NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • February 2008

2008: Jan • Feb • March
2007: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sept • 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 at www.gmfreeireland.org/news.feed1.php

29 February 2008

Biotech Industry Escapes Responsibility for its GM Crops in England but Not in Wales

GeneWatch UK, Press Release, 29 February 2008

If genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cause damage to our rare and protected wildlife, neither the state nor the biotech companies will have to clean up such damage under proposed new legislation to transpose the EU Environmental Liability Directive. Today, the UK government has launched its second consultation on the Directive. Despite more than a decade of public concern over the environmental impacts of GM crops the government has sent a clear signal to Biotech companies that they don't have to take responsibility for their products.

Under the proposals, biotechnology companies who cause damage to protected wildlife will be able to avoid responsibility by claiming that current science had not foreseen that specific damage and that they had been granted a permit to release the GMO into the environment. This reasoning will also be open for use by many other types of regulated businesses, for example the waste and chemical industries. In order for them to be held liable it will have to be shown that they broke conditions of their permit.

GeneWatch welcomed the proposals by the Welsh Assembly Government who in contrast to England will not allow such defenses. In the draft legislation for Wales, Biotech companies will be liable should protected habitats be damaged.

In the late 1990s the UK government was poised to allow commercial planting of GM crops. It was only through enormous public opposition that scientific studies were extended and the damage that could be caused by some GM crops was exposed. "The current regulations governing the release of these GM crops do not require such extensive studies to be carried out and yet companies will be able to hide behind these regulations if something goes wrong" said Becky Price of GeneWatch UK. We strongly support Wales in its acknowledgement of the uncertainty around these crops and that they are upholding the 'polluter pays' principle, which is the aim of this legislation.

GeneWatch welcomes the extension of the European Directive to include some of England's most important nature protection areas, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), in the scope of the draft regulations. However, Government proposals still exclude many of the UK's rare priority species protected by Government action plans, including red squirrels, water voles and scarce farmland birds.

'The inclusion of SSSIs in this legislation is a fantastic step in the right direction, but there is a lot of scope for the Government to really support the existing environmental priorities in this country through this law, and only some of the opportunities are being used', said Sandy Luk GeneWatch's legal expert on environmental liability .

Contacts:

Sandy Luk, eppac limited: 07879 655779;
Becky Price, GeneWatch UK 07949 396328

Notes to editors:

Full details of the consultation are at
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/env-liability-regs/index.htm

The Environmental Liability Directive was passed, despite much controversy, as a result of a series of environmental disasters, starting with a dioxin leak from a herbicide plant in Seveso, Italy, in July 1976, and culminating in the Erica and Prestige tanker oil spills in 2000 and 2002, and a toxic zinc mine spill in the DoÒana area of southern Spain in April 1998, which all had devastating effects on the environment and killed sometimes hundreds of thousands of birds, fish and other animals.

The Government's first consultation identified a number of measures in the Regulatory Impact Assessment, which, if introduced, would strengthen environmental protection and provide an overall benefit to society, for example the inclusion of SSSIs in the legislation. However, despite this the Government at the time was opposed to all such measures , as it favoured a so-called ëminimum implementation approach'.

Currently, 20% per cent of land designated as a SSSI in England is classified as being in unfavourable condition by Natural England. In addition, 35% is said to be unfavourable but recovering. Some of the main reasons for the adverse condition of SSSIs include overgrazing, moor burning, drainage and water pollution.

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 gives some protection to Government (biodiversity) action plan habitats and species, but it does not provide for protected rights that can be enforced if they are attacked (for example if habitats or species are damaged through a pollution incident).

GMOs in Africa: food and agriculture: 2007 status report
Is Africa rejecting genetic engineering in food and agriculture?

Authors: S. Moola; V. Munnik
Publisher: African Centre for Biosafety, 2007

Full text of document : http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/portal/images/ACB/gmos_in_africa.pdf

This booklet outlines recent key trends, developments and actors in the debate on genetic engineering (GE) in food and agriculture in Africa. It also highlights a number of the key talking points including the harmonisation of bio-safety legislation, the new green revolution in Africa, and genetic diversity.

It is argued that more than 10 years have passed since Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) were first commercialised in the world, yet out of more than 50 African countries, only South Africa has explicitly taken bio-safety decisions to authorise the commercial cultivation and importation of GMOs for the purposes of food, feed and processing.

Key points highlighted throughout recent trends include:

•

several African countries such as Sudan, Angola and Zambia have fiercely resisted receiving GM food aid, precipitating reforms in food aid policies internationally

•

the GM push in Africa has recorded several significant setbacks and failures, with Florence Wambugu's GM sweet potato in Kenya and the Gates Foundation's GM sorghum in South Africa being the most prominent

•

this rejection represents a huge set back for crucial components of the ëNew Green Revolution in Africa' push, which is heavily funded by the Gates Foundation

•

2007 has not been a good year for GE in South Africa. The first ever GM cassava field trials also faced the thumbs down from the South African regulatory authorities

•

while the GE lobby has waged a heavily resourced battle for acceptance of GMOs, public reaction has in many instances been hostile. The media has been extremely critical of GMOs in countries such as Kenya, Zambia and South Africa.

USA: Agricultural trade squeals

Washington Times, Commentary, 29 February 2008. By By Henry I. Miller / Gregory Conko.

European Union officials adamantly refuse to let the World Trade Organization save them from themselves.

Despite a 2005 WTO ruling that some European countries were breaking international trade rules by prohibiting the importation of gene-spliced, or "genetically modified (GM)," crops and foods, Europe remains recalcitrant, unrepentant ó and on the verge of slaughtering its own livestock industry.

European Union agriculture ministers failed yet again Monday to permit imports of five biotech crops intended for animal feed, causing a group that represents European farmers to warn that without greater use of gene-spliced crops, the livestock industry could be decimated.

European shortages of grain for animal feed and soaring prices ó caused by both the rejection of gene-spliced grains and the diversion of corn to production of ethanol for fuel ó are causing panic among livestock producers. Pig and poultry farmers have been forced to reduce their output, while consumer consumption is down because of higher prices.

Although the WTO bluntly scolded the EU for imposing a moratorium on gene-spliced crop approvals from 1998 to 2004, that finding was a foregone conclusion. European politicians, including then-EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem, had acknowledged that the moratorium was "an illegal, illogical, and otherwise arbitrary line in the sand."

The WTO also made clear that national bans on certain gene-spliced foods in Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, and Luxembourg were blatant violations both of those countries' treaty obligations and EU rules, but the European Commission has been impotent in persuading its rogue members to conform to EU policies. Not only are most of those national bans still in place, but last October, French President Nicolas Sarkozy instituted a new moratorium on the commercial cultivation of gene-spliced corn.

The most important victory for the United States and its partners was the WTO's judgment that the European Commission failed to abide by its own regulations by "undue delaying" of approvals for 25 gene-spliced food products. The culprit here was (and is) the EC's highly politicized, sclerotic, two-stage approval process: Each application first must be cleared for marketing by various scientific panels, and then voted on by politicians, who routinely contravene the scientific decisions.

As the WTO pointed out, the relevant EC scientific committees had recommended approval of all 25 product applications. But, for transparently political reasons rather than concerns about consumer health or environmental protection, EU politicians repeatedly refused to sign off on the final approvals.

It is important to remember that these are superior products made with state-of-the art technology that is both more precise and predictable than other techniques for the genetic improvement of plants. The safety and importance of gene-splicing technology have been endorsed by dozens of scientific bodies around the world, including the French Academies of Science and Medicine, U.K. Royal Society, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, American Medical Association, and many others.

The good news is that the WTO chastised the European Union for failing to follow its own regulatory rules. The bad news is the absence from the panel report of any condemnation of those rules themselves, though they are blatantly unscientific and impose gratuitous regulation and clear violations of WTO-enforced trade treaties.

Under various of those treaties, member countries are free to enact any level of environmental or health regulations they choose ó so long as (1) every such regulation is based on the results of a risk analysis showing some legitimate risk exists and (2) the degree of regulation is proportional to that risk.

Every risk analysis by countless scientific bodies worldwide has shown that the splicing of new genes into plants, per se, introduces no incremental risks. A 2001 European Commission report summarizing the conclusions of 81 different EU-funded research projects spanning 15 years concluded that, because gene-spliced plants and foods are made with highly precise and predictable techniques, they are at least as safe as and often safer than their conventional counterparts.

In 2003, then-EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Affairs David Byrne acknowledged that the official European Commission position was that currently marketed gene-spliced crop varieties posed no greater food safety or environmental threat than the corresponding conventional food varieties.

None of this has translated into more enlightened decisions on either policy or individual products, however (although over the last few years the EU has approved a small, token number of gene-spliced product applications in order to pretend its regulatory apparatus is now in compliance with the WTO ruling).

By requiring extraordinary testing procedures for an admittedly safer technology, the EU approach is not only disproportionate but manifests an inverse relationship between the degree of risk and amount of regulatory scrutiny. This is both absurd and illegal, but at a "background" briefing in February 2006, an unnamed "EU official" noted that, "[i]t is nevertheless clear, beyond any doubt, that the EU will not have to modify its [biotechnology] legislation and authorization procedures."

Because uncertainty is anathema to investment in costly research and development, few companies are likely to risk the tens of millions of dollars in regulatory costs needed to pursue each new agbiotech product in Europe. Even worse, the less developed nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America, which once anticipated that agricultural and food biotechnology could provide them a brighter and more self-sufficient future, will continue to be shut out of the important European market by policymakers' callous obstructionism.

Henry I. Miller, a physician and fellow at the Hoover Institution, headed the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Biotechnology in 1989-1993. Gregory Conko is director of food safety policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Barron's selected their book, "The Frankenfood Myth," as one of the 25 Best Books of 2004.

28 February 2008

First GMO seed scandal in Africa: South Africa contaminates the continent

African Centre for Biosafety media release, 28 February 2008.

Seed maize from South Africa, claiming to be pure, has been found to be contaminated with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The South African branch of US seed giant Pioneer Hi-Bred recently exported contaminated maize seeds to unsuspecting Kenyan farmers.

The maize seeds are contaminated with a genetically engineered variety-MON810- belonging to Monsanto that has not been approved in Kenya. GM maize MON 810 contains a novel gene that is considered unsafe and banned in several European countries.

The contamination of Kenyan seeds comes on the eve of a UN meeting that is tasked with developing internationally liability rules for genetically engineered products.

The contamination was detected by Greenpeace International, who, in cooperation with a coalition of several environmental and farmers' organisations in Kenya, commissioned tests of 19 different seed varieties that were bought in seed stores from key maize producing areas across the country. The tests, conducted by an independent European laboratory, revealed that Pioneer's seed maize PHB 30V53, sold in the Eldoret region of Kenya, is contaminated with MON 810 maize, a variant that is genetically engineered to be insect resistant.

"We call on all African national regulatory agencies to ban any import of seeds from companies that do not guarantee clean seeds that are free from genetic contamination," insists Mariam Mayet director of African Centre for Biosafety (ACB).

"Kenya now needs a strong biosafety bill that puts farmers' and consumer rights first, and we need mandatory international rules that ensure that polluters must pay for genetic contamination."

Some blame for this seed contamination scandal must also lie at the door of the South African government who has allowed the export of unapproved maize in the first place, she contends. "Maize is the most important staple crop in Kenya. Farmers and consumers in all countries, rich and poor, have the right to untainted, safe seeds and food."

Contact:

For further information, contact Mariam Mayet of the AFRICAN CENTRE FOR BIOSAFETY on 083 269 4309, Suite 3, 12 Clamart Street, Richmond, 2192 South Africa, or http://www.biosafetyafrica.net.

Issued on behalf of the African Centre for Biosafety by Michelle Nel on 011 615 4432 or 083 208 7902

Note:

From 12-19 March, in Cartagena, Colombia, governments will continue to negotiate international rules on liability for damages caused by GMOs. These negotiations take place under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Some developed countries such as the United States, Japan and New Zealand are opposing a global agreement on GMO liability. The continuing threats to developing country agriculture posed by GMO contamination, as evidenced by this latest contamination scandal, demonstrate the need for legally binding, global rules that ensure that polluters pay if anything goes wrong with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

In February 2008 the French government decided to ban the cultivation of Monsanto's maize MON 810. The French ban is based on several environmental concerns, such as the impossibility to prevent the dissemination of GM maize into the environment and the possibility of toxic effects on non target organisms, such as earthworms. Besides France four EU member states (Austria, Greece, Hungary and Poland) have banned the commercial growing of GM maize MON 810 on the basis of environmental and health concerns.

Commment by GM Watch:

This begins the fulfilment of the threat made by Emmy Simmons, assistant administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, to Prof. Phil Bereano after the cameras stopped rolling on a vigorous debate they had on South Africa TV, "In four years, enough GE crops will have been planted in South Africa that the pollen will have contaminated the entire continent." As Bereano notes, "Under the specious claims of 'free choice' for farmers, the industry will deny consumers all choice about whether to eat engineered genomes." www.commondreams.org/views02/1119-03.htm

Biotech industry impunity fuels global GE contamination spread
Most of the contamination involved such staple crops as rice and maize, but also included soy, cotton, canola, papaya and fish

Greenpeace, 28 February 2008.

AMSTERDAM -- Biotech companies are acting with impunity as cases of genetic engineering (1) contamination continue on a global scale, a new report launched today reveals, GM Contamination Register Report 2007, by Greenpeace International and GeneWatch UK, details 39 new instances of crop contamination in 23 countries over the past year.

Most of the contamination involved such staple crops as rice and maize, but also included soy, cotton, canola, papaya and fish. Since 2005, the GM Contamination Register has recorded 216 contamination events in 57 countries since GE crops were first grown commercially on a large scale in 1996.

This year's annual report on the Register is released on the same day a GE scandal in Kenya is exposed as Kenyan environmental and farmers' organisations confront the government and United States seed giant Pioneer Hi-Bred with evidence of GE-contaminated maize seed in their country, and Greenpeace activists in the Netherlands protest shipments of illegal GE-rice varieties to Rotterdam.

"The contamination documented in the report is just the tip of the iceberg. Genetic polluters must pay. If a company contaminates our food and our environment, it must pay for the clean-up, compensate farmers, traders and consumers. We need international liability standards under the Biosafety Protocol to hold biotech companies to account (2)," Greenpeace International agriculture campaigner Dr Doreen Stabinsky stressed.

In Kenya, Greenpeace, in cooperation with local organisations, commissioned independent tests of maize seed varieties sold commercially. Pioneer's seed maize PHB 30V53 was found to contain MON 810, a GE variety which has no approval for planting in Kenya and is banned in several European countries (3).

In the Netherlands, rice shipped from the US to Rotterdam (4) was found to be contaminated with GE varieties not permitted for consumption outside of the US. Greenpeace Netherlands' genetic engineering campaigner Marietta Harjono says Rotterdam harbour is one of the world's biggest "GE contamination hotspots", due to its role as first port of entry for much of the GE contaminated foodstuffs that enter Europe from the US.

"Ongoing GE contamination in the world's major food crops, particularly in rice and maize, shows genetic engineering companies are failing to keep control of their artificial genes. Without decisive government action, the world's food and seed supplies will be under threat," Stabinsky warned.

Notes:

1) Genetic engineering (GE) is also known as genetic modification (GM) or genetically modified organisms (GMO).

2) From 12-19 March, in Cartagena, Colombia, governments will continue to negotiate international rules on liability for damages caused by genetically engineered organisms. These negotiations take place under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Some developed countries such as the United States, Japan and New Zealand are opposing a global agreement on GE liability. The continuing threats to developing country agriculture posed by GE contamination, as evidenced by these latest contamination scandals, demonstrate the need for legally binding, global rules that ensure that polluters pay if anything goes wrong with GE.

3) Greenpeace, in cooperation with several environmental and farmers' organisations in Kenya, commissioned tests on 13 different seed varieties bought in seed stores across the country. The tests, conducted by an independent European laboratory, revealed Pioneer's seed maize PHB 30V53, sold in the Eldoret region of Kenya, is contaminated with MON 810 maize, a genetically engineered variant that is insect resistant. The contaminated seeds were produced by the South African branch of Pioneer. The GE seeds have no approval for planting in Kenya. All other varieties from both local and international seed companies were not contaminated.

In February 2008, the French government decided to ban the cultivation of Monsanto's maize MON 810 due to environmental concerns. These include the impossibility to prevent the spread of GE maize, and the possibility of toxic effects on non-target organisms, such as earthworms. France, Austria, Greece, Hungary and Poland have banned the commercial growing of GE maize MON 810 on the basis of environmental and health concerns.

4) Dutch authorities found illegal rice varieties in two shipments. Bayer's rice variety LLRICE62 was found in a batch of long grain parboiled brown rice shipped by Riceland Foods and Bayer LLRICE601 was found in a batch of long grain milled rice from shipper Riviana Foods. One of the shipments has since been returned to the US, the other remains at the port.

Non-GM Breakthroughs Leave GM Behind

Science in Society #37 - Spring 2008.

Non-GM breakthroughs keep coming thick and fast for problems that GM proponents claim require GM, but GM solutions, if any, are years away

From GM Watch: www.gmwatch.org

Does the mention of allergen-free peanut, salt-resistant wheat, beta-carotene rich sweet potato, and virus-resistant cassava make you think of GM? If so, you've missed the great unpublished story of 2007 ‚ all the non-GM answers to precisely the problems (drought-resistance, salt-resistance, biofortification, etc.) that proponents claim only GM can solve.

While GM 'miracle' stories win vast amounts of column inches in the popular media, the non-GM stories are seldom reported. Without the GM lobby's exaggerated crisis narratives and silver bullet solutions, it seems there is no story. The biotech industry and its PR people, of course, are keen to keep it that way; particularly as the non-GM solutions are often way ahead of the work on GM. They also bring with them none of the uncertainties over environmental and health hazards that surround GM.

Thanks to the lack of success of GM 'solutions', non-GM success stories can end up being claimed as GM breakthroughs. This happened most recently when the UK government's retiring chief scientist, David King, claimed an important non-GM breakthrough in Africa as evidence of why we need to embrace GM [1]. This tells us why we need to stop being distracted by GM and support the non-GM solutions to crop production problems.

Many organic successes have been covered in detail in this and previous issues of SiS (see for example, Message from Andra Predesh: Return to organic cotton & avoid the Bt cotton trap, SiS 29; Scientists Find Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World and More, and FAO Promotes Organic Agriculture, SiS 36; Organic & Sustainable series, SiS 37) [2-5]. Here are other examples over the past year.

Zambia gets better harvests from non-GM maize

Although drought-prone Zambia is still facing problems, huge improvements have been reported in its maize harvests ‚ its main staple crop. Production is reported to have changed dramatically after President Levy Mwanawasa took over from Frederick Chiluba in 2001. He promoted innovations such as mixed farming and conservation farming. Mwanawasa rejected GM maize and encouraged the growing of non-GM maize, resulting in bumper harvests for the past three years [6].

Ironically, when the Zambian government rejected GM maize in 2002 [7] (Africa Unites Against GM to Opt for Self-sufficiency, SiS 16), there were calls from the US Ambassador to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization for its leaders to be tried ìfor the highest crimes against humanity in the highest courts of the worldî [8].

Non-GM crop science gets GBP13 million boost in the UK

UK crop scientists have been awarded a GBP13.3m boost in funding to carry out research aimed at delivering benefits for farmers and consumers. Researchers say they will not be producing GM crops. Prof. David Pink at University of Warwick, Coventry, whose team has been awarded GBP500 000 to identify genes in broccoli that will extend its shelf life and maintain its nutritional value longer, said [9], "We are not going down that [GM] route because GM is not acceptable at the moment, and not acceptable to our plant breeding partner]."

GM drought-tolerant maize way behind non-GM methods

In March 2007, the South African authorities gave Monsanto permission to conduct GM drought-tolerant maize field trials in South Africa. The African Centre for Biosafety released a report on the issue, pointing out that drought tolerance GM maize is at least 8-10 years away from commercial release, and points out that traditional breeding, marker assisted selection, and building up organic content of the soil are proven and immediately available methods of dealing with drought [10]. Nevertheless GM drought-tolerant crops are being used as PR tools by biotech lobbyists to promote acceptance of GM crops, to expand existing markets and develop new markets.

New non-GM drought-resistant maize in the Philippines

Philippine scientist Dr Antonio Mercado at the University of Philippines Los Banos has developed a new non-GM maize variety that was able to survive a drought for 29 days [11].

Indigenous rice better than GM-rice at dealing with stress

Navdanaya, a New Delhi-based NGO headed by Vandana Shiva, together with farmers from nine Indian states, has developed a register of over 2 000 indigenous rice varieties. They say GM rice strains are not only costly to cultivate but also perform poorly compared to native strains in fighting pests, diseases and environmental fluctuations. Several indigenous rice strains adopted by the Indian farmers can withstand extremes of climatic conditions, survive submergence for a fortnight and even withstand salinity with great success [12].

New Non-GM maize a body blow to grain borer

The larger grain borer is taking a beating from CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre) breeders in Kenya, as a new non-GM African maize withstands the onslaught of one of the most damaging pests. CIMMYT researchers found resistance to the borer in the Centre's germplasm bank, in maize seed originally from the Caribbean [13]. The bank holds 25 000 native maize races.

Non-GM process for allergy-free peanuts

A researcher at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University has developed a simple non-GM process to make allergen-free peanuts. An estimated one percent of children in the United States suffer from the allergy. The inventor, Dr Mohamed Ahmedna, is optimizing the process further to remove allergens from other foods [14].

While we do not have enough information on the process to judge any potential downsides, it is noteworthy that a seemingly straightforward solution has been found to a problem that GM proponents claim requires the use of GM.

Non-GM salt-tolerant wheat to bring life to dead land

Scientists at Australia's Molecular Plant Breeding CRC are using marker assisted breeding to identify salt-tolerant wheat varieties which could allow farmers to crop agricultural land lost to salinity across Australia's wheat belt. Some 67 percent of the dryland cropping area in Australia is affected by salinity, resulting in meagre yields [15].

Scientists developed non-GM drought-tolerant canola species

Scientists based in Victoria, Australia, have developed a new species of drought tolerant canola that could make up to 1.5 million hectares of drought-prone farmland in Australia more productive and profitable. Traditional breeding and molecular marker assisted selection were used [16].

The breakthrough comes after pro-GM lobbyists persuaded the Australian states of Victoria and New South Wales to lift their moratorium on GM plantings, partly based on claims that GM would provide drought tolerant crops. However, Robert Horsch, Monsanto's vice president, has admitted that such crops are actually not so easy to develop, while Christopher Horner, another Monsanto spokesperson, has admitted such GM crops are years away from commercial production [17].

Gates Foundation supports non-GM biofortified sweet potato in Africa

Biofortification alliance HarvestPlus has received a US$ 6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to introduce a nutritionally improved orange sweet potato into the diets of the undernourished in East Africa. The orange sweet potato is rich in beta-carotene, an essential building block of vitamin A, which helps to prevent blindness [18].

According to a BBC report, only a "relatively small" amount of HarvestPlus's work in biofortification involves GM. Harvest Plus's Bonnie McClafferty said [19], "We've been able to experience great success in actually finding varieties to do conventional plant breeding with." Harvest Plus has recently announced the discovery of a new non-GM method of improving the vitamin A precursor content of maize [20].

Links to these and other non-GM success stories at: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8658, and http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7105

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, or any other ISIS report, with full references, can be sent to you via e-mail for a donation of GBP3.50. Please e-mail the title of the report to: report@i-sis.org.uk

The Philippines: NFA urged to hold distribution of rice recently shipped from US

GMANews.TV, 28 February 2008.

Subic Bay, Philippines - Environmental activist group Greenpeace is urging Philippine authorities to hold the distribution to the public of the rice shipped recently from the US until the grains are proven uncontaminated with genetically modified rice.

Greenpeace on Thursday said that the rice shipment, now being offloaded at a Subic Bay port, might be contaminated with genetically modified grains not yet proven to be safe for human consumption.

"The National Food Authority (NFA) must quarantine this shipment and run stringent tests based on European Union protocols before the rice is distributed to the public," said Daniel M. Ocampo, genetic engineering campaigner of Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

He said that the US and Philippine genetically modified organism testing procedures are unreliable as they require only a GMO test sample of 100 grams from 50,000 tons - one grain out of every 500 million grains.

In contrast, the EU procedure requires a minimum of 2.5-kilogram sample for testing, making it easier to detect the presence of GMO grains, Ocampo said.

Greenpeace said that from 2007 to 2008, 23 rice shipments from the US, obviously cleared by American authorities, were barred in the EU for GMO contamination.

In 2006, the group also revealed the presence of GMO-contaminated rice (Bayer's herbicide resistant LL601) from the US in supermarkets in Manila.

According to Ocampo, the finding even prompted the NFA to issue an order requiring imported rice to be free from GMOs. It also stopped the importation of the staple from the US since late 2006.

Ocampo also cited that Purefeeds, the distributor of American GMO-contaminated rice, had to recall the remaining stocks from store shelves and replaced it with rice from Thailand.

Bayer, the developer of GMO rice varieties that contaminated the US rice supply, is facing lawsuits from farmers and US rice traders whose combined losses are estimated to hit US$ 1.2 billion.

"Importing rice from the US exposes Filipinos to the inherent risks of GMOs on human health and threatens our staple food with genetic contamination," Ocampo said. - GMANews.TV

Ireland: Food Safety Authority

Irish Farmers Journal, 28 February 2008.

Letter to the editor:

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) would like to clarify that the letter by Grace Maher of the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association (February 25) incorrectly stated that Dr Con O'Rourke is employed by the FSAI. Dr O'Rourke is an independent plant scientist who previously worked with An Teagasc. He has not held any position with FSAI.

Jane Ryder
Press and PR Officer
Food Safety Authority of Ireland

Australia: Stock Journal poll: SA farmers say keep GM ban

North Queensland Register, 28 February 2008. By Paula Thompson.

Most of South Australia's graingrowers can see economic benefits from having access to genetically-modified crops but the majority would not support the moratorium on growing them lifted.

This is the result of a Rural Press Marketing Survey done exclusively for the Stock Journal.

Only 36pc of respondents supported the moratorium being lifted, with the strongest support coming from the Mid North and Yorke Peninsula. More than 54pc said they did not support lifting the ban.

But more than half of respondents believed having access to GM crops would offer economic benefits, and 49pc believed there would be agronomic benefits.

More than a third of those surveyed said they would grow them if given the choice but 49pc said they would not. More than 70pc of South East respondents said they would not grow GM crops.

More than half of the survey respondents believed growing GM crops would destroy the State's "clean, green" image, with 53pc thinking the east/west divide between States growing GMs and those resisting adoption of the technology would affect Australia's export markets in the long term.

There was a significant undecided vote in the survey, with 21pc unsure about whether there would be any economic benefits.

South Australian Farmers Federation grains council chairman, Peter Treloar, says a number of growers are concerned about market acceptance of GMs.

"This is what I would read into the survey results: growers are not yet convinced that consumers have accepted GM products," he says.

"The results suggest growers generally can see agronomic, environmental and economic benefits in growing GMs - but they still need to have their fears allayed in regard to consumer sentiment."

Mr Treloar says the federation wants the GM moratorium lifted in SA.

"The grains council has a policy looking to give growers choice, so given that we will be looking to demonstrate the benefits of lifting the moratorium to the government in the future," he says.

Australia: WA GM crop trial axed

North Queensland Register, 28 February 2008. By Colin Beetles.

[Western Australia's] first broadacre trial of genetically modified (GM) canola has been called off after seed companies refused to supply the seed to WA for the critical research project.

The 2.5ha trial was to be held at the Esperance Downs Research Station this season.

It was to be co-ordinated by the South-East Premium Wheat Growers Association (SEPWA) with the science co-ordinated by Kalyx Agriculture director, Peter Burgess.

It was intended that a small plot variety evaluation and the small plot agronomy trials would be used in conjunction with large-scale demonstration blocks to measure the performance of several different GM varieties compared to current grains.

However, the entire project was put on hold last week because of the unavailability of GM seed.

An application for a smaller variety-style trial was submitted by SEPWA to the WA Government last week.

The trial work, and subsequent information it will provide on the performance of GMs under local conditions, is considered essential to help counter the volume of campaigning from both pro-GM and anti-GM crusaders.

SEPWA president, Chris Reichstein, says he is expecting an answer for a new application in the next fortnight.

Mr Reichstein says the application to grow GM canola on a smaller trial site would make it easier to manage the research project in WA's current political climate.

He says a new application is needed because the GM seed companies have gone cold on supplying seed for the original broadacre trial, but this is not a big setback.

Mr Reichstein says SEPWA is now hoping the new GM trial will go ahead this season with some support from the seed companies.

– From Farm Weekly, WA's market leading weekly farming news package.

Australia: Victoria gets ready to lift GM crop ban

Crikey, 28 February 2008. By Katherine Wilson.

Victoria's ban on genetically modified (GM) food crops ends tomorrow ó and following widespread media exposure of the putative health and environmental hazards of GM food, chief scientist Gustav Nossal will be joined by three scientists for a media conference to brief journalists on "Which concerns [about GM food crops] are the most justified? Which risks can be managed and which can't?".

Yet tomorrow's briefing is "vested interests masquerading as public interest science," claims Greenpeace spokesperson Louise Sales. Comprising scientists who campaigned in support of lifting the bans, it was organised by the Australian Science Media Centre (AusSMC), which claims itself "free of bias". But absent are any independent scientists who warn of dangers of GM food, like biochemist and nutritionist Dr Rosemary Stanton OAM, or medical scientist Professor Stephen Leeder, or epidemiologist Dr Judy Carman, or crop research scientist Dr Maartan Stapper. There are many others.

Media Manager Lyndal Gully told Crikey in an email:

"There was no attempt to line up a panel with a particular GM viewpoint ... [but] if scientists on the panel are more likely to end up arguing with each other rather than answering journalists' questions, then there is a good chance that the science (that either side is trying to communicate) will be lost in the story."

Gene Ethics director Bob Phelps said the selected scientists "are speaking way outside their area of scientific expertise." But AusSMC CEO Susannah Eliot said the panel was chosen because "they have done the research and have the knowledge-base, and they are happy to be grilled by the media."

One panellist, Dr TJ Higgins, is CSIRO's co-inventor of the ill-fated GM field pea, abandoned because it caused lung-damage when fed to mice. His published claims that "there isn't a single piece of evidence that [GM food is] any less safe than conventional food" reportedly prompted the ire of environmental scientist Dr Brian John, who branded these claims "a lie." Experimental biologist Dr Arpad Puzstai also said "Most of Dr Higgins' comments are factually incorrect ... the final refuge of the incompetent."

Critics of second panelist Dr Chris Preston claim his published reviews ignore negative studies. Professor Rainer Mosenthin reportedly said Preston's methods should be disregarded as they "have limited scientific value".

And third panelist Professor Rick Roush reportedly failed to disclose his research funding by GM companies. Allegedly as a result, Science journal revised its disclosure policy, as it is recognised that industry-funded research tends to be much more industry-favourable than independent research.

Accusations don't amount to guilt ó and many anti-GM-food scientists also face public mud-slinging (including from some on this panel). This is the problem, says AusSMC's CEO Susannah Eliot. "The issue is so polarised it gets tricky to select a panel. Many scientists are happy to discuss the issues privately but aren't willing to speak publicly because they don't want to be labelled as pro- or anti-GM."

Disclosure: Katherine Wilson's family owns biotechnology shares, but she wrote a submission in support of a moratorium on GM food crops.

27 February 2008

USA: Multiple-Resistance Weeds: Coming to a Field near You?

Western Farmer Stockman, February 27 2008. By Mike Wilson mwilson@farmprogress.com.

Glyphosate-resistant weeds are on the rise says Kevin Bradley, weed scientist at University of Missouri, speaking at a Bayer CropScience meeting in Nashville this week.

Of even greater concern is that some weeds are becoming resistant to several modes of herbicide action à not just glyphosate.

"Glyphosate resistance is a concern and we want farmers to change their ways," says Bradley. "I am probably equally scared about multiple resistance as just glyphosate resistance. Some waterhemp is now resistant to glyphosate, ALS and PPO-inhibiting herbicides.

"We're trying to scare people to death in order to change their ways, but the shock value is going away," he says.

Using different modes of action will lessen the impact of resistant weeds. But it's an uphill battle to get farmers to change their ways says Bradley. For one thing, the best systems cost twice the cost of a typical 2X glyphosate application.

Liberty Link soybeans is one way to battle resistance, he says. And we may have dicamba-resistant soybeans by 2013, which would add another weapon in the weed arsenal.

Resistance happens within the natural population of weeds. "What we do wrong is spray glyphosate over and over and allow that biotype to survive until sooner or later, you have a patch of resistant weeds among the patch of killed weeds," says Bradley. "Then those weeds multiply."

In Missouri, a recent retailer survey revealed that 51,000 acres may be suffering from glyphosate resistance.

Where we're headed is more Roundup Ready acres whether we want it or not, he says. Most seed companies say in the next three to five years we will have 80% Roundup Ready corn-Roundup Ready soybean rotations.

"If we get into these rotations, we're going to be in trouble," he says. "We're already 90% roundup ready soybeans. These continuous glyphosate systems are what we're worried about."

The list of resistant weeds includes marestail, common ragweed, giant ragweed, amaranth, waterhemp, hairy fleabane, Italian ryegrass and rigid ryegrass, he says. And most of it is in the eastern Corn Belt as well as the mid-south. You can get more information at www.weedscience.com. You can also learn more about glyphosate resistant weeds at: www.glyphosateweedscrops.org.

Activists promise a GM-Free India

Press Release, Coalition for GM Free India

Hyderabad, February 27, 2008: Activists from fourteen states of India, consisting of farmers' organizations, NGOs, consumer groups and women's federations have pledged to keep India free of Genetically Modified foods and crops. Concluding a two-day national meeting (on February 25th and 26th 2008)which reviewed the available evidence on GM technology and its ramifications, the Coalition for GM-Free India today resolved to intensify the campaign to educate, create awareness and build public opinion against the hazardous implications of the technology.

"Last year, 2000 villages declared themselves GM Free where farmers took an informed decision to protect themselves against the onslaught of this imprecise corporate science. This year, another 2000 villages are expected to declare themselves GM-Free, spearheading a nation-wide resistance against GM crops", said Devinder Sharma, Coalition for GM-Free India.

The Coalition represents lakhs of farmers and consumers across the country. Among the important strategy decisions that emerged, the Coalition has decided to work towards making GM-Free India a political issue considering the forthcoming general elections.

States like Orissa, Kerala and Uttarakhand have already declared themselves GM-Free. In the days to come, more and more states are expected to follow suit.

Pointing out that the Government of India is acting irresponsibly and bowing before the money power of multinational biotech industry, Ms Janani of Orissa Nari Samaj said, "Majority of the countries in the world have rejected GM in their farming and they have done so after considering all options. The Government of India is clearly putting the interests of corporations before the interests of farmers". Orissa Nari Samaj fears that the expansion of cultivable area under GM crops will destroy the available biodiversity thereby threatening the nation's food security.

Representatives of the Coalition also denounced the hype about Bt Cotton contributing to spectacular yield increases in Indian cotton and clarified that in several states, the yield figures are actually showing unsteady trends and that in states like Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, some of their record yields were obtained from non-Bt Cotton and not Bt Cotton. In a state like Gujarat, increase in yields is attributed to good monsoons and increase in irrigation by around 33% in the past five years, amongst other reasons, by the state government of Gujarat.

Participating in the Press Conference were representatives of fourteen states à Sri Devinder Sharma from Delhi; Dr Nammalvar and Sri Selvam from Tamil Nadu, Sri Utkarsh Sinha from Uttar Pradesh, Ms Usha, Kerala; Mr Krishna Prasad from Karnataka; Mr Hartej Singh Mehta of Punjab, Sri Chandan Mukherjee, West Bengal; Mr Datta Patil, Maharashtra; Mr Sunil Kumar, Bihar; Mr Girija Nandan Upadhyay, Jharkhand; Mr Vijay Bhadu, Rajasthan; Mr Jagannath Chatterjee from Orissa; Sri Nilesh Desai from Madhya Pradesh and Dr Ramanjaneyulu/Ms Kavitha Kuruganti from Andhra Pradesh.

For more information, contact:
Devinder Sharma at 098-113-01857
Kavitha Kuruganti at 093-930-01550

After corn, Asia may seek GMO soy as costs rise

Reuters, 27 February 2008. By Nao Nakanishi.

HONG KONG (Reuters) - South Korea and Japan could soon begin buying genetically modified soy beans for use in the food chain as the growing price premium on non-GMO crops forces more consumers to compromise on safety concerns, industry sources say.

On Tuesday, South Korean starch and sweetener makers said they had bought U.S. GMO corn for use in foodstuffs for the first time. U.S. traders said there were signs that Japanese importers could soon do the same, saving $50 a ton versus non-GMO corn.

And that premium could grow as China, one of the last major producers of non-GMO soy and corn, looks set to stop grain exports this year to ensure it has sufficient stocks to feed its people and to keep a lid on quickening food inflation.

At the same time demand for non-GMO products has risen in line with a preference among the health-conscious middle class for more tofu or soymilk manufactured from non-GMO soybeans.

"There's a shortage of non-GMO products in Korea, Japan and Europe," said Chuk Ng, managing director of Naturz Organics (Dalian) Co, an exporter of organic food.

"The world market for non-GMO product is very limited. But China has been a strong supplier. Now the government does not want to allow exports."

Traders and officials say premiums for non-GMO corn from the United States have more than trebled from $10-$15 a ton a year ago, when China was exporting nearly 5 million tons a year.

In the soy market, premiums for contracting farmers for conventional soy doubled to $3 a bushel for the 2008 crop to be planted in the United States or Canada in a few months.

Traders and industry officials say soy suppliers are struggling to execute even signed contracts following Beijing's moves on grains exports.

"All of us are now in talks about the 2008 soy crop. The prempremiums have jumped, doubled," said another trade in Tokyo.

"There will be those that can't afford it. It is also becoming difficult to come by non-GMO soy, almost impossible."

Though China is the world's top soy importer, its exports of non-GMO soy totaled 456,469 tons last year, up 20.4 percent. It also sells products, like corn flour, manufactured from non-GMO domestic crops.

Until recently, China looked to continue small exports of its conventional crops to cash in on the niche premium market, even as its bulk grains imports grow.

Now, Beijing is set to stop grains exports altogether, including soy, as it struggles with soaring vegetable oils prices that helped lift China's inflation to an 11-year high by January.

"It is becoming clear you can no longer acquire non-GMO products unless you contract farmers," said Nobuyuki Chino, president of grain trader Unipac Grain Ltd in Tokyo.

He said the South Korean manufacturers were forced to switch after nobody offered non-GMO corn at its tenders in January.

For the moment, the soy industry remains resistant, but economics may yet overcome consumer concerns. "We don't have any plans to import GMO soybean for food use anytime soon because consumers are obviously worried about GMO products," said Kang Hyung-mo, manager at state-run importer Agricultural and Fishery Marketing Corporation.

(Reporting by Nao Nakanishi and Angela Moon in Hong Kong; Editing by Jonathan Leff)

UK: Letter to The Guardian from Clare Oxborrow

Your report (GM crop trial locations may be hidden from public, 16 February) neglected to mention that our Department for Environment actually made it easier for BASF to carry out its GM potato trials last year. It allowed the trial to go ahead before the potatoes had been tested as safe for health, something BASF said would be too expensive.

Despite this helping hand, a second trial, approved for a farm in Hedon, near Hull, failed to go ahead last year because of justified concerns raised by local farmers, local authorities and the public about the impact on their economy and environment.

It's not activism that's preventing GM crops taking hold in the UK but a complete failure by the industry to make a convincing case for why we need them. GM crops have lead to a massive increase in pesticide use and have failed to increase yields or tackle hunger and poverty. The Government should remember that it represents the British public, not the GM industry. As such it should back green farming systems, such as organic, which are already delivering for the environment and jobs and have broad public support.

Clare Oxborrow
GM Campaigner
Friends of the Earth

UK: Letter to The Guardian from Pete Riley

Ian Sample (GM crop trial locations may be hidden from public, 16 February) appears to have been swept along with the pro GM propaganda he was offered by the biotech industry to the point where his article became inconsistent.

To back up industry calls for keeping GM test site location secret, he wrote "Elsewhere in Europe, fields are not pinpointed so clearly, with companies giving only the region in which the trials will take place, or submitting details to a tightly-control-led public register".

However, earlier in the article he claimed that "77% The percentage of Monsanto's crop trials in France that were attacked by campaigners" (or was the figure 65% as stated in the body of the article further down the page?).

From this one could draw the conclusion that not pinpointing the field where the trials are being held in France has failed to stop such actions.

Hiding GM sites in the UK will not be the answer because neighbours will have to be informed, as the presence of the trial could impact on their business through cross pollination, and word will get out. The reason for farmers and beekeepers being concerned about contamination is that people are looking for food without GM presence and have been supported by all the major supermarkets and hundreds of smaller businesses in that desire since the late 1990s. Widespread cultivation of GM crops would make keeping to such standards much more difficult if not impossible.

The reason we don't have GM crops growing commercially growing in the UK is not because of activists taking direct action but because they were found to be harmful to farmland wildlife or they were withdrawn by the company which developed them (in the case of GM fodder maize). In the whole of the EU, the area of commercial GM planting amounted to just 0.23% of farmland last year - a significant proportion of which was in Spain. It's not just the UK that does not like GM crops.

Rather than writing a major article on keeping GM test sites secret, one is left wondering why Ian Sample did not produce a piece looking at why the major seed corporations have got themselves stuck in a deeply unpopular GM cul-de-sac (which has not produced consistent yield improvement in any crop) and how UK science should drop its obsession with the GM solution in farming to research options that meet all the demands being placed on agriculture of producing safe food with the minimal environmental footprint.

Yours sincerely,
Pete Riley
GM Freeze

USA: Hawaii consumers have right to know if their food is GE

Star Bulletin, Legislative Matters. Feb 27 2008. By Mike Gabbard.

[Mike Gabbard represents state Senate District 19 in Hawaii]

Eighty-five percent of Hawaii residents think it's important that genetically engineered fruit be labeled. That was the shocking statistic that I read in a study by Sabry Shehata, an agricultural economics professor at the University of Hawaii-Hilo.

If you're not familiar, genetic engineering, producing what are known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is a relatively new technology whereby scientists take the genetic material of one organism -- the basic blueprint or building blocks of life -- and insert it into the genome of another, different species of plant or animal. According to the latest information available, approximately 70 percent of the processed foods on store shelves contain GE ingredients.

After meeting with Shehata, I was convinced that we needed to do something at the state Legislature to carry out the people's will. I researched and found study after study on the mainland that also showed that people want GE foods to be labeled.

You might be surprised to learn that the U.S. government doesn't require these foods to be labeled. In 2005, Alaska became the first state to require mandatory labeling of GE foods when they passed a law to label GE fish.

The main thing that hit me about this issue is that we live in a democracy where people have the right to know what we put in our bodies. We should be able to choose whether we want to eat GE fruit or not. So I worked with organic farmers and several local and national consumer advocacy groups and introduced Senate Bill 3232, that requires all GE whole foods sold in the state to be labeled. By whole foods, I'm referring to all GE crops that are in their raw or natural state. Right now, the bill would apply to whole foods such as papaya, sweet corn, squash, and soybeans. But in the near future, it might also include tomatoes, potatoes and strawberries, which have been tested by the biotech companies.

At the national level, the labeling of GE food has become an issue in the presidential campaign. Both leading Democratic candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, are on record in support of labeling. The nations of the European Union, Japan, China, Australia and New Zealand are some of the countries that have mandatory labeling of foods with GE ingredients.

The other day, someone asked if the reason that I introduced SB 3232 is because I have something against GE foods and biotech in general. The answer is no! As Americans and consumers, we have a right to information and labeling is the only way to provide that option. Some of us want to eat organics, kosher and halal food while others do their best to stay away from those high in fat. Many of us have allergies which force us to be particularly careful with our food options.

I've been told by many in the biotech industry that putting a label on their foods will give the public a negative impression of their products. This is not true. Actually, the label doesn't give people a negative impression; it simply gives them a choice. The label itself is neutral.

A good example is organics. You can go into every store in the country and you'll find labels on hundreds of organic food products. If you ask most people, they don't have a negative impression of organics. So my question is, why can't biotech companies be required to follow the organic industry's lead?

I've been told that people in Hawaii aren't educated enough to make an informed decision if GE foods were to be labeled. This is another way of saying that the people of Hawaii are stupid and that they don't deserve a choice. Biotech companies should step up to the plate and realize that it's their responsibility to convince us that their products should be chosen over their organic or conventional counterparts. Biotech companies have the financial resources and know-how to compete as equals in the marketplace. If GE foods are healthier and taste better, it's obvious that people will buy them.

I've also introduced a second bill, SB 3233, directed at giving people more information on what's happening on our lands. The bill sets up a notification process for farmers, requiring those producing and researching GE crops to report the locations of their farms and research sites to the Department of Agriculture. This information would be posted on the DOA Web site and would be readily available to the public.

For several decades, it's been a common practice of farmers to consult with their neighbors, letting them know what they're planting in order to protect the purity of their seed. This legislation uses the latest technology to make it easier for that communication to take place. Additionally, knowing the location of GE test plots is of particular concern to organic and conventional farmers worried about the potential for GE contamination of their crops. Their concern is understandable given the fact that more than 5,000 field tests of GE crops have been authorized in Hawaii. This is simply a "good neighbor" bill allowing people to know if a company is testing GE crops next door.

SB 3232 and SB 3233 are really about democracy and letting the public know that our political leaders are listening to them. Shehata's study and many others conducted on the mainland have made it clear that people want GE foods to be labeled. People also want to know what's happening in our environment. It's the Legislature's responsibility to do what's in the people's best interests and to give them what they want. Let's pass SB 3232 and SB 3233 into law!

Mike Gabbard represents state Senate District 19 (Waikele, Village Park, Royal Kunia, Makakilo, Kapolei, Kalaeloa, Honokai Hale, and portions of Waipahu and Ko Olina).

26 February 2008

Japan: No! GMO Request at Australian Embassy

Consumers Union of Japan, February 26 2008.

Keisuke Amagasa, Namiko Ono and other consumer activists visited the Australian Embassy in Tokyo on February 21, 2008 to deliver Japanese consumers' request regarding genetically modified (GM) foods.

They asked the Australian government, on a national level, to firmly maintain a strict GM-free policy. Australia has such a valuable ecosystem, which is unparalleled in the world, so GM crops are a real threat to the country's unique biodiversity. They expressed the request that GM crops should be eliminated, and not accepted.

They also strongly requested that Australia makes sure not to let GM canola to be cultivated now or in the future.

Read the letter of request to Minister for Agriculture, Hon. Tony Burke (pdf):
'Please Stop GM Canola Cultivation in Australia'
http://cujtokyo.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/080219-gmo-appeal-australia3.pdf

The world according to Monsanto

GM Watch, 26 February 2008.

INTRO: Coming soon... an explosive documentary about Monsanto by French journalist, Marie-Monique Robin.

LE MONDE SELON MONSANTO (THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MONSANTO) is due to be broadcast on the Franco-German TV channel ARTE on 11th March (we think at 2100 hrs, French time).

Filmed in North America, Europe and Asia, it looks at Monsanto's record since its inception in 1901, taking in PCBs, Agent Orange, rBGH, GMOs and the rest of the company's extraordinary toxic legacy.

There's lots of information about the film in French - plus some images and an extract - on the ARTE website: http://www.arte.tv/lemondeselonmonsanto

Below, Claire Robinson has translated into English some of the info from the ARTE site (item 2).

The film's also due to run on twelve other TV channels in different European countries, and seems to have already gone out on the Swiss Channel TSR.

There's also a book coming out of the same title, which looks like it'll be available in bookshops in France from the 6 March, and also via Amazon. http://www.arte.tv/fr/connaissance-decouverte/LemondeselonMonsanto/Le-livre/1912812.html

French bookshops are said to have been getting a lot of interest, but it's not clear yet when either the book or the film will be available in languages other than French. However, the film seems to contain a lot of material from interviews conducted in English with scientists, farmers, regulators, lawyers etc. in the USA, Canada, Britain, and India, which are subtitled in French, so even the French version of the film shouldn't be too hard to follow for English speakers, assuming it becomes available on dvd or online.

There's a great trailer and some other info in English here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/visited-week/tag/test/video/x4da65_le-monde-selon-monsanto-arte-mardi_politics (quotes from this in item 1 below)

The film's in-depth investigation into Monsanto apparently took over three years. And we know just how carefully the film and book have been researched because the director, Marie-Monique Robin, came and spent a good part of a day with GM Watch checking through the minutiae of the evidence for Monsanto's online PR attacks on scientific critics like Dr. Ignacio Chapela.

Incidentally, those interviewed in the film include Kirk J. Azevedo - a former Monsanto employee whose career came to a grinding halt because of his concern at the practices of his employer who was allowing test plot material from genetically engineered cotton seed to enter the food supply without proper testing.

Quotes from the film:

Quotes taken from the trailer at http://www.dailymotion.com/visited-week/tag/test/video/x4da65_le-monde-selon-monsanto-arte-mardi_politics

[Monsanto ad]: Monsanto: Where creative chemistry works wonders for you.

[Canadian Government scientist addressing Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee, Ottawa]: I wonder which truth I will tell: the one I know, or the one the minister instructed me to tell.

[Jeremy Rifkin]: I have never seen a situation where one company could have so much overwhelming influence at the highest levels of regulatory decision-making as Monsanto with its GM food policy in the government.

[former FDA scientist involved in rBGH regulation]: One day I was escorted to the door and that was it, I was done.

[Health Canada scientist - man]: We were dismissed for disobedience.

[Health Canada scientist - woman]: They fired us.

[Dr Arpad Pusztai]: Our job was to look at what will happen if you are including these potatoes in the diet of the rat... It started to recognize the GM potatoes as alien.

[Scientist]: "The animal feeding studies provided some reassurance that no major changes occurred." I want 100% reassurance, not just "some".

[Lawyer?]: I have to say, we would never trust a company like Monsanto to tell the truth about a pollution problem or a product.

[Vandana Shiva]: It's always said genetic engineering is the way to get to patenting. But patenting is the real aim.

[Monsanto ad for Roundup]: One shot is all it takes for weeds. Roundup.

[US farmer/agribiz rep in field of GM soya]: I've got a soybean in my hand, I can eat this soybean, it's very safe, very safe.

[Resident of Anniston, community poisoned by Monsanto plant]: This is Snow Creek. The plant was poisoning it and they never told anybody. They told the state, but the state didn't tell anybody.

[Another man talking about Anniston]: Their neighbors in Anniston were not told about the poisoning because they [Monsanto] didn't "want to lose one dollar" [of business].

[Vandana]: We will depend on them for every seed we grow, every crop we grow, and 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.

[Man on dairy farm - from Monsanto advertisement?]: As you know, Posilac from Monsanto is the first and only BST product to be approved by the FDA for your use.

[Another man]: You have to look at the most important thing and that is, there's pus in the milk.

[Lawyer Steve Druker]: The FDA has been lying to the world since 1992.

[unnamed woman]: We're dealing with something that is untouchable, that is so big, so powerful.

[Indian man]: With GM, biotechnology, they are making farmers completely dependent on market forces.

[Another man in India]: In 6 months, we've had 680 suicides. It's a disaster.

[American]: You can't defend yourself against these people. They've created an industry that serves no other purpose than to wreck farmers' lives. Of course, [farmers are] afraid.

The world according to Monsanto

Director: Marie-Monique Robin
Author: Marie-Monique Robin
Producer: IMAGE AND COMPANY

Following an intensive investigation conducted over three years in North America and southern Europe and Asia, this film reveals Monsanto's project for world-domination, which threatens the food security of the world and the ecological balance of the planet.

"THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MONSANTO" investigates the American multinational Monsanto, the world leader in biotechnology and one of the most controversial companies of the industrial age.

Ninety percent of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) grown today on the planet, such as soybeans, canola, corn, and cotton, belong to it and in future it aims to control the entire food supply.

Monsanto's GMOs have invaded the world and never has any agro-industrial application aroused as much passion and controversy. Why? What are the issues around GMOs? The risks and benefits for mankind?

Drawing on unpublished documents and the testimony of scientists, representatives of civil society, victims, lawyers, politicians, representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration, and conducting investigations on the ground among farmers in India, Mexico, Paraguay, the director Marie-Monique Robin - winner of the prestigious Albert Londres prize - has patiently assembled the pieces of a large economic puzzle.

Following an intensive investigation conducted over three years in North America and southern Europe and Asia, the film depicts the genesis of an industrial empire and shows how [Monsanto] became one of the foremost seed-suppliers in the world. It shows how, behind the clean green image portrayed in its advertising campaigns, is hidden a project for world-domination that threatens both global food security and also the ecological balance of the planet.

UK: The GM debate is not about scientists versus anti-capitalists
Campaigners who oppose GM food aren't vandals - they are acting in the public interest, says Peter Melchett

The Guardian, February 26 2008. By Peter Melchett.

Your article about the GM industry's lobbying to make its crop trial locations secret, said that there are "fears that anti-GM campaigners are winning the battle over the controversial technology" (GM crop trial locations may be hidden from public, February 16).

But your story characterises two sides of the battle exactly as pro-GM campaigners would wish. Those who oppose GM food are described as "protesters" engaged in "vandalism". In contrast, commercial interests promoting GM are described neutrally as the "GM industry".

This, and your special inside report (Biotech firm mans barricades as campaigners vow to stop trials, February 16), implies these pro-GM campaigners are motivated by a heady mix of scientific integrity and altruism. You report that the old industry claims of GM feeding the world are now extended to GM being "at least part of the solution to food inflation, food security and even global warming". The fact that these multinational chemical companies have been making these claims - that the next GM crop trial will help cure disease or feed the world by increasing yields - for at least 20 years, without this once actually happening, should induce a degree of scepticism.

The main thrust of your account of the GM industry's views - that those opposed to GM crops in Europe are part of a general anti-capitalist conspiracy - is also an old chestnut. In the 1990s Monsanto dismissed opposition to GM in Europe because they thought it came from a small minority of anti-science and anti-big business activists. In fact those early environmental concerns turned out to be shared by the vast majority of Europe's citizens. Why? Because concerns about growing and eating GM food are justified by both experience and scientific research.

Another golden oldie is the threat from pro-GM campaigners that Britain must embrace GM or lose jobs. The article says that "fears of vandalism have forced many companies to shift their crop trials abroad", without asking whether the rejection of GM food by our citizens might have had something to do with it. In fact, opposition to GM is growing throughout the EU, especially in France and Germany, as the article itself notes.

GM trials pose a risk to the environment and to farmers growing similar non-GM and organic crops. In 1999, 28 Greenpeace volunteers, of whom I was one, removed a GM maize crop in Norfolk. You describe this as a "protest", and that is exactly what the prosecution in our subsequent criminal trial tried, and failed, to prove. The jury found that what we did was legally remove a crop that threatened the integrity of other nearby crops, acting in the public interest. The fear of many farmers is that, once released into the environment, GM crops will spread their traits to related native plants. Once released, they can never be recalled.

The reckless abandon with which GM companies want to spread this poorly understood, inherently uncertain and potentially very dangerous technology terrifies me, and the public are right to continue to reject it.

Peter Melchett is an organic farmer and policy director of the Soil Association.
pmelchett@soilassociation.org

USA: Taking aim at GMOs
Urged by customers who feel that genetically modified organisms have negative effects on food, some local grocers are taking items containing them off their shelves

Mail Tribune, 26 February 2008. By John Darling.

Believing that genetically engineered foods are untested for health effects on humans, the Ashland Food Co-op has launched a program to get all such products off its shelves this year ó and other area markets, including Shop N Kart and Food For Less, say they are steadily increasing offerings of GMO-free food.

Most genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are found in corn, soy, canola, cottonseed products and Hawaiian papaya, which means they're in a huge array of foods ó estimates range up to 70 percent in processed food ó says Co-op Outreach and Owner Services Manager Annie Hoy, who teaches classes on non-GMO shopping.

"They're made in a lab in ways that nature doesn't operate. It's an imprecise science. It may look, act and taste like corn, but it isn't corn," says Hoy, noting that science recognizes no species barriers, and will combine genes from fish and strawberries in order to extract a trait, such as long shelf life, color or ability to resist pesticides.

What most aggravates shoppers, she says, is that GMO foods are not required to be labeled as such, so it's difficult to screen them out of your diet. "I try to avoid GMO and I would feel a lot more secure if it were better labeled," says Kelly Cruser of Ashland, who is educated as a zoologist and has worked as an orthodontist. "It's in two-thirds of everything in grocery stores now and there are many important likely health consequences and very few studies to verify GMOs are safe."

The ability to fine tune her shopping skills required study ó and Cruser has learned which corn and tomatoes have been genetically modified. She buys blue corn chips (only yellow corn has undergone GMO) and Roma tomatoes, which are not among the engineered species.

On a walking tour of the Ashland Food Co-op, Hoy points out that, while GMO foods evade labeling, foods labeled non-GMO, such as milk from Umpqua Dairy in Roseburg, are required to carry a disclaimer saying the FDA has determined that "no test can distinguish" between the milk of treated and untreated cows. Many popular ice creams and yogurts, long considered healthful, will not make the cut at the co-op, because they don't meet the standard of being free from bovine growth hormone, which is genetically engineered, says Rainbo O'Connor, chairwoman of the store's Product Safety Committee.

O'Connor had her management team read "Seeds of Deception; Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating," by Jeffery M. Smith ó and recently pulled all canola oil out of the store's deli and substituted organic olive, grape seed and sunflower oil. Because crops aren't grown in plastic bubbles, but get their pollen blown around by the wind, "it's getting increasingly hard to say something has no GMOs, but a good yardstick is "shop organic," she says, adding that anything that is certified organic, by definition, means it's GMO-free.

Terry Johnson, manager of Food For Less organic food department, Medford, says she's increasing her line of organic and non-GMO foods.

"I wish they'd make them label the GMO," she says.

Johnson says she doesn't like hearing that tomato and salmon-scale genes have been crossed to express stronger tomato skins.

Ashland Shop N Kart manager Eric Chaddock says his "very vocal and informed customers," more and more are demanding organic and non-GMO foods and "just because the FDA says something is safe doesn't mean it's safe."

Leading the charge against genetically modified food is Physicians for Social Responsibility, whose spokesman in Portland, Rick North, says, "GMOs have not been demonstrated safe for human health and the environment "? the more people know about genetically engineered food, the more they don't want them ó and they vote with their dollars."

State-by-state laws requiring labeling of GMO foods is unlikely to work, so PSR and other groups are focusing on a federal labeling law, says North. A state ballot measure requiring GMO labeling was defeated in 2002.

"It was a popular idea until Monsanto, which makes most of the genetically engineered foods, poured millions of dollars into Oregon to defeat it," North says. While proven impacts of GMO food remain a question mark, Hoy remains unequivocal in her opposition, saying, "Nothing that's been genetically manipulated has been shown to be good for the consumer, more nutritious or easier to digest. They're not doing it in the interest of the consumer."

"There's no way to recall this genetic material," says Hoy, who worries about the persistence of GMOs in the environment. "I probably have it in me. How does it make me feel? Not very happy. It's getting harder and harder to eat food without more and more worry."

John Darling is a freelance writer living in Ashland. E-mail him at jdarling@jeffnet.org.

Foods most likely to contain GMOs:

•

Fresh corn

•

Fresh papaya

•

Cornbread mix

•

Corn meal

•

Soy flour

•

Veggie sausages

•

Tortilla chips

•

Flavored tortilla chips

•

Puffed corn snacks

•

Meatballs, burgers with soy protein

•

Soy-based protein drinks and powders

Foods least likely to contain GMOs

•

Organic anything

•

If corn, try blue corn or sweet corn.

•

Roma tomatoes

•

Pop or candy with fruit or natural sweeteners, instead of high-fructose corn syrup.

•

Potatoes are a good carbohydrate source, not GE as yet.

•

Anything labeled GMO-free

•

Food that's not processed

•

Popcorn

Arctic "doomsday vault" for seeds opens ó except GMOs

Reuters, 26 February 2008. By Alister Doyle.

A "doomsday vault" for the world's seeds opened in a mountainside on a Norwegian Arctic island on Tuesday but you won't find seeds of genetically engineered crops protected in the cavern.

Why not?

The short answer is that Norway bans the import of biotech crops, or GMOs, so the vault near Longyearbyen, about 1,000 km from the North Pole, can store only natural varieties of the world's seeds.

Apart from the import ban, officials argue GMO seeds are unnecessary. GMOs were created from natural wild seeds so scientists could re-engineer pest-resistant maize or bigger tomatoes if there were ever a disaster that threatened the world's agriculture. And GMOs represent only a tiny fraction of crop diversity.

GMOs were once famously described by Greenpeace as "Frankenfoods", but does it make sense to shut GMO seeds out of doomsday planning? After all, even if you don't like them, they probably won't be doing much harm frozen in a vault underground in an area of permafrost?

After a cataclysm such as a nuclear winter that could wipe out crops ó the vault is an insurance policy against such disasters ó you'd surely want the highest-yielding crops as soon as possible to feed survivors rather than send scientists off to a laboratory?

Or is there a remote nightmare scenario under which GMO crops themselves could disrupt world agriculture ó and so justify the Arctic "Noah's Ark"?

What do you think?

USA: Genetically engineered corn recalled

The Grand Island Independent, 26 February 2008. By Robert Pore.

Following on the heels of a massive recall of 143 million pounds of beef by the federal government earlier this month, government officials have now recalled a tainted genetically engineered variety of corn.

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that they are coordinating efforts following notification by Dow AgroSciences that the company detected extremely low levels of an unregistered genetically engineered (GE) pesticide product known as a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) in three of its commercial GE hybrid corn seed lines.

According to Dow, the unregistered product produces proteins that are identical to a registered product.

The USDA, EPA and FDA have concluded that there are no public health, food or feed safety concerns. Additionally, USDA and EPA have determined that the unregistered GE corn PIP poses no plant pest or environmental concerns.

The unregistered GE corn PIP, known as Event 32, was found in some Herculex RW and Herculex XTRA Rootworm Protection products.

Seed containing low levels of the unregistered Event 32 was inadvertently sold to farmers by Dow's affiliate Mycogen Seeds and planted in 2006 and 2007.

EPA and USDA previously approved Herculex Rootworm Protection products containing a closely related PIP, Event 22. These products are also approved for use in several foreign countries.

In Nebraska, nearly 11.5 million acres of 13.1 million acres of corn and soybeans planted in 2007 were of biotechnology varieties. According to the USDA, 79 percent of Nebraska's corn was genetically engineered varieties and 95 percent of the soybeans was genetically engineered.

The Center for Food Safety has expressed concern about the recall of a genetically engineered (GE) crop known as Event 32.

The unapproved GE corn had found its way into three commercial corn seed lines that were planted on a total of 72,000 acres over the past two years, according to the center.

In 2000-01, another insecticide-producing GE corn known as Starlink was mistakenly introduced into the nation's food supply, leading to the nation's largest-ever food recall due to concerns that it could cause allergies in those who consumed contaminated corn products, according to the center.

"These days, it appears that the U.S. is not much better than China when it comes to allowing unapproved additives into foods destined for export," said Joe Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety. "These contamination episodes pose potential risks to consumers and hurt farmers through lower prices and lost markets, especially overseas. It's long past time we passed laws that make biotech companies financially liable for their sloppy and reckless behavior."

According to the center, though the government said Event 32 poses no health risk, it has not undergone established regulatory review procedures to check for potential adverse environmental or human health impacts.

It was the same lack of regulatory oversight that led to the massive beef recall this month and is expected to widen further, according to the Grocery Manufacturers of America, as more processed food is recalled that contains the beef, including soups, sauces, burritos and bouillon cubes. According to GMA, that could cost the industry hundreds of millions of dollars.

"The fact is that consumers have been exposed to yet another unapproved genetically altered plant, and since no testing has occurred, we cannot know what the health effects might be," Mendelson said. "In light of this week's massive recall of beef, the agencies' assurance that this corn poses no risk to consumers has a hollow ring."

According to the EPA, analysis determined that the introduced proteins produced by Event 32 are identical to those approved for Event 22, and therefore they are covered by an existing tolerance exemption (EPA food safety clearance).

FDA has concluded there are no food or feed safety concerns because EPA has determined that the introduced proteins in Event 32 are safe and because corn containing Event 32 is present in food or feed, if at all, only at low levels. In addition, APHIS' scientific analysis concluded that Event 32 poses no plant pest or environmental concerns.

The 2008 U.S. corn crop will not be affected. APHIS took steps to ensure Dow recalled all affected seed that was shipped to dealers for the 2008 planting season. APHIS and EPA are coordinating efforts to investigate potential violations under their respective regulatory acts.

According to government officials, Corn Event 32 was found at extremely low levels about three seeds per 1,000 in affected Herculex seed products.

Dow reported that in 2007 about 53,000 acres of the affected products were planted in the United States. Total U.S. corn acreage in 2007 was more than 93 million acres.

But despite the low levels, Keith Dittrich, chairman of the American Corn Grower Association's Board of Directors, said he's concerned with inadequate oversight by USDA that allowed the unregistered genetically engineered (GE) pesticide product to be planted in the first place.

"Just as the recent large beef recall has regrettably called into question our U.S. beef supply, our regulatory system must go to great lengths to ensure that no unapproved GE strains are allowed onto the market," said Dittrich.

He said the ACGA is calling for a more stringent, unbiased testing to be the standard when determining the safety of genetically modified materials.

"This is especially important in the case of a basic commodity, such as corn, which can be found in a high percentage of food products on our shelves today," Dittrich said.

Australia: Farmers to sue farmers

Network of Concerned Farmers press release, 26 February 2008
www.non-gm-farmers.com

The Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF) is threatening legal action against farmers growing GM canola unless risk management is introduced prior to planting. The GM moratorium is set to lapse in Victoria on February 28th and in New South Wales on March 3rd and NCF believe fair risk management has been denied.

"GM contamination will be uncontrollable but no minimum limit of contamination has been set for companies to deduct a user fee from our income," said Julie Newman, National Spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers. "It's a blank cheque from farmers incomes to the biotech companies wether you want to grow GM or not."

"Australia will be the first country to accept the unique plant patent law with an end point royalty system which will allow a GM company to deduct a patent fee from our grain payments unless we prove we have no contamination. Fair risk management has been denied to non-GM farmers by allowing GM companies to be financially rewarded for contaminating our crops."

The Canadian National Farmers Union vice president, Terry Boehm recently toured Australia explaining how the choice for non-GM farmers has been removed. Not only has segregation failed but it is almost impossible to source uncontaminated non-GM seed or to replant farmers own seed. Non-GM varieties have been deregistered and farmers growing their own seed are threatened with legal action for growing contaminated crops.

"Canada recognises the GM patent rights but do not have an end point royalty. It has taken 12 years to remove the non-GM choice for non-GM growers and the seed cost has increased by 600% since introduction. Costs for seed and seed use now amount to Can$126/tonne or 23% of the gross value of the crop."

"Brazil recently approved GM products and while they do not recognise the GM patent rights they do recognise the end point royalty payment system. Soy farmers now pay 2% of the value of their crop to Monsanto unless they take rigorous and expensive steps to prove their product has not been contaminated with GM. With end point royalties, farmers are guilty unless proven innocent."

"The increasing GM adoption rate is more to do with the ability to collect payments from farmers rather than a willingness by farmers to pay these costs," said Mrs Newman

"The combination of uncontrollable contamination, GM patents and an end point royalty is a blank cheque to the biotech industry and we were told to "trust Monsanto" when we asked for risk management."

State governments are claiming that common law will be sufficient to deal with economic loss and liability issues and common law remedies involve non-GM growers taking legal action against GM growers. The Federal government released a paper on legal liability doubting the success of that action due to the inability to prove the source of contamination. NCF is working with lawyers to prepare the early legal action necessary to strengthen their case. This includes early notification to GM farmers of refusal to accept contamination, warning of inadequate crop management and coexistent plans and the need to take regular samples to establish the source of contamination.

"We are left with no choice, as much as we do not want to sue our neighbours, this is the only legal remedy available to protect ourselves."

Contact: Julie Newman 08 98711562 or 08 98711644

More information:

End point royalty system:

Australia and Brazil adopted an end point royalty system after signing the UPOV 91 International Treaty allowing companies to deduct a fee from grain payments on delivery of the grain to cover the breeder rights over the particular variety. A positive test using even a relatively insensitive field test would mean a 0.5% contamination would trigger 100% deduction of a user fee. Canada and America opposed this treaty and operate under the UPOV 67 treaty which has led to royalties being deducted when paying for the seed. If farmers replant their own seeds, the companies must pursue the farmers to collect their payments.

Patent:

Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay do not recognise the unique patent rights over GM crops. USA, Canada and Australia recognise these patent rights. Common law: Tort law operates under similar conditions as spray drift where farmers must ensure their operations do not cause loss to their neighbours. While spray drift is insurable, GM contamination drift is not as it is a probability not a possibility.

Roundup Ready in Canada 96/97:

Canadian average yield = 1.5t/ha , Canadian average price = $370/t = Harvested crop value of $555/ha

Average $6/lb seed cost (NFU) x 6 lb/acre (Canadian Canola Council recommendation) = $36/acre for seed + $15/acre for technology user fee (Terry Boehm NFU) = $51/acre = $126/ha. Average costs = 22.7% (or close enough to 23%) of value of crop for seed alone

Note:

NSW legislation has an addition to legislation that prevents farmers being sued for being contaminated, however that is not relevant with an end-point royalty system.

25 February 2008

EU farm chief says happy but wary on French stance

Reuters, 25 February 2008. By By Tamora Vidaillet.

France's willingness to discuss modifications to the bloc's Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) but any hint of protectionism would be unacceptable.

Speaking on the sidelines of Europe's biggest annual farm show under way in Paris, EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said she believed that the European Commission shared some ideas on agricultural reform with France.

France is the European Union's main agricultural power, the largest exporter of farm products and the single biggest beneficiary of the CAP, worth more than 40 billion euros ($59.26 billion) a year in total.

Fischer Boel said that the fact the French government had been using the EU expression of "community preference" could prove risky, depending on what exactly it meant.

"To translate 'la preference communautaire' as the protection of European products, I'm not in favour of as Europe is today the biggest importer and the biggest exporter of agricultural products worldwide," she told a news conference.

"If we imagine that we now close our own markets for our own customers, then we would lose," she said.

Community preference was a doctrine applied at the birth of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy in the 1960s but it has been overtaken by world trade liberalisation. The European Court of Justice ruled in the 1990s it had no basis in EU law.

While Europe needed open markets, it would be very clear in demanding that imports adhered to the same health and safety standards as those applied in the 27-nation bloc, she added.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has called for a true system of community preferences, has denied that this means protectionism.

Sarkozy has argued that Europe should be able to take steps to protect itself given that trading rivals support their own farm sectors and industries.

'Special'

In November, Fischer Boel unveiled her so-called "health check" of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), a subsidy program that eats up some 40 percent of the EU's entire annual budget.

The proposals are due to be debated later this year. The final draft will be adopted in the second half when France, Europe's biggest farming nation, will take over the presidency of the European Union.

Turning to the subject of genetically modified (GMO) products used in animal feed, Fischer Boel called for deeper debate and an assessment of the facts.

Describing French views towards GMOs as "special", she stressed that 90 percent of all soybeans imported into Europe today were genetically modified and that the figure for maize imports stood at 50 percent.

While she had "no intention whatsoever to water down" the current approval system, which proved slower than mechanisms employed in the United States, deeper debate was needed.

Europe now had important choices to make on the imports of GMO products used in animal feed given that the current system of slow and complicated approvals could translate into higher prices for animal producers.

European consumers could also turn to cheaper food imports rather than EU produced farm goods, she said.

"I think we cheat the consumers because when we import beef from South America, (it) will be fed by GMs which are not even approved in Europe so we export our own production and that is crazy from my point of view," she said.

"Therefore I think we should have a discussion in the Council to see what can be done to avoid a situation where we have a shortage of imports of feed stuff -- soybeans -- which means at the end of the day that production will take place somewhere else," she said.

EU feedmakers have long complained of problems sourcing raw material, warning that the consequences of Europe's extreme caution and "zero tolerance" of unauthorised GMOs, even in tiny amounts, could be catastrophic for the food and feed sectors.

With world grain prices soaring and the EU's livestock and animal feed sectors facing supply shortages, pressure has mounted for the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, to do something about the speed at which the EU approves new GMOs.

Green groups have been lobbying hard for the EU not to change its position on unauthorised GMOs.

France, which recently slapped a temporary ban on the commercial use of the only GMO maize seed grown on its soil, is one of Europe's more anti-GMO nations.

Although seed makers say GMOs are totally harmless to humans, French consumers are highly suspicious of the possible health and environmental hazards of GMO use.

(Editing by Sybille de la Hamaide)

EU: MEP animal welfare group against animal cloning

Food Navigator, 25 February 2008.

A group of MEPs has called on the European Commission to prohibit cloning of animals for food.

The move comes just ahead of the closing date for reactions to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Draft Opinion on animal cloning.

Such reactions are likely to increase concerns amongst food manufacturers that the public perception of cloning remains negative. Many are already wary about developments in the cloning arena.

According to Eurogroup for Animals, a body representing animal welfare organisations in European member states, the resolution approved by the MEP Intergroup on Animal Welfare calls on the Commission to submit proposals to prohibit:

•

the cloning of animals for food supply

•

the farming of cloned animals or their offspring

•

the placing on the market of meat or dairy products derived from cloned animals or their offspring

•

the import of cloned animals or their offspring, semen and embryos from cloned animals or their offspring, and meat or dairy products derived from cloned animals or their offspring.

Eurogroup says that seventeen of the twenty-four MEPs present at the Intergroup voted in favour of the motion.

Eurogroup for Animals provides the Secretariat for the Intergroup.

Neil Parish MEP, the chairman of the Intergroup is quoted by Eurogroup as saying "I would like to see an EU-wide moratorium brought in immediately to stop food from cloned animals and their offspring from reaching the food chain"

The MEPs are joined in their concerns by the European Group on Ethics and New Technologies (EGE), which said earlier that it does not see "convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring."

It added that "Further ethical, legal and social implications of animals cloning for food supply as well as qualitative studies on public perception should be carried out."

Consumer concerns

During a recent technical meeting of the EFSA with its Stakeholder Consultative Platform, a report was referred to which highlighted the likely problems to be faced in persuading the public to accept cloned meat products.

It said "Cloned meat is likely to be a controversial issue with the European public, sitting as it does at the nexus of sensitivities around food, animals and the life sciences".

Even if cloned meat is shown to be equivalent to conventional meat "sections of the public will demand labelling" the practicalities of implementing which would be a challenge.

The report went on "In our view it is likely that the focus of public concerns will lean towards cultural taboos and semi-taboos rather than challenges to the scientific evidence".

Reports in the UK newspaper Daily Mail illustrate consumer concerns.Ý The newspaper writes that Britain's "first offspring of a cloned cow" and her sibling are to be sold at public auction "prompting fears that the food chain is open to Frankenstein farming".

The paper notes that "the two animals were the first results of clone farming to be born on British farms, just over a year ago", adding "there is currently no mechanism to stop milk and meat from clone offspring animals from going into the food chain"

Eurogroup says that the Intergroup on Animal Welfare, created in 1983, provides a forum for MEPs for debate and initiating action for a wide range of animal welfare and conservation issues. Where appropriate it takes initiatives that can lead to legislation.

Today is the deadline for responding to the EFSA Draft Opinion

UK: The return of Frankenstein Foods?

New Statesman, 25 February 2008. Mark Breddy.

The EU might not regulate on straight bananas, but it does have a say when it comes to environmental and health concerns linked to the food we eat. In the coming weeks, the European Commission will be gearing up for one of its most wide-ranging discussions ever on the food that's grown in our fields, fed to our animals and sold in our supermarkets.

After years of bitter disagreements between member states and European institutions on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the Commission has finally decided to hold an unprecedented debate on the future of GMOs in Europe. The president of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, has promised that the debate will be the first step before a public discussion involving all EU leaders.

But while the discussion might be public, the huge political and economic pressures applied behind the scenes will be very private indeed. The UK is likely to lead a small pack of pro-GMO countries and biotech industries who will push for markets to open up to these risky products. Over the crucial coming months, Greenpeace will keep a watchful eye to ensure that the GMO debate focuses on the interests of consumers, and not purely on the interests of a few multinational companies.

Claims by industry that GM products are good for the environment and a quick-fix solution to world hunger are extravagantly false. Recent studies have shown that growing GMOs actually increases the use of pesticides, contaminates wildlife and the environment, and has unpredictable and irreversible effects on animal and human health.

The causes of hunger and malnutrition are poverty and lack of access to food, not something that will be solved by pandering to the biotech industry. The world already feeds itself one-and-a-half times over; what we need is a fairer system where populations in developing countries don't have to go hungry while millions of tons of GM crops are grown for export.

GMO producers do their best to distort the figures, but the truth is that genetic engineering is essentially an American technology, used mostly by US companies such as Monsanto, Dow and DuPont. The industry's own figures show that almost 90% of the world's GM crops are produced by only four countries on the American continents, while over 92% of global land use is GMO-free. In fact, 172 countries don't grow GMOs at all. And independent polls consistently show that a majority of European citizens want to keep it that way.

Hot potato

In a telling case last week, EU farm ministers refused to authorise a GM potato known as Amflora. A significant majority of 15 member states opposed the product developed by German chemical company BASF. But because of EU rules, the ultimate decision which will affect half a billion European citizens now rests with the Commission.

The problem with the GM potato is that it contains a gene that confers resistance to certain antibiotics. The World Health Organisation (WHO) confirmed in an assessment that this could have serious implications for animal and human health, contradicting previous findings by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

Greenpeace flagged this up to the Commission in 2006 and the European Medicines Agency in London was asked for a third opinion. The antibiotics affected by the gene were found to be of "critical importance" for the treatment of illnesses. EFSA finally recognised its mistake in 2007, but failed to reach the logical conclusion and declare that the product was unsafe.

However, pressure on the Commission not to allow GMOs on the market is growing. The number of member states opposing the GM potato last week was up to 15, from 11 in a previous vote, although the UK has consistently been in favour. European media have also begun reporting the huge cracks that exist in the EU's EFSA-centred GMO authorisation process, while our team of policy experts is working closely with the Greenpeace Science Unit at Exeter University and putting pressure on decision-makers to turn headlines into meaningful policy.

Most people will know Greenpeace for its non-violent confrontations which expose threats to the environment and draw media attention the world over. But, whether we are dealing with the biotech industry or with Japanese whalers, our job is also to monitor the corridors and boardrooms where ships and climbers cannot reach, wiping away the sense of invulnerability felt by top officials and corporate lobbyists far from public view.

24 February 2008

Australia: Consultants reap GM crop windfall

The Sunday Age, February 24 2008.

The State Government spent more than $165,000 on consultants to overturn its divisive ban on growing genetically modified crops.

In November, a panel headed by Victoria's chief scientist, Sir Gustav Nossal, recommended the four-year ban on growing GM canola be lifted - and new documents revealing consultancy costs show their work alone cost more than $18,000.

The document, obtained by The Sunday Age under freedom of information, show Sir Gus billed for holding a meeting with Agriculture Minister Joe Helper, briefing Labor Party caucus, meeting and conducting a press conference with Premier John Brumby, media interviews and "correspondence with critics".

Consulting firm ACIL Tasman charged almost $91,000 for its economic analysis and the final report, while the remainder of consultancy fees was billed at more than $55,000.

The total pay to consultants, including the expenses incurred by the panel, was $165,200, plus change.

GM canola can be grown in Victoria from next month, after the panel found contamination between GM and non-GM crops could be contained, with Sir Gus saying the health impacts had been thoroughly examined.

The panel, which included Christine Forster and Merna Curnow, was appointed by former premier Steve Bracks to consider the economic impact of GM canola in Victoria.

While the decision was welcomed by many in the rural sector, it sparked protests from anti-GM activists and a backlash from several Labor MPs, with bitter criticism directed against Mr Brumby over his handling of the divisive issue.

Canola is the only major GM food crop that has been approved to be grown commercially in Australia.

At the time of the decision, outspoken Labor MP Tammy Lobato accused the Premier of an "inability and unwillingness to listen" and compared the effects of GM crops to asbestos.

Ms Lobato said the bulk of the costs of the "so-called" independent review had gone to ACIL Tasman, which she said had a pro-GM position and boasted clients such as Monsanto.

"It really is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank," she said.

Anti-GM group Gene Ethics said the inquiry was window dressing and ACIL Tasman had always taken the view that GM technology should go ahead on economic grounds.

Director of the group Bob Phelps said: "They and the report itself take no account of the costs, let alone any other aspect of the public health or environmental impacts."

But Agriculture Minister Joe Helper said the Government stood by the thoroughness and independence of the panel report. "These claims, given they come from those opposed to the lifting of the moratorium on GM canola, are highly predictable," he said.

23 February 2008

Update from the GM-Free Brazil Campaign

Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, February 23, 2007

Greetings from Brazil!

Last week the Brazilian government licensed the commercial release of two varieties of GM maize: MON810, produced by Monsanto, and Liberty Link, produced by Bayer. In 2007 CTNBio (the National Technical Commission for Biosafety), the body responsible for analysing risk assessments and licensing genetically modified products and activities in Brazil, had ruled in favour of the commercial use of GM maize. However, appeals lodged by IBAMA (the federal environmental institute linked to the Ministry of the Environment) and ANVISA (a federal health authority linked to the Ministry of Health) had blocked the release.

The case was referred to the National Biosafety Council (CNBS), a body formed by 11 ministers. Last week the council of ministers, by seven votes to four, ignored the technical analysis of both federal agencies and approved the cultivation and commercialization of GM maize - the first time that commercial planting of transgenic maize has been licensed in Brazil.

Those ministries with a direct involvement in this issue opposed the ruling. As well as the Environment and Health Ministries, both Agrarian Development and Fishing also voted against release of the GM crops. Those voting in favour were the Office of the Chief of Staff, along with Foreign Affairs, Defence, Justice, Trade & Industry, Agriculture and Science & Technology. In other words, biosafety was clearly placed second to economic interests. The okay given to Monsanto and Bayer reflects the Brazilian government's policy of favouring large companies and ceding to the demands of agribusiness and the rural lobby in the National Congress.

The CNBS had already met on January 29th to consider the appeals lodged by ANVISA and IBAMA. However, the Agriculture Minister, Reinhold Stephanes, appointed to report on the case, had sent his report to the ministers in favour of GMOs by this date, but not to those who stood opposed. Voting was therefore postponed to February 12th and the Presidential Chief of Staff, Dilma Roussef, sent a communication to the Federal Attorney General's Office asking for clarifications concerning the role of IBAMA and ANVISA in approving transgenic crops: a blatant attempt to 'frame' these agencies, overriding their legal powers and monopolizing the decision on GMOs in the CTNBio.

Following the meeting held on January 29th, the Agriculture and Science & Technology Ministers, Reinhold Stephanes and Sergio Rezende, issued statements in the press claiming to know of the existence of illegal plantations of transgenic maize in Brazil and arguing that the best solution to the problem would be to legalize the illegal crops 'under clearly defined regulations' - a shameful argument in support of the release of transgenic crops.

The organizations and social movements involved in the Campaign will insist that the seven ministries who voted for release of the crops justify their decision. In the name of transparency, we demand to know their positions on biosafety and the socioeconomic impacts of releasing GM maize.

In addition to the pressure from social movements and consumers, which will undoubtedly continue, a judicial ruling on the legality of the CTNBio's decision is still pending. Also the Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao declared that ANVISA will not register GM maize products until its safety is demonstrated.

Maize crops in Brazil possess an enormous genetic diversity. In the Central-South of Parana alone, one of the regions where AS-PTA is active, 145 varieties of maize have already been identified. As well as being incompatible with the monopoly imposed by transgenic crops, this diversity plays a fundamental role in ensuring the food security, income generation and technological autonomy of thousands of families.

So who will assume responsibility for the widespread contamination of this genetic heritage and for the losses faced by these farmers, including the loss of external market? Who will assume responsibility for future legal actions over alleged patent violations prompted by crop contamination? Certainly not the 15 or 17 members of the CTNBio who gave their assurance that this maize is safe.

'Now, I am radically opposed [to the release of GM crops] and I believe it is a backward step for the government to pursue this policy. In reality, this is happening because this country's political elite is once again succumbing to the overtures of a multinational.' So said Luiz In›cio Lula da Silva in July 2001 on the Family Farming Caravan during his electoral campaign for the Presidency, referring to the release of transgenic soya.

The multinational remains the same. Meanwhile the political elite has changed, but likewise remains the same.

___________

GM-FREE BRAZIL - Published by AS-PTA Assessoria e Servios a Projetos em Agricultura Alternativa. The GM-Free Brazil Campaign is a collective of Brazilian NGOs, social movements and individuals.

AS-PTA an independent, not-for-profit Brazilian organisation dedicated to promoting the sustainable rural development. Head office: Rua da Candel›ria, 9/6œ andar/ CEP: 20.091-020, Centro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Phone: 0055-21-2253-8317 Fax: 0055-21-2233-363

This article can be found on the AS-PTA website at http://www.aspta.org.br

22 February 2008

Potential Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods

Global Research, February 22 2008. By Stephen Lendman.

This article discusses the potential health risks of genetically engineered foods (GMOs). It draws on some previously used material because its importance bears repeating. It also cites three notable books and highlights one in particular - Jeffrey Smith's "Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods." Detailed information from the book is featured below.

Genetically engineered foods saturate our diet today. In the US alone, over 80% of all processed foods contain them. Others include grains like rice, corn and wheat; legumes like soybeans and soy products; vegetable oils, soft drinks; salad dressings; vegetables and fruits; dairy products including eggs; meat, chicken, pork and other animal products; and even infant formula plus a vast array of hidden additives and ingredients in processed foods (like in tomato sauce, ice cream, margarine and peanut butter). Consumers don't know what they're eating because labeling is prohibited, yet the danger is clear. Independently conducted studies show the more of these foods we eat, the greater the potential harm to our health.

Today, consumers are kept in the dark and are part of an uncontrolled, unregulated mass human experiment the results of which are unknown. Yet, the risks are enormous, it will take years to learn them, and when we finally know it'll be too late to reverse the damage if it's proved conclusively that genetically engineered foods harm human health as growing numbers of independent experts believe. Once GM seeds are introduced to an area, the genie is out of the bottle for keeps. There is nothing known to science today to reverse the contamination already spread over two-thirds of arable US farmland and heading everywhere unless checked.

This is happening in spite of the risk because of what F. William Engdahl revealed in his powerfully important, well documented book titled "Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation." It's the diabolical story of how Washington and four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting animal and vegetable life forms to gain worldwide control of our food supply, make it all genetically engineered, and use it as a weapon to reward friends and punish enemies.

Today, consumers eat these foods daily without knowing the potential health risks. In 2003, Jeffrey Smith explained them in his book titled "Seeds of Deception." He revealed that efforts to inform the public have been quashed, reliable science has been buried, and consider what happened to two distinguished scientists - UC Berkeley's Ignacio Chapela and former Scotland Rowett Research Institute researcher and world's leading lectins and plant genetic modification expert, Arpad Pusztai. They were vilified, hounded, and threatened for their research, and in the case of Pusztai, fired from his job for doing it.

He believed in the promise of GM foods, was commissioned to study them, and conducted the first ever independent one on them anywhere. Like other researchers since, he was shocked by his findings. Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains, damaged immune systems, and showed structural changes in their white blood cells making them more vulnerable to infection and disease compared to other rats fed non-GMO potatoes. It got worse. Thymus and spleen damage showed up; enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and intestines; and there were cases of liver atrophy as well as significant proliferation of stomach and intestines cells that could be a sign of greater future risk of cancer. Equally alarming, results showed up after 10 days of testing, and they persisted after 110 days that's the human equivalent of 10 years.

Later independent studies confirmed what Pusztai learned, and Smith published information on them in his 2007 book called "Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods." The book is encyclopedic in depth, an invaluable comprehensive source, and this article reviews some of the shocking data in it.

Compelling Evidence of Potential GMO Harm

In his introduction, Smith cites the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) policy