and crops all interacting). It is complex and labour-intensive. Chemical inputs should be minimised, especially inputs of non-renewables; and, as far as possible, most food should be produced locally. The overall target is to ensure resilience: a steady supply of varied and high-quality crops, even in difficult times.

Cheap food is an illusion

In contrast, farming that is designed to make money must be maximally productive, but at minimum cost. So the systems must be simple: big machines and industrial chemistry instead of husbandry, and the farms on as large a scale as possible and monocultural, with just one crop or one kind of animal. Balanced diets in any one place can therefore be ensured only by mass imports. Labour - usually the most expensive input - must be cut to the bone and then cut again, with the workers paid as little as possible.

Finally, there must be maximal "value-adding" by processing, packaging and contrived exoticism, but above all by turning cheap yet good staples of the kind that have supported the great cuisines into meat for fast food. So we feed half the world's wheat to animals, and 80 per cent of the maize. But if something else should turn up that makes more money than food - for instance, biofuels - we'll grow that instead.

It works, does it not? While the food technologists and retailers have grown rich beyond all dreams of avarice, the masses have had, at least until recently, cheap food: it takes up just 8 per cent of the average Briton's income. Yet cheap food is an illusion. It is made to seem cheap by creative accountancy that ignores the vast quantities of oil needed, the collateral damage to soil, rivers, lakes, forests, wildlife, climate and, indeed, to human life, as well as the most blatant injustice as farmers across the globe are made bankrupt. According to the UN, one billion people now live in urban slums worldwide; and most of the shanty-dwellers are former farmers or their immediate descendants and dependants. The multinationals assure us there are "alternative industries". No, there aren't. When and if there are alternatives, it may be sensible to encourage people to leave the land. Not until. And it's a big "if".

As long as GM was part of an economy and a morality that had the well-being of humanity at heart, it had the potential to become what Ivan Illich in the 1970s called "a convivial technology", truly improving the human lot. As things stand, it merely serves to consolidate the status quo: to strengthen the arm of the corporations, which alone will control the seed and the inputs that the new seed requires; and to promote all the agro-industrial strategies that are so obviously destructive.

To be sure, the biological risks of GM remain, and should not be underestimated; but given time, and due caution, they could have been minimised. Commerce, however, demands immediate results, such that organic farmers already find it hard to buy feed for their animals that is not made from GM maize or soya. Yet reports that all is safe in the world of GM technology are greatly exaggerated. Nor is it true that it simply replicates the "horizontal" transmission of genes that occurs in the wild, and hence is "natural". Natural genes contain stretches of DNA known as "introns" that modify and regulate their function. Genetic engineers strip out the introns before they transfer them, to make life simpler. The difference could be significant, but we just don't know. I have yet to hear an advocate of GM technology even raise this issue.

Indeed, there has been so much hype and obfuscation in the promotion of GM - Prince Charles's recent warning about the looming environmental disaster aside - that it would be foolish to believe a word of it. Here are three quick examples. We have heard much, of late, of the "golden rice" made by Syngenta. It is fitted with a gene that produces carotene, which is the precursor of Vitamin A - the lack of which is a prime source of blindness among children worldwide. Therefore, Syngenta tells us, golden rice is a good thing - a sentiment echoed subsequently in the media and in the House of Lords by Dick Taverne. But carotene is the yellowish pigment in green leaves (such as spinach) and in all yellow-orange roots and fruits (carrots and papaya among them) and is one of the commonest organic molecules in nature. Poor people do not need handouts from Syngenta. All they need is horticulture - which, before the days of corporate-owned monocultures of commodity crops, they had.

We are told that GM crops yield more, and that the technology's opponents are irresponsible. Yet yield is rarely what really matters: very few famines in modern history have been caused by an inability to grow enough food; it has always been secondary to wars and economic breakdown, often caused by the west's destruction of subsistence farming. And anyway, the idea that GM crops can be relied upon to yield more than conventional crops is simply not true. Some GM crops do sometimes yield more than most standard crops in some circumstances and in some years; often they do not. In the long term, we have yet to see. The published results which seem to show that GM crops consistently outstrip their conventional counterparts are highly selective, with unfavourable results not made public. More and more, we are urged to rely on the "objectivity" and unimpeachable integrity of science. But when science itself is up for sale, there is no court of appeal.

"Feeding People is Easy" by Colin Tudge is published by Pari Publishing (£9.99)

Comment from GM Watch:

Dr. Colin Tudge trained as a biologist and is a three-time winner of the Glaxo/ABSW Science Writer of the Year Award. His career includes serving as Features Editor at New Scientist, his own science program on BBC Radio and freelance writing for The Independent, The Times, Natural History and The New Statesman. He is the author of numerous works on food, agriculture, genetics, and species diversity.

Ireland: A host of reasons to ban GM wheat

Irish Farmers Journal, 28 August (dated 30 August) 2008. By The Dealer.

The ongoing scientific row over the use of GM wheat has now become a matter of canonical debate, according to my sources in the Irish Catholic. Apparently, the use of GM what in the manufacture of hosts for use in the Eucharist infringes Canon law 924, according to the leading Irish authority on such detail, Fr Sean McDonagh.

Ireland: Biotechnology: GM - moral as well as economic choices

Irish Farmers Journal, 28 August (dated 30 August) 2008. Editorial by Matt Dempsey

'We have transferred a gene from Alfa - Alfa that controls fusarium into wheat. As a result, 75% of the men who developed throat cancer from drinking beer made from wheat contaminated with fusarium will now not develop the cancer''

It summed up the potential good that can come from correctly using GM technology in the future. This particular breakthrough was highlighted at the Agricultural biotechnology conference held in Cork earlier this week.

Nobody doubts that in the development of any new technology there will be mistakes and mishaps but we are seeing in this technology the huge potential for improvement that we can only come to the conclusion that it would be immoral to ban or block its development.

So far over 1.4 billion acres have been planted with biotech crops and there have been no serious credible problems. In fact, we see the reverse, we see large areas in zones of high temperature where ploughing is no longer necessary with minimum tillage technology as a result, organic matter can build up in the soil - rather than its previous destruction by ploughing, fertility increases and worthwhile crops can be grown, profits earned and families sustained.

Granted, there is often a new dependence on specific herbicides to deal with weeds but across the range of genetically modified crops the best estimate is of a saving of 250,000 tonnes of pesticides. The saving in insecticides applied to a crop such as GM cotton has been of enormous environmental benefit. India has now become an exporter of cotton and its rice has had its deficit of vitamin A cured because of a transfer of genetic material.

We are witnessing the development of fundamental technologies that have proven enormous potential for good. Like any development, they can also be abused. That should be where knowledgeable competent regulation comes into play.

But at the Cork conference, it was alarming to hear of the distrust and lack of knowledge being displayed by Europe's policy makers - both agricultural and environmental. Is the current Agricultural Commissioner simply staying in her comfort zone and just overseeing the functioning of the Common Agricultural policy with no real vision for Europe's future agricultural development?

Environmental Departments and the Brussels Directorates, we were told, simply see Agriculture as a problem area that needs controlling while Departments of Consumer protection are simply reflecting what consumer polls tell them rather than actually advising governments what real scientific evidence shows. Are more senior figures responsible for framing agricultural policy actually ignorant about agriculture itself?

These are all hugely important questions. Europe is clearly out of step with the rest of the world and Irish leadership has been singularly lacking.

Leaving aside the economic and scientific options, is it morally responsible to turn our backs on such widely demonstrated potential and actual achievements as the current genetic transfer technology has delivered?

Ireland: ABIC conference: Science needs to meet growing food demand

Irish Farmers Journal, 28 August (dated 30 August) 2008. By Darragh Mullin.

"The science of biotechnology is good for society and the agricultural industry, and we should take confidence from the fact that public health is protected by a very rigorous approval system,'' Prof Jimmy Burke from Teagasc told the opening session of the 2008 Agricultural Biotechnology International Committee (ABIC) conference this week.

The four-day event, co-hosted by University College Cork and Teagasc, attracted delegates from around the world to listen to speakers from the leading research agencies involved in agricultural biotechnology and developing Genetically Modified (GM) crops.

However, on the opening night, protesters from the various anti-GM groups were out in force to highlight their concerns over the safety of GM food. Speaking at the opening session on Sunday evening, Professor Jimmy Burke said: "Biotechnology has revolutionised 21st century agriculture and food production systems worldwide in a way not foreseen a mere 30 years ago. Various national reports have rightly identified biotechnology as one of the core technologies that Ireland and Irish industry must embrace''.

Professor Gerry Boyle, the Teagasc director, touched on how sensitive the issue has become. "Currently, the debate in Europe around the risks and benefits of biotechnology is quite polarised, and it is widely accepted that the debate should be more open, transparent and inclusive, with a greater level of understanding by all the stakeholders. Openness and transparency are also required in the policy making process,'' he said. "If we are going to meet the world's future needs for food, feed, fibre, and fuel, we will need all the science and technology tools available,'' he added.

Jerome Konecsni, a director with ABIC, believes Europe will eventually need to introduce GM crops on financial grounds so that European farmers can compete on the world market, and have access to cheaper supply of feed. Konecsni pointed out that farmers worldwide are embracing GM technology. A native of Canada, Konecsni said that farmers in his home country cannot afford not to grow GM oilseed rape with the margins they are now experiencing with conventionally grown crops.

Dr Ganesh Kishore - the man responsible for developing the Round Up Ready range of crops with Monsanto - also spoke at the conference. He told delegates that the size of the GM market has grown substantially - from $15bn twenty years ago to over $600bn today.

He questioned the food versus fuel debate and argued that the capacity of US farmers more than met the demand from US Ethanol companies. Future demand for fuel will be met by the advancements in GM technology, he said. Today, GM crops account for 20% of oilseed rape, 48% of cotton, 24% of maize and 69% of soya bean crops. The US, Brazil and Argentina are the three biggest users of this technology, according to Kishore. By 2025, the world will need 59% more production from agriculture to keep pace with consumption and to stabilise food inflation. Most of this demand will come from China and India, he said.

'We would be foolish not to look at GM as part of the solution'

The Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Prof Paddy Cunningham, presented a paper at the conference entitled 'Four Challenges or One', describing the intertwined demands of food, population, energy and climate.

His presentation highlighted how each of these challenges are linked and impact upon each other. His message was that the driver of food demand is population growth, but the impact of this will be higher energy usage, which will affect the climate, and invariably affect food production.

Dr Colin Meredith of Monsanto believes that GM crops are part of the solution to meet this demand: "We would be foolish not to look at GM as part of the solution to address growing food demands''. Meredith does not advocate a complete turnover to GM, but compares the role it can play with wind power. "Wind power alone will not meet the energy demands of a growing population, but it can make a significant contribution - much in the same way GM can with food''.

The drivers for farming in the future will stem from the demand for food, fuel and feed, but the limiting factor will be the supply of water and limiting the carbon footprint of agriculture, said Meredith. This will mean we will need to produce more food using fewer inputs.

The current generation of Round Up Ready crops are management tools that use Round Up to control weeds, but the next generation will be more efficient utilisers of nitrogen and water. These crops will also address human nutrition and health demands - crops such as soya and rice will be enriched with Omega-3.

Commenting on criticism from the Anti-GM lobby, Meredith quoted the author Michael Crichton: "Opinion in the absence of evidence is prejudice,'' he said. He added that GM has been utilised by farmers around the world.

Echoing these comments, Professor Jimmy Burke of Teagasc said: "We now know from 30 years of international research and development that modern plants and food produced using biotechnology are safe.

"Foods containing genetically modified ingredients are already on our supermarket shelves, and livestock here are being fed genetically modified feeds.

"New technology that imparts resistance to herbicides and insect attack are providing cost and yield improvement for farmers around the world, and giving a competitive advantage to those using this technology,'' he said.

GM companies only talk of benefits

GM companies talk only of benefits, and anti-GM groups talk only of risks. This polarised position will not solve the main problem affecting food supply today, which is distribution.

This was the message from Professor Robert Watson, the Chief Scientific Adviser for the British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

Watson believes agriculture is no longer just about production, but must be viewed in terms of multifunctionality, such as its economic and social benefits - especially among small farm holders.

Watson believes the stance taken by GM companies is too positive, and that financially these crops are not as profitable as conventional crops.

He questioned whether the real reason that there is hunger in Africa is because they do not utilise GM. This, he said, was incorrect. The primary cause is post harvest losses, which were in the region of 30% to 40%. The problem of world hunger today is the distribution of food. He believes we need affordable food that is nutritious, environmentally friendly and sustainable for farmers and all stakeholders.

GM soybean seeds in Afghanistan

Relief Web, 28 August 2008. Excerpt only: full article at http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/ASAZ-7HXHBJ?OpenDocument

A USA-based nutrition expert, Steven Kwoon, introduced soya beans to Afghan farmers for the first time in 2003 through his small organisation - Nutrition & Education International (NEI) - to help tackle protein deficiency and malnutrition among children and women.

The NEI distributed two tonnes of genetically modified soya seed in 2005 which produced 10 tonnes of soya beans, and over the years the number of farmers has risen to over 4,000 and production has soared to 2,000 tonnes in 2007, the NEI said.

Setback

One third of the 60 tonnes of soya seed which the NEI had imported from the USA for distribution to Afghan farmers could not be used as seed because the consignments had been held for too long in the hot weather at customs inside Afghanistan, Kwoon said.

"We have only distributed 20 tonnes of seed this year and as a result production levels will be lower than 2007," said Kwoon adding that the country would still produce about 1,000 tonnes of soya beans.

The NEI said it was working with the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock to end the country's reliance on soya seed imports by establishing a domestic seed production capacity.

UK: World hunger? Let them eat biofuel

The Independent (Letters), 28 August 2008

It is all very well for Struan Stevenson MEP to call for GM to deal with food scarcity arising from population growth and climate change (letter, 23 August), yet he omits to mention biofuels as a major cause of the current food scarcity he describes.

GM has not been shown to improve the maximal yield of any crop, even if it can save on insecticides or tilling. In contrast, every unit of foodstuff converted into biofuel is one unit less to go round the poorest, and the cost can be huge in cross-subsidy, as well as high food prices for all.

With biofuel targets having been slammed by senior analysts in the OECD, World Bank, IMF, IFPRI and the EU's own scientific research centre, will he or other MEPs vote against such targets in a few weeks' time?

Jim Roland
London NW11

________

Struan Stevenson writes that "food security is now top of the political agenda". The Soil Association certainly agrees with that. However, Stevenson goes on to say that GM is the only way out of this "looming crisis".

There is increasing evidence that organic production does have the potential to feed the world. A recent report from an international group of over 400 scientists, published by the UN (the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) concludes that organic farming has real potential to help feed the world in an era of increasing oil prices and urgent need to cut greenhouse gases, because organic farming systems use the sun's energy and legumes to fix nitrogen in the soil, not oil and gas.

By contrast, the role of GM in feeding the world is much less clear. Over 20 published peer-reviewed studies show worse or no better yields for GM crops. In 2006, the pro-GM US Department of Agriculture observed that "currently available GM crops do not increase yield potential", a point already made by a report from the FAO in 2004 that acknowledged "GM crops can have reduced yields".

Clio Turton
Soil Association, Bristol

UK: Both sides are probably wrong
The latest evidence leaves the case for GM foods open

New Statesman, 28 August 2008. By John Vidal.

I met Likeness last month in Malawi. She is a peasant farmer with three kids and no prospects. The rains came late to her maize field near the Zambian border and then they stopped early. The result, just like in 2002, is misery: her crop failed, what she harvested has nearly gone, she has no work, and there's no money to buy food, fertiliser or seeds for next year. She is the face of world hunger, along with nearly one billion others caught up in the vortex of unprecedented food-price inflation and extreme poverty.

So could GM maize, or industrial farming and giant agribusiness - the "unmentionables" that Prince Charles railed against this month - make any difference? One man who may know is the head of Monsanto, Hugh Grant, who was in Malawi just before me at a conference on the future of world agriculture. He recalled how, after the 2002 famine, Monsanto sent Malawi hundreds of tonnes of hybrid (not GM) seeds. "Yields increased by 50 per cent to above 32 bushels per acre," he said. "Better seeds and fertiliser make an enormous difference."

Correct. As any farmer knows, you don't need GM crops to grow more food. Rather, you need good seeds and soils, better manures, crop rotation and irrigation. Education, markets, places to store the food where the rats can't get at it, all help farmers earn money. GM promises increases of 10-20 per cent in some crops. Good farming can more than double yields.

Another man who knows whether or not GM will help Likeness is Professor Robert Watson, chief scientist at the UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and formerly Bill Clinton's scientific adviser. Watson recently chaired the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), an immense and rigorous three-year, government-level scientific study of world agriculture, backed by the UN and the World Bank and independently peer-reviewed twice.

The 400 authors looked at the evidence and concluded that business as usual - industrial agriculture and trade rules tilted towards large corporations - can barely feed people today and won't be able to in future. The problem is that the present financial and trading systems work at the expense of the deteriorating environment and the growing numbers of poor.

But what about GM crops? The IAASTD authors kept the door open on the technology but said that it was not the solution for the world's poor. Instead, they called for more respect for the knowledge of local communities. This enraged the participating US-dominated agrochemicals and biotechnology industries, which walked out, claiming the whole exercise was unbalanced. The US, alone of all major countries, has refused to endorse the study.

GM acreage is growing worldwide, but it may never provide for the poor. In the 20-odd years since the first crop was sown, billions of dollars have been spent researching, developing and marketing the technology. But it is stuck on a very few commercial crops, and is still at single-gene transfer level. What's more, it is suited to monocultural farming, and the questions of ownership and safety just won't go away.

Over the years, there have been genuine safety concerns over individual GM foods but early fears have been allayed by US and EU government insistence that these are some of the world's most regulated foods. Activists still argue that there have been few major human health studies of an inherently unpredictable technology.

Back in 1994, the industry was promising crops that resist cold weather, drought, pests and disease, as well as plants that reduced the need for fertilisers. The world is still waiting. Last month, Hugh Grant said he now expected drought-resistant crops to be ready in the US "within six years"; it seems the science is more complicated than was thought. That hasn't stopped the industry enjoying an expansionist phase as agribusiness takes advantage of the food crisis, but anyone trying to assess the success or failure of GM can find themselves in a snake pit of claim and counterclaim.

Companies regularly overstate the potential gains of GM by under-reporting average yields in conventional production; activists seize on individual crop failures to propose that the whole technology is corrupt. Meanwhile, academics are partial to the big bucks that industry offers for GM research and development, and governments fear to upset their legions of small farmers.

One side paints a picture of the world's poor being denied a technology that could hugely improve lives; the other side claims industrial agriculture's heavy gun is aimed directly at it. Both are probably wrong.

Monsanto espies huge profits in places such as Malawi, where the whole country depends on maize. It's not legal to sell GM there but even if it were, the chances of Likeness and the small farmers like her, 90 per cent of the population, benefiting from it are utterly remote. Malawi is a land of conservative, uneducated and vulnerable farmers. They could not possibly afford the seeds or the herbicide, let alone take the risk. It would be criminal to ask them to.

Hugh Grant probably isn't losing much sleep about Malawi. The company is making record profits out of selling a high proportion of its GM seeds and herbicides to American and other farmers for the growing of biofuels. Of course, the company cannot be blamed if there's less food on the world market, or that maize prices have more than doubled. Instead, Monsanto's share price has risen to dizzy heights and the company has just raised prices for its seeds and herbicides by more than a third.

Now even farmers in the US are complaining about GM.

John Vidal is the environment editor of the Guardian

Ireland: We want GM debate instead of propaganda

Unpublished letter to the Editor of The Irish Times, dated 26 August 2008.

Madam,

An article in your paper (Aug 26th) reported that an international conference on agricultural biotechnology in Cork heard calls from representatives of Teagasc for a more "open, transparent and inclusive" debate on the merits on genetically modified foods.

As a Green Party public representative with a strong interest in the issue of GM, I would welcome such a debate. However, nothing I have read about the conference in Cork would suggest that the debate was inclusive or balanced.

In fact, Professor Patrick Cunningham, Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government is reported to have spoken at the conference of the "urgency of the development and application of the technology on the one hand, and fear of change on the other".

In my opinion, Professor Cunningham does a great dis-service to those who continue to raise concerns about this relatively new, and as yet not fully understood technology. In fact, the urgency of which the professor speaks has been generated by large multi-national biotechnology companies who see enormous commercial opportunities in the immediate application of this technology, regardless of its prematurity.

Many of the risk assessments of new GM products have been carried out by these same biotech companies, and their findings largely accepted by regulatory bodies such as the European Food Safety Authority who currently lack the resources to carry out their own independent studies.

Proponents of GM also regularly make sweeping statements about the safety of these products as far as human health is concerned. Unfortunately they make these claims in the absence of any reliable body of longitudinal studies into the health effects of comsuming GM foods over a lifetime. A growing body of research does suggest that GM foods have very negative health impacts for human beings, including organ failure and allergic responses amongst others.

While it is extremely important that scientific progress is not inhibited, the danger of pushing GM technology on an unwilling public in the face of very real and legitimate concerns about its health and environmental impacts must be recognised.

We must have a full and open debate about the issue of GM in this country but please – let it be balanced and not just a propoganda exercise for the biotech multi-nationals.

Yours etc

Senator Deirdre de Burca
Green Party Spokesperson on Health and Children

Ireland: Biotech will have key role in expanding agricultural production, conference told

The Irish Times, 28 August 2008. By Barry Roche, Southern Correspondent.

RAPID ADVANCES in agricultural biotechnology will have an important role in achieving the expansion in agricultural production essential to ensure political stability in various parts of the world, a conference at University College Cork has heard.

Dr Charles Spillane of the genetics and biotechnology lab at UCC said production increases represented a phenomenal challenge for agricultural research as they needed to be achieved in parallel with reducing the environmental footprint of agriculture.

He said it was important to address both the issues of research that would allow food production increases and policies that would ensure equitable access to food over the coming decades to avoid political instability.

"The rapid advances in agricultural biotechnology research that are now occurring indicate that biotechnology, including the science of genetics, will have an important role to play in delivering these productivity increases."

Dr Spillane was speaking at the International Agricultural Biotechnology Conference at UCC. He pointed to a background context where food prices were increasing, energy supplies were uncertain and global warming was now a political priority.

"Within the agricultural research arena, green biotechnology will have an important role to play," said Dr Spillane.

He pointed to the UN World Food Summit, which indicated food production must increase by almost 40 per cent by 2020 to meet demand, and the World Bank, which has indicated that one hectare of land will need to feed five people in 2025, compared to just two people in 1960.

"Increases in productivity per hectare are urgent - that is, we will need to grow more food on less land," Dr Spillane told the conference, which is being attended by some 450 delegates from over 20 countries.

The conference also heard from Eija Pehu, senior biotechnology adviser to the World Bank, who said that although transgenic crops had been taken up more rapidly in commercial farming, they had considerable potential in developing countries.

They had particular potential for improving productivity in smallholder farming and providing more nutritious foods to poor consumers in the developing world, though they were not without controversy in terms of environmental and food safety, she said.

However, Green Party chairman Senator Dan Boyle criticised the involvement of State agencies in the conference, which he said was unbalanced in favour of GM foods and as such was contrary to the objectives agreed in the programme for government. "While debate is always welcome and should be encouraged, the involvement of State agencies, particularly those with responsibility for food, in an event that is unbalanced is wrong," said Mr Boyle.

He said the programme for government stated quite clearly that an all-island GM-free zone was to be negotiated and State agencies such as Teagasc should ensure if resources were to committed to such conferences, they should take account of State objectives.

"Having no input on the lack of consumer confidence, the risks of environmental cross-contamination, and the dangers of market manipulation by GM companies at a conference like this is to leave aside an important part of this debate," said Mr Boyle.

A Teagasc spokesman rejected Mr Boyle's comments that the conference was unbalanced and said there were many views represented on the GM debate. Holding the conference in Ireland was an opportunity for Irish researchers to further expand their expertise, the spokesman said.

Australia: GMO ban extension

ABC News (Australia), 28 August 2008

Tasmania's ban on genetically modified food crops is to continue.

A Parliamentary committee chaired by the Primary Industries Minister, David Llewellyn, has recommended the ban be extended and reviewed in five years.

The committee recommends the State adopt a zero-tolerance approach for GMO contamination in imported canola and grain seeds, as well as a ban on the importation of animal feed containing GMOs.

"Many of those opposed to the use of GM material warned of the damage that lifting the moratorium would cause to the state's reputation as a producer of clean, high quality foods", Mr Llewellyn says.

The Committee also wants the State Government to lobby for better labelling on animal feed and GM foods.

Tasmania's ban will then be reviewed in five years.

Committee member, Western Tiers MLC Greg Hall wants the review of the moratorium to be carried out by independent experts.

"In this rapidly changing world of new tecnology, we must have in my view, an independent review and full assessment of the situation at the end of that time period. I think it's absolutely essential that our food producers and our non-food producers are in a position to embrace new and appropriate technologies," Mr Hall says.

Malaya: GMO-free rice restos campaign launched

Malaya.com, 28 August 2008.

ENVIRONMENTAL watchdog Greenpeace yesterday launched its campaign for restaurants to serve only rice that are free from genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).

The campaign, dubbed "I love my rice GMO-free," was launched at the Fish and Co. restaurant in Ortigas Center and seeks to gather the commitment of restaurants around the country to serve only GMO-free rice.

Fish and Co. is part of the Bistro Group of Companies which includes Italiani's, TGI Friday's and Flapjacks.

Aside from pledging to serve only GMO-free rice, the Bistro Group has committed to display 'I love my rice GMO-free' posters in all their 27 outlets and distribute campaign brochures as part of the awareness drive. During the press conference, the food company served representative rice dishes from each of their five restaurant branches.

Daniel Ocampo, Greenpeace Southeast Asia Genetic Engineering campaigner, said Greenpeace is talking with 10 leading fast food joints, alternative restaurants, and organic restaurants in Metro Manila and Southern Luzon to join their campaign and this will be announced in the next few weeks.

Ocampo also said the green group is negotiating with two of the country's top fast food chains to join the GMO-free rice campaign.

He said rice is part of the Philippines' heritage, because it is the center of diversity of rice due to the presence of many varieties in the country.

He said the GMO-free rice restaurant campaign "recognizes the role of food companies." "We have the right to choose what and where we eat," he added.

Lisa Ronquillo, Bistro Group marketing director, said the food chain approached Greenpeace a month ago because it wanted to join the "green campaign" but didn't know how to go about it.

"This is our first initiative to go greenÖbut it's a long-term commitment that will involve not only rice," Ronquillo said.

GMOs are plants or animals whose DNA have been manipulated to accommodate genes from entirely different species, such as a rice crop inserted with genes from a bacteria or an animal. Governments recognize the dangers of GMOs, that's why these crops are highly regulated.

Greenpeace said GMO food crops pose risks to health and no long-term health studies have ever been conducted.

Greenpeace said no GMO rice has been approved for human consumption or propagation in the Philippines, but GMO rice from the United States have slipped into the country at least twice, despite measures by the National Food Authority to ensure that US rice imports is GMO-free.

At present, an application for the approval of a GMO rice variety is lodged at the Department of Agriculture.

Ocampo said so far there is no commercially available GMO rice in the Philippines because Greenpeace has filed an injunction against the application of Bayer.

He said the rice from Vietnam and Thailand that the Philippines is importing is GMO-free because of the commitment from both countries not to trade GMO rice.

But he said the P25/kilo rice imported from the US which is being sold by the National Food Authority (NFA) showed some contamination because it was sourced from Arkansas and other Southern states.

Lea Guerrero, Greenpeace media campaigner, said Greenpeace had two kilos of the cheap rice tested in Japan and it showed contamination. He said while the rice passed US standards, these fail when pitted against stricter European standards which were used in Japan.

She said the NFA has refused to do joint testing because of the expenses.

27 August 2008

Philipines' top restaurants join the movement against GM rice

The country's top food establishments have teamed up with Greenpeace to protect rice, the Philippines' most important staple food, from the threats of GMOs (genetically-modified organisms.)

PR-Inside.com (The Philippines), 28 August 2008. By Adelaida Bulaon.

Manila -- The 'GMO-free rice restaurants' campaign, launched today at Fish and Co. restaurant in Ortigas Center, aims to gather the commitment of restaurants around the country to serve only GMO-free rice. The project is part of Greenpeace's 'I love my rice GMO-free' campaign, a public movement to keep the country's rice supply free from genetic contamination. Fish and Co. is part of the Bistro Group of Companies, among the first to sign on its popular restaurant outlets, including Italiani's, TGI Friday's and Flapjacks, to the environmental campaign.

"Rice is our country's most important food and is an integral part of our life and culture. But few Filipinos are aware that our staple food is in danger of GMO contamination. The restaurant campaign we are launching today is not only an awareness drive to involve the public in the movement to keep our rice GMO-free. It also serves to assure consumers that the rice they are eating is free from these risky organisms which pose serious threats to biodiversity, farmers' livelihoods and human health," said Greenpeace Southeast Asia Genetic Engineering Campaigner Daniel Ocampo.

"The Bistro Group recognizes the importance of protecting the country's rice supply from GMO contamination and is proud to be the first to sign onto such a project led by Greenpeace. Our participation is consistent with our Going Green initiatives and our company's people-centered philosophy, and our commitment extends beyond this campaign, toward to conserving and preserving our environment," said Lisa Ronquillo, Bistro Group Marketing Director.

Aside from pledging to serve only GMO-free rice, the Bistro Group has committed to display 'I love my rice GMO-free' posters in all their 27 outlets and distribute campaign brochures as part of the awareness drive. For the press conference, the food company served representative rice dishes from each of their five restaurant branches.

Greenpeace will be launching similar initiatives with other leading restaurants in the next few weeks.

Greenpeace campaigns for GMO-free crop and food production that is grounded in the principles of sustainability, protection of biodiversity and providing all people access to safe and nutritious food. Genetic engineering is an unnecessary and unwanted technology that contaminates the environment, threatens bio-diversity and poses unacceptable risks to health.

UK: 'Conspiracy of complacency' over modified crops

Yorkshire Post, 27 August 2008

From: Dr Brian John, Cilgwyn, Newport, Pembrokeshire.

BERNARD Dineen said this in his column (Yorkshire Post, August 4): "The first major GM crop with direct consumer benefits, low-saturated fat soya beans has been on sale in the US for nearly 10 years... GM foods and crops have been grown and eaten for many years without even a hint of health problems."

Bernard is welcome to his views on GM, but he should check his facts before simply trotting out whatever he is fed by the GM industry and its apologists.

First, GM soya was never introduced as a low-saturated fat product or as a crop with consumer benefits - it was developed in order to enhance sales of Roundup herbicide.

To quote from Monsanto: "Genetically-modified (GM) soya is indistinguishable from conventional beans in composition, nutrition and processing characteristics."

That's not true, but for the moment we'll let that pass. And second, there are abundant identified health problems and risks linked to GM in the literature, most (but not all) coming to light as a result of animal feeding studies.

Toxic effects are seen in many GM foods and crops; they have an identifiable effect upon the immune system, and the organic changes that result have all the signs of pre-cancerous conditions.

For obvious reasons, governments have refused to undertake epidemiological studies into these effects. The documented evidence of harm is well known to the Government and the GM industry, but has been systematically swept under the carpet.

Bernard does all of us a disservice by becoming a part of this "conspiracy of complacency".

USA: Genetically engineered food part of larger plan

Kennebec Journal / Morning Sentinel (Letters), 27 August 2008.

Many of us oppose genetically engineered foods. Looking beyond the official corporate and government press releases, studies show major decreases in health where these foods have been allowed on the market, increased food allergies, a dramatic increase in pesticide and herbicide use, sickness and death in lab animals, destruction of small farm agriculture, as well as new diseases like Morgellon's Disease.

So why are we having such trouble getting these foods labeled or tested for safety? Why has every U.S. president since George H.W. Bush in 1992 made support of genetically engineered crops a matter of highest national priority? Since World War II, why have the handful of major corporations that control these genetically engineered seeds had military ties in chemical weapons, biological weapons and other unmentionable technologies?

The answer is skillfully documented in a new book, "Seeds of Destruction" by William Engdahl. The development and proliferation of these genetically engineered crops have been planned and coordinated in a campaign to progress toward Henry Kissinger's ultimate goal -- controlling oil to control nations and controlling food to control people.

If you care about food, agriculture and global justice you need to read this book.

Find out your politicians' stand on this issue. Genetically engineered foods are not a result of natural processes by any stretch of the imagination. How much longer will we ignore the call for labeling and testing by many prominent scientists throughout the world?

John J. O'Donnell
Monmouth

UK: Charles's principled stand on GM crops

Yorkshire Post, 27 August 2008

IT is easy for people to snipe at Prince Charles. Indeed, among Left-wing commentators, it has become something of a national pastime (Yorkshire Post, August 13). One BBC commentator recently described Prince Charles' critique of genetically modified (GM) food as "verging on the extreme".

BBC reporters ought to be impartial and not indulge in comments that "verge" on impudence and presumption.

I admire Prince Charles for his courage and convictions. He is passionate about conservation and has a deep knowledge and understanding of the natural world.

Prince Charles practices what he preaches: on his own estates, and through his active support for small, organic and free-range farms throughout the country. And all the profits from his Duchy Originals products go into the Prince's charitable trust, which does so much to help disadvantaged young people. His advocacy for natural food brings him into conflict with powerful pressure groups - particularly in the agro-chemicals industry.

He is a braveheart to take on the political business and scientific establishments; all of which are keen to promote GM crops.

The GM food lobby suggests that it is motivated by an altruistic desire to alleviate suffering and starvation in the Third World. This is fallacious. The Third World is bedevilled by internecine conflicts: civil wars and tribalism. These are continents in which despotism and tyranny, greed and corruption are rife.

Zimbabwe provides a classic case history. Before Robert Mugabe came to power, Zimbabwe (or Rhodesia, as it was then known) had a thriving agricultural industry. It was called the "bread basket of Africa." But Mugabe's despotism drove out the white farmers and impoverished the nation. Only when such countries are truly democratic and free, will agriculture prosper.

But the most powerful argument against GM food is that it is a Pandora's box: who knows what horrors it might unleash on the natural world?

The natural world has evolved over millions of years. It is not for scientists, however clever they assume themselves to be, to interfere with the genesis of nature. Everything in nature is interwoven, interrelated and interconnected; if you stick your fingers in that intricate web and break up the pattern, it may be destroyed for ever - and with potentially disastrous consequences.

Prince Charles is wise to warn us that we meddle with the very essence of nature at our peril.

Abu Dhabi: GCC nations 'will control entry of GM foods'

Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008. By Samir Salama

Abu Dhabi: The UAE and other GCC member countries will control the entry of genetically modified foods into their markets, top officials said on Tuesday.

"The GCC countries will develop regulations through independent statutory bodies with the power to ban releases of genetically modified foods until agreed standards have been met," said Dr Mariam Harib Sultan Al Yousuf, executive director of policy and regulation at the Abu Dhabi Food Control Authority.

Dr Mariam stressed that control of gene technology should not be left to scientists and commercial organisations.

With the prospect of a global food crisis looming, it may be that industry claims about the capacity of genetically modified foods to ensure abundant supplies will eventually be justified.

"By the end of this year," Dr Al Yousuf said, "the GCC countries will come up with a system under which the placing of genetically modified (GM) crops on these countries' markets will require a regulatory approval supported by a thorough safety evaluation, which will be applied to all GM crops before they enter our markets."

Dr Al Yousuf was speaking on the sidelines of a meeting of the GCC sub-committee for genetically modified foods, held in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday.

A passionate debate is under way all over the world over the use of genetically modified foods - crops into which "foreign" genes are introduced to make them resistant to pests and adverse weather conditions, according to professor Mohammad Abdul Menem, Faculty of Food and Agriculture at the Emirates University.

"The GM food controversy is a dispute over the advantage and disadvantages of genetically modified food crops. However, there is a lot of research that shows GM foods are safe, while there is very little research which argues that people should not be offered food that may carry some degree of risk," said Professor Abdul Menem.

Crossing barriers

He said plant and animal breeders have always mixed and matched genetic material to create the species of vegetables, fruit and cattle. Those modifications, though, were carried out among closely related species through selection processes using cross-pollination and cross-fertilisation.

"What is unique about today's genetically modified foods is that we can move across species barriers, so that in order to achieve the results we want, we can take genes from a crop or an animal and place them in a crop."

He agreed that the effect foreign gene might have on people who eat the food remains a critical question.

"The same applies to genetically modified crops such as soya, corn and potatoes. They have been developed by multinational chemical firms, which now prefer to describe themselves as "life science companies."

All this is worrying enough, to the extent that genetically modified foods have been dubbed "Frankenstein foods".

Dr Mohammad Abdul Qader, the technical advisor for the Emirates Standards and Metrology Authority, said consumers in GCC countries, which import more than 90 per cent of their foods, have a right to know what they eat and how it is produced even if there is a global consensus that genetically modified foods are safe.

"Authorities in the GCC countries will develop standards for GM foods, these foods will be effectively monitored and tested. The foods or seeds that do not meet these standards will not be allowed into the GCC markets and all GM foods will carry clear labels to help consumers decide on what to eat," said Dr Abdul Qader.

26 August 2008

India: GM technology lambasted

The Statesman, 26 August 2008.

BHUBANESWAR -- Dr Michael Hansen, senior scientist, consumers union, USA, said here recently that the solution to food crisis is not untested, but its solution lay in exploring other safe and sure methods that already exist but were being ignored because they could not profit the industry.

While delivering a talk on "The Science and Politics of Genetic Engineering" organised by Living Farms, Dr Hansen criticised the proponents of genetically modified crops for trying to project them as the solution to the food crisis that loomed ahead. "GM technology is yet to fathom all the conditions behind increased yield and therefore such statements were mischievous," he stated.

While lambasting the imprecise nature of genetic engineering, he said that there is no way to ensure the intended effect and the process is highly unpredictable.

"The effect of GM foods on the health of consumers has never been seriously studied," he pointed out alleging that genetic engineering is reductionist in approach that fails to study the local ecology and evolve holistic solutions. Industry sponsored studies should not be taken at their face value, noted OUAT vice chancellor Dr DP Ray.

"Higher yields can be possible by ensuring the fertility of the soil, choosing appropriate crops, lessening chemical inputs and using such methods as Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) that did not require the physical insertion of foreign genes," he said.

USDA Gift to Monsanto
The US Department of Agriculture's give-away insurance rates for GM crops risk bankrupting the public coffers

ISIS, 26 August 2008. By Prof. Joe Cummins.

The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) is part of the Risk Management Agency (RMA) that serves under the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), a Federal Executive Department (or Cabinet Department).The USDA-FCIC safeguards the economic stability of agriculture through a system of crop insurance and provides the means for research in devising and establishing such insurance. It is managed by a Board of Directors, subject to the general supervision of the Secretary of Agriculture.

On 12 September 2007, the FCIC Board of Directors approved a Biotech Yield Endorsement (BYE) pilot programme submitted under section 523(d) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act. The result is that farmers growing Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) maize receives crop insurance at a greatly reduced cost of between 20 and 70 percent.

The BYE programme was crafted by the Monsanto Corporation and its first beneficiary is limited to its GM maize. This insurance bonanza is intended for farmers planting Monsanto's GM maize that has Bt genes against corn borer and root worm stacked with a gene for tolerance to Round-up herbicide. The FCIC Board of Directors, at its 14 August 2008 meeting, approved additional seed technologies for premium rate reduction for producers planting certain corn hybrid varieties; i.e., those containing Bt genes for corn borer and rootworm stacked with genes for tolerance to herbicides such as glyphosate and glufosinate. The companies benefiting from the largesse of the USDA give-away insurance include besides Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and Pioneer Hi-Bred [1, 2].

The crop insurance policies insure producers against yield losses due to natural causes such as drought, excessive moisture, hail, wind, frost, insects, and disease [3]. It is clear that the stacked GM maize lines are protected against corn borer and rootworm, but not particularly well protected against drought, excessive moisture, hail, wind, frost and disease, nor against the numerous insect pest that are likely to take advantage of reduced competition from borer or root worm. It may be that the stacked maize lines will benefit from a USDA give-away insurance that specifically protects against any such secondary insect pests; for they have indeed already emerged in China and India as the result of growing Bt cotton [4, 5] (see Why Prince Charles is Right, SiS 40 and Deadly gift from Monsanto to India, SiS 39)

FCIC is presuming that the stacked GM maize lines will consistently produce more than conventional or organic maize, but that has not been proven scientifically. It is based solely on an act of faith on the part of the USDA bureaucrats.

Why then do these new GM constructs deserve the gift of reduced insurance cost at the US taxpayers' expense? Have the taxpayers been consulted before such egregious largesse has been doled out to well-heeled farmers and the corporations who licence the GM seeds?

The rest of the farming community may feel especially aggrieved at this blatant display of favouritism on the part of the FCIC. After all, insured organic farmers were not compensated for damages from epidemics of fungal disease, even though the conventional fungicides were ineffective against the fungus disease. It seems that FCAC is taking on the role of sugar daddy to the GM industry and compliant farmers. And that may go a long way towards promoting universal GM farming practices and bankrupting the public coffers.

References

1. Pugh, S. FCIC BOARD EXTENDS BIOTECHNOLOGY PILOT COVERAGE AREAS AND QUALIFYING HYBRIDS 3008 http://www.rma.usda.gov/news/2008/08/fcicbiotech.html

2. Witt,T Pilot biotechnology yield endorsement Insurance Standaards Handbook 2008 and Succeeding Years, http://www.rma.usda.gov/handbooks/20000/2008/08_20070.pdf

3. Crop Policies Risk Management Agency Actual Production History 2008 http://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/

4. Shiva V and Ho MW. Why Prince Charles is right. We need GMO-free food and agriculture for food security. Science in Society 40 (to appear).

5. Kalaspurkar R. Deadly gift from Monsanto to India. SIS 38 - Letters to the editor. Science in Society 38, 51, 2008.

Ireland: Education on food growing urged

The Irish Times, 26 August 2008. By Steven Carroll.

THE GOVERNMENT has been urged to provide education programmes that would show the public how to grow their own food, as part of a strategy to address future food security and climate change.

The Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association (Iofga) said Ireland's dependence on using nitrogen in food production was no longer acceptable and a new strategy was needed to help the environment.

Kate Carmody of Iofga believes agriculture must cut its considerable greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 per cent. "These changes must be achieved without a loss in food productivity and we see the organic approach as an important part of the solution."

It is looking for €5 million for a programme to educate people in organic farming methods and a further €5 million for research into energy efficiency in Irish agriculture in its pre-budget submission to the Department of Finance.

Iofga believes the funding would be a good investment as the Irish organic market should be worth €400 million annually by 2012. "We believe our proposals will help mitigate the effects of climate change and save the taxpayer money by reducing the dependence on fossil fuels in food production," Ms Carmody said.

"They will also move us towards a greater level of national food security and generate employment in the agricultural, food processing and retailing sectors."

Ireland: State agencies must take part in balanced debate on GM, warns Boyle

Irish Green Party press release, 26 August 2008.

Green Party Chairman Senator Dan Boyle has said State agencies must take part in a balanced debate on the issue of genetically modified foods.

Speaking following the involvement of State Agencies in the ABIC 2008 conference on Biotechnology, which has an emphasis on GM, and is currently being held in University College Cork, Senator Boyle said: "While debate is always welcome and should be encouraged, the involvement of State agencies, particularly those with responsibility for food, in an event that is unbalanced is wrong. The Programme for Government states quite emphatically that an all-island GM free zone is to be negotiated. This should inform the thinking of State agencies.

"Having no input on the lack of consumer confidence, the risks of environmental cross contamination, and the dangers of market manipulation by GM companies at a conference of this nature is to leave aside an important part of this debate and is far from being intellectually honest. The State agencies concerned, especially Teagasc, should ensure that resources committed to conferences such as these correspond with the objectives in the Programme in Government."

[ENDS]

Information

Senator Dan Boyle: + 353 (0)87 277 2701

Nicola Cassidy, Press Office: + 353 (0)1 618 4088 / + 353 (0)87 914 8175

Ireland: Calls for laws to prevent release of GM crops here

The Irish Examiner, 26 August 2008. By Ray Ryan, Agribusiness Correspondent

THE Government has been urged to implement legislation to prevent the release of genetically modified (GM) crops on this island.

It has also been urged to protect Ireland's reputation by promoting the use of certified non-GMO (genetically modified organism) animal feed in the production of meat, poultry and dairy produce.

The calls were made by European Parliament member Kathy Sinnott and GM-free Ireland's Michael O'Callaghan.

They made the calls as more than 400 international delegates attended the Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference in University College Cork.

Opponents of GM crops, who staged a protest outside the opening session of the conference, said no long-term health studies justify the claims that GM food and animal feed are safe.

Ms Sinnott said the European Parliament supports the right of member states to ban GM crops as there is no market for GM food in Europe.

Lorcan Cribbin, commissioner general of Euro-Toques Ireland, said GM crops are grown on 0.02% of EU arable land, and are rejected by the majority of EU food brands, retailers and consumers.

In Ireland, 77% of consumers oppose the introduction of GM crops and 71% refuse to eat food containing GM ingredients under any circumstances, he said.

However, the conference chairman, Professor Jimmy Burke of Teagasc, said the science of biotechnology is good for society and the agricultural industry. Confidence should be taken from the fact that public health is protected by a very vigorous approval system.

"We now know from 30 years of international research and development that modern plants and food produced using biotechnology are safe," he said.

Comment from GM Watch:

Please note that the scientist promoting the most dramatic headlines out of the conference - the ones about GM being 'vital' to meeting the world's food needs - is Dr Charles Spillane of University College Cork. He runs the GM lab that the controversial Canadian Government bureaucrat, Shane Morris, joined at the height of the 'wormy corn' scandal.

Spillane has subsequently published a paper with Morris attacking EU regulation of GM. Morris continues, while at University College Cork with Spillane, to be employed by the Canadian government, which is strongly represented at this conference. The organisers of this pro-GM conference are based in Canada.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

For more on Shane Morris, see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/

Yesterday Prof Jimmy Burke of Teagasc, who is chairing the ABIC 2008 conference, tried to pretend that the event is not intended to promote GM food and farming (see "Conference not promoting GM products, Teagasc insists" article in the Irish Times below under 25 August).

Today Prof Burke is claiming that GM foods have higher yields and "are safe", and that "public health is protected by a "very vigorous approval system". The first two statements are contradicted by scientific evidence, and his remarks about the approval system are a joke: in the USA and the EU, the regulatory bodies routinely accept the safety claims made by Monsanto et al. at face value, whilst rejecting dissenting opinions from independent scientists and EU member states. The EU Commissioner for the Environment, Stavros Dimas, said the European Food Safety Authority's GMO approvals system can not be trusted, and EFSA recently admitted it will take another two years before it has the scientific capacity to conduct proper risk assessments!

Another speaker at the conference, the Irish Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Prof Paddy Cunningham (who is a member of the agri-biotech lobby group EAGLES funded by Monsanto et al.), said "the problem was essentially one of understanding by the population, not so much in the detail or the technology, but the balance of issues between the urgency of the development and application of the technology on the one hand and fear of change on the other." In other words "believe what we tell you, and don't be afraid!"

Meanwhile Teagasc director Prof Gerry Boyle, makes the astounding claim that the record of GM crops internationally has been "very good" - completely ignoring the scientific evidence of health dangers, reduced yields, GM superweeds, crop failures, widespread contamination, patent infringment lawsuits, billion-dollar food industry losses, EU market rejection and loss of biodiversity.

Prof Boyle's claim that GM food and farming is not a political issue beggars belief:

•

GM crop patents enable Monsanto and other transnational corporations to take monopoly control of the global food chain. (Monsanto and 4 other companies control 50% of the world's agricultural seeds. Monsanto controls 95% of the world's GM seeds. Most of the global food trade is controlled by Cargill and 4 other grain giants.)

•

The USA, Canada and Argentina are using the threat of WTO trade sanctions to try to get the EU to weaken its GM approvals process, to block mandatory labelling of meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM animal feed, and to prevent the establishment of GM-free crop zones including the island of Ireland.

GM crops are therefore the greatest threat to Ireland's food security. If that is not political, what is?

Teagasc's continued repetition of agri-biotech industry propaganda totally discredits its reputation as a reliable authority on GM food and farming.

The abuse of tax-payer funds by Teagasc and the other 6 Irish semi-state bodies to sponsor this propaganda excercise is an outrage and a scandal.

Ireland: Teagasc expert calls for more open debate on GM foods

The Irish Times, 26 August 2008. By Olivia Kelleher.

IRELAND NEEDS to have a more "open, transparent and inclusive" debate on the merits of genetically modified foods, an international conference in Cork on agricultural biotechnology heard yesterday.

Prof Jimmy Burke from Teagasc, the State advisory and research body on agriculture, told 450 conference delegates at University College Cork (UCC) that the science of biotechnology was good for society and the agricultural industry.

He insisted we should take confidence from the fact that public health was protected by a very rigorous approval system.

"We now know from 30 years of international research and development that modern plants and food produced using biotechnology are safe. Food containing genetically modified ingredients are already on our supermarket shelves, and livestock here are being fed genetically modified feeds.

His colleague, Teagasc director Prof Gerry Boyle, said the debate in Europe around risks and benefits of biotechnology was quite polarised.

He claimed the debate should be more "open, transparent and inclusive" with a greater level of understanding by all the stakeholders.

Prof Boyle insisted that openness was also required in the policy making process. He acknowledged the politically sensitive nature of the issues at stake but said Teagasc's role was non-political. Instead its aim was to examine the science involved and to stimulate debate on biotechnology.

Prof Patrick Cunningham, chief scientific advisor to the Government, said the problem was essentially one of understanding by the population, not so much in the detail or the technology, but the balance of issues between the urgency of the development and application of the technology on the one hand and fear of change on the other.

The conference, which was launched on Sunday, continues today at UCC with contributions from scientists from India, the US and Canada.

Ireland: Teagasc role is about science not politics, conference told

The Irish Examiner, 26 August 2008. By Ray Ryan, Agribusiness Correspondent

IT IS not Teagasc's role to get involved in the politics of biotechnology, but it is its job to examine the science involved, a leading conference was told at University College, Cork yesterday.

Teagasc director Professor Gerry Boyle said it is the authority's job to research the technology, to evaluate its use in other countries, to determine the benefits and faults of adopting GM technology.

He said it is Teagasc's job to use forums like the four-day Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference at UCC, to stimulate debate.

He said the emergence of biotechnology, however, has raised many questions of enormous public interest. These include the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food production and the effects of GMOs on the environment. But their record to date internationally has been very good.

Currently, the debate in Europe around the risks and benefits of biotechnology is quite polarised.

"In the absence of independent and credible information on biotechnology, the public is not given the opportunity to gain an understanding of, and make informed decisions on, the use of biotechnology in the agricultural and other sectors," he said.

Professor Boyle said Teagasc's role is to provide science-based innovation support, requiring partnership, leadership and accountability. It is adapting and ready for change.

A number of critical steps have already been taken, including the establishment of bioscience research centres to ensure that science technology and innovation are at the heart of the development of the agri-food sector.

"We are entering an exciting new era in farming and food production and Teagasc estimates a doubling in the value of the sector to €40bn by 2030.

Minister of State Billy Kelleher, who officially opened the conference, welcomed the discussions on ag-biotech.

Ireland: GM 'vital' to meeting the world's food needs

The Irish Independent (Farming supplement), 26 August 2008. By Caitriona Murphy.

Biotechnologies such as GM crops are necessary to double global food production by 2050, a major biotechnology conference has been told.

By 2020, global agriculture will need to produce 36pc more food with less water, less fertiliser and less chemicals, only a small increase in land and more extreme weather patterns, delegates at the ABIC 2008 conference in Cork were told.

Dr Charles Spillane of University College Cork said global food production was not on target and every available technology, including GM and other biotechnologies, would need to be harnessed if we were to even approach such figures.

Teagasc director Professor Gerry Boyle said the best position regarding GM for Ireland was a politically sensitive one.

"It is not Teagasc's role to get involved in the politics of GM but to research the technology, evaluate its use in other countries and determine the benefits and faults of adopting GM technology," he said.

He added that biotechnology raised questions of enormous public interest, including the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food production and their effects on the environment, but their record internationally was very good.

Professor Jimmy Burke said that 30 years of international research and development had shown that producing plants and food using biotechnology was safe.

Better yields

He added that technology that imparted resistance to herbicides and insect attack were providing cost and yield improvements and giving a competitive advantage to those using it.

If Irish cereal farmers were to hold onto their record as the most productive in the world, they must be able to use the most appropriate and competitive technology in the future, he told the conference.

The four-day Teagasc-hosted conference entitled "Agricultural biotechnology for a competitive and sustainable future" began on Sunday and continues until tomorrow.

Ireland: GM crops essential to boosting production

The Irish Independent, 26 August 2008. By Caitriona Murphy.

Biotechnologies such as GM crops are necessary to double global food production by 2050, a major biotechnology conference has been told.

By 2020, global agriculture will need to produce 36pc more food with less water, less fertiliser and less chemicals. A shortage of available land and more extreme weather patterns will also hit output, delegates at the conference in Cork were told.

Ireland: Nasty surprises on menu as food products recalled

The Irish Independent, 26 August 2008. By Louise Hogan.

BEWARE when tucking into your dinner as you may be in for a nasty surprise.

Insects in rice, E-coli in bottled water, glass in meatballs and rubber in crisps are just some of the problems leading to food products being removed from supermarket shelves this year.

Retailers and companies moved to recall 26 food products from sale in the first six months of the year after they were alerted to possible problems by customer complaints or checks.

In the vast majority of cases, food retailers and wholesalers respond quickly and swiftly recall any unfit products, Jeffrey Moon, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland's (FSAI) chief specialist on environmental health, said.

The FSAI is investigating a food poisoning outbreak of a strain of salmonella affecting Ireland, the UK and a number of European countries. In some cases, incorrect labelling resulted in the products being deemed unfit for human consumption. In a number of cases, the possibility of traces of allergens such as nuts or sulphites was not noted on the labels. In other products in which glass or rubber was found, it was clear the contaminant could prove dangerous.

Routine surveillance of products is carried out by environmental health inspectors, while the FSAI also carries out studies into issues such as irradiated food and GM labelling.

Under food safety acts, companies are obliged to act if they discover a problem with the product. If they fail to do so, they could face legal action. But Mr Moon says most companies normally act "very, very quickly" and effect a recall within a day of being made aware of the problem.

Mr Moon said microbiological contamination does occur, such as salmonella detected in bagged salad. In two instances this year, packets of rice were recalled due to 'rice weevils' in the grains. Other problems included mould in bottled water, plastic fragments in beans and sausages, the toxin patulin in apple juice, and glass in hot chocolate.

25 August 2008

Poland: Environment Ministry prepares bill on GMOs

Polskie Radio, 25 August 2008.

Poland's Ministry for the Environment has prepared a draft bill on GMOs, allowing the creation of GMO-free zones in this country and introducing close monitoring of genetically-modified plantations.

Environment minister Maciej Nowicki has said that the draft is an attempt to reconcile liberal EU legislation with Polish scepticism towards GMOs.

He also said there was no proof that GMOs were safe but that Poland couldn't legally ban them. He called the regulations temporary since a discussion whether to tighten the legislation was underway in Brussels. Among the supporters of stricter laws is, among others, France.

Ireland: Chefs accuse Government of double standards over GM food conference

Irish Examiner, 25 August 2008. By Dan Buckley.

A GOVERNMENT-sponsored conference on agricultural biotechnology opened at University College Cork amid protests by leading chefs at what they see as the promotion of genetically modified foods. The conference on agricultural biotechnology was opened by Billy Kelleher TD, Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

The chefs' organisation, Euro-Toques Ireland, accused the Government of providing a platform for the promoters of GM food technology

"The Government has made no effort to hold an open debate on this issue," said Lorcan Cribbin, commissioner general of Euro-Toques Ireland and head chef of Dublin's Bang Cafe.

"Now it is providing a platform for promoters of the technology. Why is taxpayers' money being used to fund the promotion of technologies which consumers reject and which is acknowledged by the programme for Government as being bad for Ireland?"

Teagasc, the agriculture and food development authority, is the main sponsor of the event. Other sponsors include Enterprise Ireland and the Food Safety Authority, along with biotech firms such as Monsanto.

"GM technology hands over control of our food chain to huge corporations who care only for profit," said Mr Cribbin.

However, Dr Charles Spillane, head of the Genetics and Biotechnology Laboratory at UCC and chairman of the ABIC Programme Committee, said new technologies were needed to produce enough food to feed the world's population.

"The neglect of agricultural research and development &investment... over the past two decades has led to a situation where our ability to produce sufficient food to feed the world's population is now in growing doubt," he said.

"By 2020 we will need to produce 36% more food with less water, less fertiliser, less chemicals, not much more land and more extreme weather patterns. We are not on target, and will need to harness every available technology, including GM and other biotechnologies, if we are to even approach such food production targets."

Conference chairman Prof Jimmy Burke, head of Teagasc Oak Park, said the gathering would offer a great platform to showcase Ireland's growing life sciences industries. "Various technology foresight reports for Ireland have identified biotechnology as one of the core technologies which our country and Irish industry must now embrace.

"These reports have also identified the agri-food sector as one that can benefit significantly from the tremendous potential offered by modern developments in biotechnology."

Ireland: Conference opens amid controversy

The Irish Examiner, 25 August 2008. By Ray Ryan, Agribusiness Correspondent.

An international conference on agricutural biotechnology was officially opened at University College Cork last night, as controversy raged over genetically modified crops.

Overe 450 delegates, including leading scientists from around the world, are attending the four-day event.

Conference chairman, Professor Jimmy Burke of Tegasc [Ireland's Food and Agriculture Authority], which is the primary sponsor of the event, said various national reports have rightly identified biotechnology as one of the core technologies which Ireland and Irish industry must now embrace.

He said the science of biotechnology is good for socieety and the agricultural industry, and confidence should be taken from the fact that public health is protected by a very rigorous approval system. Prof Burke said foods containing genetically modified ingredients are already on our supermarket shelves, and livestock here are being fed geneticaly modified feeds.

"We know now from 30 years of international research and development that modern plants and food developed through biotechnology are safe," he said.

But opponents of genetically modified crops say no long-term health studies prove that GM food and animal feed are safe. Marco Contiero, who heads Greenpeace International's GM campaign, said it was real shame public Irish money was used to finance this "one-sided conference' organised by the agri-biotech industry to promote its products.

"Instead of supporting these vested interests, the Irish Government should seriously address the health and environmental risks posed by GM crops, debate the scientific challenges behind such a risky technology, and discuss the social and economic impacts that its endorsement can have."

GM-free Ireland Network said the Agriculural Biotechnology International Conference (ABIC) is organised by a Canadian foundation with funding from the Canadian Government, industry lobby groups, corporate agri-biotech giants Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, and BP Bio Fuels, and the Gowlings law firm.

It criticised the Government for funding the conference through Teagasc, Science Foundation Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, the Marine Institute, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, and Sustainable Energy Ireland, and for providing a platform for "promoters of a technology which consumers reject".

GM-free Ireland's Michael O'Callaghan said the Government is abusing public money to sabotage its own agreed policy to keep the whole island of Ireland off-limits to GM crops.

Ireland: Conference not promoting GM products, Teagasc insists

The Irish Times, 25 August 2008. By Sean McConnell, Agriculture Correspondent.

TEAGASC HAS rejected claims from the anti-GMO lobby that a world conference it is hosting in Cork this week has the purpose of promoting genetically modified crop and animal production.

A spokesman for Teagasc said the Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference being held in UCC this week had only a relatively small element dealing with GMO production.

Teagasc is the State advisory and research body on agriculture.

"This conference which is being attended by over 450 of the world's top scientists is about deepening our understanding of DNA ‚ it is not about promoting GMO production," the spokesman said.

He said those who regularly criticise Teagasc neglect to mention the amount of research and work being carried out and money spent in the organic and conventional food production areas.

Criticism of the conference came in the first instance from Lorcan Cribbin, commissioner-general of chefs' body Euro-toques Ireland and head chef of Dublin's Bang CafÈ. Yesterday, Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland said the Government was abusing funds to sabotage its own agreed policy to keep the whole island of Ireland off-limits to GM crops.

Clare Oxborrow of Friends of the Earth said: "This Irish Government promotion of agri- biotech industry interests is a scandal," and US film director Deborah Koons Garcia, who wrote and directed The Future of Food, described it as "outrageous".

Celebrity chef Darina Allen said Slow Food Ireland was opposed to the genetic modification of food.

Marco Contiero, who heads Greenpeace International's GM campaign, said it was a shame that public money was used to finance this one-sided conference "organised by the agri-biotech industry to promote its products".

"I would be concerned if, as has been represented to me, ABIC 2008 is a one-sided promotional exercise and does not involve the kind of balance one would expect in a scientific forum ‚ especially when taxpayers' money is involved," said a statement quoting Senator David Norris.

At a press conference yesterday, Kathy Sinnott MEP and Mr O'Callaghan requested the Government to fund an independent conference on GM-free food and farming, to implement legislation to prevent release of GM crops, and to protect Ireland's reputation by promoting use of certified non-GMO feed in production of meat, poultry and dairy produce.

The ABIC 2008 conference, in UCC from August 24th to 27th, is entitled Agricultural Biotechnology for a Competitive and Sustainable Future.

Prof Jimmy Burke of Teagasc, chairing the conference, told the opening session: "Various national reports have rightly identified biotechnology as one of the core technologies which Ireland and Irish industry must now embrace. The science of biotechnology is good for society and the agricultural industry and we should take confidence from the fact that public health is protected by a very rigorous approval system."

Ireland: Farmers achieving high yields without GM

Irish Examiner (Letters), 25 August 2008.

SINCE the Prince of Wales sparked a row over GM crops being a potential environmental timebomb, there has been much misinformation bandied about by government spokespersons and GM scientists over the issue.

One of the main arguments defending GM technology is that high yields produced by GM seeds are key to feeding the world. The truth is that farmers have been getting phenomenally high yields for 50 years by "selectively breeding" wild crops such as maize or wheat.

On the other hand, GM crops contain DNA from different animals and plants rolled into one molecule to create a new set of plant genes ó a GM wheat crop can contain genes from fish, fungus or bacteria to enhance a particular resistance whereas selective breeding between two closely related species is a common occurrence in nature.

Whenever GM crops are grown on open fields there is a risk that they can contaminate selectively bred (or organic) crops and that is why GM technology is so carefully controlled.

Rupert Eden
Calle San Luis 30
Seville
Spain

Ireland: GM industry will not solve world's food problems

Irish Examiner (Letters), 25 August 2008.

FINE GAEL agriculture and food spokesman Michael Creed claims that Prince Charles's warning of the perils of GM food is "scaremongering" and "unhelpful to the GM debate".

But are his claims of jobs losses helpful and not just scaremongering? A naive faith in technological magic bullets is just as irrational as opposing GM simply because it is unnatural, not that the prince takes such a simplistic view.

It is ingenuous to believe the advertising of agro-chemical companies. They are not humanitarian organisations ó they are in business to make money.

Pesticide-resistant GM crops were developed to sell more pesticides, resulting in greater applications and higher residues which may be injurious to health.

The manufacturers' claim that this will reduce pesticide application is nonsense. Would they want to put themselves out of business?

GM 'suicide seeds' prevent farmers from saving seed for the next year, forcing them to buy more GM seed which they cannot afford. We even have the situation in America where the GM industry has successfully sued farmers whose crops have been infected. Poverty is a root cause of famine, but people who are too poor to buy food will not be helped by GM.

Small farmers are being displaced from the land by big business. Destructive agricultural policies are dictated by the World Bank and politicians who are incompetent or corrupt.

Famine is also caused by war, drought, floods, loss of topsoil, climate change and salination. To ignore all this, allowing people to starve, in the belief that GM will solve the world's food problem is stupid and pernicious.

There is easily enough arable land in the world to feed everyone; it just needs the political will to manage it properly.

GM businesses seek to monopolise the food chain, reducing the number of varieties, replacing traditional crops and holding farmers to ransom. Inevitably this will increase vulnerability to new pests and disease. Pesticide-resistant weeds are already evolving.

It is a myth that GM is a process similar to selective breeding by man or nature.

Genes from one species are removed from the nucleus and spliced onto the genes of another species. A gene from a glow-worm could not end up as part of the maize genome by any natural process. This is why GM foods have been dubbed 'Frankenstein' foods.

We have already caused untold harm to the environment with extinctions, habitat destruction, introduction of alien species, pollution, global warming, the overuse of biocides and ill-conceived agriculture. Will we never learn?

There is no evidence that GM yields are higher. People don't want GM foods, nor are they necessary. However the GM industry in America wants, and has gotten, secrecy, so we have no choice. Furthermore, their food disparagement laws make criticism illegal

There are many biochemists and other experts who consider GM to be dangerous and unnecessary, but because funding from research comes from the GM industry, their views are marginalised.

We know what is safe to eat from thousands of years of experience.

By allowing GM we risk opening a Pandora's Box.

Michael Job
Rossnagrena
Glengarriff
Co Cork

Australia: GM moratorium may be extended

The Australian, 25 August 2008. By Annolies Truman

PERTH, Australia - With a state election set for September 6, the WA Labor government last week pledged a four-year extension of the current moratorium on GM (genetically modified) crops and a limit on GM canola trials to 10 hectares.

The Liberal Party has promised large-scale GM trials and the introduction of GM cotton. The Greens and the Socialist Alliance have stated their complete opposition to GM crops.

The Say No to GMO campaign has given a voice to public concern about the potential health and environmental risks of GM technology, and has been pushing for a 10-year extension of the moratorium, which is due to end this year.

Janet Grogan from the Network of Concerned Consumers told Green Left Weekly, "There has been a massive push to get GM cotton introduced into the Ord region and at one stage it looked likely that the [Alan] Carpenter government would make it an exemption to the moratorium. The decision to ban all GM crops is great news."

UK government stands behind GM

FoodNavigator.com, 25 August 2008. By Lorraine Heller

The UK's environment minister has challenged claims by Prince Charles that genetically modified (GM) crops are causing environmental damage.

The comments, made in an interview with the UK paper The Sunday Telegraph, came after Prince Charles called GM a "gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong".

Environment minister Phil Woolas said the government has a responsibility to base policy on science, and to look into whether genetically modified crops could help provide a solution to hunger in the developing world.

"It's easy for those of us with plentiful food supplies to ignore the issue, but we have a responsibility to use science to help the less well off where we can. I'm asking to see the evidence. If it has been a disaster, then please provide the evidence."

He said unless there was scientific evidence that proved that GM crops have done harm, the government would move ahead with GM crop trials and towards a more "liberal" regime in Britain.

Earlier this month, Prince Charles had told The Daily Telegraph that future reliance on corporations to mass-produce food would drive millions of farmers off their land.

He said the debate should be about "food security not food production".

The government's initial reaction was to say it welcomed all voices in the debate, with safety being a priority.

GM debate

The two opposing camps have long held strong views on the controversial technology.

GM supporters argue higher yields and therefore greater profitability could help combat food prices, which have been on the rise over the past years.

However, green campaigners have expressed concerns that the long-term safety of GM crops has not been established. Additionally, they say there is no evidence suggesting GM can lead to increased production.

UK support?

In June, Woolas is said to have held private talks with the Agricultural Biotechnology Council about increasing Britain's acceptance of GM crops.

The following day, Prime Minister Gordon Brown also expressed support for the controversial technology. He called for the EU to relax regulations governing the import of genetically modified feed, which currently see all incoming shipments of feed undergoing strict testing, and any batches containing unapproved GM traces sent back.

A recent report by UK-based PG Economics called Global impact of biotech crops: socio-economic and environmental effects 1996-2006 said the present food supply crisis would be worse if it were not for commercial cultivation of GM crops over the last 12 years.

Global production of soybeans, corn, cotton and canola were respectively 5 per cent, 1.4 per cent, 5.2 per cent, and 0.5 per cent higher that they would have been if farmers were not using GM technology, said the report.

Nathalie Moll, executive director for EuropaBio, which represents the biotech industry, said the UK has always been very coherent and consistent in its decisions surrounding GM, and the group welcomed Brown's increased support.

Canada: MP plants seed for national food security policy

The StarPhoenix, 25 August 2008. By Darren Bernhardt.

A growing movement in Canada towards locally-grown and organic farming practices is taking root across the country but it is facing big challenges, says a federal MP crossing the country in support of a national food security policy.

Alex Atamanenko, the NDP's agriculture critic, said he and party leader Jack Layton decided to launch a national "Food for Thought" tour in response to Canadians' worries about climate change, rising oil and gas prices, escalating food prices, genetically modified seeds and trees, global unrest from food shortages and the competition between crops grown for food and those dedicated to biofuel production.

The Saskatoon forum Monday evening was the fifth stop of the tour, which kicked off in Castlegar, British Columbia, on Aug. 19.

More people want to connect with their food producers. That is evident in the trend towards farmer's markets and the popularity of the 100-mile diet, in which people only consume what can be grown or produced in that radius, Atamanenko told a crowd of about 60 people in the St. Mary's Church hall on 20th Street.

But political policies and multinational corporations bent on profit at the expense of the environment are stifling a full-blown movement, he said.

Corporations still manage to squeeze independent farmers, said Darrin Qualman, director of research for the National Farmers' Union, pointing at Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan, which is reaping record profits from fertilizer.

One way to combat that is to go organic, said Atamanenko, who noted his relatives farm in the Blaine Lake region of Saskatchewan. The first year they shifted to organic farming they saved $125,000 by not using chemical fertilizers.

But there are government obstacles as well, such as new legislation in B.C. preventing cattle producers from selling directly to customers. Under the guise of standardized quality control, the provincial government is forcing farmers to follow the procedures of corporations, effectively putting them out of business, Atamanenko said.

As well, NAFTA has enabled subsidized American apple producers to dump (sell below cost) their apples in B.C., forcing Canadian orchards to close. Before NAFTA there were 2,000 onion producers in B.C. Today there are six, Atamanenko said.

As multinational corporations continue to buy up farmland and use genetically-modified seeds and chemicals, the water supply is being contaminated, the air is becoming polluted and more prairie and wilderness is being lost. The collapse of the fisheries in Atlantic Canada is due to corporate-driven over-fishing.

The sheer volumes of supplies being produced and distributed by corporations makes it hard to track and more susceptible to problems, as we are now seeing in the listeriosis outbreak linked to Maple Leaf Foods, Atamanenko said.

But there are grassroots initiatives, such as restaurants buying only locally-produced product and consumers paying organic grain farmers up front as a commitment to their product.

"But what role can the government take to help this grassroots movement?" Atamanenko said. "We need the voices, stories and opinions of everyday people to help us determine what action is needed to enhance food security in our country."

One idea is to create co-operative distributors to get local food into the supermarkets, he said.

Benefits linked to locally-produced, organic food include improved health to people, the local economy and the environment, noted Twyla Markham, co-chair of Food Secure Saskatchewan.

"Medicare began in this province, so why not food security for all our citizens?" she said. "Food is not an alternative, a nicety, a frill. It should be a basic human right."

Too many store shelves are filled with junk food because it's cheaper to ship potato chips to northern communities than potatoes. As a result, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease rates are spiking, said Markham, who questioned why liquor prices are controlled across the province but not the cost of milk.

"We need to organize through the NDP and local organizations and move things in a direction we want it to go," said Qualman.

"The time to act provincially is now," encouraged Markham.

24 August 2008

Irish Government slammed for funding GM food conference

GM-free Ireland press release, 24 August 2008.
__________

Related press conference:

With Kathy Sinnott MEP (EU Parliament IND/DEM Group), Michael O'Callaghan (GM-free Ireland), John Brennan (Western Organic Network) and others speakers:

Sunday 24 August at 18:00
O'Rahilly Building room 123
University College Cork
Contact: Michael O'Callaghan, + 353 (0)87 7994761

__________

The Irish Government is facing mounting international criticism for giving state financial support for the ABIC 2008 conference, which will be opened today (Sunday) at University College Cork by Billy Kelleher TD, Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on Sunday.

The Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference [1] will promote the release of genetically modified algae, crops, trees, crustaceans, fish, poultry, livestock, animal feed and food, including GM pharma crops and pharma livestock that contaminate the food chain with agrofuels, drugs and industrial chemicals. The conference will be chaired by Prof. Jimmy Burke, head of Teagasc Crops Research Centre.

The controversial industry talkfest, which runs from 24-27 August, is organised by a Canadian foundation with funding from the Canadian Government, industry lobby groups, corporate agri-biotech giants Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, and BP Bio fuels, and the Gowlings law firm (which aided Monsanto's GMO patent infringement lawsuit against the Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, who lost ownership of his seeds and crops after being contaminated by Monsanto's GM seeds [2]). Irish tax-payers are funding the conference through Teagasc (the Agriculture and Food Authority), Science Foundation Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, the Marine Institute (Foras na Mara), the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, and Sustainable Energy Ireland.

Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland said "The Government is abusing our money to sabotage its own agreed policy to keep the whole island of Ireland off-limits to GM crops." [3] Clare Oxborrow of Friends of the Earth said "This Irish government promotion of agri-biotech industry interests is a scandal". US film director Deborah Koons Garcia (who produced "The Future of Food"), described it as "outrageous." [4] Celebrity Chef Darina Allen said Slow Food Ireland (a member of Slow Food International with 85,00 members in 132 countries) is opposed to the genetic modification of our food. [5]

Kathy Sinnott MEP said "As the Lisbon Treaty referendum made clear, the Irish Government is out of touch with reality. The EU Parliament supports the right of member states to ban GM crops as there is no market for GM food in Europe. It is clear that European consumers do not want GM food. Instead of funding GM industry propaganda like the ABIC conference, our Government should keep its promise to maintain Ireland as a GM-free crop zone and enable farmers to source affordable GM-free animal feed, thus providing a competitive advantage to Irish farmers and food producers for generations to come. [6]

Marco Contiero, who heads Greenpeace International's GM campaign, said "It's a real shame that public Irish money is used to finance this one-sided conference organised by the agri-biotech industry to promote its products. Instead of supporting these vested interests, the Irish Government should seriously address the health and environmental risks posed by GM crops, debate the scientific challenges behind such a risky technology and discuss the social and economic impacts that its endorsement can have." [7]

Lorcan Cribbin, Commissioner-General of Euro-toques Ireland, representing 200 leading Irish chefs, said: "GM seeds and crops hand over control of our food chain to huge corporations who care only for profit. The government has made no effort to hold an open and inclusive debate on this issue, and now is providing a platform for promoters of this technology which consumers reject and which the programme for government acknowledges is bad for Ireland. Our chefs have an obligation to source the safe, healthy, fresh, local, quality food which the majority of EU consumers demand. Any release of GM crops will contaminate our food chain in perpetuity, and destroy the brand reputation of 'Ireland ó the food island'. We call on the Government to re-affirm its commitment to defend our food, farm and tourism sectors with strict laws to prevent any release of GM crops, fish or livestock on this island.

Senator David Norris said "I would be concerned if, as has been represented to me, ABIC 2008 is a one-sided promotional exercise and does not involve the kind of balance one would expect in a scientific forum - especially when tax payers' money is involved". At a related press conference on Sunday, Kathy Sinnott MEP and Michael O'Callaghan will request the Government to fund an independent conference on GM-free food and farming, to implement legislation to prevent the release of GM crops on this island, and to protect Ireland's reputation by promoting the use of certified non-GMO animal feed in the production of meat, poultry and dairy produce.

Contact:

Michael O'Callaghan
Co-ordinator, GM-free Ireland Network
Mobile: + 353 (0)87 799 4761

Email: mail@gmfreeireland.org
Web: http://www.gmfreeireland.org

Notes:

1. Agricultural Biotechnology Conference International 2008: http://www.abic.ca/abic2008/

2. The agri-biotech industry and Teagasc claim that GM crops are safe to eat, have higher yields, lower chemical inputs, and that they can "co-exist" with conventional and organic farming. But no long-term health studies prove GM food and animal feed are safe (see the book "Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods" by Jeffrey M. Smith, available at the Cultivate Centre in Dublin or by mailorder from http://www.geneticroulette.com). Conclusive scientific evidence does prove that GM crops have lower yields, increase the use of weedkillers and/or produce their own pesticides, and rapidly contaminate the food chain. The UN Biosafety Protocol's GM Contamination Register clearinghouse reports 216 GM contamination incidents in 57 countries: http://www.gmcontaminationegister.org

In the landmark Monsanto vs. Schmeiser case, the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted the World Trade Organisation's Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement to rule that farmers contaminated by GM pollen and/or GM seeds lose ownership of their seeds and crops and can be sued for patent infringement. For details see Percy Schmeiser interviews at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/interviews/schmeiser.php and http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/schmeiser.php

3. The agreed programme for Government, announced by the Minister of State for Food and Horticulture Trevor Sargent, TD in June 2007, is "to seek to negotiate to declare the island of Ireland as a GM-free zone." This legislation, which has not yet been implemented, would prevent the environmental release of GM algae, bacteria, seeds, crops, trees, insects, crustaceans, fish, and livestock. (It would not prohibit the importation of GM animal feed that has been approved by the EC regulatory bodies, or have any effect on the contained use of GM bacteria for the production of medicines in sealed vats in biosecure laboratories.) The Government's GM-free Ireland commitment was recently confirmed by our Agriculture Brendan Smith, and by Agriculture Minister John Gormley who said "Ireland is the best place for a GM-free zone in the EU."

4. The highly recommended "The Future of Food" DVD is available from http://www.thefutureoffood.com

5 See http://www.slowfoodireland.org, http://www.slowfood.com, and interview with Vandana Shiva at http://multimedia.slowfood.com/index.php?lng=2&method=multimedia&action=zoom&id=24086

6. Contary to claims made by the agri-biotech industry, the Irish Grain and Feed Association, Teagasc and the Irish Farmers Journal, certified non-GMO animal feed is widely used in EU member states and regions that have adopted Quality Agriculture strategies. Interested stakeholders should attend the 2nd International Non-GMO soy Summit from 7-9 October in Brussels: http://www.nongmosoysummit.com

7. Monsanto and 4 other companies control 50% of the world's agricultural seeds. Monsanto controls 95% of the world's GM seeds. Most of the global food trade is controlled by Cargill and 4 other grain giants.

Background:

Monsanto and a handful of giant agri-biotech corporations are using patented GM seeds and propaganda to grab monopoly control of the global food supply, in a blatant attempt at corporate feudalism.

No long-term health studies justify the claims that GM food and animal feed are safe. There is no market for GM-labelled food in Europe. GM crops are grown on 0.02% of EU arable land, and are rejected by the majority of EU food brands, retailers and consumers. In Ireland, 77% of consumers oppose the introduction of GM crops, and 71% refuse to eat food containing GM ingredients under any circumstances (survey published in "GM Crops and Food: Threat or opportunity for Ireland?", Irish Institute for Bioethics, 2005.)

18 county and town councils in the Republic and Northern Ireland, representing over 1 million consumers, have declared their areas off-limits to GM crops. See map at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/map/

The UN International Assessment of Agriculture and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report published earlier this year found that GM crops reduce agricultural biodiversity and food security, and have little if any role to play in increasing global food production: http://www.agassessment.org

The USA, Canada and Argentina are using the threat of WTO trade sanctions to try to get the EU to weaken its GM approvals process, to block mandatory labelling of meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM animal feed, and to prevent the establishment of GM-free crop zones including the island of Ireland.

Ireland: Anger at taxpayer money funding of GM promotion
Top chefs call on government to re-affirm GM-Free Ireland commitment

Euro-Toques Ireland press release, 24 August 2008.

Top chefs group Euro-toques Ireland, representing almost 200 professional chefs and cooks, has called on the government to re-affirm their promise to negotiate to keep Ireland free of GM crops, in light of state financial support for major biotechnology conference taking place on Cork this week.

"The government gave assurances that it would pursue a GM-free agenda for this country, and yet government agencies are providing very significant funding for a major conference promoting the use of GM"; commented Lorcan Cribbin, Commissioner-General of Euro-toques Ireland and Head Chef of Dublin's Bang CafÈ.

"Our chefs have an obligation to source the safe, healthy, fresh, local, quality food which the majority of EU consumers demand. Any release of GM crops will contaminate our food chain, and destroy the brand reputation of 'Ireland ó the food island' which benefits our food, farm and tourist sectors."

When the Fianna Fail entered into coalition with the Green Party last year part of their agreed programme for government was to seek "to negotiate for the whole island of Ireland to become a GMO-free zone".

There is no market for GM-labelled food in Europe. GM crops are grown on 0.02% of EU arable land, and are rejected by the majority of EU food brands, retailers and consumers. In Ireland, 77% of consumers oppose the introduction of GM crops and 71% refuse to eat food containing GM ingredients under any circumstances*. 126 organisations are members of the GM-Free Ireland Network and 18 county or town councils, representing over 1 million consumers on both sides of the border, have declared their areas off-limits to GM crops**.

The conference in UCC from August 24-27 is entitled "Agricultural Biotechnology for a competitive and sustainable future" and will promote the release of patented GM algae, crops, trees, fish, and livestock as a solution to rising food and fuel prices and climate change. Teagasc, Ireland's Agriculture and Food Development Authority, is lead sponsor and chair of the event. Other sponsors include Enterprise Ireland, the Food Safety Authority, Science Foundation Ireland and the Marine Institute, as well as biotech lobby groups and biotech giants such as Monsanto.

"The bottom line is once this technology is released it cannot be recalled, and the results are unknown. GM technology hands over control of our food chain to huge corporations who care only for profit. To date the government has made no effort to hold an open and inclusive debate on this issue, and now it is providing a platform for promoters of the technology. Why is taxpayers' money is being used to fund the promotion of technologies which consumers reject and which is acknowledged by the programme for government as being bad for Ireland?".

"Ireland's leading chefs are calling on the Government to re-affirm its commitment to defend our food, farm and tourism sectors with strict laws to prevent any release of GM crops, fish or livestock on this island", concluded Cribbin.

ENDS

Contact:

Ruth Hegarty, Secretary-General, Euro-toques Ireland
+ 353 (0)1 677 9995 / 087 7989474
email: info@eurotoquesirl.org

Notes to the Editor:

Euro-toques, The European Community of Chefs, was established in 1986 in Brussels as a guardian of European culinary heritage and as a lobby group addressing the concerns of Europe's top chefs and cooks about food quality andÝ the future of food. Euro-toques Ireland was also founded in 1986 by Myrtle Allen of Ballymaloe House and now has almost 200 member cooks/chefs including Derry Clarke of L'Ecrivain, Ross Lewis of Chapter One, Guillaume Le Brun of Restaurant Patrick Guilbaud, Kevin Dundon of Dunbrody House, Paul Flynn of the Tannery and Neven Maguire of NcNean Bistro. Lorcan Cribbin of Bang CafÈ, Dublin is the current Commissioner-General of Euro-toques Ireland. http://www.eurotoquesirl.org/>

The GM-free Ireland Network is an association of individuals and organisations collaborating to keep the island of Ireland off-limits to the environmental release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) including viruses, algae, bacteria, seeds, crops, trees, insects, molluscs, crustaceans, fish, poultry and livestock. Launched at the Forging a GM Policy for Ireland workshop http://www.gmfreeireland.org/events/workshop1/index.php in 2004, the GM-free Ireland Network has the largest number and the broadest diversity of stakeholder groups of any NGO on this island. Our 130 organisational members http://www.gmfreeireland.org/network/members.php (and the populations of the 18 counties and towns which oppose the cultivation of GM crops) now represent over 1 million citizens. http://www.gmfreeireland.org

ABIC 2008 - Agricultural Biotechnology Conference International 2008, UCC, 24-27 Aug http://www.abic.ca/abic2008/

Sources:

* Survey published in "GM Crops and Food: Threat or opportunity for Ireland?", published by the Irish Institute for Biotecthics, 28 November 2005.

** See map of GM-free zones in Ireland at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/map/

Ireland: Eucharist from GM wheat 'contravenes canon law'

Irish Independent, 24 August 2008. By Jerome Reilly.

Genetically-modified (GM) wheat may not be be suitable under canon law to be used to make hosts for the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist, it's been claimed.

Fr Sean McDonagh, a Columban priest and well-known commentator on environmental issues, questions whether the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith which oversees Catholic doctrine could ever sanction GM wheat. Writing in Intercom, a publication of the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference, Fr McDonagh cites the example that gluten-free hosts are outlawed for use in communion -- even though it can endanger the health of those suffering from coeliac disease, which is a bowel disorder. Low gluten hosts are permitted.

"Crops which have been genetically engineered to date include maize, soya beans, canola (derived from rapeseed) and potatoes. Many biotech companies would like to genetically engineer wheat. If this is pushed through, the question will arise as to whether GM wheat can be used in the Eucharist?"

Fr McDonagh quotes from Canon Law 924, section two, which stipulates: "the bread must be wheaten only, and recently made, so that there is no danger of corruption."

But he says that genetically-engineered wheat is not "made solely from wheat" because of protein added to make it resistant to a weed killer. "For example, people who suffer coeliac disease are unable to absorb gluten, a protein found in wheat. Eating even small amounts of wheat can make them ill.

"In recent decades, it has been possible to extract the gluten from wheaten bread so that people can eat bread without endangering their health. Despite the fact that gluten-wheat poses a health threat, which can often be serious, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith stated in a reply in 1982 that, 'the local Ordinary could not permit a priest to consecrate special gluten-free hosts for the communion of coeliacs'," writes Fr McDonagh.

Fr McDoangh says that the then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, addressed the subject in 1994 when he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The statement from the Holy Office said: "Special hosts, quibus glutinum ablatum est (from which gluten has been removed), are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist".

The statement added that low-gluten hosts are valid matter, provided that they contain the amount of gluten sufficient to obtain the confection of bread and that the procedure for making such hosts is not such as to alter the nature of the substance of the bread.

"Given the centrality of the celebration of the Eucharist in the life of the priest, candidates for the priesthood who are affected by coeliac disease or suffer from alcoholism or similar conditions may not be admitted to holy orders," the statement added.

Fr McDonagh believes that this statement from the Holy Office has ramifications for the use of GM-modified wheat in the Sacrament which is central to the Catholic faith.

"Genetically-engineered wheat will have an added protein which will make it tolerant to the herbicide of a biotech company.

"This raises questions whether it is lawful to use GM wheat as matter for the Eucharist. If, notwithstanding a pressing health need, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith refused to sanction gluten-free hosts as valid matter for the Eucharist because a protein has been extracted from the wheat, how can it sanction genetically-engineered wheat which has an added protein designed to make it resistant to a weed killer?"

Four years ago biotech-giant Monsanto announced it had decided to shelve plans to introduce its controversial genetically-engineered Roundup Ready wheat. Genetic modification is considered more difficult for wheat than for other crops like maize and soya beans and its widespread use may be years away.

UK: Ethical dilemna: How can I stay GM free?
With GM crops used in products from plastic to pants, buying organic is the best way to avoid them, says Lucy Siegle

The Observer, 24 August 2008.

There is a decidedly retro feel to the sheepish return of GM to the UK. Like the transgenic crop version of a back-to-the-Nineties album, we find ourselves transported to the high emotions of a decade ago; Prince Charles kicking off on the radio and people in jumpsuits tearing up GM test sites (this time around a Leeds University potato trial).

Pulling up GM crops is one very literal way of attempting to stay GM free, but it is ill advised. Apart from the criminal-damage issue, this type of direct action plays into the hands of the GM cheerleaders, who like to label any opposition Luddite or unscientific, which it is not. It is impossible to set out all the scientific arguments against GM here (for a summary see Forum for the Future's Five Capitals model, www.forumforthefuture.org/node/4625). Suffice to say, a decade on from the outcry that effectively placed a moratorium on GM in the UK, many reservations remain, including the thorny issue of cross-contamination of non-GM crops.

The most effective way to fight GM as an individual is via your shopping list, as it was last time, when the wholesale rejection of the Flavr Savr tomato (in which the rotting gene had been removed) meant that retailers soon lost their appetite for transgenic wares.

Admittedly, this time it's more difficult. Last year a record 282.3m acres of the world's croplands were planted with GM soya beans, corn, cotton and other core GM crops, and some 90 per cent of conventional animal feed is thought to contain GM maize. This means it's easy to unwittingly support GM, especially through cotton, bioplastics (derived from GM corn) and processed food, meat and dairy. The best defence remains organic (GM ingredients are not permitted under organic standards), and meat and dairy from retailers - notably M&S - that specify GM free.

There is one departure from the Nineties debate: GM advocates are now citing the global food crisis as motivation. Strikingly, the biotech industry seems keen to play this down. As the chairman of Syngenta admitted to the Guardian recently, 'GM won't solve the food crisis, at least not in the short term.'

But then it's not the job of transnational biotech giants to feed the world. Their job is to make money for shareholders - the combined market value of the two big rivals Monsanto and Syngenta now exceeds $100bn. A decade on, the point remains that just as Flavr Savr are not the only tomatoes, GM is not the only system for growing food in the future. In many ways it could be the worst, not least because it thrives on monocultures and threatens the very basis of our ecology.

As physicist and campaigner against the privitisation of the world's croplands Vandana Shiva (www.navdanya.org) puts it: 'In any crisis, uniformity is the worst way to respond; diversity is resilience.' You won't get diversity with GM.

UK: On principle, we should back prince
Michael Russell on GM crops

The Sunday Herald, August 24 2008

[Michael Russell MSP is Minister for Environment, Scotland]

IN RECENT weeks, the Prince of Wales has reignited the GM debate. Some people, such as UK environment minister Phil Woolas, were quick to criticise, but many others have indicated agreement. The Scottish government also supports his argument. GM is not the panacea its advocates claim it is, and the dangers of GM crop cultivation continue to outweigh the advantages.

The criticism from Woolas was particularly strange. We are both environment ministers and should approach such matters with the precautionary principle firmly in mind. The principle that "if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action."

This makes sense. That is why it is enshrined in European law and is commanding global respect. Indeed, the Indian Supreme Court is considering a petition which would ban GM experimental crop cultivation. It is merely common sense to be careful; once the GM genie is out of the bottle it would be impossible to get it back in.

But for Scotland there is a second principle - one that I call the preventative principle. Scotland is lucky - we enjoy a clean, pure and sustainable natural environment. This not only attracts many tourists, but also underpins our ability to sell our whisky, beef, lamb, salmon and so many natural products. It makes no sense to play fast and loose with such an asset. Fortunately most people in Scotland agree, as every poll on the issue has shown.

But, contrary to the pro-GM spin, we are not alone - not even in these islands. The government of Northern Ireland agrees, as do many others across Europe. They share our concerns and, like us, are prepared to stand up and be counted. Earlier this year I discussed the issue with European environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, who has urged sensible caution on the issue.

There is no evidence GM will feed the world. Conventional plant breeding techniques - at which Scots scientists excel - have a far better track record in improving yield and protection from disease. Scotland does not need GM crops, Scotland does not want GM crops and Scotland should not have GM crops. Scottish agriculture and exporters are better off without them. And so is the environment right across our planet.

German Coalition Sues Bayer Over Pesticide Honey Bee Deaths

Environment News Service (ENS), August 25 2008

FREIBURG, Germany - The German organization Coalition against Bayer Dangers today brought legal action against Werner Wenning, chairman of the Bayer AG Board of Management, by filing a charge against him with the public prosecutor in Freiburg.

The group accuses Bayer CropScience of "marketing dangerous pesticides and thereby accepting the mass death of bees all over the world."

The coalition filed the charge in cooperation with German beekeepers who claim they lost thousands of hives after poisoning by the Bayer pesticide clothianidin in May.

Since 1991, Bayer has been producing the insecticide imidacloprid, which is one of the best selling insecticides in the world, often used as seed-dressing for maize, sunflower, and rape. Bayer exports imidacloprid to more than 120 countries and the substance is Bayer's best-selling pesticide.

Since patent protection for imidacloprid has expired in most countries, Bayer in 2003 brought a similarly functionning successor product, clothianidin, onto the market, the coalition alleges.

Both substances are systemic chemicals that work their way from the seed through the plant. The substances get into the pollen and the nectar and can damage beneficial insects such as bees.

The coalition alleges that the start of sales of imidacloprid and clothianidin coincided with the occurrence of large scale bee deaths in many European and American countries.

Up to 70 percent of all hives have been affected. In France, approximately 90 billion bees died over the past 10 years, reducing honey production by up to 60 percent.

Attorney Harro Schultze, who represents the Coalition against Bayer Dangers said, "The public prosecutor needs to clarify which efforts Bayer undertook to prevent a ban of imidacloprid and clothianidin after sales of both substances were stopped in France. We're suspecting that Bayer submitted flawed studies to play down the risks of pesticide residues in treated plants."

In France, imidacloprid has been banned as a seed dressing for sunflowers since 1999 and in 2003 was also banned as a sweet corn treatment.

Convened by the French government, in 2003 the ComitÈ Scientifique et Technique declared that the treatment of seeds with imidacloprid leads to significant risks for bees. Bayer's application for approval of clothianidin was also rejected by French authorities.

Clothianidin and imidacloprid are two of a relatively new class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids that impact the central nervous system of insects.

"Bayer's Board of Management has to be called to account since the risks of neonicotinoids such as imidacloprid and clothianidin have now been known for more than 10 years," says Philipp Mimkes, spokesman for the Coalition Against Bayer-Dangers.

The coalition is demanding that Bayer withdraw all neonicotinoids from the market worldwide.

"With an annual turnover of nearly 800 million euro, neonicotinoids are among Bayer's most important products," said Mimkes. "This is the reason why Bayer, despite serious environmental damage, is fighting against any application prohibitions."

The accusation of flawed studies is echoed by the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency which said of Bayer's clothianidin application, "All of the field/semi-field studies, however, were found to be deficient in design and conduct of the studies and were, therefore, considered as supplemental information only.

"Clothianidin may pose a risk to honey bees and other pollinators, if exposure occurs via pollen and nectar of crop plants grown from treated seeds," said the Canadian agency.

The agency said, "It should also be noted that clothianidin is very persistent in soil, with high carry-over of residues to the next growing season. clothianidin is also mobile in soil."

Germany banned neonicotinoids for seed treatment in May 2008, due to negative affects on bee colonies. Beekeepers in the Baden-W¸rttemberg region suffered a severe decline linked to the use of clothianidin.

The German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety suspended the registration for eight pesticide seed treatment products on maize and rapeseed, including clothianidin and imidacloprid.

Bayer says the pesticide entered the environment because farmers failed to apply an adhesive agent that affixes the compound to the seed coats. Without the fixative agent, Bayer says, the compound drifted into the environment from sown rapeseed and sweet corn and then affected the honeybees.

"Seed treatments are one of the most targeted and environmentally friendly forms to apply crop protection products. We regret the recent bee losses and the situation they have created for the beekeepers in Baden-W¸rttemberg," said Dr. Hans-Josef Diehl, head of development and registration at Bayer CropScience Deutschland GmbH during an expert hearing on bee losses in Karlsruhe, Germany in June.

Dr. Richard Schmuck, an ecologist at Bayer CropScience, said in June, "All studies available to us confirm that our product is safe to bees if the recommended dressing quality is maintained. This is also shown by the product safety assessments which we have submitted to the registration authorities."

"When used correctly," he said, "this crop protection product is safe for operators, consumers and the environment and fulfills the international criteria with regard to ecological systems."

In the United States, the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit August 15 in federal court in Washington, DC to force the federal government to disclose studies it ordered on the effect of clothianidin on honey bees.

Studies on clothianidin were ordered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from Bayer CropScience in 2003 when the EPA granted the company a registration for the chemical.

NRDC attorneys believe that the EPA has evidence of connections between pesticides and the mysterious honey bee die-offs reported across the country called colony collapse disorder that it has not made public.

Colony collapse disorder has claimed more than one-third of honey bees in the United States since it was first identified in 2006.

23 August 2008

Ireland: Teagasc support for GM food conference criticised by chefs

The Irish Times, 23 August 2008. By Sean McConnell, Agriculture Correspondent.

GROUPS OPPOSED to the growing of genetically modified food have criticised the Government for allowing Teagasc to sponsor a major biotechnology conference which opens in Cork tomorrow.

The chefs' group Euro-Toques Ireland has called on the Government to reaffirm its promise to negotiate to keep Ireland free of GM crops.

Euro-Toques claims the conference, entitled Agricultural Biotechnology for a Competitive and Sustainable Future, will promote GM algae, crops, trees, fish and livestock as a solution to rising food prices and climate change.

Lorcan Cribbin, commissioner general of Euro-Toques Ireland and head chef of Dublin's Bang Cafe, said Irish chefs have an obligation to source the safe, healthy, fresh, local, quality food which the majority of EU consumers demand.

"Any release of GM crops will contaminate our food chain, and destroy the brand reputation of 'Ireland: The Food Island' which benefits our food, farm and tourist sectors," he said.

When Fianna Fáil entered coalition with the Green Party last year, part of their programme for Government was "to negotiate for the whole island of Ireland to become a GMO-free zone", he said.

He pointed out that Teagasc, the agriculture and food development authority, was the lead sponsor of this event and other sponsors included Enterprise Ireland, the Food Safety Authority, Science Foundation Ireland and the Marine Institute, as well as biotech lobby groups and biotech groups such as Monsanto.

"The bottom line is, once this technology is released it cannot be recalled, and the results are unknown. GM technology hands over control of our food chain to huge corporations who care only for profit," he said.

"The Government has made no effort to hold an open debate on this issue, and now it is providing a platform for promoters of the technology. Why is taxpayers' money being used to fund the promotion of technologies which consumers reject and which is acknowledged by the programme for Government as being bad for Ireland?" he asked.

Groups opposed to GM crops being grown here will hold a press conference in Cork tomorrow to demand that the Government fund a conference to highlight the dangers of GM production.

Ireland: GM? 'I don't like anyone messing with my food'

Limerick Leader, 23 August 2008.

[Photo caption: Farmer Con Cremin has gone organic, and dismisses GM food as the epitome of corporate greed]

Con Cremin is a suckler farmer who raised pedigree Shorthorn cattle on his lands near Kilkolman. He's also an environmental activist who has gone completely into organic production.

"It's the obvious way to go, especially in this climate," he said. "I know farmers who plut out expensive fertiliser this summer and it was all washed away in the floods."

He is also a farming activist. "I was a member of the Limerick IFA [Irish Farmers Association], but I left and joined the ICSA [Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association] they, like me, are opposed to anyone introducing GM foods to this country," he explained.

Con is actively opposed to GM farming and dismisses it as "corporate greed." He erected "GM free" signs around his own farm during the campaign against Monsanto last year. "I don't like anyone messing with my food," he said.

He is also oppposed to Lisbon Treaty and voted against it.

But he loves farming and he loves Kilcolman. He gave us a tour of the place and introduced us to many people who live there. It is a very historic spot, with a history that stretches back for centuries. Tenant farmers worked the lands here, although the local landlord, the Earl of Clare, was a tolerant landlord, they suffered, particularly during the Famine.

"There was a Famine village on my lands, and the remains of the houses can still be traced," he said.

UK: Smaller farms mean future food security

The Guardian (Letters), August 23 2008

Christian Aid agrees with Paul Collier that the focus must be on people living in poverty when considering Prince Charles's views on the future of agriculture (Charles's fantasy farming won't feed Africa's poor, August 22). A hard-nosed analysis of what will work, rather than any romantic or ideological approach, is exactly what is needed. Collier rightly notes it is conventional but unrealistic to say that Africa needs a chemical-led "green revolution". And we strongly support his view that increasing the productivity of farmland is crucial, while expanding the area used is not a long-term option given population and climate trajectories. Where we differ is over his promotion of a GM-led revolution.

The evidence is that the highest productivity per acre comes from smaller farms, even in the absence of sustainable access to markets and finance. GM technology, requiring greater finance, is likely to militate in favour of less productive large farms. This would inevitably neglect the larger part of the African population and is far from guaranteed to deliver the needed productivity gains.

Our report, Fighting Food Shortages, sets out how structures can be improved to enhance the stability of prices and of access to markets and finance for smaller farms. These measures, together with the ability of governments to protect their markets from heavily subsidised imports, would not only allow the possibility of greater productivity gains in food production. It would also do more to allow families to lift themselves out of poverty, and away from subsistence farming. At least until there is serious evidence for GM benefits in the fight against poverty, we should pursue what works now.

Alex Cobham
Policy manager, Christian Aid

22 August 2008

Ireland: GM unhappiness

Leitrim Observer, 22 August 2008.

More and more people are expressing their unhppiness at the growth of genetically modified foods. If we are what we eat - and if what we eat is being radically altered - then there is a big problem. At least, we need to kow that what we are being offered is very different and potentially very hazardous.

At first glance, we might think that altering the genetic structure of plants and food sources is a good thing. The first experiment, in 1994, was to alter the genes of a tomato, to prevent rotting. Next came insect-resistant cotton and, in 1996, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. From the point of view of big commercial farming outfits, GM was a winner all the way to the bank. Growing GM crops is very prevalent on huge farms in the USA, Brazil and India.

But, it's a bit like the atom bomb. Tampering with nature is deadly. If you mess with the very nuts and bolts of nature you release a new form of energy that is very difficult to control. Some concerned people say that "the genie is out of the bottle". You'd expect that the labelling on food products would be able to tell you exactly what you are buying and that GM and non-GM organisms can be divided at production level. This is proving impossible. Unfortunately, there is a frightening amount of easy cross pollination between GM and non-GM plants and who is capable of policing that?

Greenpeace is a highly respected defender of the environment and of people's rights to a natural lifestyle. It claims that the production of GM food and crops is a disaster - that is poses a serious threat to biodiversity and to our health. Greenpeace adds "the real reason for their development has not been to end world hunger but to increase the stranglehold multinational biotech companies already have on food production." On that latter point, such multinationals can take something like potatoes, genetically modifiy in some way and then patent the new food for themselves. In other words, food rights shared by people worldwide for thousands of years could soon be concentrated in the hands of a few big corporations.

Farmers would be forced to buy seeds annually from such companies at ever-inflating prices. In legal terms, the tipping point, re establishing rights for GM companies, came in the Canadian Supreme Court in 1998, when Monsanto won a case against a neighbouring farmer. They claimed that he had intentionally stolen their seeds - even though cross-pollination was the cause of the transfer [actually it was wind-blown seed drift - Ed]. Governments, who are often in hock to these same multinational biotech companies, behave like rabbits caught in the floodlight of cars. They tend to roll over and accept "anything goes" as good policy.

We are being asked to protest at the fact that seven Irish government agencies will use public funds to co-finance the Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference (ABIC 2008) at University College Cork from 24-27 August. Apart from the Government you have Teagasc, Science Foundation Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, Marine Institute (Foras na Mara), Food Safety Authority of Ireland and Sustainable Energy Ireland.

This conference willl promote the release of GM algae, crops, trees, crustaceans, fish, poultry, livestock, animal feeds an dother things including GM agrofuel, pharma crops and pharma livestock that risk contaminating our food chain with drugs and industrial chemicals. Interestingly, the Plenary session, on 26 August, will be shared by Matt Dempsey, Editor, Irish Farmers Journal, while on 27 August Dr. Pat O'Reilly, Monsanto, will chair a session that is sponsored by Monsanto. Among the many worldwide representatives will be large delegations from the Canadian Government and the Canadian Embassy.

The Irish Government's official policy is supposed to be that they want to prevent the release of GM crops on the island of Ireland. A meeting of Leitrim Co. Council, July 2005, was addressed by Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland. The Cllrs did not then declare Co. Leitrim a GMO-free area and some said that they first had to inform themselves about this issue. Three years later - still nothing. One Minister, who may listen, is John Gormley, TD, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Customs House, Dublin. Email: minister@environ.ie

UK: Why Prince Charles is right: we need GM free food and agriculture for food security

The Daily Telegraph, 22 August 2008. By Dr Vandana Shiva.

We are grateful to Prince Charles for cautioning the world on the blind and head long rush worldwide to spread GM seeds and crops especially the Third World.

His comments had become necessary because the biotechnology industry is using the food crisis to push GM crops on grounds that they increase yields.

This is doubly false. Firstly, because the current crisis is a result of speculation and diversion of food crops to biofuels, it is not a crisis of production.

Secondly, genetic engineering so far has only achieved transfer of single gene traits such as herbicide resistance and Bt. toxin production.

Yield and environmental resilience are multigenetic traits, and there is no GM crop currently engineered for high yields.

Monsanto has claimed that its Bt. Cotton in India yields 1,500 kg/acre. Most independent studies have found 300-400 kg/acre as an average, with many farmers facing total crop failure due to pest attack and some getting more than 1,000 kg if the weather was not too dry or two wet.

While Bt. Cotton is supposed to control the bollworm, it is evolving resistance and new pests which were not significant have exploded, requiring higher doses of pesticides.

As a pest-control strategy GM crops are a failure. Integrated pest management and controlling pests through mixtures is much more scientific and effective.

The more the industry makes unscientific and false claims about GM crops giving higher yields and using less pesticide the more they refer to "science" based decision.

The UK's Environment Minister, Phil Woolas said it was the government's moral responsibility "to investigate whether genetically modified crops could help provide a solution to hunger in the developing world. We see this as part of our Africa strategy."

One would imagine an environment minister would want to investigate whether biodiverse and ecological farming could help provide a solution to hunger, especially in Africa.

The recently concluded International Assessment on Agriculture Science and Technology has concluded that GMOs and industrial agriculture is not the solution. Small scale ecological agriculture is the answer to poverty and hunger. Mr Woolas should read the report.

He should also read Navdanya's reports on farmers' suicides in India. The suicides are concentrated in the Bt. Cotton belt.

Monsanto's Bt. Cotton is, in my opinion, costly, non-renewable, and unreliable. Farmers are getting trapped in unpayable debt and are ending their lives.

When I visited Krishna Rao Vaidya's widow on 10th Oct, it was evident he was driven to suicide because of debt.

On average a farmer like Vaidya takes his life every 8 hours in Vidarbha, over the past decade, 200,000 farmers in India have committed suicide.

Prince Charles said that GM crops and corporate control of agriculture "risked creating the biggest disaster environmentally of all time."

Two things were clear in the Prince's statement. He was addressing the risk of creating a disaster, not a disaster that has already occurred. He was also addressing the issue of disaster in a broad and comprehensive sense not in a narrow perspective of "safety".

As he stated "Relying on gigantic corporations for mass production of food would threaten, not boost future food supplies."

He warned that we would end up with "millions of small farmers all over the world being driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness. I think it will be an absolute disaster."

For Prince Charles, the large scale uprooting of peasants and small farmers is a social disaster, a human rights disaster and a tragedy.

Corporate monopoly over our food systems is a food security disaster. And while in some places like India these disasters have already had an impact at a global level, they are a disaster in the making.

It is therefore unscientific, illogical and irresponsible for the Environmental Minister Mr Woolas to say that Prince Charles must provide "proof" that a disaster has happened.

I would imagine that he is aware of the environmental principle on which the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change rest.

The principle is called the Precautionary Principle. It is based on the recognition that when an activity or technology has the potential to cause harm, and there is no conclusive evidence to establish the harm that can be caused, then policy and decision making must err on the side of caution.

The Environment Minister also said "Government ministers have a responsibility to base policy on science and I do strongly believe that we have a moral responsibility to the developing world to ask the question: 'Can GM crops help'?

Minister, if you could travel with me through Vidarbha and see the tears in the eyes of farmers' widows, you would be compelled to ask the question:'Can GM crops harm'? That is your moral responsibility.

It is also your responsibility to sincerely base your decisions on real science, not pseudo science. Science based policy would recognise that an agriculture that conserves biodiversity also produces more food and nutrition per unit acre.

Science based policy would recognise that if farmers fall into debt, it is not an instrument for ending poverty, but a recipe for ending the lives of small farmers.

A science based policy would not blindly spread GM crops to Africa without assessing their role in India's agrarian crisis. A science based policy would not be based on unscientific principle of "substantial equivalence" which has prevented independent and serious testing of GM foods and crops.

That is why the Supreme Court of India has served notice on the Government of India to ask why a GMO moratorium should not be imposed till proper testing protocols and tests and facilities for biosafety are in place.

We are proud that Prince Charles will be delivering the Ninth Howard Memorial lecture for Navdanya this year. We organise the lecture to honour Sir Albert Howard, the imperial agriculturist sent to India in 1905 whose "Agricultural Testament" is based on the knowledge on sustainable farming he learnt from India's peasants.

We organise the lecture on Gandhi's birth anniversary to celebrate non-violent farming which protects all species, the farmers, the soil and our health.

GMOs are the latest step in a violent tradition of industrial agriculture which has its roots in war and has become a war against the farmers, the land, and our bodies. Prince Charles, like many of us, wants this war to end.

And all that the biotech industry and its allies in governments can talk about is the smartness of their weapons.

It is time they realised the debate is much wider and deeper. It is about the planet we live on, the societies we are shaping, the exclusions billions are condemned to, the super profits the gene giants and grain giants harvest, while the real harvest in the fields of real farmers shrink.

The industrial/mechanistic mindset has destroyed our farmers and food security. It cannot offer solutions to the agrarian crisis and food crisis it has created. We need to move to an ecological perspective based on diversity.

Unfortunately, GMOs fail the test of both ecological sustainability and socio-economic viability. They have accelerated non-sustainability, and deepened injustice and inequality.

It is time the world listened to the important message from Prince Charles.

Dr Vandana Shiva is a physicist, ecologist, activist, editor, author of numerous books and environmental campaigner. She is the founder of Navdanya, a movement for biodiversity conservation and farmers' rights.

Note: A jointly-authored version of this article with references is available here: http://www.i-sis.org.uk:80/princeCharlesGMfood.php

Kenya: Debate on GM crops not being guided by reason

Business Daily (Nairobi), August 22 2008. By George Ogola.

[Dr Ogola teaches at the University of Central Lancashire]

In an interview with the British newspaper the Telegraph last week, Prince Charles reignited the controversial debate on the environmental safety of GM crops.

Known for his strange use of hyperbole, the Prince of Wales was emphatic that genetically modified crops were an experiment with nature gone seriously wrong and that the world risked environmental disaster as a result.

His statement predictably elicited consternation in many places but it was the umbrage it caused particularly to the pro-GM lobby including the British Environment minister Phil Woolas, that has lead many to reflect more critically on the interview and what the reaction it evoked revealed.

Trapped in debilitating poverty, Africa has traditionally been a breeding ground for various experiments.

In a provocative article published in an issue of the Bidoun, Kenyan writer Binyavanga Wainaina metaphorically captures the continent's vulnerability thus: "A windup radio. A magic laptop. These pure products are meant to solve everything.

They almost always fail, but they satisfy the giver...; a product built to serve the needs of the needy assumes the needy have measured themselves as the product has measured themÖ I am sure the One Laptop per Child initiative will bring glory to its architects. The IMF will smile. Mr Negroponte will win a prize or two or ten."

False magnanimity

Wainana's piece is not a mischievous jab at Western inventions, rather it is a powerful counter-discourse to the narrative of magnanimity so easily sold to the continent by corporations from the West who routinely deny legitimacy to opposing view points.

There are many unknowns on GM crops both positive and negative and the Prince's absolutist views may or may not be unqualified. Yet examined in its entirety, Prince Charles raised some useful points for debate. Indeed, it was Woolas' criticism that sounded more like the views of a Monsanto company salesman.

Rather than counter the Prince's position through argument, Woolas quickly dismissed Prince Charles' attitude as "entirely Luddite" and then in typical condescending attitude, invoked the potential benefits of GM crops to the Third World.

The criticism was an easy sell to those who fail to scratch beneath the surface as was the case with another pro-GM politician Phil Willis who accused the Prince of scientific ignorance and argued that the failure to develop GM crops would "condemn millions of people to starvation in areas like sub-Saharan Africa".

Yet Prince Charles did not question the science, rather he raised concerns over its application. Indeed, often times, there's a moral component to science that eventually makes it socially acceptable. Science does not necessarily exist in a moral vacuum.

The debate on the GM crops is much more complicated than is usually acknowledged in public debates where sentiment very often clouds reason.

It is important to note that because of the law of the unknowns, many countries in the West, apart from the US are only growing GM crops in closely controlled environments.

For instance, GM crops are not commercially cultivated in the UK and a recent report by the BBC indicates that there is only one on trial involving potatoes in Cambridgeshire.

If, as Woolas argues, the GM crops are unequivocally safe for the environment, in light of the current credit crunch and rising food prices in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, why is commercial cultivation in the UK not being encouraged?

It this a technology only useful for starving populations in Africa?

Part of Prince Charles' interview which I believe should have been the focus of far greater attention and analysis was his argument that there should be increased concern not so much on food production but on food security.

It is a legitimate argument widely shared by vocal but perhaps far less influential groups like Friends of the Earth whose campaign director Mike Childs reiterated the organisation's position in an interview with the Telegraph that GM crops will not necessarily solve the food crisis in the Third World and expressed fears that "an industrialised farming system will continue to fail people and the environment around the world".

Farming methods

Several independent reports argue that the adoption of GM crops should be contingent upon assessments of their possible effects in the long term. What are their potential impact on the environment and ecosystems in the long term?

Secondly, will increased crop yields necessarily resolve Africa's underlying problems such as poor farming practices? Isn't it better to educate the continent's populations on better farming practices? Indeed, one only needs to look to the Far East where several countries have attained food sufficiency without resorting to GM crops.

Finally, there's urgent need to reflect on the possible corporatisation of the food industry in Africa and what the consequences might be.

Africa cannot afford to mortgage its food security to businesses such as Monsanto. A continent's food security cannot be left to a coterie of multinational corporations. Africa has options; the obvious one is not sell out to the supposed magnanimity of the GM lobby because it is anything but that.

Dr Ogola teaches at the University of Central Lancashire. GOOgola@uclan.ac.uk

India: We Need GMO-Free Food and Agriculture for Food Security

MyNews.in, 22 August 2008. By Ch. Narendra.

Dr. Vandana Shiva and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho have supported Prince Charles who counteracting biotech industry's false claims cautioned the world on the blind, head long rush to spread GM seeds and crops worldwide, especially in the Third World.

They said that it has become necessary for him to do so because the biotechnology industry is using the current food and fuel crisis to push GM crops on grounds that they will increase yields. This is doubly false. First, the current crisis is a result of speculation and diversion of food crops to biofuels, it is not a crisis of production, at least not yet, even though industrial monoculture has been failing through decades of unsustainable practices.

Second, genetic engineering so far has only achieved the transfer of single gene traits such as herbicide resistance and Bt-toxin production. Yield and environmental resilience ‚ most relevant for food security - are complex multigenic traits, and there is no GM crop currently engineered for high yields or that produces higher yields.

Quite the opposite is the case. GM crops have been a disastrous failure on all counts. GM crops bring less income, less yield, more pesticides, more pests, and superweeds; and are far from safe.

Data compiled by the United States Department of Agriculture and studies carried out in US universities consistently showed that GM crops not only failed to increase yields, but resulted in yield drags, reduced income for farmers, and increased pesticide use .

New data paint an even grimmer picture: the use of glyphosate on major crops went up more than 15-fold between 1994 and 2005, along with increases in other herbicides in order to cope with rising glyphosate resistant superweeds. Similarly, Roundup tolerant canola volunteers are top among the worries of Canadian farmers (Study Based on Farmers' Experience Exposes Risks of GM Crops, SiS 38).

A Cornell University study of 481 Chinese farmers warned that the farmers were losing money due to secondary pests that have emerged after growing Bt cotton for seven years in the country. These pests have increased so much that farmers were spraying their crops up to 20 times during a growing season.

USA: Documents Released to Plaintiffs in Arkansas Tainted Rice Lawsuit

Associated Press - August 22, 2008

A judge in Arkansas has released a handful of the million-plus documents offered under seal in a lawsuit over genetically modified rice.

Some Arkansas rice farmers claim they lost money after genetically altered rice grown by the Riceland Foods Inc. cooperative accidentally entered the food supply. A number of nations stopped buying Arkansas rice and producers had to sell rice for less in other countries, their lawsuit says.

Plaintiffs say the released documents aid their case, and a defense lawyer says the papers will make no difference.

Parties in the case have made available more than a million pages of documents to lawyers handling the case, with most of them filed under seal pending a review by Lonoke County Circuit Judge Phillip Whiteacre. Whiteacre ordered nine pages released after plaintiffs argued the documents didn't include any trade secrets.

One set of documents shows how much trucks weighed when they left silos at Weiner with the altered rice and when they arrived at Stuttgart for incineration. Paul Byrd, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said that when some trucks arrived weighing less, part of their load may have drifted into other fields in the Delta, tainting non-modified rice. Some of the truck weights went up, too.

Another document released shows Riceland telling a French company that it could not be held responsible for the introduction of altered rice into the European Union because Riceland, too, had suffered damages.

Riceland lawyer Barry Deacon said the documents were not necessarily significant.

"These are not documents that hurt us or help us," he said.

The lawsuit says Riceland was involved in developing the LibertyLink rice strain and didn't tell farmers for months that the rice had entered the food supply. Arkansas produces the most rice in the nation.

The strain is not considered harmful to humans but the U.S. Department of Agriculture had not approved it for human consumption.

Stuttgart, Ark.-based Riceland announced in August 2006 the LibertyLink modification, known as LLRICE601 and engineered to resist Bayer CropScience AG's "Liberty" herbicide, had entered the Arkansas rice crop. Japan, the European Union and other customers stopped importing Arkansas rice, which drove down the price Arkansas farmers received.

Byrd said Riceland worked with Aventis, since purchased by Bayer, in testing the Liberty Link rice in Arkansas. Hundreds of farmers across three states have also sued, usually targeting Bayer.

USA: Anti-Posilac celebration is premature

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 22 August 2008. By David Nicklaus.

When Monsanto announced two weeks ago that it was getting out of the milk-hormone business, anti-biotechnology groups were quick to take credit.

Greenpeace declared the exit "a big victory for consumers." The Center for Food Safety crowed that Monsanto was leaving "the failing artificial growth hormone business."

Now that the rest of the story is in, the groups' victory celebrations seem premature. Not only did Monsanto get a good price -- $300 million plus an opportunity to participate in future profits -- but it sold its Posilac business to a company that's deeply involved in animal agriculture.

The buyer, Eli Lilly's Elanco division, sold nearly $1 billion worth of animal medicines, feed additives and related products last year, including other "productivity enhancers" for the dairy industry. The company said the deal "means farmers have continued access to this vital technology, and that consumers can continue to have access to affordable, wholesome milk."

For its part, Monsanto has sharpened its focus on genetically modified seeds. The anti-biotech crowd doesn't like those products, either, but they've been phenomenally successful for the company. By helping corn, soybean and cotton farmers fight pests and increase yields, Monsanto has been able to triple its profits, and more than triple its share price, in the last three years.

This isn't a company, in short, that needs to retreat from anything. "Essentially, we are going to focus on what we do best," Monsanto spokeswoman -Danielle Jany said in explaining the Posilac sale. "We're really excited that it is going to a business focused on animal agriculture and to a business that has a history with the product." Elanco has distributed Posilac outside the United States for more than a decade.

To be sure, controversy has limited sales of the product. Posilac, also known as recombinant bovine somatotropin or rBST, is banned in Canada and many European countries. Some big U.S. milk producers, such as Dean Foods, don't use it.

Consumer skepticism has led some states to allow milk to be labeled as rBST-free, even though Monsanto complains that such labels are misleading. All available scientific evidence, the company says, shows that milk from Posilac-treated cows is indistinguishable from any other milk.

Monsanto doesn't break out Posilac's financial results, but Jany says it's a profitable and growing business.

The stock market seemed to react positively to the $300 million sale price: Monsanto's shares rose nearly 5 percent on Wednesday, the day the deal with Elanco was announced.

"I think strategically it's a good move," said Ben Johnson, an analyst with Morningstar in Chicago. "Financially, it doesn't move the needle much, but $300 million is a fair price considering some of the headwinds the business is facing. They've got plenty of higher-growth, higher-margin opportunities available to reinvest that $300 million in."

Is a stronger, more focused Monsanto really what the anti-biotech crowd wants? Is putting Posilac in the hands of Elanco, which knows the dairy market well, going to slow the hormone's sales or accelerate them?

Josh Brandon, a Vancouver-based agriculture campaigner for Greenpeace, vows to continue the fight against rBST. "They'll face similar opposition and consumer resistance across North America," he said of Elanco. "They'll be looking back on this in a year or two's time and saying that it was a mistake."

Those are brave words, but the folks at Eli Lilly are no dummies. They've just placed a nine-figure bet on the notion that this product is in the food chain to stay.

USA: NC State scientists to convert trees into fuel

The News & Observer, 22 August 2008.

A new grant of just under $1 million from the U.S. Department of Agriculture will allow N.C. State University scientists to grow genetically modified trees across North Carolina and use them to produce ethanol cheaply.

The special trees, developed by Vincent Chiang, professor of forestry and environmental resources at NCSU, have shown multiple benefits in greenhouses. They grow faster and have more cellulose and up to 50 percent less lignin than normal trees. Cellulose is chemically converted into ethanol; lignin - the glue that helps hold a tree together - makes extracting cellulose more difficult.

Dr. Hasan Jameel, NCSU professor of wood and paper science, said in a news release that the because faster-growing trees contain easy-to-access cellulose, which could be more economically viable as a source for ethanol production than other biomass resources.

"The key to success in biofuels is how much biomass you can grow and how quickly," said Jameel, the principal investigator for the grant.

The study will place genetically modified Populus trees in numerous sites across the state and evaluate how varied climates, soils and elevations affect tree performance.

At the end of the project, the researchers will perform an economic analysis to ascertain the manufacturing cost of converting wood into ethanol. Dr. Richard Phillips, adjunct professor of wood and paper science at NCSU, will lead that analysis.

"This could be a big thing for rural areas, especially in North Carolina, where more than 60 percent of rural land is forest," Jameel said in the news release. "There's no silver bullet to solve the energy problem, but these trees could be an added product for rural communities."

Australia: A win for GM-free in WA as ban is extended

Greenpeace Australia Pacific, 22 August 2008.

Perth, Australia ó Greenpeace welcomes the WA Government's recent move to extend its ban on genetically modified (GM) crops by a further 4 years.

This is especially great news given WA is the country's largest producer and exporter of canola, a key GM crop.

GM crops pose unacceptable risks to human health, the environment and the economy. The WA Government's position is a triumph for common sense, and is in stark contrast to the governments of Victoria and NSW, which not only have lifted their bans but also currently have GM crops under cultivation.

Important step for WA

The WA Government moratorium applies not only to GM food crops, but to fibre crops such as cotton as well. This is a major victory for the Say No to GMO coalition, who have been campaigning against the introduction of GM cotton in the state.

The move also sets the stage for GM crops to become an election issue in WA. In contrast to the current ALP Government, the WA Liberal Party has stated that, if elected, it would allow the commercial release of GM cotton and 500-1000 hectare field trials of GM canola. Given that GM canola can pollinate non-GM canola 25km away, this would risk the contamination of WA's non-GM canola. The National Party leader Brendon Grylls has also said that the National Party supports allowing farmers to grow GM crops "but only for industrial purposes ‚ that includes (GM) canola and oilseeds for biofuel and other non-food uses and (GM) cereals for ethanol and other industrial type purposes, and cotton in the Ord".1 Mr Grylls has not yet outlined how he would prevent food crops from being contaminated by these crops.

Most Australians say "no" to GM

Polls consistently show that the majority of Australian consumers do not want to eat GM food, and the same is true in our major export markets such as Japan and Europe.

Governments should be putting the interests of consumers and the environment ahead of the vested interests of multinational agri-business. We'd strongly encourage the WA Liberal and National parties to review their policies on GM in light of consumer demands.

Time for federal government to act on labelling

The WA Government has also recently called on their federal counterparts to deliver on the comprehensive labelling and stringent safety assessment of GM food, a responsibility that currently sits, somewhat uncomfortably, with the federal food safety regulator, FSANZ.

We are well overdue for an overhaul of the regulatory approach to GM. Last year, the federal ALP promised not to approve the release of GM crops unless they could be proven safe "beyond reasonable doubt". The ALP's National Conference in April 2007 also supported the comprehensive labelling of GM food. Canola is used in many foods and in animal feed. With NSW and Victoria now allowing GM canola to be commercially grown for the first time, the federal government needs to deliver on these promises urgently.

Sign our petition calling for the labelling and stringent safety assessment of GM food http://www.truefood.org.au/OurRightToKnow

(1) Ladyman & Quinton (2008) "Libs and Nats say yes to GM" The Countryman p 3.

21 August 2008

UK: Peter Melchett: Don't believe the GM apologists

The Independent, 21 August 2008.

Arguments about genetic modification, often wrongly characterised as science versus irrational nature-worshippers, have lost none of their passion. On one side are those who yearn for simple, high-tech solutions to complex problems. Against GM, there are ecological realities and scientific evidence. There is overwhelming evidence that farming took a wrong turn after the last war, with widespread use of artificial nitrogen fertilisers and sprays.

In Britain, we lost up to 95 per cent of our ancient woodlands, flower meadows, hedges and wildlife and saw massive losses of farms and farm workers' jobs. Farming became more oil-dependent. Our food lost vitamins, taste and diversity and our diet became unhealthy.

As the environmental and human cost of industrial farming became harder to deny, along came a new miracle cure ‚ genetic engineering. Twenty years ago, GM promised unbelievable wonders ‚ fruit that would never freeze, crops needing no fertiliser or sprays and food with vitamins and medicines engineered in. All food would soon be GM. Geneticists would engineer anything we wanted, taking a gene from a fish here, a pig there, adding a bacteria gene and maybe a bit of a virus.

The greatest coup by the GM companies, and their greatest scientific fraud, was to ensure no GM food had to be tested for safety. In America, they established the concept of "substantial equivalence" ‚ which means that if a GM crop looks like its non-GM equivalent and grows like it, then it is it ‚ no safety testing is needed before people eat it. GM maize could have added virus and antibiotic resistance genes, and a gene that makes it express an insecticide in every leaf, stem and root ‚ but to the US government it looks and grows like maize, so it is safe to eat.

GM crops face mounting scientific evidence of uncertainty, risk and danger. But now, because of rising food prices, the GM industry's claim that GM is needed to feed the world is suddenly newsworthy again. However, a key reason for soaring food prices ‚ higher oil costs leading to higher fertiliser prices ‚ also presents a massive threat to GM crops. All current and planned GM crops depend on artificial, oil-based fertiliser to grow, and all need to be treated with pesticides to survive.

In 2006, the pro-GM US Department of Agriculture observed that "currently available GM crops do not increase yield potential" ‚ a point already made by a 2004 UN Food and Agriculture Organisation report which acknowledged that "GM crops can have reduced yields". The recently published UN IAASTD report, the work of more than 400 international scientists, about the future of global food production under the challenges of climate change and population pressure, concluded that GM crops do not have much to offer.

Confirming an earlier FAO conference's conclusions, the IAASTD report acknowledged organic farming's real potential to help feed the world in an era of rising oil prices and the urgent need to cut greenhouse gases, because organic systems use solar energy and clover to fix nitrogen in the soil, not oil and gas. The value of this approach was also confirmed in a report this year by the International Trade Centre, technical advisors to the WTO and UN. The new challenge we face is: how do we feed the world as oil and gas become costlier and scarcer, and as we cut greenhouse gases by 80 per cent by 2050? No one suggests the answer to that is GM.

Peter Melchett is the director of the Soil Association

Australia: Greenpeace recruits chefs to label push

Farm Online / Stock & Land, 21 August 2008.

GREENPEACE has enlisted the help of high profile chefs to launch a national campaign to have genetically modified (GM) food labelled.

Big name chefs including Tobie Puttock, of Melbourne's Fifteeen restaurant, and Melbourne restaurant scene identity Dur-È Dara joined nutritionist Dr Rosemary Stanton and Greenpeace on Tuesday to launch a national petition titled GM Food: Our right to know.

More than 150 chefs have now pledged not to use GM food in their restaurants, endorsing a "GM-free chefs' charter".

The petition calls on Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon for labelling and rigorous safety testing of all food derived from GM crops.

Similar campaigns involving chefs have created anecdotal backlash among urban consumers concerned about what they eat. Greenpeace wants the oils from GM products labelled, in spite of none of the GM material transferring to the refined product.

Dr Stanton said it was a wise move to be cautious on labelling.

"Processing might remove the DNA from oilseeds but children allergic to peanuts still have adverse effects from consuming peanut oil. The lack of labelling concerns me."

20 August 2008

Spain: More than 105,896 citizens request a GMO free Catalonia

Som Lo Que Sembrem press release, 20 August 2008.

Catalonia says NO to GMOs

The people of Catalonia do not approve genetically modified organisms (GMOs). On 20th August, more than 105,896 signatures against GMOs were delivered to the Catalan Parliament.

The signatures have to be validated by the Catalan Statistics Institute (IDESCAT) and afterwards, by the end of October, the proposed law will enter the parliamentary procedure, with the presentation of motions and the debate of the law. After that, with the agreement of the platform, a final debate in the Parliament will take place at the beginning of January.

In September, the platform will initiate contacts with all the parliamentary groups, to know the position of each one and also to deliver them documents and any other requested information.

Evaluating the campaign

The platform wants to let everyone know his evaluation of the campaign of gathering of signatures.

1. We evaluate as very positive the support of the citizens. This has made possible that we gathered a number of signatures almost the double of was requested for the law to be discussed in the Parliament.

2. We understand that these 105 896 signatures gathered until today are a very representative sample of the catalan people and are a democratic expression of a general rejection to GMOs, very different from the not quite democratic practices by the GMO multinational companies.

3. We request the Catalan government to consider people's will, and we point out the fact that there is an important and growing amount of aware consumers who reject GMOs and want another agricultural and food system.

4. We emphasize the awesome response the Catalan society has given to this campaign against GMOs, which was amazing for the platform.

5. We value also the information campaign that has taken place, which has made possible to open the debate, not only about GMOs, but also about the whole agricultural and food model, and about possible harms of these technologies on people's health.

6. We provide to everyone interested documents, research, articles and bibliography about the consequences of GMOs on health, society and economy, agriculture and the environment.

http://www.somloquesembrem.org/index2.php?actual=11
http://www.somloquesembrem.org/index3.php?actual=11&actual2=34

USA: Interview with Monsanto Chairman Hugh Grant

US public radio: Marketplace, 20 August 2008.

Using technology to grow more food

Hugh Grant is the head of Monsanto, which creates technology to increase harvests. It's also the world's biggest producer of genetically modified seeds.

Kai Ryssdal talks with Grant about the controversial topic of technology and food.

Listen to this story

Interview transcript:

Kai Ryssdal: Hugh Grant, welcome to the program.

Hugh Grant: Thank you. It's good to be here.

Ryssdal: This is, it seems to me, to be in the agricultural seed business what with food prices and commodity prices. How lucky did you get or how much good planning did you do?

Grant: Well I don't think it's luck. I think there's an urgency. We've never seen demand curves like we have right now. I think you probably go back to the Far East when America was feeding a war torn Europe is the last time you saw this kind of demand curve.

So this time around a big piece is China and India and it's new people arriving on the planet and there's dietary shifts. So I don't think it's luck. I think actually for our kids, we're in on a whole new phase. For the next generation, this is changing incredibly fast as demand shifts. So it's a good time to be in agriculture.

Ryssdal: What kind of pressure does that put on you? That speed of change.

Grant: Considerable pressure, but we're in a business where every spring you plant seeds and every summer you harvest them so you're living inside a kind of periodicity. I think the pressures that puts you on is you better get it right so as you're looking at escalating demand making sure you're planting the right stuff at the right time becomes important, but that's a great challenge.

Ryssdal: There's a satisfaction I imagine in essentially helping to feed the world. But it's not to all altruism. You guys make a lot of money doing it.

Grant: Yeah, we do and I've always believed that if you can do well in business and do good that's about as good as it gets. So I don't see this as altruism, but the thing that I'm, as I've traveled and lived around the world, a big piece of the satisfaction that I get is the seeds that we produce are scale neutral.

The work, if you're on acre and a half farm in southern India or you're a 5,000 acre farm in central Illinois, they work just the same. So it's not altruism. It's a good business, but it's a business that works regardless of the sign of the farm.

Ryssdal: There's a great quote actually from you that I read getting ready for our chat. You said, This isn't a feel good thing. Satisfying the demand curve is a great business opportunity."

Grant: That's absolutely true.

Ryssdal: What's your biggest crisis then? What's your biggest problem?

Grant: I wouldn't say crisis or problem. I think a piece of the work that I continue to do is looking at a lot of the misunderstanding around what we do and the promise that this technology brings.

So I wouldn't put it in the crisis category, but I think there's a lot of education around what is agriculture, how do you grow crops, how do you improve productivity on a farmer's acre. That I think's a big piece of my job.

Ryssdal: Part of the plan that you guys announced a number of months ago to double crop yields in the next 20 or 25 years, has to do with genetically modified crops. Isn't there a little bit of opportunism in taking advantage of the world food crisis to build your business that way?

Grant: No, no, no. I don't think so. I think there's a crying need for this. So, it's pure coincidence. Same week, same couple of weeks you get Ban Ki Moon talking about the need to increase yields. We think by 2030 there's a possibility of doubling yields and perhaps more importantly, doubling yields with a third less stuff.

So doubling yields and consuming a third less resources and if you fast forward over the next 20 years, we think the only way you can double yields is by improving the use of water and improving the use of fertilizer.

The only way you can improve the use of water and fertilizer so that a plant literally sips instead of gulps, the only way you can get that done is with the application of some of these new technologies. That's what's going to unlock the potential.

Ryssdal: Do you understand though the hesitation and skittishness some people might have and some countries have about using technology and agriculture in the same breath?

Grant: Yeah, I do and I've lived in a lot of different parts of the world that I understand the skittishness. There's a piece of this you say well, let's wait. We'll let the next generation figure it out. Our kids will tackle this one.

I think what we've seen in the last - it's not even a year. What we've seen in the last six to ten months is an urgency or the start of the drum beats that say we are going to have to figure this out.

And it's not even about more mouths to feed. It's that, plus a whole lot of people eating differently. If you look at the dietary shifts in places like China. People eating bread for the first time. Tasting their first croissant. Eating pasta instead of rice noodles. The torque, the change that that applies to what we need to produce is huge.

Ryssdal: But the seeds that you produce here and sell worldwide don't go into things like wheat and rice and tomatoes. They go into corn and soybeans and things generally that go to benefit animal feed and thus, the meat-eating populations of the world, the developed countries as opposed to some places that really are suffering drought and agricultural problems.

Grant: Yeah, but I think that's too simplistic. If you look at take a little farmer in fact, southern India. I was in southern India back end of last year driving down a dusty road. There's a farmer at the end of his field. He's plowing the field with two oxen and a wooden plow. So biblical scene. He's using a cell phone.

So you've got a guy that's using technology that's been around for a couple thousand years and a cell phone. I think when you look at the application of our drought technologies, technologies that allow crops to grow with less water, they're going to be used in small-holder agriculture. They're going to be used in small-holder agriculture in India and I'm hoping that they'll be used in Africa hopefully within a few years of launching them here.

So there's the capacity of moving these on other crops over time.

Ryssdal: What do you say though to agriculture ministers of some countries in Europe who have expressed real doubts about GM crops and technology and agriculture? What do you say to people in the developing world who say you're not really helping us. You're helping the modern world? What do you say to them when they give you these examples of how you're not helping them?

Grant: Well, again, in fact the same trip meeting 150 small-holder cotton growers in a big tent in the middle of a field with the wind blowing and the sides bellowing in and out and these are growers that through the Internet so they're an acre and a half. Smaller than most people's backyards in this country and they're saying when will drought technology come to India.

So I think there's a sentiment and this is arrogance. I think you can afford to take these stances when you are standing at the top of the pile, but for small-holder agriculture, these are technologies that change people's lives.

So my experience has been when farmers get a chance to try these, when they get the choice or the ability to try them then things change. Things change very quickly. And even in Europe we get five or six countries now in their third year of planting and harvest. So I'm getting good feedback from farmers in Europe who are actually trying this stuff.

Ryssdal: Those gains in Europe didn't come though without a lot of lobbying and politicking. I imagine you spent a lot of time over there.

Grant: I personally did start 12 years ago. My realization of this is Europe needs to come to their own conclusions, but I think what you see is you see a Europe today that's continuing to import of a lot of American soybeans and a lot of American corn and they're looking for the best possible prices they can access and the best possible quality.

So I think the world is changing and I'm a lot more optimistic about the use of these seeds and these technologies than I was 12 years and a billion acres ago. So time's moved on.

Ryssdal: Why are you more optimistic know?

Grant: Because I think farmers are seeing the benefits to the technology. They're beginning to see what this can deliver. So, I'll give you an example.

A few days ago the estimate here this year is 155 bushels of corn per acre, which probably doesn't mean much to you, but it's the second biggest harvest the country's ever seen and one of the wettest springs that we've ever seen. Just lousy weather this year.

A couple of years back, the third biggest harvest the country's ever seen and one of the driest summers that we've ever had. The reason that we're setting those records is farmers are using better seed, they're using better technology and I anticipate that we're going to see farmers around the world increasingly reaching for those technologies so that they can enjoy those benefits the same as they are here.

Ryssdal: Where's the growth for this company?

Grant: The near term growth we think that we get the opportunity doubling the company or doubling the gross profit of the company and a big piece of that comes through corn and improving the performance in corn, as soybeans and driving yields in soybeans.

We'll launch a product next spring that will lift yields by seven to 11 percent. Normally yields go up by about three-quarters of a percent a year so we're literally delivering ten years of improvement in one year.

Corn and soy or cotton business and then veggies and the growth comes from those four platforms. It comes not just from the U.S., but it comes from worldwide as farmers look for these opportunities and look for the improved yields in their own backyards.

Ryssdal: Does your size and position in the market make it difficult for farmers, big or small, to not use your products and your technology?

Grant: I don't think so. Our business model is one where we're selling the technology directly through our brands, but we also license. So in the U.S. we licensed to 200 and something -- 220 mom and pop corn companies around the country.

So the key thing for a farmer is he's really looking for the choice on a seed that works in his farm and that's a kitchen table decision and he makes that decision every spring and he's literally making that seed decision based on not just what works in his farm, but as I've talked to farmers and I was on a farm on Monday, they're making that seed decision based on what works in that field on that farm.

So, I don't think it does. I think actually it's the opposite. The weight of the choice he has on the performance of that seed, the better the yield he gets.

Ryssdal: You've been criticized though for using your market position to in essence either force farmers to use your seeds or conversely not letting them opt out making it very difficult in the marketplace for them not to use Monsanto products.

Grant: I think it's a misunderstanding. So, farmers choose their seeds every year, every spring they choose their seeds. So in this country they'll choose five or seven different varieties of hybrid corn and they'll run those five to seven hybrids across the farm. Every year they drop out a couple and they bring in a new couple.

It's like choosing race horses. They're always looking for that winner. You can't force the farmer into doing anything and the only way that you win in this business and it's real simple is to have the best performing seed at that kitchen table in the spring.

We've done well in the last few years, not just in the biotech, but the other side of this. Just simple seed and we've won because our seed works better.

Ryssdal: You guys make and sell a lot of corn seed and you do really well doing it. I'm curious as to your take on ethanol and the food versus fuel debate.

Grant: I think it's unfortunate that it's become a food versus fuel 'cause last time I checked, we got food crisis, but we got an energy crunch as well. Energy isn't looking too peachy.

So when you set it up as a win/lose, I think it's a bad start. So it's a bad start.

Ryssdal: So set it up the way you like then.

Grant: So the way the conversation has been set up is food versus fuel. I think we should be striving for a position where it's food and fuel and feed and the only way you get to a position where it's food and fuel and feed is by driving performance.

Ryssdal: Let's see. Food, fuel, feed, Monsanto makes a lot of money.

Grant: We sell a lot of seed. But here's the reality. Bio-fuel's in its infancy. So if you're in Europe you're making diesel out of canola. If you're in Brazil you're making ethanol out of sugar cane. So far in the U.S. the industry's been making ethanol out of corn.

My guess is we meet here in five to ten years time, we'll be looking at the waste streams in these products. So the leafs and stems and turning them into ethanol, but you have to make a start. My fear is - and we're not in the ethanol business. We're in the seed business, but my fear is if we stop ethanol today we lose an opportunity and we need all the help we can get, whether it's solar, wind, bio-fuels or regular gasoline. We need all of these.

Ryssdal: Do you buy the argument then that ethanol production is leading to or helping cause higher food prices?

Grant: Not at all; not at all. I think the biggest - if we closed our eyes, stamped our feet and said ethanol was a mistake; let's make it go away tomorrow morning, we've still got squeezing availability of food because the biggest draw in this is what's happening in other parts of the world.

If you look at the demand curves in China and India, if you look at the dietary shifts and people tasting croissants, eating beef for the first time in their lives, this dwarfs the impact of ethanol and it's why I think we're setting up the wrong discussion at the moment.

The conversation should be how do we double the output and how do we improve productivity over the next 15 or 20 years. That's where the urgency is.

Ryssdal: How are you going to do that? What's this company going to do over the next 15 to 20 years to double crop yields?

Grant: There's two broad areas. One is just improving breeding. So we've literally built the street maps. So if you arrive in a new town and you're looking for the best hamburger or the best French restaurant, then you use one of these Map Quests or street maps - we've built a street map for corn breeders so they can literally work out what makes the strongest stems, what yields the best corn. So giving them a street map helps. So that's one side of the house.

And the other side is our biotechnology. As you look to the next - by 2012 our goal is to have launched our first family of corn that can grow with less water. In America today agriculture drinks about 70 percent of the water. If you go to Africa, it's 95 percent.

So when you think about the next 15 or 20 years, the only way you can really double yields is be more effective on how we use water. I think the food squeeze that we're seeing today will be dwarfed by the squeeze on water.

So for us it's about improving water utilization and then longer term improving fertilizer use.

Ryssdal: Last time you guys announced profits, you announced some price increases as well. How come given that the food crisis is so serious in this country and in the rest of the world?

Grant: Our pricing approach has always been - so we're on a business that's generational. We're selling to farmers and we'd love to sell to their sons and daughters as well. So the deal that we have with our customers is as we create value, we share that value somewhere between two-thirds and 50/50.

So as we're creating new bushels and new yield and putting that increased productivity on a farm, we share the upside with the grower. That's why we've done so well because our seeds work better and yield more. They produce more bushels on farm.

The nice thing about that model is whether you're in 5,000 acres in the Midwest or you're in a couple of acres in India or in Southeast Asia, farmers look at the harvest and they look at what they bring home at the end of the day. If you can deliver a technology that changes that curve, then you stand an even chance of winning.

Ryssdal: Why do you suppose people are so afraid of the technology that you sell?

Grant: I think with new technologies there's always a fear of the unknown. I think despite the fact that we've been selling these seeds since 1996 so we're now in our 12th year. I think agriculture as a whole is still largely unknown. People think food arrives on the supermarket shelf.

So there's a piece of this is just basic education. I'll give you a for instance.

Ryssdal: Go ahead.

Grant: I'll give you for instance. Cotton, the shirts that we are wearing. Eight years ago cotton was sprayed eight to ten times. So you remember the old Hitchcock movie, North by Northwest and the crop duster? So the crop was sprayed eight to ten times to keep the caterpillars off. Today the crop's sprayed twice because there's a technology in the leaf that when the caterpillars eat the leafs, they die, but six sprays and hundreds of thousands of pounds of pesticides have gone away.

I think that there's some apprehension because that story really isn't told or understood.

Ryssdal: OK, but you guys have been selling these seeds for 12 years now; plus or minus.

Grant: Yep.

Ryssdal: Agriculture has been around for a millennia.

Grant: That's absolutely true.

Ryssdal: I guess the question is 12 years is a really short period of time to understand what some of this technology might eventually lead to and that's where the complaints and the problems come in. I guess we don't know what we don't know yet.

Grant: Yeah, but if you took that approach you'd never do anything. If you and I were sitting here today and said so, what we going to do about the continued demand for food and how do we work to improve the closing stocks of grain.

A piece of that is we need to improve productivity on an acre. There's no new acres around the world. We're farming what we pretty much have. There's no new water around the world. We're farming with the water that we have.

So I think this rather than the what if, I think we need to - and this isn't just Monsanto. This is how we work together. It's the what is and the what is is that 12 years, a billion plus acres of these crops been planted around the world and absolutely no problems.

When you look at that relative to the yield improvements we've seen and a miserable wet spring that we had this year. These are technologies that will make a difference on satisfying escalating demands.

Ryssdal: Monsanto recently announced that it's going to put up for sale its technology that goes into letting cows produce more milk. Recombinant bovine growth hormone is the common parlance. Why are you getting out of that business?

Grant: You're right. We've announced that we're selling that business. Milk isn't going to be a part of our future so I think if we met here in five or ten years time our goal is how we double crop yields specifically and corn, soy, cotton and vegetables. I don't think milk's going to be - milk wouldn't be a big part of that.

So we've been slowly exiting a number of these businesses and this just goes back to focus and resourcing against that focus.

Ryssdal: Before you decided to get rid of it though, you actually worked pretty hard to change the labeling and to not let consumers see those labels that say, 'This milk comes from bovine growth hormone free cows.' Why that effort then if you want consumers to have the choice?

Grant: No, the labeling issue on milk for me is - I'll tell you how I see it because label laws are different around the world, but when you look at the U.S., the ethos is this. If the milk looks the same, if the milk tastes the same, if chemically the milk is identical and nutritionally it's the same, then milk is milk. It's that simple.

When you start labeling or implying that there's differences in that milk, I think you lead to confusing the consumer.

Ryssdal: But doesn't that go back to the genetically modified crops thing where if it looks like corn and tastes like corn and smells like corn and cooks like corn, then it's corn, except the innards, the guts have been messed around with. That gives people pause.

Grant: I think we'll look back on this in the next five to ten years with a wry smile when you think of the debate that has gone on around biotechnology. There's 40,000 genes in the corn plant. They all come together. It's the birds and the bees. They all come together. They do their square dancing and they separate and new corn is begat. It's a sexual function.

These are technologies that add one more gene and that allows that crop for the first time to fight off bugs and weeds. When you go and meet farmers and you talk about the relief on being able to fight bugs and weeds in the spring time that debilitate yield and the ability of that crop to fight off its attacks on its own, that's a breakthrough.

That's why farmers are buying these over the pesticides that they've been using since the Second World War. That's the reason for the change in agriculture.

Ryssdal: Some pesticides that you make. You make a Round-Up resistant corn and then you also make Round-Up so that the farmer can spray the Round-Up on the corn. Not hurt the corn, but kill the weeds. That's a pretty good business model.

Grant: No, that's right. We compete pretty aggressively in that segment where a whole bunch of people that produce that in China and other parts of the world, but that's correct.

Ryssdal: What do you see happening over the next five, eight, ten years that's going to make it hard for you to do business?

Grant: Hard? I think all business is hard. I think for us we meet as a team every Monday morning. We kick the tires and it's not very glamorous, but we meet every Monday morning. We kick the tires in the business and we are focused on how can we improve and where's it raining and where's it dry and how is planting progressing.

So I don't think it's been making it hard. I think the key for us is maintaining operational focus, maintaining the absolute focus on that customer and making sure that at that kitchen table in the spring when he looks at the choices in those seed catalogues, that our performance is absolutely understood. As long as we perform, we stand a chance of being in that first pick.

Ryssdal: Let me ask you about your customers for a second. Who are you thinking about when you're going about your daily work? Are you thinking about the farmers and the agri-businesses or do you think about the people going to the supermarket picking up the produce?

Grant: Yeah, both. So, I think in the earlier days of the company we were focusing on farmers. As you look towards some of the new products that are coming - see we launched a product a couple of years ago called Vistive. It's a zero trans-fat soybean. So trans-fats are the things when you get margarine and it's hydrogenated, there's fats in there that are bad for your heart.

We produced a soybean that has zero trans-fats. So now you've got a healthy oil in a soybean. It isn't biotech. It's done through breeding. That's a focus on the consumer.

But the reality of how food is produced is it starts with seed in the ground and it ends up on a supermarket shelf. So as we think about those products, we're thinking more and more, we're thinking through the channel.

Ryssdal: Do you worry at all about the rise of organic foods and people being more interested in more natural produce and product?

Grant: No, no, I don't. I think if you walk through any supermarket there's a portion of that shelf is going to be organic and that's just fine and there's a big piece of that shelf is driven by quality and affordability. A lot of the organic material is still pretty expensive.

So, as we think about it, we're looking at how you satisfy demand curves and how those curves are evolving. In my book we're going to continue to see a ramp in those curves. So, whether that's an Indian supermarket shelf or a shelf here in St. Louis, there's a piece of this I think is going to continue to be driven by production agriculture.

Ryssdal: Is this a recession proof company? I mean, people gotta eat.

Grant: I don't think any company's recession proof. I think that's a recipe for disaster. I think that we probably tread through recessions better than some companies though because food is pretty basic.

The way I look at it, we need to be able to drive efficiency. So, farmers are business-to-business. They buy inputs, they convert them into commodities that are globally traded.

So if you don't help him on his farm or in the rest of the world actually, her farm, if you don't help them with that productivity fight, then you're irrelevant.

So I don't think recession proof, but I think we need to deliver efficiency.

Ryssdal: Do you ever buy organic food yourself?

Grant: Yeah, I do. Yeah.

Ryssdal: Here we go. Hugh Grant is the chairman and CEO of Monsanto. Mr. Grant, thanks a lot for your time.

Grant: Thanks for joining us.

Ryssdal: One more time. Mr. Grant, thanks a lot for your time.

Hugh Grant: Thank you for coming here today.

Ryssdal: Hugh Grant is the chairman and CEO of Monsanto.

Comment by Steve Scholl-Buckwald of San Francisco, USA:

Thank you for at least asking Hugh Grant whether Monsanto's claim that their genetically engineered crops are needed to feed a world in crisis is opportunistic. I'll say it is!

But he has his message framing down too well to honestly answer you. Instead he selectively presented the claim that their seed will solve the water shortage, when they are far from being able to do that.

And he trotted out Bt cotton as proof that biotechnology is reducing the use of pesticides--the evidence is mixed, and often the reverse is true, as in Monsanto's "RoundUp Ready" crops. The truth is that GE crops are contributing only marginally to increasing productivity, and productivity isn't even the issue.

Access to food, subsidized agrofuels, and corporate profiteering are among the real issues, and Monsanto represents a key part of the problem. Their GE seeds are designed to extend control over the food system for the handful of agrichemical companies that already claim an obscene share of the market, with Bayer, Syngenta and yes, Monsanto, at the lead.

Four months ago a UN report on global agricultural science and technology, written by 400 scientists and experts (and roundly denounced by Monsanto) found that world hunger won't be resolved by corporate technologies, but by supporting diverse, smaller-scale, ecologically sound farming that has the resilience to adapt to climate change, and redirects both food and life support to the people who need it, not to Mr. Grant and his shareholders.

I urge you go give some airtime not, as suggested above, to John Mackey of Whole Foods, who represents yet another firm that is exploiting an affluent niche in the food market, but to someone like Hans Herren, a winner of the World Food Prize and co-chair of the 4-year UN assessment, a disinterested scientist who has demonstrated how sustainable agriculture can feed people in East Africa and elsewhere without the "miracle" technologies from Monsanto.

And I'd ask that you look at how Monsanto is harassing farmers throughout the midwest for daring to farm without buying Monsanto's GE soy and corn seed.

It isn't fear of technology that drives criticism of Monsanto and GE crops -- it is recognition that they are in the business of making farming more expensive and less open to millions of farmers around the world.

USA: Rice farmers win release of lawsuit documents

Associated Press - August 20, 2008

LONOKE, Ark. - A judge has released a handful of the million-plus documents offered under seal in a lawsuit over genetically modified rice. Plaintiffs say the documents aid their case, but a defense lawyer says the papers will make no difference.

Some Arkansas rice farmers claim they lost money after genetically altered rice grown by the Riceland Foods Inc. cooperative accidentally entered the food supply. The lawsuit says a number of nations stopped buying Arkansas rice and producers had to sell rice for less in other countries.

Parties in the case have made available more than a million pages of documents to lawyers handling the case, with most of them filed under seal pending a review by Lonoke County Circuit Judge Phillip Whiteacre (WHIT'-uh-kur). Today, Whiteacre ordered nine pages released Wednesday after plaintiffs argued the documents didn't include any trade secrets.

One set of documents shows how much trucks weighed when they left silos at Weiner (WEE'-nur) with the altered rice and when they arrived at Stuttgart for incineration. Paul Byrd, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said that when some trucks arrived weighing less, part of their load may have drifted into other fields in the Delta, tainting non-modified rice. Some of the truck weights went up, too.

Riceland lawyer Barry Deacon said the documents were not necessarily significant, and will neither help nor hurt Riceland's defense.

19 August 2008

USA: G8 Clueless on Food Policy

CommonDreams.org, 19 August 2008. By Jim Goodman.

In June the G8 (Group of Eight; Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States), the rulers of the industrialized north, the power brokers of the world, met in Kobe, Japan. They meet annually to discuss topics of mutual and global concern. Not surprisingly, according to ABC News, the World Food Crisis and Africa were in the spotlight.

And what better way to prepare for intense discussions of the World Food Crisis than to start the meetings off with the "Blessings of the Earth and Sea Social Dinner," an eight-course, eighteen-dish banquet accompanied by five wines from around the world. While fifteen guests were invited, the leaders of Ethiopia, Tanzania and Senegal (who had taken part in the meetings that day) were not among them. Earlier that day UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged the world to reduce their "unnecessary demand" for food. Apparently he wasn't speaking to the G8 leaders.

Does the G8 really understand the food crisis? I don't think they have a clue. An eight-course banquet? How demeaning. They invite leaders from African countries affected by the food crisis, hear their pleas, but certainly, do not let them interfere with their agenda, their industrial development, their pleasure.

While floods, droughts and climate change are contributing factors, they are not the cause of the current worldwide food crisis. The G8's pet projects, international trade, finance and corporate policy are the real cause of the food crisis. Does the G8 propose anything in the way of solutions to the food crisis or just more of the same, more of what caused the problem in the first place? Do they support anything other than the failed agenda of the Bush Administration? Policies which include:

•

Removing export restrictions (So countries trying to protect their domestic food supplies by prohibiting export of food crops, like rice, are not allowed to do so).

•

Successful conclusion of the Doha round of the World Trade Organization (WTO) (So food deficit countries cannot protect their domestic food production and farmers, but must produce commodity crops for sale on the world market).

•

Increased access to Genetically Modified (GM) crops in food deficit countries. ( The White House supports the use of GM drought resistant crops, but those crops do not exist. GM crops have done nothing to lessen hunger anywhere in the world. Farmers in Africa cannot afford the seed, the fertilizer or the pesticides that GM crops require. African farmers stand a better chance of feeding their people with traditional crops. They do not need GM seed; they need roads, storage facilities, credit, investment in small scale agriculture and more democracy).

As the Democratic and Republican delegates move into discussions of their respective party platforms, they could move US foreign policy in a new direction. A new president, from whatever party, with a rational agenda could move the G8 to effect progressive change in Africa and elsewhere.

A new President could forgo the call of the banquet bell and listen to the farmers, farm workers and social justice advocates on the ground in Africa, perhaps join them for a meal of foufou and millet. See what it means to be hungry and listen to their pleas for Food Sovereignty.

A new President could insist it is time the G8 stops forcing the world to accept the expensive and failed trade policies of the WTO and the World Bank. Stop the unquestioning support of Monsanto, Dow, Cargill and the rest of the multi-national agribusiness giants who see their profit as being transcendent over the lives of farmers, workers and the people of entire continents.

National elections should motivate us. Clearly, most Americans are not pleased with the direction we have taken for the last eight years at home or abroad. In the eyes of the world we are no longer a compassionate nation. There are 800 million starving people in the world and 1 billion overweight people. It is time for a policy change. Delegates heading for St. Paul and Denver should think about that and they should think about how their party platforms could move the G8 to change world food policy.

Jim Goodman is a farmer in Wonewoc and a policy fellow for the Food and Society Fellows Program http://www.foodandsocietyfellows.org/

UK: Don't be taken in by GMO publicity

Wales Online, 19 August 2008.

THE whole subject of genetically modified crops and food (GMOs) seems to have been getting more and more coverage in the media in recent months. To read some of the stories you would be forgiven for thinking that GM technology could be the answer to most of the world's problems!

Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is vital that we guard against complacency as the pro-GM lobby mounts a concerted campaign to win over an increasingly sceptical public.

We must not fall for the publicity of the large biotechnology companies promoting GMOs for their own profits. Amongst other things they would have us believe that their products may be an easy solution for rising food prices. This is an increasingly familiar tale that we heard repeated recently at the Royal Welsh Show.

Supporters of GMOs know that public and political opinion is massively opposed to their commercial exploitation. This is true not just in Wales, but across the UK and the rest of Europe, with deadlock in the European Union's Council of Ministers blocking the use of new GMOs on a European level.

People have listened to the arguments and based on common sense and reason have decided to say no to GMOs. It is disgraceful that wealthy multinational companies are now preying on people's worries about the rising cost of living to try and change minds on GMOs.

Wales is in the European mainstream in having declared ourselves GM free. At least 174 regions, more than 4,500 councils and local governments and tens of thousands of farmers and food producers across Europe are with us.

We must support our farmers in promoting Welsh produce and ensuring that they get the assistance needed to develop sustainable farming and regenerate our rural areas. Our GM free status actually represents a boost to Welsh agriculture and is in tune with what farmers and consumers want. We cannot put this at risk.

Jill Evans MEP is a member of the Environment Committee in the European Parliament

UK: Oil, genetics and the end of cheap food

The Guardian, August 19 2008

You put your finger on the main cause of rising food prices and shortages (Millions could starve as fertiliser prices soar, says UN, August 13). The input costs for non-organic, hi-tech farming have increased dramatically because artificial fertiliser prices increase with oil prices. The "cheap" food of the last 50 years has been based on our incredibly wasteful use of oil. Industrial agriculture involves turning oil into food because oil and natural gas are used to get nitrogen out of the air and into a sack of artificial fertiliser.

All current GM crops are just as oil-dependent as any other non-organic farming system, which is one of the reasons why Prince Charles was right to criticise them so strongly.

Future food security depend on us using renewable, solar-powered, organic techniques to produce food, and scientific research shows that worldwide organic farming could produce slightly more food than we currently have. GM crops have the added disadvantage of introducing completely new risks into the environment without any benefits of increased yield.

Peter Melchett
Policy director, Soil Association

Australia: When the chemistry isn't right
Chefs are uniting to decry the genetic altering of food, writes Richard Cornish.

The Age (Australia), 19 August 2008.

MORE than 100 of Australia's top chefs are so concerned about genetically modified foods entering our food chain they have refused to serve it in their restaurants. Some are even putting GM-Free Zone stickers on their restaurant windows.

Stephanie Alexander, Maggie Beer, Bill Granger, Alla Wolf Tasker, Paul Wilson, Tetsuya Wakuda, Guy Grossi and Neil Perry are among the signatories to the Greenpeace GE-free (genetically engineered) charter, which will be launched at Fifteen in Melbourne today.

The chefs say the untested long-term risks associated with GM food have forced them to refuse to serve GM, or GM-derived food, in their restaurants.

For chef Tobie Puttock his anti-GM stance is part of "embracing the best seasonal produce and, using traditional cooking techniques, creating very simple and tasty dishes". Puttock says he tries to ensure the quality and integrity of his produce by having "good and ongoing relationships with my growers, who are all GM-free".

For chefs and the general public, buying GM-free food is tough. Although government food labelling laws require GM food to be labelled as such, there are exceptions. Canola oil is used extensively in baking and margarines.

Victoria's first GM canola crops are growing vigorously in paddocks near Horsham. In a few months they will be ready for harvest. The oil from their seeds will not have to be GM-labelled under present laws, the chefs say.

They fear GM-derived canola could be on our shelves and say there is no requirement to label it any differently than conventionally grown oil. GM cottonseed oil, which is already used in deep fryers in Australia, does not need to labelled.

They list other concerns: meat from animals fed GM feed does not have to be labelled; some supermarket beef cattle are already fed on GM cottonseed; eggs from hens fed GM food, and milk from cows fed GM fodder are also exempt from GM labelling. Australian food standards also allow foods to have a 1% GM content before they must be labelled, they say.

At today's launch, Greenpeace is asking the public to sign up to a petition that not only asks federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon for better labelling of GM foods but also to ensure that GM foods are "safe beyond reasonable doubt".

Food Safety Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ), the government agency entrusted with ensuring that our foods are safe to eat, was quick to assure Australians that GM foods are safe. "Overwhelmingly the scientific evidence around the world (shows) GM food is safe," says FSANZ spokeswoman Lydia Buchtmann. "GM foods can't be sold unless they undergo a rigorous safety assessment at FSANZ.

"We use a method of assessment recognised around the world - the same as used in Canada and Japan. We also require results of animal testing as supplied by the GM companies," she said.

BCOZ Organic Dining's chef and owner, Rod Barbey, says he found the best way to guarantee that his food would be GM-free was by using only certified organic food, which by definition is GM-free. "GM crop production doesn't care for soil fertility. There are a lot of chemicals used in GM production that affect soil biodiversity. They spray the crops with Roundup. I don't want that in my food or your customers' food. The most important people in my life are the people I cook for." The ethically motivated chef even has "GM Free" embossed on his chef's jacket.

"Many chefs feel that the GM-Free Zone stickers on their restaurant and cafe front windows are necessary because by law they can sell GM food and don't have to declare it. Under the Food Standard 1.5.2, food sold for immediate consumption by restaurants, cafes, take-away outlets and caterers does not have to be labelled genetically modified food," says Barbey.

The GM Free Chef's Charter has caused a furore in pro-GM circles. CSIRO's deputy chief of Plant Industry, T. J. Higgins, contacted the chefs who signed up to the charter, asking them to "think more broadly about the implications of your opposition to serving GM foods in your restaurant". In his letter he wrote: "If we encourage our community to reject GM breeding then we reduce options for innovation in future food production."

Mildura chef and quality food advocate Stefano de Pieri was one of the recipients of the letter. "I am a chef, not a scientist, but I know that putting food production into the hands of a few multinational chemical companies is good for neither food security nor food quality," he says. "Call me a cynic, but I look at a lot of the food that food science has produced and it is rubbish nutritionally, culinarily and culturally."

18 August 2008

UK: Top down' use of GM is no solution

Eastern Daily Press, 18 August 2008.

Not all scientists disagree with Prince Charles' criticism of GM crops and intensive agriculture (EDP, August 14). I have a PhD in Plant Genetics and consider Prince Charles' comments anything but "ill informed".

The Green Revolution, with its introduction of hybrid seeds, intensive irrigation and chemical fertilisers and pesticides, brought a brief period of increased crop yields. However, in areas like the Punjab in India, this has led to water-logged and unproductive soils. Many have left the land. Remaining farmers are deeply in debt.

GM crops have been introduced in a similar top-down way, in many cases to boost the sale of herbicides. In Argentina, an increase in soya production has led to deforestation and pollution of groundwater as the use of the herbicide glyphosate has increased a massive 180 fold since the introduction of herbicide-tolerant GM crops. Resistant weeds mean that older, more toxic herbicides are being used for the first time since the 1980s. Even in richer nations, like the United States and Canada, farmers are facing numerous problems. The supply of non-GM seeds is often restricted and farmers who wish to save their own non-GM seed find that it has been contaminated and are then sued by the biotechnology companies. These farmers may well be "really astute businessmen who would not have anything foisted upon them" but this has done them no good whatsoever.

We need to work with small farmers whose techniques are not only preserving biodiversity and genetic variability but often growing more food per acre than larger farms. The recent UN International Assessment of Agriculture (IAASTD), which was carried out by 400 leading agronomists and scientists with the World Bank's help, concluded that science and technology must be combined with traditional knowledge, working with communities on localised solutions. It found no conclusive evidence that GM crops increase crop yields or are the single answer to global hunger.

Dr. Jeremy Bartlett.

Comment from GM Watch:

Last week, attacks on Prince Charles by pro-GM scientists at the John Innes Centre - the UK's leading plant biotech institute - were widely reported under headlines such as "Scientists' anger at Prince's GM comments". In the above letter, Dr. Jeremy Bartlett, who gained his doctorate in plant genetics at the same institute, spells out why not all scientists disagree with the Prince.

Western Australia extends GM crop ban by 4yrs

Stock & Land, 18 August 2008.

Gene Ethics applauds Premier Alan Carpenter's announcement of a four-year extension to the WA ban on all Genetically Manipulated (GM) food and fiber crops.

"This announcement isolates the 'rogue states' Victoria and NSW, which have allowed GM canola to be planted this year, without the agreement or consent of a majority of states or citizens," says Gene Ethics director, Bob Phelps.

"We call on all governments to match the WA initiative, to support the national uniform system of GM regulation.

"Without uniformity, we could still see GM contamination spread across Australia, against the interests of most rural industries and over 90pc of all shoppers.

"The decision by Goodman Fielder to label its Meadowlea canola spread as GM-free is another breakthrough.

"And Woolworths is also guaranteeing its canola oil as grown in WA and therefore GM-free.

"GM-free is the way to stay for health, safety and the environment," Mr Phelps says.

Australia: Libs vow to plant GM cotton and trial GM canola

Perth Now, 18 August 2008. By Nicolas Perpitch.

GENETICALLY modified crops have emerged as a clear point of difference between the major parties in the West Australian election.

The Liberal opposition today announced it would allow the planting of genetically modified (GM) cotton and go ahead with commercial-size trials of GM canola in the northern Ord River irrigation area if it won the September 6 election.

Premier Alan Carpenter restated Labor's policy to keep WA GM-free, saying the state would retain its moratorium on the planting of GM crops if his government was re-elected.

Opposition Leader Colin Barnett said the Liberals were committed to providing food security through affordable, clean, safe, locally produced food.

"This includes fast-tracking the progressive development of the Ord, beginning with Mantinea, and the development of the Gascoyne region,'' Mr Barnett said.

"The Liberals will also move to fast-track several other key areas of agriculture including the sale and upgrade of current livestock saleyards and the planting of GM cotton and limited commercial-size trials of GM canola.''

The Liberals' policy would see WA become the third state to plant GM crops, alongside NSW and Victoria.

But Mr Carpenter said he would not compromise WA's GM free status.

"I will not, in the next term of government, allow GM crops to be grown on a commercial basis in Western Australia,'' he told reporters.

The premier said GM foods would put at risk some of WA's best agricultural markets, including the European Union and Japan.

"Until the science is absolutely and utterly unequivocal, I don't believe we should take any risks with the food that we eat.''

Under the moratorium, WA currently allows ``strictly controlled research trials'' of GM foods.

The government has urged the federal government to label any foods with GM content.

The National Party, which holds five seats in the Legislative Assembly, has also called for the lifting of the moratorium.

It says the government is stifling primary industry in the Ord Irrigation Area and has signed a death knell for the state's sugar industry by refusing to allow the cultivation of GM crops.

The West Australian Farmers Federation, which supports the growing of GM crops, has already moved to develop protocols for the commercialisation of GM grains in WA.

The Nationals Western Australia say the world is increasingly producing GM crops, and that GM cotton, in particular, had overcome the insect problems which plagued the industry in the Kimberley in the 1970s.

Meanwhile, The Nationals WA leader Brendon Grylls today announced that the Liberals would receive National preferences in the Legislative Assembly at the coming election.

This followed his threat to hand out Nationals preferences on a seat-by-seat basis if the Liberals did not commit to funding of special projects in resource-rich regional electorates.

Both major party leaders refused to negotiate with him on the issue and Mr Grylls was warned of a backlash among grassroots supporters if the party put Labor first on preferences.

In the Upper House, the Nationals will give their first preferences to Family First and the Christian Democrats.

Mr Grylls has not committed to joining a coalition government if National seats are required to unseat the Labor government at next month's election, but is considered certain to do so.

Northern Ireland: Getting to the heart of the GM argument

Farming Life, 18 August 2008.

THE news that American researchers are using genetic manipulation to combat mastitis and a range of other animal diseases is a pretty scary development - although not an altogether surprising one.

For one thing, it reflects the totally different attitude that exists towards genetic engineering in the United States, compared with Europe. Across the pond, it really is a case of anything goes.

Hardly a day goes by when one US research body or another is either announcing some form of breakthrough associated with genetic engineering or is seeking funds to carry out work of this type. And all of this is taking place in the public domain with little or no resistance coming from consumer or environmental pressure groups.

Contrast this with the public outcry in the UK and Europe over genetically modified sugar beet, oilseed rape and maize. Literally millions have been spent over most of the last decade carrying out trials at secret locations in order to gauge the likely environmental impact of these crops.

Landowners and farmers known to have acquiesced in this work have been publicly pilloried with the result that the term 'genetically modified' is now synonymous with every negative image that one can conjure up when it comes to food safety and wholesomeness.

Admittedly, the cause of those supporting genetic engineering in Europe has not been helped by the myriad food scares that have come to light over the past ten years. As a result, genetic modification now ranks 'proudly' with BSE, salmonella and dioxins in the public's all time food safety scare list.

So where do we go from here? In a world where free trade in all food products and agricultural inputs may well become a reality, either through WTO or other means, North America could, once again, become an important supplier of cereals to the local farming industry. But given the whole hearted acceptance of genetic engineering across the pond, will the US be in a position of meeting Europe's demand for GM-free raw materials?

Alternatively, the GM argument could be used to keep American food products out of Europe. It all depends on how the negotiators in Brussels view the pros and cons of trading with the US when the issue arises.

One thing for certain is that it will take decades for European consumers to accept any form of genetically modified food, such has been the emotive outcry over the subject to date. But is this good news for agriculture in Northern Ireland?

17 August 2008

UK: Everything you wanted to know about GM food but were afraid to ask

Wales on Sunday, 17 August 2008. By Steve Dube.

Prince Charles caused a stir this week with his strongest comments yet on GM food. But why? Farming editor STEVE DUBE investigates

What's it all about?

Prince Charles doesn't like genetically modified (GM) food. It gives him nightmares.

Why?

As a passionate organic farmer, Prince Charles is worried that the GM genie might wreak havoc once it's out of the bottle. There have been food scares before - look at Mad Cow Disease.

What does he think might happen?

He thinks GM could be the biggest environmental disaster of all time and says "millions of small farmers all over the world face being driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness".

How does he work that one out?

Well, he knows that farmers and plant breeders have been improving plants for thousands of years by carefully selecting the best ones. And there's nothing wrong with that. Long live the Brussels Sprout.

But genetic modification is different because scientists extract one or more genes from one species and add it to another.

What's wrong with that?

Well, no one can control what happens when genetic material from different species is mixed - like putting a gene from, say, a fish into a plant. It might do what you want it to do, or it might change the plant in unexpected ways and even make it poisonous. For example, when scientists tried to increase the starch content of potatoes with yeast genes, they found the starch content actually fell, and there were other undesirable effects.

It can't all be bad?

Some of it is very good, according to the biotechnology companies. But they would say that, wouldn't they, because they are investing heavily in GM technology. There are 30 million kinds of plants in the world and just four - rice, wheat, maize and soya - provide 60% of our food. The biotech companies are concentrating on these.

One particular gene, which provides resistance to a type of weedkiller called glyphosate, has been inserted into at least nine different crop plants now on the market in the EU and the United States.

Sounds like there's a lot being grown?

Too right. The Agriculture Biotechnology Council, the umbrella body for the huge multi-nationals that produce GM seed, says 12 million farmers in 23 countries plant GM crops. And Americans have been eating GM food for a decade or more.

So the gene genie is already out of the bottle then, isn't it?

Yes. It's been in our shopping baskets since 1996 when Sainsbury's and Safeway put the first tin of American-grown GM tomatoes on sale.

So what's the problem?

Those tomatoes were clearly labelled as being genetically modified. And hardly anybody bought them. European consumers don't like GM.

So how come it's in our shopping baskets then?

Any processed food containing maize or soya - and that's a lot of food - is likely to contain GM material. And it only has to be labelled in Europe if the GM content exceeds 0.9%. But animal feed does not have to be labelled, and nor does food produced from animals that are fed GM - and that's just about all cattle, pigs and poultry, except those produced organically. There is no GM labelling at all in the United States.

It's not done the Americans any harm, has it?

Strangely enough, nobody knows because nobody is asking that question, although we do know that American life expectancy is getting shorter and more Americans are dying early from food-related problems. But some scientists have tried to ask questions. Take the mysterious case of Arpad Pusztai.

Who's he?

Dr Pusztai is a Hungarian-born scientist who worked in the Rowett Research Institute at the University of Aberdeen.

He was a world expert on plant lectins. These are proteins in plants that kill insects and other invaders. Pusztai had published more than 300 scientific papers, when, at the age of 69 in 1998, he spoke about GM potatoes in a World in Action TV programme. He said he had compared rats fed ordinary potatoes with others fed potatoes that had been genetically modified with a lectin from snowdrops.

The rats on the GM diet suffered damage to their intestines and immune systems. That's when all hell broke loose.

What happened?

The Institute's director Philip James phoned to congratulate him after the programme. But the following morning his attitude mysteriously changed. Professor Robert Orskov OBE, who worked at the Rowett for 33 years and is one of Britain's leading nutrition experts, claims the sudden change followed a series of phone calls that started with the US biotech multinational Monsanto, which produces most of the world's GM food. This first call went to then US President Bill Clinton, who phoned then British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who in turn phoned James.

Pusztai was suspended and later dismissed, his data seized and he was banned from speaking publicly. So he had to stay silent when he read newspapers saying his GM potatoes contained a lectin gene that is poisonous to mammals.

Did they?

No. The misinformation was included in a press release issued by the Rowett Institute. James says Pusztai approved the press release but Pusztai says he knew nothing about it. Even today pro-GM scientists dismiss his research as muddled and based on a schoolboy error.

Does everyone share that point of view?

No. Pusztai is a hero to anti-GM campaigners, who regard him as someone who stuck his neck out for the public good. And they're not alone. In 2005 he was honoured with a whistleblower award from the Federation of German Scientists.

What happened to his research?

A paper was published by Pusztai and a colleague in the prestigious medical journal the Lancet in October 1999.

Because of all the controversy the paper was reviewed by six scientists - three times the usual number - and five approved it. The paper used data held by Pusztai's colleague Dr Stanley Ewen, so it was not covered by the ban. It showed that rats fed on the GM potatoes with the snowdrop lectin developed unusual changes to their gut tissue.

No doubt there has been other research; if so, what has it found?

There has actually been very little independent research. The first known human trial of GM food was carried out by scientists at Newcastle University and published in the journal Nature Biotechnology in 2004. It showed that DNA material transfers from GM food into the human gut - disproving the claims of the biotech industry. The Food Standards Agency, which commissioned the research in response to public pressure, said the results were not significant.

It sounds as though more research is needed. Is anyone doing it?

Unfortunately no, and for a simple reason. GM seeds are owned by the company that manufactures them and scientists can study them only if the company agrees.

Is the only research into the safety of GM food done by the companies that produce it?

That's right. And since 99.9% of GM varieties are designed to resist or absorb pesticides or to produce a toxin that kills any insect that bites it, it's the first time in history that what amounts to a drug or pesticide is not tested before release by anyone other than the company that makes it.

And the stakes are high. Farmers who sign up for the promise of GM crops have to agree to use fertiliser and pesticides from the seed supplier and not to save any seed. Some are even "terminator" seeds that are infertile. Meanwhile GM corporations are systematically buying up seed companies and taking varieties off the market. Control the seeds that feed the world you become 100 times richer than Bill Gates, because you can say which country has which seed, and you get paid every time someone uses your seed. And once you add green oil - bio-fuel - into the equation you become master of the world - richer than any country. The eight biggest drugs companies are the biggest producers of GM, and the biggest pesticide manufacturers. They began with maize and soya, they had the patent last year for wheat in the US and now they're working on rice.

What about insulin for diabetics? I heard that's now nearly all GM material.

It is, but there's a case in point: some people have an adverse reaction to it and can't use it.

But won't GM crops help us to feed the world by making stronger plants with bigger yields?

You've heard the propaganda put out by the GM companies, who have a permanent presence at European Commission and easy access to ministers and civil servants that for some reason believe what they're told. The United National International Assessment of Agriculture, carried out by 400 leading scientists, found no evidence that GM crops increase yields or that they could feed a hungry world.

And the US Department of Agriculture reported earlier this year that some GM crop yields are actually lower. GM is not about feeding starving children. People are hungry not because there's not enough food in the world, but because they haven't got the money to buy it. GM won't make their pockets any heavier, and they won't be able to afford to buy the seed.

Is that why Prince Charles is worried?

Partly. There's also the environmental impact - the effects of increased pesticide use on insects, birds and other wildlife. And the Prince thinks GM systems and the agribusiness and globalisation promoted by the world's Big 8 nations such as the US and UK, are behind a worldwide decrease in the number of small farms. And as people leave the land they end up unemployed and disaffected in Third World slums.

Is there any evidence for this?

The UN says globalisation is the biggest underlying reason for the growth in slums - the Prince's "unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness".

OK, we know he doesn't like GM. But surely it's worth giving it a go?

Perhaps, but maybe not like it's being done now. Professor Barry Commoner, a distinguished biologist and philosopher of science at Queens College, New York, sums it up like this: "The genetically engineered crops now being grown represent a massive uncontrolled experiment whose outcome is inherently unpredictable. The results could be catastrophic."

So what's the answer?

At the moment, it IS the stuff of nightmares. History has shown that we need scientists with the public good in mind to study new technologies and give honest answers about its effects on nature and humans. That way we may avoid disasters like thalidomide and Mad Cow Disease. But while science is powered by the pursuit of money, people like Prince Charles are right to put up their hands and ask why.

UK: Charles right on GM crops

ThePeople.co.uk, 17 August 2008. By Eamonn Holmes.

I love it when Prince Charles lets rip as he did this week over genetically modified crops.

The politicians wet themselves. The old argument is that he's privileged, out of touch and shouldn't express political views.

He's certainly privileged. Privileged to be a rather good farmer. And they should be privileged he's fighting their corner, as few others seem to.

His outburst was not so much in frustration at Frankenstein foods, but that small farms would be brushed aside by massive corporations which would ultimately be responsible for growing massive swathes of GM crops.

He was asking that food security be the concern, not food production.

And isn't he right?

Look at how beholden we are to Russia over fuel, and how we accept the blackmail that comes with it, instead of getting on with creating our own nuclear sources.

As for political views... if Charles, below, ever becomes King, he knows it will be time to stop. Until that happens, let's be glad he gets the debate going.

It's refreshing to hear a public figure talk crop instead of crap.

UK: Prince 'must prove anti-GM claim'

BBC News, 17 August 2008.

Prince Charles must prove his claim that GM crops could cause a global environmental disaster, Environment Minister Phil Woolas has challenged.

In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, the minister said it is now down to the opponents of genetically modified food to prove it is unsafe.

"If it has been a disaster then please provide the evidence," he said.

On Wednesday Prince Charles said firms developing GM crops risk the biggest environmental disaster "of all time".

The government's initial response to the prince's comments in sister paper the Daily Telegraph was to say that it welcomed all voices in the "important" debate and that safety was a priority.

'Africa strategy'

However, on Sunday Mr Woolas went further, saying it was the government's "moral responsibility" to investigate whether genetically modified crops could help provide a solution to hunger in the developing world.

"We see this as part of our Africa strategy," he said.

"It's easy for those of us with plentiful food supplies to ignore the issue but we have a responsibility to use science to help the less well off where we can.

"I'm grateful to Prince Charles for raising the issue. He raises some very important doubts that are held by many people.

"But government ministers have a responsibility to base policy on science and I do strongly believe that we have a moral responsibility to the developing world to ask the question: can GM crops help?"

Earlier this week the Prince of Wales warned future reliance on corporations to mass produce food would drive millions of farmers off their land.

He said huge multi-national corporations involved in developing GM foods were conducting a "gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong".

What should be debated was "food security not food production", he said.

The prince's comments come at a time of rising world food prices and food shortages.

The biotech industry says that GM technology can help combat world hunger and poverty by delivering higher yields from crops and also reduce the use of pesticides.

However, green groups and aid agencies have doubts about GM technology's effectiveness in tackling world hunger and have concerns about the long-term environmental impact.

16 August 2008

UK: Biofuels Fail to Meet Sustainability Criteria

New Scientist -- August 16, 2008

Biofuels have received another environmental black mark: a survey commissioned by the UK government found that 4 out of 5 litres supplied at British pumps failed to meet basic industry standards for sustainability.

Manufacturers could not prove that their biofuel feedstock had not been grown by trashing rainforests or harming the livelihoods of poor farmers. Nor did they know where half of the biofuels in UK fuel tanks had been grown. UK charity Friends of the Earth have called it a "shocking admission".

Just over 2 per cent of the fuel used in UK vehicles is biofuel, and next month the European Union may decide on a 10 per cent target, to be achieved by 2020.

The survey, by the UK's Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA), also calculated the possible greenhouse emissions savings accrued by UK imports of biofuel feedstock according to its country of origin, where known. The direct benefits to the climate of substituting plant products for fossil fuels in the UK were lowest for widely used Brazilian soya oil, which saved only 10 per cent over conventional fuels.

Other biofuels fared better. Rapeseed oil from Europe and North America saved about 30 per cent, and palm oil from south-east Asia about 40 per cent. Brazilian sugar cane - fermented to make ethanol to replace petrol - saved about 70 per cent, while cooking oil and tallow from the UK, the US and elsewhere saved over 80 per cent.

The UK consumes little ethanol made from corn, a biofuel criticised for using more fossil fuel in its making than is saved by using it. But the agency warned that figures suggesting climatic benefits for other biofuels painted too rosy a picture, and could hide the fact that they too were doing more harm than good. This is because indirect environmental effects - such as emissions from the draining of peat swamps to grow palm oil in south-east Asia - are not being assessed.

UK: Royal rebel

The Guardian, 16 August 2008. By Ros Coward.

Royal rebel Prince Charles's outburst against GM foods was mocked as an unscientific rant. But do his views deserve to be derided as green-ink ravings, or is he a green hero for our times?

For environmental campaigners who are also republicans, the Prince of Wales is a bit of a thorn in the flesh. He's involved in just about all the principal issues - championing organic agriculture, supporting local produce, rainforest campaigning, and sounding off about GM foods. Whereas in the past it might have been possible to ignore him as an eccentric fellow traveller, these days his views often sound so like those of the leading environmental NGOs, that increasingly they are having to ask themselves: does he know what he's talking about? Is he an asset or a liability?

This questioning is likely to become more insistent over the coming year. Prince Charles turns 60 in November and some people will ask more loudly than before: what is an ageing prince for? Insofar as he asks himself the same question, it seems that focussing on the environment is the answer. Last year he set up Rainforests Project, giving himself a year to come up with action to save the rainforests. The man, whose main role was ticking off politicians and newspaper editors in letters written in green ink, seems to be finally settling on a role as the environmental conscience of the nation.

It is easy to mock Prince Charles - and large sections of the media have done so in the wake of his latest outburst, earlier this week, on GM food. He has a strange, strangulated, plummy accent. He tends towards hyperbole, on this occasion describing GM crops as "the biggest disaster, environmentally, of all time". He often looks and sounds silly, as when he sung the praises of "wibbly wobbly carrots", while dressed in ancient tweeds and carrying a shepherd's crook. And he famously loses his temper, becoming more and more like his irascible father with every passing year. According to Jeff Randall, the Daily Telegraph journalist who interviewed him on this occasion, Prince Charles "jabbed" at him with his finger and was "bouncing in his chair" while setting out "his nightmare vision", a world in which millions of small farmers "are driven off their land [by global conglomerates] into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness". Out of context, that statement rivals his views on nanotechnology a few years ago - comments which came to be known as his "grey goo" moment after he apparently spoke of the horror of such technology turning the world to grey goo.

But even though many newspapers wheeled out scientists to denounce Prince Charles as "unscientific", he has garnered significant support. Several commentators noted that in fact the scientific community was far from united in support of GM crops, while Patrick Holden, the director of the Soil Association, rallied to support his seriousness and expertise. The Daily Mail, consistent in its hostility to GM "Frankenstein foods", said Prince Charles had "put forward serious arguments that need to be heard and struck a resounding chord with the public".

"His comments are being misrepresented," says journalist Felicity Lawrence. "He was actually talking at the time about how to support local food producers in Scotland, something he knows a lot about. I suspect his explosion about farmers going to live in horrible cities wasn't like his denunciation of the modern UK city along the lines of his 'hideous carbuncle' speech, it was addressing how, if you pursue further industrialisation of agriculture, it inevitably means growers are displaced from the land and will end up in mega slums. This isn't wild fantasy. It's describing what is happening."

No one doubts Prince Charles's commitment to the environment. It has been a lifelong passion - sometimes derided, as when he famously announced that he always talked to his plants, but often prescient. He set up a natural filter bed and water recycling system at Highgrove in Gloucestershire long before most people were aware of the need to conserve water. His Rainforests Project makes explicit his desire to make an impact in his 60th year on what he considers the world's most pressing problem: deforestation. But the cause to which he remains closest is promoting organic food production and small-scale local farming. He's been an organic farmer since the 1980's, and set up the highly profitable Duchy Originals in 1992. An organic food company, it helps small farmers find new markets for their goods while promoting more sustainable production.

"He has many interests," says Paddy Harverson, his communications secretary. "But farming is right at the top not least because he's a farmer. He spends a lot of time on Home Farm in Gloucestershire and takes an immense interest in contemporary farming. This year he is Patron of the Year of Food and Farming and most small farmers would see him as a friend and advocate.

"The Daily Telegraph interview was given to highlight The North Highland Initiative. That's one of the four or five initiatives he has set up to help farmers' products become more competitive by using imaginative marketing solutions."

The prince's interest in food and food production is one of the main reasons he is once again mired in political controversy. The current food crisis, say critics of the food industry, has allowed the supporters of GM to come rushing back into government circles offering biotechnology as a solution. His spokespeople are keen to insist that debating issues of food production and food security are not political but social and environmental. But as the global food crisis moves centre stage and politicians position themselves, that distinction will be harder to maintain. Could Prince Charles become more than a royal mascot for the greens? His seriousness is not in dispute but does he have the depth of understanding to be a spokesman environmentalists would be happy to line up behind?

"Was he talking nonsense?" says Andrew Simms, the policy director at the New Economics Foundation. "No, but I think he was overstating it. If someone asked me what was the most serious issue affecting the environment at the moment I'd say climate change rather than biotechnology. Biotechnology is a very important issue. There are lots of scientific and health issues connected with it that are still unanswered. But the most important issue about biotechnology is that the vast majority of applications which have come out of research into GM have had nothing to solving the problems of poverty, hunger and food security and everything to do with extending the control which agri-business has over the food chain."

According to Simms, tackling food security and hunger necessarily entail issues of social justice and redistribution. "If you do ask how to go about solving those issues, biotechnology would be quite low down. Higher up would be solutions such as giving people more entitlement to the land, land reform, redirecting agricultural extension services to small farmers, and looking at a wide range of sustainable farming techniques which don't rely on invasive high technology approaches but build on farmers' existing knowledge."

And if the real solutions to food security and sustainable food production entail equitable redistribution, where does Prince Charles - a person of immense, almost unimaginable privilege, stand on these issues? "What is really interesting" says Lawrence, "is that he's talking about corporate control and its effect on agriculture. It's not exactly leftwing but it is radical. I would place him in that tradition of philanthropic, experimental landowners like Robert Owen, who does things in a patriarchal and paternalistic way but genuinely wants to leave the world a better place."

There are other examples of this kind of paternalistic philanthropy in Britain, including around food production. Mac Fisheries was set up by William Hesketh Lever, one of the Lever Brothers, in the early 1920s as an attempt to guarantee work for the fishing community on and around the Isle of Harris.

It may also be the case that environmental issues are recasting the old left/right divisions. Figures such as Zac Goldsmith, Peter Melchett, Jonathan Porritt and even David Cameron - people who might all fit the description "radical toffs" - are involved in causes which could easily bring them into conflict with the activities of big corporations. But even if old alignments are changing there is a long way to go to overcome most people's ambivalence about embracing Prince Charles as a green superhero or even as a spokesman.

"He says he's concerned," says Simms. "But he doesn't strike me as being too concerned about poverty and poverty reduction." Others would be harsher. Ken Wharfe, the former royal protection officer for Princess Diana who had the opportunity to observe the prince at first hand, says: "The point is that Charles, for all his current 'voice of the people' role, is someone whose life is wrapped in cotton wool, where every whim is catered for and not challenged.

"I remember leaving Balmoral one evening with the Prince of Wales in a convoy of four vehicles, suddenly to be instructed to return immediately to the castle. Fearing a real emergency I asked why, he told me that he had left an electric light on, and not to turn it off would be a terrible waste of electricity. So the whole convoy returned to extinguish the light. I don't begrudge the Prince of Wales his reed and lily bed for the natural recycling of liquid waste. It's just that no one seems to notice how totally at odds it is with all the devotion to detail and excess which is the hallmark of his life at Highgrove."

"Prince Charles is who he is and says what he says. And that's fine" adds Simms. "But I don't think he should stand as a spokesperson for the broader environmental and social justice system. The trouble is we are trapped in a celebrity culture and royalty is part of that. There are many voices out there possibly more suited to speak - people who know more about the issues in greater depth and from the perspective of global justice. But it's a celebrity system and celebrities crowd out more informed voices."

USA: As GMO Sugar Beets Sneak Into the Food Supply, Citizens Fight Back

Environmental News Network / Organic Consumers Association, 16 August 2008.

"Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -- Anthropologist Margaret Mead

Even if you've heard the above quote many times before, the sentiment expressed is so powerful that I think it's worth repeating. All around the world, small groups of people are organizing public support for improved food safety and successfully challenging large corporations to change their behavior.

That's exactly what Flint Michigan residents Kathleen Kirby and Mark Fisher are banking on: their power to influence change. They're participating in a nationwide consumer boycott of Kellogg's Co. instigated by the Organic Consumers Association. By boycotting the world's largest cereal company, they hope to pressure Kellogg's into rejecting the use of sugar from genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets and to spark widespread market rejection in products ranging from cereal to baby food to candy.

As you may know, Roundup Ready sugar beets are genetically altered to resist Monsanto's toxic weed killer, Roundup, and its active ingredient, glyphosate. But here's the scary truth about these beets:

When the USDA first approved GE sugar beets for commercial planting in 1998, the EPA also increased the maximum allowable residues of glyphosate on sugar beet roots from just .02 parts per million to 10ppm. That's a staggering 5,000 percent increase of allowable toxins on beet roots. And, it's little surprise that EPA made this policy change at the request of Monsanto.

Sugar beet roots contain sucrose that's extracted, refined, and processed into the sugar used in the foods we eat. What this means is that the more GE ingredients that find their way into our food, the greater the likelihood that we are ingesting more toxic chemicals.

Thankfully, GE sugar beets have never been grown in the U.S. for sale to food manufacturers -- that is, until this year, when Western farmers planted their first crop of Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets. Right now, over half of the sugar used in U.S. processed foods comes from sugar beets, with beet and cane sugars combined in those products. What's most disturbing is that once GE sugar beets hit the market, which could be as early as next year, there will be no way to know if we're eating GE sugar because GE ingredients are not labeled.

Full story: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/7/164144/8933?source=daily

15 August 2008

Ireland: US ambassador expresses concern over Government's policy on GMOs

The Irish Times, 15 August 2008. By Martin Wall and Harry McGee.

US AMBASSADOR, Thomas Foley, wrote to the Government last year expressing his disappointment at its change of policy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

An internal briefing paper prepared for Government junior ministers discloses that Mr Foley wrote to Minister for Health, Mary Harney, in July 2007 stating his opposition to the current abstention policy.

"The US perceives this change in policy as detrimental to biotechnology and a possible barrier to trade," states the document, which has been seen by The Irish Times.

The formation of a new coalition involving the Green Party led to the change in policy from a "positive but precautionary" stance to one of increasing abstention when it came to GMOs.

Under its agriculture and food heading, the programme for government set as an aim "the establishment of an All-Ireland GM-Free Zone".

The abstention policy was also criticised by Fine Gael's agriculture spokesman Michael Creed yesterday.

He said the agreement of Fianna Fáil to include this in the programme "pandered to the unfounded and questionable claims of the anti-GMO lobby.

"The line about GMOs in the programme turns a blind eye to the positive contribution of GMOs and biotechnology in a whole range of areas, including the development of insulin," he said.

Mr Creed said that Irish agriculture had been burdened by an extra bill of €60 million last year because of millers being required to keep feedstuffs GM-free.

When asked if Fine Gael policy was to allow the use of GMOs, Mr Creed said that what was needed was an honest and open-minded debate about the benefits that biotechnology and GMO can bring. He said that that debate was absent at present.

The Department of Agriculture last night pointed out that the commitment in the programme for government was aimed more at discouraging the cultivation of GM crops in Ireland rather than a prohibition of imports of animal feed containing GM ingredients.

According to the department: "Over 90 per cent of the protein material used for ruminant feed is imported from the US in the form of maize distillers dried grains (by-products of the US milling industry) and maize gluten feed (by-products from the US distilling industry). "Since practically all of the maize used in these two industries comes from authorised GM varieties it follows that a very high proportion of the by-products imported are GM." The department also noted that the there had been no demand to date for the cultivation of GM varieties in Ireland.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

How much disinformation about GM food and farming can the Irish Times pack into a single article? Seven items, this time around, courtesy of reporters Martin Wall and Harry McGee.

•

US Ambassador Thomas Foley first complained about the Irish Government's policy shift against GM food and farming in July 2007, in a series of phone calls requesting the Department of Agriculture to justify its abstention on an EC vote to approve the importation of a new variety of GM maize grown in the USA. Why did the Irish Times fail to report this at the time, and why did it not report the US Ambassador's related letter to the Minister for Health, Mary Harney, until now - 13 months later?

The answer may lie in the US Ambassador's description of Ireland's voting abstentions as "a possible barrier to trade". This a veiled US Government threat to seek WTO trade sanctions against Ireland and the majority of other EU member states which are reluctant to approve new GM crops and derived food and feed produce. The WTO's so-called "free trade" agreement invokes the scientifically false claim that GM products are "substantially equivalent" to their natural counterparts as a pretext for punitive trade sanctions on member states which ban or restrict their importation, even though these products are substantially different because of their genetic modification by the introduction of artificial mixtures of biologically active DNA from viruses, bacteria and other species, which contaminate the food chain with novel proteins and enzymes whose health impacts on ecosystems, livestock and humans are scientifically impossible to predict.

The US Ambassador's interventions followed the discovery by Greenpeace and GM-free Ireland of thousands of tonnes of imported US maize products contaminated by the then illegal GM maize variety called Herculex (patented by Pioneer / Dow Agrosciences) being unloaded in Dublin Port in April 2007 (see www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrak/ and www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI36.pdf).

The scandal led to a temporary EU freeze on US maize imports that were not certified free of Herculex until the EC subsequently rubberstamped its approval a few months later, against the wishes of the majority of member states.

•

The Irish Times' uncritical quotation of Fine Gael Agriculture Spokesperson Michael Creed's remarks about "the anti-GMO lobby" - and its supposed opposition to all biotechnology - is a blatant case of disinformation. There is no such "anti-GMO" lobby, and anyone who says so is a fool or a liar. The Irish Government and the 130 organisational members of the GM-free Ireland Network - whose policies are a matter of record in parliamentary discussions and the media - have never opposed the contained use of GMO bacteria in sealed vats in secure laboratories for the production of pharmaceutical products. It is particularly outrageous that the principal source of this disinformation is the agri-biotech industry lobbyist and Chairman of the Irish Times Trust Prof. David McConnell, who repeated it on the record during a meeting of the Joint Oireachtas (Senate and Parliament) Commitee on Agriculture on 2 July. His newspaper's uncritical repetition of this propaganda is a grotesque indictment of the Irish Times's statutory obligation to accurate reporting.

•

The article's next bit of disinformation lies in Michael Creed's unquestioned allegation that concerns about the dangers of GM food and farming are "unfounded and questionable claims". Independent scientists have documented 65 different types of health risks attributable to GM food and crops including deaths and diseases in laboratory animals, livestock and the human population; the UN Biosafety Protocol's GM Contamination Register clearinghouse reports 216 GM contamination incidents in 57 countries; the European Food Safety Authorithy has admitted it does not have the scientific capacity to conduct proper GM health risk assesssments; the UN International Assessment of Agriculture and Technology for Development (IAASTD) found that GM crops have little if any role to play in increasing yields; the WTO's Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement makes it clear that farmers contaminated by patented GMO seeds and pollen may lose ownership of their crops; and Irish beef, dairy and pig farmers who continue to use GM animal feed are gradually being excluded from the EU's prime retail markets.

•

The article then quotes Michael Creed's false claim that millers are being required to keep feedstuffs GM-free. EU law forbids the sale of illegal substances, but allows the sale of GM animal feed and food approved by EC regulatory process. The Irish feed industry imports thousands of tonnes of GM animal feed.

•

The article significantly fails to question Creed's allegation that GM-free feed is unavailable. Certified non-GMO feed is widely grown and/or imported by 43 EU Regions which have adopted quality agriculture and safe food GM-free strategies to increase their market share at the expense of Irish farmers. The problem is that the Irish Grain and Feed Association refuses to import sufficient quantities of it to meet the needs of Irish farmers who are then obliged to source certified organic feed, which in turn holds back the development of the organic sector.

•

The article should also have questioned Creed's claim that the EU prohibition of illegal GM feeds cost Irish agriculture "an extra bill of €60 million last year". In a Fine Gael press release issued on 24 January, Creed claimed "The Irish Grain and Feed Association informed us... that the Government's prevarication on GM feed is costing the industry between €150 and €160 million year on year"! But on 10 January the Irish Grain and Feed Association claimed €60 million extra costs to source legal GM feedstuffs in the aftermath of the Herculex contamination scandal, which was caused by US carelessness in exporting illegal products to the EU, and not by the Irish Government (although the latter subsequently contributed to the fiasco by allowing half of the illegal maize to be sold to Irish farmers). Moreover, the alleged €60 million extra cost appears to be an estimate based on US attempts to dump the illegal contaminated maize on EU member states by circulating rumours of extremeley reduced prices, which turned out to be fictitious when the Herculex was subsequently approved for sale in the EU.

•

Creed's call for an "honest and open-minded debate" is hypocritical. The Joint Oireachtas (Senate & Parliament) Committee on Agriculture, of which Michael Creed is a member, pointedly refused to allow a balanced debate on GM food and farming on 2 July, despite written requests to do so and a letter to the Minister for Agriculture co-signed by 36 leading food, farming, and environmental organisations. But the Irish Times failed to report this at the time and, by quoting Creed's statement withouth comment, re-inforces the false impression that those who are suppressing public discourse are calling for it.

This article's seven items of disinformation, imbalanced journalistic sources, lack of objectivity, and repetition of lies is a textbook example of agri-biotech propaganda in the Irish Times. In "Debating GM: An analysis of GM coverage in the Irish Times and the Irish Farmers Journal from March 2004 to February 2006", a Dublin Institute of Technology thesis by journalism student Emma Somers made a quantitative analysis of the sources, and a qualitative analysis of GM coverage in these two papers. The study revealed significant bias towards the biotech industry. Of the 48 articles published in the Irish Times, 65% quoted official sources, 13% quoted biotech industry sources, 10% quoted farming sources, and 6% quoted biotech industry lobby groups. Only 21% quoted NGOs (which have the most expertise on the subject) and 10% quoted farming sources (which are most affect by GM policies). Most articles framed the issue as scientists versus Luddites. For details download "Irish Times slammed for bias on GM issues" (25 October 2007): www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI37.pdf

The cooptation of the Irish Times as a propaganda vehicle for Monsanto et al is unacceptable. Prof. McConnell should resign from his position as Chairman of the Irish Times Trust.

UK: Weigh the evidence on GM crops
Has any conclusive evidence been found that GM crops increase yields?

The Times, 15 August 2008. Letters to the editor.

Sir,

It is not surprising that scientists working on GM crop research should attack the Prince of Wales ("Scientists line up to condemn 'ill-informed, negative' Prince", Aug 14). But your report ignored the most relevant research on the role of science and technology in agriculture that was published this year.

The UN International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), written by 400 scientists and backed by 60 governments, found no conclusive evidence that GM crops increase yields. In fact, the scientists were so unconvinced about the role of GM crops in meeting future food needs that the pro-GM US Government refused to endorse the report, and the biotechnology industry pulled out of the process, despite having provided substantial funding at the outset.

The report stated that yield gains achieved through industrialised farming have come at an unacceptable environmental and social cost. Prince Charles has identified that GM crops will exacerbate these problems. It is now time for governments to act on the IAASTD's findings and work for a radical shift towards local sustainable solutions for communities around the world, by combining the latest research with traditional knowledge.

Clare Oxborrow
GM campaigner, Friends of the Earth

Sir,

The Prince of Wales did not say that the problems emanating from overreliance on intensive farming methods during the Green Revolution in Punjab or exacerbating soil salinity in Australia stemmed from GM crops, but that these represented the latest manifestation of industrial agriculture's overreliance on technological inputs to overwhelm natural resource limits, rather than following sustainable techniques which seek to work in balance with those limits.

Robin Maynard
Campaigns Director, Soil Association

UK: Farmers react to Prince's GM fears

Western Mail (Wales), 15 August 2008. By Steve Dube.

Farmers in Wales have given a mixed reaction to the latest outburst by Prince Charles over the global use of genetically modified crops.

The Prince of Wales warned that GM crops could produce "the biggest disaster environmentally of all time", and he accused the multi-national corporations promoting the technology of conducting an experiment with nature which had gone "seriously wrong".

His stance is common among organic farmers, but the Prince's fears over the availability of seed in a world where GM is commonplace is beginning to strike a chord with conventional farmers as well.

The Prince, a passionate organic farmer who has argued against GM crops for many years, said relying on giant corporations would threaten future food supplies and drive small farmers off the land.

"What we should be talking about is food security not food production - that is what matters," he said. "If they think also that somehow it's all going to work because they are going to have one form of clever genetic engineering after another then again count me out, because that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.

"We will end up with millions of small farmers all over the world being driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness. I think it will be an absolute disaster."

The Prince's latest outburst comes amid a growing debate over the rising cost of food and warnings of food shortages.

The biotech companies claim GM technology can offer answers to the problems of world hunger and poverty by delivering higher yields and reducing pesticide use. Opponents point out that yields are sometimes reduced and pesticide use increased because the biotech companies have concentrated on developing plant varieties that can endure heavier use of their own pesticides.

Pembrokeshire farmer Walter Simon believes the Prince has a point over future access to seed but has gone too far in his blanket opposition to the technology.

"I think we need to use all the safe technologies that are out there to produce safe wholesome food," said Mr Simon, who grows potatoes and other crops on 120 acres near Angle.

"I believe there are opportunities with GM that will be of great use. There will be, as with all technologies, things that are useful and some that are not, but until we look at the technology we don't know."

Mr Simon said he would be happy to grow GM crops as long as the consumer was happy to eat them, like those in the United States.

"But there are issues that need to be looked at over access to plant breeding and varieties," he said.

"It's the same with conventional varieties. Most are in the hands of the multinationals. We are in that world already and it's creating issues that have to be addressed on a daily basis.

"I think the Prince has a genuine point there, but he has probably gone two steps too far, and I certainly can't seem GM crops being the death of the small farmer."

NFU Cymru president Dai Davies said: "I understand where the Prince is coming from over the seeds because these corporations are holding the world to ransom.

"But we have to take a balanced approach, and as far as food security is concerned it's going to be a problem, and GM could help a lot of marginal countries out of difficulty.

"If we are going to feed the world we need all the help we can get from technology." The Welsh Assembly Government's stated policy on GM crops is to adopt the most restrictive approach within the law.

But the Farmers Union of Wales, which has always opposed GM crops as a threat to the image of clean green food from Wales fostered by the Assembly Government, has reopened the debate.

FUW president Gareth Vaughan said the union was currently considering its policy and had consulted its county branches for their views.

"Some county representatives have expressed concerns over the potential control wielded by the large seed and agrochemical companies and fears that such companies could develop monopolies over the Welsh farming industry," said Mr Vaughan.

"As a union we fully recognise our members' concerns and we will be constantly reviewing the situation."

Anti-GM campaign group, GM Free Cymru, said Prince Charles was right to raise the issue now, in the middle of a sustained PR campaign from the biotech industry arguing that GM crops would feed the world.

"Shamefully, the Westminster government and many previously sensible politicians have been swept along by this hype," said GM Free Wales Alliance spokesman Brian John.

"The Prince, who has studied this issue for many years, knows that GM crops will not solve the food crisis - and he is right to highlight the environmental damage associated with industrial high-input monocultures."

Dr John said GM farming systems depended upon high - and ever increasing - chemical inputs and were unsustainable and he said the GM corporations were systematically buying up local seed companies and their catalogues and taking locally adapted and successful seed varieties off the market.

"The use of GM crops is associated with an inexorable rise in corporate feudalism, with millions of independent farmers being forced into economic dependence and ultimately forced off the land," he said.

"We support Prince Charles' call for farming solutions that put people, not corporations, at their centre - and we support his contention that ultimately all that matters is food security.

"A world in which GM crops are everywhere will be a world of food insecurity, with the most appalling social and political consequences."

Earlier this year UK environment minister Phil Woolas called for a new debate about GM crops in the light of the global food crisis. He spoke after meeting biotech company representatives at Westminster.

And last month scientists told the Government that field trials of GM crops in the UK needed better protection in order to allow researchers to assess their benefits.

They called for the location and details of small-scale trials to be kept secret to avoid them being vandalised by anti-GM protesters.

A Defra spokeswoman said yesterday: "As we have said many times, there is an important debate to be had on the potential role of GM crops in the future, and we welcome all voices in that debate.

"Safety will always be our top priority on this issue."

Charles' repeated warnings on GM

The Prince of Wales has repeatedly voiced his concerns about GM crops.

He summarised his views in an essay on his website in 1998.

He said: "I believe that genetic modification is much more than just an extension of selective breeding techniques.

"Mixing genetic material from species that cannot breed naturally, takes us into areas that should be left to God. We should not be meddling with the building blocks of life in this way."

In April 1999, the Prince backed calls by the Soil Association for supermarkets to stop selling foods with genetically-modified (GM) ingredients.

He said: "I believe this particular technology is so far-reaching we should seek ways of engaging a wide range of people and interests in a thorough debate about how and where it should be applied."

In 2002, he said: "The idea that the different parts of the natural world are connected through an intricate system of checks and balances which we disturb at our peril is all too easily dismissed as no longer relevant."

In the same year he said GM companies should be held liable for damage caused to the environment.

In 2004, he spoke on the issue again during an official visit to an organic farm.

He said: "Twenty years ago when I first started to use organic systems at Highgrove it was met with complete ridicule.

"It's interesting now that it isn't ridiculed to the same degree.

"I think people are beginning to realise that some of the chickens are coming home to roost and settle heavily in the genetically- modified trees."

Prince says GM crops will harm not feed the world - and he may have a point, says Steve Dube, Farming Editor, Western Mail

IT'S ironic that rising food prices and fears of future shortages should begin to attract attention just as EU farm policy has shifted from maximising production to safeguarding the environment.

Prince Charles waded into the debate on this new scenario yesterday by restating his ardent opposition to genetically modified crops - the very technology that its creators claim will feed the world AND safeguard the environment.

The Prince is a passionate organic farmer, favouring the non-chemical approach to food production that abhors GM technology.

He has spoken out against GM crops before, but this time he has gone further, saying they threaten to bring about the biggest environmental disaster of all time.

These are strong words, and there's no way to find out whether he is right or wrong until it's too late.

But one unanswerable problem is that GM material can "escape" to cross-fertilise conventional plants.

And as we have discovered with other foreign escapees, from the grey squirrel to Japanese Knotweed, once they are out there it's very hard to stop them having a drastic effect on our countryside.

GM technology has been around since February 1996, when Sainsbury and Safeway stores put Europe's first American-grown, and clearly-labelled GM tomatoes on their shelves.

Twelve years on, the scene is very different. Consumers want nothing to do with GM food, and the biotech companies therefore don't want it labelled.

Neither do they want to accept liability for anything that might, at some future stage, go wrong.

They don't want to face possible litigation for polluting the natural environment or adversely affecting public health.

This last issue is largely unresearched but the biotech companies point out that people in North America have been eating GM food for over a decade with no evident effects. GM opponents say you won't find what you don't look for - and no-one is looking.

The issue would be so much easier to agree on if GM technology did increase yields and safeguard the environment.

Unfortunately this is not the case. Multi-national companies aim to make money, not save the world.

GM crops are currently developed with increased tolerance to the pesticides, which are sold by the same companies, enabling farmers to use more of them, not less.

The effects on weeds and the insects that rely on them - and the rest of the food chain from birds upwards - are potentially devastating.

Meanwhile, the US Department of Agriculture itself has stated that there is no evidence of increased yields from GM crops.

On top of this, many GM crops are sterile "terminator" varieties requiring farmers to buy fresh seed every year.

This is why the Prince says they threaten small farmers across the world, who may simply not have the money to buy them.

Proponents argue that these are only the "first generation" of GM crops.

Forthcoming generations will meet the need for crops to feed the world and look after the environment.

But until they do, Prince Charles and the great majority of British consumers will understandably regard GM food with scepticism.

France: New action by the 'volunteer reapers' against GM crops in the Vienne

L'Express, 15 August 2008.

A hundred 'volunteer reapers', including José Bové, on Friday destroyed two fields of Monsanto Mon810 maize, a GM cereal crop which is currently forbidden from being grown in France.

"The 'volunteer reapers' identified four fields of Mon810 in Vienne. Two were destroyed last week without a public protest and then we decided to destroy the two others publicly", José Bové informed Reuters.

A hundred activists came from many regions of France to attack a plot of 3,000 - 4,000 square metres close to the Civaux nuclear plant, South-East of Poitiers.

They then continued to the nearby area of Valdivienne, where they destroyed a field of 1,500 - 2,000 square metres, according to an activist.

"These were commercial trials by Monsanto based on Mon810 maize, with added herbicide [resistant] genes. Mon810 has been forbidden since February 2008 and Monsanto continues to want to force it through", said José Bové.

According to the 'volunteer reapers' the local police, who carry out regular patrols past these plots, did not intervene, contenting themselves with recording registration numbers of cars and taking photos."

UK: Genetically modified politics - the answer to Labour's prayers

The Telegraph, 15 August 2008. By Jeff Randall.

Listening to the backlash against the Prince of Wales's warning about excessive industrial farming, it becomes clear that there is a clique of Labour MPs who regard themselves as champions of genetic modification. In keeping with the micro-meddling instincts of Gordon Brown, these are graduates of the (state-sponsored) school that Nanny knows best. When something goes wrong, they believe Government must be the fixer.

They favour nurture over nature, demanding that ministers rise above the law of financial gravity. Contrary to evidence, they expect Treasury petri dishes, smeared with taxes, to produce miracle cures for all our economic ills.

Given their passion for official intervention, it's no surprise that they condemn the Prince as a posh pagan. His view that "clever" genetic engineering is driving us down a road to ruin is ridiculed and abused.

Invited to comment on the Prince's claim that agri-business scientists have conducted "a gigantic experiment Ö that's gone seriously wrong," Des Turner MP (Labour, Brighton Kemptown) dismissed him as "a Luddite".

Mr Turner is probably not your cup of home-grown, pesticide-free tea, but there is no doubting his credentials. As a graduate of Imperial College, Britain's leading science university, he cannot be rubbished willy-nilly.

Bearing this in mind, how long before he and fellow-travellers at Westminster call on Downing Street to abandon traditional methods of vote-farming and opt instead for a genetically modified administration to deliver Labour's dream of driving Tory toffs from their land into degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness?

Don't mock. If we can produce Frankenstein foods from hybrid grains, why not cook up some dangerous social engineering from half-baked policies?

It would, of course, require a bit of molecular manoeuvring to flip HMG into GMH (Genetically Modified Harmanisation), but think of the benefit: a government, hitherto blighted by unsustainable policies and unmanageable deficits, that is suddenly capable of delivering a rainforest of political correctness amidst the aridity of a burnt-out Budget.

This is the beauty of GM output: anything is possible. Or so its advocates claim. With a little help from some innovative biochemists and the marketing team at Monsanto, the PM could foster green shoots of ballot-box recovery on a landscape scorched by the credit crunch.

For those, unlike the Prince, willing to be counted in to my Brave New World of GMH, here is the future as produced in the test tubes of NuLab(oratories). You are advised to pour yourself a large Laphroaig before reading on.

GM Education delivers some of the adventure's more startling results. Pupils at Eton and Winchester can pass only one A-level - and it has to be pillow-fighting. By contrast, packs of feral youths from inner-city sink estates form the entire intake of Balliol and Oriel. Anyone with an IQ bigger than his shoe size is guaranteed a place at "uni". Cambridge closes and St Andrews becomes an asylum centre. Ed Balls-up hails it as a victory for diversity.

GM Economics turns Northern Rock into a moneyspinner for taxpayers. With house prices crashing and the rate of home repossessions accelerating, you might think that our £25 billion loan to the collapsed bank will never be repaid in full. I think not. Genetically modified supply and demand protects the Rock from damage caused by personal bankruptcies and unemployment.

While rival lenders, toiling under a regime of organic banking, tell us that collateral in the housing market is crumbling, atomically adjusted Northern Rock reports record profits. Alistair Darling announces a windfall bonus and free shares for anyone who promises to support him at the next election.

GM Finance makes nonsense of fears that Number 11 is working against nature. Just because tax receipts are dwindling and welfare expenditure is out of control, it doesn't mean that the Chancellor is heading for the biggest disaster of all time. City predictions that government borrowing will rise to £75 billion in 2009-10 are confounded by Mr Darling's GM accounting method (leave out the nasty numbers). Result: handsome surplus.

GM Iraq delivers greatest turn-up since Pickles the dog found the World Cup under a hedge in Norwood. British researchers unearth WMD in a Baghdad bowling alley. "Tony Blair was right all along," says former spokesman Combustible Ali in the bar at Burnley FC. Discredited ministers (lots to choose from) call for compensation.

GM European Union admits that the EuroBillions scam has been cheating British donors for 30 years and votes to reimburse us, with interest. It has second thoughts, however, after Germany points out that, in order to pay in full, the EU would have to shut down Ireland and Denmark. A compromise is reached with Britain regaining all the sovereignty it has forfeited and a ban on any more human-rights directives.

GM Defence restores morale among the over-stretched Armed Forces, pays a decent wage to those who risk their lives for our freedom, builds accommodation fit for heroes not sewer rats, invests in kit that can resist something more powerful than a pea-shooter, reverses the decline in recruitment and tells Brussels that Britain will never join an EU army. Left-wingers complain that this was not the purpose of genetic fiddling.

GM Crime Records continue to show a decline in violent attacks even though knifings in Britain's worst cities seem to occur on a daily basis. "You simply don't understand," says Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. "Just because parts of London, Manchester and Liverpool resemble a Mongol battlefield, there is no cause for alarm. Our soft-as-soap policies really are cleaning up the streets."

GM Welfare wipes out all benefits recipients. Not physically, of course, but removes them from the Treasury's eco-system by redesignating anyone who claims a handout as being in Reverse Work. "I'm delighted to reveal that, thanks to our science-based modification of social security, more than one million people have been taken off the unemployment list," says Mr Brown. "Just like boom and bust, joblessness has been eliminated."

GM Christmas will become a modernised version of a once-popular celebration that is now deemed to be out-of-touch with a multicultural, semi-secular society. Turkey is off the menu in case it offends the Greeks. Dessert will be rebranded as multi-faith pudding. Crackers are an insult to the criminally insane and therefore banned. The Queen's address is replaced by a video compilation of Abu Qatada's greatest hits.

Last night, government advisers from the biopolitical technology department at the University of Clonetown were toasting the triumph of their GM initiative over commonsense, decency and integrity. Glasses were filled with genetically modified whisky, made from recycled Tesco bags.

Meanwhile, over at Clarence House, there were unconfirmed reports of a haunting declamation from The Boss's office: "You can count me out..."

A prince's dream: Far-fetched fairytale or a real future of food?
Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops

GristMill (USA), 15 August 2008. By Meredith Niles.

The British royal family is no stranger to controversy and media attention, but Prince Charles caused a new kind of worldwide media flurry on Tuesday when he sat down for an exclusive interview with the Telegraph (U.K.). This time around, though, it seems unlikely the media story will be covered by the British tabloids since the Prince of Wales didn't discuss his sons, his love life, or even his future reign as king. Instead, the Prince talked about genetically modified organisms, our food supply, and the future of food security for the globe.

Simple enough, it seems: A soon-to-be global leader honestly discussed the roles of nations in food security, food technological issues, and the ways in which our entire human population can feed billions of people sustainably. Apparently, though, it's controversial for a global leader to advocate for a food system not dominated by "gigantic corporations," which would be an "absolute disaster." He further noted, "Corporations [are] conducting a gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong. Why else are we facing all these challenges, climate change and everything?"

I almost wish I were British so I could be proud of such bold leadership. Prince Charles' remarks tie together the phenomenon of increasing corporate control and business profits with that of increasing natural disasters and food insecurity. Corporate control of agriculture and our food system is at unprecedented levels, and industrial agriculture continues to rely almost exclusively on the extensive use of fossil fuels, which are ever increasing in price, perpetually polluting, and most importantly, diminishing. In the United States, over 90 percent of the soybeans harbor Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready gene; and the company continues to buy up seed companies throughout the world. This control has done nothing for world environmental and social sustainability. Instead it has only resulted in corporate profits in the billions of dollars while people continue to go hungry throughout the world.

And what about GMOs? Is Prince Charles accurate to note that they are an experiment with nature and humanity? The majority of GM crops are designed to resist herbicides and repel insects. Despite what some people may think, not a single GMO is commercially available that is designed to enhance nutrition, increase yield potential, tolerate drought, or manifest other attractive traits touted by the biotech industry. Rather, 82 percent of commercialized GM crops are designed to resist continual applications of herbicides. In reality, this means that GM crops are being developed to allow for greater pesticide use. In the United States from 1994 to 2005, there was a 15-fold increase in the use of the herbicide glyphosate on soybeans, corn, and cotton, driven by adoption of Roundup Ready (Monsanto brand) versions of these GM crops. Use of other more toxic herbicides, such as atrazine and 2,4-D, is also on the rise to deal with the epidemic of weeds that have become resistant to glyphosate.

The effect of this increased pesticide use is widespread and dramatic. Pesticides are polluting waterways, wildlife, and aquatic life while also affecting human health globally. Yet, perhaps the greatest tragedy of our GM fields is the loss of biodiversity it fosters. As our agriculture moves more and more toward monoculture with increased pesticide use, biodiversity decreases rapidly. Prince Charles specifically noted the devastating toll that corporate industrial agriculture has taken on India, especially in the Punjab. At the heart of India's green revolution, intensive industrial agriculture has impoverished Punjab's once-rich soils leading to diminished yields and rural breakdown. This is reflected in the rising incidence of farmer suicides.

As more and more people go hungry, natural disasters become increasingly prevalent and corporations continue to grow bigger and richer. In his interview, Prince Charles demonstrated bold leadership by decrying a system that is fundamentally flawed. Earlier this year the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) -- a committee commissioned by the World Bank and United Nations -- issued a report declaring "Modern agriculture will have to change radically if the world is to avoid social breakdown and environmental collapse." The director of IAASTD further noted, "To argue, as we do, that continuing to focus on production alone will undermine our agricultural capital and leave us with an increasingly degraded and divided planet is to reiterate an old message ... If those with power are now willing to hear it, then we may hope for more equitable policies that do take the interests of the poor into account." It looks like Prince Charles has taken this to heart -- his remarks are encouraging and inspiring, because they recognize all of the "externalities" that industrial food production seems to leave out of the equation. I hope he will inspire other global leaders to rethink their agricultural perspectives and advance towards a true food security.

14 August 2008

Brazilian non-GM grain producers launch industry association

ABRANGE press release, 14 August 2008.

Foz do Iguaçu -- The Brazilian Non-GM Grain Producers Association (ABRANGE) was officialy launched today, bringing together grain and seed producers, farm cooperatives, crushing industries, transport and warehousing companies, certification companies as well as research laboratories and others. "The launch aims to encourage the planting, production, development and processing of non-GM grains in Brazil", said the newly elected President César Borges de Sousa of Caramuru Alimentos.

The new board of directors is made up by Executive Vice President Paul Perk, from AMaggi; Vice President for International Affairs - Enrique Traver, from IMCOPA; Vice President for Southern Region ‚ Frederico Busato, from IMCOPA; Vice President for the South East and North East Regions ‚ Guilherme Define, from Brejeiro; and Vice President for the Center West and North Regions - Otaviano Piveta, from Vanguarda.

One of the most important action strategies is to promote initiatives focusing on the increase of consumption as well as to develop and improve the quality of Non-GM products. The association also aims to enhance the sustainability of Non-GMO grains in terms of production and environment along with social responsibility, and to inform customers about the regular and consistent supply of Brazilian Non-GMO grains and their derivatives.

"Moreover, ABRANGE is announcing the creation of a reference consulting centre for new demands for national and international clients, as well as promoting the necessity of certification of all production and supply chain connections", says Executive Secretary Ricardo Tatesuzi de Sousa.

For more information contact:

ABRANGE
Ricardo Tatesuzi de Sousa
Executive Secretary
+ 55 11 7666 3739
ricardo.abrange@gmail.com

Germany: Heavy use of pesticides drives bees from countryside

Inter Press Service / Global Information Network, 14 August 2008. By Julio Godoy.

BERLIN -- German bees and their keepers are fleeing rural areas, which have become rife with insecticides and genetically modified crops, to take refuge in cities.

On July 15, six German beekeepers moved their 30,000 bees into Munich city, some 500 kilometers south of Berlin. They were trying to save their bees from genetically modified maize crops near their village of Kaisheim, some 80 kilometers from Munich.

"If our bees were to come in touch with the genetically modified maize, and the honey was contaminated with it, we would not be allowed to sell it," said Karl Heinz Bablock, one of the six apiarists who resettled their beehives. In Germany, genetically modified crops are legal, but their harvests are forbidden for human consumption.

Earlier this year, Bablock and several of his colleagues filed a protest against the GM crops before a tribunal in Augsburg, Germany. But the court ruled in May that because the crops were legal, it was the apiarists who should move their beehives somewhere else.

"It is well known that bees live 90 percent of their lives in a perimeter of 3 kilometers," Bablock said. "But bees can fly up to 10 kilometers without any problem. Now we are really happy that the city of Munich has granted our bees asylum."

Thomas Radetzki, director of the South German apiarists union Millifera, said the bees will remain in Munich "until the end of the summer. By mid-August the maize bloom period is over, and the bees can go back home."

Relocation of bees is taking place all over Germany. "But in some regions, as in Brandenburg, around Berlin, it is almost impossible to flee" from genetically modified crops, Radetzki said, adding that such crops "are everywhere, and bees come in touch with them one place or other."

But it is not just the genetically modified crops that are the problem. Changes in agriculture, such as the introduction of monocultures and the intensive use of pesticides, are also forcing bees to take refuge in the cities.

Peter Rozenkranz, an entomologist at the University of Stuttgart, said monocultures are depriving bees of their natural habitat. "After some good weeks in spring, bees are threatened by famine, because later in the year, there are almost no more blooming flowers," he said.

Rosenkranz said a satellite view of Germany illustrates the danger for bees: "You can see that in vast regions, especially in the eastern part of the country, there is nothing for bees to feed on."

Besides, he said, monocultures are saturated with pesticides and insecticides, and "practically all pesticides and insecticides are deadly for bees."

Beekeepers in the federal state of Baden Wurttemberg reported the death of hundreds of thousands of bees in May. They blamed clothianidin, a chemical component of the insecticide Poncho Pro, which is used to protect maize seeds from larvae.

Manfred Raff, director of the regional apiarist association, said he had his bees analyzed after the mass death. "We found abundant traces of clothianidin in the bees' bodies," he said.

After Raff and 700 other apiarists in Baden Wurttemberg filed a complaint, the chemical giant Bayer Crop admitted that Poncho Pro had caused the death of the bees but accused the seed producers of faulty use of the chemical.

For the bees, life in the cities has become attractive. "Today, it is easier for bees to live in the cities, because the recreational green areas and courtyards have exuberant, varied vegetation, which blossoms over several months, from early in the spring to the end of the summer," Rosenkranz said.

"In the cities, bees have only a couple of hundred meters to fly, from a public garden to a balcony to a courtyard to find luscious flowers, and mostly free of insecticides," he added.

Rosenkranz said bees have been facing extermination for years. In 2007 some 30 percent of the total German bee population died. Now 330 wild bee species, out of a total of 550, are enlisted as endangered.

Similar mass deaths of bees -- also known as colony collapse disorder -- have taken place in other countries, especially in the U.S., where in some 24 regions in 2007 up to 70 percent of all bees died due to mysterious circumstances.

The disappearance of bees -- pollinators par excellence -- will have deeper environmental consequences than the mere scarcity of honey. Food scarcity will worsen if colonies of bees stop pollinating fruit, nut and vegetable crops.

"If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live," Albert Einstein has been quoted as saying. "No more bees, no more pollination ... no more men!"

USA: Judge denies class-action for biotech rice suit

The Associated Press, August 14 2008.

ST. LOUIS: A federal judge ruled Thursday that hundreds of farmers will not be able to consolidate their lawsuits against Bayer CropScience AG over the accidental release of experimental genetically engineered rice into the food supply.

U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry denied a motion to certify the farmers' claims into one class-action suit, saying they were too different from one another to be lumped into a single case. If the case had been certified, attorneys say thousands of farmers in rice-producing states such as Missouri and Arkansas could have joined the action.

The rice farmers are suing Bayer CropScience to recoup income they claim to have lost after the release of company's so-called Liberty Link rice into the public food supply in 2006. After the accidental contamination was announced, some foreign countries temporarily banned U.S. rice exports, drying up key foreign markets and causing the price for U.S. rice to drop.

Judge Perry said in her ruling that even if Bayer CropScience was to blame for the drop in prices, farmers in different U.S. states suffered damage that was too different to be tried in one class-action suit.

"Some plaintiffs allege that as a result of this ban, they were forced to plant alternate, lower-yield seed varieties, thereby reducing the size of their harvests," Perry wrote. "Other plaintiffs allege that they were unable to obtain any rice seed because of the ban, and had to plant different crops altogether."

Bayer CropScience said in a statement it "welcomed" the ruling.

"We believe we have acted responsibly and have complied with all relevant regulations and guidelines in our biotech rice development activities," General Counsel Bruce Mackintosh said in the statement.

The ruling does not mean farmers will stop their litigation, said Don Downing, an attorney with Gray Ritter and Graham in St. Louis who represents farmers in the case. He said his clients are considering an appeal of Perry's decision.

"I think a lot of farmers were waiting to see if a class was would be certified," Downing said. "I think now that judge Perry has declined to certify that case, then there may well be an influx of a lot more lawsuits."

Downing said all the lawsuits would not have to be tried independently, even if they were not granted class-action status. For example, farmers might choose to litigate a handful of "test cases," and then try to settle based on the verdicts in those cases.

The Liberty Link strain of rice was not considered harmful to humans, but it was not approved for human consumption by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The department determined the rice likely escaped from a corporate-funded test plot at Louisiana State University, where it was grown alongside commercial varieties.

Mackintosh's statement said Bayer CropScience is ready to litigate any further cases that might arise.

Comment from Dr. Bryan John, GM Free Cymru:

This litigation rumbles on - and there is an interesting allegation (which will not have been made lightly) that Riceland and Bayer deliberately withheld knowledge of the contamination incident during the rice planting season [see "County farmers sue over genetically modified rice" under 8 August, below]. This confirms info from August 2006 (when the story broke) that Riceland and Bayer were aware of the LL601contamination in January 2006 but that the farming industry (and the rest of the world) were not informed until August, in the harvest season. That obviously resulted in huge financial loss for the farmers affected -- a loss which could have been prevented had Riceland and Bayer alerted farmers at an early stage.

Ireland: GM spuds 'tremendous', says Government adviser

Irish Examiner, 14 August 2008. By Stephen Cadogan.

POTATO varieties genetically modified for blight resistance would be a tremendous advantage for Irish farmers, says Professor Patrick Cunningham, chief scientific adviser to the Government.

Instead of spraying a toxic chemical (copper), five or six times, one could grow a resistant variety, he told the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. 'We can be reassured on the issue of safety,' he said.

Genetic modification has not been important in Ireland, because the crops on which it has been used are not grown here, said Prof Cunningham. He told the committee he must provide independent, grounded advice for the Government.

On GMOs, he said: 'I provided the advice on my own initiative, last summer, because I could see that, in the light of the change in government and the incorporation of Green Party policies, the facts needed to be made available.'

Is GM technology worthwhile, does it contribute to reducing costs in grain production, and will it produce benefits for the consumer? Prof Cunningham said the answer to these questions was yes, because GMOs would not otherwise be grown on 100 million hectares of land.

He said GM products are manufactured internationally, and are on Irish supermarket shelves.

Two crops, corn (maize) and soya bean, have given a tremendous competitive advantage to their users, in Latin America, the USA, the Far East and Australia.

Until recently, GM corn crops were protected against insects or resistant to herbicides, so that cheaper, biodegradable herbicides could be used.

By 2010, eight separate genetic events might be stitched into corn to protect it from insects and enable it to withstand herbicides, thereby reducing weed-control costs. 'That front is advancing at quite a rate. This is inevitable in Europe, despite the fact that people are generally against GM foods.'

He said Spain already had 100,000 hectares of GM corn.

Of the more than 30,000 scientific papers on GM crops, 100 directly examine whether GM corn, for example, is safe. 'Experiments have been done on rats and mice, but not on humans, because such experiments on humans are not allowed. The experiments on rats, mice and pigs have, almost without exception, been totally reassuring. The other reassurance on the safety issue is that in certain countries, particularly the US and throughout the Americas, these products have been on the market for around 15 years.' Prof Cunningham said 70% of people in Europe are against genetic modification.

'That is the dilemma facing politicians. This is generally translated into the precautionary principle, which means we are slower to authorise such products in Europe, although we do authorise them. About one year to 18 months after America, the commission tends to grant authorisation for them to be used. For example, we use approved GM corn in pig feed in this country.

'The problems arise because the delay means ships on the high seas must be approved in Ireland before departure, arrival and release. Sometimes, there can be confusion as to whether a shipment contains levels of unapproved varieties.'

Comment from GM-free Ireland

Far from "providing independent advice" to the Government, Prof Cunningham is disseminating agri-biotech industry propaganda and lies.

•

Glyphosate and glufosinate - the two main weedkillers to which GM crops are resistant - are not biodegradable; they are extremely toxic and their use has skyrocketed with the introduction of GM crops.

•

Farmers grow GM crops either because they facilitate the management of weeds and pests, and/or because Monsanto and a handful of other giant transnational corporations control 50% of the world's agricultural seeds, and make it difficult for farmers to source natural seeds.

•

GM crops are grown on only 0.02 per cent of arable EU farm land. Only one GM crop - maize - is authorised in the EU. In the provinces of Catalunia and Aragon in Spain - the only EU member state where it is grown on a commercial scale - its introduction has widely contaminated conventional and organic farmers. Last week, 91,000 people in Catalunia signed a petition demanding that GM crops be banned.

•

Many scientific papers on GM food and farming report evidence of negative environmental and health impacts on laboratory animals, livestock and humans. The fact that GM food is sold without a label in the USA and Canada makes traceability and epidemiological studies impossible there, and related safety claims totally unscientific.

Cunningham's advocacy of GM food and farming is to be expected because he is a member of the biotech lobby group European Action on Global Life Sciences (EAGLES), a task force of the European Federation of Biotechnology whose members comprise numerous biotech and pharmaceutical industry groups including Monsanto Europe, the Association of German Biotech Companies, the Biotechnology Industry Organisation (USA), etc.

Cunningham is also a member of the Irish National Council on Bioethics, whose 2005 report "Genetically Modified Crops and Food: Threat or Opportunity for Ireland?" was a masterfully crafted work of biotech industry spin which concluded that "the genetic modification of crops is not morally objectionable in itself". Cunningham is also the former Chairman of the EU Advisory Committee on the Future of Biotechnology, and a former member of the European Group on Life Sciences. He recently worked as a consultant for the US company Elanco (a division of the US pharmaceuticals giant Eli Lilly and Co. that markets Monsanto's GM-produced Recombinant Bovine Somatotrophin growth hormone Posilac, which is illegal in the EU, and from which Monsanto is now divesting itself because of consumer opposition in the USA.

Having a biotech industry lobbyist occupy the post of Chief Scientific Officer of Ireland is a conflict of interest. Prof Cunningham should be removed from his post like his predesesor, "Dr." Barry McSweeney, who attempted to suppresss the publication of the EU Joint Research Centre's findings that GM crops have little benefit for farmers, and who was forced out of office after it emerged his PhD was fake.

UK: Prince Charles in battle with ministers over 'cynical' attempts to push GM food as the solution to world hunger.

This is London / Evening Standard, 14 August 2008.

Prince Charles has been thrust into a fierce battle with the Government after warning that GM farming will deliver an 'environmental disaster'.

He is furious at 'cynical' attempts by the biotech industry and ministers to push genetically modified crops as the solution to Third World hunger.

Charles says the industrialisation of farming, which includes GM, is destroying the soil, polluting waterways and pushing out small producers.

He accused agrochemical firms of conducting a 'gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong'.

A number of Labour MPs yesterday rubbished his concerns, suggesting he was 'Luddite'.

However, his views echo those of at least one senior government scientist and a recent UN commission which warned against the further industrialisation of farming.

The Prince said relying on gigantic corporations for the mass production of food would threaten supplies and the future of small farmers.

'If they think this is the way to go we will end up with millions of small farmers all over the world being driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness. I think it will be an absolute disaster.

'What we should be talking about is food security not food production - that is what matters and that is what people will not understand. If they think it's somehow going to work because they are going to have one form of clever genetic engineering after another then count me out, because that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.'

His words follow a meeting between Environment Minister Phil Woolas and the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, which speaks for GM giants such as Monsanto.

Mr Woolas, who is apparently being lined up by the Government as a GM cheerleader, said: 'There is a growing question of whether GM crops can help the developing world out of the current food price crisis.'

Labour MP Des Turner was the first to turn on the heir to the throne yesterday. 'Prince Charles has got a way of getting things absolutely wrong. It's an entirely Luddite attitude to simply reject this out of hand.'

Another, Ian Gibson, said: 'Prince Charles should stick to his royal role rather than spout off about something which he has clearly got wrong.'

And Liberal Democrat Phil Willis, chairman of the all-party Commons science committee, said: 'While I admire Prince Charles's commitment to environmental causes, his lack of scientific understanding and his willingness to condemn millions of people to starvation in areas like sub-Saharan Africa is absolutely bewildering.

'The reality is that without the development of science in farming, we would not be able to feed a tenth of the world population, which will exceed nine billion by 2050.'

Those claims are challenged by the UN commission on the future of farming, which was chaired by Professor Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra.

Prof Watson said the industrialisation of farming has failed to produce the food needed by the world. Consequently, some 850million people around the world go to bed hungry each night. The commission, which published its findings in April, specifically rejected GM as the answer to poverty and hunger.

It said it had led to the heavy use of chemicals, leeching the soil of nutrients and polluting waterways.

In a comment that directly echoes those of Charles, Prof Watson said: 'We are putting food that appears cheap on our tables but it is food that is not always healthy and that costs us dearly in terms of water, soil and the biological diversity on which our futures depend.'

The overwhelming majority of readers contacting the Mail Online website supported Charles's comments.

And Tory food spokesman Peter Ainsworth said: 'Charles is voicing concerns which many people share about the potential consequences of believing GM technology will solve the world's food security problems.'

The great experiment ...and the consumer backlash

The GM process involves inserting a foreign gene, which might come from the soil, a virus or an animal, into a plant to give it new supposedly beneficial properties.

Fish genes have been added to some tomatoes to help them withstand cold.

Most GM crops in commercial cultivation, such as soya, have been altered to withstand spraying by particular weedkillers. The plants thrive while weeds are wiped out.

But opponents argue the side-effects of the GM experiment are unknown and potentially risky.

n 1996 the Daily Mail's Genetic Food Watch campaign highlighted concerns for health and the countryside. Addressing consumer anxiety, the EU imposed a moratorium on the release of new GM crops and food in 1998.

A growing consumer backlash convinced retailers, led by Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury's, to banish GM ingredients from own-label products in 1999.

The UK Government has been a cheerleader in the EU for GM technology. It opposed the labelling of GM foods and supported U.S. government efforts to have the EU moratorium lifted.

In 2001, Tony Blair argued supporting GM technology was vital for Britain's reputation as a leader in the field of science.

In 2003, farm trials in the UK, the largest ever conducted, found GM farming harms the countryside. The spraying regimes for GM oilseed rape and beet, killed off weeds, weed seeds and beetles.

This, in turn, threatened to starve birds such as the skylark.

Government research published the same year showed GM pollen was carried up to 16 miles from farm trial sites.

The Government has drawn up plans to allow commercial GM farming but none has yet started. GM firms hopes the first commercial crops - oilseed rape, maize, potatoes or sugar beet - will be grown commercially within two years.

Ireland: Prince Charles sees GM disaster

The Irish Times, 14 August 2008. By Jenny Wiggins and Jim Pickard.

UK politicians, academics and farmers have rounded on Prince Charles, heir to the British throne, after he claimed that a global shift towards genetically modified crops could destroy the earth's environment.

The prince, who started and organic food brand 18 years ago, argued in an interview yesterday that the increased global planting of GM crops would lead to "disaster". He said "clever genetic engineering" by "gigantic corporations" would "cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time."

"If they think this is the way to go... we [will] end up with millions of small farmers all over the world being driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfuncitonal conurbations of unmentionable awfulness."

But Phil Willis, chairman of the UK's all-party parliamentary committee, said the use of science in farming had helped feed billions of people. "His lack of scientific understanding and his willingness to condemn millions of people to starvation in areas lilke sub-Saharan Africa is absolutely bewildering," he said.

Des Turner, a Labour MP and member of the same committee, said he prince was behaving as a "Luddite".

The economic and environmental benefits of GM technology remain a matter of debate. Most of the GM crops planted in the US have been created to resist pests rather than increase yields.

The prince was backed by Mike Childs of Friends of the Earth who said he had "hit the nail on the head" about the "false solution" presented by GM crops.

The debate over GM crops comes as farmers and the food industry call on the British public, who have shunned GM foods, to reconsider their value as food prices rise.

Source: Financial Times service.

13 August 2008

UK: GM crops: Here's a health unto His Future Majesty

The Telegraph, 13 August 2008.

God bless the Prince of Wales. The abuse being heaped on him by the acolytes of genetically engineered food reflects the rage of the Nomenklatura at having its received wisdom challenged by somebody who commands public attention.

The evidence against GM food production is overwhelming

The party line is: what can this polo-playing grand seigneur know about the brave new world of genetically modified agriculture, compared to, say, a Labour MP sponsored by the National Union of Widget Makers, a bloke who subscribes to Nerds' Monthly, or Mr Angry from Tooting who believes that Progress is inevitable and crowned heads do not feature largely in that Orwellian landscape? Apparently "Luddite" is now a term of disparagement on the Left.

It does not seem to have occurred to these strident critics that HRH has spent half his life discussing these issues with leading scientists and agriculturalists, that papers daily cross his desk as authoritative as anything on Gordon Brown's and that - unlike the innumerable special pleaders on this issue - he disinterestedly desires the security of the nation, not profits from mega corporations manipulating nature on the suck-it-and-see principle.

The evidence against GM food production is overwhelming. The profiteers are proceeding with no sense of responsibility. As long ago as 2004 a report from the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee warned that more than two-thirds of conventional crops in the United States are contaminated with genetically modified material. Why did the "trials" even in this country take place in open fields, from which the wind and insects would spread contamination? Because that is what the big corporations and the Government wanted to happen: to end opposition by presenting the public with a fait accompli.

Royalty has dared to challenge the New Order - the Scientocracy - and the white-coat arrogance of the new priesthood knows no bounds, whether it is colliding particles at CERN or polluting the global food supply. For these know-alls who cannot cure the common cold, the Earth is theirs and the fullness thereof.

Where are all the Elfin Safety control freaks now? Note, too, how "progressives" who normally exhibit a knee-jerk hostility to big business are suddenly supportive of the giant corporations that are ruthlessly cornering the world's food market. Have we learned nothing from the hunger now being suffered by tens of millions as a consequence of biofuels production?

The Prince had a broader agenda than scientific objections to GM production, important though that is: he recognised the cultural degradation that will overtake humanity if farmers no longer exist at a non-industrial level and the whole of mankind is herded into cities to work in call centres. If there was a minimal case for republicanism 24 hours ago, it has evaporated now.

UK: Why Prince Charles is right about agribusiness

The Guardian, 13 August 2008. By John Vidal, Environment Correspondent.

It's easy to scoff at the Prince's latest 'green' intervention, but if you really look at what he's saying, it's completely cogent

Prince Charles' warnings that genetically modified crops and industrial agriculture will lead to ecological disaster appear only to be adding a dose of passion to the cooler analysis of the world's leading agronomists, climate scientists and grassroots groups in developing countries, who have been saying much the same about farming and ecology for some time.

When asked whether "industrial scale food conglomerates are the way ahead", he said: "What, all run by gigantic corporations? Is that really the answer? I think not. That would be the absolute destruction of everything."

Anaylsis: Charles echoes Third World Network and Via Campesina, the world's two most authoritative farm analysis groups, and is aiming at global agribusinesses which dominate the food chain, and controls seed supplies, chemicals, and food processing as well as transport and retail sales. He also echoes Food Matters, a report from the No 10 Strategy Unit, which recognises that the agribusiness model of food production based on global competition has failed to deliver.

[Charles] "Corporations [are] conducting a gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong. Why else are we facing all these challenges, climate change and everything?"

Analysis: Charles links climate change and world hunger with the growth of agribusiness and its reliance on oil, large amounts of scarce water, and chemicals. The UN, the UK government and the EU recognise that industrial agriculture, including biofuel, soy and palm oil industries, have been responsible for large-scale deforestation, as well as hunger and a growth in carbon emissions, soil erosion and social problems.

The UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation said in 2006: "The [global] livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth's increasingly scarce water resources."

[Charles] "A nightmare vision ... in which millions of small farmers are driven off their land and into unsustainable unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness."

Analysis: According to UN Habitat, cities are growing by 180,000 people a day and the world's urban infrastructure is unable to cope. Roughly one billion people in Latin America, Asia, and Africa live in slums. The UK government's Commission for Africa said in 2005: "These slums are filled with the unemployed and disaffected. Africa's cities are becoming a powder keg of ... instability and discontent." According to a major UN report in 2003, the greatest underlying reason for the growth in slums has been globalisation.

[Charles] "We are missing the point. We should be discussing food security, not food production. that is what matters and that is what people will not understand."

Analysis: Charles echoes the G8 world leaders who stated in Japan in July: "We are deeply concerned that the steep rise in global food prices coupled with availability problems in a number of developing countries is threatening global food security." The UN declared in May: "Securing world food security may be one of the biggest challenges we face in this century."

[Charles] "And if they think it's somehow going to work because they are going to have one form of clever genetic engineering after another then again count me out, because that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time."

Analysis: The UN International Assessment of Agriculture (IAASTD), carried out by 400 leading agronomists and scientists with the help of the World Bank found no conclusive evidence that GM crops increase crop yields or that they were the single answer to global hunger. The report, endorsed by 60 countries including the UK this year, stated that science and technology must be combined with traditional knowledge, working with communities on localised farming solutions.

[Charles] "Small farmers ... would be the victims of gigantic corporations taking over the mass production of food."

Analysis: The FAO, the World Bank and nearly all international development groups argue strongly that peasant farmers must be helped to produce more food. The World Bank, the UK's National Farmers' Union and the EU all recognise that the growth of agribusiness is linked to a worldwide decrease in the number of small farms.

[Charles] "I have been to the Punjab where you have seen the disasters that have taken place ..."

Analysis: The Punjab in India was the centre of the Green Revolution which introduced hybrid seeds, intensive irrigation and chemical fertlisers and pesticides in the 1960s and 70s. According to Reith lecturer and Indian ecologist Vandana Shiva: "Today every farmer is in debt and despair. Vast stretches of land have become water-logged desert."

[Charles] "Look at western Australia. Huge salinisation problems. I have been there. Seen it. Some of the excessive approaches to modern forms of agriculture."

Analysis: The government of western Australia says on its website: "Salinity is one of the greatest environmental threats facing Western Australia's agricultural land, water, biodiversity and infrastructure. It is caused by too much water containing dissolved salts in the wrong places in the landscape."

[Charles] "I think it's heading for real disaster."

Analysis: Prince Charles is referring to global ecological problems. Here he echoes many climate change scientists, UN figures and politicians. His language - "unmentionable awfulness", etc - may be quaint, but is he the crank some would have us believe him to be? Absolutely not.

India: SC issues notice to Centre over ban on GM organisms

LiveMint.com / The Wall Street Journal, 13 August 2008. By Malathi Nayak.

The bench was hearing the petition by Rodrigues filed in 2005, seeking a ban on GM crops, along with a similar petition by Delhi-based non-profit Gene Campaign

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government to respond to a plea seeking a ban on the release of genetically modified, or GM, organisms into the environment and import of GM food products until an independent body is set up to promote a transparent bio-safety protocol.

Admitting an application by activist Aruna Rodrigues, a bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan issued a notice to the Union government, directing it to file its response. Rodrigues had asked the court to direct the government to set up an independent institution of "international standards of accreditation, for all aspects of work connected to GM organisms, including risk assessment and testing for contamination".

The bench was hearing the petition by Rodrigues filed in 2005, seeking a ban on GM crops, along with a similar petition by Delhi-based non-profit Gene Campaign.

Since the apex court lifted an eight-month ban on field trials of GM food crops in May last year, the petitioners have been urging transparency in tests and approvals for GM crop trials. In February, the court had asked the government to invite two scientists, P.M. Bhargava and M.S. Swaminathan, to the meetings of genetic engineering approval committee, or Geac, an agency of the ministry of environment and forests, that approves, reviews, monitors and investigates activities involving hazardous microorganisms and recombinants besides GM organisms and products.

Currently, four varieties of GM cotton are approved by Geac for commercial production and GM brinjal, potato, tomato, okra and groundnut are allowed for field trials.

The application states that what transpired in Geac meetings attended by the two independent experts reveals an "alarming picture of the manner in which clearances have been given for environmental releases of GM organisms."

It also highlights Bhargava's suggestions to the Geac that India should take a cue from Switzerland, which in June put a moratorium on GM organisms till 2012, and carry on research on GM organisms after imposing a five-year ban.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Rodrigues, told the court the Geac has failed to post data on the toxicity and allergic potential of GM plant varieties undergoing trial on its website as per the court's directions in April.

The court will take up the case again in September.

UK: Prince of Wales in tune with public and independent scientific opinion on GM

Soil Association press release, 13 August 2008.

The Prince of Wales's views not only reflect the views of 85% of the British public who opposed the commercial growing of GM crops in the UK, but also of an increasing body of independent scientists who question GM company PR claims that GM crops are the answer to world hunger. [1]

Robin Maynard, Soil Association Campaigns Director said: "As so often, the Prince of Wales's views are in tune with public opinion. In questioning the value of GM crops for poor, small-scale farmers in developing countries, his comments also chime with the recent international agricultural assessment by 400 scientists from around the world, which questioned whether GM crops offered any solutions to global poverty, hunger or climate change.

"Even the gung-ho GM US Department of Agriculture accepts that 'currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential', only PR firms working for the GM industry claim otherwise.[2]

"Agribiz owned and patented GM seeds that only grow 'true' for one season and which need large inputs of chemical fertilisers and pesticides will not deliver greater global food security. They were not designed to meet the needs of poor farmers in developing countries, but to maintain the profits of the vast multinational companies who make both the GM seeds and the chemicals used on them. Prince Charles' previous pithy summary of GM crops, 'as new uses for old herbicides' was spot-on."

[Ends]

For more information please contact:

Clio Turton, senior press officer, + 44 117 914 2448 / cturton@soilassociation.org

Nes to Editors:

[1] In April of this year, the report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) chaired by Defra's Chief Scientist, Professor Bob Watson, concluded that GM crop yields were 'highly variable' and the application of GM outside the lab 'contentious'. In contrast it recommended 'agroecological systems', of which organic farming is a practical, proven example. IAASTD report, published 15 April 2008, London

[2] US Department of Agriculture acknowledges that:

"Currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety. In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars." Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and Caswell, 2006.

UK: GM Freeze Welcome Prince Charles's Comments on GM Crops

GM Freeze press release, 13 August 2008.

GM Freeze has welcomed Prince Charles's comments on the risks of widespread introduction of GM crops to the environment.

The group supports his view that large scale production of GM crops will not be sustainable and will lead to the destruction of rural communities.

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said

"Prince Charles's comments are a welcome contribution to the ongoing debate about GM crops around the world. Some of the strongest opposition comes from small and family farmers in South America and India who are already experiencing the social, economic and cultural impacts of GM crop monocultures driven forward by global corporations.

"The Prince has also focused on the environmental impacts of GM crops especially on the soil. Very little research is available on such impacts in South America where there is enormous pressure on farmers to adopt GM crops. In this country the government decided to ban four GM crops because of their impact on wildlife. Until very recently, research has ignored the impacts on soil and consequently our knowledge of how GM crops will impact on life below ground is very limited.

"The debate about GM crops is not only about science and the Prince's comments will enable the wider social, economic, cultural and political issues to get the attention they deserve".

UK: Prince Charles's GM criticism welcomed by Friends of the Earth

Friends of the Earth press release, 13 August 2008

Commenting on Prince Charles's concerns over the impacts of GM crops on the environment and farmers, expressed today, Friends of the Earth's Campaign Director Mike Childs said:

"Prince Charles has hit the nail on the head about the damaging false solution that GM crops present.

"GM crops will not solve the food crisis - and forging ahead with an industrialised farming system will continue to fail people and the environment around the world.

"Global political effort must be channelled into securing long lasting, green farming solutions that put people, not corporations, at their heart - and the UK Government must look at the evidence before falling for GM industry hype."

Earlier this year a UN International Assessment of Agriculture (IAASTD), carried out by 400 scientists and endorsed by 60 countries found no conclusive evidence that GM crops increase crop yields. It concluded that although the green revolution had increased crop yields, this had come at an unacceptable environmental and social cost, degrading soils, contributing to climate change and failing the world's poor. The biotechnology industry pulled out of the process when it became clear that the report would not endorse GM crops. The report stated that "business as usual is not an option" and that science and technology must be combined with traditional knowledge, working with communities on localised farming solutions.

Notes to Editors

1. Friends of the Earth's briefing on the food crisis: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/world_leaders_warned_off_p_02062008.html

2. Prince Charles's comments: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/08/12/eacharles112.xml

3. UN International Assessment of Agriculture (IAASTD), http://www.agassessment.org

Wales: GM Free Cymru welcomes GM warning from Prince Charles

GM Free Cymru press release, 13 August 2008.

Prince Charles has today expressed grave concerns about the impact of GM crops on the environment and on farmers across the world, in an interview for the Daily Telegraph (1). Supporting his comments on behalf of GM Free Cymru and the GM Free Wales Alliance, spokesman Brian John said:

"Prince Charles is absolutely right to have raised this issue now, in the midst of a sustained, cynical and sinister PR campaign from the GM industry, based on the myth that GM crops and foods are somehow going to solve the world's hunger crisis. Shamefully, the Westminster government and many previously sensible politicians have been swept along by this hype.

"The Prince, who has studied this issue for many years, knows that GM crops will not solve the food crisis - and he is right to highlight the environmental damage associated with industrial high-input monocultures. These farming systems depend upon high -- and ever increasing -- chemical inputs which are unsustainable. They damage biodiversity, and while Monsanto and the other big corporations peddle their "GM miracles" they systematically buy up local seed companies and their catalogues and take locally adapted and successful seed varieties off the market. So the use of GM crops is associated with an inexorable rise in corporate feudalism -- with millions of independent farmers being forced into economic dependence and ultimately forced off the land.

"We support Prince Charles's call for farming solutions that put people, not corporations, at their centre - and we support his contention that ultimately all that matters is food security. A world in which GM crops are everywhere will be a world of food INSECURITY -- with the most appalling social and political consequences." (2)

GM Free Cymru predicts that the GM industry and its apologists will now attack the Prince with their accustomed ferocity, on the grounds that he knows nothing about GM science, and should leave this debate to expert scientists. "The Prince is better informed than these people think." says Dr John. "He knows full well that the assurances about the safety and the supposed benefits of GM are based upon a tissue of lies, and upon fraudulent science. If we are to have Monsanto scientists advising us as to what is good for us and the planet, God help us all!"

Contact:

Dr Brian John
Tel + 44 1239-820470

Notes:

(1) The Prince's comments come hard on the heels of the UN International Assessment of Agriculture (IAASTD), carried out by 400 scientists and endorsed by 60 countries (including, reluctantly, the UK.) The report found no conclusive evidence that GM crops increase crop yields over time. It argued that even if crop yields are in the future pushed up by GM, this might still carry an unacceptable environmental and social cost, with degraded soils, accelerating climate change and a betrayal of the world's poor. The biotechnology industry pulled out of IAASTD in a fit of pique, when it became clear that the report would not endorse GM crops. The approved report stated that "business as usual" was no longer an option and that science and technology must learn to work with traditional knowledge and indigenous communities in finding localised farming solutions.

(2) See also:

http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=345&iType=

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/ world_leaders_warned_off_p_02062008.html

http://www.agassessment.org

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/open_letters/Open_letter16Apr2008.html

(3) On fraudulent GM science:

http://www.responsibletechnology.org

http://thesourcewithin.blogspot.com/

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice10Mar2008.html

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/documents.htm

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080618/news_lz1e18gurian.html

UK: Charles in GM 'disaster' warning

BBC News, 13 August 2008.

"If they think this is the way to go we will end up with millions of small farmers all over the world being driven off their land." – Prince Charles

Companies developing genetically modified crops risk creating the biggest environmental disaster "of all time", Prince Charles has warned.

GM crops were damaging Earth's soil and were an experiment "gone seriously wrong", he told the Daily Telegraph.

A future reliance on corporations to mass-produce food would drive millions of farmers off their land, he said.

The government said it welcomed all voices in the "important" debate over the future potential role of GM crops.

However, BBC royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell said the prince's "robust" comments were "likely to rankle with the government", which has given the go-ahead to a number of GM crop trials in the UK since 2000.

"Even for a prince who's a long-established champion of organic farming and critic of GM crops, these are comments which verge on the extreme," our correspondent said.

Prince Charles told the paper huge multi-national corporations involved in developing genetically modified foods were conducting a "gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong".

Relying on "gigantic corporations" for food would end in "absolute disaster", he warned.

"That would be the absolute destruction of everything... and the classic way of ensuring there is no food in the future."

What should be being debated was "food security not food production", he said.

He said GM developers might think they would be successful by having "one form of clever genetic engineering after another", but he believed "that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time".

'Unsustainable'

Prince Charles, who has an organic farm on his Highgrove estate in Gloucestershire, said relying on big corporations for the mass production of food would not only threaten future food supplies but also force smaller producers out of business.

"If they think this is the way to go, we will end up with millions of small farmers all over the world being driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness," he said.

The prince also told the Telegraph he hoped to see more family run co-operative farms, with producers working with nature and not against it.

The prince's comments come at a time of rising world food prices and food shortages.

The biotech industry says that GM technology can help combat world hunger and poverty by delivering higher yields from crops and also reduce the use of pesticides.

Ministers also argue there is a growing body of evidence that GM crops are safe. In June, Environment Minister Phil Woolas said the government was ready to argue for a greater role for the technology.

But green groups and aid agencies have expressed doubts about just how effective GM technology can be in tackling world hunger and many have concerns about the potential long-term impact on the environment.

Responding to the prince's comments, a spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "As we have said many times, there is an important debate to be had on the potential role of GM crops in the future, and we welcome all voices in that debate.

"Safety will always be our top priority on this issue."

It is not the first time Prince Charles has joined the debate about GM crops.

In 1998 he warned genetic engineering was taking man into the realms that belonged to "God and God alone" and in 2004 he said people were beginning to realise "some of the chickens" were "coming home to roost and settle heavily in the genetically modified trees".

Comment by GM-free Ireland

The environmental dangers of GM crops - including invevitable cross-contamination of natural crops - are well documented. For information about the health risks to livestock and humans, see our list of references at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/studies.php

UK: Prince Charles: GM not the answer

Associated Press, 13 August 2008.

LONDON (AP) - Britain's Prince Charles said Tuesday that increased use of genetically modified crops to help solve world food shortages could lead to environmental disaster.

In an interview with Britain's The Daily Telegraph newspaper, the heir to the U.K. throne was quoted as saying that he believes new experiments with GM crops could worsen problems with food supplies.

Britain's government has said that GM crops could help lower food prices and urged those opposed to the technology to reconsider their position.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown told fellow leaders of the Group of Eight industrialized nations in April that he backed attempts to develop climate resilient varieties of crops.

"What we should be talking about is food security not food production - that is what matters and that is what people will not understand," Prince Charles was quoted as telling the newspaper's Wednesday edition, copies of which were available late Tuesday.

"If they think it's somehow going to work because they are going to have one form of clever genetic engineering after another, then again count me out, because that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time," he said, according to the newspaper.

Prince Charles is a longtime critic of genetic modification of food. He has his own organic farm, which has supplied products to stores under the Duchy Originals brand since 1992. He said an increased reliance on GM crops would likely lead to small farmers being driven out by agricultural conglomerates.

"I think it's heading for real disaster," Prince Charles was quoted as saying. "With millions of small farmers all over the world being driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness."

Britain has authorized around 50 separate trials of GM crops and is considering requests from some biotechnology firms to keep the test locations secret amid vandalism fears.

Prince Charles said he believed GM crops could lead to unsustainable demand on irrigation systems and have other detrimental effects on farmland. "It places impossible burdens on nature and leads to accumulating problems which become more difficult to sort out," he was quoted as saying.

But Brown, who recently urged Britons to use up leftovers to tackle food waste, said GM crops have a key role to boost agricultural production and to lower the spiraling prices of food staples.

"We must take the initiative to further develop higher-yielding and climate resilient varieties of crop," he wrote in a letter to G-8 leaders in April.

India: PIL: prohibit release of harmful GM seeds
Supreme Court issues notice to Centre
GMO seeds pass on strands of pesticide to human body
Biosafety tests not being conducted

The Hindu, 13 August 2008.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre on a public interest litigation petition seeking a moratorium on release of genetically modified organism/seeds having the potential of causing major health hazards.

After hearing counsel Prashant Bhushan, a Bench, consisting of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices P. Sathasivam and J.M. Panchal, asked the Centre to file its response in two weeks and the applicant, Aruna Rodrigues, a rejoinder in one week thereafter. It directed that the matter be listed for the third week of September.

Aruna Rodrigues and three other petitioners contended that the GMO seeds were a pest-resistant, high-producing variety, but with the inherent drawback of passing on strands of pesticide to the human body that could in future blow up as multiple health problems. These included risks of new kinds of allergies, greatly increased resistance to antibiotics, and severe toxicity to humans, animals and micro organisms, resulting in serious import on human health, loss of wildlife and biodiversity.

Precautionary principle

The petitioners said the use of technology of genetic engineering and release of GM organisms into the environment would require application of precautionary principle to ensure that no harm was caused to human and animal health and environment.

The petition pointed out that a large number of biosafety tests, required to be conducted on GMOs before they could be approved for safe release into the environment, were not being done. An "irreversible loss of genetic diversity through the release of GMOs is the most serious hazard to be confronted and it will hugely impact the farming environment. This will devastate Indian agriculture."

In these circumstances, the petition said, it became imperative to immediately put a moratorium on further environmental release of any GMO until a comprehensive and independent testing facility was set up in India, and to ban import of any GM product.

12 August 2008

Prince Charles warns GM crops risk causing the biggest-ever environmental disaster

The Telegraph (UK), by Jeff Randall.

Listen: The Prince of Wales speaks out http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/telegraphtv/tvplayer/?ID=News&bcpid=1452232298&bclid=
1452257940&bctid=1726720198

Te mass development of genetically modified crops risks causing the world's worst environmental disaster, The Prince of Wales has warned.

In his most outspoken intervention on the issue of GM food, the Prince said that multi-national companies were conducting an experiment with nature which had gone "seriously wrong".

The Prince, in an exclusive interview with the Daily Telegraph, also expressed the fear that food would run out because of the damage being wreaked on the earth's soil by scientists' research.

He accused firms of conducting a "gigantic experiment I think with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong".

"Why else are we facing all these challenges, climate change and everything?".

"If that is the future, count me out."

Relying on "gigantic corporations" for food, he said, would result in "absolute disaster".

"That would be the absolute destruction of everything... and the classic way of ensuring there is no food in the future," he said.

"What we should be talking about is food security not food production - that is what matters and that is what people will not understand.

"And if they think its somehow going to work because they are going to have one form of clever genetic engineering after another then again count me out, because that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time."

Small farmers, in particular, would be the victims of "gigantic corporations" taking over the mass production of food.

"I think it's heading for real disaster," he said.

"If they think this is the way to go....we [will] end up with millions of small farmers all over the world being driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness."

The Prince of Wales's forthright comments will reopen the whole debate about GM food.

They will put him on a collision course with the international scientific community and Downing Street - which has allowed 54 GM crop trials in Britain since 2000.

His intervention comes at a critical time. There is intense pressure for more GM products, not fewer, because of soaring food costs and widespread shortages.

Many scientists believe GM research is the only way to guarantee food for the world's growing population as the planet is affected by climate change.

They will be dismayed by such a high profile and controversial contribution from the Prince of Wales at such a sensitive time.

The Prince will be braced for the biggest outpouring of criticism from scientists since he accused genetic engineers of taking us into "realms that belong to God and God alone" in an article in the Daily Telegraph in 1998.

In the interview the Prince, who has an organic farm on his Highgrove estate, held out the hope of the British agricultural system encouraging more and more family run co-operative farms.

When challenged over whether he was trying to turn back the clock, he said: "I think not. I'm terribly sorry. It's not going backwards. It is actually recognising that we are with nature, not against it. We have gone working against nature for too long."

The Prince of Wales cited the widespread environmental damage in India caused by the rush to mass produce GM food.

"Look at India's Green Revolution. It worked for a short time but now the price is being paid.

"I have been to the Punjab where you have seen the disasters that have taken place as result of the over demand on irrigation because of the hybrid seeds and grains that have been produced which demand huge amounts of water.

"[The] water table has disappeared. They have huge problems with water level, with pesticide problems, and complications which are now coming home to roost.

"Look at western Australia. Huge salinisation problems. I have been there. Seen it. Some of the excessive approaches to modern forms of agriculture."

He said that the scientists were putting too much pressure on nature.

"If you are not working with natural assistance you cause untold problems. which become very expensive and very difficult to undo.

It places impossible burdens on nature and leads to accumulating problems which become more difficult to sort out."

In a keynote speech last year the Prince of Wales warned that the world faces a series of natural disasters within 18 months unless a £15 billion action plan is agreed to save the world's rain forests.

He has set up his own rain forest project with 15 of the world's largest companies, environmental and economic experts, to try to find ways to stop their destruction.

Only two weeks ago British GM researchers lobbied ministers for their crops to be kept in high-security facilities or in fields at secret locations across the country to prevent them from being attacked and destroyed.

They spoke out after protesters ripped up crops in one of only two GM trials to be approved in Britain this year.

Scientists claim the repeated attacks on their trials are stifling vital research to evaluate whether GM crops can reduce the cost and environmental impact of farming and whether they will grow better in harsh environments where droughts have devastated harvests.

_______________________

Codex Designates GMOs as Contaminants in Food

Natural News, 12 August 2008. By Dr. Gregory Damato, Ph.D

The latest Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting held in Geneva recently concluded with some interesting outcomes. Some long simmering acrimony has begun to surface as the U.S. continues to force the biased agendas of Big Pharma, Big Chema, Big Agra and the like forward without considering the input of many other countries. Typically if the U.S. does not want a country's input, the host country simply denies their official delegates visas to the meeting.

Several countries have recently objected to this practice and stated that because of this and other reasons, decisions made by codex in their absence do not have international legitimacy. One major point of contention has been the U.S. and Codex's staunch refusal to allow labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Norway, Switzerland, Russia, Japan and virtually all African countries and the 26 countries of the EU (European Union) have fought the U.S. for nearly 18 years to allow mandatory labeling of GMOs. The U.S. fallaciously considers GMOs equal to non-GMOs solely based on a 1992 Executive Order from then-president George H. W. Bush, therefore no pre-market safety testing occurs on any GMOs before they are released into the food chain in the U.S. The FDA refuses to review any safety data except for a single, preliminary review early in the organism's development.

Opponents of the U.S. policy prohibiting labeling of genetically modified food conclude that the U.S. does not want GMOs labeled because of the potential legal ramifications and liability to the manufacturers and to the U.S. government if these foods could be traced. If millions of people are harmed or killed due to the instability of the inserted DNA promoter viruses and marker bacteria into GMOs when interacting with the dynamic and fluid structure of the human body, then millions of lawsuits may result. But, if they are totally untraceable, then zero corporate or government liability can be assessed. FDA scientists have repeatedly warned about releasing GMOs into the general food supply because of their dangers, but have been routinely ignored or overruled.

Prior to the Geneva meeting, the Codex Committee on Food Labeling met in Canada. The meeting concluded with several pro-mandatory GMO labeling nations angry that Codex had not objectively analyzed the empirical research detailing the dangers of GMOs that South Africa prepared. This document delineated the necessity of mandatory labeling of GMOs, but was ignored and subsequently withdrawn on U.S. pressure of an independent nation (South Africa). As a result, several countries planned to scrap the requirements of Codex and adopt their own labeling system for GMOs in an effort to curtail the spread of "lethal" food. This had led to a real quandary for the WHO (World Health Organization) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization).

According to Rima E. Laibow, M.D., medical director of the Natural Solutions Foundation (www.healthfreedomusa.org), who was a public observer at the latest meeting in Geneva, the WHO and FAO have finally stepped in and decided to undertake a program designed to identify low-level contamination of GMOs in food. The definition of low-level contamination will still depend on each individual country's standards. For example, the U.S. currently allows for up to 10% (the highest of any country in the world) of GMO contamination of organic foods and amazingly still allows them to be considered USDA certified organic. Governments that actually care about the health of their people, like the EU, allow only 0.9% contamination, while other countries permit merely 0.1%.

The WHO and FAO used the term contamination and simply did not describe the GMOs as being mixed in with normal food. This term is also very noteworthy as most research on the dangers of GMOs can no longer be denied. The U.S. of course, vehemently objected to such a designation, but this time to no avail. Although not going as far as to require mandatory labeling of GMOs, this recognition by WHO and FAO (the parent bodies of Codex) that GMOs can contaminate food is a huge win for health freedom. Expanding that requirement to mandatory labeling is the next logical step, but is still a work in progress. The Natural Solutions Foundations in-country work with African and other pro-health nations can be expected to markedly strengthen this trend as unease and distrust of GMOs escalates internationally.

More information on this subject is available to subscribers of the Natural Solutions Foundation's free Health Freedom E-alerts, available on the foundation website, (www.healthfreedomusa.org)

Dr. Rima E. Laibow, M.D., and the Natural Solutions Foundation need your donations to get to Codex in Africa. This is a very important meeting for her team and is essential to support the Africans with technical documents and advice against the big agendas of the U.S. corporations. If you are able to donate any amount please click here: (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189) and make a tax-deductible donation for health freedom and the future health of every human on the planet.

Sources:

Laibow, R.E., Dispatch #9 - Post-Codex Video #5 from Dr. Laibow: Propeling us into the future. [cited July 12, 2008]. Available from: (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=728)

Personal email communication: Dr. Rima E. Laibow, July 13, 2008.

About the author

Dr. Gregory Damato enjoys a vegan lifestyle and runs a Quantum Biofeedback clinic treating various clients ranging from autism to cancer. He is currently authoring a book for parents educating on the many hidden dangers of vaccines, chemical toxicity in toys, GM foods, the effects of EMFs and EMRs and ways to combat rising childhood illness and neurological disease by naturally building immunity, detoxification and nutrition. His goal is to increase global awareness of the myriad of health issue facing us today and the fact that 99% of them are preventable and completely reversible. His website is: www.quantumenergywellness.com and can be emailed at info@quantumenergywellness.com.

India: Notice to government on plea to ban GM food

Sindh Today (Pakistan), 12 August 2008.

New Delhi, Aug 12 (IANS) The Supreme Court Tuesday issued notice to the government on a plea seeking a ban on the release of genetically modified food crops in the country.

A bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan issued the notice on a lawsuit by Aruna Rodrigues, an activist from Kerala, apprehending a grave danger to human health and environment from the release of as yet scientifically and authentically untested genetically modified (GM) foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMO).

The bench, which also included Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice J.M. Panchal, asked the government to respond to Rodrigues' plea within two weeks.

In the petition, Rodrigues also demanded 'ban on import of any genetically modified product or food produce containing GMOs'.

The petitioner also sought directions to the government to establish an autonomous institution in the public sector for comprehensive testing facilities for genetically modified food or crops and assessing the risk of environmental contamination involved in their release.

Rodrigues sought a 'complete moratorium on the release of any genetically modified organism in the environment, without evolution of a comprehensive, transparent and rigorous bio-safety protocol'.

New Zealand: Controversial GM plan in debate

One News, TV New Zealand, 12 August 2008.

A controversial plan to grow genetically modified onions and leeks on fields near Christchurch has been debated at a hearing on Tuesday.

Crop and Food has been growing genetically modified (GM) onions in glasshouses and now they are applying to grow onions, leeks and garlic on two hectares at Lincoln in Canterbury.

The scientists say it is a chance to assess the impact the crops will have on the environment.

"What we're hoping to do eventually is develop new cultivars of onions that are highly desired and so could attract premium prices so our growers in New Zealand would be able to grow these very high value onions," says Dr Prue Williams, Crop and Food Research.

Opponents say the plan is dangerous and risks New Zealand's clean green image.

"We actually believe it is dangerous. It has the potential to devastate the agricultural land around Lincoln and possibly escape further," say Claire Bleakley, GE Free NZ.

"If it escapes into the environment before it is tested for safety and it gets into our food chain, we've got no diagnostic tools. We've got no ability to trace it, or remove it," she says.

But at this stage they are already writing off their chances of stopping the research.

"Once it gets to hearing stage you know that all you can do is voice your opposition, it'll go ahead," says Bleakley.

The decision will be released next month.

Germany: IFOAM is patron of Rock for Nature

Organic-Market.Info, 12 August 2008.

As a loud, clear and peaceful message of resistance against genetically modified plants and foods and the continued exploration of nature, and as a contribution to social peace and international dialogue, the producer association "Bäuerliche Erzeugergemeinschaft Schwäbisch Hall" invites to the "Rock for Nature" open air festival. The self-help group of more than 980 family farmers is supported in is endeavour by NatureLife International, Greenpeace and Slow Food as well as by Vandana Shiva and the Organization Family Farms.

With national and international top groups and solo artists, Rock for Nature wants to bring people together in a cheerful atmosphere, support them in their unity and in their resistance against the destruction of their natural resource base and encourage them to stand up for their future beyond the boundaries of countries and continents.

From August 22 to 24, 2008, in a 200,000 square meter organic wheat field near Schwäbisch Hall, the international festival will follow the footsteps of Woodstock. International known artists like Joe Cocker, the Scorpions, Wir sind Helden, Nena and Roger Hodgens are already confirmed. € 5 of every ticket sold goes to gene tech victims in India. Satellite transmission to and from India and the US will convey international unity against the disastrous dissemination of GM technology.

In the case of this event, the Bäuerliche Erzeugergemeinschaft Schwäbisch Hall is supported by Greenpeace, SlowFood Deutschland, IFOAM and Umweltstiftung NatureLife International. Details can be viewed here http://www.organic-market.info/bio-markt/CMS/DateiAblage/Dateien/RockforNature.pdf

www.ifoam.org

India: SC to hear plea for moratorium on GM crop today

Indian Express, August 12 2008. By Tannu Sharma.

NEW DELHI: An application seeking a complete moratorium on release of any genetically-modified (GM) crops in the environment till an independent testing facility is set up in India, will be listed for hearing in the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

A "review of six years of Bt cotton experience" is sought on the opinion of Dr P M Bhargava, the noted microbiological expert. He says "it is necessary that review must take place during a full moratorium on all GM crops, including Bt cotton" - a view that will be placed before a Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan.

Highlighting several lacunas in the present bio-testing system, Aruna Rodrigues, who had earlier filed a PIL, has now moved an application urging the court to issue directions to the Union Government for imposing a ban on import of any GM product.

She has pointed to the extensive communication between Dr P M Bhargava, an international expert in molecular biology, and Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). GEAC is the sole authority to approve the release of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) under the 1989 Rules.

Following the apex court directions on February 13, 2008, Dr Bhargava, the founder director of Centre for Cell and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, and Dr Swaminathan of Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, were invited to meetings "whenever any application for seeking approval for release of GMO is taken up".

The applicant claims what transpired in the meetings, as also known through the communication between the GEAC and Dr Bhargava, is "a very alarming picture of the manner in which clearances have been given for environmental release of GMOs".

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, counsel for Rodrigues, says a vast majority of bio-safety tests, which are required before such crops are allowed for safe release into the environment, are not being conducted. Whatever tests are being done are being carried out by the applicant company, "which has a clear commercial interest".

The application has also underlined the need for having an independent testing laboratory with adequate technical capacity.

11 August 2008

USA: Seed giant flexes muscle
Monsanto seems to be everywhere as prices soar

The Hawk Eye, 11 August 2008. By Alan Guebert.

In late March, Monsanto Co. sent a "Dear Valued Customer" letter to most U.S. corn and soybean farmers. The reason, wrote Jim Zimmer, Monsanto's vice president of U.S. branded business, was "to discuss" some current marketplace dynamics that will directly affect you in terms of increased prices for Monsanto's line of Roundup herbicides for 2008."

Demand of glyphosate, Roundup's generic counterpart, "is at an all-time high," explained Zimmer. As such, "We have seen the demand for Roundup brand herbicide increase more than our current ability to supply."

That's a problem, he continued, because, "We have a reliable supplier commitment to farmers who choose to purchase Roundup Ready technology and who choose to purchase Roundup brand herbicide that we will have supply available."

The solution?

"Our competitive challenges have put our commitment at risk, forcing us to increase our price for Roundup herbicide."

Golly, a farmer who phoned me about the letter asked, "How much is their promise to me going to cost me?"

Globally, about $411 million, the amount Roundup net sales increased from March through May over the same three months in 2007, according to Monsanto's third quarter, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission June 27.

That's a 54 percent increase.

Additionally, the 10-Q reports, "Net sales of Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides increased 63 percent, or $1,222 million" -- $1.222 billion -- "in the nine-month comparison" with fiscal 2007's first three quarters.

Remarkably, however, that $1.2 billion increase in Roundup sales, notes the 10-Q, was posted despite a 7 percent sales volume drop in "Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides in third quarter 2008" and only an 8 percent increase in global Roundup sales for the nine-month period ending in May.

Clearly, Roundup -- mostly because Monsanto boosted its price -- hit a home run. "Gross profit increased $927 million because of higher sales of Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides in the first nine months of 2008."

What Monsanto did for Roundup herbicide this spring, it promises to do for Roundup seed corn next year, according to a July interview company officials held with DTN and Progressive Farmer editors.

Indeed, wrote Marcia Taylor for DTN after the gathering, "Even the list price on seed corn will topple the $300 per bag barrier starting this fall, up about $95 to $100 per bag, or 35 percent on average, according to Monsanto officials."

Monsanto "thinks it deserves some extra profit sharing," offered Taylor, because it "claims" its triple-stacked, genetically modified corn hybrids deliver a 12-bushel yield advantage over competitors in a normal year and maybe as much as a 35-bushel increase in a dry year.

As such, the company -- which estimates 76 percent of all its 2009 seed corn sales will be triple stacked varieties -- wants a hunk of that value. In short, that's why seed prices are set to soar.

But, John Jansen, a Monsanto executive, told the editors, the company is certain its seed is so hot that "We can pass the red-faced test from the Panhandle of Texas to McLean County, Ill."

Well, maybe not your red-faced test, so you check out a competitor.

Again, according to Monsanto's most recent

10-Q: "In the first quarter 2008, Monsanto entered into an agreement on corn herbicide tolerance and insect control technologies with Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. (whereby Monsanto will receive) cumulative cash receipts of $725 million over an eight-year period."

Drat. How about a soybean competitor?

"In third quarter 2008, Monsanto and Syngenta entered into a Roundup Ready 2 Yield Soybean License Agreement (under which) the minimum obligation from Syngenta over this (nine-year) period is $81 million," reports the 10-Q.

Is Monsanto everywhere?

Almost. According to its June SEC filing, it recently bought a vegetable seed company in Europe, a seed corn company in Guatemala, another in Brazil.

Guebert's weekly column is published in more than 75 papers in North America. His e-mail address is agcomm@sbcglobal.net.

Sowing feudalism

Online Opinion - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate, 11 August 2008. By Evaggelos Vallianatos.

Atomic science gave birth to weapons civilised people wish never existed. Now agricultural genetic engineering is on the verge of bringing into being another monster future generations will face with the same perplexity and anguish we feel about our nuclear bombs.

Genetic engineers made DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) a long molecule wrapped tightly within the nucleus of every living cell, the king of their realm, the oracle whose message might even lead bioengineers to make men.

Genetic engineering claims that DNA alone is the key to inheritance, with each DNA segment, gene, developing a protein for a specific trait. Yet one gene may produce hundreds and thousands of different proteins. The Human Genome Project discovered that humans have about 30,000 genes but 100,000 proteins. Also, it's not DNA alone but DNA genes and protein-based processes working together that pass on traits of inheritance.

However, starting from the "central dogma" of genetic science, which says more precisely that a DNA gene controls no more than a unique inheritance trait, genetic engineers moved aggressively to test their theory at the farm by altering food crops.

They assumed, for example, that the DNA bacterial gene, Bt, which they inserted into corn, would produce nothing but a poison for the insects feeding on corn. However, by moving the Bt gene into the alien environment of corn, in addition to the insect-killing protein, the Bt gene could give birth, and often does give birth, to dozens of other proteins with unpredictable behaviours and possibly toxic effects on human health and nature.

A group of international scientists, working under Joint Actions of Information on GMOs, signed a letter dated April 8, 2006 in which they said that Bt toxins:

caused powerful immune responses and abnormal and excessive cell growth in the intestine of mice ... Filipinos living next to Bt cornfields developed symptoms during pollination and blood tests also showed an immune response to Bt. Indian workers handling Bt cotton developed allergic responses ... we must ... find out if Bt genes transfer to gut bacteria like soya genes do. They could turn our internal flora into living pesticide factories.

We suspect that genetic engineering is causing trouble not because we have results from studies, which barely exist, but from the failures of experiments. Clones are not doing well. Kidney and brain malformations often kill the cloned animal. Bioengineered pigs, about to be remade into a fish delicacy, suffer from arthritis, enlarged hearts, renal disease and dermatitis. All this spoils the bioengineers' idea that each DNA gene, like each biotech boss, orders things to be done alone without interference from anybody or anything.

But in real life, often and almost inevitably, with countless numbers of transgenic crop plants, errors crop up, causing chaos in an otherwise elegant plan or experiment. Without careful studies of those plants, we are headed for big trouble.

Genetic engineers show perfect contempt for nature, their hubris knows no bounds. They willfully ignore the fact that, in nature, genetic material moves freely only within a single species. Butterflies don't mate with fish.

Barry Commoner, a distinguished biologist and philosopher of science at Queens College in New York, is right to warn us about the premature licensing of agricultural genetic engineering in the United States. We don't know anything about the presumed safety of the genetically modified (GM) food.

"The genetically engineered crops now being grown," he says, "represent a massive uncontrolled experiment whose outcome is inherently unpredictable. The results could be catastrophic".

Commoner is not exaggerating. The hazardous nature and global spread of agricultural biotechnology constitutes another attack against the fragile food security of the world and the integrity of traditional food systems which feed about three billion human beings at the dawn of the 21st century.

In July 2002 Zimbabwe, for example, on the brink of famine, said "no" to thousands of tons of free, gene-altered corn from the United States. Zimbabwe rejected the humanitarian food from the US probably because of the near certainty that such GM corn, if planted, would contaminate its own corn with undesirable traits and which would have long-term dangerous consequences for food security.

On August 8, 2002, the British science journal, Nature, explained that the policy of some nations in Africa, hungry for food and on the verge of famine, to reject international donations of GM food was not as bizarre and irresponsible as one might think. Rather, their decision to go hungry or buy non-GM food goes to the heart of "a chasm of misunderstanding [between them and countries like the United States trying to have them eat GM corn]". Such misunderstanding "is only exacerbated by exaggerated claims for the benefits of the [GM] technology".

Yet despite the threat posed by the inoculation of food crops with alien DNA genes, five genetic engineering companies (Pharmacia/Monsanto, DuPont, Bayer, Syngenta and Dow) and four countries (the United States, Argentina, Canada and China) are moving the genetically modified or "transgenic" crops all over the world - fast.

From 1996 to 2001 the global amount of land growing GM crops increased more than 30-fold, from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 52.6 million hectares in 2001. About 91 per cent of the 52.6 million hectares of GM crops in 2001 came from the GM seeds of Monsanto. More than a fourth of that GM land in 2001, about 13.5 million hectares, was in the Third World growing transgenic crops.

In 2001 soybean was the global king of GM crops, taking up 33.3 million hectares or 63 per cent of the land growing GM crops. In addition, the transgenic soybean of 2001 was providing stiff competition to the "regular", non-manipulated, soybean. It represented 46 per cent of the 72 million hectares of soybeans planted around the world. In 2001 GM corn grew in 9.8 million hectares (19 per cent), cotton in 6.8 million hectares (13 per cent), and canola in 2.7 million hectares (5 per cen)t of the total GM land in 2001.

In 2001 the herbicide trait in soybeans, cotton, and corn was present in 77 per cent or 40.6 million hectares of the GM crops. This trait made the seeds and mature plants immune to designer weed killers. The Bt gene was used in 7.8 million hectares or 15 per cent of the GM crops. The Bt gene made the seeds and plants toxic to insects. About 8 per cent of the planted area included crops that had both the herbicide and the Bt traits.

These GM crops have had two commercial purposes:

First, to sell farmers seeds of soybeans, cotton, and corn that would be unaffected by weed killers. The farmer would purchase his herbicide from the same company that engineered his seeds.

Second, the farmer would buy more expensive seed corn and cotton inoculated with the Bt gene that makes corn and cotton resistant and lethal to insects.

In both cases, herbicide-resistant seeds and Bt seeds resistant to insects, are matters of convenience to the farmers. The traits of the seeds have nothing to do with feeding the world or making agriculture less toxic.

In fact genetic engineering at the farm is becoming an almost transparent "science fiction" experiment - with straightforward political effects, concentrating a great deal of power into a handful of corporations and, as a consequence, resurrecting feudalism.

Biotech companies are getting so bold, shameless, dangerous and unethical that they are shuffling genes between unrelated species to manufacture drugs, infant formula, and, perhaps, human breast milk, right within the milk of cows, goats, and sheep.

They are also using the cells of corn, tobacco, soybeans and rice for the production of drugs. After all, who would suspect that essential food crops might be growing in the field for purposes other than giving us food? Can we suspect corn living a double life? Or, is it human to even imagine in our most frightened dreams that food crops would be secret factories for vaccines, contraceptives, growth hormones and other designer drugs? Or that pigs and other animals may be converted to convenient refrigerators for spare organs for humans?

Yet, according to Friends of the Earth, field trials for the production of drugs through food are going on in farms of Nebraska, Texas, Illinois, Puerto Rico, Maryland, Kentucky, Indiana, California, and Florida. And just like with the Bt corn, pollen from corn, tobacco, rice and soybeans pregnant with the genetic stuff of drugs is bound to fly in the wind, contaminating food crops and nature. In 2002, the US National Academy of Sciences warned of the hazards of this experiment in nature and society.

To criticise this immoral policy is to be branded an enemy by those selling genetic engineering in the United States.

One such a propagandist, Hembree Brandon, denounced the "anti-biotech radicals" as if they are the enemy of the state. These "anti-biotech radicals," he wrote in the Delta Farm Press (August 30, 2002) "are a lot like Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida loonies: they want to take the world back to the Stone Age. Regardless of the consequences to humanity as a whole, they want to dictate the pace of scientific progress according to their own messianic insight into what is right for the world."

Of course, this is nonsense. It is not the biotech critics who are taking the world to the Stone Age, but those who misuse science for personal gain.

Rachel Carson spoke about the "Stone Age of science" in order to help us understand the harm done to science by the developers and proponents of pesticides who do everything - so they keep saying - in the name of science. These people, says Carson in her 1962 book, Silent Spring, kill insects so that they control nature. They arm themselves with weapons, which are self-defeating, because each time they point them against the insects, they point them against the earth."

We need vigorous critics and good scientists with the public good in mind to study biotechnology and give us honest answers about its effects on nature and humans. It is the immoral policies of biotech companies, which corrupt science and violate the integrity of nature, man, and civilisation. If such unethical practices continue, it is possible that humanity may plunge into the Brave New World of Aldous Huxley.

This sort of thing, cloning of animals for human spare parts, and the surreptitious use of genetic engineering to produce pharmaceutical proteins and chemicals in farmers' fields, dubbed "biopharming," has no place in a civilised society.

It is no longer agriculture or drug manufacturing. It is, instead, a political movement adding biological weapons to the mechanical and chemical armory of plants, broadly defined to include pharmaceutical conglomerates. It is agribusiness' new "green revolution" (assisted by genetic engineering companies) manufactured to bury the peasant and the family farmer.

This is particularly true in the genetic engineers' production of sterile seeds, which, should they ever reach the market, would force both the farmers and peasants to buy new seeds every growing season. This immoral technology is married to chemicals. The sown seeds will express one or more traits only with the assistance of sprays. What this means is that the farmer's seeds will thrive or die based on the presence of a chemical, which will trigger or abort their fertility. In this way genetic engineering shows its true colors - the best friend of giant corporations and large farmers, the worst enemy of family farmers and peasants, and pure poison for nature.

This green giant of high tech (genetic engineering) will very likely stumble and fall primarily because it is an immoral intervention in agriculture, without doubt the most sacred of all life-giving traditions.

Evaggelos Vallianatos is a Greek writer living in the US and writing on Greek history and ecopolitical issues. He is the author of This Land is Their Land and The Passion of the Greeks and This Land is Their Land: How Corporate Farms Threaten the World. His website, Through Greek Eyes, is here: http://www.vallianatos.com/

UK: Letter from Dr. Arpad Pusztai to GM Watch on 10th anniversary of GM safety scandal

Dear Claire and Jonathan,

I thought that I should write to you on the 10th anniversary of my 150 seconds of TV "fame" and tell you what I think now. It is very appropriate to write to you because you have provided the most comprehensive service to inform people about the shenanigans of the GM biotechnology industry and its advocates.

On this anniversary I have to admit that, unfortunately, not much has changed since 1998. In one of the few sentences I said in my broadcast ten years ago, I asked for a credible GM testing protocol to be established that would be acceptable to the majority of scientists and to people in general. 10 years on we still haven't got one. Instead, in Europe we have an unelected EFSA GMO Panel with no clear responsibility to European consumers, which invariably underwrites the safety of whatever product the GM biotech industry is pushing onto us.

All of us asked for independent, transparent and inclusive research into the safety of GM plants, and particularly those used in foods. There is not much sign of this either. There are still "many opinions but very few data"; less than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published describing the results of work relating to GM safety that could actually be regarded as being of an academic standard; and the majority of even these is from industry-supported labs. Instead we have the likes of Tony Trewavas and others writing unsupported claims for the safety of GM food and defaming people like Rachel Carson who can no longer defend herself; not that she needs to be defended from such nonentities.

In normal times one would not pay much attention to such people desperately trying to be seen as the advocates of true science, but these are not normal times. The mostly engineered (GM engineered) food crisis gives the GM biotech industry and its warriors an opportunity to come to the fore with claims that GM is the only way to save a hungry world; a claim not much supported by responsible bodies, such as the IAASTD. The advocates of GM also now think that they have found a chink in the armoury of people's resolve that they can exploit by telling us that we would not be able to feed our animals without GM feedstuffs. In this way, they hope to bring in GM by the backdoor. Please remember that whatever our animals eat, we shall also get back indirectly. Rather ominously, there has been no work whatever to show the safety of the meat of GM-fed animals.

We must not underestimate the financial and political clout of the GM biotechnology industry. Most of our politicians are committed to the successful introduction of GM foods. We must therefore use all means at our disposal to show people the shallowness of these claims by the industry and the lack of credible science behind them, and then trust to people's good sense, just as in 1998, to see through the falseness of the claims for the safety of untested GM foods.

Let's hope that on the 20th anniversary I shall not have to write another warning letter about the dangers of untested GM foods!

Best wishes to all
Arpad Pusztai

UK: The Pusztai scandal laid bare

Text originally published by GM Watch on the 10th August 2005.

...on the 10th August 1998 the GM debate changed forever.

The story began three years earlier. That's when the UK government's Scottish Office commissioned a three-year multi-centre research programme into the safety of GM food under the coordination of Dr Arpad Pusztai. At that time there was not a single publication in a peer-reviewed journal on the safety of GM food.

Dr Pusztai, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, was an eminent scientist. He was the world's leading expert on the plant proteins known as lectins. He had published three books and over 270 scientific studies.

He and his team fought off competition from 28 other research organisations from across Europe to be awarded the GBP1.6 million contract by the Scottish Office. The project methodology was also reviewed and passed by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) - the UK government's main funding body for the biological sciences.

The research involved feeding GM potatoes to rats and monitoring physiological changes. By late 1997 preliminary results from the rat-feeding experiments were showing totally unexpected and worrying changes in the size and weight of the rat's body organs. Liver and heart sizes were getting smaller, and so was the brain. There were also indications that the rats' immune systems were weakening.

Dr Pusztai was interviewed for a programme about GM food being made by Granada TV's 'The World in Action'. The filming took place in late June 1998 with the agreement of the director of the Rowett Institute, Professor James, and in the presence of the Rowett Institute's press officer. The World in Action interview was broadcast on the evening of Monday 10th August 1998.

Later that evening Professor James congratulated Dr Pusztai on his TV appearance, commenting on 'how well Arpad had handled the questions'. The next day a further press release from the Rowett noted that 'a range of carefully controlled studies underlie the basis of Dr Pusztai's concerns'. However, reportedly following two calls to the Rowett from the Prime Minister's Office, the Government, the Royal Society and the Rowett launched a vitriolic campaign to sack, silence and ridicule Dr Pusztai.

He was accused of unprofessional conduct because his work had not been peer-reviewed. However, his research subsequently passed peer-review after being reviewed by a larger than usual panel of scientists and was published (see below). Many people also take the view that in circumstances where research is giving rise to serious concerns that may need to be addressed sooner rather than later, it is acceptable for scientists to act as whistle blowers and draw attention to the problems their research is uncovering even prior to peer-reviewed publication.

The Government criticised the methodology of Pusztai's research despite the fact that this had been approved in advance by its own Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. Neither the Government nor any other official body has ever repeated or refined Dr Pusztai's experiments to test the validity of his results.

The Royal Society and its leading Fellows were key players in the attacks on Dr Pusztai from the time he went public with doubts about the safety of GM foods. In February 1999, for instance, nineteen Fellows of the Royal Society condemned Pusztai, in all but name, in a letter published in the national press. Among the signatories was Peter Lachmann, who played a key role in the attacks on Pusztai.

Three months later in May 1999 the Royal Society published a partial 'peer review' of Pusztai's then unpublished research. This review was based not on a properly prepared paper, like that Pusztai and his collaborator Ewen submitted to The Lancet for peer-review, but on a far-from-complete internal report intended for use by Pusztai's research team at the Rowett Institute.

Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, described the Royal Society review as 'a gesture of breathtaking impertinence to the Rowett Institute scientists who should be judged only on the full and final publication of their work.'

The Royal Society's review was organised by members of a working group appointed by the Society in coordination with the Society's officers. The Royal Society claimed that anyone who had already commented on the Pusztai affair had been excluded from this decision making process in order to avoid bias. However, William Hill, Patrick Bateson, Brian Heap and Eric Ash, who were all involved, were all among the co-signatories of the letter condemning Pusztai that had been published in The Daily Telegraph back in February.

In addition, four key people involved, including the Chair of the working group, Noreen Murray, as well as Brian Heap, Rebecca Bowden and Sir Aaron Klug, were all part of the earlier working group that had issued the Royal Society's 1998 report supporting GM foods.

There were other issues of bias. For instance, William Hill, the chair of the Pusztai working group, was also the deputy chair of the Roslin Institute, famous for genetically modifying animals and for cloning Dolly the sheep. Roslin in turn had links to Geron Biomed for whom Lachmann consulted. Similarly, Noreen Murray was the wife of the co-founder of Europe's first biotechnology company, Biogen.

Undaunted by the Royal Society's attack on their unpublished work, Pusztai and his co-researcher, Prof Stanley Ewen, submitted their final paper on their experiments to The Lancet. It was sent to six reviewers, double the normal number, and a clear majority were in favour of its publication.

However, prior to publication the Lancet's editor Richard Horton received a phone call from Peter Lachmann, the former Vice-President of the Royal Society. According to Horton, Lachmann called him 'immoral' for publishing something he knew to be 'untrue'. Towards the end of the conversation Horton says Lachmann also told him that if he published Pusztai's paper, this would 'have implications for his personal position' as editor.

The Guardian broke the news of Horton being threatened in November 1999 in a front-page story. It quoted Horton saying that the Royal Society had acted like a Star Chamber over the Pusztai affair. 'The Royal Society has absolutely no remit to conduct that sort of inquiry.' Lachmann denied threatening Horton although he admitted making the phone call in order to discuss the pending publication.

The Guardian also talked of a GM 'rebuttal unit' operating from within the Royal Society. According to the journalist Andy Rowell, who helped research The Guardian article, Rebecca Bowden, who had coordinated the Pusztai peer-review and who had worked for the Government's Biotechnology Unit before joining The Royal Society in 1998, admitted to the paper, 'We have an organization that filters the news out there. It's really an information exchange to keep an eye on what's happening and to know what the government is having problems about ... its just so that I know who to put up.'

The attacks on The Lancet editor and his decision to publish Pusztai's paper continued. Sir Aaron Klug, vigorously opposed the publication of Pusztai's research, saying it was fatally flawed in design because the protein content of the diets which control groups of rats were fed on was not the same as that of the other diets. Pusztai commented: 'In fact, the paper clearly states that ALL diets had the same protein content and were iso-energetic. I cannot assume that Sir Aaron is not sufficiently intelligent to read a simple statement as that, so the only conclusion I can come to is that he deliberately briefed the reporters with something that was untrue.'

Richard Horton remained unbowed. 'Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai's research letter,' he wrote, 'was published on grounds of scientific merit, as well as public interest'. What Sir Aaron Klug from the Royal Society cannot 'defend is the reckless decision of the Royal Society to abandon the principles of due process in passing judgement on their work. To review and then publish criticism of these researchers' findings without publishing either their original data or their response was, at best, unfair and ill-judged'.

The attacks continue unabated. Peter Lachmann's successor as Biological Secretary of the Royal Society, Patrick Bateson, told readers of the British Association's journal Science and Public Affairs that The Lancet had only published Pusztai's research 'in the face of objections by its statistically-competent referees' (June 2002, Mavericks are not always right). Bateson, presumably deliberately, inverts the fact that Pusztai's Lancet paper successfully came through a peer review process that was far more stringent than that applying to most published papers.

In an article in The Independent, giving the Royal Society's views on why the public no longer trusts experts like themselves - 'Scientists blame media and fraud for fall in public trust' - Pusztai's work is categorised as 'fraud'. Pusztai's peer reviewers, we are told in the article, 'refused it for publication, citing numerous flaws in its methods - notably that the rats in the experiment had not been fed GM potatoes, but normal ones spiked with a toxin that GM potatoes might have made.' Almost every word of this is straight fabrication. There was no fraud. Rats were fed GM potatoes. The publication of Pusztai's Lancet paper was supported by a clear majority of its peer reviewers, etc. etc. It is particularly ironic that such a travesty should have been published in an article reporting the Royal Society's concerns about the reporting of science in the media.

In February 2002 a new Royal Society report on GM crops was published as an update to the Society's September 1998 report on GM. The expert group which produced it was much more broadly based than in '98 and the report took a noticeably more cautious line. 'British Scientists Turn on GM Foods', ran The Guardian's headline on a report which included an admission 'that GM technology could lead to... unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional status of foods'.

The expert group was chaired by Jim Smith, who had sat on the Society's Pusztai working group, and tucked away inside the report was a paragraph on Pusztai. Once again, it was designed to mislead.

The first part of the paragraph read: 'In June 1999, the Royal Society published a report, review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes, in response to claims made by Dr Pusztai (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999). The report found that Dr Pusztai had produced no convincing evidence of adverse effects from GM potatoes on the growth of rats or their immune function.'

The Royal Society report references the phrase 'claims made by Dr Pusztai' - claims it said it had reviewed - to the article published by Pusztai and Ewen in The Lancet in 1999. In fact, however, the Royal Society's partial review of Pusztai's research was published months before The Lancet article appeared. The Royal Society thus conceals the fact that it had only ever reviewed part of Pusztai's data, condemning him ahead of publication of his actual paper.

The 2002 report continued: 'It concluded that the only way to clarify Dr Pusztai's claims would be to refine his experimental design and carry out further studies to test clearly defined hypotheses focused on the specific effects reported by him. Such studies, on the results of feeding GM sweet peppers and GM tomatoes to rats, and GM soya to mice and rats, have now been completed and no adverse effects have been found (Gasson and Burke, 2001).'

But the Gasson and Burke paper, to which these further feeding studies are referenced by the Society, was not a piece of primary research but an 'opinion' piece written by two pro-GM scientists, Mike Gasson and Derek Burke. Worse, one of t he two further studies mentioned had not even been published, except by way of summary, ie it had never been fully peer-reviewed. In other words, the Royal Society uses an unpublished and un-peer-reviewed study to attack Pusztai, two years after it had condemned him for speaking to the media without first publishing peer-reviewed work.

In response to criticism, the Royal Society admitted that the work in question remained unpublished but said this was not a problem because, 'it had been discussed at international scientific conferences'. By this definition, however, Pusztai's research would have been equally validated before the Society ever launched its partial review as it had been presented at an international conference prior to the Society's review. Curiously, the Royal Society has also described the opinion piece by Gasson and Burke as 'primary research,' even though it is a literature review involving no lab work.

Andy Rowell, author of a book that deals extensively with the Royal Society's role in the Pusztai affair, writes, 'the fundamental flaw in the scientific establishment's response is not that they try and damn Pusztai with unpublished data, nor is it that they have overlooked published studies [supporting Pusztai's concerns], but that in 1999, everyone agreed that more work was needed. Three years later, that work remains to be undertaken... [A] scientific body, like The Royal Society, that allocates millions in research funds every year, could have funded a repeat of Pusztai's experiments.'

Nobody ever has.

[Much of the information above comes from Andy Rowell's book, 'Don't Worry: Its Safe To Eat'. (Earthscan, 2003, ISBN 1853839329). See also: http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=113 ]

10 August 2008

Join the Dots - Pushing biotech as the 'solution' to the world's problems is doing more harm than good

Editorial, Nature Biotechnology 26, 837 (August 2008) Via Agnet/Agbioview.

These days, governments, industry and experts seem to be putting biotech forward as a solution to almost everything. The mantra has changed from biotech simply providing cures for disease in developed markets to larger, more global problems. Biotech is now the solution to feeding developing nations. It is the answer to a renewable supply of energy. Or it is a means of reducing the carbon footprint and global warming. Although biotechnologies can certainly help solve these problems, ramming that message down people's throats is hardly likely to convince the doubters. And in the long run, it might even turn out to be counterproductive.

Take a recent case in point: the Biotechnology Industry Organization's (BIO) slogan for its annual meeting held in San Diego in June was "Heal, fuel, feed the world." On no count is this equivocal or faltering or modest. Of course, perhaps that should be expected of an industry lobby organization whose job it is to proselytize the potential of its members' technology and products. But the problem is the slogan just isn't very realistic.

There are hundreds of thousands of acres of genetically modified (GM) crops being grown around the world, but they are not at present addressing key agricultural problems for poor farmers, such as salinity, desertification and drought. Nor are they addressing problems such as malnutrition (although with Golden Rice, they could). For the moment at least, there are only a handful of GM strains available for food staples (other than corn) widely cultivated in developing countries. Many nations in Africa have a ban on GM seeds.

As for biofuels, such as ethanol, these are being generated from maize in the US and from sugarcane in Brazil. Neither of these approaches has much to do with biotech. Biotech is just one part of the set of technologies and approaches that will be needed to make cellulosic ethanol a reality, among several other alternative renewable energy sources.

And although biotech has addressed a few orphan diseases, produced new therapies in infectious disease, cancer and autoimmune disorders, and recombinant versions of biologics for diabetes and growth disorders, it hasn't delivered on the promised 'cures' of genetic therapies or even the wide adoption of molecularly targeted medicine. Certainly, it hasn't done much to address disease and malnutrition among the world's poor.

This journal champions biotech research, so we are not downbeat on its prospects to, one day, generate products that will heal, fuel and feed the world. That is, nevertheless, an outrageous act of faith bordering on the religious. And the fact is that biotech approaches must be used in the context of other technical and nontechnological solutions. Thus, reason dictates that proponents should be very careful about overhyping what biotech can do now and overpromising what it can do in the future.

In biotech, the new 'thing'-whatever it has been at the time (interferons, antisense, sepsis therapies, antibodies, genomics, functional genomics, structural genomics, proteomics, RNA interference)-is constantly put forward as the 'solution' (usually with a concurrent stampede of startup activity and investment). Genomics and other 'omics were vaunted as solutions to the need for personalized medicine, a need that was poorly defined. Protein drugs were offered as wonder molecules, targeting diseases specifically and finally. GM crops solved concerns about the environmental consequences of intensive agricultural pesticide and herbicide use, they solved developing nations' food security and they replaced fossil fuel energy.

This pushy, solution-based approach elicits opposition instantly. The emergence of bioethanol and biodiesel as viable 'green' energy sources, for instance, has served to orchestrate a backlash against the approach. This has gained some ground following a series of reports from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that point out that most of the biofuel policies in the developed world are narrowly focused-they stimulate the production of one or two types of fuel using one or two types of technology to process the excess agricultural production of just a few (and usually just one) crop types. Public and political opinion on biofuels swung rapidly from a rather gung-ho attitude in 2007 from almost everyone (farmers, car drivers, industrialists, politicians and even environmentalists) to antipathy in 2008.

It is time for biotech communication to be done right. And it is time that the industry and its lobby organizations learnt that pushing one-dimensional hype about biotech solutions is counterproductive.

A much more successful approach for encouraging the politicians and the general public to get on board the biotech bus would be to let them come to their own conclusions about the solution to the problems that society faces. This will mean outlining the problems accurately: in the fuel versus food debate, for instance, it is almost undeniably true that we will need more food (to feed 9 billion people), more energy (for 9 billion, most of whom want a higher standard of living) and more protection of biodiversity (by conserving natural habitats) - all within changing climatic conditions.

But it isn't necessary to finish the sentence by saying that biotech or GM is the solution. If that is said, then anyone with resistance to globalization, industry (and science), intensification and any other ignorance-based biases will - true to form - resist.

Biotech's proponents need to try less hard. The majority of people will eventually join their own dots and see that biotech and genetic modification are worth backing. And ultimately, they will recognize that biotech has its place as one-and in some cases the best-solution to some of the world's most pressing problems. After all, this is simple psychology. It generally is a good thing to allow other people to think that your good idea was theirs all along.

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

The agri-biotech propagandists first claimed GM crops would feed the world. They then tried to convince us that you can do nothing to stop their adoption. Now they hope people will still believe the hype - so long as it's not exaggerated too much! What the spin doctors still fail to understand is that most people have already joined the dots and realised that the environmental release of GMOs is ecological insanity which enables a handful of giant transnational corporations to seize control of the global food supply.

9 August 2008

Bid to plant genetically-modified trees in UK

The Telegraph (UK), 9 August 2008. By Jaspere Coppping.

Scientists have applied to plant genetically modified trees in Britain despite fears that they will damage native wildlife, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.

Supporters of GM trees say the technology can also be used to help protect Britain's forests from disease

They have asked the Forestry Commission for permission to put GM trees on its land for an international study into biofuels. But environmental campaigners have pledged to fight the scheme.

It is the first time scientists have tried to grow GM trees here since 1999, when activists destroyed 115 specimens at a test site in Bracknell, Berkshire.

Scientists from the University of Southampton said the time had now come to try and "move the debate forward" on GM trees. Their project involves poplars that have been genetically altered to reduce the amount of lignin, a constituent of wood. The team believe this will make it easier for the trees to be used to produce ethanol, a so called "biofuel" which can be used to replace petrol in cars, as well as pulp for paper.

Supporters of GM trees say the technology can also be used to help protect Britain's forests from disease and improve the quality of the country's timber produce.

Professor Gail Taylor, who is leading the new project, said: "We're in a black hole at the moment, as far as research goes. But it is hard to imagine a world in the future where these technologies are not deployed more widely.

"We need to get the evidence to see if these things can be deployed on a wide scale.

"The extreme environmentalists are preventing us from collecting the evidence. We have to go public and try to move the public debate forward. We know what the consequences will be but we need that debate."

But Clare Oxborrow, GM campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "We have major concerns. We have no idea what the interaction with wild trees could be.

There could be unforeseen consequences.

"There is a growing global movement for a complete moratorium on GM trees, because of their ecological impact. These trees could cross-pollinate with wild trees over great distances. If traits are passed on to native trees it can have a significant negative impact on biodiversity."

Anne Peterman, from the international group Global Justice Ecology Project, which is running a campaign called Stop GE (genetically engineered) Trees, said: "GM trees are a very bad idea, for a lot of reasons. If these trees are released into the environment, then contamination is inevitable. We do not support any trials, because there is no guarantee against escapes of the genetically modified traits."

Trees are expected to become a major source of biofuel and the Southampton team believe the GM modified ones will have an ethanol yield 40 per cent greater than "normal" poplars.

They are carrying out the research with academics from France and Belgium and are seeking locations in Britain and Belgium. They have submitted an application with the Forestry Commission to use one of the UK sites run by its research agency, Forest Research. If it is approved, the location will be made public.

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will also have to approve the scheme, but scientists have been encouraged by recent comments by Joan Ruddock, the Environment Minister, in which she appears to endorse new GM trees trials, provided they comply with strict guidelines. Earlier this year, the Minister attended a meeting in Germany to discuss the issue with politicians from around the world.

The meeting outlined the circumstances in which trials could go ahead. Until the end of trials in the 1990s, British scientists were in the vanguard of research into GM trees and were the first to grow elm that could resist Dutch elm disease. Researchers at the University of Abertay in Dundee found that anti-fungal genes transferred into the elm genome were able give the trees the capacity to fight off the killer fungus.

Scientists believe other tree diseases, such as chestnut blight and sudden oak death, which is affecting a growing number of oak and beech trees in the UK, could also be tackled by genetic modification. Trees have also been genetically altered to grow more quickly, be more tolerant of weedkillers and resistant to pests. Professor Claire Halpin, from the University of Dundee, worked on the field trials of poplars destroyed by saboteurs in 1999.

She said: "The real tragedy of the attacks on the field trials were that they actually prevented us accumulating the knowledge of just how useful they could be. I can't see any justification for interfering with field trials.

"The whole area has had such a bad press that it would be a real bonus to find an example where they could show a conservation benefit - to make people stop and think again that it could be beneficial, rather than the entrenched positions - almost knee-jerk responses that some of the conservation groups have come out with.

"In other parts of the world, people really are pursuing it much more actively than we are at the moment. If these trees do offer benefits we will be left behind."

Although research in the UK stopped at the end of the 1990s, other countries have invested heavily in the technology and experts fear a lack of new research could leave the British forestry industry struggling to compete with foreign competition.

Jane Karthaus, from the UK's Confederation of Forest Industries, said: "We are always open-minded and if there were a potentially significant (GM) breakthrough which, for example, would allow a reduction in pesticide use, or would tackle a challenge thrown up by climate change, such as, from new pests and diseases then we would consider it within the context of sustainable forest management with partners in the environmental sector and in government."

There have been five field trials of GM trees in Britain. Three were completed normally: two trials of eucalyptus conducted by Shell in Kent, one in 1993 and one in 1995, and a trial of paradise apple carried out by the University of Derby in 1995. But two trials of poplars by the biotechnology company Astra Zeneca, at Jealott's Hill, Bracknell, Berkshire, one due to be completed by 2002 and the other by 2004, were destroyed by eco-activists in 1999.

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

For more info on GM trees see www.gmfreeireland.org/trees

8 August 2008

USA: County farmers sue over genetically modified rice

Pine Bluff Commercial, August 8 2008. By Ray King.

Four Jefferson County residents and two farms have filed a lawsuit against several chemical companies and Riceland Foods, Inc., alleging they lost money because of genetically modified rice.

Clay and Brenda Jeter, W.S. Jeter Sr., and Alan Erstine, and Jetco Farms and J&E Farms filed the lawsuit Thursday morning in Jefferson County Circuit Court against Bayer AG and a number of its subsidiaries, and Riceland Foods Inc., of Stuttgart, seeking damages for lost of income, damage to their property and equipment, including storage and transportation facilities.

The lawsuit was one of several filed Thursday by attorneys from Goldman, Pennebaker & Phipps of San Antonio and Little Rock attorney Chuck Banks in rice-growing counties in eastern and southeastern Arkansas, including Jefferson. Similar suits have also been filed in Texas and Mississippi.

The lawsuit alleges Bayer, through its companies, developed, planted and tested genetically modified rice, including a type known as Liberty Link Rice 601 (LL601), with the idea the genetically modified rice would help farmers battle problems with weeds that negatively affected their profit margins.

The lawsuit claims that from 1996 to 2001, Bayer planted and tested LL601 and other modified rice varieties, then in 2001 decided not to market LL601 because of concerns that the genetically modified rice would not be accepted by consumers in the United States and other countries.

Because rice is a cross pollinating plant, the lawsuit alleged that LL601 contaminated non-genetically modified rice, and Bayer and Riceland withheld information about the contamination until after the rice planting season in the spring of 2006.

After the information was made public in August 2006, Japan suspended imports of long-grain rice (the type planted in Arkansas) until shipments could be certified as non-genetically modified, and the European Union took the same action later in August. Other rice exporting countries such as Korea, Saudi Arabia and Iraq also banned the rice.

Last year, the lawsuit claimed that two varieties of rice popular with Arkansas farmers were found to have a genetically modified LL601 link, and "plaintiffs, like most Arkansas farmers, were unable to find enough unaffected seed and were unable to plant rice on all their available land.

"The rice that was planted was less profitable because of reduced yields and added expense in controlling weeds," the lawsuit claimed.

The case was assigned to 2nd Division Circuit Judge Rob Wyatt Jr.

Riceland Foods has a long established policy of not commenting on lawsuits filed against the cooperative. Riceland officials had not been served with a copy of the complaint as of Thursday.

USA: Not a sweet proposition
As GMO sugar beets sneak into the food supply, citizens fight back

GristMill blog posted by Lisa J. Bunin, 8 August 2008.

"Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -- Anthropologist Margaret Mead

Even if you've heard the above quote many times before, the sentiment expressed is so powerful that I think it's worth repeating. All around the world, small groups of people are organizing public support for improved food safety and successfully challenging large corporations to change their behavior.

That's exactly what Flint Michigan residents Kathleen Kirby and Mark Fisher are banking on: their power to influence change. They're participating in a nationwide consumer boycott of Kellogg's Co. instigated by the Organic Consumers Association. By boycotting the world's largest cereal company, they hope to pressure Kellogg's into rejecting the use of sugar from genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets and to spark widespread market rejection in products ranging from cereal to baby food to candy.

As you may know, Roundup Ready sugar beets are genetically altered to resist Monsanto's toxic weed killer, Roundup, and its active ingredient, glyphosate. But here's the scary truth about these beets:

When the USDA first approved GE sugar beets for commercial planting in 1998, the EPA also increased the maximum allowable residues of glyphosate on sugar beet roots from just .02 parts per million to 10ppm. That's a staggering 5,000 percent increase of allowable toxins on beet roots. And, it's little surprise that EPA made this policy change at the request of Monsanto.

Sugar beet roots contain sucrose that's extracted, refined, and processed into the sugar used in the foods we eat. What this means is that the more GE ingredients that find their way into our food, the greater the likelihood that we are ingesting more toxic chemicals.

Thankfully, GE sugar beets have never been grown in the U.S. for sale to food manufacturers -- that is, until this year, when Western farmers planted their first crop of Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets. Right now, over half of the sugar used in U.S. processed foods comes from sugar beets, with beet and cane sugars combined in those products. What's most disturbing is that once GE sugar beets hit the market, which could be as early as next year, there will be no way to know if we're eating GE sugar because GE ingredients are not labeled.

Currently, only four major GE crops are sold commercially -- corn, cotton, soy, and canola. Most of these are engineered to withstand repeated, large doses of herbicides. For the most part, these crops and their byproducts are largely fed to animals with the exception of some minor food ingredients and oils. GE beet sugar breaks with this tradition in that it could become the first major GE ingredient added to almost all processed foods on our grocery store shelves.

Last week, Hershey's in Brazil announced that it would not source ingredients from Cargill, one of the world's largest food providers, because the company could not guarantee that soy, lecithin, and oils were not GE. This successful public pressure campaign, led by Greenpeace, influenced the company to reject GE beet sugar. It also demonstrates how individuals who care about food safety can mobilize collectively to make a difference.

Several years ago, Hershey's in the U.S. publicly stated that it would refuse to use GE beet sugar, but the company has been noticeably silent on the issue ever since. A double standard is not likely to prevail in the U.S., where organizations such as Don't Plant GMO Beets have helped to generate more than a hundred thousand protest letters. These letters, from people like Kirby and Fisher, show companies that there's strong opposition to the use of GE sugar beets in our food.

Like Hershey's, Kellogg's is only one of thousands of companies that may soon be using GE sugar -- perhaps without even knowing that they are doing so! That could be the case unless, of course, consumer pressure forces the market to reject GE beet sugar.

Kirby and Fisher know that as a market leader, Kellogg's could lead the charge in rejecting GE beet sugar and influence other companies to follow suit.

They also know that although they are just two people living in a small, Midwestern city north of Detroit, and with the Internet at their disposal, they are on their way to changing the world, one e-mail message at a time.

Anonymous comment on the blog site:

Wrong problem?

When the USDA first approved GE sugar beets for commercial planting in 1998, the EPA also increased the maximum allowable residues of glyphosate on sugar beet roots from just .02 parts per million to 10ppm.

It sounds like the problem is not GE per se, but the change in regulation allowing the increases in herbicide residue.

USA: Consumers force Monsanto to drop genetically engineered hormone for milk

Globe and Mail (Canada), 8 August 2008.

VANCOUVER -- Global pressure has forced Monsanto to announce that it is getting out of producing the bovine growth hormone rBST, a genetically engineered (GE) product to increase milk production in dairy cows.

Monsanto's decision to get out of the rBST business in the US comes after global consumer and market rejection of rBST. Safeway, Starbucks and Kraft recently announced they are removing milk produced using rBST from their stores or products in the US. Milk and cheese made with rBST have been banned inCanada and Europe for the past decade. This Monsanto decision will reduce imports of processed foods with rBST modified milk ingredients, including ice cream and infant formula, that Canadians now consume.

"This is a big victory for American and Canadian consumers," said Josh Brandon, agriculture campaigner with Greenpeace. "The massive and sustained rejection of rBST milk highlights even further the need forCanada to require labelling of all genetically engineered foods."

This is a second rBST setback for Monsanto this year. The company failed in its attempt to stem consumer rejection, losing bids in several US states to prevent dairies from labelling their products as rBST free.

In Canada, rBST was banned in 1998 after scientists at Health Canada publicly raised health and safety concerns about the product. Some of the health concerns of rBST include: toxic effects on cows such as mastitis, increased contamination in milk by pus and antibiotics, and increased levels of a cancer-causing agent IGF-1. TheUnited States approved rBST in 1993.

"If genetically engineered products like this were safe, Monsanto would put 'made with GE' in big block letters on all its products," said Brandon. "Instead Monsanto is doing everything it can to obstruct the consumer's right to know what they are eating. Monsanto's strategy backfires, once consumers start asking questions about the health and environmental safety of GE products."

For further information: Brian Blomme, Media and Public Relations Officer, (416) 930-9055; Josh Brandon, Agriculture Campaigner, (604) 721-7493

7 August 2008

Not Even Monsanto Wants rBGH
Consumer Pressure Cripples Artificial Growth Hormone Used in Milk Production

Food & Water Watch, August 7 2008.

WASHINGTON -Monsanto's announcement that it is "repositioning" Posilac, its artificial growth hormone used in milk production and more commonly known as rBGH, is good news for consumers but not the end of the struggle for food safety advocates, warned the national consumer rights organization Food & Water Watch today.

"News of Monsanto's divestment of Posilac is one more sign that no-one wants the growth hormone rBGH used in milk production, not even the company that makes it," said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. "In the last year we've seen retailers including Walmart, Kroger, and Starbucks fall like dominoes in the race to meet consumer demand for artificial growth hormone-free milk. "

Food & Water Watch contends that the last several attempts by Monsanto to salvage rBGH's profitability have been underhanded. Just last month, a widely publicized study came out with the claim that rBGH was good for the environment. Much coverage of the study failed to note that the lead researcher was in fact a Monsanto consultant and another researcher was the company's technical manager for rBGH.

"RBGH is not used by small-eco-friendly farms. The artificial hormone has contributed to the growth of mega-dairy operations that cram together thousands of cows generating mountains of waste that are toxic to us and to our environment," explained Hauter.

At the same time Monsanto tried to fix the image of rBGH, the company has been trying to limit consumer information on the artificial hormone. Faced with consistent resistance in the marketplace and a failed attempt to get the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to restrict "rBGH-free" labels even more, through the group AFACT, Monsanto started going to state governments to limit "artificial hormone-free" labels.

"Monsanto has been urging state agriculture departments and Governors to deny consumers the right to whether or not rBGH was used on their milk and that threat is very real no matter who is manufacturing the hormone," continued Hauter.

In Ohio, the consumer opposition to limiting labels was simply ignored by the state agriculture department. Using a Freedom of Information Act request, Food & Water Watch obtained all official comments submitted to the agency. Of the handful of supporters of the rule, every single one of them was connected to the dairy industry, meaning they had a financial stake in the outcome of the rule.

"The bottom line is this is another victory for consumers against artificial hormones in milk," concluded Hauter.

Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer rights organization that challenges the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources. The fact sheet rBGH: Anything But Green can be found at www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/foodsafety/dairy/rbgh-not-green

CONTACT: Food & Water Watch
Patty Lovera or Erin Greenfield
+ 1 202 683 2500

India: Sheep death: no test for Bt toxin done

The Hindu, 7 August 2008. By R. Prasad.

"The facility for detection and estimation of Bt toxin is presently not available with us," notes the diagnostic report dated March 3, 2008 of the Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI), Izatnagar, U.P.

And by stating its inability to test for Bt toxin, the institute has confirmed the worst fears about how genetically modified crops are tested for biosafety in the country.

IVRI is one of the main institutes for testing samples to know the possible cause of death in sheep. It is also required to test tissue samples of dead sheep sent by NGOs.

The story of the institute coming out in the open about its inability to test Bt toxin started last year. It started when hundreds of sheep started dying in 2007 in two districts of Andhra Pradesh after grazing in Bt cotton fields.

Results awaited

The IAVI had conducted limited studies on goats and rats that were fed on Bt cotton leftovers. Though no untoward clinical effects were seen, the "histopathological studies in laboratory rats are under process," it noted in its letter to the GEAC in June last year. The minutes of the 78th meeting of GEAC (held in June 2007) also make a mention of this.

The minutes of the 82nd GEAC meeting held on January 11 this year noted: "analytical reports received from the IVRI Izatnagar and Department of Animal Husbandry, Hyderabad, have confirmed that sheep death in AP cannot be attributed to Bt cotton."

Death confirmation

While the minutes of the Januray, 2008 meeting note that a representative of the State Department of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, had confirmed the cause of death in the sub-committee meeting held the same day, it is silent on how the IVRI confirmed the findings.

In February, Dr. Sagari R. Ramdas, Director of Anthra, Secunderabad, under the Right To Information (RTI) Act required IVRI to share any reports and analytical studies on domestic animals grazing/feeding on Bt cotton plants. It also wanted the institute to share the reports sent to the GEAC.

No information

The IVRI's reply of February 25 did not help the GEAC cause. It noted that "Animal Nutrition Division has conducted no experiment on grazing or feeding of Bt plants." It also noted that "no information on these aspects has been provided to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee by the Animal Nutrition Division."

And to make sure that no other Department of IVRI had sent any reports, Dr. Ramdas of Anthra under the RTI Act required the GEAC to provide copies of reports submitted to it by the AP Animal Husbandry Department and the IVRI.

The reports provided by the GEAC make a mockery of biosafety testing. It has provided Dr. Ramdas in March this year nothing but the June 2007 letter from IVRI to the GEAC wherein IVRI had stated that the "histopathological studies in laboratory rats are under process."

No mention is made of any histopathological studies being conducted on goats fed with cotton leftovers! And the letter from the AP Animal Husbandry Department clearly stated that "the results of gossypol and Bt protein analysis are awaited."

And there is no document to prove, as the minutes of 82nd meeting of GEAC in January claim, that the Animal Husbandry Department had indeed confirmed in the sub-committee meeting that the cause of death cannot be attributed to Bt cotton!

It may be recalled that it was based on these same documents, which were provided to Dr. P.M. Bhargava, the Supreme Court nominee to the GEAC, that the minutes of the 83rd meeting of GEAC in April this year noted "ð sheep death might be due to high content of nitrares/nitritesð and not that of Bt toxin."

In March this year, three sheep were ill and one died in Medak district, AP. "I sent the plant samples and sheep samples after a post mortem as per the IVRI requirements," said Dr. Ramdas. "And I specifically requested them to test for presence or absence of Bt protein in the samples."

The plant samples were tested for nitrites/nitrates and alkaloids and the sheep samples were tested for heavy metals, nitrite/nitrate, alkaloids etc. The samples have been tested for everything but Bt protein.

The post mortem results obtained by Dr. Ramdas through another RTI finally helped reveal the institute's inability to detect and estimate Bt toxin in the samples.

Is there at least a slim chance that the facility at IVRI to detect and estimate Bt toxin which is "presently" not available, was indeed in place earlier?

"We have the facility to test for Bt toxin. The samples sent [by Anthra] were not proper," Prof. R.S. Chauhan, Joint Director of IVRI told to this Correspondent.

This contradicts the institute's response to Anthra. Dr. Chauhan could not provide a convincing answer. And if the samples were not proper, it is not known how IVRI tested for other parameters.

Comment from GM Watch:

For anyone who's failed to follow this extraordinary saga, the key point is that following concern over the large number of sheep that had died after grazing in Bt cotton fields, India's apex GM regulatory body - the GEAC - gave Bt cotton a clean bill of health, declaring in its minutes: "analytical reports received from the IVRI Izatnagar and Department of Animal Husbandry, Hyderabad, have confirmed that sheep death in AP [Andhra Pradesh] cannot be attributed to Bt cotton."

But now it's emerged that IVRI had - in its own words: "conducted no experiment on grazing or feeding of Bt plants" and "no information on these aspects has been provided to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee."

And this isn't the only instance of GEAC claims not matching up with the facts.

6 August 2008

India: Bt cotton scare grips farmers, 120 goats perish

Express News Service, August 6 2008.

Orissa, Balangir: The scare of Bt cotton has come real and in a cruel way. Around 120 goats died after consuming Bt cotton leaves cultivated in Patnagarh sub-division on Sunday. Bt cotton is banned though its seeds are illegally available in the State.

Police have detained one Shankar Deep who had taken on lease the land for cultivation of Bt cotton and have registered an FIR.

Goats in two villages ó Kuthurla and Nandupala ó under Khaprakhol block didn't return home in the evening after grazing on the nearby land.

Villagers say that the goats died after chewing Bt cotton leaves. The goats were found fainting in the area where they ate Bt cotton leaves. On postmortem, it was found that all the goats had Bt cotton leaves in their stomach.

Chief District Veterinary Officer (CDVO) Dr D.D. Panda said the goats were found to have been poisoned by organo phosphorous, a strong pesticide. In fact, two persons, who nursed the goats, have been admitted to hospital.

Goats were fainting and their condition suddenly worsened. There is a possibility that they were deliberately poisoned by sprinkling organo phosphorous on the grazing field in heavy amount. The chemical is used to protect cotton.

'There were leaves inside their stomach, but that may not be the only reason. The spleen of goats has been sent to Animal Disease Research Institute. We can conclude the reason after chemical analysis of spleen is done,' he said.

Last month, some voluntary organisations had campaigned in the area to convince farmers about the impact of Bt cotton. It is alleged that some unscrupulous agents have been pushing for the sale of Bt cotton seeds in that area despite ban.

Field trials of Bt cotton are being undertaken since 2002-03. Despite denial by the State Government, Living Farm, an NGO, has alleged that attempts were being made to introduce Bt cotton in the State with the false promise to farmers that it will result in increased yields.

USA: Monsanto Looks to Sell Dairy Hormone Business

New York Times, 6 August 2008. By Andrew Martin and Andrew Pollack.

After struggling to gain consumer acceptance, Monsanto on Wednesday announced that it would try to sell its business of producing an artificial growth hormone for dairy cows. The company will focus instead on its thriving business of selling seeds and developing ways to improve crops.

The decision comes as more retailers, saying they are responding to consumer demand, are selling dairy products from cows not treated with the artificial hormone.

Wal-Mart, Kroger and Publix are among the retailers that now sell house-brand milk from untreated cows. Almost all of the fresh milk sold by Dean Foods, the nation's largest milk bottler, also comes from cows that were not treated with the artificial hormone, a spokeswoman said.

Monsanto officials said the decision was not related to the retail trend and that business for the artificial hormone, sold under the brand name Posilac, remained brisk. Monsanto, which is based in St. Louis and is the only commercial manufacturer of the hormone, declined to provide sales numbers.

Selling Posilac "will allow Monsanto to focus on the growth of its core seeds and traits business while ensuring that loyal dairy farmers continue to receive the value of Posilac in their operations," Carl Casale, Monsanto's executive vice president for strategy and operations, said in a statement.

The growth hormone, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1993, was one of the first applications of genetic engineering used in food production. When the artificial hormone, which is made in genetically modified bacteria, is injected into cows, it increases milk production by about a gallon a day. A 2007 survey by the Department of Agriculture said 17 percent of the nations dairy cows were receiving it.

Despite the government's approval, many advocacy groups have long maintained that Posilac is bad for the health of cows. Some even claim it could pose a cancer risk in people, though little scientific evidence has emerged to support that view. Their concerns have been fueled by the refusal of many countries, including Canada and members of the European Union, to permit the use of the hormone.

"I think they saw the handwriting on the wall and gave up," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington. "It's a major victory for consumers."

Mr. Kimbrell said the original idea of marketing a growth hormone for milk production was flawed because milk is so emblematic of childhood. Fear of the effects of the artificial hormone was one of the primary drivers behind the growth of the organic dairy industry, he said.

But Elena Gonser, a dairy farmer in Everson, Wash., contended that consumers had been misled by misinformation. She added that Posilac, which is also known as bovine somatotropin or BST, was safe and effective.

"I believe it's just catering to ignorance to tell people it's BST-free, and it's better for you," said Ms. Gonser, who along with her husband runs a farm that has 70 cows.

But she added: "I'm not surprised to find they want to step back from it. It's gotten a bad rap for so long."

Monsanto's announcement comes after a year of pitched battles over labeling on dairy packages. A year ago, Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to persuade federal officials to crack down on labels that say the milk has been produced without the hormone, arguing that milk from treated cows was the same as that from untreated cows.

In the months since, a Monsanto-backed advocacy group and a handful of dairy organizations have struggled to have similar laws or regulations passed at the state level. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the secretary of agriculture banned the labels, only to have his order overturned by the governor amid a consumer uproar.

Monsanto will continue to sell and market the product until a buyer is found, said Christie Chavis, who leads commercial development and strategy for the company's animal agriculture business unit. Posilac is sold in 20 countries.

Ms. Chavis said that the artificial hormone was safe and also good for the environment, saying that it takes fewer cows and less resources to produce the same volume of milk.

Jim Werkhoven, a dairy farmer in Monroe, Wash., said he was disappointed when he learned of the move on Wednesday from a Monsanto industrial relations executive.

"I certainly understand from a business perspective why they may be doing this," he said. "At the end of the day, the customer is going to be the one that sets the rules, and at the end of the day, it's going to be the customer that pays the price."

Exposed: Europe's GM-Hype in Times of Food and Fuel Crisis

Institute of Science in Society press release, 6 August 2008. By Claire Robinson.

Pro-GM brigade at large in the food and fuel crisis

The pro-GM brigade has been losing no time in exploiting the current global food and fuel crisis and the high price of animal feed to promote GM as the solution in the mainstream media. An offensive was launched on the European Union (EU) to relax its policy on GM imports and cultivation. At present only one GM crop, a GM maize, is approved for cultivation in Europe. The European Commission department of agriculture has joined forces with the biotech industry and the animal feed industry in claiming that it is the EU's GM policy that is harming Europe's livestock industry.

Leading the charge of the pro-GM brigade in Europe is Britain, in its role as chief ally of the largest GM exporter, the United States. The UK Independent reported that, [1] "Ministers are preparing to open the way for genetically modified crops to be grown in Britain on the grounds that they could help combat the global food crisis." The main source quoted in the article is environment minister Phil Woolas. The night before promoting the GM agenda, the article said, Woolas held talks with the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, a biotech industry PR group representing Monsanto, Bayer, BASF, Dow, Pioneer (DuPont), and Syngenta. This industry lobby group is run by Lexington Communications, a PR agency intimately connected to the New Labour government [2]. The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has fallen in line, calling on the EU to relax its rules on importing GM animal feed in order to cut spiralling food prices [3]. In addition, a new report by the UK Cabinet Office on the food and feed crises focuses almost exclusively on the role of the EU's GMO regulations in creating delays for GM feed crop approvals [4].

Critics say that such scaremongering is a cynical attempt to force the EU to drop its "zero tolerance" approach to GM and GM-contaminated imports. Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said at UK's National Farmers Union (NFU) conference [5], "I think the debate about higher prices and being able to meet the demand of people in the world for food is a perfect opportunity to make the case [for GMO crops]... We may have a window of opportunity here and I would encourage you to exploit that."

President of European Commission at the heart of EU's pro-GM lobby

Industry lobbyists hoping to convince Europe to go down the GM route face an uphill battle, at least, as far as democracy prevails. Most EU member states and their elected representatives in the EU Parliament remain sceptical of GM crops. Votes by ministers from the member states on applications for their import or cultivation regularly oppose GM applications, but not with a sufficient majority to finally block the approval. The technical name for this type of majority decision in Eurospeak is an 'unqualified majority'. In such cases, the decision reverts to the unelected European Commission.

The Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, is at the heart of the EU's pro-GM lobby. Reports have emerged that Barroso is trying to get member states to agree on GMOs behind closed doors, so that there are no more unqualified majorities [6]. Barroso is also trying to find a way to lift Europe's "zero tolerance" policy and smooth the way for the entry of GMOs into Europe [7, 8]. The Commission has already announced that a decision on animal feed imports and EU GM approvals and laws will be reached this summer. A group of MEPs on the agriculture and environment, public health and food safety committees has written a letter to Barroso expressing concern at [9] "reports that the Commission is deliberately trying to find ways to avoid a co-decision process, thus excluding MEPs, the elected representatives of European citizens, from any decisions on this issue."

The pro-GM lobby, including influential people within the European Commission, claims that Europe must open the doors to GMOs in order to solve the food and feed crisis; but there is little basis to the claim.

No evidence that GM crops will solve the food and fuel crisis

Most of the EU's animal feed comes from Brazil and Argentina, which are careful to grow only those varieties of feed, both GM and non-GM, that are approved in the EU, so as not to harm their export markets [10]. An article in the Financial Times quotes a Brazilian diplomatic source saying, "We produce to satisfy our clients. We are not going to produce something they are not going to buy." The article goes on to say that neither Argentina nor Brazil share the "apocalyptic" scenario currently being put forward by the biotech and livestock industries and intensive farmers [11].

Such scaremongering ignores the well-known fact that GM crops have at best, variable impacts on yields and are therefore not a solution to the food crisis, as was confirmed by the recent IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) report on the future of agriculture [12].

More importantly, it ignores the fact that the major cause of the food and feed crisis is not European GM policy, but the rush to biofuels. Even the World Bank has now confirmed what NGOs have been saying ever since the notion of a food crisis was first mooted, that the Bush-subsidised ethanol boom (with the EU's agrofuel boom following in its wake) is by far the single most important factor in creating the food crisis that is driving 100m people worldwide below the poverty line. The report, which has not been published but was leaked to the UK's Guardian newspaper, says biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75 percent. The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3 percent to food-price rises. Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George W. Bush [13].

The irony is that exactly the same people who created this disaster by promoting the rush into agrofuels are now promoting a rush for GMOs as the solution. It is this hype that the European Commission and British politicians appear to be swallowing, without being honest about the vested interests at stake.

Monsanto does a complete about-turn on GMOs being needed to feed the world

And here's another irony. The truth about GMOs as the solution to the global food crisis is not coming from politicians but from industry itself. Previously, in the face of growing global opposition, Monsanto has long proclaimed that GM crops are vital for feeding a hungry world, while critics countered that the food is there and that distribution is the key to tackling hunger. But as opposition to biofuels is rising in Europe and even in the US on the grounds that they are not a solution to climate change and are contributing to the food crisis, Monsanto is now keen to defend the biofuels gravy-train that sent food prices sky-rocketing, and the company's spin has suddenly gone into complete reverse.

The ethanol boom may be pushing millions towards starvation and hundreds of millions deeper into poverty, but, says Monsanto's chief technology officer Rob Fraley [14], "From a production perspective, we have abundance [of food]". Fraley now says the "challenges" are in distribution and access to food because of wealth distribution, in other words, poverty.

Fraley made his pitch at the launch of a new multi-million dollar lobby group for ethanol, the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy, that Monsanto has helped set up. There could be no clearer demonstration that Monsanto's concern has never been feeding the hungry; its leading role in the ethanol lobby shows that the hungry can happily starve, just so long as it's good for the company's bottom line.

Given that industry has revealed the truth behind its biofuels agenda, is it too much to ask of Europe's politicians that they should be equally honest about the vested interests behind the hyping of GM crops?

Claire Robinson is an editor at GMWatch www.gmwatch.org

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members' website. Details here http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.php

An electronic version of this report with full references, can be downloaded for a donation of GBP3.50. Download.

USA: Cloned Beef Has Already Entered U.S. Food Supply, Even Before FDA Nod

NaturalNews, 6 August 2008. By David Gutierrez

The major cattle cloning companies in the United States have admitted that they have not bothered to try and keep meat from the offspring of clones out of the U.S. food supply, in spite of a request by the FDA several years ago.

"This is a fairy tale that this technology is not being used and is not already in the food chain," said Donald Coover, who owns a specialty cattle semen business. "Anyone who tells you otherwise either doesn't know what they're talking about, or they're not being honest."

Coover admitted that for several years, he has been openly selling semen from cloned bulls. He is sure, he added, that others are doing the same.

The revelation came as the FDA approved cloned beef as safe for human consumption but the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) asked farmers to keep it out of the food supply anyway.

The USDA's primary concern is that if cloned beef enters the U.S. food supply, other countries might refuse to purchase beef from the United States. Similar problems have emerged in the past with genetically modified U.S. crops being rejected, particularly in Europe but also in parts of Africa, Asia and the Americas. Insiders from agencies such as the USDA and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative noted that a product that no other country wants to buy might do the United States more harm than good.

The USDA's request for a moratorium on cloned beef is meant to give time for "an acceptance process" that will be needed "given the emotional nature of this issue."

A survey by the International Food Information Council Foundation found that 22 percent of U.S. residents surveyed had a favorable impression of cloned meat in 2007, as opposed to 16 percent in 2006. Approximately 50 percent had a negative impression of such food.

The FDA has rejected calls to require the labeling of food produced from cloned animals.

Puppies of hero pit bull Booger are world's first commercial clones

The Times (UK), 6 August 2008.

A dog is not just for Christmas, or even for life. If you've got the cash, it could be for eternity.

South Korean biotechnologists have engineered a pet resurrection that, until recently, seemed commercially impossible: they have reunited a Californian woman with her dearest friend - or, at least, genetic copies derived from the frozen remains of his ear.

More than GBP25,000 the poorer but weeping with joy, Bernann McKinney, 57, became the world's first paying customer yesterday in the strange new industry of canine cloning.

Held in her arms was a quintet of newborn puppies, genetically identical not only with each other but with the late, lamented Booger, a pitbull terrier who died of old age two years ago.

Declaring the whole affair a "miracle", Ms McKinney said: "They are perfectly the same as their daddy. I am in heaven here. I am a happy person."

Ms McKinney paid a high financial price for the reunion. Even at the knockdown fee offered to her as a first-time cloner, she had to sell her house to meet the cost.

"I had to make sacrifices and I dream of the day, some day, when everyone can afford to clone their pet, because losing a pet is a terrible, terrible loss to anyone," she said.

After ten years of happy companionship, Ms McKinney felt the loss of Booger keenly. This was, after all, a ferociously loyal hound who had once saved her life by fending off an attacking mastiff.

Ms McKinney's hand and legs were savaged in the attack and, she said, it was only via Booger's loyal assistance - fetching her clothes and shoes, bringing her cans of drink and opening doors - that she was able to make it through the long months of recuperation.

The mastiff, another of Ms McKinney's pets, had been driven mad by being given ten times the recommended dose of medication for a bee sting, she said. She has told US media how the animal attacked her outside her remote farmhouse, shredding her left arm up to the elbow, tearing one of her legs and nearly ripping the fingers off her right hand.

He was chewing at her stomach when she said she called out: "Help me, God. Help me, Jesus. Help me, Booger," and the smaller dog succeeded in driving off the mastiff long enough for her to drag herself into the safety of her car.

Ms McKinney, a former beauty queen, had to undergo many episodes of reconstructive surgery and was confined to a wheelchair for months.

The world of pet cloning is not free from scandal. The cloning operation was undertaken by RNL Bio, a company working with scientists at Seoul National University and which announced yesterday that it was open for dog-cloning business worldwide.

It was in the university's laboratories that, to the joy of South Koreans, the world's first cloned dog was born in 2005: an Afghan hound named Seoul National University Puppy, or Snuppy.

Since then, other dogs have been cloned without charge; copies of the best police sniffer dogs have been born in recent months and have begun their training with the South Korean customs service.

Not long after the birth of Snuppy, however, Hwang Woo Suk, the genetic engineer regarded as a national hero, was forced out of the university in disgrace. After triumphing with dog cloning he had moved on to work in human embryonic stem cells; unfortunately, parts of his research were exposed as fraudulent and he left for the United States. Mr Hwang now works for BioArts International, a company that is fighting RNL Bio over claims of patent infringement.

RNL Bio said that it could clone up to 300 dogs next year and would consider cloning camels for wealthy Middle Eastern clients.

The cloning of Booger realises a commercial dream that began more than ten years ago. In 1997, when Scottish scientists cloned Dolly the sheep, biotech laboratories around the world began to explore which other animals might be reproduced. A number of species worked well, but dogs present peculiar obstacles because of their unpredictable ovulation cycle and difficulties extracting a mature egg.

In California, entrepreneurs now involved with RNL Bio's main rival in the dog-cloning field set up a company called Genetic Savings and Clone. Despite producing a few cloned cats, it folded only months before the birth of Snuppy, citing the difficulties that it had encountered in cloning dogs.

Have your say [comments on the site]:

The greatest tribute she could have paid to the memory of her beloved Booger (a rescued dog apparently) would have been to rescue another dog(s) from the thousands of high kill shelters/pounds that currently exist in the United States. This woman is not an animal lover - she's just plain selfish!
Kim, Los Angeles, USA

Well as far as cloning a lost loved one, i wouldnt have a problem being cloned after i died. But seriously, i see no problem with cloned pets, if a person can afford it and its what they want. If there is a market for it then the industry will survive and if it survives people want it [same could be said for hired assassins, elephant tusks or weapons of mass destruction! - ed].
David Hagenbaigh, Wilkes-Barre, USA

Ridiculous. Why could she not keep her home and adopt a pound puppy or two? Those poor little animals only want a home and some love. Instead she clones? Lady, life is life. We live, we die. So do dogs, horses, cats. How sad that she can't move forward.
Julie, Atlanta, USA

Australia: NSW Farmers refuse to bid for GM halt

The Land, 6 August 2008. By Alan Dick.

FARMERS concerned about the impact of genetically modified (GM) canola have failed to gain support for a bid to put commercial production of the crop on hold.

An urgency motion to NSW Farmers Association's annual conference last week sought to stall commercial cropping of GM canola until governments develop and impose adequate conditions and protocols for co-existence with conventional canola.

The conference rejected that motion but later carried another urging governments to protect farmers who want to grow conventional canola from any costs arising from cross-contamination, liability, segregation and any other detrimental issues associated with commercial production of genetically modified (GM) canola.

That motion was carried by 93 votes to 64 and was supported by another conference call for transparent labelling of GM ingredients in all imported and domestic products, including livestock.

In a see-sawing debate on the controversial GM issue NSW Farmers also backed a motion that it inform its members and consumers of the known and potential benefits of GM technology in food crops, and of the role the Office of Gene Technology Regulator and Food Standards Australia and New Zealand in protecting the health and safety of people and the environment.

The NSW Government this year ended its moratorium on the commercial production of GM canola but only small quantities are being grown this year.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

The New South Wales Farmers Association rejects their own members' call for a government ban on GM crops while demanding that the government - i.e. taxpayers (including themselves) - foot the bill for the inevitable contamination that will result. Monsanto is laughing all the way to the bank!