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 ano