NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • January 2008

2008: Jan • Feb
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

31 January 2008

Monsanto says French GMO ban illegal and harmful

Reuters, 31 January 2008.

PARIS - U.S. biotech company Monsanto said on Thursday France's decision to ban one of its genetically modified varieties of maize was illegal and would be harmful to the sector.

France said last month it would activate a "safeguard clause" in European law to suspend the use of Monsanto's MON 810 technology on the grounds that doubts remained on whether the cultivation of the maize (corn) was safe for the environment.

"Such a totally illegal measure, be it in law or in facts, would be severely and immediately harmful not only to Monsanto to but also to all the other actors of this sector," the company said in a letter addressed to the agriculture ministry.

"Monsanto wants to raise the French government's attention to the heavy responsibility that (it) would face if it activated the safeguard clause in these circumstances," it added.

France's move was based on a study by a government-appointed committee saying it had uncovered new elements questioning the safe use of the MON 810 maize, an essential argument to justify the banning of a product authorized in the European Union.

Monsanto said the committee had not turned up any scientific proof which had not already been reviewed by the EU, which had authorized use of MON 810 throughout the 27-nation bloc in 1998. "There is no doubt that the (committee's) opinion does not fulfill any of the criteria which would allow ... the French state to suspend the application of a legal authorization based on a rational and scientific evaluation," Monsanto said.

If France activates the safeguard clause to ban the MON 810 technology, also used by other seed makers in France, it will need to give proof of new scientific evidence against it, which Monsanto says does not exist.

It will then be up to the European Union to say whether the move is justified.

Monsanto issued a 38-page scientific document on its Web site (www.monsanto.fr) defending the GMO maize and referring to international studies that have said that MON 810 maize was as safe as any other maize.

The EU itself is set to re-evaluate Monsanto's MON 810 maize this year and decide whether it can continue to be used safely in the 27-nation bloc.

(Reporting by Tamora Vidaillet; editing by Sybille de La Hamaide and Chris Johnson)

EU lawyers take action against Poland over GMO ban

Reuters, 31 January 2008.

BRUSSELS - European Union regulators launched legal action against Poland at Europe's highest court on Thursday for the country's move to ban the trade in and planting of genetically modified seeds, the EU executive said.

Poland's plans for what amounts to a national GMO ban, announced last year, quickly drew criticism from European Commission lawyers who routinely scrutinise any such proposals.

Earlier this month, they said it had no scientific justification. But Poland's insistence in proceeding with the ban, despite several warning letters sent from Brussels, meant the Commission now had to resort to legal action, it said.

"On the basis of the information provided by the Polish authorities in their replies to these letters, the Commission has no alternative but to refer Poland to the ECJ," it said, referring to the Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice.

"In their reply, the Polish authorities confirm their intention to maintain the ban Polish authorities believe that the use of GM seeds encroaches on the sphere of public morality, an encroachment that would justify a total ban on GM seeds."

As tested on several previous occasions, the Commission takes the view that if a region wants to ban GMO crops or products, such restrictions must be scientifically justified and crop-specific to comply with EU law.

It also believes that a proposed ban must not be politically motivated, or a blanket GMO restriction that might distort the EU's single trading market.

Poland's law on seeds and plant protection, adopted in April 2006, introduced a total ban of trade in GMO seeds varieties on Polish territory.

Since the use and trade of GMO seeds was harmonized across EU member countries, the Commission had told Poland -- in a first letter sent in October 2006 and then in another sent in June 2007 -- that its GMO ban broke EU law, the statement said.

(Reporting by Jeremy Smith; editing by Chris Johnson)

EFSA and EU work on GMO risk assessment

AllAboutFeed.net, 31 January 2008.

More than 60 GMO experts from national regulatory risk assessment bodies in the EU met in November 2007 to examine EFSAís risk assessment procedures and its Guidance Documents. The meeting was organised by EFSA, the body that is working closely with EU Member States on GMO risk assessment.

Most experts agreed at the meeting on the general approach on risk assessment methodologies and approaches to GMOs. EFSA is building on the exchange of views to continue to strengthen its risk assessment approach and will take a number of recommendations to the Advisory Forum for further discussion.

Risks of cultivation

One key issue addressed at the meeting was the Environmental Risk Assessment of GM plants intended for cultivation in Europe. Several experts asked EFSA to develop guidance further, particularly concerning field trials, regional specificity and potential effects on non-target organisms. EFSA will pursue its work in this area in co-operation with Member States and in light of a question recently received from the European Commission (DG Environment) on Environmental Risk Assessment.

Use of statistics

The use of statistics in GMO risk assessments, to estimate biological differences between a GM plant and its conventional counterpart, was discussed in detail. EFSA has a working group looking at new statistical methods that could help further advance harmonisation in risk assessment. The majority of Member State experts agreed that statistics had an important role to play in GMO risk assessment but emphasised that biological relevance should drive the dynamics of the risk assessment rather than statistical significance.

Animal feeding trials

On animal feeding trials, the majority of Member State experts was satisfied with present EFSA risk assessment guidance which requires a 90-day feeding trial study whenever evidence indicates significant differences in the GM plant which requires further investigation. However, one Member State expert asked for animal feeding trials to be conducted as a matter of routine. EFSAís GMO Panel has adopted a Report on animal feeding trials which will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal over the coming months.

Ireland: GM industry's effort to end food labelling

Irish Farmers Journal (dated 2 February 20080, published 31 January 2008. Letter to the editor.

Dear Sir,

Judging by his response, I must have hit a raw nerve with Shane Morris when I called for a moral and ethical approach to the debate on GM.

I was dismayed that his response was littered with the usual anti-organic "urban myths". He labours the point about the labelling of organic products as GM-free. Many conventional products are also labelled GM-free in response to the concerns of consumers.

His final paragraph is obviously intended to be ironic. But it also diverts attention from the strenuous efforts the GM industry has put into trying to stop the transparent labelling of GM foods, and it is worth pondering on why this is so. As a policy advisor to a foreign government; how much of what he propounds is really in Ireland's interest?

Kate Carmody
Beal Lodge
Asdee, Co. Kerry
Ireland

EU: States ask EFSA for more guidance on GM assessment

FoodNavigator.com, 31 January 2008.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is working with member states to update risk assessment guidance for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to bring it in line with scientific progress and provide more in-depth advice.

More than 60 GMO experts from national regulatory risk assessment bodies came together in November to discuss the best scientific approaches for evaluating the safety of GMOs at national and European level.

Today the findings from the meeting, including the fact that differences exist among member states with respect to the practical organisation of GMO risk assessment will be presented to an Advisory Forum.

Although he would not specify the final outcome of the process, Steve Pagani, head of EFSA's press office, told FoodNavigator.com: "We want to draw together the best scientific minds and look at the different methodologies available to see if there are other ways to do it."

While EFSA's guidelines remain voluntary, all member states showed that they refer to them, and there were no indications that national risk assessment documents differ from internationally accepted guidance.

Environmental risk assessment

A key issue that will be put to the forum is the environmental risk assessment of GM plants intended for cultivation in Europe, an area that remains a major concern amongst GM critics.

Several European GMO experts asked EFSA to develop further its guidance on environmental risk assessment, particularly concerning field trials, regional specificity and potential effects on non-target organisms.

The environmental working group of EFSA's GMO Panel said it will address these concerns in its ongoing work on refining assessment approaches.

In regards to regional specificity, it was suggested that a country could commission research in their own environments in order to provide information on specific interactions between GM crops and biota in their regions.

Meanwhile, on animal feeding trials, the majority of member state experts were satisfied with present EFSA risk assessment guidance, which requires a 90-day feeding trial study whenever evidence indicates significant differences in the GM plant that requires further investigation.

Different assessment procedures

Dr Harry Kuiper, chair of the EFSA GMO Panel, emphasised that risk assessment is done comprehensively based on all the available evidence, since there is no single test that can give a full risk analysis.

While the majority of member state experts agreed that statistics had an important role to play in GMO risk assessment, they thought biological relevance should drive the dynamics.

Therefore, EFSA concluded that more guidance is needed on defining threshold values for variation of test endpoints that are used in statistical analyses to assess biological relevance

GM situation in Europe

Last year, over 110,000 hectares of biotech crops were harvested in seven EU member states, compared to 62,000 hectares in 2006. This represents a 77 per cent increase.

At the moment, the only type of GM crop grown in the EU is maize, which was approved in 1998. It is not cultivated for human consumption but for animal feed.

The possible risks posed by the use of GM crops, particularly concerns of cross-contamination, have caused some countries to place bans on their cultivation.

Austria enforced a ban on the import and processing of Monsanto's MON810 and Bayer's T25 maize in June 1999, expressing concerns on safety.

The Commission has been debating whether to force the country to lift its restrictions since 2005, as Austria has never produced the necessary scientific evidence to contest the positive assessment of the products by Europe's food safety authorities.

France has also extended its temporary ban on the cultivation of MON810, applying the same EU measure by arguing the costs to health posed by GM crops.

Earlier this month, the European Commission was given yet more time to bring member states in compliance with trade obligations on GM crops.

EU lawyers take action against Poland over GMO ban

Reuters, 31 January 2008.

BRUSSELS - European Union regulators launched legal action against Poland at Europe's highest court on Thursday for the country's move to ban the trade in and planting of genetically modified seeds, the EU executive said.

Poland's plans for what amounts to a national GMO ban, announced last year, quickly drew criticism from European Commission lawyers who routinely scrutinise any such proposals.

Earlier this month, they said it had no scientific justification. But Poland's insistence in proceeding with the ban, despite several warning letters sent from Brussels, meant the Commission now had to resort to legal action, it said.

"On the basis of the information provided by the Polish authorities in their replies to these letters, the Commission has no alternative but to refer Poland to the ECJ," it said, referring to the Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice.

"In their reply, the Polish authorities confirm their intention to maintain the ban. Polish authorities believe that the use of GM seeds encroaches on the sphere of public morality, an encroachment that would justify a total ban on GM seeds."

As tested on several previous occasions, the Commission takes the view that if a region wants to ban GMO crops or products, such restrictions must be scientifically justified and crop-specific to comply with EU law.

It also believes that a proposed ban must not be politically motivated, or a blanket GMO restriction that might distort the EU's single trading market.

Poland's law on seeds and plant protection, adopted in April 2006, introduced a total ban of trade in GMO seeds varieties on Polish territory.

Since the use and trade of GMO seeds was harmonized across EU member countries, the Commission had told Poland -- in a first letter sent in October 2006 and then in another sent in June 2007 -- that its GMO ban broke EU law, the statement said.

(Reporting by Jeremy Smith; editing by Chris Johnson)

California: Farmer protection GE bill passed

Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) press release, January 31 2008.

California Assembly passes farmer GE protection bill:

Jared Huffman's state legislation passed the California Assembly by a vote of 49-12 this week, and now moves to the State Senate. AB 451would protect farmers whose crops are contaminated by the spread of patented, genetically engineered (GE) seeds and pollen. [See PANUPS, Jan. 24, 2008 BELOW] The bill provides protections from patent-holder lawsuits and would require a farmer's written consent and state oversight before corporate investigators could enter and inspect private fields. "While there is still work to do," Huffman said, AB 541 marks "an important step in establishing basic protections for California's farmers." The bill is supported by PANNA and other members of the Genetic Engineering Policy Alliance (http://www.gepolicyalliance.org/ ). Thank you to the hundreds of PAN's Action Center members in California who sent emails on AB 541 last week. You made a difference. Keep it up!

APHIS sued over "Franken-seeds":

The Organic Seed Alliance (OSA), Center for Food Safety, and Sierra Club have sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to block commercial release of the sugar beet seeds genetically engineered to tolerate Roundup Ready (glyphosate) herbicide. The seeds, currently slated for commercial release this spring, were developed by Monsanto. Roundup is Monsanto's dominant pesticide product. The suit charges that APHIS failed to thoroughly investigate whether a three-mile buffer zone between GE and natural crops will be sufficient to "thwart the spread of glyphosate-tolerant genes" to fields of organic beets and chard. Tom Stearns, owner of High Mowing Seeds, warns that contamination of organic crops with artificial genes "takes away people's right to farm the way they want.... It's pollution." Attorney Kevin Golden fears the use of GE beets "will eventually result in weed resistance to glyphosate" and that "more toxic alternatives would need to be used to control those weeds." An APHIS spokesperson told the Capital Press that GE beets will have "no adverse environmental impact" but APHIS' own assessment admits "gene introgression...is possible." (http://www.capitalpress.com/main.asp?SectionID=94&SubSectionID=801&ArticleID=38636&TM=3334.415 )

Minnesota bows to Monsanto and Dow:

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that "scientists at Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences convinced the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to double the allowable river concentration of an agricultural weed-killer despite an internal review calling for tougher standards." The MPCA conducted a three-year review of the herbicide acetochlor after high concentrations of the toxic chemical appeared in local trout streams. According to Integrity in Science Watch, MPCA was about to tighten water quality standards for acetochlor when industry scientists submitted "six studies that they said proved that the draft limit was too strict." The new standard removed three "impaired" streams from the polluted list. Paul Wotzka, a former Minnesota Department of Agriculture hydrologist said, "I can't fathom how quickly a state agency would bend over backwards to a chemical giant like Monsanto." After three years of research and public testimony, the MPCA had proposed setting the limit on acetochlor at 1.7 parts per billion but, after being contacted by the manufacturers, the MPCA reversed itself and doubled the standard to 3.6 parts per billion. The Mankato Free Press called the quick about-face by state officials "troubling."

Ireland: GM food controversy subject of public debate at Trinity

Irish Examiner (farming supplement), 31 January 2008.

Speakers will debate the motion "That genetically modified food should be eaten and produced" in Trinity College next Wednesday night.

It will be Ireland's first public debate on GM food since 1998, according to the GM-free Ireland Network.

Speakers are Sen. Deirdre de Burca, Green Party; Michael K Hansen, PhD, Senior Food Safety Scientist, Consumers Union (USA), Pro Davd McConnell, Chairman, Irish Times Trust, Co-ordinator and Co-Vice President, European Action on Global Life Sciences; Michael O'Callaghan, Co-ordinator, GM-free Ireland Network, and Lord Dick Taverne, Chair, Sense About Science.

The Trinity College Historical Society debate starts at 7.30pm in the Graduates Memorial Building. See www.thehist.com for more details.

UK: Meacher replies to the Canadian Government

GM Watch, 31 January 2008.

NOTE: Here's the text of Michael Meacher's reply to a letter from the Canadian High Commissioner in London concerning the Early Day Motion (EDM) on the abuse of science tabled in the House of Commons. Meacher's EDM, incidentally, has so far attracted the support of 27 Members of Parliament from a range of Parties - the latest Alex Samond, the leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) and Scotland's First Minister. http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=34547&SESSION=891

___________

Many thanks for writing with respect to the Early Day Motion (EDM) I tabled on November 28th. I am obviously reassured that the Canadian Government wishes to distance itself from the behaviour of its employee, Mr. Shane Morris, and the article he co-authored in the British Food Journal on "Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet corn".

I quite accept that Mr. Morris was not working for the Government at the time he participated in the research back in Autumn 2000 and that he co-authored this paper in a private capacity, but I cannot accept that that makes it an entirely private matter. Throughout his employment by the Canadian Government - first in Summer 2001as a Professional Consultant to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and later as its National Biotechnology Operations Coordinator, before going on to his current post as a Consumer Analyst for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada - his scientific credentials, particularly in relation to biotechnology and consumer issues, must have been a significant consideration in assessing his suitability for the roles he was undertaking. The fact that he now stands accused of being party to mendacity, falsification and fraud in respect of biotechnology and consumer issues, is therefore hardly something that the Canadian Government can turn a blind eye to.

This is also not simply an issue of what Mr. Morris may have got up to before he was employed by the Canadian Government, as it is not only the study itself that is controversial but Mr. Morris's more recent attempts to defend the study. His statements as to how the study was conducted, and his role in it, have been contradicted by a number of scientists and others, who as you may know have in some cases directly accused him of making "untrue statements". In this context, I would also refer you to the current issue of the magazine Private Eye where he is accused of "melodramatic lies" in relation to claims he recently made to the magazine.

It is also inevitable that Mr. Morris's use of heavy-handed libel threats and aggressive public statements will be viewed as reflecting on the institution that employs him. In this context I think it would be wise for you to take a look at some of the material he has published on his blogs. This, for example, is what he had to say on his "gmwatchbullshtt" blog about a Canadian agricultural scientist, Dr. Rod MacRae of York University, who contradicted what Mr. Morris had claimed about how the research was conducted:

"Has GMWatch (or their big funders) bought lies in Canada??? In a desperate attempt to gain creditability (sic) GMWatch has rolled out a anti-GM consultant, Rob (sic) McRae (sic) to contradict me. McRae is a long time paid lackey of Greenpeace. In a hilarious farce McRae claims, without any evidence, all sorts of things about his visits to Birbank Farms......Just shows that anyone can be bought...oh well, I ain't going to argue cos I'm sure he is 110% correct!!!(wink)".

I understand that Mr. Morris has subsequently replaced the word "bought" with the word "used", but I still find it hard to imagine that this kind of potentially libellous abuse is the sort of thing with which the Canadian Government would wish to be associated.

His employment by the Government of Canada also raises other questions. Immediately prior to that employment, Mr. Morris was employed as an assistant to Dr. Douglas Powell at the University of Guelph. Dr. Powell is a highly controversial figure who has been described in the Canadian press as the "darling of the pro-biotech lobby and its chief attack dog", and Mr. Morris became very well know during his time at Guelph for his similarly aggressive promotion of the pro-GM agenda. Powell and Morris stand accused by their critics in Canada of using the op-ed pages of Canadian newspapers to denigrate anyone who criticized the science or the regulatory framework around biotechnology. For example, John Morriss, the editor of a Canadian farming paper, condemned Dr. Powell's "aggressive if not vicious attacks on other scientists who dare to challenge his views" using the example of an "offensive attack on no less than the Royal Society of Canada and the members of the panel it appointed to review food biotechnology" which was co-authored by Mr. Morris. A colleague of Powell and Morris at Guelph, Dr. E. Ann Clark, has even referred to what was going on there as "not far removed from the proclamations of Orwell's Ministry of Truth". Given this, some might find it surprising if the Canadian Government failed to recognise who they were offering employment to.

You mention that Mr. Morris is not an officially designated spokesman for either Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada or the Government of Canada, and that his views do not represent the views of the Government of Canada, but does the Government of Canada always grant such leeway to its employees to lobby for whatever causes they wish regardless of the political and other repercussions? As you will be aware, others in the Canadian bureaucracy are alleged to have got into considerable trouble for expressing their views. In the case of Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon and Gerard Lambert, the Canadian Government is accused by some of having gagged and eventually sacked them because of their public statements. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that perception, it does make it surprising if a public servant embarked on such a vigorous and controversial public campaign as that of Mr. Morris without the reassurance that his superiors were at ease with his actions. Or to put it another way, given that Canada is a major GM crop exporting nation, would a Canadian government employee have dared promote scepticism about GMOs as aggressively as Mr. Morris has sought to undermine and attack those opposing them?

Mr. Morris's behaviour also raises interesting questions of sovereignty. While I understand that Mr. Morris is still an Irish citizen, it is, I would have thought, unusual to have an official of the Canadian Government apparently briefing the main opposition Party in Ireland on how to create difficulties for Irish Ministers over Government policy. This is particularly the case when their policy of seeking to create a GM-free island of Ireland clearly runs directly counter to Canadaís economic interests and the mandate of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

I look forward to your response to the points I have made, and I hope this helps explain to you how Members of Parliament in this country, where government employees are not expected to behave in the way Mr Morris has, view this issue.

___________

Original letter from the UK High Commissioner for Canada:

Dear Michael

I am writing with respect to the Early Day Motion (EDM) you tabled on November 28th. I wish to clarify the role of an employee of the Federal Government of Canada in the publication of an article in the British Food Journal in 2003 on "Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet corn."

While now a Federal Government employee, Mr. Shane Morris was not working for the Government when he participated in research related to the publication of the article in the British Food Journal. The publication of that research paper, authored principally by Dr. Doug Powell of Kansas State University, was a private matter in which the Government of Canada had no involvement.

Any legal steps that Mr. Morris may have taken to defend the research paper were also a private matter in which the Government of Canada played no role. Mr. Morris is not an officially designated spokesman for either Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada or the Government of Canada, and he has not identified himself as such in his public correspondence. The views expressed are his personal views. They do not represent the views of the Government of Canada on genetically modified products.

Members of Parliament should understand therefore that the Government of Canada has not been involved in any of the alleged actions referred to in the EDM. I would be grateful if you, and other signatories to the EDM, would keep this important context in mind.

Yours sincerely,

James R Wright
High Commissioner
[UK High Commissioner for Canada]

Canada: P.E.I. farmer invests big in soybeans
'We can't afford to not make money.' ó Robert MacDonald

CBC News, 30 January 2008.

Taking a step away from cows and potatoes, a P.E.I. [Prince Edward Island] farmer is investing $2.5 million in a processing plant to supply GMO-free soybeans to the Japanese market.

Robert MacDonald of Belle River, near Wood Islands, hopes the facility will breathe new life into the troubled agriculture industry on P.E.I.Ý

"Long term, short term, for cows it doesn't look that good," said MacDonald.

"We're making hard decisions on our farm for the last two months, and I'm sorry, but it doesn't look good for the cow herd. We can't afford to not make money. We never could."

This year MacDonald will be processing and shipping four different soybean varieties to Japan. He's convinced Island farmers to plant 2,400 hectares of GMO-free soybeans this spring.

MacDonald knows the soybean processing plant is a risk. His family is in deep, investing their own money along with loans from the government.

"We have to make this work. I think we have a very good chance of making it work," he said.

"It's a concern, but if you think you've got a good program, you've got a good market, the concern gets lessened a little bit. But it's going to take us a couple of years to get up to speed."

MacDonald hopes this plant will offer struggling Island farmers another option.

Ireland: No way to detect GM sugars or vegetable oils

Irish Examiner (farming supplement), 31 January 2008.

Irish consumers will be eating genetically modified sugar later this year - but there is no way to tell it from conventional sugar.

In October, the European Commission authorised a GM sugar beet (H7-1) for use as food or animal feed.

It will also be grown t his year in other sugar producing regions outside the EU.

Inevitably it will find its way into the EU food industry later this year. Packaging will have to carry GM labelling where more than 0.9% of a product is genetically modified.

But there will be no way to reassure the 70% of European consumers who do not want genetically modified foods that their sugar is not modified. There is no test to distinguish between sugar from a GM crop or a non-GM crop.

Sources in the Department of Agriculture say this is also the case with vegetable oils from oilseed cotton and oilseed rapes.

"It is imposible to tell if they are genetically modified, without following a long and arduous paper trail, which is not feasible," said a spokesperson.

Ireland: Scientist scorns 'myth' of tastier organic food

Irish Independent, 31 January 2008. By Shane Hickey.

A leading scientist has described claims that organic foods are more nutritious and taste better as "fiction".

And any aims to turn Ireland into an 'organic island' were also scorned yesterday by Dr. Con O'Rourke, who said this could mean no exports and the need for massive recycling.

Dr. O'Rourke, a former senior member of agricultural body Teagasc and scientific journal editor, said that substantial research had not yet shown any nutritional differences between organic and standrard foods.

The Food Safety Authorityh of Ireland yesterday had an open debate on attitudes twoards and research into organic food.

Research from the body shows that less than one-third of people (32%) surveyed believe organic food to be a healthier option while 15pc believe it to be "full of flavour and taste".

"Organic foods are often claimed to be more nutritious and to taste better," said Dr. O'Rourke.

"However, this has to be regarded as a fiction since, to date, rigorous scientific evaluation has failed to show significant and consistent differences."

Claims that organic food is better were usually based on uncon trolled comparisons while nutritionists and dieticians maintian a balanced diet with fruit and vegetables can provide all the nutrients required, he said.

In addition, genetically modified (GM) foiods are "no less safe" than conventional foods, with a 'GM-free' Ireland as unlikely as an 'organic Ireland', he said.

However, organic food consultant Siobhan Morris said the organic food market was worth € 66m in Ireland last year - up from € 38m in 2003.

She spoke of the benefits of organics in terms of animal welfare and improved taste.

Organic milk was found to have up to 80pc more anti-oxidants whicle cereals and vegetables had up to 40pc more nutrients, she said.

Chef Darina Allen said the cost of organic foods depended on where they were bought, with supermarkets often more expensive than some farmers markets.

Broadcaster and food consultant Clodagh McKenna, pictured above at the event, said children had to build up an understanding of food from early on.

Ireland: Most consumers do not buy organic food due to cost

Irish Times, 31 January 2008. By Paul Cullen, Consumer Affairs Correspondent.

Over half of Irish consumers say they have never bought organic food, mostly because they believe it is too dear, according to research by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI).

The authority's chief specialist in public health and nutrition, Dr Mary Flynn, said yesterday there was little evidence to show that organic foods conferred health benefits on humans.

She was speaking at an open meeting on organic food organised by the FSAI's consultative council, at which more than 100 people debated the issue.

Dr Flynn described claims that organic food could boost a person's immune system as "wooly" and said the quality of much research in the area was not good enough and was often confounded by other factors. While acknowledging that consumers seemed happy to pay more for organic food, she warned producers to "rely on science" when making claims, otherwise they could be "on thin ice" when new EU regulations on health claims for foods are introduced.

The market for organic foods is growing rapidly - worth € 66 million last year, uk from € 38 million in 2003 - as consumers respond to health scares and seek a healthier diet. However, claims about their nutritional and health benefits remain hotly disputed.

Plant scientist Dr Con O'Rourke said there was not yet a body of scientific evidence to show that organic food was significantly or consistently better than food produced using pesticides. A person eating a varied diet with lots of vegetables had no need for "superfoods" or organic produce, he suggested.

Dr O'Rourke acknowledged that organic food may contain higher levels of antioxidants and said organic farming created more biodiversity, but he said that staple Irish foods produced by conventional means were safe. He claimed supporters of organic foods had a "hidden agenda" in opposing genetically modified food because if pest-resistant strains were developed using this technology, this would "steal the clothes" of organic growers.

Siobhá Morris, and organic food consultant, said the broad range of benefits organic farming could deliver needed to be taken into account. Organic food tended to be in season, harvested recently, and involved plant varieties grown for taste.

30 January 2008

U.S. seeks to retaliate against EU in GMO case

Reuters, 30 January 2008.

GENEVA - The United States underlined on Wednesday its right to retaliate against the European Union in a row over an EU ban on biotech crops.

The dispute has pitted the EU against the United States, Argentine and Canada, the world's three biggest growers of genetically modified (GMO) food. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has ordered the EU to end the ban.

Brussels has found it hard to implement the WTO ruling because some of the 27 EU member states operate their own bans.

Many European consumers are wary of eating GMO crops after media scares about "Frankenfoods" and advocacy groups say they threaten biodiversity.

The WTO said it would hold an extraordinary meeting of its dispute settlement body on Feb. 8 to discuss a U.S. request for compensation in the dispute.

A trade official said this was in fact a procedural device to get around inconsistencies in the WTO's dispute rules. The item would probably be withdrawn from the agenda following a likely EU objection as part of an agreement between Washington and Brussels to pursue a negotiated solution, he said.

But if they do not succeed, the issue will return to the dispute settlement body's agenda. Wednesday's move prepares for that eventuality.

The extended deadline for Brussels to comply expired on Jan. 11. The following week the United States decided to give the EU more time to do so.

Washington reserved its right to push later for a WTO decision on whether the EU had done enough to end the ban and, if Brussels was found wanting, to retaliate.

U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab has said Washington's priority is to get Brussels to allow GMO crops, rather than to retaliate against EU goods.

But a document that the United States filed last week at the WTO said the U.S. reserved the right to retaliate against the EU to compensate for the annual value of lost US exports, royalties and licensing fees to the EU from biotech crops.

These would be levied by imposing extra tariffs on EU goods or lifting other WTO agreements regulating agriculture or health and safety, the document said.

Austria continues to ban MON 810 maize made by U.S. biotech company Monsanto and T25 maize developed by German drugs and chemicals group Bayer. And days after the Jan. 11 deadline expired, the EU's biggest food producer France also imposed a temporary ban on MON 810.

The case will be closely watched by other biotech companies such as U.S. chemicals groups Du Pont and Dow Chemical and Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta.

(Reporting by Jonathan Lynn; editing by Robert Woodward)

USA: Organic Seed company joins lawsuit against GMO sugar beets

Vermont Public Radio, 30 January 2008. By John Dillon.

BARRE, VT. -- (Host) A Vermont organic seed company has joined a lawsuit that aims to halt the use of genetically modified sugar beets.

The suit says the U.S. Department of Agriculture failed to take a hard look at the environmental impacts before allowing the crops for sale.

VPR's John Dillon reports:

(Dillon) Tom Stearns is president of High Mowing Seeds in Wolcott. Founded 12 years ago, the company has grown quickly to meet demand. It now employs about 30 people and sells seeds to organic farmers all over the country.

But Stearns sees a threat to the organic industry - and to parts of his business - from the proliferation of genetically modified crops. The lawsuit that he joined asks the U.S. Department of Agriculture to conduct a thorough environmental review.

(Stearns) "Our assessment is that they didn't give a hard look. .. and do the environmental impact study that they were supposed to do. And so what we say is halt any planting of genetically engineered sugar beets, halt any seed production of genetically engineered sugar beets until you go through this process of the full environmental assessment."

(Dillon) Stearns explains that beets pollinate by wind. Each plant makes millions of grains of pollen, which can blow for several miles in the breeze. So he says the genetically modified varieties could easily cross pollinate with organic plants.

(Stearns) "The economic impact that it would have on us - both our seed company and the organic industry in general, I fear - is that both in crossing from one field to another you have a risk of contaminating non genetically engineered beets, and on chard. Chard is the same species as table beets and as sugar beets, so they will cross indiscriminately."

(Dillon) Sugar beets aren't grown commercially in Vermont. But Stearns is especially concerned about the Willamette Valley in Oregon, where organic seed producers and sugar beet growers work side by side.

The genetically modified sugar beets are sold by Monsanto. The company altered the DNA of the beet seed - as it's done with corn and soybeans -- so the plant can withstand a popular herbicide Monsanto also sells.

But environmentalists and organic farmers worry that increased use of herbicide-resistant crops will lead to more chemical spraying. Stearns says there's also evidence that weeds are becoming tolerant of the herbicide, which is sold by Monsanto under the brand-name Roundup.

(Stearns) The second thing is that because of genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops becoming dominant in the market, the company that owns Roundup and develops these Roundup ready crops has gained a greater market share. And so therefore as more and more growers are planting Roundup Ready corn, and soybeans and alfalfa and the like - they end up having to use Roundup, because that's the only herbicide that will work on these new crops.

(Dillon) USDA has declined to comment on the lawsuit. Stearns is joined in the case by the Organic Seed Alliance and several non profit environmental groups. The suit was filed in federal court in San Francisco. Last year, a judge in that court blocked the sale of genetically modified alfalfa seeds.

For VPR News, I'm John Dillon in Montpelier.

French retailers back eco-friendly and organic products

FoodNavigator.com, 30 January 2008. By Dominique Patton.

France's leading retailers yesterday pledged to reduce their impact on the environment under an ambitious plan backed by the government.

The Fédération des Entreprises du Commerce et de la Distribution (FECD), which represents 93 per cent of the country's hypermarkets and more than 80 per cent of supermarkets, signed a charter that aims to promote sales of environmentally friendly goods, as well as those produced organically. It will also seek to increase levels of recycling in the country and lower carbon emissions from supermarkets.

Under the plan, the retailers, with combined sales of §178 billion, will launch a study to assess the carbon emissions of around 300 key items in an average French consumer's shopping basket. The results would then be communicated to consumers on product packaging from 2010.

The retailers said they want to double the number of products carrying labels signifying eco-friendly production in the next three years. This will be backed by a national communications campaign running throughout 2008 and 2009, the group said. It will also work to reduce packaging waste by at least 10 per cent and increase recycling to three quarters of all glass, paper and cardboard used in stores.

The group said it has already reduced packaging by 10 per cent between 1997 and 2006, even as consumption of household goods has grown. Finally the group has promised to improve energy efficiency in its shops by supporting renewable energy and reducing energy used in refrigeration. It also plans to cut emissions produced in transport of goods to the stores.

The charter comes amid a wave of similar announcements from individual retailers in the UK as well as food manufacturers around the world.

Last October the British food industry's trade body, the Food and Drink Federation, revealed a package of targets aimed at making the sector more environmentally friendly.

Rising awareness of how food is produced is creating demand from consumers for more environmentally friendly products. Industry is also under pressure to reduce carbon emissions as part of EU-wide targets recently announced by the trading bloc.

The French pledge differed from others by including organically produced foods in its environmental charter. It wants to increase the share of organic foods in the total range offered in its stores by 15 per cent each year. That will require "an evolution in French farming", it admitted.

The organic industry claims that their methods of production are less damaging to the environment but those claims have been controversial with conventional farmers and others in industry.

Last week research analysts Mintel said sales of organic products were hampered by a lack of local production.

Poles say NO to GMO

Press Release from
Coalition for a GMO Free Poland and The Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside
30 January 2008.

The Coalition for a GMO Free Poland and The Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside will be holding a joint PRESS CONFERENCE at kawiara ANRAKT, Srodmiescie pl, Pilsudskiego 9,Warsaw at 11:30am, January 31st 2008, to highlight the crisis hanging over the future of Poland's status as a GMO Free Country.

Minister of Agriculture Marek Sawicki, has declared that he intends to revoke the ban placed on genetically modified animal feeds, due to come into effect this year. Furthermore, he has declared that he intends to allow commercial planting of GM plants on Polish soil in conformity with controversial European Union directives.

This capitulation to corporate and European Union pressures will pave the way for potentially severe and unpredictable repercussions on human, animal and environmental health.

GM technology's tampering with the food chain represents a vast and totally irresponsible corporate experiment on mankind and nature, as the ever lengthening list of casualities reveals. We are simply guinea pigs in this out of control laboratory experiment

Polish citizens and the Polish countryside will pay an unacceptably high price if current proposals are ratified by parliament.

Once Pandora's Box has been opened, it will become impossible to protect the Polish food and the renowned biodiversity of the Polish countryside. Yet Polish citizens have unequivocally rejected GMO, in common with citizens throughout Europe.

•

French President Sarkozy recently established an independent team of experts to assess the risks associated with planting Monsanto's GM maize (MON 810). The team's findings caused the President to ban MON 810.

•

Austria, Greece and Hungary have refused to comply with the European Commission's threat to impose fines on them for blocking the import and planting of GM maize; the Polish government should not act out of a fear of similar reprisals.

The Country's courageous stance in banning GM seeds have been recognised around the world, setting a precident which others are keen to follow.

To give in now would offer a 'license to kill' to the large scale GM corporations, condemming Polish citizens to a GM diet for generations to come.

"We have little time to act. This administration has been seduced by corporate interests and EU officialdom. There are millions of citizens who have no idea what is in store for them. They will wake up one morning to find the doors have been opened to genetically engineered foods and seeds and that the diets of their children are no longer in their hands" said Jadwiga Lopata.

"When politician's start gambling with the nation's health the warning lights should be unmistakeable. The genetic engineering of our food and seeds is corporate roulette and the Polish countryside is about to be offered as the Casino" said Sir Julian Rose

Jadwiga Lopata (Coalition 'GMO Free Poland') and Julian Rose (International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside) will be presenting a symbolic parcel of GM food to the Minister of Agriculture, as a stark reminder of the fact that Polish citizens do not want to consume GM food.

We are calling upon Marek Sawicki to tighten up the existing Seeds and Animal Feeds acts, rather than throw them out and expose Poland to the highly risky and unforseeable consequenses.

A photo opportunity will take place during the press conference..... as well as outside the main entrance of the Ministry of Agriculture at 1 pm on Thursday 31st January.

Contact + 48 33 879 7114

29 January 2008

US Trade Representative USchwab urges EU to hasten biotech approvals

Reuters, 29 January 2008. By Missy Ryan.

WASHINGTON, Jan 29 (Reuters) - U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab on Tuesday pledged to watch for proof that the European Union is accelerating approval of new biotech products and ending a delay that has been costly to U.S. exporters.

Schwab declined to specify how long she might be willing to wait before she would ask the World Trade Organization to probe whether the EU is in violation of its ruling that found the 27-member bloc dragged its feet for years in approving new genetically modified food and crops.

"We have been tremendously frustrated at the lack of progress on the biotechnology issue," Schwab, who discussed the issue last week with European officials, told reporters.

"We need to see some progress," she said.

Earlier this month, Schwab's office announced it would give the EU more time to speed up its approval process and comply with the ruling.

The case has complicated trans-Atlantic ties for years, stunting export opportunities for U.S. farmers, who now rely on biotechnology for a huge share of farm production.

GMO crops, designed to withstand weed-killing agents or to repel pests, are commonly used in the United States, but European consumers have resisted them.

If patience runs out in the Bush administration, trade officials might ask the WTO to convene a compliance panel that would decide whether the EU has done enough to comply with the ruling or not.

That process could ultimately lead to trade retaliation.

"Basically, it will be up to Europe to determine when or if the panel is ever formed," said Russell Williams, a biotechnology expert at the American Farm Bureau Federation, the largest U.S. farm group.

The Bush administration also has begun soliciting input about which EU products might be targeted for trade sanctions if the situation deteriorates.

As the EU promises to make changes to its approval process, the outlook is complicated by France's recent decision to extend an effective ban on the sole genetically modified crop now grown there, despite EU approval of the crop.

"We've been discouraged by some backsliding that we've seen on the part of France," Schwab said. The crop is called MON 810, a maize developed by the U.S. firm Monsanto (MON.N: Quote, Profile, Research).

France is one of several countries with bans in place in Europe. Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, executive vice president for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said the EU had made minor steps forward, approving four GM products in October, but pointed to over 40 other products awaiting approval.

Canada and Argentina also have challenged the EU process for approving GM products.

(Reporting by Missy Ryan, editing by Russell Blinch and David Gregorio)

Germany enables easier GM cultivation

FoodNavigator.com, 29 January 2008. By Laura Crowley.

New legislation passed in Germany on Friday has paved the way for increased biotech innovation and easier cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops.

The new law introduced rules regarding the sowing of Monsanto's pest-resistant maize MON180 for use as animal feed and its proximity to conventional crops.

Cross-contamination is one of the main concerns regarding GM crops because the long-term health effects of GM on humans are not known.

It is therefore recommended that the distance between GM and non-GM crops should be 50 metres, which is twice that required for coexistence of conventional crops.

Germany has set the distance between GM crops and their equivalent conventional crops as 150 metres, and at 300 metres for organic crops.

However it has also introduced an alternative as, while this was not a problem for large farms, it meant smaller farms, mainly in the west of Germany, could not adopt GM maize.

Conventional farmers can enter into a contractual agreement with neighbouring GM farmers, permitting them to grow their crops without the 150m boundary.

Although this means the conventional farmers may have to label their products as GM, Ricardo Gent, managing director of the German Association of Biotechnology Industries, told FoodNavigator.com he thinks farmers will still enter into such an agreement.

Restrictions remain

However, although he welcomes the new law, he said that criticism remain as it does not go far enough.

A public register in Germany shows the exact location of every farm cultivating GM crops, meaning environmental activists can find them and destroy the crops.

"We have had many extremist groups destroying GM crop trials in Germany," said Gent. "Because the government failed to change the legislation, refusing to only put the region on the register and only allowing farmers and scientists to discover the exact location, we can expect field destruction to continue this year."

There is also the continued possibility of GM research being stifled. Because of liability regulations, concern about conducting field trials remains amongst university researchers, as they would not be able to foot the bill should neighbouring fields become contaminated.Ý

European GM situation

Last year, over 110,000 hectares of biotech crops were harvested in seven EU member states, compared to 62,000 hectares in 2006. This represents a 77 per cent increase.

At the moment, the only type of GM crop grown in the EU is maize, which was approved in 1998. It is not cultivated for human consumption but for animal feed.

Austria enforced a ban on the import and processing of Monsanto's MON810 and Bayer's T25 maize in June 1999.

The Commission has been debating whether to force the country to lift its restrictions since 2005, as Austria has never produced the necessary scientific evidence to contest the positive assessment of the products by Europe's food safety authorities.

France has complicated the matter when it chose to extend its temporary ban on the cultivation of MON810, applying the same EU measure by arguing the costs to health posed by GM crops.

The temporary ban had been put in place by President Sarkozy last October as part of plans to make France greener.

Earlier this month, the European Commission was given yet more time to bring member states in compliance with trade obligations on GM crops after failing to meet Friday's deadline, the same day France extended its GM ban.

28 January 2008

Canada: Farmers and environmentalists want PEI to stay away from GMO crops

The Canadian Press, 28 January 2008.

CHARLOTTETOWN - P.E.I.[Prince Edward Island]. Agriculture Minister Neil LeClair says given a number of other farm crises his department hasn't had much time to look into the issue of planting genetically modified crops.

LeClair says they've been busy trying to sort out problems with the hog and beef industry and now intend to revisit the GMO issue.

Thousands of hectares of modified corn and sugarbeets will be planted on PEI this spring but many farmers and environmentalists want the Island to remain GMO free.

The previous government decided to leave it up to growers.

National Farmers Union district director Danny Hendricken says modified crops can play havoc with other plants and crops in the immediate area through cross pollination.

He says P.E.I. should not be a place to experiment.

Canada: GMOs as environmental pollution
Schmeiser to play David to Monsanto's Goliath again

Grist Environmental News and Commentary, 28 January 2008. By Kurt Michael Friese.

Most of you will recall the high-profile battle fought by Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser when he was sued for growing their GM seed without tithing to the corporation for the privilege.

Schmeiser insisted that Monsanto's patented DNA blew onto his land, but he lost an acrimonious fight in Canada's Supreme Court anyway. Now Percy's back for more.

Schmeiser has filed suit against the agribusiness giant in his Bruno, Saskatchewan, small claims court for C$600, claiming damages when Monsanto's GM seed blew onto his land, which he had to pay to have removed so that he could plant mustard. His contention is that the GMO rapeseed plants (aka canola) are pollution, and polluters should pay.

In a telling move, Monsanto agreed to pay if Schmeiser would agree to a gag order preventing him from discussing the case or its settlement. Needless to say, the feisty Mr. Schmeiser isn't having any.

There are more details in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/22/pollution.gmcrops

Canada: GMOs on P.E.I. still under review: minister

CBC News, 28 January 2008.

With government attention focused on the crisis in the livestock industry, Agriculture Minister Neil LeClair says there has been no time to look at the planting of genetically modified crops on P.E.I. [Prince Edward Island].

P.E.I. Agriculture Minister Neil LeClair said there are deep divisions in the agriculture community about the use of GMOs.P.E.I. Agriculture Minister Neil LeClair said there are deep divisions in the agriculture community about the use of GMOs.

Hundreds more hectares of genetically modified corn and sugarbeets will be planted on the Island this spring. Last week, Danny Hendricken, district director for the National Farmers Union, said the window of opportunity for making the Island GMO-free was closing.

Farmers and environmentalists spoke in favour of going GMO-free at legislature committee hearings in 2005, but the former Progressive Conservative government elected to maintain the status quo.

In an e-mail to CBC News Friday, LeClair said the government is interested in revisiting the issue, but has been too busy with other agriculture issues.

"Since its election this past May, the Liberal government of Prince Edward Island has been dealing with a number of major issues in the industry, including the future of the beef and hog plants, rising input costs for all sectors of the agriculture industry, currency fluctuations which affect the value of our exports, improvements in safety net programs for producers and new initiatives to encourage sustainable production practices," LeClair said.

He wrote that his department will review the findings of the 2005 hearings, as well as more recent developments concerning the use of GMOs around the world.

"There are deep divisions around the use of genetically modified organisms in the agriculture industry," he wrote.

LeClair said there will be no policy announcements regarding GMOs until the review of the hearings and current developments is completed.

USA: ASA warns GM ban retaliation

FoodNavigator.com, 28 January 2008. By Alex McNally.

The American Soybean Association has warned there could be "massive retaliation" on Europe if the bloc does not speed up a system for approving GM crops.

At the moment, industry has been loosing millions because producers who use GM crops are restricted in exporting them to the European Union, because of an EU moratorium on the use of GM crops.

Following a complaint by the US in 2003, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruled that some European countries were breaking international trade rules by stopping the import of GM foods and crops.

The EU has still not complied with this ruling and its moratorium has reduced US exports of bulk commodities such as corn and soybeans into Europe.

And ASA - which represents some 22,000 growers - has added that there will be more and more GM soybeans on the market in the future. It said that there are likely to be 20 additional new varieties of GM soybeans in the next 10 years

"To avoid disruption of trade and resulting negative impacts on EU livestock production, the EU and Member States need to provide timely and science-based approval of these beans," ASA first vice president Johnny Dodson said.

Earlier this month, the US had agreed to temporarily suspend action against the EU's failure to bring its process inline with WTO.

"This is only a temporary suspension to allow the EU to demonstrate through actionÝthat it isÝmaking its system timely, andÝthat decisions are being made on the basis of science, not politics," said Dodson.

The group says the EU process is at least a year behind the US. "It is an intolerable situation that must be rectified to allow trade to continue uninterrupted," the group said.

If the EU does not comply, ASA said this could lead to "massive retaliation on EU exports to the US markets."

GM trouble

At the moment, ASA said, Bayer's LibertyLink soybean (LLS) and Monsanto's Roundup RReady2Yield (RR2Y) have been fully approved for cultivation in the US, and have either been fully approved or in the final stages in Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and Mexico

But they are still going through the EU approval system, and while the US intends to use the crops next year, they may still not be approved for use in Europe.

"It is the EU process that is out of step with the rest of the world, and as such, does a disservice not only to the EU farm industry, but also to consumers who can scarcely be blamed for being confused when the EU's own scientists say a product is safe, but politicians hesitate over whether or not to agree with the scientific assessment," Dodson said.

Austria enforced a ban on the import and processing of Monsanto's MON810 and Bayer's T25 maize in June 1999.

The Commission has been debating whether to force the country to lift its restrictions since 2005, as Austria has never produced the necessary scientific evidence to contest the positive assessment of the products by Europe's food safety authorities.

At the moment, the only type of GM crop grown in the EU is maize, which was approved in 1998. It is not cultivated for human consumption but for animal feed.

Canada dirty tricks exposed in WTO trade dispute on GMOs

• Covert campaign denounced in Irish Senate and UK House of Commons
• European Parliament asked to launch investigation

GM-free Ireland press release, 28 January 2008. Download PDF version

DUBLIN ó Thirty three Irish and British politicians ó including the former UK Environment Minister Michael Meacher MP, Senators David Norris, Dan Boyle, Pearse Doherty, Deirdre de Burca and Phil Prendergast, and Kathy Sinnott MEP ó have denounced the activities of a Canadian Government agent, who has attempted to sabotage Ireland's policy to keep the island of Ireland free of genetically modified crops [1].

Canada launched its covert strategy to undermine Ireland's growing opposition to GM crops [2] after failing to force the EU to accept its unwanted GM food exports [3] by legal means via a WTO trade dispute in 2006 [4]. Canada has given the EU an 11 February deadline to change its policy on GM foods.

Dirty tricks

Shane Morris, an Irish biotech scientist employed by the Canadian Government agency Agri-Food and Agriculture Canada, began harassing the GM-free Ireland campaign from his office in Ottawa, whilst posing as an "Irish lad" and "private citizen" living in Dublin [5]. Morris set up a dedicated web blog [6] to disseminate disinformation, slander, innuendo and highly personal defamatory attacks [7] to discredit Irish politicians, scientists, and organisations which speak out against the dangers of GM food and farming. He rounded up biotech industry colleagues to complain about coverage of GM health risks on RTE [8] and in the Irish Medical News [9]. He intimidated Bord Bía [the Irish Food Board] to cancel funding for a conference on GM-free branding for food, farming and tourism [10], and harassed sponsors [11] of a scientific briefing on GMOs at the European Parliament Office in Dublin, where the Minister of State for Food and Horticulture, Trevor Sargent, first announced the Government's policy goal to declare Ireland a GM-free zone [12]. Morris now intends to set up "a similar info service from a National University of Ireland perspective". [13] Shane Morris is also advising Fine Gael TDs and MEPs, and was the author of a secret Fine Gael briefing on GMOs [14]. The briefing contains text from a letter by Morris previously published in the Kilkenny Voice. Morris's authorship of the briefing is well-known in Fine Gael circles and was also confirmed by Fianna Fáil politicians after the briefing was sent to them by mistake in October [15].

"Flagrant fraud"

In 2003, when he was working for the Canadian Government, the prestigious British Food Journal published a scientific study co-authored by Morris and partly funded by the biotech industry, which claimed that consumers prefer GM food. The paper received the Journal's "Award for Excellence for the Most Outstanding Paper of 2004" and has been widely cited by biotech advocates. But the paper has been denounced as "misleading" and/or a "flagrant fraud" by Cambridge University research ethics expert Dr. Richard Jennings, Prof. Joe Cummins (Emeritus Professor of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario, Canada), by other scientists at York and Guelph Universities in Canada, the University of New South Wales in Australia, and in various publications including New Scientist, Food Consumer, The Ecologist and Private Eye magazines. Last week 40 scientists wrote to the British Food Journal demanding it withdraw the paper and the award [16].

Intimidation

GM-free Ireland [17] and the UK-based GM Watch [18] outed Morris as a Canadian Government agent last July and reported his involvement in what they regarded as a scientific fraud. Morris then engaged McCann Fitzgerald and other law firms to intimidate both organisations, using threats of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation to censor and/or shut down their web sites [19]. The attempt failed in Ireland but succeeded in the UK, when the GM Watch site was shut for nearly a week last August. In September, the policy director of the Soil Association [20], Peter Melchett, wrote to the UK High Commissioner for Canada, requesting the Canadian Government to stop its attempts to "undermine the wishes of the democratically elected Irish Government". [21]

Political reaction from Ireland and the UK

The former UK Environment Minister Michael Meacher MP, has tabled an Early Day Motion [22] in the House of Commons which states: "This House (...) deplores the continuing efforts by an employee of the Canadian Government, Shane Morris, to close down websites in the UK and Republic of Ireland which have, along with Dr Richard Jennings of Cambridge University, said that research which claimed that consumers prefer GM sweetcorn published by this employee and others and given an Award for Excellence is a flagrant fraud." [23] The motion has since been co-signed by twenty six MPs.

Senators David Norris, Dan Boyle, Deirdre de Burca, Pearse Doherty, and Phil Prendergast are calling for the Irish Government to intervene. In a Senate speech on 6 December, Senator David Norris condemned the "extraordinary interference by an agent of the Canadian Government in the political discourse of this country" who is "trying to close down Irish networks that tell the truth about GM food", and called for the Senate to request the Government to raise the matter with its Canadian counterpart [24].

European Parliament to launch investigation

Kathy Sinnott MEP said "this covert interference by the Government of Canada is an affront to Irish and UK sovereignty and to the Precautionary Principle which is a cornerstone of EU policy on GM food and farming. I am calling on the European Parliament to investigate this scandal, as we have done regarding the CIA's violation of European airspace for illegal torture flights. We need a full investigation into the extent of covert influence by foreign governments and corporations on the GM policies and decisions of the Commission, EU member states, and their regulatory bodies."

Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland said "The European Parliament needs to investigate the extent of covert influence by foreign governments and corporations on the GM policies and decisions of the Commission, member states, and their regulatory bodies. The investigation should also examine the amount of industry lobby funding in the area of Public Relations and public perception management which, in some member states, distorts media coverage of GM policy issues and stifles public debate on the biotech industry threat to European food sovereignty and food security."

[ENDS]

Contact

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

Notes for editors

1. Ireland's agreed Programme for Government is "to seek to negotiate to declare the whole island of Ireland as a GMO-free zone" in collaboration with the Northern Ireland Assembly. The policy aims to prohibit the release of GM crops, and to implement a voluntary phase out of GM animal feed (which is widely available according to the recent conference co-hosted by the EU Committee of the Regions and the European GMO-Free Regions Network http://www.gmofree-euregions.net).

2. Canada's covert campaign surfaced in February 2006, a week after RTE broadcast "The Future of Food" (http://www.thefutureoffood.com), a documentary film which featured an interview with the alternative Nobel Prize-winning Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, who faced a patent infringement lawsuit and lost ownership of his seeds and crops after they became contaminated by Monsanto's patented GM oilseed rape (see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/pschmeiser.php).

Canada and the biotech industry must have been concerned about the film's impact on Irish public opinion prior to a then forthcoming decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to approve or deny BASF'S highly controversial application to conduct an experimental release of 450,000 GMO potatoes near the Hill of Tara. After the EPA gave conditional consent subject to BASF's agreeing to pay for an environmental impact study, BASF decided not to go ahead with the experiment in 2006 and 2007. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/potato.

3. The USA and Canada ó along with Monsanto and the other five giant agri-biotech corporations which control 50% of the world's agricultural seeds ó are desperate to force the EU market open to their GM food and animal feed exports. Although imported GM animal feed is widely sold to EU farmers, the EU market for GM food exports (from Canada and other countries) is virtually zero. This has been a disaster for contaminated Canadian farmers. For more info, see the interview with Darrin Qualman, Director of Research, National Farmers Union of Canada: "Canadian agriculture ëprobably the least profitable in the world'", Seedling magazine, October 2007: http://grain.org/seedling/?id=509. Qualman says that "GM seeds do not increase profitability. They do not increase yield. They do not decrease costs".

4. In August 2003, the US, Canada and Argentina (the world's three largest producers of GM crops) attempted to force GM products into European markets by filing a WTO trade dispute against the EU for suspending approvals of biotech products, and for national bans on EC-approved GM crops in six EU member states.

In February 2006, after months of delays, the WTO Trade Dispute Panel finally released its secret 1,050-page Interim ruling "Measures affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (EC-Biotech)" that reportedly backed the US, Canada and Argentina in their efforts to force Europe to accept GMOs. According to first press reports, the WTO decided that EU national bans contravened trade rules. In reality, the WTO rejected most of the arguments, conceding that national bans are justifiable subject to risk assessment. Since then, EU Environment and Agriculture Ministers (including the Irish ones) voted three times to support the member states' legal right to maintain these bans.

Greenpeace and other NGOs said that just as the WTO case did not challenge EU laws designed to protect the environment, it could not be used to undermine existing international agreements on biosafety. For details see http://www.genewatch.org/sub-405264

The WTO Interim report was released on 7 February 2006, the same day that Shane Morris launched his web blog at http://gmoireland.blogspot.com.

The WTO ruled that the EU would face punitive trade sanctions unless it ended restrictions on GM imports from the USA, Canada and Argentina by 15 January 2008, the same day that France extended its recent ban on GM maize. Canada then extended the deadline to 11 February 2008, Argentina extended it to 11 July. The USA did not indicate if will also accept an extended deadline, or push for immediate sanctions.

5. Shane Morris is currently employed as Senior Consumer Analyst at the Consumer Analysis Section of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/ShaneMorris.pdf).

Although the Canadian Government had denied Morris' official role in Ireland, Prof Joe Cummins (Emeritus Professor of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario, Canada) said: "Shane is a bureaucrat in Agriculture Canada and his views are supported by that Ministry. It is very clear that the Canadian government hired Shane... as a way of promoting GM crops. Shane's attacks may seem like sheer lunacy to most of us but the Canadian bureaucrats think he is brilliant in damaging the detractors of GM crops. I expect they will hire other nationals to attack those opposed to GM crops in their home countries."

Until he was outed as a Canadian Government agent, Morris gave his address at 6 Coolkill, Sandyford, Dublin 18, describing himself as "private citizen and scientist". Since then he has added his Canadian address (Woodford Way, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) to his numerous letters to the editor of various newspapers, including the Irish Farmers Journal which has published them almost every week in recent months.

According to his CV, Shane Morris spent five years (1992-1997) studying at the National University of Ireland / Maynooth for a Batchelor of Science degree in molecular genetics and statistics. He then studied " the public perceptions and attitudes to modern biotechnology and resulting public policy and legislation" at the University of Limerick from 1997 to 2000, where he was the Manager of the now defunct "Irish Biotechnology Information Centre". He then took a brief course in "Bioethics and Public Perceptions of Biotechnology" at Oxford University. From 2002 to 2003 he was an invited reviewer for the scientific journals Trends in Biotechnology and the Journal of the Association of Analytical Communities International. His papers on GM food, GM livestock and related issues have been widely published. According to his CV, Morris is also a private consultant to "EU MEPs and members of Parliament."

The Canadian Government and the biotech industry are said to have adopted a sophisticated high tech PR propaganda technique called Public Perception Management (PPM), which uses computerised semantic analysis of daily media coverage of GM issues to feed pro-GMO stories to public relations companies, spin doctors, policy makers, and journalists. The current PPM objective aims to convince policy makers, farmers and consumers that nothing can be done to stop the GMO invasion. This strategy has proven extremely effective in shaping coverage of GMO issues in the Irish Times, the Irish Farmers Journal and other newspapers, whose superficial coverage of the controversy usually frames the debate as scientists versus Luddites.

6. Shane Morris's blog may be found at http://gmoireland.blogspot.com

7. For details of Morris's attempts to sabotage the GM-free Ireland campaign see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris

For his attacks on individuals and organisations which promote awareness of the dangers of GM food and farming, see various pages of Morris's blog at http://gmoireland.blogspot.com. A few examples include:

•

A series of defamatory attacks on the coordinator of the GM-free Ireland network, Michael O'Callaghan, accusing him of being a "liar" and of misleading potential sponsors in order to attract funding for the GM-free Ireland campaign (http://gmoireland.blogspot.com).

•

Defamatory attack on the journalist Jeffrey Smith, author of Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of GM food (letter to the Editor, Irish Times, 29 June).

•

Rounding up a group of biotech industry colleagues to discredit a fellow Canadian scientist, Prof Joe Cummins of the University of Ontario who was advising the Irish Environmental Protection Agency to refuse approval for BASF's GMO potato experiment mentioned in note 4 above.

•

Using innuendo to discredit Darina Allen of Slow Food Ireland for her opposition to GM food (blog entry for 14 March 2006).

•

Defamatory attack on the journalist Jeffrey Smith, author of Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of GM food" (letter to the Editor, Irish Times, 29 June).

•

Defamatory attack on the new Fianna Fáil / Green Party coalition government for its new policy goal to declare the island of Ireland as a GMO-free crop zone. " Irish Greens serve up fudge on GM food" http://gmoireland.blogspot.com/2007_06_14_archive.html

8. In January 2007, Morris and the Chairman of Monsanto Ireland complained to the Irish Broadcasting Commission for RTE's television broadcast of the documentary film "The Future of Food" (http://www.thefutureoffood.com) which outlines the dangers of GM food and farming, with allegations that Percy Schmeiser was a liar [10].

9. Attack on Irish Medical News article "Claim that GM foods present health risk ëirrefutable'", 30 June 2007, by Julie-Anne Barnes: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2007/jun.php

10. In June 2006, Morris intimidated a senior executive at Bord Bía (the Irish Government Food Board) into withdrawing agreed sponsorship for the Green Ireland conference on branding for food, farming and eco-tourism where leading international experts on GMOs including Vandana Shiva, Percy Schmeiser, and Benedikt Haerlin, warned Ireland of the economic benefits of keeping Ireland free of GM crops. For conference proceedings see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference.

After Bord Bía subsequently denied having made the offer to sponsor the event, Morris published defamatory allegations that GM-free Ireland had lured funding from other sponsors under false pretences, by lying about the Bord Bía sponsorship which he himself caused to be cancelled: see details at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/bordbia.php.

11. In June 2007, Morris got 50 biotech industry colleagues to complain to sponsors of a Briefing on Food Safety and GMOs co-hosted by GM-free Ireland and the European Parliament Independence/Democracy Group at the European Parliament Office in Dublin (see note 12 below).

12. The Briefing on Food Safety and GMOs was held at the European Parliament Office in Dublin on 15 June 2007 (two days after the new coalition government had agreed its policy goal to declare the whole island of Ireland as a GMO-free zone). The event was co-hosted by the GM-free Ireland Network and the European Parliament Independence/Democracy Group. It was sponsored by various organisations including the European Parliament Independence/Democracy Group (http://www.europarl.eu.int/inddem), Euro-Toques Ireland (http://www.eurotoquesirl.org), Glenisk Organic Ireland (http://www.glenisk.com), GM-free Ireland Network (http://www.gmfreeireland.org), Irish Doctors Environmental Association (http://www.ideaireland.org), Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association (http://www.irishorganic.ie), and Slow Food Ireland (http://www.slowfoodireland.com).

Speakers included:

•

Trevor Sargent TD in his capacity as Acting Leader of the Green Party. He is now Minister of State for Food and Horticulture.

•

Kathy Sinnott MEP, is the EU Parliament Representative to the European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (http://ec.europa.eu/food) which is responsible for ensuring that Community legislation on food safety, animal health, plant health and animal welfare is properly implemented and enforced in the EU, and by third countries exporting to the EU. For details see: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public/geoSearch/view.do;
jsessionid=A9F55875EFB31DB5742F746CBD33E288.
node1?country=IE&partNumber=1&zone=South&language=EN&id=28119

•

Jeffrey Smith, who launched his new book Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of GM foods (Yes! Books. Fairfield, Iowa, USA, 2007. ISBN 978-0-9729665-2-8. Hardcover, 336 pages, € 23. Available at the Cultivate Centre, 15-19 Essex St. West, Temple Bar, Dublin 8, tel (01) 674 5773 or by mailorder from http://www.GeneticRoulette.com).

•

Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher PhD of EcoNexus (http://www.econexus.info) is part of the legal and scientific team of the ETC Group (http://www.etcgroup.org) which convinced the European Patent Office to revoke Monsanto's species-wide patent on genetically modified soybeans. Dr. Steinbrecher's briefing covered (a) the genome scrambling found in many GM crops (http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/BSR-2-BGERvol23.pdf), (b) a scientific study which found that a variety of Monsanto GM maize approved by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and widely fed to Irish cattle and sheep causes liver and kidney damage in laboratory animals (http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/SeraliniPaper2007.pdf), and (c) the EU-wide call for EFSA to stop using secret risk assessments provided to it by the biotech industry as the basis for approving the release of GM animal feed, food and crops, and for EFSA to make the related data available for public scrutiny and scientific peer review.

•

Michael O'Callaghan, co-ordinator of the GM-free Ireland Network.

13. Morris's mentions his intention to set up a pro-GMO "information service" at the National University of Ireland on his blog at: http://gmoireland.blogspot.com/2007_09_14_archive.html#1654538966282222342

14. "Briefing Document for Fine Gael: GMOs and Ireland: 10 years of poor FF led policy": http://www.gmfreeireland.org/politics/GMOs-and-Ireland.fg.document.oct.2007.doc

The briefing contains, inter alia, verbatim text from an earlier letter which Morris sent to the Editor of the Kilkenny Voice newspaper, dated 28 September 2007 (published 27 September). Morris's authorship of the briefing is well-known in Fine Gael circles and was also confirmed by Fianna Fáil politicians after the briefing was sent to them by mistake in October (see note 15 below).

Fine Gael's credibility on GM food and farming was already in tatters before this embarrassing revelation that they are being advised by a covert agent of the Canadian Government.

Speaking at a Government hearing convened by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment and Local Government on 15 June 2005, Fine Gael Senator James Bannon said:

"I am totally opposed to the introduction of GM foods because of the serious health repercussions. Experts throughout Europe observe that supermarkets and food manufacturers are concerned at the introduction of GM foods because the public does not want them and there is no market for such products. Moreover, the warnings from experts and doctors dictate that such products should not be forced into our food chains. I hope the Government will oppose the introduction of GM foods at EU level": http://www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/GMO-15June2005.pdf

But in the lead up to the 2007 General Election, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny told Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland that this country can "do nothing" to stop the invasion of GM animal feed, food and crops ‚ apparently unaware that many other EU member states and Regions have already banned the crops and are now phasing out GM animal feed as well.

This contradicts the position taken in June 2006 by Brody Sweeney (the CEO of O'Briens Sandwich bars who ran unsuccessfully as a Fine Gael candidate in the General Election), when he presented his concept for an explicitly GM-free "Green Ireland" food branding scheme at the Green Ireland conference in June 2006 (see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/bsweeney.php ).

But on 29 November 2006, Sweeney and Fine Gael's then agriculture spokesperson, Denis Naughten, officially launched Fine Gael's "Green Ireland" policy with a press release "FG's Green Ireland label will promote top quality Irish produce the world over ‚ Naughten" (http://www.finegael.ie/news/index.cfm/type/details/nkey/29899). The arguments for such a label included all those made by GM-free Ireland at our Green Ireland conference, but with all references to GM ingredients carefully removed.

On 20 October 2007, Fine Gael MEP Mairead McGuinness, along with MEPs James Nicholson (Ulster Unionist Party) and Struan Stevenson (Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party), engaged in a failed attempt to introduce numerous amendments to an EU Parliament Resolution on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. The amendments aimed, inter alia, to raise contamination thresholds for imported GM animal feed, and to fast track the EU approval of illegal GM imports from the USA and other countries.

In December 2006, Mairead McGuinness attempted to introduce numerous amendments into a Motion for a European Parliament Resolution on Biotechnology: Prospects and Challenges for Agriculture in Europe (2006/2059 (INI)). Mairead's amendments included weakening EU regulations on GM food and feed, and promoting the release of GM pharma crops, which would contaminate food crops with pharmaceutical products, agrofuels, and industrial chemicals! Luckily, MEPs threw out the Motion and the Resolution after widespread protest by citizens. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/politics

15. Miriam Lord's Week, Irish Times, 13 October 2007:

FINE GAEL EMAILER COMES A CROPPER

It's a slow day at the office. Then an e-mail lands in the Fianna Fáil adviser's in-box. His eyes light up when he sees the title: "Briefing Document for Fine Gael."

He opens the message to find Fine Gael's new 13-page strategy on the GMO issue has landed in his lap. They sent it to the enemy by mistake.

It begins "GMOs and Ireland: 10 years of poor FF-led policy." The opening paragraph begins thus: "Since 1997, Fianna Fáil governments have repeatedly flip-flopped the issue of GMOs. This recently came to a head on September 28th when Green Party Minister Trevor Sargent dramatically changed stated policy regarding a 'GM-free Ireland' by stating "GM free zone is not about banning imported GM feed" (possible draft Dáil questions, below on pg. 5)". And on it goes, with page after page of background rebuttal material, full of quotes from Fianna Fáil and Green politicians.

Suggested Dáil questions include ones for Trevor Sargent.

"Does Minister Sargent agree that this nation's food supply is not an issue for party political sound bites but rather political decisions made on the basis of scientifically sound independent advice?"

Lots of examples of previous statements are highlighted before a possible question for Minister Dempsey is offered: "Did Noel Dempsey, in his programme for government discussions with the Greens, forget the conclusions of his own tax payer-supported public consultations?" All that hard work for nothing. They're certainly green in Fine Gael now, but for all the wrong reasons. But Trevor Sargent had an extra pep in his step last week, and they're still laughing in Fianna Fáil.

Forwarned is forearmed.

16. Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet-corn, Powell D.A.; Blaine K.; Morris S.; Wilson J., British Food Journal, Volume: 105, Issue: 10, Page: 700-713 (Nov 2003): http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00070700310506254

When this paper was published in 2003, Shane Morris was employed as National Biotechnology Operations Coordinator at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (according to his CV). The study was funded by the biotech-industry front group, Council for Biotechnology Information http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=287 and the industry's trade association, the Crop Protection Institute of Canada (now Croplife Canada). The paper was given the British Food Journal's "Award for Excellence for the Most Outstanding Paper of 2004" and has been cited often by biotech advocates.

The study claimed that food consumers preferred GM maize over conventional maize.

But eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence showed that the paper failed to mention a large sign which biased the consumers choice. The paper has been internationally denounced as "misleading" and/or "fraudulent" by numerous scientists including Dr. Richard Jennings (an expert in research ethics at the Univesity of Cambridge) Prof. Joe Cummins (Emeritus Professor of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario, Canada), by scientists at York University in Canada, the University of Guelph in Canada, and the University of New South Wales in Australia, and in various publications including New Scientist magazine, Food Consumer, Private Eye, and The Ecologist. The British Food Journal has been asked to retract the paper, and annul the award it gave it as Best Scientific Paper of the Year.

Senator Norris condemned Shane Morris's scientific paper as "a fraud" and denounced its "complete abnegation of all scientific standards".

The Canadian Government recently attempted to distance itself from the scandal by pointing out that Morris co-authored the paper before he started work with his current employer, Agri-Food Canada. But according to Morris's CV, at the time he wrote the paper he must have been employed as National Biotechnology Operations Coordinator for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (which is part of the Government).

Published critiques of the study include (in reverse chronological order):

•

Open letter to the British Food Journal, co-signed by 40 scientists, 24 January 2008: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/retraction.php

•

Corn on the cobblers. Private Eye Magazine, No. 1201, 11-24 January 2008 http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/privateeye.php

•

Of wormy corn and websites: who pulled the plug on the GM Watch website? The Ecologist magazine, December 2007 / January 2008. http://www.theecologist.org/news/2007/jun.php

•

Company Research on Genetically Modified Foods is Rigged, FoodConsumer.org, 21 November 2007. By the Institute for Responsible Technology (USA): http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/T_echnologies_40/112107022007_
Company_Research_on_Genetically_Modified_Foods_is_Rigged.shtml

•

Controversy over claims in favour of GM corn. New Scientist magazine, Vol 190, No. 2553, 27 May 2006, p.7 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9235-controversy-over-claims-in-favour-of-gm-corn.html

•

Corn Fakes, Private Eye, No. 1194, 28 September-11 October 2007: http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/2007/09/fraude.html

•

Tim Lambert, Would you eat wormy corn?, 7 September 2007: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/would_you_eat_wormy_sweet_corn.php

•

The GM propaganda lab. The British Food Journal's Award for Excellence for Most Outstanding Paper in 2004 went to research that should never have been published. What the reviewers mistook for an impressive piece of scientific enquiry was a carefully crafted propaganda exercise that could only have one outcome. Both the award and the paper now need to be retracted. http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1

•

Letters, British Food Journal 2006 Vol : 108, Issue: 8 (August 2006) http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/en/article-details.php?a=3&c=9&sc=62&id=897

•

Secret Ingredients: The Brave New World of Industrial Farming, Stuart Laidlaw, McClelland & Stewart, 15 April 2003

17. The GM-free Ireland Network (http://www.gmfreeireland.org) is a coalition of over 130 Non Governmental Organisations, food businesses and farming organisations which promotes public awareness on the dangers of genetically modified food and farming through conferences, workshops, briefings and a lobbying campaign to declare the whole island of Ireland as a GMO-free zone, i.e. off-limits to GM seeds, crops, trees, fish and livestock.

18. GM watch (http://www.gmwatch.org) is a highly respected UK-based non-governmental organisation which fosters global public awareness about GMO issues through a free subscription to daily world-wide media coverage of GM issues. It also maintains a database of biotech lobby groups, front organisations, lobbyists and spin doctors. See their account of the controversy over Shane Morris's "scientific" methods at http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1

19. Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is a form of litigation filed by a large organization or in some cases an individual plaintiff, to intimidate and silence a less powerful critic by so severely burdening them with the cost of a legal defence that they abandon their criticism. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/slapp.php

Shane Morris began his threats of SLAPP lawsuits against the GM-free Ireland Network on 20 July 2007, objecting to an (unpublished) letter sent by Michael O'Callaghan to the Irish Times on 29 June, which stated: "Morris and his biotech colleague and mentor Doug Powell (a well-known GM industry lobbyist) have co-authored a number of pro-GMO papers, one of which received the GM Watch Propaganda Lab Award 2006 for its fraudulent scientific claims, triggering a controversy reported by New Scientist magazine."

The attempt failed in Ireland, but briefly succeeded in the UK when GM Watch's internet service provider caved in to pressure and shut down that web site for a few days. Morris falsely claimed that GM-free Ireland had apologised for describing his work as "fraudulent".

On 17 August, Morris attempted to cover up the scandal about his misleading paper with a second threat of legal action against the GM-free Ireland Network, via an email with the following demand that we remove all mention of him on our web site:

"You will note that the GM Watch website in the UK has been disabled. As a matter of urgency please remove the (sic) all the GM Watch material on GM Free Ireland's website that you have reproduced in connection with me. The bulk of this material is sourced at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2007/jun.php#shane and includes the following 'Award for a Fraud', published by GM Watch: http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=%201. Etc. Also please remove all references to "fraud" and myself including those you cite from GM Watch (for example at various locations I (sic) your news section). If this is not done by close of business today, August 17, 2007, I will have to further instruct my legal representatives on the matter."

On 22 August, GM-free Ireland notified Morris of our refusal to remove all references to him on our website, while updating the title of the quoted GM Watch article. We emphasized to Morris that this action did not constitute any admission of liability by us or our internet service provider, and requested him to cease and desist from further harrassing the GM-free Ireland Network and our internet service provider in relation to this or any other matter.

Morris responded by claiming that GM-free Ireland, GM Watch and their respective internet service providers in Ireland and the UK "have already admitted liability by your posting of an earlier correction", with the implied threat that he would yet seek recovery of his legal costs. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris

20. The Soil Association is the UK's leading campaigning and certification organisation for organic food and farming: http://www.soilassociation.org. It's latest report on the dangers of GM animal feed may be found at http://www.soilassociation.org/gm

21: Letter from Peter Melchett to James Wright, UK High Commissioner for Canada, 4 September 2007:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/soilassociation1.php

22. Early Day Motions (EDMs) are formal motions submitted for debate in the UK House of Commons. However, very few EDMs are actually debated. Instead, they are used to publicise the views of individual MPs, draw attention to specific events or campaigns, and demonstrate the extent of parliamentary support for a particular cause or point of view.

23. Early Day Motion EDM 425 : SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INTO GM CROPS 28.11.2007
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=34547&SESSION=891 :

Meacher, Michael

That this House regrets the continuing attempts to silence or misrepresent scientists whose research indicates possible human health problems from GM crops, as in the case of Dr Irina Ermakova who was misled by the editor of Nature Biotechnology into submitting an article to the journal to be published under her name, with the article in fact published under the editor's name with criticisms by four well-known GM supporters not seen by Dr Ermakova prior to publication; deplores the continuing efforts by an employee of the Canadian Government, Shane Morris, to close down websites in the UK and Republic of Ireland which have, along with Dr Richard Jennings of Cambridge University, said that research which claimed that consumers prefer GM sweetcorn published by this employee and others and given an Award for Excellence, is a flagrant fraud; and calls on the Government Chief Scientist to protect the integrity and objectivity of science by reasserting the right of scientists to have their views published by journals without underhand interference by journal editors, and for the Chief Scientist to encourage journal editors to withdraw papers they have published which subsequently turn out to be grossly misleading or even fraudulent.

Signatures (as of 14 December 2007)

Meacher, Michael (Labour), Simpson, Alan (Labour), George, Andrew (Liberal Democrats), Robertson, Angus (Scottish National Party), Baker, Norman (Liberal Democrats), Drew, David (Labour), Walley, Joan (Labour), Prentice, Gordon (Labour), Hopkins, Kelvin (Labour), Caton, Martin (Labour), Dean, Janet (Labour), Dismore, Andrew (Labour), McCafferty, Chris (Labour), Breed, Colin (Liberal Democrats), Stunell, Andrew (Liberal Democrats), Jackson, Glenda (Labour), Cryer, Ann (Labour), Rudi, Vis (Labour) Alexander, Danny (Liberal Democrats), McDonnell, John (Labour), Connarty, Michael (Labour), Leech, John (Liberal Democrats), Heyes, David (Labour).

For details of the Irina Ermakova affair mentioned above, see: What is Nature Biotechnology good for? The case of Irina Ermakova, The Bioscience Resource Project, Dec 4 2007: http://www.bioscienceresource.org/commentaries/brc6.php .

See also http://www.nature.com/nbt/index.html

24. Extract from speech by Senator David Norris at the Irish Senate on 6 December 2007, http://www.senatordavidnorris.ie/blogger/2007/12/order-of-business-6th-december-2007.html :

"Will the Leader raise with Government the extraordinary interference by an agent of the Canadian Government in political discourse in this country?

I refer to the attempt by an agent of the Canadian Government - whose name I have, but I will not put it on the record as I understand this is improper - to close down the website of GM-Free Ireland. This has been raised in the House of Commons in an Early Day Motion signed by Michael Meacher and 17 other MPs deploring the efforts of this person to shut down websites using the threat of action for defamation, which is interesting given we were dealing with defamation yesterday.

The website referred to the fact that the research of this person was fraudulent, as it was. The fraud consisted of the following. The research group monitored the buying habits of consumers in a supermarket in Canada in their choice of sweetcorn and determined that a certain type of sweetcorn was more popular. It was later found, however, that one type of sweetcorn was sold next to a sign referring to quality sweetcorn while the other was next to a sign that read: "Would you eat wormy sweetcorn?" That is not exactly a level playing field. It was a complete abnegation of all scientific standards. This man is now trying to close down Irish networks that tell the truth about GM food, with interventions by large companies such as Monsanto to deface clear scientific research."

Food Fight: Canada vs. Europe
We're forcing GMOs on people who fear them.

The Tyee (Canada), 28 January 2008. ByÝMurray Dobbin and Ellen Gould.

Challenging Europeans over their right to choose what food they grow and eat seems like a lousy way to make friends across the Atlantic. But this is exactly what Canada has done by giving the European Union a deadline of Feb. 11 to change its policies on genetically modified foods.

Canada wants to open up the European market to imports of Canadian genetically modified products, particularly canola oil.

The big stick Canada can wield is a November 2006 World Trade Organization ruling. The WTO decreed in a complaint brought by the U.S., Canada and Argentina that the EU had violated its WTO obligations by creating "undue delays" in the approval of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

If the EU does not comply with the WTO ruling, it could have to pay the price in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars in trade sanctions. Europe has been given what is considered a reasonable period to comply, but time is now running out.

Europeans won't be bullied

This is no minor issue in Europe. The European Commission has been surveying attitudes towards GMOs in all member states for 15 years now, and despite intense marketing efforts by international agribusiness, the opposition to GMOs only seems to be growing. The EU's pollsters have discovered a "striking" decline in acceptance of GM foods over recent years even though Europeans are expressing support for other uses of biotechnology.

Helen Holder, GMO campaign coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe, told The Tyee that a triumphalist "We won!" North American attitude over the WTO decision will not wash in Europe. Holder argued the panel's narrow ruling on technical grounds did not mean Canada and the U.S. could bully Europeans into accepting GM food. She pointed out that the WTO never concluded that GMOs were safe.

Holder said that if the spirit of the era was "the market must decide," then the answer seemed clear: the European market had largely decided against GMOs. She pointed to consumer-driven decisions by major European food chains such as Tesco to not stock genetically-modified foods.

Sarkozy sides with Bove

The depth of feeling in Europe over this issue and the strange bedfellows it makes were evident in a surprise move by French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Jan. 10. At the very time EU and North American trade officials were working out how Europe could conform with the WTO decision, Sarkozy's government came up with a new ban on a Monsanto corn variety that had previously been approved for cultivation in France. Trade bureaucrats on both sides of the Atlantic must have felt like they were trying to herd cats.

Remember this is the same Sarkozy -- nicknamed "Sarko the American" -- who came into office as the right wing candidate promising to improve relations with the U.S. Yet there he was, apparently siding with the radical anti-GMO campaigner Jose Bove and throwing gas on the fire of a transatlantic trade dispute. Sarkozy's decision allowed Bove to end his eight-day hunger strike against cultivation of GM corn in France. It means the only GM crop currently being grown in France is now banned, a tremendous victory for Bove and France's GM-free campaigners.

New studies, more European GM bans

Sarkozy's ban came on the heels of a report by the French government's scientific authority on GMOs. This report cited new scientific evidence that the GM corn might have a negative impact on insects and its pollen could be dispersed further than previously thought. The report also said new studies suggest it is impossible not to have cross-pollination between GM and non-GM fields.

The scientists advising the French government did not all agree with the conclusions the report drew from the new studies. Sarkozy acknowledged this scientific uncertainty but said "with the principle of precaution at stake, I am making a major political decision to carry our country to the forefront of the debate on the environment."

Canada and U.S. trade negotiators working to expand markets for GMOs don't only have a problem with individual European Union states like France. Although they can get a sympathetic ear from European Commission trade officials, the environment commissioner Stavro Dimas is proving to be a major headache for them. On Jan. 21 Dimas was accused of snubbing the U.S. trade representative when he declined to meet with her to discuss the GM dispute.

New science, leaked fears

Dimas is the EU's point person in getting individual member states to conform with EU law on GMOs. That means in theory Dimas should be working to overcome existing bans on GM crops in Hungary, Austria, and now France. He seems headed, though, in the opposite direction. Dimas has proposed European-wide bans on two GM corn varieties that the European food safety authority had recommended for approval in 2005.

Dimas, like Sarkozy, is pointing to new science about the risks of GMOs to justify bans. In his leaked recommendations to the European Commission, Dimas refers to studies that suggest potential negative impacts of the GM corn varieties. These include risks for species like Monarch butterflies, problems for stream ecosystems, and variations in toxin concentrations that "may lead to unpredicted interactions with the environment." The European biotech industry immediately responded to Dimas's recommendations, claiming that the studies he relied on actually favoured GMOs or involved "sloppy" research.

Canadians equally opposed

Despite the relative lack of news coverage of GMOs in Canada, the most recent survey done for the federal government on Canadian attitudes shows they are remarkably similar to those of Europeans. The 2006 Decima survey found: "The main aspect of biotechnology that engenders concern is GM food. Overall attitudes toward GM food tend to be more negative than positive."

But unlike Europeans, Canadians have not had national governments willing to reflect their views in legislation. In sharp contrast with the EU's tough regulations, Canada's labelling standard for GM foods is voluntary, and has proven to be as ineffective as critics warned it would be. This despite the 2003 Decima poll showing 88 per cent of Canadians surveyed wanted mandatory labelling.

As well as the WTO case and other trade action Canada has taken to expand markets for existing GMOs, Canada is notorious internationally for trying to undermine the de facto moratorium on "terminator seeds" in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Terminator seeds have been hugely controversial because they are deliberately designed to be sterile after first harvest.

Ag Minister Ritz: 'Terminator' friendly

Gerry Ritz, Canada's current agriculture minister, seems to be favourably disposed to Canadian approval of "genetic use restriction technologies," the form of GMO that includes "Terminator" seeds. Ritz has responded to concerns about the technology by echoing the arguments made by the biotech industry. He has written that while it is true that this technology "could impact farmers' ability to save seed for cultivation the next year" he argues that on the positive side "the same technologies could prevent the unwanted spread of seeds and pollen in the environment."

Ritz dismisses worries about the monopolistic control the technology would transfer to transnational seed companies by saying anti-competitive behaviour could be dealt with by Canada's Competition Bureau. Given the bureau's track record this is truly faint hope.

Although it is a tough slog in this country, Canadians concerned about GMOs have found some champions for their cause. Some examples of organizational efforts are: CBAN, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, Greenpeace Canada's campaign for mandatory labelling, and RightOnCanada's online campaign for federal legislation to ban terminator seeds.

In Parliament last year, the NDP introduced Bill C448, which would have banned terminator technology. Despite this attention and Canadians' convictions, both the Liberals and the Harper Conservatives are right where you would expect them to be: on the side of big business.

Related Tyee stories:

•

Deconstructing Dinner
Podcasts with text, most recently focusing on genetically engineered food.
http://thetyee.ca/Life/2008/01/11/DeconDinner/

•

Sterile Seeds, Canada's Impotence
Why was Africa's 'Father of Biosafety' hassled at our nation's gates?
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/05/31/SterileSeeds/

•

Slow Food's Growing Pains
Want to eat local? You'll have to get in line.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/12/27/WinterMarket/

Murray Dobbin writes his State of the Nation (http://thetyee.ca/Bios/Murray_Dobbin/) column twice monthly for The Tyee. Ellen Gould is a researcher and writer on food and policy issues.

Poland: No to GMO ban

Warsaw Business Journal / Reuters, 28 January 2008

European Commission lawyers have stopped Poland's attempt to ban the trade and planting of genetically modified (GMO) crop seeds. The lawyers said that Poland had no scientific justification for the move.

"The Polish notification does not provide any new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment," the latest edition of the Official Journal of the European Union said. "The Commission therefore considers that the national provisions notified cannot be approved," it added.

Last year Poland announced plans for what amounted to a national GMO ban, and was roundly criticized by experts at the EC.

Ahead of the announcement, Polish Agriculture Minister Marek Sawicki said Poland's government would yield to EU demands and allow GMO seeds by changing a law due to come into effect in August.

"We are working on a bill which will eliminate the ban on using feed with GMO components in Poland," Sawicki told the Parkiet daily. "We don't have another option. It is an issue of Polish regulations complying with EU law," he added.

27 January 2008

India: PIL in SC challenges unregulated entry of processed GMO foods

The Times of India, 27 January 2008.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine a decision of the ministry of environment and forests, facilitating smooth entry of processed foods containing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) to India by exempting them from existing regulatory mechanism.

A PIL filed by Vandana Shiva alleged that the exemption given in the August 23, 2007 notification would permit genetically-engineered foods, known to have have serious health hazards, unregulated entry into India without they being subjected to checks or control.

Under the existing regime, all genetically engineering products had to get permission from the statutory body - Genetically Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) - before growing it in India or importing it from other countries.

After hearing petitioner's counsel Pinky Anand briefly, a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice R V Raveendran issued notice to the Centre seeking its response to the PIL.

The petitioner said rules for manufacture, use, import, export and storage of hazardous micro-organisms, genetically engineered organims or cells were notified in 1989 under the Environment Protection Act to protect the environment, nature and health.

This rule expressly desired that any sale, import, production or manufacture of any form of genetically-engineered organism, substance or food stuff or additves required mandatory approval from the GEAC, it said.

25 January 2008

Australia: All supermarkets to match Foodland's GM-free stand

Gene Ethics News Media Release - January 25 2008

Independent South Australian supermarket chain Foodland has joined Coles to ensure that their home brand products are free of Genetically Manipulated (GM) soy, corn, canola or cottonseed. Both supermarkets are responding to strong customer preferences for GM-free.

"We congratulate both chains on their first steps toward making their shops totally GM-free," says Gene Ethics Director, Bob Phelps.

"The next step for Foodland is to make its many NSW and NT supermarkets GM-free too!

"And both supermarkets need a process for weeding out GM contaminated foods throughout their stores.

"We call on Woolworths, Aldi and IGA to join the GM-free trend in their stores too.

"We are not surprised that Foodland's shopper feedback supports their GM-free stance as over 90% of Coles customers also want GM-free.

"Everyone wants to eat healthy, safe and nutritious foods but scientific evidence shows that some GM foods fail these tests," Mr Phelps says.

"Food Standards Australia NZ does not even consider the results of animal studies, yet there is growing evidence that the health of laboratory animals and their pups are harmed by GM foods.

"GM crops and foods will damage human health, the environment and the economy.

"We have asked all Australian Health Ministers, who will meet next week, to heed the public declaration of support for GM-free foods and farms by Foodland, Coles and hundreds of other Australian food businesses.

"They should also begin the process of fulfilling the Federal government promise to review Food Standard 1.5.2 and require the full labelling of all foods made using Genetic Manipulation technologies and processes," Mr Phelps concludes.

More comment: 03 9347 4500/ 03 9889 1717 (H)

Scientists copy bacteria with man-made genes

Canwest News Service, 25 January 2008.

Scientists have created synthetic life using man-made genes, and their first creation is a copy of a natural bacterium that causes a sexually transmitted infection.

They chose Mycoplasma genitalium -- named after the area it infects -- because it has fewer genes than other bacteria. This makes it easier to copy.

While the scientists hope to eventually build useful bacteria, little M. genitalium does nothing useful. It just causes a low-grade infection, treatable with antibiotics.

And the timing is unfortunate.

Today's announcement comes as Hollywood is scaring audiences with super-diseases from the lab -- Resident Evil; I Am Legend -- though this one has been intentionally crippled to prevent infection.

Other forms of "synthetic life" will follow, the creators say.

The journal Science, which publishes the research today, says it "represents a step toward the end goal of creating synthetic micro-organisms that could be used for producing biofuels, cleaning up toxic waste, sequestering carbon, or other applications."

The team that built it works for genome researcher and businessman Craig Venter of California. In test tubes, Nobel Prize-winner Hamilton Smith and his team chemically synthesized large chunks of genetic material, each making up one-eighth to one-quarter of the full gene set, and stored the copies within E. coli bacteria. Then, they assembled these large pieces in yeast, harnessing some of the yeast cells' own machinery for the task of assembling these parts into working cells.

In a broadcast for reporters, Smith said the same method would work for creating other synthetic bacteria as well.

They also attached short markers -- DNA bits that don't really belong there -- to identify bacteria with man-made genes. The synthetic gene set contains all the genes that the natural bacterium has, except for one -- left out intentionally so that the man-made bug would not be infectious.

It's the Venter team's second foray into synthetic M. genitalium. Last year they put real genes in a soup of amino acids to try to build the rest of a cell around the genes.

In 2002, when he announced the project, Venter told reporters: "We will be cautious about how and where we disclose new techniques. We don't want a group of crazies to deliberately make something that is harmful."

The project was approved by an independent ethics committee.

No one knows yet what the public reaction will be, but there's a precedent. In the 1990s, biotech firms created crops to help farmers.

But genetically modified soybeans and corn have been a tough sell in many countries. None were engineered at first for better nutrition. Some were engineered for use with pesticides; others had a "natural" insect toxin called Bt engineered right into them.

Crop scientists approved; many shoppers didn't.

Tim Caulfield, a bioethics professor at the University of Alberta, says the decision to model the first synthetic life on an infectious bacterium is again likely to make non-scientists uncomfortable.

"There's definitely a yuck factor to this, in the idea that we don't know the downstream ramifications of this tinkering with life," he said. "We're definitely seeing this, similar to what we're seeing with the GMOs," (genetically modified organisms).

24 January 2008

Australia: Foodland rejects genetically modified crop foods

Foodland Supermarkets press release, 24 January 2008.

Independent supermarket chain Foodland SA has rejected the use of genetically modified (GM) food in its Foodland range of products.

And it has called for better labelling of branded and fresh products to ensure consumers can choose whether or not to buy other goods containing GM foods.

Foodland SA's Chief Executive Officer, Mr Russell Markham, said the decision was made after feedback from customers.

"Our customers have overwhelmingly indicated that they do not want GM ingredients in our Foodland products," he said.

"None of our Foodland range currently contains GM ingredients and we feel it is important to assure our customers that all our foods will remain GM free in the future.

"Customers should have the right to choose what foods they buy and feed their families and Foodland believes it is important that branded and fresh products made from GM foods are clearly labelled to enable this choice to be made.

"This will require changes to the existing labelling laws, which are inadequate, especially for goods made from overseas sourced ingredients."

Mr Markham said the labelling issue was particularly important given moves by some State governments to lift bans on the commercial growing of GM foods.

"If Governments are prepared to allow GM foods to be grown commercially, they must give the customer the right to decide whether or not to consume them," he said.

"It is not up to any Government to dictate what people eat. The final decisions must be left to the customer but the customer has to know what they are buying.

"This means having clear and unambiguous labelling laws and these laws need to be in place before any decision is made to lift bans on commercial growing.

"Any Government not prepared to do this is effectively treating consumers with contempt and will suffer as a result."

Mr Markham said Foodland currently had 160 Foodland branded products, ranging from Dairy to Frozen and Grocery items. More than half of these are manufactured in South Australia.

Foodland's stance follows decisions by Australia's largest food company, Goodman Fielder and Australia's largest lamb exporter, Tatiara Meats to exclude GM products.

Foodland has 109 stores in South Australia, the Northern Territory and New South Wales.

Further Information: Russell Markham
Chief Executive, Foodland Supermarkets, Ph: 08 - 8351 9233

Ireland: FG totally out of step !
Changed GM policy a 'political issue'

Irish Times, 24 January 2008. By Seán Mac Connell, Agriculture Correspondent

A Government review of its position on Genetically Modified (GM) products has been concluded but the implementation of the policy will be a political issue, a Dáil committee was told yesterday.

Eamon Corcoran, principal officer, food unit, of the Department of Health and Children told the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the policy had changed in this area since the formation of the new Government.

Ireland, he said, had a previous stance of being "positive but precautionary" in relation to GM products at European level but that had changed. He continued that Ireland had abstained on two occasions in votes relating to the sanction of products and advised the EU the Irish position on GM products was currently under review and that consequently, we were abstaining. During questions from members of the committee, Mr Corcoran said he understood the review had been completed but its implementation was " now a political issue".

Senator Paul Bradford (FG) said the policy of having a GM-free Ireland as outlined last September by the Minister for Food, Trevor Sargent, was not a sustainable one if the European Commission could make final decisions in the absence of agreement by the Council of Ministers or the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.

Told by Johnny Brady, chairman of the committee, that the Minister was coming to the committee on February 20th to discuss the issue of farmers' markets, Mr Bradford, said he would like to question the Minister on this issue. Deputy Martin Manseragh (FF) said it appeared Ireland could be a GM free zone if it did not grow GM crops.

Ireland: Govt policy on GM should not be dictated by Green's a la carte approach to science - Creed

Fine Gael press release, 24 January 2008.

Fine Gael Agriculture and Food Spokesperson, Michael Creed TD, has said the Government's position on GM food had shifted after the election and accused the Green Party of having an a la carte approach to science. Deputy Creed added that the Programme for Government's avowed aim of a GM-free Ireland was at variance to remarks made by Department officials at an Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture.

"It became clear during an Oireachtas Agriculture Committee yesterday that Government policy on GM food had changed from a 'positive but precautionary stance' after the election. A Principal Officer from the Department of Health made it clear that this policy shift resulted in Ireland's abstention at two EU Council votes on GM maize strains. The Irish Grain and Feed Association informed as at a previous committee meeting that the Government's prevarication on GM Feed is costing the industry between € 150 and € 160 million year on year.

"A Department of Agriculture official also pointed out that it would be inconsistent with EU legislation to ban GM feed materials and continued: 'As regards importing feed materials such as maize by-products, probably 95% of those products coming into Ireland are declared as GM. Similarly, probably in excess of 92% or 93% of the soya bean product coming in is declared as GM. It is envisaged that we will continue to import these feed materials in such quantities in order to feed our animals.'

"This is completely at variance with the 'commitment' in the Programme for Government and shows that in an effort, to throw the Green Party a bone in Government negotiations, the current administration has come up with a policy position that runs contrary to its practical actions. A typical solution for a Government founded on expedience.

"The Green Party has an a la carte approach to science - happy to pontificate about science when it is talking about climate change, global warming or emissions while allowing their squeamishness about GM to lead the debate instead of adopting a similarly scientific approach.

"If Fianna Fáil believes that this is an easy issue on which they can give the Greens some small comfort they are wrong. This is of serious concern and needs a full debate. Instead, the Government seems to be intent on propagating a GM-free myth instead of developing coherent policy, tackling spiralling costs for farmers and protecting the consumer against fast rising food prices."

Leading experts demand retraction of 'wormy corn' paper

Note:

This open letter has been sent to the editor and editorial board of the British Food Journal (BFJ). It's signed by forty scientists, including leading experts in the areas of science policy and research ethics, and by two Members of Parliament, including Britain's former Minister of the Environment.

The signatories include experts from Britain, Canada, the US, Norway, France, Italy, Brazil, Venezuela, Indonesia and Japan, all of whom have been disgusted by the failure of the British Food Journal to retract a paper which, as they note, "has brought science and the BFJ into disrepute."

Comment from GM Watch:

The behaviour of the editor of the BFJ, and in particular his refusal to even countenance further discussion of this paper despite the extraordinary seriousness of the charges, could not contrast more starkly with the treatment of scientists whose published results prove inconvenient to powerful interests. In the latter case, scientists have been hung out to dry for crimes they haven't even committed. In this case, no matter how outrageously the authors behave, the journal remains steadfastly silent.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

This scandal came to a head after one of the paper's co-authors, Shane Morris (an Irish biotech scientist with a degree from NUI Maynooth who is advising Fine Gael on GM food and farming issues), threatened legal action against the GM-free Ireland Network after we exposed him as a Canadian Government agent and reported that his paper has been described as "misleading" and a "flagrant fraud". For details see www.gmfreeireland.org/morris

_____________

Open Letter to British Food Journal Editor & Editorial Board:

Wormy Corn Paper Must be Retracted

We, the undersigned, are writing to request the Editor and the Editorial Board of the British Food Journal (BFJ) to retract the published article "Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet corn" [1] and to withdraw its "Award for Excellence for Most Outstanding Paper in 2004". This paper, purporting to show that consumers prefer to buy genetically modified (GM) Bt sweet corn over conventional sweet corn, is highly misleading, if not a "flagrant fraud", as it is based on manipulations of the shoppers' preference, not reported in the paper. When evidence of the manipulations emerged, one of the authors, an employee of the Canadian Government, attempted to suppress the evidence, even resorting to threatening legal action in the UK and Ireland. We summarize the sequence of events for your benefit.

The BFJ published the paper in 2003 [1], and subsequently gave it the "Award for Excellence for the Most Outstanding Paper in 2004". The authors claimed to have shown that consumers, when given a choice between GM (Bt) and non-GM sweet corn, preferred to buy the GM-corn by a factor of 3 to 2. But it turned out that the paper was seriously flawed [2] (see Biotech Canada SLAPP Scandal, SiS 36).

Toronto Star journalist Stuart Laidlaw reported on the 'experiment' in his book, Secret Ingredients: The Brave New World of Industrial Farming, (McClelland & Stewart, 2003). The book included a photograph of a sign above the regular sweet corn saying: "Would You Eat Wormy Sweet Corn?" while the corresponding sign over the GM-corn said: "Here's What Went into Producing Quality Sweet Corn." The contrast between "Wormy" and "Quality" was highlighted on the sign by the number of times the regular corn had been sprayed with insecticides and fungicide. This and other blatant attempts to bias the consumers' choice [3] were not reported in the BFJ paper.

A leading researcher into scientific ethics, Dr. Richard Jennings at Cambridge University in the UK, told the New Scientist [4] that if that is the case, "It is grounds for the journal to retract the article."

Prof. Joe Cummins, Professor Emeritus of Plant Genetics at University of Western Ontario, wrote a letter to the Editor of the BFJ on 30 May 2006, requesting that the paper and the Award for Excellence both be withdrawn as "the experiment and its controls do not appear to have been reported either fully or honestly."

The Editor, Dr. Chris Griffith, Head of the Food Research and Consultancy Unit at the University of Wales, Cardiff, failed to retract the paper, sidestepping the objection with a statement in an "Editor's note" [5] that: "A common misconception is that science and research are about facts." Prof. Cummins' letter was also published in the same "Editor's note", followed by a lengthy reply from the senior author, Dr. Doug Powell, Associate Professor of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology at Kansas State University, Manhattan, in which he tried to justify the research. He admitted that the "wormy corn" sign had been present on 30 August 2000 (the day the sales experiment started), and said it was "changed" (not removed) a week later. But he simply dismissed the charge that this amounted to influencing consumer preference.

The paper's second author, Shane Morris, replied on his website GMOIreland [6], claiming he "never saw any such misleading 'signs'", despite the photographic evidence obtained by Laidlaw. Instead he produced his own photographs [7], which he said confirm there were no such misleading signs during the data collection period.

Morris is a biotech lobbyist who routinely attacks critics of GM crops on his website, and is also a paid agent of the Canadian Government, a Senior Consumer Analyst at the Consumer Analysis Section of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. And while holding that position, Morris resorted to threats of legal action, a notorious measure commonly referred to as SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation [2] - forcing a temporary shutdown of the GM Watch website (which first drew attention to Laidlaw's report).

Meanwhile, new evidence has emerged confirming that the "wormy corn" sign was indeed present during a substantial part of, if not the entire data collection period, 30 August - 6 October 2000. Tim Lambert, computer scientist at the University of New South Wales in Australia, noticed a small placard with writing placed over the regular corn in Morris's photographs, but the resolution was too low to read. By blowing up the photographs and aligning the placard with the original photograph of the wormy sign, Lambert found a match in the writing [8]; thereby providing proof that the telltale sign, which Morris claimed never to have seen, was present in Morris's own photographs.

Dr. Jennings has since spoken to Private Eye [9], calling the BFJ paper "a flagrant fraud", and charging the authors with "a sin of omission by failing to divulge information which quite clearly should have been disclosed." But as Private Eye commented [10], "if the researchers had disclosed the wormy corn labels, would any respected scientific journal have published it?"

In November 2007, the Rt Hon. Michael Meacher MP tabled an Early Day Motion in the UK Parliament on Scientific Research into GM Crops [11], which "regrets the continuing attempts to silence or misrepresent scientists whose research indicates possible human health problems from GM crops", "deplores the continuing efforts of an employee of the Canadian Government to close down websites in the UK and Republic of Ireland," and calls for "journal editors to withdraw papers they have published which subsequently turn out to be grossly misleading or even fraudulent." This has been signed by 26 MPs from different political parties.

Professor Cummins wrote to the BFJ Editor again on 26 November 2007, drawing attention to the new evidence, and asking that "accusations as serious as mendacity, falsification and fraud" not be swept aside or barred from discussion. He wrote again on 6 December and 20 December 2007, but Dr. Griffith has failed to reply.

This disgraceful incident has brought science and the BFJ into disrepute, and we urge the Editorial Board to do what it can to redeem itself by retracting both the paper and its award, thus sending a clear signal to the scientific community and the public that you are not compromising the traditional, accepted standards of good science or of truthful journalism.

References

1. Powell DA, Blaine K, Morris S and Wilson J. Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet-corn. British Food Journal 2003, 105 (10), 700-713.

2. Cummins J. Biotech Canada SLAPP scandal. Science in Society 36, 6-7, 2007.

3. "The GM propaganda lab", GM Watch, http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1

4. "Controversy over claims in favour of GM corn", The New Scientist, 27 May 2007, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19025533.300&feedId=gm-food_rss20

5. Griffith C. Editor's note, British Food Journal 2006, 108(8).

6. "More Spin, FAKE information and Lies!!!" Shane Morris, GMOIreland, 20 March 2006, http://gmoireland.blogspot.com/2006_03_20_archive.html

7. "Poor old Johnny", Shane Morris, GMOIreland, 21 March 2006, http://gmoireland.blogspot.com/2006_03_21_archive.html

8. "Would you eat wormy sweet corn?", Tim Lambert, 7 September 2007, Deltoid, http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/would_you_eat_wormy_sweet_corn.php

9. "Corn fakes", Private Eye No. 1194, 28 September - 11 October 2007.

10. Fraude, 27 September 2007, http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/2007/09/fraude.html

11. Early Day Motion, EDM 425, Scientific Research into GM Crops, 28 November, http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=34547&SESSION=891

Signed:

Prof. Joe Cummins (jcummins@uwo.ca, tel: 1-519 681 5477)
Emeritus Professor, University of Western Ontario, Canada

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho (m.w.ho@I-sis.org.uk, tel: 44-(0)20-7272-5636)
Roster of Experts, Cartagena Protocol for Biosafety
Director, Institute of Science in Society, www.i-sis.org.uk, UK

Prof. Peter Saunders (peter.saunders@kcl.ac.uk, tel: (0)20-7272-5636)
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics, King's College, London University, UK

Dr. Richard C Jennings
Lectures on Ethics in Science, University of Cambridge, UK

Prof. Andy Stirling
Director of Science, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

Prof. Brian Wynne
Associate Director, ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics,
CESAGen, Lancaster University, UK

Prof. Erik Millstone
SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

Dr. Terje Traavik
Scientific Director, GenOk-Center for Biosafety
Professor of Gene Ecology, School of Medicine, University of Tromso, Norway

Rt. Hon. Michael Meacher
Member of Parliament, UK

Alan Simpson
Member of Parliament, UK

Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini
Molecular biologist, University of Caen, France
President, Scientific Council for Independent Research on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN)
www.criigen.org, France

Dr. David Schubert
Professor, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, Ca, USA

Dr. Michael Antoniou
Reader in Molecular Genetics, King's College London, UK

Dr. Rod MacRae
Food policy consultant
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada

Dr. Carlo Leifert
Res Dev Professor of Ecological Agriculture, University of Newcastle, UK

Dr. David Miller
Professor of Sociology, Department of Geography and Sociology, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland

Dr. James Wilsdon
Head of Science and Innovation, Demos, London, UK

Dr. Stuart A. Newman
Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA

Prof. Iain Boal
University of California, Berkeley, Ca, USA

Dr. John Fagan
Chief Scientific Officer and molecular biologist, Genetic ID, USA, Germany, Japan

Dr. Philip L Bereano
Professor Emeritus, Department of Technical Communication, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

Dr. Pietro Perrino
Research Manager, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
Institute of Plant Genetics (ex Germplasm Institute), Bari, Italy

Prof. Masaharu Kawata
Yokkaichi University, Mie-Prefecture, Japan

Dr. Tom Wakeford
Director of Public Engagement, University of Newcastle
SABL Visiting Fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), UK

Dr. Werner Kraus Jr.
Dept. of Automation and Systems Engineering, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil

Dr. Christophe Boete
Research Scientist in Evolutionary Parasitology, University Pierre & Marie Curie, Paris, France

Dr. Alexandra Plows
Research Associate, ESRC Centre for the Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, CESAGen
University of Cardiff, UK

Dr. Hector Valenzuela
Professor and Vegetable Crops Extension Specialist, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA

Prof. E R Orskov
IFRU, Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, Scotland

Dr. Arpad Pusztai FRSE
Biotechnology Section Graduate Division at the St Stephan University School of Ecology, Hungary
Consultant, GenOk-Center for Biosafety, Norway

Dr. Susan Bardocz
Professor of Nutrition at University Debrecen, Hungary, and Consultant, GenOk-Center for Biosafety, Norway

Dr. Malcolm Hooper
Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry, University of Sunderland, UK

Dr. Paul Nightingale
SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

Profa. Dra. Uiara Montedo
Departamento de Engenharia de ProduÁ“o, Escola PolitÈcnica da Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil

Dr. Stuart Parkinson
Executive Director, Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR), UK

Dr. Jonathan R. Latham
Editor, The Bioscience Resource Project, Ithaca, NY, USA

John Verrall MRPS, DBA
Member, Food Ethics Council, Brighton, UK

Dr. Helen Wallace
Director, GeneWatch UK, Buxton, UK

Dr. Brian John
GM-Free Cymru, www.gmfreecymru.org, Wales

Dr. Michael W. Fox
Veterinarian and syndicated columnist, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Hira Jhamtani
Vice Chair, Bali Organic Association, Bali, Indonesia

Dr. Neil Carman
Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee, Austin, Texas, USA

Amazon Deforestation Rises Sharply in 2007, as Jungle Is Cleared For Farming

Associated Press, 24 January 2008. By Alan Glendinning.

SAO PAULO, Brazil -- The rate of Amazon deforestation rose sharply during the final five months of 2007 as land was cleared for soy and cattle, prompting a top-level emergency meeting Thursday by government officials to deal with the problem.

Environment Minister Marina Silva and other ministers were heading to the presidential palace Thursday afternoon to meet with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva after the report on deforestation was issued late Wednesday.

Silva's ministry estimates as much as 7,000 square kilometers (2,703 square miles) of rain forest was cleared from August through December, meaning that Brazil could lose 15,000 square kilometers (5791 square miles) of jungle by August of this year if the rate continues.

That would represent a sharp increase from the 11,224 square kilometers (4,334 square miles) that was cut down and burned from August 2006 through July of last year.

Although preliminary calculations can only prove that 3,333 square kilometers (1,287 square miles) of rain forest were cleared from August through December, ministry executive secretary João Paulo Capobianco said officials are still analyzing satellite imagery and working under the assumption that the higher amount of jungle was cleared.

"We're working with the worst hypothesis," he said, according to Brazil's official AgÍncia Brasil news service.

The Environment Ministry could not immediately provide data to precisely compare the five-month destruction rate for last year to the same period in 2006.

Most of last year's destruction happened in November and December and was concentrated in the three Amazon region states of Mato Grosso, Par· and RondÙnia.

Mato Grosso is the center of Brazil's important soy production industry, and Latin America's largest nation is second only to the United States for production.

Jungle is typically cleared in the Amazon to provide pasture for cattle, then soy farmers move in later and cultivate their crops. Brazil also has a booming beef export industry, and cattle ranchers have been expanding their operations in the Amazon.

Brazil last year trumpeted a drop in Amazon deforestation, but the new numbers appeared to indicate that the situation has been reversed. Brazilian media reported that the president and the ministers would discuss possible emergency measures to reduce the deforestation.

The great GM miracle?

Transcript of the BBC Radio 4 programme "Costing the Earth" broadcast on 17 January 2008.

Tom Heap investigates whether British attitudes to GM food are holding back the fight against poverty, disease, and hunger.

Tom Heap: I'm just squeezing along on the narrow margin between the hedge and a field which is planted with the very beginnings of next year's wheat crop. It looks very calm now but barely 10 years ago this expanse of mud and crops was definitely a battlefield.

[flashback to BBC radio news] Nick Clark: The World at One, this is Nick Clark with 30 minutes of news and comment. And the headlines today: Greenpeace has said it was responsible for the destruction of a field of GM maize in Norfolk early this morning.

(GM crop trial farmer) William Brigham: About quarter past five in the morning, on 26th July 1999, I got a phone call from my brother saying, there's a digger and I'm pretty certain it's gone down the track towards the GM crop.

Nick Clark: The company involved in the trial says it may be necessary in the future to conduct such experiments in secret to prevent attacks by environmentalists. [end of BBC news piece]

William Brigham: We confronted them. They had a tractor with a cutter. They were proceeding to cut, I wouldn't say in very agricultural methods, they were going round and round in circles but I think it was more for the camera than for effect.

Tom Heap: That was the Norfolk farmer, William Brigham, and much like the cutter, the argument has been going round and round in circles ever since. But, weed out the rhetoric and GM withered here for a simple reason: the public could see no benefit which justified the dangers, however small, of growing and eating GM crops. Even biotech enthusiasts admit the logic of that position, but it is based on a balance of risk vs reward, and today on Costing the Earth we're asking whether the passing years have tipped the scales, and if GM's time has now come.

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: There are going to be tremendous shocks to the global food system given that we're already in an unsustainable environment trying to feed thare [sic] holding back the fight against poverty, disease, and hunger.

Tom Heap: For over a decade Americans have been chowing down on trillions of GM meals, and there is no apparent human health disaster. Last year GM crops were planted over 1 million square kilometers, that's 4 times the area of the UK: where's the environmental catastrophe? And do the emerging pressures of climate change and 3 billion extra stomachs to fill by 2050 mean yield from our fields is a matter of life and death, or, put brutally, could GM help feed all of us, and be a lifesaver for the starving?

Dick Taverne, a member of the House of Lords science and technology committee, is in no doubt.

Dick Taverne: I think our present attitudes to GM are not just rather short-sighted, and ignore the evidence, but are deeply damaging to the fight against hunger, poverty and disease in the world. The trouble is, the new technology is not essential to Europe. Nobody here in Europe goes hungry. It's the developing world to which it's important, and on the whole people don't seem to care about that. Oh, they love big concerts, Let's Make Poverty History, let's promote things in Africa, but then they don't realize that what's holding back the fight against poverty in Africa is, amongst other things, the resistance to GM crops.

Tom Heap: Poor diet and simple hunger erodes humankind, the death toll so constant that it largely goes unnoticed. Prof Jeffrey Sachs led the UN's Millennium Project on Poverty and Hunger, and is now director of the Earth Institute.

Jeffrey Sachs: The urgency, no doubt, is to use the tools that we have to keep people alive today. Five million children will die of poverty and chronic hunger in Africa this coming year; this is a shocking unnecessary tragic disaster on the planet. Nearly 10 million children die each year, essentially of extreme poverty because the powerful tools that we have do not reach these households, these communities, the children who otherwise would be able to stay alive and to prosper. And it requires us not to turn our back on whole classes of technology, that would be simply absurd when we know we're going to need much more powerful tools in the future, including genetic modification.

Tom Heap: Sobering statistics, and with a forecast of more people and an erratic climate, Jeffrey Sachs believes we need to invest more, to harvest more.

Jeffrey Sachs: In general, we need first a green revolution in Africa, right now. We have a continent that is extremely hungry, and where the productivity is very very low in yields per hectare. In that case, a lot of our traditional technologies, if brought to scale, would make a difference, but in the African case I would suspect that genetically modified crops can also add to that. They won't be vital for the next few years, and indeed they won't be brought online in the next few years, but they can add. Looking forward, there are going to be tremendous shocks to the global food system, not only the growth of population prospectively from today's 6.6 billion to perhaps more than 9 billion at mid-century, if the UN's forecasts turn out to be the case, but also the fact that with climate change, there will be tremendous stresses in food production in many regions of the world, given that we're already in an unsustainable environment trying to feed the current population, weÇre going to need a lot of powerful science and technology in the years ahead.

Tom Heap: The claim that GM might help to feed the world appeared over a decade ago. If we look at GM crops today, it's mostly maize, soy, and cotton, principally grown in the Americas, North and South, but gradually taking root in the developing world, although for Dick Taverne, not fast enough.

Tom Heap (to Dick Taverne): Would you really claim that people are suffering or indeed dying because these regulations are holding the products up?

Dick Taverne: Absolutely, oh yes, without any doubt at all. If you take Africa, which has missed out on the green revolution, which has benefited the rest of the world enormously and has saved hundreds of millions of people from starvation, Africa could benefit from this technology because it is particularly geared to the small farmer. But it's being held back in Africa because they are scared of producing these crops because they can't export them to Europe. Why can't they export them to Europe? Because the green lobbies have managed to create a regulatory structure that makes it practically impossible to export genetically modified crops to Europe. Now, again, in continents like Africa, you've got the problem of increasing drought. There are genetically modified crops which have been developed that can grow in arid land and that can grow in saline soil which no other crops can grow in. We will need this new technology as part, I'm not saying it's the solution, but as part of the solution towards producing enough food for people in the world in the future.

Tom Heap: But where is the evidence that if we took these regulatory handcuffs off, or at least loosened them, that fewer people would go hungry?

Dick Taverne: Oh, because then you would get a huge acceleration of developing all these crops that are being developed [sic].

Tom Heap: And you really believe that in 5 years that could actually fill people's bellies?

Dick Taverne: It's not a question of my belief, I'm looking at the evidence, the evidence about these crops. The crops are available but they've got to go through this regulatory series of hoops and hurdles, that's what's holding them back. They could be there quickly. What are these green lobbyists doing opposing it in the name of saving the planet? Completely counterproductive. And indeed I regard it as a crime against humanity.

Tom Heap: The charge doesn't get more serious than that. So let's investigate. Are there genetically modified crops being held back that would help feed the hungry? Here is the just-retired chief scientist Sir David King, on the Today programme late last year.

David King: Nine and a half billion people on the planet we need to be planning for. If we're going to feed that population with climate change, we're going to need to get even cleverer. More crop per drop. And we need the technology that can deliver that, and in my view we have the technology, it's GM.

I wonder if I could give you one example. And this is the use of intercrop planting in Africa which has increased grain yields already around Lake Victoria, very substantially. And this is done by discovering what the pheromone is in the root of the grain plant that attracts root borers, and destroys them. If you snip that gene into grass, so that the grass attracts the root borer, the root borer doesn't feed well on the grass and dies, you interplant grass with the crop and it turns out the crop yield goes up 40-50 per cent. Very big advantage.

Tom Heap: But under scrutiny it emerged that this crop is non-GM, developed by conventional plant breeding! An 'honest mistake', but a big one. Can the biotech industry themselves do any better? Julian Little speaks for the Agricultural Biotechnology Council.

Julian Little: There's absolutely no doubt that GM cannot solve all the world's problems when it comes to the amount of food. What is clear is that many GM crops which are in use today have higher yields than their conventional counterparts.

Tom Heap: What about changes that are actually going to help feed the worldÇs hungry? What are the companies doing for them?

Julian Little: If we look at biotechnology in the round, almost all plant breeding these days involves some sort of biotechnology. Sometimes you end up with a GM variety, sometimes you end up with a non-GM variety. I'll just give you the example of hybrid rice. You can double or triple the amount of rice that you'll get out of a hectare by modern plant breeding involving biotechnology, but which the ultimate plant is not genetically modified.

Tom Heap: So does that mean you can achieve all you want without having to actually go down the GM line, you can do it by conventional breeding, and you don't have to worry people?

Julian Little: In certain circumstances, you can use conventional breeding, in some cases the GM way will be the best way forward. We have never, ever, suggested that GM is the only way forward.

Tom Heap: So even the plant breeders fail to provide an example of a genetically modified crop that could combat starvation now. They lack a killer application, and it's a weakness readily exploited by GM's opponents.

Tom Heap (to Jonathan Matthews): Why do you think we're hearing the argument strongly now about GM having a role in feeding the world? Could it be because we are moving from an era of maybe having a surplus of food to a shortage of food?

Jonathan Matthews: It's the trump card they tried to play in 1998 when they found themselves facing serious opposition in Europe.

Tom Heap: Jonathan Matthews from GM Watch.

Jonathan Matthews: Monsanto launched its PR campaign, 'Let the harvest begin'. And it branded itself in terms of, 'We are going to feed the world.' It didn't succeed last time around in convincing people, but it remains a useful card to play, because if you just say to people, 'Do you want GM foods?' then clearly the answer is, 'No, we don't'. So what do you do? Well, you make them feel guilty. You say, 'But these people need GM foods. And if you insist on not eating or not having them, then that is harming these people, and so you are morally responsible.'

Tom Heap: Harming them to an extent where one of our interviewees said that people like who you are standing in the way of genetically modified crops for the developing world are committing crimes against humanity. What do you think?

Jonathan Matthews: I think that's a truly outrageous accusation, and what is despicable in one sense about demonizing people in that way is that no clear evidence is produced to support these claims. I've come across this repeatedly. Lord Taverne, for example, recently had an article in which he said that millions may have died because of not having GM crops. But he produced no evidence to support that, and I've seen no evidence to support that.

Tom Heap: Dick Taverne's assertion is based on his knowledge of Golden Rice.

Dick Taverne: Here's a rice which was developed not by Monsanto or the big multinational companies, but in the public sector by a Swiss biotechnologist called Ingo Potrykus. It was thought that he would be one of the great benefactors of mankind because he produced a kind of rice that could help remedy the deficiency in vitamin A that at the moment leaves about half a million children to go blind every year and up to 2 million people to die. Now this rice has been tested, people could be benefiting from it now, if it hadn't been for the regulatory hurdles as a result of the activities of these green lobbies and the crimes which they are committing against humanity in promoting these regulatory hurdles.

Tom Heap: That's a very strong phrase.

Dick Taverne: Yes it is a crime against humanity when you hold back a technology like Golden Rice, and it means that 500,000 go blind. It could have been introduced five years ago. When you hold that back, that is a crime against humanity.

Jonathan Matthews: I think from the evidence I've seen that that is completely misleading.

Tom Heap: Jonathan Matthews from GM Watch.

Jonathan Matthews: In fact, although - I think it was back in 2000 - Time magazine had a cover about Golden Rice and what a miraculous solution it was to this problem, Golden Rice has actually had a lot of problems, just simple technical problems - that it hasn't been producing enough beta-carotene to make a difference.

When it comes to biosafety, I think it's really extraordinary to claim that if it wasn't for some sort of regulatory system, this could just be fed to them just like that. I mean, that's outrageous. It has to be looked at in regulatory terms. Countries have to have their own biosafety systems in place. What are they saying, that the biosafety systems shouldn't be developed?

Tom Heap: If they could overcome that biosafety hurdle, could Golden Rice be a great thing for curing malnourishment?

Jonathan Matthews: This brings us back to something we were talking about earlier, looking at the choices that we have. What's interesting about Golden Rice is the way in which it has hogged the headlines, as with Time magazine featuring it on its front cover. It's been presented as being the only solution to this problem. But in fact, there's a range of solutions out there. There's non-GM biofortification of crops, now why don't we ever hear anything about that? That's going on, that's going ahead, some of that's actually ahead of Golden Rice, you don't even have the GM questions or the GM issues and all that complexity.

A lot of this has to do with political will. There are solutions there to deal with this problem, but the political will isn't there to sort them out. At the same time, Golden Rice can create a kind of PR phenomenon. But that's actually not seriously addressing the issue.

Tom Heap: Do you think GM has any role in feeding the world?

Jonathan Matthews: Again I think it's possible, but it needs to be looked at in relation to what other alternatives are available, because GM brings with it a number of uncertainties and a number of risks. We therefore need a very compelling reason to say, 'Ah yes, GM is the solution.' And I think the main problem with what's happening with many of the people who are trying to promote this technology, is they're creating crisis narratives where they're saying, 'GM is the only solution, the only way of tackling this problem.'

Tom Heap: One of the most famous such crises is when Zambia was in the grip of a famine in 2002 and yet rejected food aid from the US which contained genetically modified grain. Development expert Jeffrey Sachs again.

Jeffrey Sachs: The European blanket, sometimes shrill, opposition definitely has a wear and tear effect in Africa. African leadership is often simply scared even to host the research for fears that this will prevent exports from their countries to European markets, even exports of conventionally produced crops. So thereÇs a lot of fear. There was a time when an emergency food shipment from the United States, the food that I eat every day, that was milled for flour, was turned back, reportedly on the fears of the national leadership that it had been produced by GMO crops, at a time when there was an intense famine.

Now, this kind of response really won't do. It won't serve the needs of desperately poor people who need the best of our goodwill and efforts to help them to solve their problems.

Jonathan Matthews: You're probably aware of what happened when the Zambian government refused GM food aid. People again talked about crimes against humanity. There were suggestions - one US Bush administration spokesman said that the leaders of Zambia should be tried in the highest courts in the world for the highest crimes in the world. And yet nobody died in Zambia because they chose to have non-GM grain rather than GM grain. This is almost an urban myth, it's used to demonize people, to shut down argument. What happened is that the Zambian president set up a committee to look into it, using scientists and economists. They traveled to the States, they traveled to Britain, they traveled to South Africa, they spoke to regulators, they spoke to scientists, and they made their own decision.

Tom Heap: But you can understand the confusion and even the anger of Americans who found the desperate refusing something that they eat happily, and apparently healthily. Surely the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And trillions of meals with GM ingredients have been eaten by now and we have not seen any evidence of widespread damage to human health. Your fox is shot.

Jonathan Matthews: I'm afraid that's not a convincing argument to epidemiologists. You only have to look at the history of smoking and how many millions of people smoked tobacco, cigarettes and so on before we had an idea of the health consequences that came from smoking.

Tom Heap: So are you claiming there's some big undiagnosed health catastrophe happening in America as a result of GM crops, is that what you're saying?

Jonathan Matthews: What are you saying - in a sense - that there have to be piles of dead bodies before we can identify that there might be a problem? In fact, we haven't a clue what's going on because this food is going largely into processed foods unlabeled, so there's no way of keeping track of what the effects of consuming GM ingredients are.

It would be much simpler to conduct controlled experiments, but the lack of experimentation on GM food safety is truly remarkable. If you take the British government, for example, clearly people in Britain have big concerns about this. It seems to me that if you wanted to reassure them, you would do the research. You'd put the money there, you'd say, 'We think there is value in this, we think the public could be convinced, we'll do the science.' If you don't do it, and you just posture, and say, 'You're very ignorant, foolish people, you're making a lot of fuss, just accept it,' then I don't think that takes the debate forward, and I don't think it helps us get to the truth either.

Tom Heap: So your position, when asked if there is a health risk from GM food, is, 'Currently, we don't know.'

Jonathan Matthews: We don't know. That's it exactly.

Tom Heap: But why assume that there is when, as I say, trillions of people have eaten this food and we haven't seen the resulting ill health epidemic?

Jonathan Matthews: As I said, there have been other things historically where we've seen that a product used or consumed for a whole period of time, and even valued and thought to be miraculous - you can think of things like asbestos, for example, where we thought we'd found an absolute wonder-product, and then it becomes apparent that there's a problem we had no idea of. Often those problems come out of left field and completely take us by surprise. In this case, we really are doing something quite radical - we're crossing the species barrier, we're introducing something into the human diet that in some cases has never been part of it before. Now it seems to me, it's worth approaching that with caution.

Tom Heap: And caution is exactly what the British Food Standards Agency and their European equivalent say they exercise with GM foods. Each product is reviewed on a case-by-case basis for toxic, nutritional, allergenic and environmental impacts. Dick Taverne again.

Dick Taverne: The international academies, the national academies of science in every major country in the world - United States, Britain, Germany, France, China, India, Brazil, Mexico have all come to the conclusion that there is not a shred of evidence that this is damaging to human health. WHO has come out, and what's the WHO for but to guard the safety and health of the world population. What does it say? There's no evidence that GM crops are harmful to human health. And still they go on, repeating this mantra, 'Oh, GM crops haven't been proved safe.'

Tom Heap: But neither Dick Taverne nor Jonathan Matthews are actually involved in tackling hunger. Bonnie McClafferty is. She works for the charity Harvest Plus, which is funded by the Gates Foundation and our own government, amongst others. It strives to improve the nutritional quality of food for the poor.

Bonnie McClafferty: We are actually only looking at this point at what are some of the molecular biology - what can we do with nutritional genomics to understand which genes help in the inheritance of nutrients. So for example, we have discovered that there are certain genes that control where a plant will place nutrients, and we of course want to understand how to better get a plant to place nutrients in the seeds that people eat, in addition to the leaves that they need for photosynthesis.

Tom Heap: So is the relatively small level of GM work in the crops that you're suggesting for planting, is that due to the actual weakness of the genetically modified products on offer, or is it due to the political antipathy towards them?

Bonnie McClafferty: I would say in all honesty, it's a bit of both. But we are in effect hedging our bets. We've been able to experience great success in actually finding varieties to do conventional plant breeding with. In some crops that are extremely important to the hungry, these nutrients just don't exist. So we are in a position whereby we cannot ignore the fact, the powers that genetic modification can offer. However, we also cannot afford, because of the urgency of micronutrient malnutrition, we cannot afford to develop a technology that will sit on a shelf.

Tom Heap: In fact, though GM only makes up 5 per cent of Harvest Plus's work, Bonnie McClafferty, like Jeffrey Sachs, believes hunger demands every solution.

Bonnie McClafferty: I think that you're finding that there are scientists stepping up and saying, 'Wait, let's really look at both sides of this debate, let's not call it an emotional issue', and for us that's critical because really for us it's an urgency. There are 250 million children that are vitamin A-deficient. Two billion people in the world suffer from iron deficiency. These are children who are coming into the world with lower-functioning cognitive capacity because they haven't had iron in their diet. These are children going blind every day from the lack of vitamin A. These are moms dying in childbirth because of anaemia and iron deficiency.

Tom Heap: Could genetic modification be one of the tools that helps alleviate that suffering?

Bonnie McClafferty: Genetic modification can, but again it's in its testing stages, it needs to be effectively tested and safely introduced, and most of all it needs to be owned and understood by the people wherein these technologies will be applied. We have a responsibility to try all technologies we have because it's more a question of, what if we had the technology and didn't put it to work? I think that's a question we need to be asking, not necessarily 'Should we or shouldn't we?' If we know we can do it, we're responsible to safely look at whether this can be applied.

Tom Heap: But public trust has been eroded by ten years of high-pitched debate. I've come to James Wilsdon, from the think tank Demos, to guide me through this tense relationship between science and society.

You said the first round of the GM battle was characterized by much more heat than light. As we ring the bell for round 2 and we hear people talking about 'crimes against humanity'. How do you feel it's going to go this time?

James Wilsdon: I think all sides of the debate need to be very careful not to exaggerate what's going to happen on either side. There's a real danger in that kind of exaggerated rhetoric that we end up back where we were in the late 90s, in a very negative destructive spiral of debate. So I think particularly to the pro-GM advocates that it's time to swallow their arrogance and hubris that they've been guilty of in the past, get their head around the complex issues that others are putting on the table and start to have then a more sensible and balanced discussion about the role that GM may play in that broader mix of agricultural technologies.

Tom Heap: Have those scientists and those companies that are behind GM got to take on board the social impact of what they are talking about?

James Wilsdon: Absolutely. There's a real need to be more open to the very sensible social, political, economic questions that many critics of GM have been arguing about the place that that technology could have within global agriculture and not simply to dismiss these out of hand or to pretend that any objection to the technology is a sign of some luddite anti-scientific ignorance. It's not ignorance that's prompting these questions, it's very sensible concern about who will benefit from this technology, who will control it, who will take responsibility if and when it goes wrong. And it's those questions that remain unanswered. So simply sliding back into a ping-pong about the whys and wherefores of the science, whether it's safe, whether its not, doesn't get us to those much deeper questions about the place of GM within the food system.

Tom Heap: Beneath the argument and anger, I think a few conclusions do emerge from this week's Costing the Earth. Despite the hype, pro-GM advocates failed to identify a genetically modified crop that could be planted today to put food in the hungriest mouths. But they remain passionate about what's in the lab. Respected figures in development don't see GM as a key tool yet, but are adamant that investment in agricultural science is vital to feeding a growing population in a restless climate, and believe that GM should be part of that research.

23 January 2008

UK: Reviewing 'The great GM miracle?'

The Ecologist, 23 January 2008.

Last week Radio 4's 'Costing the Earth' programme investigated the GM industry's claims that opposition to theÝtechnology was hurting the poor and the environment.

GM Watch's Jonathan MatthewsÝwas asked to counter the claims.

_______________

The great GM miracle?

The man on the phone said he was from the BBC. They were interested in interviewing me about my alleged involvement in crimes against humanity.

You what?

Possibly the deaths of millions

I stood accused, it emerged, of holding back the fight against poverty, disease, and hunger.

No laughing matter.

Who was my accuser?

The person lining me up for the Pol Pot Award, apparently, was Lord Dick Taverne - the head of the lobby group Sense About Science.

By opposing GM, Taverne had told the programme makers, people like me blocked the products of this life-saving technology from reaching the starving millions. And others the BBC had spoken to had assured them that opposition to GM crops had even resulted in famine relief ships being turned back at sea by a southern African nation in the grip of terrible famine.

Radio 4's Costing the Earth team, I was told, were coming to investigate.

The resulting programme went out last Thursday and it's to the credit of the programme makers that they managed to cut through the hyperbole, peel back the rhetoric, and examine the actual factual basis of the claims being made by GM's promoters.

And once they focused on the facts Lord Taverne and his pals came seriously unstuck. Take for instance, the Government's recently retiring Chief Scientist, Prof. Sir David King, who in the demob-happy period before he finally quit at the end of last year launched a volley of dodgy promotionals for GM, nukes and badger-killing.

Costing the Earth re-ran part of King's interview with Today - Radio 4's flagship current affairs programme - the part where King told the listening millions that given the world's burgeoning population and the impact of climate change, "We're going to need to get even cleverer. More crop per drop. And we need the technology that can deliver that, and in my view we have the technology, it's GM." And Prof. King had the killer application to prove it.

Unfortunately, the high yielding GM product for Africa, which King described in such loving detail to listeners as an example of how GM was tansforming agriculture around Lake Victoria, turned out on subsequent examintion to be, errr... non-GM! Developed by conventional plant breeding and involving companion planting it had absolutely nothing to do with genetic engineering.

"Can the biotech industry themselves do any better?", presenter Tom Heap wondered. They asked the industry's PR guy in the UK, Julian Little to give his killer application for transforming the lives of the poor. He came up with hybrid rice, which he readily admitted wasn't GM either, but non-GM biotechnology had had something to do with its development he claimed.

Lord Taverne proffered Golden Rice and banged on about crimes against humanity. Happily, I got the chance to respond and to point out that when it comes to helping deal with Vitamin A deficiency, not only is Golden Rice not all it's cracked up to be but there are a range of other, often more viable, solutions out there which we never hear anything about. Golden Rice, I pointed out, has everything to do with PR for the industry, but that's very different from seriously addressing the issues that drive malnutrition. I also got the chance to puncture the GM promoters' urban myths about what happened when Zambia turned down GM food aid.

It was left to the final contributor to the programme, James Wilsdon from the think tank Demos to speall out why GM's promoters need to cut out the demonizing and other negative rhetoric: "There's a real need to be more open to the very sensible social, political, economic questions that many critics of GM have been arguing about the place that that technology could have within global agriculture and not simply to dismiss these out of hand or to pretend that any objection to the technology is a sign of some luddite anti-scientific ignorance. It's not ignorance that's prompting these questions, it's very sensible concern about who will benefit from this technology, who will control it, who will take responsibility if and when it goes wrong. And it's those questions that remain unanswered."

If you'd like to find out more about the programme, there's a complete transcript available here http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8690

Jonathan Matthews is an editor at GM Watch ‚ www.gmwatch.org ‚ and LobbyWatch ‚ www.lobbywatch.org

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Dick Taverne is coming to Dublin to promote the myth "That genetically modified food should be considered safe to eat and ethical to produce" at a Trinity College Dublin debate on Wednesday 6 February.

Iceland: Resistance Rises Against GM Imports

IPS, Jan 23 2008. By Lowana Veal.

REYKJAVIK, Jan 23 (IPS) - Icelanders are beginning to protest more forcefully against import of genetically modified food, leading the government to tighten regulations.

"We are the only European country that does not require food to be labelled if it contains genetically modified organisms," Johannes Gunnarsson, chair of the Consumers' Association in Iceland told IPS. "And of all European countries, it is Iceland that buys most from the U.S. -- products such as breakfast cereals and baby food.

"Consumers must have the right to choose, and to do so they must have the right information," he says. "If there are no rules regarding which products contain GM foodstuffs, the consumer has no choice. We have talked to the last three environment ministers about the situation but, although they are sympathetic, nothing is done." Until now.

Iceland passed a law on marketing and general release of genetically modified organisms in 1996, and since then several regulations have been introduced on that basis. The measures followed a European Directive in 1990. But no steps were then taken in line with the more recent 2001 Directive.

Sigridur Audur Arnardottir, lawyer for the Environment Minister, says new regulations based on the new Directive have finally been written. "This is being sent out for comments and should be ready for implementation in February," she said.

"The new regulation will update the previous ones but will be based on the Cartagena Protocol on biological safety," Sigurdur Thrainsson from the ministry said. "It will thus correspond to the 2001 Directive."

Another regulation, he said, will focus on a related regulation from 2003 that seeks to implement the Cartagena Protocol. "The two regulations will come out about the same time."

The Cartagena Protocol aims to protect biological diversity from potential risks of trans-boundary movement of genetically modified organisms -- or living modified organisms (LMO) as they are called in the Protocol.

"Iceland has signed but not yet ratified the Cartagena Protocol, but intends to ratify it in the near future," said Thrainsson.

Early last year, European consumers voiced concern that food produced from animals fed with GM foodstuffs was not so labelled. Two European regulations have been written on this. But Helga Palsdottir from the Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority, who wrote the regulation that is currently being reviewed, says that regulations on traceability and labelling have not been translated into Icelandic.

"If it is genetically modified, it must be labelled," says Gunnarson. "Most animal feed in Iceland comes from the USA, where there are no regulations on GM labelling."

GM food is not the only issue. A company ORF has been developing growth factors from transgenic barley for use in cancer and stem cell research. These are greenhouse-grown, but two proteins have been grown experimentally outdoors in Gunnarsholt, South Iceland. One is for the ORF's own use, while the other is for industrial purposes.

Barley is the only cereal crop grown in Iceland. "But there is no danger of cross-fertilisation between experimental barley and cultivated barley or related grasses," says ORF co-founder Bjorn Larus Orvar.

Gunnar A. Gunnarson from Tun, an organic certification organisation, is not so sure. "Where is the proof that no cross-fertilisation can exist," he says. "It cannot be excluded that wild or domestic animals will not break into the enclosure and thus carry fragments of transgenic material away with them."

In the United States, he said, "a number of major companies that are working on genetic engineering for pharmaceutical purposes use plants like tobacco, which are never used for food or animal feed, for genetic modification, to avoid possible contamination."

ORF leases its land from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), which also has its headquarters in Gunnarsholt, and cultivates the tall Deschampsia beringensis (Bering's tufted grass) and Festuca rubra (Arctic fescue) nearby for re-vegetation purposes.

Is there a risk of cross-pollination between the transgenic barley and the grasses? "Not a chance," says Magnus Johannson from SCS. "Pollen from barley in Iceland and other northern climes only lives for 24 hours. Iceland is a very safe place for such experimentation."

He emphasises that ORF only rents land from them -- cultivation of transgenic barley has nothing to do with the SCS. (END/2008)

USA: Candidate Support Expected to Boost Non-GMO Brands

Business Wire, 23 January 2008.

LOS ANGELES -- According to leading health management resource, the Institute for Responsible Technology www.responsibletechnology.org consumers have no idea they are consuming flawed, genetically modified foods, and that is unfair. In late November, after reviewing the latest data about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), also known as "biotech foods", all leading democratic presidential candidates agreed to fast track the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. Non-GMO brands are expected to benefit.

"Now consumers will have the information they need to make non-GMO buying choices," explains Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute and Director of the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. "We believe that we can change consumer buying habits if we reach consumers directly at point-of-purchase with a non-GMO brand shopping guide." The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, launched late last year, plans to provide convenient purse-sized non-GMO brand buying guides in-store, to nonprofit groups and online. In addition to product tips, the guide lists key company phone numbers consumers can call to request they switch back to non-GMO ingredients. "American consumers are an important part of the solution," says Smith.

Candace Pert, PhD, author and former Chief of the Section, National Institutes of Health says, "I applaud the Campaign's efforts to inform American consumers about healthier non-GMO brand choices, and I am heartened to hear the candidates are taking the labeling of ëbiotech foods' seriously. Because of the mounting evidence against GMOs, I consistently recommend a non-GMO diet."

Smith, the world's best-selling author on the health risks of GMOs, says, "A writer for a leading food magazine recently asked the question, ëA gene's a gene. What could go wrong?' The answer is: Plenty. In fact, the process of inserting a foreign gene into a plant cell and cloning that cell into a GM crop produces hundreds or thousands of mutations throughout the DNA. Natural plant genes may be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds can change their function. This type of collateral damage is why GM soy has less protein, an unexpected new allergen, and up to seven times higher levels of a known soy allergen." According to Smith, this GM soy example is only one of thousands of possible biotech food flaws that negatively affect consumer health today. To learn about GMOs go to www.responsibletechnology.org.

The Institute for Responsible Technology serves as the premier meeting ground for the leaders of America's non-GMO community. Since its founding in 2003, it has sponsored groundbreaking research, fought for public policies that support GMO eradication, safety and testing, and created unparalleled resources so staff, boards, and consumers of every age can improve their health management.

The Institute for Responsible Technology fulfills its mission by:

•

Serving as the voice of non-GMO education to the media, trade organizations, government, business, consumers and international bodies.

•

Convening opportunities for non-GMO leaders to work together on key issues.

•

Promoting policies that enable grassroots community members to engage with public officials on a nonpartisan basis.

•

Supporting the development and dissemination of strategies to strengthen non-GMO volunteering, voting, giving, and other forms of citizen engagement.

Video

http://www.worldhealthnet.tv/video/jeff-smith-the-effects-of- genetically-modified-foods

(Due to its length, this URL may need to be copied/pasted into your Internet browser's address field. Remove the extra space if one exists.)

Pictures

GMO Pictures :

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=293

Poland may not ban genetically modified plants

GMO Compass, 23 January 2008.

Poland must allow the cultivation of genetically modified plants approved in the EU. The European Commission has rejected a draft law on genetically modified organisms (GMO) that would have restricted any plantings to designated zones and placed additional requirements on the use of GMO seeds. According to the Commission, Poland did not provide any new scientific evidence to justify the national measure in reference to the protection of the environment or the working environment. Consequently, the ban cannot be based on the "safeguard clause" foreseen in the EU law. Reports from Polish media indicate the willingness of the newly elected centre-right government to ease its stance over biotechnology.

In April 2007, Poland had notified the Commission of its plan to prohibit the planting of genetically modified plants by law. Any cultivation would be obliged to take place within designated zones. After application and the subsequent solicitation of the responsible municipal council, such zones could have been established by governmental decision. Comprehensive obligations also were foreseen in the case of a deliberate release for experimental purposes. The draft act foresaw a risk assessment and technical documentation, as well as written declarations of consent from neighbouring farmers. In rationalising such measures, the government made reference to the small structured agricultural land-use in Poland. The country has almost two million farms and the average area of a single farm is less than 8 hectares. Given this level of fragmentation, the isolation of GM from conventional and organic crops was assessed by the government as impossible.

Comparing the Polish act with the EU Directive on the deliberate release, the Commission concluded that the national measures are more restrictive. In accordance with EU law, experimental releases are not subject to the consent of any third party such as neighbouring farmers. Furthermore, without entitling any Member State to adopt a general ban of the cultivation or any other use of a genetically modified organism, the provisions of the EU Directive indicate that the cultivation of a GMO can be prohibited only on a case-by-case basis. Poland did not refer to new scientific studies, literature or other possible findings indicating new evidence concerning the protection of the environment or the working environment. The Commission's decision was dated as October 12th, 2007 but was not published in the Official Journal until Monday, 21th January, 2008. Ý

Further information:

Commission Decision 2008/62/EG in the Official Journal of the European Union
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:016:0017:0025:EN:PDF

Ukraine: Cabinet of Ministers will claim for the labeling of GMO products imported to Ukraine

www.lol.org.ua, 23 January 2008.

The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine is intended to claim for the introduction of the labeling of the products with genetically modified organisms (GMO), imported to Ukraine. The Government decided to add the respective point to the action program "Ukrainian Breakthrough" approved during the meeting on the 16th of January.

The initial draft of the program stipulated the obligatory labeling only to GMO products produced in Ukraine. "Ukrainian Breakthrough" action program of the Cabinet of Ministers was actively discussed by the government members during the meeting on the 16th of January; the Ministers suggested various proposals for the document improvement.

In August past year the Cabinet of Ministers obliged the producers to locate information about the presence of GMOs in the product tissues on the packs of food products. However, the Cabinet of Ministers canceled this decision on the 21st of November and obliged State Consumer Standart Committee and other relevant institutions to prepare till December 25th the draft projects for development of the required legislative basis on the issue of GMO product labeling in view of WTO and International Plant Protection Convention requirements.

Early March All-Ukrainian State Scientific-Production Center of standardization, meteorology, certification and consumer advocacy informed about the significant quantity of food products with GMOs in Ukraine. GMOs are the organisms where genetic material is changed by method which is impossible in natural conditions. Genetically modified soybeans, and also corn, rice, tomatoes, sugar beet and other crops are the most vide-spread products of this kind.

USA: Biotech critics challenging Monsanto GMO sugar beet

Reuters, January 23 2008. By Carey Gillam.

KANSAS CITY, Missouri - Opponents of biotech crops said on Wednesday they were filing a lawsuit to challenge the USDA's deregulation of Monsanto Co's genetically engineered sugar beet because of fears of "biological contamination" and other harm to the environment.

The Center for Food Safety, the Sierra Club and two organic seed groups said the lawsuit involved the United States Department of Agriculture's approval of Monsanto's glyphosate-resistant sugar beet, which is engineered to withstand treatment of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

The "Roundup Ready" sugar beets are slated to be grown on a commercial scale for the first time in the United States this year, the groups said.

Neither Monsanto nor USDA officials could be reached immediately for comment.

The groups said the wind-pollinated biotech sugar beets will cross-pollinate and contaminate conventional sugar beets, organic chard and table beet crops.

As well, the groups said the biotech sugar beets will increase the recent rise of weeds resistant to herbicide, which have been reported on 2.4 million acres of U.S. cropland, the groups said.

"The law requires the government to take a hard look at the impact that deregulating Roundup Ready sugar beets will have on human health, agriculture and the environment," said Greg Loarie, an attorney at the Earthjustice law firm, which is helping represent the plaintiffs. "The government cannot simply ignore the fact that deregulation will harm organic farmers and consumers, and exacerbate the growing epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds."

The lawsuit is similar to one biotech crop opponents filed over the USDA's deregulation of Monsanto's genetically altered alfalfa, which led a federal judge last year to issue a nationwide ban against the planting of the Roundup Ready alfalfa.

The judge found that U.S. regulators improperly allowed the commercialization of the biotech alfalfa without a thorough examination of its effects.

(Reporting by Carey Gillam, editing by Jackie Frank)

The Philippines: Bill seeking GMO ban in RP filed

The Visayan Daily Star, 23 January 2008.

A bill seeking a ban on the entry of genetically modified organisms in the Philippines has been filed by party-list legislators, the House of Representatives said in a press release.

House Bill 2224 proposes to prohibit the entry, processing, field testing and release of crops and food products containing GMO into and within the country and imposing penalties for its violation.

The bill aims to keep the country's food and agriculture free from GMO at this time when there are still unresolved questions on its possible adverse effects on human health and environment, Bayan Muna Rep. Teodoro Casiño, one of the authors, said.

Casiño noted that genetic engineering in food crops is relatively new, and many cases have been discovered telling the public that GMO products could seriously harm human beings and the environment, the press release said.

He also warned that threats from genetically-engineered crops are fast rising in the Philippines , adding that there are supermarkets and grocery stores selling a number of food products found to contain GMOs.

Casiño said that Monsanto, a multinational corporation, has started its field testing of Bt corn in the country despite opposition from local government units and farmers in affected localities.

The country cannot afford to embrace the unproven technology of genetic engineering as it might pose serious environmental and health risks, he said, adding that it is better for the Philippines to follow other countries which acted to protect their citizens and environment from the threat of GMOs, the press release added.* Ý

22 January 2008

Uganda: GMO Cotton Trials Approved

New Vision (Kampala), 22 January 2008. By Ronald Kayango.

CONFINED field trials of genetically modified (GM) cotton has been approved in Uganda. Cotton becomes the second GM crop, after bananas to be approved by the the National Biosafety Committee (NBC). Confined field trials are studies that are made by scientists to collect information on any new varieties developed at research stations within the country or outside. Early last year, scientists at the National Agricultural Biotechnology Centre (NABC) in Kawanda, Wakiso district successfully planted GM bananas believed to be resistant to Black Sigatoka disease.

Black Sigatoka is a disease that causes premature drying and death of banana leaves, leading to significant reduction in yields.

The GM cotton to be planted is believed to be resistant to the cotton bollworm and tolerant to herbicides. The trials shall be carried out by scientists at the National Semi-Arid Resources Research Institute (NaSARRI) in Soroti and Mobuku in Kasese districts.

"The GM banana trial is of great significant because it is the first testing of GM plants in Uganda," explained Dr. Andrew Kiggundu, a research scientist at NABC. When the trials are successful, it would become easy for the GM's introduction and commercialisation use on variety, patent and ownership rights between the Government and technology providers.

However, stakeholders warn that there is need to hasten gazetting of the Biotechnology and Biosafety policy for deriving the required Bill and Act. The policy, drafted in 2003, is yet to be tabled in Cabinet and Parliament.

"We had moved fast, but the death of Omwony Ojwok, the state minister of economic planning has stalled the process," noted Arthur Makara, an official at the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST). He added that they had had a meeting with Fred Omach, the state minister for finance and were optimistic that the policy will be discussed by Cabinet as soon as possible.

By October last year, Kenya was already discussing possible ways of passing the Biosafety Bill into a Law.

"The fact that the Kenyan parliament started the discussions late last year, is a sign that when the GMOs are approved in Kenya, there is no way they will fail to find their way into the Ugandan markets," said Prof Adipala Ekwamu, the coordinator of Regional University Forum for Capacity Development in Agriculture. It also means that local farmers could soon start growing the high yielding and fast- maturing GMOs. Biotechnology provides new and promising opportunities for achieving greater food security, reducing poverty and improving the quality of life for marginalised people in developing countries.

However, concerns about the environmental and food safety of GMOs and biotechnology-derived products have generated extensive international debate regarding the desirability of GMOs, and lack of enough information regarding the actual impact of GMOs on the environment and human health.

Jolly Sabune, the managing director of the Cotton Development Organisation, said when the Bt Cotton gene is imported, the productivity of the local varieties would be increased. After about three years of trials, farmers will be technically guided on adoption of seeds for planting.

On patent rights, she said UNCST and the technology providers would agree for the rights to be shared. "We are insisting that since the technology providers give Uganda the ownership of the local varieties," Sabune said.

Makara said the approval by NBC implies that before the research permit is issued by UNCST to scientists to carry out research, a number of issues have to be met. "Some of the conditions were to take the NBC members to Soroti and Mobuku where the confined field trials are going to be conducted. This has been done and we are waiting for a few technical issues to be addressed before importation of the genes begins."

Dr. Emeetai Areke, the director of NaSSARI, also the principal investigator of the research, said the scientists would gather data from the trials that will be used in the development of GM cotton suited for Ugandan conditions. He anticipates that the trials in Soroti will begin during the May-June planting season and in Mobuku, Kasese district by July.

UK: Biotech companies desert international agriculture project

The Guardian, January 22 2008. By David Adam.

Biotechnology companies developing genetically modified crops have withdrawn from a major international project to map out the future of agriculture, after it failed to back GM as a tool to reduce poverty and hunger.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development aims to focus attention on the problem of how to feed the world's growing population, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has done for the challenge of global warming. Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF resigned after a draft report from the project highlighted the risks of GM crops and said they could pose problems for the developing world.

The companies argue the report should say their GM technology could secure future food supplies because it can boost yields and make plants more resistant to droughts and higher temperatures.

Bob Watson, director of the project, which is based on the work of 4,000 scientists and experts from around the world, said he was "very disappointed" by the companies' move.

He said: "It's very unfortunate that they have walked out even before we agreed the final version. If they can bring evidence forward that we have not been objective, or that the language is biased, then we could discuss that."

He also said the resignations would weaken the final report. "Our goal was to have them included. We wanted a multi-stakeholder group that included everyone, that was absolutely essential."

The project was due to agree its final report last week in Nairobi, but the meeting was postponed because of the unrest in Kenya. It is now expected to finish in April.

Croplife International, the agriculture industry trade body of which Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF are members, told the project's leaders it was unhappy that the views of its members had not been reflected in the draft report, and that they were pulling out.

Denise Dewar of Croplife International said: "We were concerned with the direction the draft was taking and that our input was not being taken appropriately. We were looking to see references to plant science technology and the potential role it can contribute."

The draft report says there is a "wide range of perspectives on the environmental, human health and economic risks and benefits of modern biotechnology, many of which are as yet unknown". It says it is not clear whether GM crops increase yields and warns that use of the technology in the developing world could concentrate "ownership of agricultural resources" in the hands of the companies involved, as well as causing problems with patents.

In an editorial criticising Croplife International's decision, the science journal Nature said: "The views outlined in the draft chapter on biotechnology, although undoubtedly over-cautious and unbalanced, do not represent the rantings of a fringe minority. The idea that biotechnology cannot by itself reduce hunger and poverty is mainstream opinion among agricultural scientists and policy-makers."

Greenpeace, a member of the assessment project, urged the companies to reconsider. Jan van Aken, GM campaigner with Greenpeace International, said: "This assessment goes far beyond genetic engineering, it is about setting solutions for global agriculture and the world's poor and hungry. It is such a shame to withdraw from such a good initiative, simply because your business plans do not fit with sound science and experts voiced a more balanced opinion than yours."

Canadian farmer forces GM giant back to court

The Guardian, January 22 2008. By David Adam, environment correspondent.

• Monsanto accused of pollution over stray plants
• Campaigner believes case could trigger global claims

He was portrayed as an environmental David who stood up to the corporate Goliath, and became a figurehead of the battle against the introduction of genetically modified crops everywhere. When Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser was sued by Monsanto for growing the firm's GM crops, which he claimed blew on to his land, the company's eventual victory in the Canadian supreme court was overshadowed by accusations of aggressive tactics and corporate bullying.

Now, Schmeiser, of Bruno, Saskatchewan, is back to launch another slingshot at Monsanto, and this time he is suing the billion dollar business for GBP300 in his local small claims court. At stake, he says, is millions of pounds of compensation for those who have seen their land contaminated with GM material, and the rights of organic farmers and others to produce GM-free crops. Monsanto calls the case "specific and local".

Schmeiser and his wife, Louise, are suing for the C$600 (GBP300) it cost to hire contractors to dig up several of Monsanto's GM oilseed rape plants he found growing in a field he was preparing for a mustard crop in 2005. Schmeiser argues the stray plants are pollution, and the polluter should pay. The company refused unless he agreed not to talk about it.

Schmeiser said: "No corporation should have the right to introduce GM seeds or plants into the environment and not be responsible for it. It doesn't matter if it was $600, or $600,000. It has now become a very important case, even though it is small, because if we win then it could cost Monsanto millions and millions of dollars across the world."

He says the rogue GM seeds were probably spilled from a road beside the field. GM crops such as herbicide-resistant oilseed rape are grown in huge quantities across the US and Canada.

"It was almost unbelievable that Monsanto didn't pay, because it came out and admitted it was their GMO [genetically modified organism] on our property," he said. "But they said they would refuse to pay unless we signed a non-disclosure statement. No way would we ever give that away to a corporation."

The case was due to be heard in Saskatchewan tomorrow, but Monsanto said it will be delayed at Schmeiser's request. Schmeiser said he had not requested a delay.

He said: "If Monsanto had come and removed the plants, it would have been over. We didn't want another case, but we have to stand up to them again. As long as we have the strength to continue, we will fight for the rights of farmers."

A spokesperson for Monsanto said: "Mr Schmeiser approached Monsanto about this in 2005. Monsanto has a general policy in Canada to assist in such matters if and when they arise with growers. However, Mr Schmeiser refused our offer to assist and decided to pursue this small claim through the courts."

Deconstructing dinner:
The colonisation of the Canadian farmer
Saskatchewan organic farmers vs. Monsanto/Bayer
http://thetyee.ca/Life/2008/01/11/DeconDinner/

Listen to this: download the episode: http://media.libsyn.com/media/deconstructingdinner/DD010308.mp3

Stream this episode: http://cjly.net/deconstructingdinner/audio/DD010308.m3u

If you were told that organic farmers are giving up growing organic crops, would you be concerned? Organic standards prohibit the presence of genetically engineered organisms within a harvest, but since outcrossing between plants is unavoidable in nature, genetically engineered canola is so easily crossing with non-GE varieties being grown organically, that these crops are unable to be certified as organic.

Monsanto has long been at the forefront of controversy around genetically engineered plants and, most notably, when their hired hands began trespassing onto farmers' properties, taking samples, and then accusing farmers of stealing their technologies. One farmer who has now become world-renowned for his defiance of such actions is Percy Schmeiser, whose field of non-genetically engineered canola became the unwilling host to Monsanto's patented GE variety known as Roundup-Ready Canola. It was this case that eventually set the precedent that a company can indeed own life forms (the plants) that inadvertently make their way onto a farmer's field. But if a company maintains ownership of the seed and hence the plant, then should that company maintain responsibility for the damages that their property causes?

The Saskatchewan Organic Directorate has since 2002 been seeking compensation for the damages caused by the property owned by American-based Monsanto and Germany's Bayer. A class action lawsuit was chosen, as the issues raised by the two plaintiffs are no different than those faced by any organic farmer operating in Canada. In May 2005, the lower court in Saskatchewan denied the group such class action status, and subsequent appeals were also denied in May 2007 and then again in December 2007 by the Supreme Court of Canada. This exhausted all legal avenues for such a case. But while the denial of acquiring such status is a blow to the farmers, it's far from being the end to their fight.

Guests

Sean Gardner -- Monsanto Canada Inc. (Winnipeg, MB) -- Monsanto's Canadian operations are part of the larger, global Monsanto company headquartered in St. Louis, MO. The company produces canola, corn and soybean seed products, and a range of herbicides most often found under the brand name Roundup-Ready Canola. Sean has been with the Canadian operation since 2005 and in his current position since August 2006. He previously worked as Monsanto's country lead for the Mediterranean area, comprised of Turkey, Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Sean joined Monsanto in 1998 when the company acquired PBI Cambridge. Prior to joining Monsanto, Sean worked at Unilever.

Arnold Taylor -- Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (SOD) (Kenaston, SK) -- Since 1991, SOD has acted as an umbrella organization for organic producers, certifiers and processors. The organization maintains a membership of 600-700. Arnold operates Taylor Organic Farms with his son. The 3,000 acre farm has been certified organic since 1992. Arnold is the president of the Canadian Organic Growers and the chair of the Organic Federation of Canada. He is also the chair of SOD's Organic Agriculture Protection Fund Committee.

Marc Loiselle -- Saskatchewan Organic Directorate's OAPF (Vonda, SK) -- Marc farms on a century-old family farm. The Loiselle Organic Family Farm grows cereal, oilseed, pulse, clover and hay crops. They raise chickens, goats and cattle. Marc has worked with certified organic and biodynamic practices for 22 years. Marc is one of a few farmers in Canada growing Red Fife Wheat.

Other voices

Denise Dewar -- CropLife Canada (Toronto, ON) -- CropLife Canada is the trade association representing the manufacturers, developers and distributors of plant science innovations -- pest control products and plant biotechnology -- for use in agriculture, urban and public health settings. Denise is now in the same position for CropLife International.

Mischa Popoff -- isitorganic.ca (Osoyoos, BC) -- Mischa was an organic inspector until 2003. Popoff was a nominee in the 2007 federal Conservative Party candidacy for the BC Southern Interior riding.

Brazil: Traceability and sustainable production: a unique opportunity for agribusiness and the world

Agrenco News: 22 January 2008.

At a time when agriculture and foods have been claiming an ever larger presence in the media ‚ either because of advances in agribusiness on various fronts, including that of biofuel supply, or regarding increased prices for the main agricultural commodities as the result of growing global demand ‚, it is worth recalling the importance of traceability throughout all farming processes. Traceability, according to international norms, is a description of the history of a product starting from its origin and continuing through its processing and application, through identification registration. When applied to food, it can be defined as 'the capacity to detect the origin and follow the journey of a food item, from feedstock, food-producing livestock, or a substance produced with the purpose of being added to food or feedstock or likely to be incorporated into food throughout the productive chain, including production, processing and distribution (EC 178/2002 of European Council Regulations).

Economic, political and health reasons have increased demand and requirements for traceability and certification, by governments, consumers and companies. For the state government, this means better security in terms public health issues; for consumers, the gain is certainty regarding quality; and for certified companies, it amounts to a better corporate image and increased competitiveness, reliability and consumer loyalty.

In the 1990s, when the first cases of BSE (mad cow disease) were recorded, traceability was intensified for livestock. This perspective was expanded to include feedstock components and became more and more advanced, reaching agricultural products. With the description of processes and the identification of critical issues, it is possible to establish parameters which should be controlled. Thus it is possible to promote an economy of resources and define the forms to attain quality challenges presented by the market. The traceability culture, whenever incorporated into companies, translates into a competitive advantage and greater opportunities for profitability.

Companies who decide to adopt and maintain this commercial strategy have been participating in special markets with higher profitability. An example worth mentioning is the certification of non-GM (genetically modified) soybeans, which has been made possible only through a total traceability program and the control of contamination risks. Yet another challenge is presented by organic food, which must obtain certification through verified, traced and separated production processes. This amounts to a growing international market.

Currently, the most demanding markets require proof ‚ in addition to food safety aspects ‚ that food production presents negative or reduced environmental impacts and gives priority to social issues. Therefore, there is a new reality in which consumers understand and demand that the productive process be based on a triple bottom line of sustainability (economic, social and environmental responsibility). This issue has also been gaining attention among investors, who have started to seek shares of companies who have sustainability among their mission, values and strategies.

The growing trend to value sustainability ‚ including benefits provided by guarantees that only traceability offers ‚ is expected to endure. If not, we will be devastated by socio-environmental disasters that come about as a result of global warming and the degradation of the environment. Since we already know its causes and we suffer its consequences, it is up to us to change our attitudes and expect the same from producers.

Rita Prado Fróes is a chemical engineer with specialization in administration and quality, and general manager at Independent Quality Standards (IQS), a Brazilian company that develops and applies systems of total traceability, food security, good practices and sustainability focused on the agricultural chain. IQS is a pioneer in Brazil for its certification of sustainability of agricultural products, with the GrünPass seal.

Source: Gazeta Mercantil, São Paulo

Poland: Taking GMO companies to Court in The Hague

Message from Julian Rose & Jadwiga Lopata
International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside (ICPPC)

The below letter just arrived from Professor Skolimousky, a colleague and leading Polish Eco philosopher. It carries a very important message which I believe we should all take heed of and act on. It is a huge challenge - but on the other hand it will need a huge challenge against the WTO to finally remove the main culprit in the GMO arms race.

___________

The time has arrived to look at the issue of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in an altogether new light. IT IS NOT A TRADE ISSUE. IT IS A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE. And consequently, a trade organization cannot rule over this issue, especially if it impinges on our human rights. And it does!

1.

By forcing whole nations, populations and societies to buy genetically modified foods, it violates our human freedom to choose, violates our freedom to choose what we want to buy, and therefore it violates one of our human rights.

2.

By forcing genetically modified foods on entire populations, which also means individuals contained within these populations, it denies our right to choose diet of our choice. This is the second violation of our human right, to deny us the freedom to eat what we choose.

3.

Thirdly, on the scale of societies and nations, a radical control of seeds, which GMOs want to impose on us by eliminating natural seeds and traditional forms of agriculture is a threat to our security as nations and individuals. This is a serious violation of our individual right, and our social rights.

Thus on at least three counts the ruling of WTO is violating our human rights. And we must not tolerate it. It is only a trade organization. It has no business whatsoever to impinge on our human rights.

Thus the rulings of WTO on Genetically Modified Organisms are nil and void. No trade organization has either the mandate or the competence to rule over our human rights.

I therefore suggest that your organization and perhaps so other organizations take WTO to the International Court in the Hague for violations of Human Rights.

With all best wishes,

Henryk Skolimowski

21 January 2008

EU lawyers say no to Poland's biotech ban

Reuters, 21 January 2008.

BRUSSELS - European Commission lawyers have stopped Poland's move to ban trade and plantings of genetically modified (GMO) seeds, saying it had no scientific justification, the EU's Official Journal said on Monday.

Poland's plans for what amounted to a national GMO ban, announced last year, quickly drew criticism from experts at the EU executive who routinely scrutinize any such proposals to check that they comply fully with EU law.

Ahead of the announcement by EU lawyers, Polish Agriculture Minister Marek Sawicki said the new centre-right government was planning to give way and allow GMO seeds by changing a law that was to come into effect in August.

"We are working on a bill which will eliminate the ban on using feed with GMO components in Poland," Sawicki told Parkiet daily. "We don't have another option. It is a issue of Polish regulations complying with EU law," he added.

As tested on several occasions in the past, the Commission takes the view that if a region wants to ban GMO crops or products, such restrictions must be scientifically justified and crop-specific.

It also believes that a proposed ban mustn't be politically motivated, nor a blanket GMO restriction that might distort the EU's single trading market.

Poland did not provide new scientific evidence to justify its action, as required under EU law, said the Commission's notice published in the latest edition of the Official Journal.

There also had to be a problem specific to the member state making the request, it said.

"The Polish notification does not provide any new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment," the Journal said.

"The Commission therefore considers that the national provisions notified cannot be approved," it added.

Earlier this month, France said it would activate a provision in European law to suspend the commercial use of MON 810, an insect-resistant maize developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto. The Commission has yet to react formally.

(Reporting by Jeremy Smith in Brussels and Barbara Sladkowska in Warsaw, Editing by Michael Roddy)

USA: Genetically modified sugar beets: a bad bet (at the worst time)

Spilling the Beans newsletter, December 2007.

The US sugar beet industry is threatening to venture into the world of genetically modified (GM) crops, hoping to introduce a new gene-spliced variety by Monsanto as early as spring 2008. But if the experience of the last decade is any indication, such a move will lead to huge economic losses for the sugar industry and even for US food companies who use sugar as an ingredient. Moreover, the timing for such an introduction couldn't be worse. GM sugar would be dispersed through the food supply in early 2009, just as the new president is sworn in. If he or she is a democrat, which is likely, then mandatory labeling of GM foods will soon follow. And more than 50% of Americans have said they would reject GM foods if given a choice. But even without mandatory labeling, there is a significant industry and consumer effort underway to remove all remaining GM ingredients from the natural food industry, and to provide consumers with handy non-GMO shopping guides. And if that weren't enough, the recent evidence confirming that GM foods are dangerous to health,[1]Ýis inspiring more and more physicians to prescribe non-GM diets to their patients. With all this, how the can sugar beet industry be serious about GM sugar beets? It appears that they are relying on Monsanto and the biotech industry for critical information. Oops. Ý

Biotech promises come up short

For more than a decade, biotech advocates spread promises of an unprecedented economic boom, but according to the San Francisco Chronicle, most of their hoopla remains "in the 'promise' category - and has been each year."[2] Their "smorgasbord of marketing claims," writes the Asia Times, just adds to "the credibility problems that are piling up against genetic engineering."[3]ÝThe Wall Street Journal reported, "Not only has the biotech industry yielded negative financial returns for decades, it generally digs its hole deeper every year."[4] The Associated Press says it "remains a money-losing, niche industry."[5]

In spite of their poor track record, advocates continue to convince politicians and others to invest in their infant technology. "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable," said Joseph Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a report on the subject. "This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials."[6]

Nowhere in the biotech world is the bad-idea virus more toxic than in its application to GM plants. Not only does the technology under-deliver, it consistently burdens governments and entire sectors with losses and problems.ÝTheÝCanadian National Farmers UnionÝ(NFU) observed,Ý"CorporateÝand government managers have spent millions trying to convince farmersÝand other citizens of the benefits of genetically-modified crops. But this huge public relations effortÝhas failed to obscure the truth: GM crops do not deliver the promised benefits; they create numerous problems, costs,Ýand risks."[7]

US and Canada lose big-time with GMOs

Among the first politicos hypnotized by biotech's charm were in the White House during the first Bush administration. Vice President Dan Quayle chaired the elite Council on Competitiveness, which chose to fast track GM food in hopes that it would strengthen the economy and make American products more competitive overseas. The opposite ensued.

In Europe, virtually the entire food manufacturing and retail industry responded to consumer pressure by banning GM ingredients. Because of the difficulty of segregating GM from non-GM crops, importers simply rejected all food crops from the US if any of that species were modified. US corn exports to Europe, for example, have been virtually eliminated, down by 99.4 percent, even though the US produces plenty of non-GM corn. The American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) calculated that the introduction of GM corn caused a drop in corn prices by 13 to 20%.[8] Their CEO said, "The ACGA believes an explanation is owed to the thousands of American farmers who were told to trust this technology, yet now see their prices fall to historically low levels while other countries exploit US vulnerability and pick off our export customers one by one."Ý[9]ÝUS soy sales also plummeted due to GM content.Ý

When Canada became the only major producer to adopt GM canola in 1996, it led to a disaster there as well. The premium-paying EU market, which took about one-third of Canada's canola exports in 1994 and one-fourth in '95, stopped all imports from Canada by 1998. The GM canola was diverted to the low-priced Chinese market. Not only did Canadian canola prices fall to a record low,[10]ÝCanada even lost their EU honey exports due to the GM pollen contamination. The Canadian NFU warns, "Closing markets and falling prices threaten to overwhelm any small, short-term economic benefits that GM crops or livestock may offer."[11]

Four major GM crops comprise 99.9% of GM acreage: soy, corn, cotton, and canola. All four have varieties engineered to survive applications of specific herbicides. For example, if you spray Monsanto's Roundup herbicide onto natural soybean plants, they die. But Monsanto's patented "Roundup Ready" soybeans survive. About 71% of all GM crops in the world are herbicide tolerant. The sugar beets planned for 2008 are Roundup Ready. Cotton and corn have also been engineered to produce a pesticideócalled Bt-toxinóin every cell. About 18% of GM plants are Bt crops. Another 11% are engineered with both of these traits.

GM papaya is different. Genes are inserted into its DNA so the plant resists a disease called the ring-spot virus. Hawaiian farmers, politicians, and scientists succumbed to the bad-idea virus and introduced the papaya in 1997 hoping it would "save the industry." Japan, which had been consuming 60% of Hawaii's market,Ý[12] shut its doors to the unwanted GM variety. The papaya price immediately dropped from $1.23 per kilo to just $.89, and has since fallen below 80 centsówell under production costs. The islands have lost half of their papaya farmers[13] and 28% of papaya acreage.[14]ÝAccording to a 2006 article inÝThe Honolulu Advertiser,Ý"Hawaii papaya production sank to a more than 25-year low last year despite record demand among US consumers for the tropical fruit."Ý[15]ÝNon-GM papaya, however, consistently sells for more than the GM variety. Although the GM papaya is still on the market, other failures in the USó GM tomatoes and potatoesóhave been removed.

GM crops not only close markets and plunge prices, they force governments to shell out huge sums. According to Charles Benbrook, PhD, former executive director of the National Academy of Sciences' Board on Agriculture, the US government payments to farmers are up by $3 to $5 billion annually due to GM crops.[16] He says growers have only been kept afloat by the huge jump in subsidies.[17]

Those farmers who stick with non-GM varieties are also penalized, as market prices drop across the board. If farmers want to keep their non-GM buyers, they typically have to spend more on GMO testing, buffer zones, and segregation systems including separate storage and shipping channels. Even then, they risk contamination and lost sales.

Similarly, if GM sugar beets are introduced, even food manufacturers who use non-GM sugar may be penalized.ÝFor products exported to the EU, for example, their law stipulates that sugar derived from GM beets would have to be labeled as containing genetically modified ingredients. Given the current purchasing guidelines by European importers, any US export that contains sugar would not be accepted unless the manufacturer implements a costly traceability program to verify that no GM sugar beets were used.

GM farmers suffer

The biotech companies have been quite successful in convincing farmers that GM crops are the ticket to greater yields and higher profits.ÝBut theÝCanadian NFU flatly states, "The claim that GM seeds make our farms more profitable is false."Ý[18]ÝNet farm incomes in Canada plummeted since the introduction of GM canola, with the last five years being the worst in Canada's history.

The average GM crop reduces yield. Even a US Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2006 report stated that "currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety. . . . In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars."Ý[19]

Most of the Bt corn in theÝUS is designed to kill the European corn borer. According to the US National Academy of Sciences,Ý[20]Ýbefore Bt corn was available, only 5.2% of corn acreage was sprayed to protect against the corn borer. The reason, in part, was because the yield loss associated with the pest is only about 4%ónot worth the cost of the pesticides. Further, insect infestation is intermittent, not consistent in every season.

A much larger number of farmers, however, now use Bt corn as an insurance policy, just in case their area gets infested during the growing season. According to the USDA, "adoption of Bt corn had a negative impact on net returns among specialized corn farms." This was likely due to the fact that "the value of protections against the European corn borer was lower than" the higher costs paid for the Bt seed. The USDA "could not find positive financial impacts in either the field-level nor the whole-farm analysis" for adoption of Bt corn and Roundup Ready soybeans. They said, "Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of [GM] crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative."[21]

Herbicide tolerant crops lower yields and increase herbicide use Ý

Herbicide tolerant crops generally lower average yields.ÝAs elsewhere, US farmersÝhad expected higher yields with Roundup Ready soybeans, but independent studies confirm a yield loss of 4-11%.[22]ÝBrazilian soybean yields are also down since Roundup Ready varieties were introduced.[23]ÝInÝCanada, a study showed a 7.5% lower yield with Roundup Ready canola.[24]Ý

The convenience factor of herbicide tolerant crops is now giving way to a nuisance factor of herbicide tolerant weeds. Overuse of Roundup has is causing a huge problem of weeds that are resistant to its active ingredient glyphosate. Herbicide use in theÝUS was up 138 million pounds in the first nine years after GM crops were introduced.[25] That increase is accelerating, with approximately 120 million more pounds used in years 10 and 11.[26] Roundup Ready soybeans are also associated with higher herbicide use in Brazil. As weeds fail to respond to Roundup, farmers rely on more toxic pesticides. Over the past two years, for example, use of the highly toxic 2,4-D was up by 237% in the US.

Unpredicted problems plague GM cotton

The erratic performance of GM cotton illustrates the unpredictable nature of genetic engineering. When Monsanto's GM cotton varieties were first introduced in the US, tens of thousands of acres suffered deformed roots and other problems, forcing the company to pay out millions in settlements.[27]ÝIn China, Bt cotton appeared to offer higher net returns, better yields, and pesticide reduction when first introduced in 1997.[28] By 2004, however, the cotton became more susceptible to other non-target pests, resulting in damage and forcing farmers to spray 15-20 times more than before. According to a Cornell University study, Bt farmers in China are now earning significantly less than non-Bt farmers.[29]ÝIn Indonesia, Bt cotton was also overrun with pests and other problems and was kicked out of the country (in spite of the Monsanto's bribes to 140 officials over 5 years to try to get their cotton approved.)[30]

InÝAndhra Pradesh,ÝIndia, because Bt cotton yields were down the first year by 52% and performance was unpredictable over the next two, non-Bt farmers earned 60% more over that time.[31] There was a long list of problems associated with the GM variety, including failure to germinate, drought damage, root-rot, leaf curl virus, brittle stems, increased pests, smaller bolls, increased labor requirements per acre, and a shorter harvest season.[32]ÝTheÝMaharashtraÝState Department of Agriculture also reported "the average boll weight" was less and "the staple length of the Bt cotton" was shorter, so that Bt cotton sold for "lower prices."[33]ÝThe Andhra Pradesh Agriculture Minister demanded that Monsanto pay recompense for farmers losses,[34]Ýseveral Bt varieties were banned by state governments, and official reports showed massive losses. Monsanto nonetheless continues to claim that its Bt cotton is performing well. They commissioned their crop evaluation studies, however, using market research agencies, not scientists. One report, for example, claimed 4 times the actual reduction in pesticide use, 12 times the actual yield, and 100 times the actual profit.[35]

Angry, indebted Indian farmers held violent street protests, burned seed outlets, and evenÝ"tied up . . . Monsanto representatives in their villages," until the police rescued them.[36]ÝThousands of Bt cotton farmers also committed suicideóthe rate in one region was one suicide every eight hours.

Contamination inevitable

In spite of biotech industry assurances that contamination wouldn't be a problem, it has been a consistent and often overwhelming hardship for seed dealers, farmers, manufacturers, even whole food sectors. The biotech industry recommends buffer zones between fields, but these have not been competent to protect non-GM, organic, or wild plants from GMOs. A UK study showed canola cross-pollination occurring as far as 16 miles.[37]Ý

But pollination is just one of several ways that contamination happens. There is also seed movement by weather and insects, crop mixing during harvest, transport, and storage, and very often, human error. The contamination in North America is so great, it is difficult for farmers to secure pure non-GM seed. In Canada, a study found 32 of 33 certified non-GM canola seeds were contaminated.[38]ÝMost of the non-GM soy, corn, and canola seeds tested in the US also contained GMOs.[39]Ý

Contamination can be very expensive. For example, StarLink cornóunapproved for human consumptionóended up the US food supply in 2000. More than 300 packaged food products were subject to recall and the total cost of the debacle was estimated at more than $1 billion.ÝNumerous smaller scale contamination episodes hurt or ruin businesses every month.

Even escapes of experimental GM crops from small trials can devastate an industry. An unapproved GM rice variety, last field trialed in 2001, was discovered in US rice stocks in 2006. Within two days of the announcement, US rice futures dropped $150 million and the final price tag for industry is estimated at $1.2 billion.[40]ÝIn Thailand, even news that "some GM papayas were removed from the Khon Kaen research centre" caused a loss of the European market. A papaya grower said, "Importers cancelled orders and never asked for Thai papayas again."[41]ÝThefts from Hawaiian papaya trials also preceded commercialization there, where the GM variety eventually caused massive contamination. In one study, 50% of the organic and wild papayas tested were genetically engineered.

Contamination also occurs year to year in the same field. About 10% of canola seeds, for example, fall to the ground and are not harvested. They can germinate in subsequent years as "volunteer" crops. A UK study showed that if a farmer plants GM canola for one year and non-GM thereafter, unless he undertakes stringent control measures, his or her harvest will continue to have more than 1% GM contamination for about 16 years.[42]Ý

If the farmer rotates from GM canola to another crop, he has another problem. GM canola is herbicide tolerant. Killing the volunteer crops may require using more toxic herbicides. In Canada, there are three herbicide tolerant varietiesótwo GM and one conventional. Due to cross pollination, studies have found canola that is resistant to all three types of herbicides. But it gets worse. Canola can cross pollinate with several weedy relatives such as wild mustard. Now these pollinated weeds have also developed resistance to weed killers and become "super weeds."

There is no technology to fully eradicate GM contamination from the environmental gene pool. Thus, the self-propagating genetic pollution caused by today's GMOs could theoretically outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste.Ý

GM free zones pop up around the world

The natural response of farmers and governments around the world to the threat of GMOs has been to create GM free zones, moratoria, or other types of restrictions.

When Monsanto pushed hard to introduce GM wheat, the North American wheat industry, which had witnessed the fall of the corn, soy, and canola markets, were up in arms. More than 80 percent of US and Canadian foreign wheat buyers said they didn't want GM wheat and might shop elsewhere if it were introduced. An Iowa State University economist projected a loss of 30-50% of the US wheat exports and a drop in prices by about a third.[43]ÝMore than 200 groups, including the US and Canadian National Farmers Unions, the Canadian Wheat Board, and the American Corn Growers Association, lobbied against Monsanto. They wanted North America to be a GM-wheat-free-zone. Monsanto withdrew its application on May 10, 2004.

When Hawaii coffee growers realized that GM coffee might destroy its premium market, it successfully lobbied for the University of Hawaii not to develop any varieties. Leaders in the rice, potato, flax, and sugar beet industries have also protected themselves by successfully blocking GM varieties.

More then 4500 jurisdictions on Europe have created GM free resolutions or laws, and countries and regions in every continent similarly have growing restrictions or complete bans.

Swimming against the tide

In Iowa State University a few years ago, a memo was circulated to faculty and staff encouraging them to promote to farmers the idea of selling according to what the market wants. But there was an added point. GMOs were specifically cited as the exception! The very pro-GMO "land grant" university, which receives funding from the biotech industry, wanted their staff to promote GMOs knowing that they have been overwhelmingly rejected by consumers, retailers, and food companies since introduced in 1994.[44]Ý"The depth of market rejection," according to the Washington D.C. based Center for Food Safety, "is arguably unparalleled by any other consumer product."[45]

Dan McGuire, Program Director of the American Corn Growers Association says, "Even in the face of all these negative market signals, it appears that some in the US are willing to promote biotechnology no matter how negative the impact is on US exports and commodity prices. That arrogant strategy is turning out to be a 'market development in reverse' program." ACGA's CEO adds, "An explanation is also owed our foreign customers on why theÝUnited States isn't leading the effort to promote and sell the type of commodities and products they want and demand."[46] Ý

Non-GMO tidal wave expected

At a January 1999 conference in the US, a biotech company spokesperson projected a 95% conversion of all commercial seeds into GMOs within five years. Anderson Consulting also announced that they were working on a strategy for their client, Monsanto, whose stated ideal future was to genetically engineer 100% of all commercial seeds in the world.

Within weeks, that ideal future crashed. On February 16, theÝUK parliament invited GMO researcher Arpad Pusztai to testify, forcing his former employer to lift their gag order. When Pusztai started speaking about his controversial discoveries about the inherent health dangers of GMOs, the press erupted. By week's end, they had written 159 "column feet" of text, which, according to one columnist, "divided society into two warring blocs."[47]ÝBy April 1999, overwhelming consumer resistance to GM foods compelled Unilever to publicly commit to remove ingredients from its European brands. Within a week, nearly all major food companies followed suit.

The same corporations that removed GMOs from their European lines continue to sell them in the US, where only 1 in 4 consumers believe they have ever eaten a GM food in their lives.[48] The fact that GMOs flourish in the United States because of consumer ignorance leaves the industry extremely vulnerable. If some campaign or event were to push this issue above the national radar screen causing sufficient consumer concern, US manufacturers would respond like their European counterparts. The tipping point does not require that a majority of shoppers reject GM foods. If even a small percentage started switching brands based on GMO content, major companies would respond. After all, the products don't gain anything from using them. Their foods aren't fresher, tastier, or healthier.

Any sympathetic media could begin this domino effect. Similarly, a mandate from a prominent religious leader, a popular film, a food scare, or some new research finding, could force a stampede away from GM ingredients.Ý

Already, 29 percent of Americans are strongly opposed to GM foods and believe they are unsafe.[49]Ý But even among the 28 million Americans who regularly buy organic (and therefore non-GMO) food,[50]Ýmany do not conscientiously avoid GM ingredients in their non-organic purchases; the products are not labeled. There is a campaign underway, however, that will both educate health-conscious shoppers about GM food dangers andÝprovide clear non-GMO choices in the natural food stores where they shop. Moreover, the natural products manufacturers, who have been bitterly complaining about GMOs for a decade, are now united in an unprecedented initiative to remove all remaining GM ingredients from food products throughout their sector. On top of this, major websites and media channels have committed support by providing regular coverage of the health risks of GM foods. It is expected that millions of health conscious shoppers will soon make brand choices based on non-GMO content, which will force the rest of the food industry into a European-style rejection of GM ingredients.

A tipping point against one GM product has already started in theÝUS. There is a massive industry-wide rejection of dairy products made from cows injected with Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. Over the last year, major dairies, supermarkets, even Starbucks restaurants, have committed to stop using the controversial drug. Articles in the New York Times, Boston Globe and Reuters describe this as "an explosion in the industry," "a tipping point," and a "trend" that does not show "any signs of abating." The transformation was triggered by organizations educating consumers about the health risks of the drugóand many of the same organizations are now focused on GM food crops.

But even if the tipping point is not reached by the consumer education, legislation put forward by the next US president may have the same effect. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and other democratic presidential candidates have all committed to implement what 90% of Americans have wanted for more than a decadeómandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. When asked why they want GM foods labeled, most Americans say it is because they want to avoid GM them. Thus, once a date for mandatory labeling is set, major food companies will almost certainly eliminate GM ingredients from their products beforeÝthen, to avoid the label.

Industry forced their dangerous agenda

If 90% of Americans want GM foods labeled, why hasn't previous administrations given consumers what they want? It is due to the powerful transnational GM seed companies. There are only six, but their influence is enormous.ÝHenry Miller, in charge of biotech issues at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for many years, admitted, "in this area, the US government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do." Monsanto, which has patents on 90% of the plants currently commercialized, wields the most influence. According to the New York Times, "What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsantoóand, by extension, the biotechnology industryógot."[51]

In fact, after the White House told the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry, the agency created a new position for Monsanto's former attorney Michael Taylor, who then oversaw the policy for GMOs. Released in May 1992 and still in force, FDA policy states, "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way." On the basis of this sentence, the FDA claimed that no safety studies are necessary; biotech companies thus determine on their own if their products are harmless. This set the stage for the rapid deployment of the new technology. The seed industry was consolidated, millions of acres were planted, hundreds of millions were fed, consumers and nations objected, laws were passed, crops were contaminated, billions of dollars were lostóand it turns out that sentence was a lie. The FDA was fully aware that GM crops were meaningfully different. That, in fact, was the overwhelming consensus among "the technical experts in the agency." They had repeatedly warned their superiors that GM foods might create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects including allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. They urged the political appointees to require long-term safety studies, including human studies. The scientists' concerns were kept secret in 1992, but seven years later, internal records were made public due to a lawsuit and the deception came to light. But it was too late. GM crops were widespread (and Michael Taylor had been duly rewarded after leaving the FDA by becoming a Monsanto vice president.)

There has been almost no long-term animal feeding studies, no human clinical trials, and no monitoring of the population to see if GM crops have had the adverse effects described by the FDA scientists. But even among the few serious safety studies that have been conducted, and the reports from farmers around the world, evidence has emerged showing that the government scientists' concerns were justified. GM products have been linked with thousands of toxic and allergic reactions, thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals.[52]

While this evidence of harm has major implications for the health of the nation, it also carries an economic impact of those companies that have invested and used GM foods and crops. Physicians who have studied the subject are convinced that the dangers are real and are prescribing non-GMO diets to their patients.ÝJohn H. Boyles, MD, an ear, nose, and throat, and allergy specialist, for example, says, "I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it ó unless it says organic," (which would mean non-GMO).

There is a lot of unknowns surrounding GM sugar beets. They might become the first Roundup Ready crop to offer consistently higher yieldsóor not. They might be the first to reduce herbicide useóor not. They might save farmers money and increase farmer profits, or they might not. But irrespective of their agronomic performance, they will thrust the sugar industry, and all manufacturers who use sugar, into the gathering storm of resistance to GM foods as well as all its unknowns for human health and the environment. It seems clear that the time is not right to introduce GM beets.

Click here forÝSIDEBAR 1:ÝGMO Sugar Will Not be Excused

Click here forÝSIDEBAR 2:ÝHigh Adoption Rates of GMOs by Farmers areÝMisleading

About the author

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of the new publication Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, which presents 65 risks in easy-to-read two-page spreads. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the top rated and #1 selling book on GM foods in the world. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. www.responsibletechnology.org, which is spearheading the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. Go toÝwww.seedsofdeception.com to learn more about how to avoid GM foods.

Spilling the BeansÝis a monthly column available atÝwww.responsibletechnology.org. The website also offers eater-friendly tips for avoiding GMOs at home and in restaurants.

Permission is granted to publishers and webmasters to reproduce issues of Spilling the Beans in whole or in part. Just email us atÝcolumn@seedsofdeception.comÝto let us know who you are and what your circulation is, so we can keep track.

The Institute for Responsible Technology is working to end the genetic engineering of our food supply and the outdoor release of GM crops. We warmly welcome your donations and support.

Go toÝwww.responsibletechnology.org or clickÝhere if you'd like to make a tax-deductible donation.ÝClickÝhereÝif you would like to become a member of the Institute.

France: Petition against GMOs

L'Ecologiste (French edition of The Ecologist magazine), 21 January 2008.

For the past ten years, polls consistently reveal opposition to GMOs by the vast majority of French people. The Government has recently declared its intention of banning a particular GMO, Monsanto's 810 [maize]. But at the same time, the Government is preparing a law that would authorise research and development of GMOs! This proposed law will be presented to the Senate on 5 February, and then discussed at the National Assembly from the end of March, for national adoption "before the end of June", according to the Minister of Agriculture.

L'Ecologiste magazine thererefore has the pleasure of offering you a petition which empowers the citizen to clearly, simply and directly express his opposition to GMOs. Here is the text of this petition, launched on Monday 21 January:

For quality food and agriculture, I request that the law on GMOs affirms:

1.

The cultivation of GMOs in the field in prohibited.

2.

The use of GMOs in human food and animal feed is prohibited.

3.

Public research funding currently dedicated to GMO crops will be transferred to research on organic farming techniques.

You can very easily sign this petition online and send it to the Deputies and Senators of your area at:

UK: Scotland kicks off food policy debate

FoodNavigator.com, 21 January 2008. By Jess Halliday.

The Scottish government has published a new discussion paper setting out its vision for the country's food supply and industry, which will help set the agenda forÝits first ever national food policy.

The Scottish food industry is generates some £7.3bn (€ 9.8bn) in sales from processing, including agriculture, fishing and whiskey. Food and drink also make up the biggest export industry, racking up £6.4bn (€8.6bn) in sales (in and outside the rest of the UK).

The paper, called Choosing the right ingredients: The future for food in Scotland, aims to give consumers and industry stakeholders a say in shaping the policy.

It also sets out a vision for food's role in making Scotland "healthier, wealthier and smarter, with production making communities stronger and consumption respecting the local and global environment".

Sustainable economic growth is envisaged through more cooperation and collaboration along the food supply chain - from primary production to market. This, it says, would ensure the long-term viability of primary producers, and increase export markets for produce.

Moreover, the environmental impact of food and drink production could be reduced by more responsible behaviour - in production, processing, manufacturing and consumption. Such behaviour includes reducing emissions and reducing unnecessary use of raw materials, waste, packaging and water.

The Scottish government says its proposed policy would be the first such broad-reaching policy in the UK. A spokesperson told FoodNavigator.com that comments will be received until April 25 - but this deadline may well be extended.

As for development of the policy, there is no firm time frame in place since it depends very much on the responses - and volume of responses - generated by the discussion paper.

Once it has been drawn up, the new policy would need agreement of the cabinet.

At a forum in Edinburgh last week that brought together government representatives and members of the food manufacturing sector, Flora McLean, director of the Scottish Food and Drink Federation (SFDF) said: "A successful food and drink industry is a vital component of a healthy Scottish economy."

She pledged that the industry will participate in the debate, but said the main challenge the government has to overcome is "how best to harness the energy and pace of the sector, in a true partnership, to deliver the best results for Scotland as a whole".

Particular points of action for processors and manufacturers to help achieve industry goals include working more closely with public sector buyers, and collaborating with producers and retailers to produce a more sustainable food supply.

The government also wants to see increased training, and innovation in developing products with less salt, saturated fat and sugar content. Adding value to primary produce, it says, can also help develop markets at home and abroad.

For the Scottish population at large, the goal is to improve the health of Scottish people by encouraging individuals to change their behaviour and consider the origins of their food. Not only will this make them wiser to healthy choices, says the paper, but it will also make them more aware of environmental social and economic implications of food choices.

While the Scottish government has, in the past, drawn up food and drink policy related to particular sectors of the industry (especially primary products like meat, milk and grain), the discussion represents a new departure to broader concerns.

"The government has no pre-cooked formula for success," said Richard Lochhead, cabinet secretary for rural affairs and the environment in the foreword.

"What are the ingredients of a successful food policy for your family, your community, your industry or your organisation?... What do you value in terms of Scotland's food industries, food heritage and food culture?"

The discussion paper is available here: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/209658/0055448.pdf

20 January 2008

An ocean apart on GM foods

Canwest News Service, Vancouver (B.C., Canada), 20 January 2008. By Peter O'Neil, Europe Correspondent.

PARIS -- Canada, like the U.S., is holding its fire in an ongoing trade battle with Europe that underscores dramatically different attitudes on each continent to the controversy over genetically- modified food.

Canada, the U.S. and Argentina have the right to impose sanctions after the European Union missed a recent deadline imposed by the World Trade Organization to end import restrictions on many GM products.

"Canada believes that constructive progress is being made and has therefore authorized the extension of the reasonable period of time -- until February 11, 2008 -- to allow the (EU) additional time to fully comply with the (WTO) panel's recommendations," Michael O'Shaughnessy, a spokesman for Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, told Canwest News Service in an e-mail.

U.S. trade spokeswoman Gretchen Hamel said last week that the EU would be given the chance to show "meaningful progress," though she was critical in particular of France, which like several EU-member countries has taken an even tougher stand than the EU itself.

But a deep chasm between European and North American approaches to the GM debate, as well as regulation of health and the environment, suggesting a solution may not arrive soon.

While polls in the U.S. and Canada consistently reveal public unease about the health and safety of GM foods, the issue doesn't come close to approaching the intensity exhibited in European countries.

Feelings are most profound in France, where the country's obsession with fine dining -- and access to fresh locally grown meat and produce - gives the agriculture sector considerable clout and public prominence.

Police in southern France used tear gas last summer to prevent pro-GM farmers from attacking anti-GM activists, led by 2007 presidential candidate Jose Bove, who had been trampling or cutting down GM crops.

The clash occurred after one pro-GM farmer took his life after finding out Bove's group planned a destructive "picnic" in his field.

Another example of the anti-GM movement's strength was the announcement this month by right-wing French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who took the side of GM critics in a move that ended a hunger strike by Bove, the mustachioed, pipe-smoking anti-globalization radical who was jailed in 1999 for trashing a McDonald's restaurant.

Sarkozy, later accused of capitulating to an extremist for reasons of political expediency, endorsed the continued banning of a strain of genetically modified corn made by the American agricultural giant Monsanto.

"With the principle of precaution at stake, I am making a major political decision to carry our country to the forefront of the debate on the environment," Sarkozy said.

The Canadian debate has been far less passionate, even though federal government polling regularly records public anxiety about GM food.

"Canadians express reticence" about GM animals, fish and agricultural products, with a greater proportion surveyed believing this development will make life worse rather than better, according to a 2006 Decima Research poll for the federal government. The poll of 2,000 Canadians had an error margin of 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Canadian MP Alex Atamanenko, a New Democrat from B.C.'s Southern Interior riding, has toiled mostly in obscurity attempting to stir interest in Parliament. He said the issue concerns Canadians of all political stripes and should be given greater attention.

But he bemoaned the lack of adherence to the federal government's "voluntary" approach to GM labelling. He said that has meant Canadians are largely unaware of the more than 30,000 processed foods available on grocery store shelves that contain GM organisms.

He said politicians throughout Europe, and the "peoples' movement" in France, are pushing the issue far more aggressively than green-oriented politicians and activists in Canada.

"There are a lot of parliamentarians that aren't aware of this," Atamanenko said.

"We have tremendous lobbying pressure by the biotech companies, it's possible here that the rapport between the industry and government is closer, they've been able to bend the ears of our government over the years, to convince them this is good."

Michael Hart, a former senior federal trade negotiator who teaches international trade at Ottawa's Carleton University, said Europe takes a "precautionary" approach to the regulation of GM foods which requires proof that a product isn't dangerous. In Canada and the U.S., regulators require proof that it is dangerous.

"Logically you cannot prove that something is not dangerous," Hart said Friday.

"The example I use with my students is, when they fly from Ottawa to Toronto, do they ask the ticket agent, 'can you guarantee that this plane will arrive safely in Toronto?' 'Well, no we can't.' 'Can you tell us if it is safe?' 'Yes it is safe. The chances of it not arriving in Toronto are extremely small,'" he said.

"That's what the so-called precautionary principle is all about."

Europe's tougher regulatory regime for GM products in turn relates at least partly to a stronger obsession with the environment and greater mistrust of government regulators, a sentiment historians have linked to various oil spills, contaminations of the food supply, and especially the 1986 explosion at the Chornobyl nuclear station in the Ukraine that sent radiation across many parts of Europe, including Wales and Sweden.

These incidents have reminded Europeans, who live on a land mass more than twice as small as Canada's, that the continent has to act collectively to save itself.

That sentiment in turn has empowered the European Union in Brussels. The EU's parliament, like most European national parliaments, uses a "proportional representation" electoral system that makes it far easier for Green Party activists and other environmentalists to get elected than their counterparts in Canada and the U.S.

"The EU by its very nature and rationale has become a prime focus as a potential initiator for environmental action within Europe," according to the 2001 book The Greening of the European Union.

Among the pressures driving EU decision-makers is "the emergence of a new 'green' consumer culture, most recently personified by the campaigns against genetically modified food," the book's authors argued.

19 January 2008

Australia: Anti-GMO petition launched

Green Left Online, 19 January 2008. By Annolies Truman, Perth.

The Say No to GMO campaign launched a new petition in Western Australia this month, asking that liability for contamination of non-genetically modified crops rest with those responsible for bringing GM crops or food into the state.

Currently, in countries where GM crops are commercially grown, farmers whose non-GM crops are contaminated by GM pollen are liable to pay royalties to the biotechnology company with a patent for that particular GM plant.

Campaigner Janet Grogan told Green Left Weekly that the petition aimed to turn the liability issue around: "Instead of farmers suffering the double burden of unwanted contamination and royalty payments or prosecution, we are saying liability must be worn by the biotech companies themselves."

The petition calls on state parliament "to introduce a strict liability regime to ensure all parties involved in bringing GM crops and/or food into Western Australia (including growers and patent holders) will be held legally liable for any contamination incidents causing market and economic loss, health impacts or environmental damage associated with GM crops/food".

"We're very concerned Victoria has agreed to the commercial cultivation of GM canola", Grogan said. "Despite all the PR hype, GM crops offer no advantages to farmers, consumers or the environment. The only beneficiaries are multinational companies trying to make a profit out of an untested technology that may cause irrevocable damage to the food chain."

18 January 2008

EU: Debate over GMOs rages on in Europe

www.cordis.europa.eu, 18 January 2008.

Over 300 scientists and green lobby groups in Spain have signed a petition calling on their government to ban the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The signatories, made up of scientists from Spanish universities and research centres, including the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), and green groups, denounced the 'dangers and impacts of the introduction [of GM crops] into the environment and on our plates' and demanded that the Spanish government adopt measures to eradicate the cultures on its territory.

'This is a technology that is destroying biodiversity and was a by-product of the military industry. It is lamentable that Spain is acting as a vector for introducing these cultures into Europe when it is a country rich in biodiversity,' Eugenio Reyes, a researcher at the Botanical Garden of Las Palmas in Gran Canaria, told El Mundo newspaper.

Spain currently grows 75,000 hectares of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), making it Europe's largest grower in Europe, followed by France with 22,000 hectares.

The petition comes only days after France decided to invoke an EU safeguard clause to bar a strain of GM maize after a watchdog said it had doubts about the product.

The crop in question, MON 810, is a variety of maize developed by US biotech giant Monsanto. The strain has had its genome modified to contain a gene that produces a toxin allowing it to defend itself against the corn borer, which regularly destroys maize harvests around Europe.

The decision came after France's provisional High Authority on GMOs presented the conclusions of its study on the effect of the MON 810 crop on health and the environment. The committee, composed of 15 scientific experts, announced that it had 'serious doubts' about GM crops following its discovery of 'new scientific facts relating to a negative impact on flora and fauna'.

These 'new scientific facts' included cross-pollination of GM and non-GM fields at local level and negative effects on insects, a species of earthworm and micro-organisms.

However, the next day saw 12 of the High Authority's 15 scientists disagree with the Authority's conclusions, saying they never found evidence for serious doubts or negative consequences concerning GM crops and thus criticised the way the conclusions were worded.

Under EU law, the Commission has 60 days to decide on the validity of the new scientific evidence discovered by the French committee on GMOs. If the Commission does not consider the evidence produced to be valid, it can force the country to lift its ban, unless a qualified majority against such a decision is reached in the Council of Ministers.

Austria, Germany and Poland have previously invoked the safeguard clause without success, as the Commission has never substantiated their applications. Moreover, EU environment ministers have repeatedly failed to reach a qualified majority for or against the Commission's proposals to lift the national bans.

In October 2007, Portuguese Environment Minister Francisco Nunes Correia said that a majority of Member States oppose the Commission forcing them to lift such bans. He added that 'the Commission proposal still prevails against the explicit will of one Member State and that is something that has to give us a pause for thought.'

The next step will be for all the Commissioners to debate GMOs in early February 2008 to clarify the EU's policy position on the issue.

For further information, please visit:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/strategy/index_en.htm http://www.ogm.gouv.fr/

Category: Miscellaneous
Data Source Provider: Press sources
Document Reference: Based on information from press sources (El Mundo, Le Monde, BBC)
Subject Index: Agricultural biotechnology ; Agriculture; Biotechnology; Legislation, Regulations; Policies

EU Environment: Ninety percent of Europeans believe biodiversity loss is a problem

EU press release IP/08/62, 18 January 2008.

An overwhelming majority of Europeans believe that the loss of biological diversity is a serious problem, according to a Eurobarometer survey on attitudes to biodiversity. The survey highlights the concerns of Europeans regarding the decline and extinction of animal and plant species, natural habitats and ecosystems. Concern is greatest in Greece, Portugal and Romania. The survey also reveals that Europeans are more worried about biodiversity loss globally than in their own country.

Commissioner Dimas said: "Biodiversity loss is irreversible. Since the 1970s, the European Union has been committed to protecting nature, and we are working hard to realise our target of halting biodiversity loss on our continent by 2010. Achieving this target requires everyone across the Union to work together to ensure that our ecosystems are sustainable and healthy. Complacency is not an option. "

Pollution and man-made disasters seen as the biggest threats by Europeans

According to the Eurobarometer survey, Europeans see air and water pollution and man-made disasters such as oil spills and industrial accidents as the greatest threats to biodiversity (27%). This is followed by climate change (19%), the intensification of agriculture, deforestation and overfishing (13%), and the construction of roads, housing, or industrial areas (8%). Only a fifth of Europeans surveyed thought that they are currently affected by the loss of biodiversity, but 70% think it will have an affect on them in the future or on their children.

A moral obligation to preserve nature

For 93% of Europeans, preserving biodiversity is a moral obligation affecting current generations as stewards of nature. European citizens are also aware that their well-being and quality of life depend on biodiversity and 75% believe that biodiversity loss can have negative economic ramifications.

Two thirds of Europeans say they already make a personal effort to protect biodiversity, while a third say they would like to do more. A fifth of Europeans surveyed say they would act if they knew what they could do to stop biodiversity loss.

European Union policy to combat biodiversity loss

Ecosystems worldwide are in decline. The biodiversity they harbour provides the ecosystem goods and services ‚ food, fuel, fibre, quality air and water, soil fertility and nutrients ‚ which are at the heart of our modern economic prosperity. When ecosystems reach the point of no return, the damage is permanent. In the European Union, this decline translates into collapsing fish stocks, impoverishment of soil, flood damage, and disappearing wildlife.

To overcome this decline the European Union has legislated on biodiversity since the 1970s. The cornerstone of the EU's biodiversity policy is the Natura 2000 network, which is an EU-wide network of nature protection areas for Europe's most valuable habitats and endangered species. This network ‚ which represents about 20% of the Union's total land area ‚ was substantially extended in November 2007 by an area of about 90,000 square kilometres, the size of Portugal. Despite its size, Europeans have little knowledge of Natura 2000 ‚ 80% say they have never heard of it, and of those who have few know exactly what it is.

In 2001, European leaders committed the European Union to halting biodiversity loss by 2010. In 2006, a European Commission Communication set out an action plan with concrete measures outlining the responsibilities of the European Union and Member States in achieving this objective. Some progress has been made to halt biodiversity loss in the European Union but much remains to be done.

A major communications campaign will be launched this year to engage Europeans in protecting biodiversity, and to help channel the concerns revealed by this survey.

For more information:

More quotes from Commissioner Dimas in his blog entry:
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/dimas/

Eurobarometer: Attitudes towards the issue of biodiversity
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm

Eurobarometer Report can be downloaded from Commissioner Dimas's home page:
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/dimas/index_en.htm

European Commission nature and biodiversity website
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm

USA: AB 541 Passes the Agriculture Committee
Contact your Assembly Member Now!

Californians for GE-Free Agriculture action alert, 18 January 2008.

AB 541, which could become California's first state law protecting farmers from the hazards of genetically engineered crops, passed through the Assembly Agriculture Committee on January 16th by a vote of 5 - 0. It will next be heard by the full Assembly during the week of January 28th.

Introduced by Assembly Member Jared Huffman early in 2007, the bill was held over in the Agriculture Committee in April. Since then, AB 541 has been scaled back considerably. It now has the support of the California Farm Bureau and other conventional agriculture organizations.

AB 541 will enact protections for California farmers against frivolous lawsuits that intimidate and harass farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable drift of GE pollen or seed. It will level the playing field for farmers accused by Monsanto and others of contract violations, and discourage their practice of sampling crops without explicit permission from farmers and prosecuting based on unverifiable testing results.

Specifically, the newly amended bill would:

1.

Protect farmers from patent infringement lawsuits if they are unknowingly contaminated by GE crops.

2.

Establish of a mandatory crop sampling protocol to be used by biotech companies when investigating farmers they believe may have violated patents or seed contracts. This protocol would require the farmer's written permission for sampling, and provide for a state agriculture official to accompany the patent holder during the sampling and collect duplicate samples for independent verification if requested by either party.

The original bill included several other elements that have been removed, including the establishment of the country's first system of notification for the locations of GE crops; the confinement of experimental pharmaceutical-producing crops to greenhouses to protect the food system from contamination; and, legislative clarity that the GE crop manufacturer is liable in the event of contamination, and not farmers.

Take Action

•

Please write or call your Assembly Member no later than January 25th. Faxes or phone calls are much more effective than emails. To get contact information for your representative, go to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html.

•

Forward this email alert to everyone you know in California.

•

Gather 'endorsements' for the AB 541 support letter from organizations, businesses, and individuals.

EU: Panel doubts animal cloning ethics

Financial Times, January 18 2008. By Clive Cookson in London.

A European Union panel yesterday said it had "doubts" about the ethics of using cloning to improve farm livestock, because cloned animals and their surrogate mothers suffered more health problems than conventional animals.

The European Group on Ethics of science and new technologies (EGE) "does not see convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring", it concluded after an investigation.

The EGE report comes less than a week after the European Food and Safety Agency said there were no scientific reasons to ban meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring. These were indistinguishable from food derived from cattle and pigs bred normally, said the EFAS.

On Tuesday, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the consumption of food from cloned animals and their offspring. In practice the clones themselves are unlikely to enter the food chain, because they are too valuable for breeding, but their descendents will be eaten if US livestock cloning companies such as ViaGen, Trans Ova and Cyagra succeed in commercialising the technology.

The negative findings of the European ethics group do not directly contradict those of the FDA and the EFSA, because the EGE was looking at moral and ethical aspects of cloning, rather than scientific and food safety issues. The EGE said if food derived from cloned livestock were introduced to the European market, there should be new requirements to guarantee the animals' welfare and health.

It added that products from the offspring of cloned animals should be labelled, despite the "technical difficulties" of doing so.

The European Commission is not likely to decide on the issue until late this year, at the earliest. It will then take account of the EGE recommendations, as well as the EFSA's final opinion due in May.

Meanwhile, in the US, consumer and environmental groups opposed to animal cloning mobilised to block the sale of food from the offspring of cloned livestock, following the FDA approval.

Friends of the Earth started collecting signatures for a petition to be delivered to all the main US grocery groups, saying: "I urge you to declare that your stores will not sell food from cloned animals. I plan to shop only at stores that can make such a guarantee."

The RSPCA animal charity called for an immediate ban on cloning animals for food. "The RSPCA is totally opposed to cloning for food production on animal welfare and ethical grounds. People seem so focused on whether or not we could do this, they have forgotten to look at whether we should,'' said Nikki Osborne, a senior RSPCA scientist.

EU: Cloning animals for food not ethical, says EU body

FoodNavigator.com, 18 January 2008. By Dominique Patton.

Using cloned animals for production of food such as meat and milk is not justified, say experts on ethics reporting to the European Commission.

Just days after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded in a draft opinion that such foods were unlikely to pose any risk to human health, the European Group on Ethics (EGE) said that it did not see "convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring".

"Considering the current level of suffering and health problems of surrogate dams and animal clones, the EGE has doubts as to whether cloning animals for food supply is ethically justified," it reported yesterday.

The European Commission began a consultation with experts on cloning in ÝFebruary 2007, following the announcement by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that it could authorise food products derived from cloned cattle, pigs and goats on the market.

The ethics group consists of 15 experts appointed by the EC to examine ethical questions arising from science and new technologies and to advise on possible legislation.

It said that if cloned animals were to be introduced to the food market, several steps should be followed including more research on food safety and animal welfare.

The group said that cloned animals typically experienced a high rate of disease and other health problems that include increased weight, malformations, respiratory problems, enlarged livers, hemorrhaging and kidney abnormalities.

In cattle, about 20 per cent of cloned calves do not survive the first 24 hours after birth and an additional 15 per cent die before weaning, said a statement.

"Further ethical, legal and social implications of animal cloning for food supply as well as qualitative studies on public perception should be carried out," it advised.

Earlier this week however, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ruled that milk and meat from cloned animals are safe for sale to the public. The decision proved controversial among different groups including both food industry and consumers.

Recent opinion polls show the majority of Americans do not want milk or meat from cloned animals in their food. A December 2006 poll by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that nearly two-thirds of US consumers were uncomfortable with animal cloning.

The Center for Food Safety, a US-based consumer group, praised the EGE's decision. "This announcement sends a strong message to American food producers and trade representatives: your clones will not find a market in the European Union," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director.

It has criticized the evidence consulted by FDA and the organisation's lack of tracking system or labeling of products produced from clones or their offspring.

EFSA's definitive report on the safety of cloned animals for food use is expected in May.

EU biofuels policy in tatters
Leaked internal report highlights failings of biofuels

Friends of the Earth Europe / Birdlife International press release, 18 January 2008.

Brussels ‚ A leaked internal European Commission document gives a damning verdict on the EU's proposals to set a mandatory 10 per cent target for the use of biofuels in transport. The report, obtained by Friends of the Earth Europe and BirdLife International, reveals that the EU's biofuels policy is likely to have a net cost of up to 65 billion euros, need huge amounts of land outside of Europe and questions whether it will make any greenhouse gas savings at all.

The report, 'Biofuels in the European Context' was written by the EU's Joint Research Council (JRC), the European Commission's in-house scientific body. The cost-benefit analysis looks at whether using agrofuels (also known as biofuels) reduces greenhouse gas emissions, improves security of supply and creates jobs.

The report gives a clear 'thumbs down' on all three accounts:

•

Greenhouse gas savings: due to the indirect effects of growing biofuels, the JRC concludes that the, "uncertainty is too great to say whether the EU 10 per cent target will save [greenhouse gas emissions] or not". The report highlights that the greenhouse effect of using nitrogen fertilisers is "significantly higher" than previous estimates and that land use changes (e.g. deforestation, draining of peatlands or ploughing grasslands) could potentially release enough greenhouse gas to negate the savings from EU biofuels.

•

Security of supply: the EU would be better to invest in extra storing capacity to create a strategic oil reserve to buffer short term supply shocks rather than invest (much higher sums) in biofuels which would give a limited solution to the problem of insecurity of supply. "There would be a positive effect, but its value is small compared to the costs," the report says.

•

Employment creation; potential job creation risks being little more than wishful thinking as jobs created in the biofuels sector are likely to be offset by job destruction in other sectors affected by the biofuels target. "The net employment effect of the programme would be insignificant," according to the JRC.

•

Cost-benefit analysis: "The costs of using biofuels outweigh the benefits of doing so," the report states. It calculates that, "the decrease in welfare caused by imposing a biofuel target is between 33 and 65 billion euros within an 80 per cent probability range".

The report finishes by stating that, "using the same EU resources of money and biomass, significantly greater [greenhouse gas] savings could be achieved by having only an overall target instead of a separate one for transport".

The leaked report comes in a week in which environment and development organisations called for the biofuels target to be scrapped due to environmental and social problems, and just days before the European Commission will release its Directive on the promotion of renewable energy sources.

Adrian Bebb, Agrofuels Campaign Coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe said: "This report gives a damning verdict on the EU's policy for using biofuels. The conclusions are crystal clear ‚ the EU should abandon biofuels and use its resources on real solutions to climate change."

Ariel Brunner, EU Agriculture Policy Officer for BirdLife International said: "The proposed EU biofuels policy offers hardly any climate benefits at outstanding environmental risks. Now that even the Commission's own experts say so, it is time for the biofuels target to be set aside and for fresh thinking on how to really tackle climate change while preserving natural habitats."

For more information, please contact:

Adrian Bebb, Agrofuels Campaign Coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: +49 8025 991951 and +49 160 9490 1163 (German mobile)

Francesca Gater, Communications Officer for Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: +32 2542 6105 and +32 485 930515 (Belgian mobile)

Herlinde Herpoel, Media and Communication Officer for BirdLife International
Tel: +32(0)2 541 07 82 (Direct) or +32(0)494 542 844 (Belgian mobile)

Freedom of Choice
Selecting The Deliberately Applied System

GMO Compass, 18 January 2008.

Consumers are ensured the right to choose between products with or without genetic engineering. Freedom of choice is the widely accepted cornerstone of the EU's policies on genetic engineering.

Even in Europe, genetically modified plants are becoming more and more widespread. The problem with this lies in the fact that these plants are grown out in the open, not in closed rooms. Wind and insects can allow GM plants in one field to pollinate conventional crops growing somewhere nearby. Under natural conditions, these kinds of pollination events are virtually inevitable.

If two maize fields are planted side by side, the probability of cross pollination between the fields is very high; it goes down with increasing separation. But even during harvest, transport, storage, and processing, the mixing of products due to traces left in containers and machines is practically inevitable.

Consequently, as long as genetically engineered plants are being grown in the vicinity, it will be impossible to get 100% GM-free products. There is no way that two different worlds ‚ one with and one without GMOs ‚ could exist in parallel yet maintain isolation. Already today, many foods containing soy and maize have detectable traces of GM material ‚ even in organic products.

Europe cannot be isolated from the rest of the world

The politically mandated right to have the freedom of choice was set in place knowing that GM crops are grown around the world. The production of these crops is widespread, and their products reach our domestic markets. These facts must be in sync with our approach to politics and economy. The thought of returning to a pre-GMO world is a prospect that lacks perspective.

Around the world, GM crops are produced on more than 90 million hectares in over twenty different countries. Their products are then introduced to the worldwide market. The EU imports 37 million tons of soy each year ‚ a significant amount of which is genetically modified.

Cultivating GM crops is also possible within the European Union. We will most likely see an expansion of GM crops from their currently limited presence in Spain, Germany, France, Portugal, and the Czech Republic.

International trade contracts require the free trade of GM plants and their products. In order for an individual country or the EU to refuse a particular product, there must be some kind of reasonable doubt as to the safety of that product. With currently approved GMOs, this is simply not the case. The EU cannot cut itself off from the rest of the world when it comes to agricultural genetic engineering. GM food and feed are already on the market.

Separated as well as possible

Practising different production methods in parallel (conventional, organic, and with GM crops) challenges producers to come up with ways of minimising their influences on one another. If intermixing can be kept at a minimum, the integrity of labelling and choice will remain intact. Maintaining this is the explicit goal of the European Commission. Also demanded by the European Commission is that none of these agricultural methods be hindered or forbidden. In order to realise these demands, the European Commission published guidelines in 2003 for implementing coexistence ‚ in other words, the equal opportunity to produce organic, conventional, or genetically modified crops anywhere in the EU. These guidelines include measures such as minimum spacing requirements between fields that will keep mixing low enough to respect the 0.9 percent labelling threshold.

Thresholds: The difference between accidental mixing and deliberate use

Freedom of choice means being able to decide between products from different agricultural systems, in this case, those that employ, and those that choose not to employ genetic engineering. Where the line between accidental mixing and deliberate use is drawn is in the hands of political bodies.

In the EU, this distinction is made by the 0.9 percent threshold. Foods and ingredients containing less than 0.9 percent GMO content do not require labelling when the GMO portion was unintentionally and unavoidably introduced. This figure was collaboratively accepted by the EU Member States. Labelling informs consumers whether or not genetic engineering was used to produce a food product. Consumers are free to let this information be a part of their decision making process.

Comment by GM-free Ireland

The above from GMO Compass is an excellent example of the biotech industry's latest spin. First they claimed GM crops would never contaminate conventional and organic crops. Next they said you can have "co-existence". Then they admit contamination is inevitable. Now they want us to believe we have no choice to refuse them! The irony is that we European citizens are made to pay for this propaganda, as GMO Compass is funded by EC taxpayers...

17 January 2008

Germany set to launch "non-GM" label

just-food.com, 17 January 2008

The German Agriculture Ministry is to introduce a special label for food that has not been genetically modified, in a move to create greater transparency for consumers.

Agriculture state secretary Gert Lindemann told German broadcaster Deutsche Welle that the new 'non-GM' label will apply not only to non-genetically-modified crops but to eggs, meat and milk from animals that were raised without biotech feed.

He said the move was aimed to protect consumers' rights but didn't specify when the new system would be introduced.

German food manufacturers have, for the last four years, had the option of labelling food containing GM technology traces, although few have made use of the system.

The Bundestag, Germany's parliament, is expected to approve the law next week, allowing it to be introduced in spring.

Officials at the Agriculture Ministry could not be reached for comment as just-food went to press.

UK: The Clones are Coming

The Ecologist Blog, 17 Jan 2008. By Tom Levitt.

Anyone fancy eating Dolly the sheep? I am being serious. The EU, in their infinite wisdom, has decided that it is perfectly safe for us to eat meat from cloned animals.

Excuse me for missing something but since when did Dolly the sheep switch from a celebrated piece of scientific progress to being offered up as shepherd's pie to an unsuspecting general public?

The answer is this week when food safety officials from the EU published advice to the effect that cloned animals were no different from conventionally bred animals.

Well if they wanted to quietly introduce this into the public conscience and food chain (like they tried with GM) they have failed. Note the headlines across the UK and European press. Already Italian farmers are reported to be issuing a challenge to the EU's assessment.

Officials and scientists are stressing that it is unlikely that we will be eating meat from actual cloned animals rather meat from the descendents of cloned animals. They claim cloning science will be used by breeders primarily to create better animals i.e. with higher growth rates and lower disease rates.

However, this misses the point. Regardless of the food safety concerns expressed earlier, which may only come to light AFTER we have been eating food products derived from cloned animals for a number of years, what about the animals themselves? Officials have admitted that death and disease rates in cloned animals are "significantly higher". Do we really want animals to suffer like this just to knock a few pounds of the cost at the checkout? Or, to satisfy our appetite for so-called scientific progress?

And in any case, can we really trust what scientists and officials tell us now about how cloning will be used? History says no.

All is not lost though as the ball is still in our court. The EU may think it can softly-softly introduce cloned food into our diets but just like on GM we can put a block on these things.

Sadly, it may already be too late if you live in the US. While the EU is merely issuing its preliminary advice, US officials have gone the whole hog and given their "final assessment". In effect, a green light for farmers to produce meat from cloned animals.

If you want to have your say then go and make yourself heard via the EFSA website (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178676922939.htm). Comments on the EU's preliminary assessment about cloning can be submitted until 25 February 2008.

Deserting the hungry?
Monsanto and Syngenta are wrong to withdraw from an international assessment on agriculture.

Nature 451, 223-224 (17 January 2008) | doi:10.1038/451223b;
Editorial. Published online 16 January 2008.

"This is a most reluctant decision." These are the words of a spokesman for the agriculture-industry body CropLife International speaking to Nature this week. The decision in question is that by two CropLife member corporations, Monsanto and Syngenta, to pull out of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology. This is an ambitious, 4-year, US$10-million project that aims to do for hunger and poverty what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has done for another global challenge.

The scale of the ambition is clear both in the project's promised outcome, as well as in its internal workings. When published later this year, its reports promise to map how science, technology and accumulated good-farming practice can be used to reduce hunger and improve quality of life for rural people in developing countries (drafts can be accessed from www.agassessment.org). At the same time, the writing and review teams (some 4,000 experts in all) comprise a grand coalition including scientists, government officials, representatives from seven UN agencies, farmers' groups, a rainbow of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and industry, including chemicals manufacturer BASF and agri-biotech giants Monsanto and Syngenta.

But these last two, part of the assessment from the beginning, have now decided to quit. No public statements have been offered, but the spokesman for CropLife told Nature that the decision was prompted by the inability of its members to get industry perspectives reflected in the draft reports. One of these perspectives is the view that biotechnology is key to reducing poverty and hunger, and it is based in part on high (and rising) levels of demand for biotech crops from farmers across the developing world.

Insiders agree that the current draft is decidedly lukewarm about the technology's potential in developing-world agriculture. The summary report, for example, devotes more space to biotechnology's risks than to its benefits. The report says that evidence that biotech crops produce high yields is not conclusive. And it claims that if policy-makers give more prominence to biotechnology, this could consolidate the biotech industry's dominance of agricultural R&D in developing countries. This would affect graduate education and training, and provide fewer opportunities for scientists to train in other agricultural sciences.

CropLife says that it does not take a "dogmatic" position and remains open to rejoining the assessment if the other team members are willing to be more even-handed. But the views outlined in the draft chapter on biotechnology, although undoubtedly over-cautious and unbalanced, nonetheless do not represent the rantings of a fringe minority. The idea that biotechnology cannot by itself reduce hunger and poverty is mainstream opinion among agricultural scientists and policy-makers. For example, biotechnology expansion was not among the seven main recommendations in Halving Hunger: It Can Be Done, a report commissioned by former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan. The writing team for this report included Kenya's Florence Wambugu, perhaps the strongest proponent for biotechnology in Africa.

The assessment's secretariat and chairs, too, need to ask themselves some searching questions. For starters: how come these founding members of the assessment got to the point of walking out? This is not the first time an initiative has sought to find common ground between NGOs and industry on a major issue involving science and public policy. There are many lessons that can be learned by talking to, for example, the organizers of the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development project, or the World Commission on Dams, both of which produced consensus reports that have had far-reaching impacts.

If Monsanto and Syngenta maintain their current position, it will be a blow to the credibility of an important scientific assessment.

Whatever happens next, the status quo is not an option. A meeting to agree the final text is expected to take place in April. Monsanto and Syngenta must get back to the table before then. If they maintain their current position, it will be a blow to the credibility of an important scientific assessment. In addition, public confidence in the biotech industry and in its ability to engage with its critics will have been undermined.

Perhaps most important of all, believing as they do that biotechnology is an essential response to hunger, the two companies will be letting down those that they most want to help.

UK: Son of Frankenfood?
Produce from cloned animals has won regulatory approval. Now companies must persuade consumers to buy it

The Economist, 17 January 2008.

"IT IS beyond our imagination to even find a theory that would cause the food to be unsafe." With that ringing endorsement, Stephen Sundlof, the chief food-safety expert at America's Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this week declared food derived from the offspring of cloned cows, pigs and goats to be safe for human consumption. The decision came just days after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) publicly reached the same conclusion.

At first blush this seems likely to lead to a repetition of the controversies that surrounded the arrival of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture more than a decade ago. Back then an over-zealous industry (led by Monsanto, an American GMO pioneer) touted the benefits of a novel food technology.

Activist groups and parts of the media said GMOs were dangerous and unethical. Scientific bodies on both sides of the Atlantic agreed that GMOs could be used safely, but politics halted their advance in Europe.

Could the same saga unfold with cloning? Once again the biotechnology firms sound a bit brash, much as Monsanto did. James Greenwood, head of BIO, the lobbying arm of the American biotechnology sector, bragged this week to reporters that, thanks to his industry's efforts, animals have now been successfully cloned on six continents. David Faber, the head of Trans Ova, an American firm leading the charge, claims this technology will make possible "elite breeding" that will lead to faster-growing, disease-resistant and genetically superior animals.

To activists opposed to cloned food, meanwhile, the FDA and EFSA decisions mean only one thing: Frankenfoods are on their way. Since the creation of Dolly, a sheep cloned by researchers in Scotland in 1996, they have rallied many thousands to sign petitions and attend protest marches dressed as cloned cows and the like. And on the heels of this week's two big decisions, the anti-cloning crowd is kicking into high gear. Friends of the Earth lost no time in declaring it was organising a boycott of grocers who carry cloned products.

Spot the difference

So far it all sounds like an identical copy of the fight over GMOs, which remain suspended in controversy in Europe even as they have taken off spectacularly in America, Brazil, India and other countries. The European Commission may well decide to overrule the scientific advice offered by the EFSA for political reasons, particularly if its expert committee, charged with considering the ethical aspects of cloned food, declares the technology objectionable. (At midweek rumours suggested the final report was about to be released.)

But there are three reasons to think that food from clones need not meet the same fate as GMOs. First, despite all the wild-eyed claims, cloning for food is not an especially radical procedure. It stretches credulity to claim, as Joseph Mendelson of America's Center for Food Safety does, that cloning animals for food will prove a "gateway technology" that will inexorably push society down a slippery slope to cloning humans. Drinking a glass of milk from the offspring of a cloned cow is unlikely to inspire you to clone your children.

It is true that cloning can be used as a step in the creation of transgenic animals, but the procedures approved this week do not involve transgenics: no foreign DNA is introduced. "It's just like having an identical twin, born at a different time," says one researcher. This suggests that cloning can plausibly be thought of as just another tool used by animal breeders alongside artificial insemination, in vitro fertilisation and so on. Cloning has long been commonplace in plant breeding.

Moreover, only the milk and meat from the offspring of clonesónot food from the clones themselvesówill be sold. This matters because cloning remains a difficult process, and many attempts fail. Catherine Geslain-LanÈelle, EFSA's executive director, concedes that "there are issues involved in animal welfare", but is convinced that the food-safety concerns are unsubstantiated. Since only the successful clones go on to reproduce normally, any food produced from the progeny is reckoned by the FDA to be indistinguishable from normal meat and milk.

The second reason cloning may not fall into the GMO trap lies in the simple fact that the food industry appears to have learned some lessons from the Monsanto saga. Despite their exuberance this week, the biotech firms involved in cloning took care to praise the American government's decision to maintain a "voluntary" moratorium on food from the cloned animals themselves. Unlike Monsanto, which tried to ignore such problems, today's genetic pioneers are eager to avoid trade friction. They emphasise their desire to build up stocks of cloned animals slowly (only about 600 exist in America, for example), and emphasise their scheme for tagging and tracking all clones.

The third reason to think cloned food may take off, even in places like Europe where GMOs have fallen flat, is the most straightforward one. Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds and other early GMO products helped to reduce pesticide use and increase yields, which benefited producers but offered no compelling benefit to consumers. In contrast, if the industry's claims are to be believed, food from clones can be tastier, of higher quality and perhaps even healthier. That is because breeders will be able to use cloned animals to produce meat that is reliably leaner, better marbled or more tender, as customer whims dictate.

That points to an ironic twist. Despite these advantages over GMOs, cloned foods may yet hit a needless snag. Eager to avoid any stigma, the industry has persuaded America's regulator not to require any special labels on food from the progeny of clones. Instead, it says it will label only food that comes directly from clones, should it ever be allowed on sale.

Critics of cloning are predictably displeased. Andrew Barker of Ben & Jerry's (a "socially conscious" ice-cream firm whose co-founder, Jerry Greenfield, is pictured with protesters above) complains that the FDA's decision on labelling "has really created headaches for us with our supply chain". His customers and some foreign markets will reject cloned foods, he says, but he is not sure how he will be able to verify that his dairy products do not contain milk from the progeny of clones.

Yet advocates of cloning could also come to regret the lack of labels. If steaks made using cloning really do turn out to be healthier or tastier, punters who wish to buy them may not be able to identify them in the shops. If the industry is so confident about the merits of its products, it should not be afraid to label them.

USA: Pennsylvania backs off milk-label change

Philadelphia Enquirer, 17 Jan 2008. By Tom Avril and Amy Worden.

Pennsylvania agriculture officials backed down today from a controversial ban on milk labels that identify the milk as coming from cows not treated with synthetic growth hormone.

The ban was to take effect Feb. 1, to the dismay of consumer activists and many smaller dairies who choose not to inject their cows with hormones. But the move was superseded by new standards issued today, after a review by the office of Gov. Rendell.

Rendell ordered the agency to review the policy after consumer outcry, his spokesman said

"The governor's position was relatively simple: he wanted the labels to be accurate and informative," said Rendell's press secretary Chuck Ardo.

Though labels are once again permitted to mention that hormones were not used, the standards require a disclaimer stating there is no difference in milk from cows injected with hormones and milk from cows that are not injected. Such disclaimers already are printed on many milk cartons.

"It's basically a complete back-down," said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at the nonprofit group Consumers Union, which had opposed the ban.

The agriculture department had issued the ban in October, arguing that a misleading impression might be conveyed by identifying milk as coming from cows not treated with synthetic hormones. Pennsylvania would have been the first state to implement such a ban.

The synthetic hormones are said to boost milk production by about 10 percent, and were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1994, though they are not allowed to be injected in Canada or Europe.

The product, which is marketed as Posilac, is used on about one-third of U.S. dairy herds, according to the manufacturer, St. Louis-based Monsanto.

16 January 2008

USDA Recommends That Food From Clones Stay Off the Market

Washington Post, January 16 2008. By Rick Weiss.

[image caption: The Food and Drug Administration has concluded that milk and meat from cloned animals, such as these cows, should be allowed on the market. That stance has raised a debate over whether food from clones that are raised organically could still carry the organic label. (PRNewsFoto/ViaGen)]

The U.S. Department of Agriculture yesterday asked U.S. farmers to keep their cloned animals off the market indefinitely even as Food and Drug Administration officials announced that food from cloned livestock is safe to eat.

Bruce I. Knight, the USDA's undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs, requested an ongoing "voluntary moratorium" to buy time for "an acceptance process" that Knight said consumers in the United States and abroad will need, "given the emotional nature of this issue."

Yet even as the two agencies sought a unified message -- that food from clones is safe for people but perhaps dangerous to U.S. markets and trade relations -- evidence surfaced suggesting that Americans and others are probably already eating meat from the offspring of clones.

Executives from the nation's major cattle cloning companies conceded yesterday that they have not been able to keep track of how many offspring of clones have entered the food supply, despite a years-old request by the FDA to keep them off the market pending completion of the agency's safety report.

At least one Kansas cattle producer also disclosed yesterday that he has openly sold semen from prize-winning clones to many U.S. meat producers in the past few years, and that he is certain he is not alone.

"This is a fairy tale that this technology is not being used and is not already in the food chain," said Donald Coover, a Galesburg cattleman and veterinarian who has a specialty cattle semen business. "Anyone who tells you otherwise either doesn't know what they're talking about, or they're not being honest."

Yesterday's awkwardly meshed announcements by FDA and USDA officials, made at a joint news conference in Washington, reflected continuing divisions among U.S. regulatory agencies on how to deal with the issue of food from clones.

Stephen F. Sundlof, director of FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, spoke from his perspective as the person who oversaw that agency's six-year review of the safety of milk and meat from clones and their offspring. He released the results of that 968-page "final risk analysis," saying "meat and milk from cattle, swine and goat clones are as safe as food we eat every day."

That conclusion amounted to handing the cloned-food hot potato to the USDA's Knight, whose agency has the responsibility of getting those products accepted on the market.

Recent surveys indicate that the agency has a challenge. Last year, 22 percent of Americans who responded to a major survey said they had a favorable impression of food from clones.

That was up from 16 percent a year earlier. Nonetheless, about 50 percent have an unfavorable impression, said Danielle "Dani" Schor of the International Food Information Council Foundation, an industry-funded interest group that has conducted the survey of 1,000 Americans annually since 2004.

At issue are clones of beef cattle, dairy cows, pigs and goats, as well as their offspring, which farmers in the United States and a few other countries are starting to raise in an effort to produce more consistently high-quality milk and meat.

In recent weeks, as it became clear that the FDA was ready to release its positive safety report, officials there began encountering resistance from other agencies that would have to deal with the consequences of food from clones entering the U.S. food supply.

Some of them, including the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, have been struggling for years to persuade countries in Europe and other parts of the world to accept gene-altered crops from the United States. The last thing those agencies needed, insiders said, was a new U.S. product that nobody wants.

The USDA's request that farmers keep their clones out of the food chain, probably for a few more years, "is simply allowing the time for an orderly transition to occur," Knight said, adding that the department is already having conversations with U.S. trading partners and trying to smooth the way to acceptance.

Some U.S. consumer groups have expressed concern for the cloned animals, which often have health problems, and have suggested that the American public may be as tough a sell as the wary consumers in the European Union and Japan.

"Despite the fact that cloned animals suffer high mortality rates and those who survive are often plagued with birth defects and diseases, the FDA did not give adequate consideration to the welfare of these animals or their surrogate mothers in its deliberations," said Wayne Pacelle, chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States.

Some U.S. groups have demanded that food from clones be labeled to give consumers the "right to choose."

But James Greenwood, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include the nation's biggest farm-animal cloning companies, rejected that idea, as has the FDA. He said cloning is simply a way to make offspring. Other methods of farm animal procreation, such as in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination, are not listed on food labels.

He and other industry representatives specifically rejected proposals to label food from conventionally conceived offspring of clones.

While the now-expired FDA moratorium sought to keep both clones and their offspring off the market, the new USDA moratorium requests only that clones themselves be withheld, so the offspring might make it to store shelves within a few years.

But imagine the labels that would appear if certain rules were in place, Greenwood said:

"'This steak's father was a clone.' 'This steak's grandfather was a clone.' 'This steak's great-grandmother was a clone.'

"At what point does it become absurd?"

Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

USA: GMO demonstration draws crowds, politicians
What started on Molokai may set precedent for nation

The Molokai Times (Hawaii,), 16 January 2008. By Kate Gardiner.

HONOLULU - Speaker of the House Calvin Say said that he cannot promise that the legislature will hear a bill that would ban the genetic engineering of taro. Speaking for himself and Representative Clift Tsuji, Say said "Your presence is a reflection of your love of [taro]. It's an [attribute] of Hawaiian culture that I share with you. I cannot commit but I've never said that I would not have a hearing. If the House wants a hearing, the chairman and I are open to it. [It will be] sometime this session if there is a consensus."

The morning consisted of a march from the Hawaii SEED campsite near the Iolani Palace gazebo to the foyer of the state legislature.

Speaking to the demonstrators before the march, organizer Walter Ritte said, "We are not being treated fairly in [this] building... Today is a learning experience. Sometimes we have to raise our voices."

It attracted politicians from all over Hawaii. Speakers in favor of the proposed ban of GE taro included state representative Mina Morita, who told the crowd that taro "Is the symbol of sustainability. It carries us on from generation to generation."

As the representative for the largest taro-producing district in Hawaii, Morita said, "People need to understand that Hawaiians are our consumers. And they don't want to consume GMO taro."

Winona LaDuke, visiting from her White Earth Native American reservation in northern Minnesota, said that the movement to ban GE taro is gaining strength, and helping those on the mainland who are fighting similar battles, as she is for her people's wild rice. "I stand here, with the corn people, with the indigenous people of the Big Island. We fight for no GMO for the relatives. [We must] protect the relatives."

Tesuqui Indian Louie Hena spoke to assorted keiki after the event, "We're fighting this battle for you." Hena is one of the 'corn people.' His tribe is fighting genetically engineered corn.

Lanai resident, woodcarver and taro grower Vince Kauali said the driving force behind his participation was the historical significance of taro, "When the ocean was fat, and the land was so rich that there was food there all the time, [times were good. We have to remember the time before] the fatness of the land has squeezed into the wallets of a few."

The demonstration kicked off Tuesday night with a video session outside the Iolani Palace. In addition to LaDuke, representatives from a visiting Maori tribe and state senator Clayton Hee spoke to their fellows and interested members of the public. More than 100 people camped at the Palace overnight. They are expected to remain for the presentations tomorrow.

The event was pushed forward by Molokai residents and activists Walter and Loretta Ritte. Hanohano Naehu, also from Molokai, said that he was excited to see Molokai at the forefront of the fight against GMO. Naehu's video series, including an anti-GMO rap he composed, was part of Tuesday night's festivities. Supporting other Molokai interests, visitors wearing 'Aole La'au shirts were visible throughout the crowd. Ritte said that he thought that the event was successful and the fight against GE taro was just beginning.

New Zealand: Police investigate GE field trial security breach

Radio New Zealand, 16 January 2008.

Rotorua police are investigating after a perimeter fence around a field trial of genetically modified trees was breached.

Some 19 trees were damaged during the incident.

Crown research institute, Scion, has been studying how 80 Radiata pine and Norway spruce trees reproduce.

The police say the intruder appears to have dug under the fence. A spade bearing a 'GE Free New Zealand' sticker was left behind.

Scion says it will review the incident and look at whether the intruder could have removed any genetically modified material.

Lobby group, the Soil and Health Association, has been calling for the trees to be cut down.

Spokesperson Steffan Browning says it hopes the breach will prompt Scion to improve security around the fence.

"I struggle to disagree with the motives of whoever has done whatever it is. It does depend on what they've actually done and how responsible they've been with any material."

New Zealand: GE Tree Trial Breach Shows Contradictions

Press Release: Soil and Health Association of New Zealand (Est. 1941), 16 January 2008.

The Soil & Health Association hopes that Biosecurity NZ's investigation of last weekend's security fence breach and cutting down of genetically engineered (GE) trees at Rotorua, will lead to far more rigorous controls and compliance checks at the Scion GE tree field trial.

"Biosecurity NZ will investigate today whether action is required under the HSNO Act due to possible removal of GE plant material, and has indicated it will investigate Soil & Health's concerns with the field trial," said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

Soil & Health has previously reported compliance breaches by Scion of the consent conditions for the field trial, and yesterday's news had raised concerns of GE plant material being removed from the secured area.

"The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) have said that there appeared not to have been material removed by those involved in the cutting down of GE trial trees, however rabbits appear to have been risking that ever since the trial started, with having both caused damage and repeatedly infesting the trial plot and surrounds."

"Ironically, Scion's own activities will be the greater risk with material being removed on mower equipment following mulching of GE tree prunings. Scion have been granted an ERMA amendment to their consent, which previously required autoclaving or incineration of cuttings or plant material. The mulching of prunings allows even more GE material to remain in the environment, and with no clean down facility on site, means GE plant material being removed to other adjacent non-GE trial sites and forestry areas."

"Amendments such as these, further show ERMA's lack of precaution and bias towards field trials. Agresearch, Crop & Food, and Scion, the operators of the only New Zealand GE field trials, have all used the amendment process with ERMA allowing changes that the public have not had opportunity to adequately scrutinize."

"Civil disobedience is not surprising, when precaution and transparency are disregarded," said Mr Browning. "Considering overwhelming opposition to genetic engineering in New Zealand, field trials should be treated as a privilege and run to the highest level of precaution."

Soil & Health is opposed to genetic engineering in food and environment and aspires to an Organic 2020.

The Soil & Health Association of NZ Spokesperson

All hail the super carrot!

Nature.com, The Great Beyond blog, 16 January 2008.

A genetically modified carrot delivers 41% more calcium to the body, Texas scientists have shown. Kendal Hirschi and colleagues had previously engineered the carrots to have a two-fold higher calcium content, but it was unclear whether consumption of this marvel of science actually increased the amount of calcium in the body of the eater.

Now, in a paper that should shortly appear in PNAS, they report that people who ate 100g of their 'super carrots' absorbed 41% more calcium than those who ate boring old normal carrots. This could help to treat osteoporosis, notes the briefest press release ever.

Whether these carrots will overcome consumer scepticism about GM foods remains to be seen. "Much more research needs to be conducted before this would be available to consumers," admits Hirschi (BBC).

"As far as I know, this is the first time any one has taken a GMO and done human feeding studies to shown enhanced health effects. I think consumers will have a better impression of GMO foods if more studies like this are initiated," Hirschi adds in an online Google comment.

"Fruit and vegetables are good for you for many reasons, but they have not been a good source of calcium in the past," adds study author Jay Morris (Telegraph). "The daily requirement for calcium is 1,000 milligrams, and a 100 gram serving of these carrots provides only 60 milligrams, about 42 per cent of which is absorbable. A person could not eat enough of them to get the daily requirement solely from these carrots."

No word on whether the carrots help people see better in the dark: but that's a bit of a myth anyway. If you want to see in the dark, get yourself a radar.

GM carrots could cut osteoporosis risk

FoodProductionDaily.com, 16 January 2008. By Stephen Daniells.

Scientists have genetically modified carrots to enhance the transport of calcium once inside the body, potentially establishing the vegetable as a bone-boosting food.

Altering a gene responsible for the transport of calcium across the plant cell membrane, researchers from Texas A&M University report that absorption of the mineral from the carrots can be increased by 41 per cent.

The research, assuming it can overcome the 'GM tag', could offer an alternative approach to boosting calcium intake among the population with the knock-on effect of potentially reducing the risk of osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis is currently second only to cardiovascular disease in terms of global healthcare burden, according to the World Health Organisation, affecting some 200 million people today but the number of sufferers is set to increase steadily with growing numbers of elderly living longer, and obesity adding extra strain on bones.

"To help compensate for [high levels of calcium deficiency in the US], one strategy is to increase the calcium content of the foods they do eat," wrote lead Jay Morris in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Here, we have shown the ability to improve the bioavailable calcium content of a staple food; when applied to a wide variety of fruits and vegetables, this strategy could lead to more calcium consumption in the diet."

The researchers focused on the sCAX1 gene that controls the levels of a plant calcium transporter, and produced carrots with an altered form of the gene which improves calcium absorption. They tested the carrot in both mice and in a small number of humans.

Morris and co-workers report that mice fed the carrots with the altered gene could get the same amount of calcium as those who ate twice the amount of normal carrots.

Importantly, in the study with 30 humans (average age 25, 15 women), it was found that consumption of the modified carrots produced a 41 per cent increase in calcium absorption than did those who ate the unmodified carrots.

"Slightly altering the gene (sCAX1) to make it a more active transporter allows for increased bioavailable calcium in the carrot- ," said lead researcher Dr. Kendal Hirschi.

"These carrots were grown in carefully monitored and controlled environments," he added. "Much more research needs to be conducted before this would be available to consumers."

Beyond carrots

"Although this work represents initial studies toward understanding the nutritional impact of transgenic foods, the technology may be eventually applied to various crops because it involves the over-expression of a gene found in all plants," wrote the researchers.

"Additionally, the approach in this work can serve as a paradigm for related similar hypotheses about the role of other plant alterations to the bioavailability of nutrients contained within the plant matrix," they concluded.

Commenting independently on the research, Professor Susan Fairweather-Tait of the University of East Anglia told the BBC that genetically engineering to boost the nutrient content of food was becoming an increasingly important.

"People are being told to eat more modestly to prevent weight gain, and many diets now no longer contain everything we need.

"There has been great resistance to genetic engineering, but gradually we are moving away from the spectre of 'Frankenstein food' and starting to appreciate the health benefits it may bring," she said.

Indeed, a number of genetically modified plants and crops are coming to light with enhanced nutritional content considered to offer human health benefits, including flavonoid-rich tomatoes, zeaxanthin in potato tubers, and the omega-3 fatty acid, eicosapentaeoic acid (EPA), to soybeans, brassica, and stearidonic acid (SDA) in canola crops.

However, no GM crops with potentially enhanced health benefits have been approved for human consumption in the EU. Consumer acceptance, particularly in Europe and most notably in the UK, continues to be one of the biggest challenges for these crops.

Source:

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Published online ahead of print, PNAS Early Edition, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0709005105. "Nutritional impact of elevated calcium transport activity in carrots". Authors: Jay Morris, K.M. Hawthorne, T. Hotze, S.A. Abrams, K.D. Hirschi

USA: Cloned Meat Allowed on Shelves

Friends of the Earth, USA, 16 January 2008.

Tell grocers you aren't buying it! Tell them you'll stop shopping at stores that can't promise not to sell such products: http://www.FoE.org/No_Food_From_Cloned_Animals

Don't Buy It: Keep Cloned Meat Off Grocery Shelves http://action.foe.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=22275

The FDA has buckled to big biotech and agro-business despite more than 150,000 public comments opposing the lifting of the ban, and amendments to the federal Farm Bill and Omnibus Appropriations Bill calling for more research before lifting the ban.

Genetically speaking, you meat eaters could eat burgers from the same cow for years. Don't let the marketplace support such experimentation with our ecosystem and the food we eat.

Don't eat meat or animal products? We still think this issue will interest you, given the risks taken by introducing cloned animals into our food system and ecosystem.

It is too late to stop the FDA from permitting the sale of food from cloned animals, and there are no labeling requirements either, which is why we need to make grocery stores pay a price for choosing to sell it.

Sign the petition below and tell grocers you aren't buying it! Tell them you'll stop shopping at stores that can't promise not to sell such products.

(Recipients include: A&P, Costco, Wall Mart, Food Lion, Giant, Safeway, Whole Foods, Hardings, Super Fresh and others.)

The text of the petition:

I urge you to declare that your grocery stores will not sell food from cloned animals. I plan to shop only at stores that can make such a guarantee.

Sign the petition now: http://www.FoE.org/No_Food_From_Cloned_Animals

The FDA claims that cloned animals and their offspring are safe for us to eat, yet studies used by the FDA are incomplete.

Cloned animals have a much higher rate of genetic abnormalities than animals that reproduce naturally. Most cloned animals die immediately after birth because the intricacies of the cloning process are still not well understood. Dolly, the first cloned sheep, died only six years after her birth of premature arthritis and lung disease.

Tell grocers that you aren't buying it!

Click here to sign the petition: http://www.FoE.org/No_Food_From_Cloned_Animals

15 January 2008

UK: Scientists unveil 'supercarrot'

BBC News, 15 January 2008.

Scientists in the US say they have created a genetically-engineered carrot that provides extra calcium.

They hope that adding the vegetable to a normal diet could help ward off conditions such as brittle bone disease and osteoporosis.

Someone eating the new carrot absorbs 41% more calcium than if they ate the old, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study suggests.

The calcium-charged vegetable still needs to go through many safety trials.

"These carrots were grown in carefully monitored and controlled environments," said Professor Kendal Hirschi, part of the team at the Baylor College of Medicine in Texas.

"Much more research needs to be conducted before this would be available to consumers."

But the scientists nonetheless hope their carrot could ultimately offer a healthier way of consuming sufficient quantities of the mineral.

Dairy foods are the primary dietary source of calcium but some are allergic to these while others are told to avoid consuming too much due to their high fat content.

A gene has been altered in the carrot which allows the calcium within it to cross more easily over the plant membranes.

On its own, the carrot would not meet the daily requirement of 1,000mg of calcium, but if other vegetables were similarly engineered, intake could be increased dramatically.

Changing colour

It is not the first time the carrot has been tampered with.

The orange colour we know is the result of Dutch cultivation in the 17th Century, when patriotic growers turned a vegetable which was then purple into the colour of the national flag.

Nor is it the first vegetable to receive a healthy make-over.

Genetic engineering is being used to develop potatoes with more starch and less water so that they absorb less oil when fried, producing healthier chips or crisps.

Work is also being carried out on broccoli so that it contains more sulforaphane, a chemical which may help people ward off cancer.

Professor Susan Fairweather-Tait of the University of East Anglia said genetically engineering foods to increase their nutrient content was becoming an increasingly important avenue.

"People are being told to eat more modestly to prevent weight gain, and many diets now no longer contain everything we need.

"There has been great resistance to genetic engineering, but gradually we are moving away from the spectre of 'Frankenstein food' and starting to appreciate the health benefits it may bring."

USA: Genetically modified carrots provide more calcium

Baylor College of Medicine, January 15, 2008.

Genetically modifying carrots to express increased levels of a gene that enables the transport of calcium across membranes of plant cells can make the vegetables a better source of calcium, said researchers at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston and the Vegetable and Fruit Improvement Center at Texas A&M University in a report that appears today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Slightly altering the gene (sCAX1) to make it a more active transporter allows for increased bioavailable calcium in the carrots- ," said Dr. Kendal Hirschi, professor of pediatrics-nutrition and principal investigator of the study conducted at the USDA/ARS Children's Nutrition Research Center at BCM in cooperation with Texas Children's Hospital.

In an initial study in mice, researchers found that those who were fed the carrots with the altered gene could get the same amount of calcium as those who ate twice the amount of normal carrots. In a study in 30 human adults, those who ate the modified carrots absorbed 41 percent more calcium than did those who ate the unmodified carrots.

"These carrots were grown in carefully monitored and controlled environments," said Hirschi. "Much more research needs to be conducted before this would be available to consumers."

Hirschi emphasizes that there is no magic food that will solve all nutritional problems, and that proper food and exercise are still necessary. However, further developments in this area of research could allow for more nutrients in fruits and vegetables and lead to improved health.

Osteoporosis, one of the world's most prevalent nutritional disorders, is a disease that reduces bone mineral density in the body. Doctors usually prescribe more calcium and better calcium uptake as one solution to treat the disease. Increasing levels of calcium absorption from foods would have a significant global impact on this disease.

With physicians and nutrition experts recommending a vegetable-based diet for health, increasing the calcium that can be absorbed from plant-based food will become increasingly important, Hirschi said.

Others who participated in the study included Jay Morris, Keli M. Hawthorne, Tim Hotze and Dr. Steven A. Abrams, all of BCM.

Funding for this research came from the National Institutes of Health, the Vegetable and Fruit Improvement Center at Texas A&M University and the USDA/ARS Children's Nutrition Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine.

This study is available on line at www.pnas.org .

Contact:

Dipali Pathak
pathak@bcm.edu
713-798-4710
Baylor College of Medicine

USA: Biofuels, BP-Berkeley, and the New Ecological Imperialism

Monthly Review, 15 January 2008. By by Hannah Holleman and Rebecca Clausen.

British Petroleum, Beyond Petroleum . . . Biofuel Promoter, Biosphere Plunderer. Regardless of what the BP abbreviation actually stands for, one thing is clear: this oil giant knows a good deal when it sees one. For a relatively small financial contribution, BP appropriates academic expertise from a leading public research institution, founded on 200 years of social support, to maximize its return on energy investments. These investments, in turn, are focused primarily on promoting the market for biofuel, the newest darling of those in power who stimulate change while maintaining "business as usual." This means working-class people in the core developed countries will subsidize the extraction of even more ecological goods from the developing world to serve elites, who never mind taking food out of the mouths of people to put gold in their pockets. Socializing the costs for private economic gain is not a new phenomenon in the capitalist system. However, this case represents a new twist in the combination of debunked science, ecological imperialism, and the sophistry of "sustainable development."

New Fuel, Old Barrels

In February 2007, BP announced plans with the University of California (UC) at Berkeley, in partnership with the University of Illinois and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, to lead the largest academic-industry research alliance in U.S. history. The $50 million-a-year bone that BP will throw to Berkeley will create the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI), primarily focusing its research on biotechnology to produce biofuels. "In launching this visionary institute, BP is creating a new model for university-industry collaboration," said Beth Burnside, UC Berkeley Vice Chancellor for Research (quoted in Sanders 2007). In light of the historic record of capitalist accumulation, this "new model" for university-industry collaboration looks like old wine in a new bottle: appropriate a social good (public university), privatize the property (intellectual development), and commodify the output (energy-intensive products). And in this instance, BP has recruited a public institution to be its profit-making subsidiary.

Appropriating Academia

This is not the first time UC Berkeley fed at the corporate trough, and as government expenditures for social goods continue to decline relatively, it is likely that it won't be the last. Berkeley entered into a research deal with the seed giant Novartis ten years ago, after which an external review of the UCB-Novartis interaction recommended avoiding such partnerships (Altieri and Holt-Gimenez 2007). Nevertheless, on November 15, 2007, BP, the UC Berkeley, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign announced the signing of a controversial ten-year pact forming the Energy Biosciences Institute. The current deal with BP is ten times larger than the Novartis deal. A brief description of this BP partnership follows:

As part of its continuing drive to find longer term commercial alternatives to oil and gas, BP announced in 2006 that it would invest $500 million over the next 10 years to establish the institute, the first public-private institution of this scale in the world. The institute's emphasis on new fuels meshes with UC Berkeley's and Berkeley Lab's research aims to develop sustainable sources of energy and the University of Illinois' efforts to develop biofuel feedstocks. The three academic institutions formed a strategic partnership to submit to BP a proposal that was selected in February 2007 from among five international proposals. (Burress 2007)

As details of the final contract came to light, the public learned of how BP will gain profit-making technology and expertise by externalizing much of the cost of research and development. The benefits to BP include access to leading scientists and laboratories, first rights for patent negotiations, and the rubber stamp of academia and science on its new projects. The benefit for the university is purely financial, though at least one third of the money goes to BP's own private projects on campus. The benefit for the public is hard to find. Politicians, university officials, and pro-market pundits laud this public-private partnership, while those critical of the "prostitution" of the university, including experts on biofuels' social and environmental impacts, are marginalized. This is not surprising given the undemocratic nature of the process whereby the details of the deal were negotiated without any public input.

Private (Intellectual) Property

Jennifer Washburn, examining the corporate corruption of higher education, explains that the deal with BP will expand the control that private firms wield over university agendas (Washburn 2007). Indeed, as scientists Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin point out in their most recent book, Biology Under the Influence (2007), so-called public-private partnerships are on the rise, and funding, an important factor in guiding research, is increasingly determined by the needs of private industry with the backing of governments.

These "partnerships" are ideologically accepted and promoted, as were the earliest land enclosures and contemporary privatization schemes, as a natural and inevitable evolution of society's institutions.1 Debates concerning the cultural, political, and technological viability of market-based solutions to environmental and social problems are directly influenced by how science interacts with dominant ideology to mold and reinforce decisions that affect the world. The seemingly natural process of the degrading trends of capitalist development must be confronted.

No Free Lunch in Crop-Based Biofuels

Like the Aesopian rhetoric used under capitalism to promote war and imperialism in the name of democracy, the way in which the 10-year plan to "research" (aka promote) biofuels blatantly dismisses potential ecological damage is unsettling. There is no evidence that biofuels can actually satisfy the energy appetite of capitalism -- they have so far only helped to destroy both ecological and social relationships. This critique does not only come from those who suffer the immediate consequences of biofuels' advance, but also from ecologists within UC Berkeley's ivory walls. Dr. Miguel Altieri, agroecologist, explains:

By promoting large-scale mechanized monocultures which require agrochemical inputs and machinery, and as carbon-capturing forests are felled to make way for biofuel crops, CO2 emissions will increase not decrease. The only way to stop global warming is to promote small-scale organic agriculture and decrease the use of all fuels, which requires major reductions in consumption patterns and development of massive public transportation systems, areas that the University of California should be actively researching and that BP and the other biofuel partners will never invest one penny towards. (Altieri 2007) 2

The damages from biofuel production are growing. For instance, a recent UNEP/UNESCO report projects the loss of 98% of Indonesia's forests by 2022, due in large part to land cleared for plantations of palm trees to produce biofuel (Nellemann and Virtue 2007: 6). Indonesia is home to one of the largest rain forests in the world and a repository of a great deal of the world's biodiversity. Along with deforestation, habitat destruction, decreased biodiversity, and increased industrial mono-cropping and agricultural inputs (including fertilizer, herbicide, genetically modified seed, and water), we see the removal of sensitive lands from conservation programs and more water pollution.

So, BP-Berkeley project's claim of ecological concern raises many questions.3 Not least is BP's own track record of environmental destruction. And "alternative" fuel represents only the most publicly discussed venture of the new institute. Other research endeavors include: "the conversion of heavy hydrocarbons to clean fuels, improved recovery from existing oil and gas reservoirs and carbon sequestration" (Brenneman 2007). Given this research agenda, it is easy to see why environmentalists, farmers, and other critics around the world understand that the main thing "green" coming out of the EBI will be money.

Who Loses? Naked Ecological Imperialism and Biopiracy

While the U.S. military kicks in the front door of Baghdad and secures Middle Eastern and African oil fields, Western corporations sneak in the back doors of Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America to secure land and labor for biofuels. The U.S. is not alone in this endeavor, as much of Europe, Scandinavia, and Canada are also excited by the chance to put a green face on business as usual. The consequences of capitalism's business as usual are well known. Farmers are proletarianized in the global south by the wealthier and more technically savvy northerners. Genetically modified crops and the private patenting of the materials of life threaten the food and environmental security of millions in the name of technological "progress" and efficiency in agriculture. Nevertheless, cynical racist, sexist, and imperialist justifications for the consequences of biofuels production abound. You can hear them all from supporters of the BP-Berkeley deal.

The removal of indigenous people from rainforests cleared for palm oil (Indonesia) and sugar cane (Brazil) plantations is justified by the new "democratization" of fuel production. The soaring costs of basic food staples worldwide is justified by the need to provide women with energy resources since it is they who suffer most from the struggle to make ends meet without contemporary "clean" energy products. These seemingly "humanitarian" justifications are all coupled with ridiculous claims by some politicians that biofuels may end wars for oil -- as if the energy type, rather than the role of energy in capitalist society, causes the global race for resources.

These excuses for the recurrent pillaging of the developing world by the over-developed capitalist countries are nothing more than an update to liberal, imperial rhetoric. Though these obfuscations are now under the banner of "sustainable development," they are not unlike those used by supporters of the invasion of Afghanistan who wished to "liberate" Muslim women. However, victims of the "civilizing" and more recently, "democratizing," forces of capitalist imperialism have understood the bloody hypocrisy of the Dutch, the British, French, and now the U.S. In the case of biofuels, people worldwide have come together to protest the outrageous claims made on the human and ecological resources of the globe by the wealthiest countries that can't quit their addiction to liquid fuels, suburban sprawls, and capital accumulation at all costs.

Conclusion

The case of BP-Berkeley, biofuels and the new ecological imperialism display the "irrationality of a scientifically sophisticated world" (Levins and Lewontin 1985). The absurdity of expecting the cause of social and ecological degradation to solve it is just as confounding as the arguments supporting more liquid fuels and alternative autos over mass transit. It is crucial to question the science used to legitimate the pillaging of people and the planet and give honest evaluations of what it may take to move toward the common good.

Like other sectors of a class society, there are insurgent scientists who use their resources to expose and resist oppression. Still, due to the restricted and unequal access to educational and research facilities, most Western scientists are removed from the harshest of oppressions and often removed from the consequences of policies they support through research. It is not difficult to imagine that the urgency of reducing U.S. fuel demand may be different for the Ogoni in Nigeria or the Bidayuh in Borneo, both losing people and land to fuel (petrol and biodiesel), than for scientists at BP's new institute at Berkeley. Just as the larger society is increasingly dominated by the imperatives of an oppressive system of private property, "knowledge and ignorance are determined, as in all scientific research, by who owns the research industry, who commands the production of knowledge." Indeed, "there is class struggle in the debates around what kind of research ought to be done" (Lewontin and Levins 2007: 319).

We are facing increasingly unequal power relations, due to the development of weaponry and toxic industries that are both deadlier to humans and the environment than anything seen before in human society. To confront the organization of capitalists, scientists must join with others in society to refuse our labor to those in power while making it more difficult for collaborators with the current system to undermine our efforts. The insight of Lewontin and Levins (2007: 217) may provide our most effective guidance:

There isða growing conflict between the urgent need of our species for the integration and democratization of science, and the economics and sociology of commercialized knowledge that impedes such development. We might attempt merely to predict, detect, or tolerate the outcome of that conflict. Or we could join the struggle to affect what happens.

Bibliography

Altieri, Miguel A. and Eric Holt-Gimenez. 2007. "University of California's Biotech Benefactors." The Berkeley Daily Planet. Berkeley, CA. February 6.

Altieri, Miguel A. and Eric Holt-Gimenez. 2007. "Biofuel and the BP-UC Berkeley Research Deal: A 'Win-Win' Agenda?" California Progress Report. February 7.

Brenneman, Richard. 2007. "UC/BP Pact Worries Critics, Concerns of Land and Legacy." The Berkeley Daily Planet. Berkeley, California. November 23.

Burress, Charles. 2007. "UC Berkeley and BP Finally Sign Contract for Research Project." Checkbiotech Biofuels News. November 16.

Drummond, William. 2007. "Message from the Chair." Chair, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. November 16.

IEA-Bioenergy. September 2007. "Potential Contribution of Bioenergy to the World's Future Energy Demand." International Energy Agency.

International Energy Agency- Office of Energy Efficiency Technology and R&D. 2004. "Biofuels for Transport: An International Perspective." OECD.

Levins, Richard and Richard C. Lewontin. 1985. The Dialectical Biologist. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Lewontin, Richard C. and Richard Levins. 2007. Biology under the Influence: Dialectical Essays on Ecology, Agriculture, and Health. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Nellemann, C., Miles, L., Kaltenborn, B. P., and M. Virtue, and Ahlenius, H. (Eds). 2007. "The Last Stand of the Orangutan: State of Emergency: Illegal Logging, Fire and Palm Oil in Indonesia's National Parks." UNEP/UNESCO, GRID-Arendal, Norway.

Ollman, Bertell. 2003. Dance of the Dialectic: Steps in Marx's Method. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration. November 2006. "Transportation Research, Development and Technology Strategic Plan 2006-2010." U.S. Department of Transportation.

Sanders, Robert. 2007. "BP Selects UC Berkeley to Lead $500 Million Energy Research Consortium with Partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois." UC Berkeley Press Release. February 1.

United Nations Energy. April 2007. "Sustainable Bioenergy: A Framework for Decision Makers." United Nations.

Washburn, Jennifer. 2007. "Big Oil Buys Berkeley." Los Angeles Times. March 24.

World Resources Institute, Britt Childs and Rob Bradley. 2007. "Plants at the Pump: Biofuels, Climate Change and Sustainability." WRI in conjunction with Goldman Sachs Center for Environmental Markets, Washington, D.C.

York, Richard and Brett Clark. 2006. "Marxism, Positivism, and Scientific Sociology: Social Gravity and Historicity." The Sociological Quarterly 47:3:425-450.

Notes

1 Quote from the chair of the academic senate at Berkeley on the new deal with BP, in spite of the outcry of university faculty and students: "None of us saw in the EBI any threat to the public nature of the university. In fact, the traditional tripartite mission of land grant institutions-- teaching, research, and service --is being served by this project. The research program of EBI is directed toward solving one of the paramount current problems of society, that is what the third leg of our public mission-- service or applied research in general -- is all about. So, I see the EBI as enhancing our public mission. Cooperation with the private sector is increasingly a part of carrying out this mission, but we need to structure our relationships with the private sector in ways so as to preserve the integrity of the university." -- William Drummond, Chair, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate, (Drummond 2007)

2 Unfortunately, the Department of Transportation will not be focusing on mass transit either, but will be contributing a pretty sum to the development of biofuel use. (Research and Innovative Technology Administration November 2006)

3 Many supporters of this deal say we must invest in the future of so-called "second-generation" biofuels. However, even in "best-case" scenarios, these biofuels remain an anti-ecological, anti-social solution to our energy problems. A recent UN report finds,

The second generation of liquid biofuel production facilities will create a market for far greater amounts of agricultural biomass, and promises to create higher-value co-products (and thus greater wealth generation). However, it will also require development of more capital intensive, complex production facilities, giving a further edge to large companies. Already, large investments are signaling the emergence of a new "bio-economy" in the coming decades. (United Nations Energy April 2007: 24)

Echoing the many critics of biofuels, this report shows that even the most optimistic predictions regarding biofuels can't solve the problems of scale and increasing energy demand. See also "Biofuels for Transport: An International Perspective," "Plants at the Pump: Biofuels, Climate Change and Sustainability," and "Potential Contribution of Bioenergy to the World's Future Energy Demand."

About the authors

Rebecca Clausen and Hannah Holleman are doctoral students at the University of Oregon.

USA: Cloned meat may be safe, but will consumers eat it?

Reuters, 15 January 2008. By Bob Burgdorfer.

CHICAGO - While cloning of meat-producing animals was deemed safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday, it may be consumers who determine how widely it is used.

"The big issue is consumer acceptance. Even if USDA and FDA issue a statement, the final arbiter, whether it will be allowed in the market, is consumer acceptance," said Jacinto Fabiosa, co-director and livestock analyst at the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Center in Ames, Iowa.

Cloning has been around for years -- Dolly the cloned sheep was born in 1996 -- but the FDA's latest action now brings the technology close to the food supply.

"The consumer reaction and the effect on exports markets - is the primary concern," said Mark Boggess, director of animal science for the National Pork Board.

Consumers in the United States may be more accepting than those overseas. One example used was the opposition in Europe to crops that have been genetically modified (GMO) to protect against weeds or insects.

"I don't think is as likely to be as significant as the GMO stuff has been, but it is real hard to figure out where consumers' reactions are going," said John Urbanchuk, a food economist with the global consulting firm LECG.

Concerns of overseas consumers is an issue, because meat exports are important to the U.S. meat industry, with about 6 percent of U.S. beef exported and 16 percent of the pork.

"The only time it becomes really significant is if you get an interest group opposing it and I don't really see one emerging in the cloned area," said Urbanchuk.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest on Tuesday said just because technology says cloning is safe "doesn't mean that as a society there is reason to embrace it."

"I think there will be 1 percent of the people that will care and 99 percent won't care and the 1 percent will make a bunch of noise. But in the long run I don't think it will make a lot of difference," said Len Steiner, an owner of the food consulting firm Steiner Consulting Group.

Meat companies currently avoid cloned animals

Tyson Foods Inc, the largest U.S. meat company, said on Tuesday it "has no plans to purchase cloned livestock" and its futures actions will be guided by government regulations and by it customers and consumers.

Smithfield Foods Inc, the giant U.S. pork producer, also said will not be process cloned animals.

"The science involved in cloning animals is relatively new. As thoughtful leaders in our industry, we will continue to monitor further scientific research on this technology," Smithfield said in a statement.

USDA also wants to wait before serving cloned meat and milk, and has asked firms that produce clones to hold off bringing them into the food supply.

Widespread cloning is still years away

It is believed that it will be years before cloning will be widely used.

"Cloning at this time is not viable in commercial pork production, so we don't anticipate that cloning will be a big issue for us," said Jill Appell, president of National Pork Producers Council.

One reason is it is very expensive and there are other less expensive ways of producing livestock with similar traits. Also, cloning merely copies an animal it does not improve them, said Gregg Doud, chief economist at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

The meat industry is constantly seeking ways to improve animals that produce meat, which can be done via less expensive methods such as artificial insemination and embryo transfers, he said. (Additional reporting by Missy Ryan, Washington, and Jerry Bieszk, Chicago; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

France defends GMO crop ban, says temporary

Reuters, 15 January 2008. By Sybille de La Hamaide

PARIS - French ministers tried on Tuesday to calm tensions following the government's decision to ban cultivation of the sole genetically modified (GMO) crop grown in the country, stressing that the move was temporary.

Prime Minister Francois Fillon said at the end of last week that France would activate a "safeguard clause" in European law to suspend the commercial use of MON 810, a maize developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto.

The decision was welcomed by anti-GMO groups, but it drew fire from farmers, seed producers and scientists, some of whom helped pen a report underscoring doubts over the MON 810, which they said could contaminate other crops and hurt biodiversity.

The report triggered the government's decision on the ban.

An increasing number of members of parliament from the ruling centre-right UMP also criticised the government for basing its decision on a panel's controversial opinion.

But Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo told the National Assembly that the clampdown on MON 810 was a precaution that would only last until the release of an European re-evaluation of the crop in the coming months.

"It is a precaution measure that applies for a certain period lasting until the setting up of a European stance (on the MON 810)," Borloo said.

The Commission has approved the use of MON 810 around the 27-nation bloc but the pesticide must be re-evaluate in the framework of a renewal of its licence.

EU authorities will also have to say whether the France's safeguard clause is justified. When a country activates the safeguard procedure it has to provide the European Commission, with proof there is new scientific evidence justifying a ban.

Crucial

Borloo insisted that biotechnologies were crucial for France, especially for its farming sector.

"In terms of agriculture it is doubly crucial for us. We have trouble feeding six billion people, nine billion tomorrow, with less water resources, less arable land and probably less productive soil," Borloo said.

"It is crucial for France, which is the first agri-food producer in Europe, it is crucial for employment and it is crucial for our country's attractiveness," he said.

French Education Minister Valerie Pecresse stressed that France's ban only applied to MON 810, not all GMOs. Green lobbies and activist Jose Bove have protested the use of GMOs in general.

"Talking about GMOs in general makes no sense. Each genetically modified plant is a particular case which must be examined specifically," she told the assembly.

The MON 810 technology, which is also used by other seed makers, is designed to resist the European corn borer, a pest that attacks maize stalks and thrives in warmer climates.

Monsanto says the protein contained in its maize has selective toxicity but is harmless to humans, fish and wildlife. "There is nothing in common between a poplar grown to make biofuels, tobacco that may be used in an anti-cancer drug or maize for animal feed," she added.

She also called on researchers to keep on working on plant biotechnologies.

"If they renounce, if they leave the country, we will have turned our back on our future," she said. "It's out of the question."

(Editing by Michael Roddy)

USA: Food Fight - Clones are In, Consumers Won't Know

InjuryBoard.com, January 15 2008. Posted by Jane Akre.

In a major concession to the growing biotechnology industry, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has given the green light to the production of meat and milk from cloned cows, pigs and goats.

Interestingly the FDA says it does not have enough information to okay meat from sheep since Dolly, a sheep, was the first cloned animal in 1997.

The agency concluded that meat and milk from cloned animals is as safe to eat as traditionally bred animals therefore consumers won't need labels to help them distinguish what they are eating.

"The data show that healthy adult clones are virtually indistinguishable" from their counterparts, concludes FDA's 900-plus page safety report.

The decision clears the way to bring products to market which could mean a windfall for biotech companies Trans Ova Genetics and ViaGen Inc. which have produced 600 cloned cows.

"We certainly are pleased," Trans Ova President David Faber, told CBS News. He noted that previous reports by the National Academy of Sciences and others have reached the same conclusion.

Not exactly.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has actually not confirmed the safety of genetically engineered or cloned animals. A 2002 NAS report said the altered animals might pose an irreversible environmental risk that the regulatory structure is not equipped to handle.

Observations among cloned animals show numerous problems in a 2002 NAS report including large babies that often die from complications at birth or kill the mother because of their size, placental, lung, kidney and cardiovascular problems, brain, liver, joint and immune dysfunction.

It could be a number of years before meat and milk from cloned animals makes it to your store shelves, meantime a voluntary moratorium is being requested by the government.

USDA Undersecretary Bruce Knight says this will allow the marketplace to adjust, while consumers come to accept the notion of consuming meat and milk from cloned animals and a lack of labels to make a choice.

And if recent history is any indication, cloned meat and milk will not be an easy one to swallow.

The FDA has suffered a tarnished reputation for its approval of a long line of a questionable products. Overseas, Europe has shunned products of American agribusiness and technology such as hormones used in U.S. meat production, genetically engineered soy and corn and the dairy hormone rBGH.

The hurdle American consumers pose could be insurmountable.

For Monsanto, maker of synthetic bovine growth hormone, sales have declined dramatically as dairy coops in California and Florida along with major grocery chains, Public, Safeway and Kroger, are refusing to buy milk from hormone treated cows, at least in part because of consumer concerns.

Then there is the labeling issue - A survey commissioned by the USDA finds that 89 percent of the American public feel their food should be labeled for genetically engineered ingredients. Consumer advocates don't see the issue of cloned food as being any different.

"People are already concerned about animal products but when they realize they're eating cloned animals they're going to go vegetarian," Craig Winter of The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods tells IB News.

In response to consumer anxiety, the FDA says cloning is not the same as genetic engineering which involves altering, adding, or deleting DNA. Cloning is a genetic copy of a donor animal similar to an identical twin, according to the FDA.

But Dean Foods and Hormel Foods have no desire to fight consumer anxiety and no plans to begin producing meat and milk using cloned animals.

"Retailers like McDonalds might find themselves the target of consumer protests if they buy cloned meat from Smithfield," Jaydee Hanson tells IB News. He's a policy analyst at The Center for Food Safety, a Washington D.C. based food safety group.

Hanson says the FDA issued its risk assessment in December that outlined the industry sponsored studies it relied on to make the decision.

"They've done really a poor draft assessment. When you look at it there are no peer reviewed studies on the meat or milk from cloned cows, pigs or goats. Three veterinary scientists looked at data collected, but the problem is two of the three have worked for companies that have patents relating to animal cloning," Hanson tells IB News.

How does cloning work? ViaGen takes the place of the farmer breeder who sends a cow hide to ViaGen which extracts the nucleus from one of the cells. They then insert the nucleus into a cow egg where the yoke has been removed, and fuse it in with the help of chemicals or electricity. ViaGen then implants the egg into one of its cows with the help of hormones and antibiotics so the egg is not rejected.

Most are rejected. Many mothers die. That's one of the reasons one cow costs $10,000 to $20,000.

The FDA says these clones will be "used as elite breeding animals to introduce desirable traits into herds more rapidly than would be possible using conventional breeding."

In other words, Flossie and Bossie that come from a cloned mother will be reproduced by normal breeding.

The Center for Food Safety has filed a petition for the FDA to regulate cloned animals as it would an animal drug.

A Senate version of the proposed farm bill contains an amendment from Senator Barbara Mikulski (D- Md.) that mandates the FDA wait for the results of more studies before releasing a final approval on the safety of cloned foods.

"The FDA has acted recklessly," said Sen. Mikulski who sponsored that legislation.

"Just because something was created in a lab, doesn't mean we should have to eat it. If we discover a problem with cloned food after it is in our food supply and it's not labeled, the FDA won't be able to recall it like they did Vioxx - the food will already be tainted" the Senator told CBS News.

"Once the FDA says these products are safe and that they are out there, it's very hard to turn it back," says Joe Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety.

"There simply has not been enough study," he says.

Even though it might take another decade before cloned meat and milk are marketed, the last phase of a clinical trial will likely be conducted on a consumer's dinner plate.

UK: Soil Association first organisation in the world to ban nanoparticles - potentially toxic beauty products that get right under your skin

Soil Association press release, 15 January 2008.

As of January 2008, the Soil Association has banned the use of man-made nanomaterials from all Soil Association certified organic products. [1] This applies particularly to health and beauty products, but also to food and textiles. Ahead of the Government [2], we are the first organisation in the world to take action against this hazardous, potentially toxic technology that poses a serious new threat to human health.

Whilst the Soil Association recognises there may be benefits from nanotechnology - it has the potential to radically, and positively, transform many sectors of industry including medicine (e.g. delivering drugs that permeate the body more effectively and target specific cells) and for renewable energy such as fuel and solar power. Yet, of the $9 billion per year being invested globally in nanotechnology, much is going to the development of cosmetics and health products. Many well-known companies such as L'Oreal, Unilever, Boots and Lancome are already developing and introducing these super fine particles into their products and none of these products are required to have labelling to warn consumers. [3]

Yet there is little scientific understanding about how these substances affect living organisms, indeed initial studies show negative effects. Three years ago, scientists advised the Government that the release of nanoparticles should be "avoided as far as possible". Though the Government acknowledged the risks, no action has been taken to impose controls. Following the precautionary approach, in line with organic principles, the Soil Association Standard's Board has banned manufactured nanoparticles as ingredients under our organic standards. We are the first organisation in the world to take regulatory action against the use of nanoparticles to safeguard the public. This initiative goes to the core of the organic movement's values of protecting human health.

Gundula Azeez, Soil Association policy manager, said:

"The Soil Association is the first organisation in the world to ban nanoparticles. There should be no place for nanoparticles in health and beauty products or food. We are deeply concerned at the governmentÇs failure to follow scientific advice and regulate products. There should be an immediate freeze on the commercial release of nanomaterials until there is a sound body of scientific research into all the health impacts. As we saw with GM, the government is ignoring the initial indications of risk and giving the benefit of the doubt to commercial interest rather than the protection of human health." [4]

Professor Vyvyan Howard, nanotechnology researcher at University of Ulster, said:
"The term nanotechnology covers a vast range of applications. Many are not threatening at all, such as nano-structured surfaces for self cleaning glass. But in the areas of health and beauty and food more research must be done. There is considerable evidence that nanoparticles are toxic and potentially hazardous."

Ends

For more information please contact:

Soil Association press office: 0117 914 2448 / press@soilassociation.org
Gundula Azeez, Soil Association policy manager: 0117 987 4560 / 07835 260 134
Professor Vyvyan C Howard, nanotech researcher at the University of Ulster: 0151 794 7833
Jim Thomas, nanotech policy researcher at ETC, an international technology watchdog: 07876 122 266 / jim@etcgroup.org

Notes to editors:

[1] This new standard bans man-made nanomaterials whose basic particle size is less than 125nm and whose mean particle size is less than 200nm.

Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology is concerned with the manipulation of matter on the atomic and molecular scale to produce new materials. A nanometre (nm) is a millionth of a millimetre (one 80,000th of the width of a human hair) and a nanoparticle is generally defined as particles of chemicals that are within the range 0.2-100nm.

Nanotechnology can be applied to electronics, food, agriculture, medicines, cosmetics, textiles, energy generation and packaging as well as many other things. Examples of nanotechnology in commercial use include electrical circuits, transparent sun creams, targeted drug delivery, stain resistant clothing and self cleaning glass.

When the particle size of a chemical is so tiny, its properties change and chemicals exhibit novel 'quantum' effects, presenting possible new dangers such as unidentified toxicity or changed electrical properties. The tiny size also means that nanoparticles have abnormally high levels of solubility and mobility and can pass through the body's membranes - such as the membranes of our skin, lungs, intestines, the blood/brain barrier and the placenta. The fact that nanoparticles can reach all parts of our body means they may accumulate or override the normal control systems that manage our complex biochemistry, with unidentified health effects.

The Soil Association's concerns are related to man-made nanoparticles; we are not objecting to natural nanoparticles such as soot produced by volcanoes (life has evolved with these). It is also important to distinguish between natural processes that occur on the nano-scale (i.e. they involve the interaction of molecules), such as cell division, and artificial ones that are used to produce new materials.

[2] The Government's response so far?

In an attempt to avoid the controversies that arose around GM, the UK Government commissioned a report by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. The 2004 report 'Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties' was widely welcomed and addressed the most important regulatory needs to protect the public. It recommended that the release of nanoparticles should be "avoided as far as possible", labelling of consumer products, and that research be conducted into the toxicity and bio-accumulation of nanoparticles and nanotubes. See: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/report/chapter10.pdf

In February 2005, the UK government responded to the report, agreeing with its conclusions. It said: "As a precautionary measure... releases to the environment should be minimised until the possible risks... are better understood." It also said "The government accepts that chemicals in the form of nanoparticles or nanotubes can exhibit different properties... Safety testing on the basis of a larger form of a chemical cannot be used to infer the safety of the nanoparticulate form... Ingredients in the form of manufactured free nanoparticles should undergo a thorough safety assessment... before they are used in consumer products. The government believes in the consumer being able to make informed choices." See: http://www.ost.gov.uk/policy/issues/nanotech_final.pdf

However, three years later, no regulations have been adopted. A voluntary industry labelling scheme is being developed - the Soil Association is on the working group - but some of the major companies that are developing consumer products with nanomaterials are believed to be reluctant to support labelling proposals (such as L'Oreal).

[3] Nanomaterials: Undersized, unregulated and already here, Corporate Watch (2007) http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=2147

Consumers unaware of nano-revolution, Which? press release (20 Dec 2007) http://www.which.co.uk/press/press_topics/campaign_news/other_issues/nantechnology_201207_571_128032.jsp

Nanomaterials are also being used in: L'Oreal 'Plenitude Revitalift' anti-wrinkle cream, Lancome's Renergie Lift, Almay's Clear Complexion Concealer, various Neutrogena cosmetics by Johnson and Johnson, Olay's All Day Complete Care cream with UV protection and Revlon's ColourStay range.

Nanotechnology is widely used in sunscreens, including the popular Boots Soltan range. Titanium dioxide is used as a white pigment in a range of products such as paint and food colouring. It is also used in sunscreens for its ability to scatter UV light, where it is seen as a 'non-toxic mineral' alternative to chemically acting sun creams. However, research has shown that nano-sized titanium dioxide - which makes the sunscreen transparent and therefore more marketable - "might be toxic to various types of cell", can enter the brain and may trigger cell death.

Additionally, US Government research has found that nano-size titanium dioxide particles cause 'oxidative stress' in the brain cells of mice which may promote neuro-degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's (Nature, 16 June 2006). A European scientific committee considered the safety of using particle coatings for titanium dioxide, in collaboration with the industry, and afterwards pronounced the commercial use of all types of titanium dioxide safe. However, the committee did not consider the safety of exposure to nano-sized particles and serious concerns remain.

[4] Is nanotechnology like GM?

There are many parallels with GM in the way nanotechnology is developing. As with GM:

Commercial opportunities have run ahead of scientific understanding and regulatory control. The risks of nanotechnology are still largely unknown, untested and unpredictable.

The industry is trying to win over Government backing with compelling claims about the benefits of the technology and win over consumers by promoting individual products, whilst neglecting the fundamental issues of safety.

Initial studies show some negative effects and there is a list of potential health impacts that have yet to be investigated by scientists.

Regulators have not reacted to the scientific evidence of health effects for products that are already commercialised (titanium dioxide nanoparticles), instead accepting industry reassurances and unpublished industry evidence.

The standard of proof is being set very high for any concerns, but low for reasons to dismiss concerns and without the context of a body of established scientific knowledge to judge conflicting arguments.

Concerns are being downplayed on the basis of absence of any consensus over health problems and with arguments that some nanoparticles occur in nature or have been produced by industry for some time (true, but not on the scale and with the chemical range being developed now; anyway health concerns exist for some of these such as air pollution).

What is worse than GM is that there is no official assessment process or labelling of the products, and nano-substances are being rapidly introduced to the market. This is a very bad starting point for the responsible introduction of a powerful new technology.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF NANOMATERIAL

Nanoparticles

Small particles of chemicals where at least one dimension is less than 100 nm. Nanoparticles can be made from a wide range of materials. These include single elements such as iron, silver and carbon; simple molecules such as titanium dioxide and zinc oxide (both used in sun creams); through to complex molecules such as pharmaceuticals. A number of different methods are used to make nanoparticles, including high temperature processes, chemical reactions and attrition (milling or grinding).

Nanocapsules

L'Oreal, Johnson & Johnson and Estee Lauder use nanocapsules in some of their products to deliver active ingredients deeper into the skin. They are also called ånanosomesÇ or nanoscale liposomes. Nanocapsules are small droplets of liquid, often slightly bigger than nanoscale, enclosed in a nano-thick shell. They are essentially a delivery mechanism designed to get an active ingredient to a specific location, releasing their contents only under certain conditions. Currently they are used in cosmetics to deliver active chemicals deeper into the skin and some nutrient supplements for enhanced absorption.

They are also being developed for use in some foods (such as a low fat mayonnaise where the suspended oil droplets are only made of a thin shell of oil, rather then entire droplets of oil) and pharmaceuticals.

Nanoemulsions

These are suspensions of nanosized droplets of one liquid (such as an oil) in another liquid (such as water). They have an extremely high surface tension, and when in contact with single celled organisms such as bacteria or fungal spores, they rupture the cells, killing the organisms. They are toxic to microbes at levels that are not irritating to the skin. While this may have a use in medicine, future uses may include consumer products such as detergents and shampoos. The Soil Association's concern is that environmental sterility in domestic situations - such as a depleted bacterial population on the skin or on household surfaces - is not a healthy objective. There is scientific evidence that exposure to normal levels of benign environmental bacteria is important, particularly for children, for the development of a healthy immune system and to avoid the development of allergies and other immune disorders that are of increasing prevalence due to excessive hygiene in many modern households. (New Scientist, 16 April 2005)

Carbon 'bucky balls'

These are molecules composed of 60 atoms of carbon, arranged into a football-shaped hollow sphere. The full technical name is Buckminster fullerene molecules. They are already being used in some very expensive face creams. For example, the London-based company Zelens uses buckyballs in their day and night cream. It claims that they scavenge 'free radicals' and thus protect against aging. But there are disputed reports of toxic effects. ("Nanocosmetics: Buyer Beware. Is that expensive jar of skin cream on my dresser safe to use?", Technology Review, March/April 2007).

Nanotubes

'Nanotubes' are tubular structures commonly made of carbon. They are 1 to 2 nm in diameter. At their simplest, nanotubes are a single layer of carbon atoms arranged in a cylinder (single-wall carbon nanotubes). Carbon nanotubes have a number of interesting properties. They are very strong (100 times stronger than steel), very light (one sixth the weight of steel) and they have unique electrical properties (10 times more conductive than copper). A wide range of applications are being developed including additives to plastics and other composites (to increase strength and conductivity), flat panel displays and energy storage (batteries and fuel cells).

Useful references:

•

UK Government: 'Response To The Royal Society And Royal Academy of Engineering Report: åNanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties', Feb 2005. http://www.ost.gov.uk/policy/issues/introduction.htm

•

Insurance Industry, Nanotechnology: Small matter, many unknowns, Swiss Re, 2004. http://www.swissre.com

•

European Parliament: 'Nanotechnology and Regulation within the framework of the Precautionary Principle. Final Report for ITRE Committee of the European Parliament'. Haum, Petschow, Steinfeldt, Institut für Ökologische Wirstschaftforschung (IÖW) gGmbH, Berlin, 11 Feb 2004.

•

European Commission : 'Nanotechnologies: A Preliminary Risk Analysis on the Basis of a Workshop Organized in Brussels on 1-2 March 2004 by the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General of the European Commission', May 2004. http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_risk/events_risk_en.htm

•

Scientific Review: Nanoparticles - known and unknown health risks Peter HM Hoet, Irene Br¸ske-Hohlfeld, Oleg V Salata Journal of Nanobiotechnology 2004, 2:12, 8 Dec 2004.

•

Civil Society Groups:'Size Matters: the Case for a Global Moratorium', April 2003. Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group):. http://www.etcgroup.org

For further comment and information contact the Soil Association media office T: 0117 914 2448 E: press@soilassociation.org ISDN: 0117 9446711 Soil Association Campaigning for organic food and farming and sustainable forestry South Plaza, Marlborough Street, Bristol BS1 3NX T: 0117 314 5000 F: 0117 314 5001

GMO Disputes Could Escalate
EU lags on biotech dispute changes

Farm Futures, 15 January 2008.

The European Union missed a Jan. 11 midnight deadline of complying with a World Trade Organization panel ruling in the challenge brought by the United States against the European Union over its agricultural biotech policies. U.S. Trade Representative spokeswoman Gretchen Hamel said USTR's goal "is to normalize trade in biotech products, not to impose trade sanctions on EU goods." However, after four and a half years of trade disputing, the "patience of U.S. stakeholders is close to exhaustion," she added.

During the coming months, the United States will periodically evaluate EU progress toward normalizing trade against a set of benchmarks and timelines, a statement from USTR said. To a large extent, these performance measures are set out in the EU's own laws.ÝIf the United States decides to pursue WTO proceedings on the EU's compliance, the United States would file a formal consultation request with the EU, followed by a request for the establishment of a WTO compliance panel.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, added the failure to approve these products is based on politics, not science. "Unfortunately, the situation appears to be going from bad to worse," he said in response to Friday's move by France to ban a biotech corn variety already cultivated in the European Union. Previously a WTO panel found that a similar ban imposed by Austria was violated WTO rules and USTR expects the European Commission to lift this ban as well.

EU: French Government's ban on strain of GM corn is important step in right direction
EU Commission must now stand up to bullying from multinationals

European Greens press release, 15 January 2008.

The Spokespersons of the European Green Party today welcomed the decision by the French government to continue to ban a strain of genetically modified corn, the only GM crop grown in France, and expressed the hope that this decision will bring us closer to removing GM crops from the EU .

EGP Co-Spokesperson Philippe Lamberts said: "The decision by the French government to invoke the EU safeguard clause to ban the Monsanto 810 strain of GM corn is an important victory for the French Greens (Les Verts) and other activists in France who have been campaigning against the introduction of GM crops because of the serious dangers to human health and the environment which these crops represent. However, we must point out that this decision should have been taken much earlier. Nevertheless, we call on other EU governments to follow the example of the French government and the other 6 EU member states which have also used the safeguard clause. "

EGP Co-Spokesperson Ulrike Lunacek continued: "We hope that those member states that have shown that they recognise that GM crops are inherently unsafe will work together so that a majority of EU member states can be persuaded to support a EU-wide ban on the import, cultivation and processing of GM crops. In the meantime, it is vitally important that the EU does not bow to the pressure and bullying of the World Trade Organisation which is trying to force the EU to end restrictions on imports of genetically modified foods. My own country, Austria, has imposed a total ban on the cultivation of GM organisms and we European Greens argue that the Commission, rather than forcing Austria to remove this ban, must take a tough stance and withhold approval for the planting of other strains of GM corn. Public opinion polls consistently show that most Europeans oppose the presence of GM organisms, both in the food chain and in the environment. It is now up to the Commission and the EU member states to defend the interests of European consumers against multinational agrochemical companies who are only interested in increasing their own profits, regardless of the serious threats their products pose to public health and the environment."

Contact

Graham Burgess
Communications Officer
European Green Party
Tel: +32 2 626 0724
Mobile: +32 477 902 023
email: graham.burgess@europeangreens.org
http://www.europeangreens.org

UK: Arpad Pusztai: Biological divide
The scientist at the centre of a storm over GM foods 10 years ago tells James Randerson he is unrepentant

The Guardian, January 15 2008

A podcast of this interview can be heard at http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/01/science_weekly_for_january_14.html

Contrary to the belief of some in the scientific community, Dr Arpad Pusztai does not have horns or a malevolent cackle. Nor does he inhabit an imposing gothic mansion bought with the proceeds of guest appearances as an eco-hero. In fact, he lives in a modest semi in Aberdeen.

This elderly man is one of the most divisive figures in biology. Many blame him for tilting the balance in the PR battle over GM food towards public rejection. His research on GM potatoes - which came explosively into the public spotlight in a World in Action programme in August 1998 - has been dismissed as poorly done, muddled and even fabricated. Yet to anti-GM campaigners he is a hero - the scientist who stood up to the establishment and, as a result, had his career squashed at the behest of shadowy forces in the GM industry and the government.

"I think it did a lot of damage because ... the vast majority of people were somewhat neutral at the time," said Professor Chris Leaver, a plant scientist and strong supporter of GM at Oxford University. "I think the NGOs ... decided that they would make a play using him. I think he got hijacked and then he got out of his depth."

The affair finished off Pusztai's research career (although at the time he was already 69) and affected his health. His supporters were appalled by his treatment at the hands of the publicly funded Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, which he had served with distinction for most of his career. He was regarded as a world expert on plant lectins - defensive proteins that kill insects and other invaders - with over 300 scientific papers, including two in the prestigious journal Nature.

"I would have characterised [his treatment] as disgraceful. I don't see how any reputable scientist ... could be treated in this way," said Dr Stanley Ewen, a pathologist who was then at the University of Aberdeen and who worked with Pusztai.

Having said of GM food in 1998: "If I had the choice I would certainly not eat it", and that "I find it's very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs", it's easy to imagine Pusztai was ideologically opposed to GM. But this is far from the truth, he tells me. "I'm strictly science-based ... It is not an ideology for me." Still, he confesses that his opposition to the technology has hardened over the years, and he still won't eat it. "Even now, I am not a campaigner. I have never belonged to any organisation campaigning for or against it."

He felt he had a duty to speak out, "just to inject some caution into this business", he says. "Make no mistake, this is an irreversible technology. It is no good 50 years later to say: 'We should have known.'"

Concerns aired

Pusztai clearly wanted his concerns to be aired publicly, but he does not come across as a man who relished or courted publicity. He was very happy, for example, that the institute's director, Philip James, shielded him from interview requests. "I was quite happy with this ... I am an academic scientist. I've never been exposed to this," he says, "I'm really not a very media person."

Pusztai says James, on the other hand, was anxious to exploit the media attention. "The director kept running around like a blue-arsed fly. This was a tremendous public relations business for him."

James even put in a complimentary phone call to Pusztai that August evening. "I telephoned Pusztai immediately after the broadcast to congratulate him on the modest way in which he had presented the evidence on the programme," says James, although he denies relishing the publicity. He says he had grave doubts about the interview going ahead in the first place.

By this stage, Pusztai was feeling extremely uncomfortable about what he was hearing on news bulletins about his own research. "I heard things that really disturbed me," he says. "My head was buzzing ... the whole thing was getting totally out of hand."

The results that Pusztai had hinted at in his interview were a comparison of rats fed ordinary potatoes and potatoes that had been genetically modified with a lectin from snowdrops. The rats on the GM diet grew less well and had immune problems even though the lectin itself caused no adverse effects at high concentrations. His conclusion was that the GM process had somehow made the potatoes less nutritious. The GM potatoes were not a commercial variety and were never intended for human consumption, but the lectin modification - which made them poisonous to insects - was an experimental model for other GM varieties.

But newspaper stories generated confusion over the nature of the genetic modification. These articles refer to potatoes modified with a lectin gene from jackbean that is poisonous to mammals. But no one can agree on where this came from. The misinformation was formalised in a press release issued by the Rowett. James says Pusztai approved it. Pusztai says he was not aware of it until it was published. Either way, the jackbean experiments that never were have proved extremely damaging to Pusztai. Even now, GM scientists dismiss Pusztai's work on the grounds of a supposed schoolboy error: of course the rats suffered, they say, they were being fed potatoes that were genetically modified to produce a poison.

The day after the World in Action programme, Pusztai's boss changed his mood from congratulation to condemnation. "My change in attitude was dramatic because I discovered that Pusztai ... had never conducted the studies which he had claimed," says James, an accusation that Pusztai strongly denies. He says he never claimed to have done the jackbean experiments. "He just simply wanted to put a real cap on it," says Pusztai. "The simplest way to do it was to suspend all research activities into this business." Pusztai's supporters claim that James came under pressure from Downing Street to put a lid on the affair.

Suspended and silenced

James suspended Pusztai and used misconduct procedures to seize his data. Pusztai's rolling annual contract was not renewed and he was banned from speaking publicly. Pusztai says he wanted to publish his results but was concerned that James would veto any approach to an academic journal.

In 1998, if James had hoped that gagging Pusztai would make the affair go away he was wrong. Continued media speculation was doing considerable damage to public confidence in GM food and this prompted the Royal Society - the UK's premier scientific academy - to enter the fray.

Although none of Pusztai's results had yet been published, it set about reviewing the information that did exist - an internal report written by Pusztai, an audit of the data produced by the Rowett, and an independent statistical analysis carried out by Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland. The data was sent to six anonymous reviewers. The subsequent report savaged Pusztai's results, but he remains defiant.

The Royal Society putdown was predictable. The reviewers had placed a hotchpotch of lab reports and statistical analyses that were never intended for publication under intense scrutiny. "There was practically nothing in it but numbers," says Pusztai. He and Ewen point out that peer reviewers had praised the methodological details of the experiment when their application for a £1.6m research grant from the Scottish Office was given the go-ahead.

Some of the disputed data did eventually see the light of day in October 1999, when Ewen and Puztai published a paper in the prestigious medical journal the Lancet. Because of its controversial nature, the data paper was seen by six reviewers - three times the usual number. Five gave it the green light. The paper - which used data held by Ewen and so was not subject to veto by James - showed that rats fed on potatoes genetically modified with the snowdrop lectin had unusual changes to their gut tissue compared with rats fed on normal potatoes. It has been criticised on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not a fair control diet.

I put it to Pusztai that he is demanding a level of testing for GM food that is not applied to conventional plant breeding. Radiation and mutation-causing chemicals, for example, are standard techniques used to create new varieties, and both can create unexpected genetic changes. He bats this away. "Two negatives don't make a positive," he responds. "It doesn't mean that I agree with those techniques."

The difference with GM, he says, is that there is a political agenda at work. "Ninety-five per cent of GM is coming from America, so naturally it is in their interests to push it," he says, "I have no ideological grounds against Monsanto [the biotechnology company]. For me it's a scientific argument. They have not done a proper job [of testing], and they are just using their political and economic muscle to foist it on us."

Does he regret speaking publicly about his research prior to publication - generally regarded as a cardinal sin by scientists? "No," he says. "I was publicly funded and I thought the public had a right to know." He also rejects the notion that he would have achieved more by waiting until the science was in print. Since he went public, he estimates he has given between 150 and 200 lectures around the world. And in 2005 he was honoured with a whistleblower award from the Federation of German Scientists.

"Even our best scientific publications - I don't think they are read by more than 50 people," he says. "This had impact ... to my damage, but it had impact."

Curriculum vitae

Born: 1930, Hungary

Job: Most recently research on plant lectins at Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen

Before that: Postdoctoral work at Lister Institute of Preventative Medicine in London

Likes: Mozart, spicy Hungarian food, wine, British comedy

Dislikes: Mobile phones ('an intrusion into one's private life')

Married to Dr Susan Bardocz, two daughters (a lawyer and a medical psychiatrist)

Australia: Farmers call for research levies to be voluntary

Network of Concerned Farmers press release, 15 January 2008.

In reaction to the announcement today that Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) has doubled its compulsory levy due to the increase of grain prices, the Network of Concerned Farmers are calling for levies to be voluntary. NCF claim that no other farmers in the world pay as much as Australian farmers towards research and development and Australian farmers should not be forced to take over government R&D funding.

"Why should farmers be forced to pay a R&D levy if we do not own the intellectual property we pay for?" asked Julie Newman, National Spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers. "Australian farmers pay for pre-breeding, plus the seed plus a cut when we deliver any grain produced from the seed. With GM crops, farmers will also pay a "user fee" for using a patented product or growing its progeny."

"The farmer/research alliance should be symbiotic, not parasitic. The drive behind GM crops is simply to encourage investment to the R&D sector at the expense of farmers."

Currently farmers are required to pay 1% levy on the value of all grain produced before any costs are deducted. In the past, money has been allocated to breeding institutes to develop and release new varieties. The Senate estimates revealed that GRDC levies are now being allocated to pre-breeding, a section of R&D traditionally paid by the Federal Government through Universities. Investors have been encouraged to invest in the development and commercialisation stages, but in order for investors to profit, costs have increased to farmers.

"Farmers are being forced to take over government R&D funding and give it to the investors encouraged to other sections of R&D so that they can make a bigger profit from farmers. Its not acceptable." said Mrs Newman.

"R&D has turned from a "public good" service to a profit-making entity. To top it off, the paperwork given to government explains that our levy contributions are "government contributions" which indicates that we are paying our own subsidies as R&D is included as a farmer subsidy. In one case, our funding led to a research alliance with a Canadian inoculant company to produce inoculant more suitable for opposition international farmers and while originally vehemently denied, was announced after media was involved."

The approval for set levy amounts is given by Grains Council of Australia who's member farm lobby groups receive significant funding from GRDC to fund their conferences. The final approval is given by the Federal government who are withdrawing from funding plant breeding.

"Some drought stricken farmers found their GRDC levies were more than their net income and this is difficult to take when farmers see GRDC money being wasted on conferences where thousands of researchers are paid to fly around the countryside staying in top hotels to listen to each other speak. Our funding is even passed on to the GM industry through Agrifood Awareness to pay for promoting GM which would promote corporate investment."

"Farmers must own the intellectual property we pay for and farmers must be given the choice to either support GRDC or not as they are clearly not working in the best interest of farmers."

Media contact: Julie Newman 08 98711562 or 08 98711644

14 January 2008

Ireland: 'GM food is as scientifically safe as non-GM food'

Irish Medical News, 14 January 2008.

Letter to the Editor

Just as it is wrong to be indifferent to food safety so it is equally wrong to exaggerate food safety fears.

If Dr Elizabeth Cullen (IMN, 15/10/07) feels she has new information on GM food safety then she should submit it to the requisite food safety authorities; for example the European Food Standards Agency, the equivalent in the UK, or the FDA in the US and many other specialist government committees.

These agencies and committees are composed of epidemiologists and toxicologists with many decades of experience and qualifications that neither Dr Cullen or indeed myself possess. However, I think she will find that the information that claims problems with GM food has already been rejected by these expert assessors with very good reason.

In a complex world I am content to leave that judgement in the hands of those whose experience qualifies them to make the decisions based on the best available knowledge and I suggest that Dr Cullen with due humility should do the same. About five years ago I deposited a list of about 150 papers that dealt with feeding experiments and chemical analysis of GM foods with the Royal Society of Edinburgh. The list is now very much longer but unfortunately I find that those who object to the valuable use of GM technology in agriculture have little interest in reading any of them.

The detailed chemistry of food is well understood as is the function of most constituents. It is not sufficient to make blanket claims that a food might be unsafe without specifying in which constituents it is altered that would provide for problems.

Some people object to GM food either because they don't trust large seed companies or because they think scientists shouldn't fiddle with the supposed genetical fundamentals of life. But human interference in the genetic structure of crops started over 10,000 years ago when natural mutations (natural genetic engineering) of wheat were selected to provide for better food supplies; without that interference the present world population could not be sustained

Dr Cullen should appreciate that the scientific consensus of expert agencies is that GM food is as safe as its non-GM counterpart. Regulation does not equate to danger.

Prof Anthony Trewavas
Institute of Molecular Plant Science
Mayfield Road, Edinburgh, Scotland

Comment from GM-free Ireland

Prof Trewavas is out of touch with reality. He doesn't even know the correct name of the EU body that is responsible for evaluating the health risks of GM food. It is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), not the European Food Standards Agency. According to Trewavas, opponents of GM food and farming are interested solely "in destroying US agribusiness". Trewavas is himself a GM crop researcher. He also serves on the Governing Council of the John Innes Centre, which has been mired in controversy over its pro-GM propagandising.

The arrogant tone of his critique of Dr. Cullen does nothing to help his arguments in favour of GM food.

All three of the regulatory bodies he mentions – EFSA, the UK Food Standards Agency, and the US Food and Drug Administration – can not be trusted because of (a) conflicts of interest in the make-up of their members and (b) their failure to excercise due scientific diligence in approving GM food and animal feed.

The US FDA requires NO safety evaluations or labels for GM feed or GM food, after taking the unprecedented step – which some experts contend was illegal – of declaring that GM food and feed are "generally recognised as safe" (GRAS) as long as their producers say they are (which they do)! This policy was put in place by the FDA's Deputy Commissioner for Policy, former Monsanto lawyer Michael Taylor, who then became Monsanto's vice-president!

Here in Europe, the integrity of the EFSA, the UK Food Standards Agency, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the Office of the Chief Scientific Officer of Ireland are compromised by similar conflicts of interest (see below). As a result, these regulatory bodies routinely provide approval of GM food and feed based largely on flawed risk assessments submitted to them by the applicant companies!

Mary Harney's Department of Health and Children has also failed to protect us from the health risks of GM food:

•

It failed to implement the Recommendation of the Interdepartmental Group on Modern Biotechnology (published by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in October 2000) which states: "We recommend that independent generic research (not limited to any particular product) be conducted in this country into all aspects of GMOs including human health and safety, animal feed and live crops, and the effects of GMOs on the environment, including wildlife and biodiversity, having regard to our distinctive climate and geological conditions".

•

It failed to implement Article 14 of European food safety legislation (EC/178/2002) calling for the assessment of the long term effects of GMOs and effects of subsequent generations.

There is abundant scientific evidence which links GM foods to death and disease in laboratory animals, livestock and humans. A good overview may be found in the book "Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of GM food" by Jeffrey M. Smith www.geneticroulette.com on sale at the Cultivate Centre in Dublin (tel 01 674 5773).

All generic claims that GM food and feed are safe must thus be considered as spurious as previous claims made for tobacco, asbestos, DDT, and feeding livestock with the remains of their own ancestors.

Consider the European Food Safety Authority, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, and the Office of the Chief Scientific Officer of Ireland:

European Food Safety Authority

EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said "the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) cannot deliver a sound scientific opinion on GMOs; they only examine short term effects and they do not take into account the opinions of member states; there is [also] the question of whether scientific opinions relied solely on information supplied by companies which produce GMOs." For details see:

•

The EFSA stakeholders challenge - working with civil society:
Published by Friends of the Earth Europe, EPHA, Euro Coop, EEB and Greenpeace: http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2005/EFSA_stakeholders_challenge.pdf

•

Throwing Caution to the Wind:
A review of the European Food Safety Authority and its work on genetically modified foods and crops.
Published by Friends of the Earth Europe, November 2004: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/publications/EFSAreport.pdf

Problems with EFSA:

•

Fails to conduct risk its own risk assessments of GM animal feed and food.

•

Routinely accepts assumption-based risk assessments provided by applicant companies.

•

Ignores views of independent scientists.

•

Ignores concerns of EU member states.

•

EFSA's GMO Panel disregards:

•

other scientists' concerns about the health risks of GM foods;

•

EC legislation dealing with such divergent scientific opinions;

•

statistically significant differences between GM foods and their non-GM counterparts, and its practice of agreeing with the industry that the results of such tests are not biologically relevant or treatment related;

•

EU requirements to identify the level of uncertainty in its assumptions, and its own failure to implement EC legal requirements to evaluate and consider the long-term effects of eating or growing GM foods.

•

EFSA continues to issue GM food safety claims based on secret information which is kept out of the public domain (and thus independent scientific scrutiny) because the data is classified as Confidential Business Information.

•

The European Commission routinely uses questionable EFSA opinions to push through new GM products when member states disagree over their safety.

These questions over EFSA came to a head on 29 October 2007 EU Environment Commissioner Dimas called for an EU-wide ban on two GM maize varieties previously approved by EFSA. At the EU Council of Ministers meeting the next day, the Italian Environment Minister called for a suspension of all EFSA approvals of GM food and feed until it complies with reforms. This call was supported by the Environment Ministers of Ireland and Cyprus. Since then over 100,000 citizens of EU member states have called on the Commission to support the EU wide ban on GM maize proposed by Dimas. The other Commissioners have yet to agree whether to support the Commissioner.

Food Safety Authority of Ireland:

FSAI is entrusted by Irish citizens with the responsibility of advising our Government on how best to safeguard public health and consumer interests from, inter alia, the health risks of GM foods, including meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients.

FSAI is also one of the Competent Authorities whose opinion is required for all Irish EC votes regarding the placing on the market of GM animal feed and food products in the EU.

FSAI is legally obliged "to form its opinions on scientific grounds and to develop GM food standards on the basis of the best, most up-to-date independent scientific advice available".

Unfortunately FSAI is run by a former biotech industry lobbyist and fails to deliver on all counts:

•

The CEO of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Dr. John O'Brien, is a (now former) member of a biotech industry lobby group, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) (http://wwww.ilsi.org) based in Washington, DC. He is also a former director of ILSI's European branch, based in Paris. He continued to sit on the board of both organisations long after his appointment to the FSAI, although his name no longer appears on the ILSI's list of boardmembers.

•

ILSI is funded by food, chemical and drug companies including biotech giants Monsanto, Bayer AG, Dow Chemical, DuPont, and Novartis (now Syngenta). It acts primarily on behalf of the global food manufacturing industry, but also includes operations involved with agriculture and genetic modification; pesticides and pharmaceuticals; confectionary; and tobacco.

•

ILSI's public agenda "is directed towards its concern for public health issues, such as human nutrition, questions of food ingredient and additive safety, the provision of clean water and air, research into foodrelated allergies, and general problems of chemical and environmental safety." But ILSI has often thwarted attempts to regulate or reduce public exposure to many dangerous or environmentally-damaging substances. Its private interests are focussed on the financial benefits of its major backers, the larger food companies and their trade associations.

•

ILSI was banned from participating in many activities of the World Health Organisation (and related UN Agencies) as a result of this imbalance:

"WHO 'infiltrated by food industry"
The Guardian, 9 January 2003:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,871228,00.html

The World Health Organisation executive board ruled in January 2006 that ILSI "can no longer take part in WHO activities setting microbiological or chemical standards for food and water, following formal complaints from the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Working Group, United Steelworkers of America and a coalition of other groups. The WTO ruling demoted ILSI's status from participating NGO down to that of a mere observer at WHO meetings.

•

FSAI has totally failed to conduct its own scientific risk assessments on GM feed and food. Instead, it routinely accepts as valid those risk assessments provided to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) by the applicant companies. Typically these risk assessments are scientifically dodgy because they are assumption-based, they do not follow standard protocols, allowing results of feeding studies based on a single ingredient rather than the entire GMO, discard troubling evidence, and are based on the applicant companies' conclusions while refusing to make public the original data.

FSAI admitted its failure to conduct its own GM feed and food risk assessments at a hearing of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment and Local Government on 24 November 2004, when FSAI Chief Biotechnology Specialist Dr. Pat O'Mahony said "We are a law enforcement agency so we do not carry out research", and FSAI Director of Food Science and Standards and Deputy CEO, Alan Reilly, admitted "We rely on scientific opinion from the European Food Safety Authority." For full transcript, see Irish Parliamentary Debate, Vol. No. 38, Scrutiny of EU Proposals, Wednesday, 24 November 2004 http://www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/GMO-24november2004.pdf. See also "First live GMO animal feed legalised in the EU", GM-free Ireland press release, 2 September 2005: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI21.pdf.]

•

In 2006, FSAI delayed for six weeks before implementing a ban on US rice imports contaminated by the illegal GM variety LL601 (manufactured by Bayer CropScience) which escaped from field experiments in the USA in 1998-2001. It also failed to require strict control of imports from other rice-producing countries, recall suspect products, and delayed testing food samples before callling for some contaminated products to be taken off supermarket shelves. See http://www.gmfreeireland.org/rice/index.php.

•

FSAI continues to deny the existence of all the scientific evidence of GM feed and food health risks!

Chief Scientific Officer of Ireland:

•

The Chief Scientific Officer of Ireland, Prof. Patrick Cunningham, has a major conflict of interest because he is also a member of EAGLES - European Action on Global Life Sciences http://www.efb-central.org/eagles, the biotech industry lobby group co-ordinated and co-vice-chaired by Prof. David McConnell of Trinity College Dublin Smurfit School of Genetics. EAGLES is an initiative of the European Federation of Biotechnology lobby group, designed to secure EU funding for European biotech companies to promote GM food and farming in the developing countries

•

Cunningham recently worked as a consultant for Elanco, a division of the US pharmaceuticals giant Eli Lilly and Company. The latter markets Monsanto's controversial Bovine Somatotrophin growth hormone Posilac (produced from GM bacteria), which is illegal in the EU.

•

Cunningham is a member of the Irish National Council on Biotechics, whose 2005 report "Genetically Modified Crops and Food: Threat or Opportunity for Ireland?" is a masterfully crafted work of biotech industry spin which concludes that "the genetic modification of crops is not morally objectionable in itself".

•

Cunningham repeatedly denies the existence of any scientific evidence of the health and environmental risks of GM feed, food and crops. He has, however, admitted that keeping Ireland GM-free would provide Irish farmers and food producers with a competitive advantage, and thus be in our economic interest!

Prof Trewavas's quasi-religious faith in our regulatory bodies is blind to the glaring fact that no long-term health risk assessments have ever been carried out to prove GM food and GM animal feed are safe. We know that most GM crops have scrambled genomes. We know that the mix of DNA from viruses, bacteria and other species contained in most GM crops inevitably results in the creation of novel proteins and enzymes which have never existed before on this planet. We know that our immune systems are not equipped to recognise such novel substances. We know that our immune system maintains our health. We know here is growing scientific evidence of deaths and diseases linked to GM food and feed in laboratory animals, livestock, and humans. Scientists and regulators who deny this evidence give science a bad name and foster the creeping fundamentalism that threatens us all.

EU claim cloned food is safe

The Ecologist Online, 14 January 2008.

European food safety officials have given their public backing to cloned food, claiming it is safe to eat.

While admitting that death and disease rates in cloned animals are "significantly higher", they claim it does not pose a danger to health.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said food products derived from clones was no different from conventionally bred animals. They also expect the proportion of unhealthy clones to decrease as clone technology improves.

Campaigners reacted angrily to the announcement. The Soil Association, which speaks for organic producers, said the rush to approve clone farming was being driven by pressure from the U.S. government, keen to boost the profits of the American companies behind the technology.

"Cloning involves ghastly and invasive techniques. The EFSA committee says there is no food safety issue, but how can they know? The research has not been done, said Soil Association policy manager, Gundula Azeez.

"When you have lots of clones dying at birth or suffering terrible malformations that should raise serious questions of food safety which need to be understood."

"Major supermarkets have stressed that it is their policy not to stock cloned products but they could face an impossible task in identifying them unless the EU insists on a rigorous, costly system of labelling," she added.

EFSA is launching a consultation on its draft opinion. Have your say via the EFSA website: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178676922939.htm. Comments can be submitted until 25 February 2008.

US holds fire on sanctions against EU in biotech food dispute

Agence France Presse, 14 January 2008.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States said Monday it would temporarily hold fire on sanctions on European Union goods in a last-ditch attempt to resolve a bitter trade dispute over genetically modified crops.

The EU missed a World Trade Organization deadline Friday to comply with a decision against EU restrictions on some genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

And on the same day, the French government announced it was imposing a ban on the only genetically modified crop grown in the country.

"We have agreed with the EU to suspend for a limited period the proceedings on our WTO request for authority to suspend concessions in order to provide the EU an opportunity to demonstrate meaningful progress on the approval of biotech products," said US Trade Representative (USTR) spokeswoman Gretchen Hamel.

"The United States remains very concerned with EU treatment of agricultural biotech products," she said.

The European Commission on Friday failed meet the WTO deadline in a GMO case that Europe lost in September 2006. The WTO ruled that an EU moratorium on the authorization of GM products between 1999 and 2004 broke world trade rules.

The United States was joined in the 2003 complaint by Canada and Argentina. The complainants are entitled to launch retaliatory customs duties in the absence of compliance with the decision.

"US seed companies, farmers and exporters continue to experience significant commercial losses as a result of the EU actions," Hamel said. "The patience of US stakeholders is close to exhaustion."

In Brussels, a European Commission spokesman said: "We welcome the measured response by the United States, and reiterate our commitment to advance the difficult dossier of biotechnology through dialogue."

Hamel said the US would evaluate EU progress toward normalizing trade over the coming months, without setting a deadline for WTO compliance.

The Canadian government said it has extended the deadline for compliance to February 11. "Canada has found there is constructive progress on this issue," said foreign affairs and international trade ministry spokeswoman Renee David. Under EU laws, a member state can invoke a safeguard clause enabling it to bar a genetically modified (GM) crop that has otherwise been given EU-wide authorization, provided it has scientific evidence to back this decision.

Although the import of some of the GM products covered by the case have been authorized in the EU, Austria has continued to practice a ban, in particular on the import of GM maize strain, Mon 810, which is produced by US agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto.

France's decision to join the ban on the planting of Mon 810, the only biotech corn variety currently cultivated in the EU, drew sharp words from the USTR spokeswoman.

"It is hard to overstate our disappointment with this new biotech ban announced Friday by the Government of France," she said.

"This newly banned variety of corn has been grown safely in the EU, the United States, and around the world for over a decade."

Opponents of GMOs -- a fiercely contested issue in Europe -- welcomed the French government's decision to invoke the EU procedure to bar the Mon 81, the only GM crop grown in France.

"With the principle of precaution at stake, I am making a major political decision to carry our country to the forefront of the debate on the environment," French President Nicolas Sarkozy said over the weekend.

The Austrian agriculture ministry last week told AFP that it was determined to maintain its "rejection of any sort of use of GM organisms" in the country.

Europe stalls again on ending GM restrictions

FoodProductionDaily.com, 14 January 2008. By Laura Crowley.

The European Commission has been given yet more time to bring member states in compliance with trade obligations on GM crops after failing to meet Friday's deadline, the same day France extended its GM ban.

Officials at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) received a joint letter from Canadian and EU trade representatives in Geneva agreeing to extend the deadline for Brussels to make its member states conform to regulations.

A WTO panel decided in November 2005 that some European countries were breaking international trade rules by stopping the import of GM foods and crops, following a case brought by leading GMO producers Argentina, Canada and the US under claims that their farmers were losing millions because of the EU.

Member states ban GM

Austria enforced a ban on the import and processing of Monsanto's MON810 and Bayer's T25 maize in June 1999.

The Commission has been debating whether to force the country to lift its restrictions since 2005, as Austria has never produced the necessary scientific evidence to contest the positive assessment of the products by Europe's food safety authorities.

Last week, France complicated the matter when it chose to extend its temporary ban on the cultivation of MON810, applying the same EU measure by arguing the costs to health posed by GM crops.

The temporary ban had been put in place by President Sarkozy last October as part of plans to make France greener.

Deadline extended again

The Commission has indicated it needs more time to work with the member states to bring their national regulations in line with global trade laws.

The new deadline suggested by Canada is February 11. Meanwhile, Argentina will further extend the deadline to June 11 before considering action against Europe.

US officials have not yet said if it will also accept an extended deadline, or push for immediate sanctions.

Peter Power, Commission spokesperson for Trade, told FoodNavigator.com: "We are making progress as we continue to illustrate how our EU Regulatory Framework is working. However, it is clear that some difficulties remain."

The Commission biotech steering group will now meet on 24 January to further discuss the issues.

Bans affect US agriculture

"The EU moratorium has significantly reduced US exports of bulk commodities such as corn and soybeans into Europe," said Russel Williams, expert on biotechnology for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

"Europe has an obligation to comply with its trade obligations under the WTO and US producers remain frustrated that the EU has not yet done so. The US will remain adamant that Europe complies with its trade obligations regardless of these bans.ÝWhat that means for Austria, France, Greece and others will be up to the Commission to decide."

Current GM cultivation in Europe

At the moment, the only type of GM crop grown in the EU is maize, which was approved in 1998. It is not cultivated for human consumption but for animal feed.

The maize contains a gene that defends the crop against the European corn borer, an insect pest that eats the stem, present primarily in southern and middle Europe but moving northwards.

One of the main concerns regarding GM crops is that pollination could cross-contaminate non-GM crops grown in the vicinity - and that ultimately the long-term health effects of GM on humans are not known.

Last year, over 110,000 hectares of biotech crops were harvested in seven EU member states, compared to 62,000 hectares in 2006. This represents a 77 per cent increase.

French GM crop cultivation experienced the greatest increase in Europe, quadrupling in size from 5,000 hectares in 1996 to over 21,000 hectares last year.

EU rethinks biofuels guidelines

BBC News, 14 January 2008. By Roger Harrabin, Environment Analyst.

Europe's environment chief has admitted that the EU did not foresee the problems raised by its policy to get 10% of Europe's road fuels from plants.

Recent reports have warned of rising food prices and rainforest destruction from increased biofuel production.

The EU has promised new guidelines to ensure that its target is not damaging.

EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said it would be better to miss the target than achieve it by harming the poor or damaging the environment.

Clampdown promised

A couple of years ago biofuels looked like the perfect get-out-of-jail free card for car manufacturers under pressure to cut carbon emissions.

Instead of just revolutionising car design they could reduce transport pollution overall if drivers used more fuel from plants which would have soaked up CO2 while they were growing.

Fuel made from plants like corn are driving up food prices

The EU leapt at the idea - and set their biofuels targets.

Since then reports have warned that some biofuels barely cut emissions at all - and others can lead to rainforest destruction, drive up food prices, or prompt rich firms to drive poor people off their land to convert it to fuel crops.

"We have seen that the environmental problems caused by biofuels and also the social problems are bigger than we thought they were. So we have to move very carefully," Mr Dimas told the BBC.

"We have to have criteria for sustainability, including social and environmental issues, because there are some benefits from biofuels."

Some analysts doubt that "sustainable" palm oil exists because any palm oil used for fuel simply swells the demand for the product oil on the global market which is mainly governed by food firms.

US expansion

Mr Dimas said it was vital for the EU's rules to prevent the loss of biodiversity which he described as the other great problem for the planet, along with climate change.

On Monday, the Royal Society, the UK's academy of science, is publishing a major review of biofuels. It is expected to call on the EU to make sure its guidelines guarantee that all biofuels in Europe genuinely save carbon emissions.

In the US the government has just passed a new energy bill mandating a major increase in fuel from corn, which is deemed by some analysts to be useless in combating rising carbon dioxide emissions.

The bill also foresees a huge expansion in fuel from woody plants but the technology for this is not yet proven.

EU Commissioners sound warning over agrofuels
Friends of the Earth Europe calls for moratorium on proposed target

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 14 January 2008.

Brussels ‚ Friends of the Earth Europe has called on the European Commission to introduce a moratorium on plans to expand agrofuel use as two Commissioners go public with their concerns over the impact production will have on both people and the environment.

Environment Commissioner Dimas interviewed today by the BBC said that the environmental and social problems caused by agrofuels (also known as biofuels), "are bigger than we thought they were", and said that the EU has, "to move very carefully". (1) His comments follow a media interview given by Development Commissioner Michel three days ago agreeing for the first time that there should be a moratorium on new targets. (2)

Adrian Bebb, Agrofuels Campaign Coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe said: "Public warnings from Commissioners Michel and Dimas should be a wake-up call to the rest of the European Commission. The EU's proposed new law to regulate agrofuels will be a disaster for the environment and will heavily impact on the world's poor. An urgent moratorium on setting new targets is the only sensible way forward.

"Using crops to produce fuel is a false solution to climate change - the real solutions lie in forcing car companies to produce cleaner cars, improving public transport and making our towns and cities more energy efficient."

Last week, 17 environment and development organisations wrote to the European Commission calling for the EU's proposed target for biofuels to be dropped unless comprehensive safeguards are introduced to protect people and the environment. The groups state that current drafts of a new law due to be announced later this month will not guarantee the sustainable production of biofuels, a key condition set by EU Heads of State last year. (3)

In a joint letter to Energy Commissioner Piebalgs, the groups (4) raise concerns that the draft law (5):

•

Leaves important ecosystems unprotected: the current proposal does not provide protection for areas such as savannas (e.g. the Cerrado in Brazil) that may be threatened by expanding agriculture to meet the EU's biofuel target. These areas also store huge amounts of carbon which would be released into the atmosphere if destroyed.

•

Side-lines negative impacts: Large scale biofuel production can cause knock-on impacts such as increasing food and feed prices and increasing water use. In addition, it can displace other agriculture activities into socially or environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. rainforests). The draft text does not provide any meaningful plan to deal with these issues, proposing instead to simply monitor the situation using bi-annual reports from Member States.

•

Ignores social standards: The draft text does not provide any criteria to protect people, particularly in developing countries, from the negative impacts of biofuel production. The scramble to supply European markets is already causing frequent land disputes, forced evictions, human rights abuses, increased poverty and poor working conditions in developing countries.

•

In addition the current version prevents Member States from introducing stronger conditions at a national level. It includes only limited criteria for transport fuels but no criteria for the same fuels used elsewhere such as in power stations.

The letter from the groups concludes, "We believe that if proper safeguards cannot be put in place the EU's mandatory biofuel target must be suspended."

For more information, please contact:

Adrian Bebb, Agrofuels Campaign Coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: +49 160 949011 (German mobile)

Francesca Gater, Communications Officer for Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: +32 2542 6105 and +32 485 930515 (Belgian mobile)

Notes

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7186380.stm

2. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40762

3. The European Council in March 2007 agreed to a 10 per cent binding minimum target for the share of biofuels in transport by 2020. Council attached strict conditions to this target, notably, "subject to production being sustainable, second-generation biofuels becoming commercially available and the Fuel Quality Directive being amended accordingly to allow for adequate levels of blending".

4. The letter can be downloaded from www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels and is signed by Friends of the Earth Europe, Birdlife International, European Environment Bureau, Greenpeace, Oxfam International, Wetlands International, Transport and Environment, Brot f¸r die Welt, CAFOD, Tearfund, Corporate European Observatory, Rettet den Regenwald, Africa-Europe Faith & Justice Network, Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Quercus, Pro REGENWALD and Misereor.

5. Directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (see http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/documents/Draft_RE_Directive.pdf)

EU admits biofuel target problems

EU Observer.com, 14 January 2008.

The European Commission is re-thinking draft rules on reaching the EU's target to boost biofuels amid strong criticism by green campaign groups and development NGOs that the goal could lead to environmental damage and social dislocation.

The commission is due on 23 January to publish legislation on the production of biofuels, aimed at promoting the use of these alternatives to oil.

In March last year, EU leaders agreed that 10 percent of transport fuels should come from biofuels by 2020, a goal the commission is now turning into concrete legislation.

But even before making the legislation public, several expert reports have highlighted the possible negative consequences of the target.

Last Friday, a group of 17 NGOs - including Oxfam and Friends of the Earth - sent a letter to EU energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs, asking him to introduce much tougher standards for biofuel production or give up mandatory transport biofuel targets altogether.

They argued that the existing draft legislation does not provide protection for important ecosystems, such as savannas or permanent grasslands "that may be threatened by expanding agriculture to meet the EU's biofuel target."

"Destruction of these carbon sinks would lead to large emissions of carbon into the atmosphere, thereby reducing or neutralising the benefits from growing biofuels. Neither does the draft text provide any safeguards to protect water and soil resources," they said in a statement.

They also noted that "large scale biofuel production can cause negative indirect or knock-on impacts such as increasing food and feed prices and increasing water scarcity which would lead to negative impacts on the world's poor," in line with earlier studies by a number of experts on the issue.

Biofuels are made of the same products as fossil fuels - plants, trees and animal waste - except they can be produced straight from the product unlike fossil fuels that have been processed over millions of years.

Agricultural products grown for making biofuel include corn, soybeans, rapeseed and others.

In reaction, EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas suggested the pending guidelines should be altered, saying it would be better to miss the biofuels target than to hurt the poor or damage the environment.

"We have seen that the environmental problems caused by biofuels and also the social problems are bigger than we thought they were. So we have to move very carefully," Mr Dimas told the BBC.

"We have to have criteria for sustainability, including social and environmental issues, because there are some benefits from biofuels," he added.

Last September, the EU's plan to boost the use of biofuels as part of wider plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions received a serious blow from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), grouping the world's 30 most developed countries.

The Paris-based body argues that state subsidies for biofuels could lead to food price hikes and damage to forests and natural habitats while its impact in terms of the fight against climate change may only be limited.

A similar conclusion is expected today (14 January) when the Royal Society, the UK's academy of science, publishes a major review of biofuels.

13 January 2008

French govt move to ban Monsanto GMO draws fire

Reuters, 13 January 2008.

PARIS - French government moves to ban the country's only genetically modified (GMO) crop drew fire on Sunday from the speaker of the country's parliament, farmers and biotechnology industry groups.

The government said on Friday it would activate a "safeguard clause" in European law to suspend the commercial use of MON 810, a maize developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto. Writing in the Sunday newspaper Journal Du Dimanche, National Assembly President Bernard Accoyer of the ruling centre-right UMP party said decisions to ban GMOs should be based on "irrefutable" evidence, implicitly criticizing the government for basing its decision on a panel's controversial opinion. "The scientists on this (panel) have disassociated themselves publicly from the conclusions expressed by the chairman of this body," wrote Accoyer.

"Can our country really bind its future to this fragile and hasty opinion...?" he added, arguing GMOs offered potential public health benefits and calling for parliament to establish its own "high authority" to oversee their authorization. When a country activates the safeguard procedure it has to provide the European Commission, the EU's executive body, with proof there is new scientific evidence justifying a ban. If the Commission and European Union member states deemed France's arguments invalid, France would probably receive an order to lift its ban, a decision it could then appeal.

Industry, farmers upset

In an interview with Reuters, Jacques Beauville, a farmer near Toulouse who had planted 80 percent of his 127 hectares with MON 810, accused Paris of caving in to anti-globalization protestor Jose Bove, who had gone on hunger strike to protest the use of GMOs. Bove ended his protest on Saturday.

"If we obey this moratorium then we will end up polluting more and using more water. Even worse, as yields fall we will from next August have to buy Argentine maize, which is made using GMOs," Beauville said.

Around 22,000 hectares -- or 1 percent of France's cultivated land -- was sown with MON 810 last year.

In a statement on Sunday, the U.S. based Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) said there were no safety concerns that could justify France's MON 810 ban.

"BIO urges the U.S. government and the European Commission to object to this unnecessary and unscientific policy at the highest levels," it said in a statement.

France's announcement on Friday coincided with a deadline for the EU to comply with a WTO ruling to end a ban on imports of genetically modified (GMO) food. The EU is not due to respond until January 21, leaving it open to possible trade sanctions.

The MON 810 technology, which is also used by other seed makers, is designed to resist the European corn borer, a pest that attacks maize stalks and thrives in warmer climates.

Monsanto says the protein contained in its maize has selective toxicity but is harmless to humans, fish and wildlife.

The Commission has approved the use of MON 810 around the 27-nation bloc, but several EU countries have expressed concern about its safety, including Austria, Greece and Hungary.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy defended his government's decision in a speech on Saturday while emphasizing he was not hostile in principle to the development of GMOs.

"(The decision) means simply that when the precautionary principle is at stake I will make the political choice to put our country at the front of the debate on the environment," he said in a speech to a UMP conference.

(Reporting by Nick Antonovics and Nicolas Fichot; editing by Rory Channing)

12 January 2008

European Food Safety Authority issues opinion on animal cloning

Friends of the Earth Europe, 12 January 2008.

EFSA issued its opinion on animal cloning yesterday. The opinion is open for consultation until February 25th. They have also issued a summary of their main conclusions which can be downloaded, along with the full text of the opinion at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178676923092.htm

Looking at EFSA's summary of its own opinion: there is

•

clear acknowledgment that cloned animals suffer from more disease and higher death rates, i.e. that there are animal health and welfare problems;

•

that there is not enough data to know for sure whether there is any environmental impact;

But, despite this, they conclude that meat and animal products from should be fine for european market and pose no risk to human health...

The deadline for comments to EFSA Feb 25th.

UK: EU gives green light for cloned food to go on sale in UK shops

Daily Mail, 12th January 2008. By Sean Poulter.

EU scientists say meat and milk from cloned farm animals should be cleared for sale.

They admit cloned animals suffer higher rates of early death and disease but say there is no food safety reason to keep their products off shop shelves.

The draft opinion of the European Food Safety Authority will horrify critics who see the development of such animals as "Frankenstein Farming", tampering with nature in a similar way to GM foods.

The authority's support would open the door to clone farming in the UK and the importation of products made from cloned meat and milk in the U.S., where the technique is already used.

The EU report is at odds with the clear desire of consumers for more natural food.

Major supermarkets stressed last night that it is their policy not to stock cloned products.

But they could face an impossible task in identifying them unless the EU insists on a rigorous, costly system of labelling.

This is highly unlikely, as the safety authority's report says there are no safety issues.

The Soil Association, which speaks for organic producers, said it was clear the rush to approve clone farming was being driven by pressure from the U.S. government, keen to boost the profits of the American companies behind the technology.

Association spokesman Gundula Azeez said: "Cloning involves ghastly and invasive techniques.

"The EFSA committee says there is no food safety issue, but how can they know? The research has not been done.

"When you have lots of clones dying at birth or suffering terrible malformations, that should raise serious questions of food safety which need to be understood."

Opponents say allowing clone farming will accelerate the trend towards super-size cows, producing vast quantities of milk, and monster pigs.

The EU began an inquiry into the issue in February last year after the Daily Mail revealed that the offspring of a cloned cow from the U.S. had been born on a Shropshire farm.

Dundee Paradise's mother was created from a cell taken from the ear of a champion Holstein.

The arrival of the calf, unknown to both the government's food and farming department, Defra, and the Food Standards Agency, highlighted serious gaps in the policing of clone farming.

The FSA asked the EFSA to draw up a policy on the practice.

The resulting draft opinion will now go out to public consultation and a final report is expected in May.

EU ministers will be asked to make a final decision later this year, and no individual government will be able to opt out.

The UK government has indicated in the past that it has no objections to clone farming and rejected advice from one of its own expert committees to set up a regime to police it.

But this policy may change as Hilary Benn, the new head of Defra, is a vegetarian who takes the suffering of farm animals particularly seriously.

Concerns about implanting cloned embryos into host mothers come because a significant number are miscarried and others are born with malformed organs.

There is also a problem of "gigantism", with newborns so large they have to be removed by Caesarean section.

Some animals, including the original clone Dolly the Sheep, created by the Roslyn Institute in Scotland, suffer the early onset of crippling arthritis.

The type of cloning used in farm animals is called somatic cell nucleus transfer.

The EFSA admits it is a relatively new technology, "the available data for risk assessment are limited" and there are gaps in knowledge about the welfare of the animals involved.

Yesterday's statement also concedes: "Death and disease rates of clones are significantly higher than in conventionally-reproduced animals.

"The health and welfare of a significant proportion of clones have been found to be adversely affected."

But such concerns are brushed aside with the opinion: "The proportion of unhealthy clones is likely to decrease as the technology improves."

The report suggests unhealthy clones will simply be removed from the food chain, as happens with conventional animals.

Arguing that there is no food safety reason for a ban, the statement adds: "Based on a number of parameters, healthy clones and healthy offspring do not show any significant differences from their conventional counterparts.

"Food products are within the normal range with respect to composition and nutritional value.

"In view of these findings, and assuming that unhealthy clones are removed from entering the food chain, it is very unlikely that any difference exists in terms of food safety between food products originating from clones and their progeny compared with those derived from conventionally bred animals."

Supermarkets - including Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda, Morrisons and Marks & Spencer - made clear they do not want to stock cloned foods.

M&S said: "We have long had a ban on all genetically-modified ingredients.

"That will extend to produce derived from clones and their offspring."

Tesco said: "We would not stock any products derived from cloned animals or their offspring."

Others adopted the same line, with Asda saying: "We have adopted a policy not to stock meat, milk or anything else from clones or their offspring."

But a lack of labelling rules would make such policies virtually impossible to enforce.

Peter Stevenson, chief policy advisor at Compassion in World Farming, said they were particularly alarming in a week when the public has been given a graphic insight into the reality of intensive factory farming, through TV reports on the rearing of battery chickens.

Mr Stevenson said: "The only point of cloning is to produce faster growing chickens and pigs and higher-yielding dairy cows.

"You have to look at the suffering caused and the kind of animals we are creating.

"Going down the road of cloning would lead to greater industrialisation of farm animal production, which would be a disaster.

"We would urge the EU and the British government to step back from any support for clone farming."

Food From Clones Safe, E.U. Draft Says
Similar Conclusion Expected From FDA

Washington Post, January 12 2008. By Rick Weiss.

The European Food Safety Authority yesterday declared that meat and milk from healthy cloned cattle and pigs is "very unlikely" to pose risks to consumers, opening the door to possible European sales of those controversial foods in the future.

The highly anticipated draft scientific opinion of the European agency comes just days before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is due to release its final report on food from clones, which is expected to reach virtually the same conclusion. Some backers of the fledgling agricultural cloning industry have said they hoped that a positive report from Europe might help ease the process of gaining acceptance by American consumers.

It remains unclear, however, whether the European Union will ultimately approve the sale of cloned products, and if so, under what conditions.

Unlike in the United States, such decisions in Europe must incorporate social and ethical factors. And the European public broadly supports the "precautionary principle," which calls for society to err on the side of caution when risks are uncertain.

Moreover, the European agency, which provides scientific advice to the European Commission, noted in its report that many cloned farm animals have health problems, including life-threatening physiological abnormalities. In Europe, where animal welfare is a much higher-profile issue than it is in the United States, that reality could also become a stumbling block.

The 47-page report concluded, however, that unhealthy clones would be screened out by standard food inspection methods. And, echoing earlier assertions by the FDA, it found that milk and meat from healthy clones are as nutritious and safe as milk and meat from ordinary animals.

"Based on current knowledge there is no expectation that clones or their progeny would introduce any new food safety risks compared with conventionally bred animals," the report said.

The report also concluded that sexually produced offspring of clones -- far more likely to enter the food supply than clones themselves, which are too valuable to slaughter -- are fully normal.

Scientists at a handful of companies around the world, including at least two in the United States, want to clone prize-winning beef cattle, dairy cows and pigs as a way to bring more consistently high-quality products to market. But consumer reaction has been chilly.

Some fear that clones may harbor hidden health risks, while others decry the high death rates seen in newborn clones and the suffering of their surrogate mothers, which can have trouble giving birth to their often oversize offspring.

Despite that wariness, and despite European agriculture's general lack of interest in adopting the technology, the EU has been under international pressure to rule on the products' safety -- in part so other nations can export their meat and milk products there without worrying about trade challenges.

The issue is also of interest in Europe because farmers there use semen from American cattle.

New Zealand has released a positive report on the safety of food from clones and their progeny, and Canada and Argentina are expected to follow soon.

The "draft risk assessment" released by the FDA in December 2006 found no unique health risks from meat or milk from clones or their offspring. The agency has been reworking that analysis, taking into account new science and the more than 30,500 public comments it received. It is expected to release its final report any day.

Last February, noting progress made by the FDA, the European Commission asked its Food Safety Authority also to provide a "scientific opinion" on the safety of foods from clones and an assessment of cloning's effects on animal health and welfare and on the environment.

Yesterday's report was a first draft of that opinion and will be open for public comment for 45 days. It asserted that the introduction of cloned animals into agriculture will not affect the environment.

"Cloning does not involve changes in DNA sequences and thus no new genes would be introduced into the environment," it said.

The report noted that a different European advisory group is preparing a study of the ethical implications of bringing cloning to European agriculture. And it recommended further research, especially on older clones, very few of which, it said, have been carefully studied.

Joséph Mendelson, legal director at the Washington-based Center for Food Safety, which has petitioned the FDA to delay approving cloned food, predicted that Europeans would demand marketing restrictions on the products.

"Human health is only part of the equation in Europe," Mendelson said. "And even if Europe gives it a green light, we believe they will require labels."

The FDA has said it is unlikely to require that cloned food be labeled as such if no novel risks are identified.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization, a Washington-based trade group whose members include the nation's two largest farm animal cloning companies, applauded the European action and encouraged the FDA to release its long-delayed final report.

Foreign correspondent Molly Moore contributed to this report from Paris.

Comment from GM Watch:

If anyone thought the EFSA could not possibly do anything to further discredit itself, then its latest approval based on scant evidence may confound them.

EXTRACT: All clones are defective, in one way or another, with multiple flaws embedded in their genomes. Rudolf Jaenisch, a geneticist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, estimates that something like 4-5% of the genes in a cloned animal's genome are expressed incorrectly. These often subtle genetic defects can have tangible consequences.

USA: Kraft shakes up dairy market

Chicago Business, 12 Jan 2008. By David Sterrett.

Food giant offers line of cheese free of controversial hormone.

Kraft Foods Inc. plans to offer cheese free of a controversial growth hormone, a strategic move that pressures competitors to follow.

Northfield-based Kraft says it will start selling a line of cheese made with milk from cows free of rBST by June. Some consumer groups, citing scientific studies, say the production-boosting hormone can cause cancer, despite assurances from U.S. food regulators that it is safe.

Kraft aims to capitalize on consumer worries about food safety with a specialty product that will fetch a higher price than its mass-market cheeses. The new cheese reflects CEO Irene Rosenfeld's plan to rekindle growth with premium brands.

Such a move by the nation's biggest food company also could force rivals to offer products free of artificial hormones.

"This is a big development and shows that food companies acknowledge consumers are taking a much more active interest in what is in their food," says Bill Bishop, chairman of Barrington-based consultancy Willard Bishop. "This used to be a niche interest, but as it becomes more mainstream the big food companies . . . have to respond or they will find themselves in an unfortunate position."

Other companies already have responded to those concerns. Dean Foods Co., the largest U.S. dairy company, offers a line of rBST-free products, while grocery chain Kroger Co. bans the artificial hormone from its name-brand milk. Starbucks Corp. last year became the highest-profile company to act, instituting a ban in its 6,793 company-operated cafes.

Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., spun off from McDonald's Corp. in 2006, also announced last year it was banning rBST. In a statement, Oak Brook-based McDonald's says, "We continue to look to the (U.S. regulators) to provide further guidance, as well as engage our suppliers on this topic."

The FDA approved the use of rBST, or recombinant bovine somatotropin, in dairy cows in 1993. The agency reaffirmed its ruling that there was no health or safety threat to humans in 2000. All cows have BST, a protein hormone that stimulates milk production, and rBST is a synthetic version used to increase milk production.

About 17% of U.S. dairy cows receive the artificial hormone, according to a 2007 government survey. Opponents of rBST say it increases infections in cows and stimulates the production of another hormone in the animals linked to cancer in humans.

RBST, produced by St. Louis-based Monsanto Co., is sold under the brand Posilac. A Monsanto spokeswoman refused to release financial information about the product, but Chief Financial Officer Terrell Crews said during an Oct. 10 analysts' conference call that the company expects to see declines in Posilac demand, because "we've seen some pressure in the dairy business on that product."

For big food companies like Kraft, changing processes can add to manufacturing expenses, but those added costs can be passed on to consumers. And given their higher retail prices, natural and organic lines typically are more profitable, Mr. Bishop says.

Kraft not alone

Kraft began talking with suppliers in November about using milk free of synthetic hormones for its "2% Milk" cheese lines, a spokesman says. Kraft chose the 2% brand because it's a premium line with several dozen products. "We understand this is important to some people, and this is what is really driving the decision for us," he says.

Kraft will continue to use milk that is not certified rBST-free in the majority of its cheese products. Still, the company's shift has the potential to reverberate throughout the dairy industry, resulting in more rBST-free cheese, ice cream and butter in general, says Catherine Donnelly, professor of nutrition and food science at the University of Vermont in Burlington.

Several small processors, including Tillamook County Creamery Assn. in Oregon, began offering rBST-free cheese several years ago, but the decision by Kraft, the maker of Velveeta and Cheez Whiz, validates it as a mass-market move, she says.

"Consumers are speaking out with their pocketbooks, and it's a national trend that people care more about where their food comes from and how it's produced," Ms. Donnelly says.

'Smoke and mirrors'

Kraft and rivals assured customers for years that rBST-containing products were safe because they were approved by the FDA.

But "now consumers don't trust anything," she says.

Some in the dairy industry are skeptical that any health threat exists.

Terry Etherton, head of the Department of Dairy and Animal Science at Penn State University in State College, Pa., says the growth of rBST-free products is "part of a smoke-and-mirrors campaign."

He says supermarkets usually charge about 20% more for rBST-free milk, while those retailers and dairy processors don't see similar cost increases.

"We do expect an additional premium (in the price) to reflect the cost of ingredients and adjustments to the supply chain to accommodate the milk," a Kraft spokesman says. He declines to discuss any specific prices or costs involved in the change.

Pennsylvania is debating whether processors should be allowed to label a product rBST-free.

Monsanto and other opponents to such labeling say there is no way to accurately certify something as free of rBST because milk with or without the hormone is chemically the same.

"Unfortunately, consumers are being misled to think one carton of milk is safer or more healthy, when in fact all milk is the same," a Monsanto spokeswoman says. "People are paying more for milk that is the same."

French president defends ban on strain of GM corn

Agence France Presse, 12 January 2008.

PARIS (AFP) French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Saturday defended banning a strain of GM corn, as a high-profile activist ended a hunger strike in response and farmers complained politics had trumped science.

"It does not mean that France does not participate in GMO research. It does not mean that there will not be GMOs in the future," Sarkozy said at a meeting of his Union for a Popular Movement party (UMP), referring to genetically modified organisms.

"It simply means that with the principle of precaution at stake, I am making a major political decision to carry our country to the forefront of the debate on the environment."

Opponents of GMOs -- a fiercely contested issue in Europe -- welcomed the French government's decision, announced late Friday, to invoke a European Union procedure to bar the Monsanto 810 maize.

It is the only GM crop grown in France.

Anti-globalisation activist José Bové ended a hunger strike begun January 3 to press for a year-long ban on GM crops, eating from a bowl of soup at a news conference in Paris on Saturday.

Bové has kept up a steady campaign against GMOs and has been convicted of ripping up GM crops in southern France.

Some farmers' associations were in favour of the move, with France's third-largest agricultural union calling it a "wise" decision that "will go down in history".

About 400 people marched in the northwestern city of Brest, expressing their appreciation for the ban.

"It is the first step toward the recognition of the danger that GMOs represent," said Paul Hascoet, head of a regional federation of organic farmers.

But France's main agricultural union said it was an "appalling" decision.

"It was not taken with sufficient hindsight, and I have serious doubts about its objectivity," said Jean-Michel Lemetayer, head of the National Federation of Agricultural Workers' Unions.

A federation of agricultural companies said "demagoguery has triumphed over agricultural innovation."

The decision sparked criticism from within Sarkozy's party as well, with National Assembly president Bernard Accoyer saying the issue should be debated in parliament.

US agricultural giant Monsanto, which produces the strain, has 15 days to present its defence.

The French government acted after a watchdog authority said it had "serious doubts" about the product in a report that has been controversial even among the scientists who put it together.

France's Provisional High Authority on GM Organisms on Wednesday pointed to what it described as "a certain number of new scientific facts relating to a negative impact on flora and fauna".

Chairman Jean-Francois Le Grand, who also holds a seat in the Senate, said evidence had emerged that Mon 810 had an effect on insects, a species of earthworm and micro-organisms.

There was also concern that wind-born pollen from Mon 810 could travel further than previously thought, possibly hundreds of miles (kilometres), said Le Grand.

However, 12 of the 15 scientists who compiled the report issued a statement Thursday complaining that Le Grand had misrepresented their findings.

They said their initial report had not used the words "serious doubts" or "negative" concerning the latest evidence on GM crops.

They also complained they had not been allowed time to carry out a "fuller expertise" of Mon 810.

On its website, Monsanto Co. says Mon 810 was rigorously assessed for safety by authorities before being put on the market in 1997, and extensively studied by independent scientific experts.

Under European Union laws, a member state can invoke a safeguard clause enabling it to bar a GM crop that has otherwise been given EU-wide authorisation, provided it has scientific evidence to back this decision.

Six other EU members have already invoked this clause.

The maize, marketed as YieldGard, has been engineered to produce a naturally occurring toxin, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), that kills a pest called the corn borer.

As a result, it saves farmers money they would otherwise have spent on spraying insecticides.

Last year, 22,000 hectares (55,000 acres) were sown with the product -- less than one percent of the sown acreage for corn in France.

The government also announced Friday it was investing 45 million euros (66 million dollars) in vegetable biotechnology, an eight-fold increase over the current budget.

France says extends ban on GMO crop

Reuters, Jan 12 2008

PARIS - France will activate a safeguard clause that will effectively prohibit the growing of the sole genetically modified (GMO) crop grown in France, Prime Minister Francois Fillon's office said in a statement on Friday.

Last month, France suspended the commercial use of MON 810, a maize developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, in order to look into the environmental and health implications of its use.

A government-appointed committee of scientists, farmers, politicians and non-governmental organisations said on Wednesday "serious doubts" remained over whether MON 810 could be cultivated without risks for consumers and the environment.

"The government is starting the procedure ... in order to activate the safeguard clause on the growth of GMO maize MON 810, until the reevaluation by the European authorities of the authorisation and sale of this GMO," the statement said.

(Reporting by Anna Willard)

11 January 2008

USA: Defensive Stocks: Agriculture is Popular

CNBC.com, 11 January 2008.

Investors should raise their exposure to agricultural commodities and buy into stocks in the sector, as demand from emerging markets increases and the size of arable land is shrinking, putting additional pressure on the already tight supply, analysts said Friday.

New consumption patterns appear, as China and other emerging nations seek to move their diets into a more protein-based Westernized diet, and demand is rising because grains are now also used as a source of fuel, William Rhind, head of UK sales at ETF Securities told "Squawk Box Europe."

"Right now for grains the fundamentals are very positive," Rhind said.

The European Union has until Friday afternoon to comply with a World Trade Organization ruling to end its 6-year ban on imports of genetically modified organisms. But Brussels may stall for more time, as the debate over GMO continues to cause controversy in some key member states.

GMO is a largely political issue, as although it essentially increases the yield out of a crop, consumer groups and environmentalists in Europe argue that its long-term effects on the health and environment have not been tested.

Health Fears

Brussels have had difficulty in implementing the ruling since some of its 27 member states are operating their own bans, which EU law allows them to do under certain conditions.

Between 1997 and 2000, five EU countries banned specific GMOs on their territory, focusing on three maize and two rapeseed types that were approved shortly before the EU's six-year moratorium on new biotech authorizations, according to Reuters.

The world's top three growers of GMO crops, Argentina, Canada and the US, stand to gain substantially if the ban is lifted. Likewise biotech companies such as Monsanto could see their sales flourish.

Is GM food Stock a Good Investment?

Monsanto, in particular, stands to gain the most as it has a number of key maize products that are banned under the ruling. Analysts do not foresee an immediate reaction for the grain market from the ruling, but say that over the long term, if there is more supply on the market, prices of products may come down.

For the moment, though, investors can take advantage of the boom in commodities by investing in connected areas, Stephen Pope, chief market strategist at Cantor Fitzgerald, said.

Investors could look at chemical companies like Syngenta that specialize in herbicides and phosphates that actually enhance the crop as it grows instead of focusing on actual genetically modified crops, Pope said.

"I think there's plenty of scope for the demand for crop enhancement to carry on, and I think this story has plenty to run as an alternative to different sectors this year," Pope said.

France: French Farmer Calls Off Hunger Strike

The Associated Press, 11 January 2008

PARIS (AP) - Militant French farmer José Bové and about 15 supporters called off their hunger strike in its eighth day after the government ordered the suspension of the use of genetically modified corn Friday.

France will suspend cultivation of MON810, the seed for the only type of genetically modified corn now allowed in the country, until a European Union review is conducted, Prime Minister Francois Fillon's office said.

The move was based on a recommendation this week by a government-appointed panel calling for "the need for additional analyses on the health and environmental effects of the genetically modified product MON810 in the long term," Fillon's office said in a statement.

Bové and his supporters began the hunger strike Jan. 3, saying they hoped to pressure the government to make good on a promise in November to suspend cultivation of MON810. He said they only drank water or unsweetened tea during the protest.

The seed, which resists some types of insects, was authorized before a government-ordered moratorium on genetically modified products took effect in 1999. Last year, it was planted in about 54,000 acres in France - mainly in southern farmland.

Bové rose to fame in August 1999 when he and supporters used farm equipment to dismantle a McDonald's branch under construction in Millau, in the foothills of France's Massif Central mountains.

He has faced repeated trials and served jail time for destroying genetically modified crops.

PM: France To Ban Strain Of Genetically Modified Corn

AFP, January 11 2008

PARIS -- France decided Friday to invoke a European Union safeguard procedure to bar a strain of genetically modified corn after a watchdog said it had doubts about the product, the prime minister's office said.

The government was invoking the procedure "until European authorities reevaluate the authorization on commercialization" of the product, the prime minister's office said in a statement.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Thursday he was working with Prime Minister Francois Fillon toward a decision on suspending the Monsanto 810 maize.

France's Provisional High Authority on GM Organisms said Wednesday it had " serious doubts" as to the safety of Mon 810, which is the only genetically modified crop grown in France.

10 January 2008

French President: Monsanto GMO Corn Decision In Coming Days - AFP

Dow Jones Newswire, 10 January 2008.

PARIS (AFP)--French President Nicolas Sarkozy Thursday said a decision would be made on suspending Monsanto Co.'s (MON) genetically-modified 810 corn "in the coming days."

Speaking at a press conference, Sarkozy said he was working on the issue with Prime Minister Francois Fillon after a watchdog authority said it had "serious doubts" about the product.

GMO crops are a fiercely contested question in Europe, pitting agribusiness corporations against a powerful green lobby.

On Wednesday, France's Provisional High Authority on GMOs said it had "serious doubts" as to the safety of Mon 810, pointing to what it described as "a certain number of new scientific facts relating to a negative impact on flora and fauna."

Its Chairman Jean-Francois Le Grand, who is also senator for the northern French department of La Manche, said evidence had emerged that Mon 810 had an effect on insects, a species of earthworm and microorganisms. There was also concern wind-born pollen from Mon 810 could travel "tens, even hundreds of kilometers, whereas previous studies saw a range of only a few dozen or hundred meters," said Le Grand.

Under European Union laws, a member state can invoke a safeguard clause, enabling it to bar a GMO crop that has otherwise been given European Union-wide authorization, provided it has scientific evidence to back this decision.

Six other E.U. members have already invoked this clause.

The maize, marketed as YieldGard, has been engineered to produce a naturally- occurring toxin, Bacillus thuringiensis, that kills a pest called the corn borer. The advantage to farmers is that they don't have to spray insecticides on their fields to kill the pest, which thus represents big financial savings.

Environmentalists, though, say GMOs could damage wildlife and be harmful for human health, although the scientific evidence to back this has often been absent or sketchy.

Last October, a study published in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academies of Science suggested toxins from the Monsanto corn could potentially harm aquatic ecosystems in corn-producing regions.

On its Web site, Monsanto says Mon 810 "was rigorously assessed for safety by authorities prior to commercial introduction in 1997, and has been extensively studied by independent scientific experts before and after commercial approval."

Mon 810 is the only GMO crop grown in France. Last year, 22,000 hectares were sown with this product, amounting to less than 1% of the sown acreage for corn in France.

The French union of maize, wheat and oilseed producers, ORAMA, Thursday accused the country's GMO authority of bias, rejecting its verdict as politically-motivated lies.

"This ruling does not reveal any new scientific element that could justify the use of the safeguard clause," it said, warning of "extremely serious" consequences for "innovation and research, agriculture and the challenges it is facing."

The authority's decision comes in the run up to an expected vote next month on a new law on transgenic crops, enabling France, after five years' delay, to transcribe E.U. directives into national legislation. This delay could cost the country EUR42 million in E.U. fines.

Ireland: € 60m farming bill as feed millers can't get maize

As Ireland bids to become GMO-free, feed millers say non-availability of ingredients from genetically modified crops is starving our livestock industry. Stephen Cadogan reports

Irish Examiner (Farm Supplement), 10 January 2008.

[Photo caption 1: European farmers have mixed feelings over genetic modification. Among these protesters last November at the EU headquarters in Brussels when the latest CAP reform proposal were announced, this lady's placard read: "GMO: it's High Time to Stop".

Photo caption 2: A farmer harvests genetically modified maize in Illinois. Maize and oilseed rape are 60% genetically modified and soya 90% on farms in the major exporting countries, the USA, Canada, Brazil and Argentina. Many of these crops are not approved for animal feed in the EU, posing major problems for big feed importing member states like Ireland.]

___________

A mix of politics and business has Irish livestock farming in a stranglehold. Companies which supply the feedstuffs for the livestock warn they may soon have to turn farmer customers away.

Genetic modification is at the centre of the crux.

Ireland relies more on imports of animal feed than any other country in the EU. More than 50% of animal feed ingredients are imported.

Exporting €8 billion of agri-food products per year, Ireland does not have enough land to even approach self-sufficiency in the cereals and proteins needed here for animal feed.

By comparison, less than 40% of ingredients are imported in Britain; France and Germany import less than 30%.

In the four major exporting nations – the USA, Canada, Brazil and Argentina – GM varieties account for 90% of the soya crop, and 60% of maize and rape crops. That could soon be nearly 100% for soya, because the newly modified crops going on release to farmers will give them a yield advantage between 7% and 11%. That will take the profit advantage over non-conventional soya to more than $28 per acre.

However, it is likely to be 2011 before any of the new Roundup Ready 2 soya crops can be included in the 35 million tonnes of soya imported into the EU each year, mainly as a high protein ingredient in livestock feeds.

It can take between two-and-a-half and 10 years for the EU to approve a GM variety like the new soya. In fact, the Genetically Modified Food and Feed and Environmental Risk section of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health in the EU has never approved a GM animal feed – even though they had already been approved by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and by the US authorities.

Without a favourable opinion given by a qualified majority of the member state representatives on the committee, proposed measures are referred instead to a council of EU ministers for decision by qualified majority. If they fail to reach a decision, the European Commission adopts the implementing measure – unless the council opposes it by