NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • March 2008

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

More GM news is available on our news feed at www.gmfreeireland.org/news/feed1.php

31 March 2008

Seeds of worry

The McGill Daily, March 31 2008, Volume 97, Issue 45. By Charles Mostoller.

Charles Mostoller, a former Daily editor, reports from Mexico's movement against genetically modified corn.

After 14 years of the North American Free Trade Agreement's devastating effects on the majority of Mexican farmers, Mexico's food system now faces another serious threat. Illegally planted and unknowingly imported since the late nineties, genetically modified (GM) corn has contaminated farms all over Mexico, threatening the livelihoods of small farmers, endangering consumer health, and putting at risk the incredible genetic diversity of native Mexican corn.

But for over a year now, farmers, scientists, and activists all over Mexico have been mobilizing under the banner Sin maíz, no hay país ‚ without corn, there is no country. The campaign has been organizing protests against the import of GM corn and in support of maiz criollo, known in English as "Indian corn" or maize.

At a recent Sin maíz, no hay país event in Huajauapan, Oaxaca, longtime indigenous-rights activist and honorary Zapatista Commander Don Felix Serdán called for the prohibition of GM corn, saying that it represented a threat to food security and to Mexico's sovereignty.

"If we lose our corn, we lose our sovereignty, our very dignity," he says. "We will depend on the U.S., we will have to buy their GM seeds. That will be slavery. Now, we're no longer self-sufficient and there is no food security.... We have the responsibility to avoid the contamination by GM corn, to protect our communities."

The sad story of Mexico

Mexico's 109 million people consume about 300 million tortillas every day. Nobody knows how much of the maize in these tortillas is genetically modified, and serious concerns persist about GM corn's effects on human health.

The planting of GM corn has never been legal in Mexico, although some biotech companies have permission to plant small "pilot fields" to test out their GM varieties. But according to a recent Reuters article, there are an estimated 9,000 hectares of GM corn in northern Mexico's Chihuahua state. The government is aware of this, but has done nothing to stop it.

Mexico does allow the importation of GM corn, and since the late nineties, enormous quantities of it have entered ‚ unlabelled ‚ into Mexico's food system. Farmers also unwittingly plant GM corn, and native varieties have been contaminated by GM corn all over the country ‚ thanks to the fact that pollen can travel long distances by wind.

The Mexican government hasn't taken any steps to slow or stop the influx of GM corn, nor has it tried to study the consequences of GM contamination or the effects on human health. And despite the importance of Mexico's native corn diversity, and the fact that GM contamination has been discovered all over the country, the corn keeps flooding into Mexico.

"Today, approximately 60 per cent of the corn that enters Mexico is genetically modified," says Cati Marielle, Director of the Sustainable Agricultural Systems division of the Environmental Study Group (known by its Spanish acronym, GEA), a non-governmental organization dedicated to helping indigenous farmers.

"It's the sad story of Mexico, to be subordinate to the interests of the United States government, which in turn represents the interests of transnational corporations," she continues.

Financial interests v. health risks

In the U.S., a GM corn variety approved only for livestock feed made its way into Taco Bell food and triggered a massive recall scandal in 2000. The corn, known as Starlink and made by biotech company Aventis, had been marketed as feed corn because of the possibility of adverse health effects in humans.

Introducing radically different elements into food is not something to be taken lightly. But that's just what biotech companies have done; they have charged ahead with the unlabelled distribution of GM food, despite little real knowledge of long-term health issues. When that GM food is corn, the lifeblood of Mexico, there is even greater cause for concern.

In Mexico some 44 million tons of second-generation foodstuffs are produced annually from imported GM corn, possibly including Starlink corn. GM corn is distributed without any indication that it is modified. More than 11 million tons of GM corn were imported last year, of which 8 million was directed to internal food production, representing one-third of the corn consumed annually in Mexico.

Since corn products are the foundation of the Mexican diet, the pervasiveness of GM products worries Marielle and health advocates.

"Officially, GM corn only enters [Mexico] for consumption by animals and for industrial products for human consumption. But if you go to the supermarket, you'll find an astonishing quantity of products that contain corn, although it appears that you aren't buying corn," Marielle says.

Greenpeace Mexico has published a list of commercial products that contain GM corn. It includes various commercial brands of tortillas, as well as snacks and breakfast cereals. GM corn is also the basis for many industrial food products like corn syrup, fructose, and vegetable oils.

The principal biotechnology corporations doing business in Mexico are Monsanto, Dupont-Pioneer, Syngenta, and Dow. But Monsanto is the key player, both in Mexico and worldwide; it owns 90 per cent of GM seed patents globally and raked in profits of $8.6-billion last year. The company is infamous for its aggressive legal action against farmers whose crops are unwittingly contaminated by Monsanto's patented varieties.

A Monsanto press representative, Darren Wallis, says that GM products have been eaten by humans since their inception, but does not reply to questions about GM corn's possible negative effects.

"Biotechnologies, from Monsanto and many other companies," says Wallis, "have been used in parts of the world now for more than a decade. Food products from staple crops like corn and soybeans have used ingredients from these crops for the same amount of time and have been widely consumed by people around the world."

GM contamination: is it worth it?

The long-term effects of GM contamination on native maize are still unknown ‚ even the science behind genetic modification remains unclear. The biotech companies themselves are clueless as to exactly how and where transgenes attach themselves to DNA in the process of creating a GM food variety.

When GM contamination of native maize was discovered throughout Mexico in 2001 by both independent and government studies, it was revealed that some plants had been contaminated more than once, and by different GM corn varieties ‚ including Starlink. Farmers in areas of contamination have also reported high rates of mutated cobs.

Although the real extent of contamination is uncertain, it is clear that GM corn can seriously affect insect populations ‚ both pests and those beneficial to crops ‚ with possibly catastrophic results.

One of the most common types of GM corn is known as Bt corn. Bt is a primary contaminator of maize in Mexico, and produces its own insecticide thanks to the genetic fusing of a toxic bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis, into the corn genome. Some studies have shown that Bt pollen is harmful or fatal to the larvae of Monarch butterflies ‚ millions of which breed each year in central Mexico ‚ although the biotech industry's own studies claim otherwise.

More alarming is that crop-destroying pests can become resistant to the Bt toxin, posing a threat not only to GM farms, but contaminated ones as well ‚ which could lead to widespread crop failures in the not-so-distant future.

Even Monsanto has realized this. Although the company has published strategies on avoiding the development of Bt-resistant pests, it maintains that such a possibility is unlikely.

"[Bt corn] is a good tool for farmers because it is toxic to target pests like the corn ear worm in corn, and specific pests in cotton, and is something already found in nature," says Wallis.

To protect non-GM corn varieties from contamination, Monsanto suggests separating some corn in "refuge areas" in order to maintain separate pest populations and avoid contamination from GM varieties.

"Monsanto has a rigorous stewardship plan that protects technologies, like Bt, and promotes its longevity. For Bt in particular, this comes in the form of natural refuge in cotton and refuge acres in corn," Wallis says.

In spite of such efforts, Marielle feels that the risks just aren't worth it.

"When we talk to Monsanto's scientists who work with GM crops, they say, ëWhat we know is really very little.' With so much information lacking, they want to sell us a product that's really not as safe as they say it is," she says.

It's the patents, stupid

Recently, Mexico has passed two laws relating to the planting and sale of GM seeds: in 2005, the Biosecurity Law ‚ known as the Monsanto Law for that company's alleged involvement in its creation ‚ and in 2007 the Law of Seed Production, Certification, and Sale. Both laws set the stage for the legal planting of GM corn, as well as the criminalization of farmers found to have fields contaminated by GM corn.

These laws are part of a process to institutionalize the rights of the transnational agro-biotech sector, similar to one already established in the US and Canada. After a few years of planting GM crops ‚ in test fields, or by farmers who have bought the seed ‚ Monsanto takes farmers whose fields have been contaminated to court for patent violations, forcing these farmers to buy Monsanto's GM variety, year after year.

In Canada, Monsanto won a case in 2001 against Percy Schmeiser, a Saskatchewan canola farmer whose field was contaminated by the company's GM canola from a neighbouring field.

Although the judge ruled that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto, he is not yet free from their grasp. In 2005, Monsanto's canola continued to pop up in Schmeiser's field, cross-pollinating his crop and contaminating his seed.

According to Marielle, the issue comes down to biotechnology patents.

"Everything is tied to the patents," she says. "For farmers, they represent a threat to a common good ‚ maize ‚ with the inheritance of hundreds of generations of farmers and 7,000 years of maize agriculture in Mexico. Fifty-nine maize races with over 1,200 identified varieties are cultivated here. There is a continuous diversification of maize that creates varieties adapted to every ecological niche."

But Marielle says that Monsanto wants to control the seed and fertilizer markets, turning every farmer it can into a lifelong client, and in the process effectively wiping out the genetic diversity of maize.

"It's not just the introduction of a GM gene into the native maize varieties, but the fact that the gene is the private property of Monsanto, entering into a public good," she emphasizes.

Monsanto: a step ahead of the game

Marielle believes that Monsanto's next step is to appropriate the genome of native maize varieties, and to turn some of them into Monsanto's private property.

"To date, all GM seeds are made out of hybrid seeds, but Monsanto is very interested in knowing what is it that makes a maize variety blue, or red, or resistant to droughts. They are promising to develop a GM corn that is drought-resistant," she says. "But here in Mexico we already have drought-resistant varieties ‚ or how do you explain that farmers plant corn in the desert? It's because farmers have been selecting, throughout many centuries, to adapt their seed to such extreme conditions."

Monsanto has already made inroads with farmers in the north of the country, despite the fact that it remains illegal to promote GM corn in Mexico. Of course, the farmers in Chihuahua who planted 9,000 hectares of it had to buy it from somewhere.

"Recently, farmers in the north have been quoted saying that ëWe want GM corn, and since the government hasn't decided its position, we're already planting it'," says Marielle, adding that Monsanto has influence in Mexico through an organization called Agrodinamica Nacional A.C.

Leonardo Estrada, a leader of the National Confederation of Farmers (CNC) ‚ tied to the country's longtime ruling party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) ‚ in Guanajuato state, says that the CNC has strong ties with Monsanto and other bio-tech firms.

"We have a special office in the CNC, the office of Storage and Comercialization, which already has all the necessary ties and connections with the transnationals that can sell us GM seed," he says.

Recently, Monsanto signed an agreement with the CNC, formalizing the future sale of GM seed to CNC farmers as soon as it is legal. In exchange, Monsanto has initiated a project to "conserve" native varieties, hoping to create a database and seedbank of Mexico's maize varieties.

The project could give Monsanto the raw material to start patenting new GM varieties based on Mexico's native maize.

Monsanto's stated goal in undertaking efforts to "conserve" Mexico's maize diversity is to protect maize in the poor southern Mexican states ‚ by not planting there. Some of most contaminated regions, however, are in Oaxaca and Puebla, two southern states that are among Mexico's most impoverished.

Out of reach?

Biotech companies are campaigning hard in Mexico's industrialized north, trying to convince farmers to buy GM corn. Farmworkers are led to believe that GM corn will save them money, and are generally unaware of the risks of contamination.

"We are really ignorant as to how GM corn works," says Miguel, a farmer from Guanajuato state. "But GM corn yields more, and it doesn't need herbicides. In total, it already comes with everything, which for us represents a lot of money saved. We want the government to let us plant it, because it yields more with less water."

Biotech companies' own studies support the claim that GM corn yields more product, but critics argue that independent data indicates otherwise.

"Independent studies by scientists in the U.S. and Europe demonstrate that the improvement in yields isn't true," Marielle argues. "In some cases, yes, but it's never more that ten percent. Sometimes it's negative. There's one study that shows that, in the U.S., the average yield increase is two percent. Is it really worth it to run so much risk for such an insignificant increase in yield?"

Monsanto, however, maintains that GM corn is beneficial to farmers because of yield increases.

"In [GM] corn, some of the most dramatic benefits have come in the shape of increased yields which have helped create more food and feed for people and animals," says Wallis.

Although some farmers believe that they will save money with GM technology, even its proponents admit that small farmers can't afford to buy the large quantities of seed, fertilizer, and irrigation that GM corn requires.

"We have to make the federal government give us a subsidy, because our farmers in the CNC don't have the financial capacity to be buying large volumes of seeds," Estrada says. "We are only waiting for the financial resources to bring [GM corn] in."

A recent study on GM crops by Friends of the Earth International shows that since 1994 ‚ when herbicide-tolerant varieties of GM soy, corn, and cotton were introduced in the U.S. ‚ there has been a 15-fold increase in herbicide use.

Some of the GM corn varieties in Mexico are herbicide-tolerant, resulting in the increased application of glyphosate ‚ a Monsanto-produced herbicide known as Roundup. In Mexico, Monsanto's glyphosate-resistant YieldGuard corn varieties, along with Monsanto's Bt corn, are the principal GM contaminators of native maize.

Sin maíz, no hay país

A lot of attention has been paid recently to the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, a so-called "doomsday" bank in Norway to keep the world's seed wealth in suspended animation. But farmers are the real seed bank; they are the original biotechnicians, constantly adapting and bettering their seed as conditions change. Helping farmers maintain that seed diversity is the real key to food security.

Corn is one of the most important crops on the planet, with some 687.2 billion kilos harvested in 2006 and 2007. Although the majority of that corn is produced in the U.S. and in China ‚ and a large portion has recently been diverted to production of ethanol and other industrial products like glues ‚ it remains a staple food crop all over Africa and the Americas. Preserving the diversity of Mexico's maize is key to future world food security.

The import and planting of GM corn in Mexico ‚ whether illegal or legal ‚ threatens to contaminate maize all over the country, turning campesinos into Monsanto's slaves, obligated to buy its seed year after year.

Campesinos in contaminated areas filed suit in 2002 with the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America (CEC), NAFTA's ruling authority on environmental issues, calling for a review of the risks of GM corn in Mexico. The CEC report called for Mexico to uphold its ban on planting GM seed, and to minimize the import of GM produce.

For the moment, Monsanto is content to wait before taking Mexican farmers to court to formalize their patent rights.

"Right now they're not going to persecute those who have contaminated fields. What they want to do is let their seed proliferate throughout the country," says Marielle.

But indigenous farmers all over Mexico have begun to fight back, holding rituals to cleanse their maize and starting their own seed banks to protect local diversity. However, testing for GM contamination is prohibitively expensive, costing over $200 for each sample.

According to Marielle, a moratorium on the import of GM corn is the only solution to wprotecting Mexico's maize. She argues that consumers must reject GM products and force the government into action.

"What is really needed is a total moratorium. And it's nothing more than a question of political will. It could be done tomorrow," says Marielle. "Why can Japan, who imports a lot of corn and rice from the U.S., successfully reject the importation of GM crops? Because the government of Japan is very strong, and most importantly, Japan's consumers are very strong."

On January 31, in one of Mexico's biggest protests ever, some 200,000 farmers from all over the country flooded Mexico City's central plaza, calling for the government to re-negotiate the terms of NAFTA's agricultural chapter and to immediately stop the importation GM corn.

Bety Cariño is an activist from Oaxaca's Sierra Mixteca ‚ 150 kilometres from where GM contamination was first discovered in 2001 ‚ and part of the Sin maíz, no hay país campaign. She says that GM contamination represented the final straw to not just farmers, but also to Mexico's indigenous peoples, for whom maize is often an important cultural item.

"The government has abandoned real support for the countryside, leaving our fields empty here in the Mixteca, where the youth have to leave for the United States to survive, leaving their communities behind and abandoning the field," she says. "And now, GM corn is going to finish off the countryside ‚ which is to say, Mexico's indigenous peoples."

However, thanks to organizations like GEA and Greenpeace and the Sin maíz, no hay país campaign, Mexican consumers and farmers are learning the risks of GM corn and starting to fight back.

Despite the government's inaction, campesino and indigenous activists all over Mexico have vowed to keep fighting to do what no one else will: protect Mexico's corn, farmers, and indigenous peoples.

"Better to die fighting," says Don Serdán with tears in his eyes, "than on our knees, begging for the food that we ourselves can produce."

Environmentalists Praise Results of Moratorium on Growing Soy in Brazilian Amazon

AP Alert - Agriculture. 31 March 2008. By Michael Astor.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil -- March 31, 2008 -- A moratorium on the purchase of soybeans from newly deforested areas of the Amazon appears to be keeping grain fields from adding to rain forest destruction, environmentalists and an industry group said Monday.

No new soybean plantations were detected in any of the 193 areas that registered deforestation of 100 hectares (250 acres) or more between August 2006 and August 2007, according to Greenpeace and the Brazilian Vegetable Oils Industry Association.

U.S. commodities giants Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Bunge Ltd., as well as France's Dreyfus and Brazilian-owned AMaggi, are participating. Together, the companies account for the majority of the soy trade in Brazil, the world's No. 2 producer of soybeans, after the United States.

"Without a doubt the results show that soy moratorium is being respected and that is good news," said Paulo Adario, coordinator of Greenpeace's Amazon campaign. "However, the high prices of soy on the international market are increasing producers' appetites for more land, which creates and important challenge for the companies committed to the moratorium."

Rising demand from China is among the factors that have pushed up prices and pressure for more soybean production.

The survey released Monday was the first field evaluation since the companies agreed to the two-year moratorium in 2006. The ban came in response to protests against expanding soy plantations, which had become a major source of rain forest destruction. There is no word on whether the moratorium will be renewed.

Adario said he is still concerned because the report shows much of deforestation has occurred in areas next to existing soybean plantations, suggesting that the grain fields could move into those areas to meet growing international demand.

Traditionally, jungle land in the Amazon has been cut for pasture and later sold to soybean growers after it has been overgrazed, usually in two to three years.

After declining over three years, deforestation in the Amazon is once again on the upswing. As much as 7,000 square kilometers (2,700 square miles) of Brazil's rain forest was cleared between August and December 2007, according to the environment ministry.

That would put Brazil on course to lose 5,790 square miles (15,000 square kilometers) for the year ending in August - a 34 percent increase from the previous 12-month period.

Demonstrations across France against GMOs
Anti-GMO demonstrations this weekend

Enviro2b, 31 March 2008

[for the original article in French - Manifestations anti-OGM ce week-end http://www.enviro2b.com/environnement-actualite-developpement-durable/8969/article.html ]

Numerous demonstrations were held this weekend in several cities in France prior to the opening tomorrow of the discussions on the draft GMO legislation in the Assembly. In Rennes, Clermont-Ferrand, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Avignon, Nancy and Lille, nearly 25,000 people gathered on the initiative of a group of anti-GM associations and organisations such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Voluntary Reapers and the Peasant Farmers' Confederation of José Bové.

In Brittany, a very agricultural region, 5,000 people according to the police, and 15,000 according to organizers, have gathered around slogans such as "Monsanto, assassin" or "We don't want GMOs". Arnaud Apoteker of Greenpeace France explains the success of the Breton event as follows:

"Britanny is very important to the question of GMOs, because it is here that the majority of livestock in France are concentrated, and 80% of GMOs are grown for livestock feed."

José Bové was in the middle of the crowd at Clermont-Ferrand, where after a picnic, 1,000 to 3,000 people strolled around the streets of the city. In Toulouse, 500 persons were found around the Capitol. In addition, supporters of the group GMOs 31 have symbolically planted organic maize in front of Pioneer's seed production factory at Aussonne, north of the Pink City [Toulouse].

In Lille, local producers have sold their produce, vegetables, meat, near the stands of Greenpeace, or WWF [World Wildlife Fund]. Finally, in Strasbourg, a dozen people demonstrated in silence, protected by white masks.

Heated debates in anticipation

The parliamentary debates this week are therefore lively, with the voices of the UMP [Union pour un mouvement populaire, a political party] more favourable to GMOs. For the president of the Assembly, Bernard Accoyer, French opinion [against GMOs] "was not built on balanced and objective information (S) a balance has been created between private interests, which are probably open to criticism, and GMOs in general, which are vital for the future of our agriculture, our agronomy, of research, of new drugs."

As for Patrick Ollier, the chairman of the committee of economic affairs, he also affirms his "confidence in science" and believes that GMOs are there to resolve some of the problems of feeding the world.

The Greens call for members to show greater independence than did the Senators. They demand that they oppose the "hypocritical and dangerous" text [of the bill in Parliament] and to hold firms that produce and import GMOs liable for contamination.

Finally, the Socialist Party's Francois Brottes pointed out the absence of guarantee in terms of reversibility of breeding [of GMOs]", while André Chassaigne (PCF, French Socialist Party) sees GMOs as "a food weapon as dangerous as nuclear weapons" for the planet.

30 March 2008

New Zealand: GM brassica trials to be challenged in High Court

Radio New Zealand News, 30 March 2008.

The GE Free NZ lobby will challenge in the High Court at Wellington this week an Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) approval for field trials of genetically engineered brassicas.

The case will be heard over two days starting on Monday, though Crop and Food Research began planting the disputed brassicas last November.

Crop and Food Research planted GM cabbages, broccoli and other brassicas in the Lincoln region after getting clearance from ERMA for 10 years of field tests.

The plants are modified for resistance to caterpillar pests with genes derived from a soil bacterium.

The GE Free NZ organisation, supported by organic groups, argues that ERMA has committed errors in law in approving the trials.

It has submitted that under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, field testing must include testing for adverse effects and that ERMA has failed to demand that.

USA: Genetically modified crops banned
Montville enacts 10-year moratorium on DNA altered organisms

The Republican Journal & the Waldo Independent. By Jane Andrews, 30 March 2008.

MONTVILLE ó The town voted to enact a ban on genetically modified organisms for a period of 10 years by a strong majority at town meeting Saturday.

Anyone using such seeds would have two years to phase them out, but proponents of the ban said they weren't aware of any local farmers or gardeners using genetically modified organisms, although there are several non-residents who lease fields.

The Board of Appeals would handle any challenges from growers.

The three-page ordinance is aimed at providing protection against products introduced in the marketplace whose DNA has been altered through genetic engineering before risks and long-term impacts were identified.

"Super weeks" and "super insects" are among the unwanted, potential results of genetically modified organisms.

The ordinance grew out of a 2006 town meeting vote to set up a committee to study the issue and return wit a recommendation for town meeting action.

Kai George, a gardener who worked on the issue, said she was concerned about health and economic impacts of altered strains that could produce allergic reactions or digestive problems.

George also there could be environmental impacts that would be unpredictable, uncontrollable and impossible to reverse.

Economic problems could also arise as organic farmers discover their produce is no longer organic, or naturally occurring, and find they can't sell to the organic market any more due to unwanted cross pollination from upwind fields.

"Spain had a healthy corn crop, but allowed a couple of GMO corns in on an experimental basis and now, there's no more organic corn," said John Bednarik, a former selectman who expressed concern about the problem. "GMO bred into it. Once it's done, it's done."

Questions were raised about the ordinance.

"Nobody invests without scientific background," said Tom Hrichak. "If I plant something, it's what I think is the best."

29 March 2008

Canada: Monsanto to pay farmer Scheiser $660 for his time

Sun Media, Saturday March 29, 2008.

Percy Schmeiser may have lost his legal battle with Monsanto Canada over the use of genetically modified canola seed, but Canadian Press is reporting that the multinational giant will have to pay the Saskatchewan farmer for the time it took to pull the offending plants out of his fields.

In a deal reached March 19, Monsanto Canada agreed to pay the $660 claim Schmeiser brought against it in small claims court, the final act in a decade-long legal battle watched around the world that turned the Saskatchewan farmer into a folk hero to those opposed to so-called "Frankenfood."

In 1998, Monsanto took the Schmeisers to court for using its patented canola seeds, which were genetically modified to be tolerant to a Monsanto-produced herbicide, without a licence, seeking damages totalling $400,000. The farmers denied they had used the patented seeds, saying they could have blown over from a neighbour's farm or from passing trucks.

Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled Schmeiser infringed Monsanto's valid patent on a gene it inserted into canola plants, although he did not have to pay the damages.

28 March 2008

EU: GMOs: The next asbestos?

Green Left, 28 March 2008. By Steve Griffin.

The European Commission is increasingly annoyed by its inability to foist unwanted, unnecessary and unsafe genetically modified crops onto European consumers and some member-state governments.

The latest example of this comes from Poland, which has announced that it is, after all, going to ban the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in livestock fodder, against the commission's diktat.

The new European Union-friendly Polish government had hinted to its chums in Brussels that it would drop the ban ó proposed by the previous government ó which is due to come into force in August.

The legality of the proposed ban is open to question, but only because the European Commission chooses to ignore overwhelming and ever-mounting evidence that GM foods and feed are potentially dangerous; that GM crops jeopardise the environment, consumers' health and farmers' livelihoods; and that the spread of GM varieties beyond their original plantings cannot, in most cases, be controlled.

'Safeguard clause'

EU member states have the right to apply what is known as a "safeguard clause" if they have evidence that puts a GM product's safety in question. The European Commission, however, refuses to accept the accumulation of scientific evidence. It consistently echoes the lies told by the industry and the public relations specialists whose disinformation campaigns ensure that the public remains confused.

Opponents of GMOs are constantly accused of being "anti-science", yet nothing could be further from the truth. One of our objections to this kind of agricultural biotechnology is that it diverts funds away from the truly vital research needed if we are to continue to produce enough food to feed the world.

Every year or so there is a hue and cry about a "new generation" of GMOs that won't be like the old ones. They will be drought-resistant, or vitamin-enhanced, or highly productive. Yet the only commercially available GMOs continue to be productive of nothing but enhanced profits for the shareholders of the companies that make them, and health and environmental threats for the rest of us.

The British-based Institute for Science in Society (www.i-sis.org.uk) has been monitoring the scientific literature and other sources of information on GMOs over the past decade, and in the words of one of its leading scientists, Dr Mae-Wan Ho, these "strongly suggest that the process of genetic modification may be inherently hazardous".

At the same time, ISIS has uncovered numerous examples of how national and international regulators have been ignoring this evidence while colluding with industry to manipulate scientific research. The institute recently listed more than 130 examples of health problems uncovered by research into GMOs, their conclusion being that "GM food and feed may be inherently hazardous to health, regardless of the plant species or the genetic modification involved".

Research examples include rats fed on GM soya beans ó of an internationally certified variety ó giving birth to severely stunted young, with over half dying within three weeks and the rest becoming sterile; farmers exposed to GM cotton and maize suffering serious allergy-like symptoms; and livestock feeding on GM crops becoming ill and dying in large numbers.

One problem with the technology is that it is poorly understood and thus unpredictable. A major difficulty is what is known as "horizontal gene transfer", where DNA is incorporated into the genomes of cells other than the ones targeted. This means that the results of a genetic modification can be quite different to those intended, and that they can vary.

This is particularly dangerous because genetically modified DNA often contains antibiotic resistance marker genes as well as genes from pathogenic micro-organisms. Their incorporation into cells is encouraged by the incorporation of "promoters".

As Mae-Wan Ho explains, however, if the strong promoter jumps into the wrong place in the genome of animal cells, it can boost the expression of oncogenes ó cancer-provoking genes ó which "cause the cells to multiply out of control".

In addition to these potential health problems, this form of agricultural biotechnology encourages the worst kind of industrial monoculture. GM varieties are more genetically uniform. This means that they are more susceptible to disease and pests. They are more dependent on intensive inputs of pesticides and fertilisers, contrary to claims made on their introduction.

The EU is now legally obliged to follow the precautionary principle in framing regulations to protect public health and the environment. This means that the burden of proof falls on those who wish to introduce any new product or process. They have to show that it is safe. But they have failed to do so.

What they have done instead is conduct a massive PR exercise, confusing the public and buying up scientists, elected legislators and public officials wholesale.

Consequences

Peter Saunders, professor of applied mathematics at King's College London, has made a study of the precautionary principle. Failure to apply it, he concludes, means that GMO-based food and feed "look like joining asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), BSE, tobacco and many others as yet another example of the government relying on bad scientific advice and ignoring the precautionary principle, with devastating consequences".

Finally, it has to be said that the safety or otherwise of GMOs is not the only issue at stake here. A recent survey showed that 76% of Polish consumers do not want them on their farms or in their shops. Whether their reasons are scientifically sound or not should, from a democratic point of view, be irrelevant.

As things stand, Poland allows the import of GM foodstuffs, provided, as is required by EU law, that they are clearly labelled. EU law does not, however, require the labelling of meat or other foodstuffs from animals fed on GMOs. The Polish government's view is that the absence of this information undermines the consumer's right to choose.

There are few better examples of the way the EU operates, putting corporate profit before health and environmental concerns, ignoring its own laws and our basic rights as both consumers and citizens, whenever it suits it.

[Steve McGiffen is the editor of Spectrezine, a former adviser on biotechnology to the United European Left/Nordic Green Left Group in the European Parliament, and author of Biotechnology: Corporate Power versus the Public Interest. This article was written for the Morning Star. Visit www.spectrezine.org.]

EU: Industry cooperation needed for applying rice tests

Food Navigator.com, 28 March 2008. By Laura Crowley.

The food industry is being asked to work with the European Commission to implement testing measures for rice imports from China to prevent unauthorised GM material entering the European food system.

The new strict methods will come into force on April 15th, following the identification of rice contaminated with the GMO Bt63 in imports from China. Bt63 is not authorised in either China or the EU.

While the Commission is responsible for regulation, under EU law, business operators are responsible for the safety of food or feed they put on the market.

Food companies and local authorities are being asked to inform enforcement authorities if such GM rice has left their possession and to recall it if it has reached consumers.

However, a spokesperson for FSA said she could not comment on the probability of Bt63 rice still being on the market. She said this will become apparent after the testing has been carried out.

The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) sent out a letter today.

It said Chinese imports of rice and rice products may now only be placed on the EU market if: "a) they are accompanied by an original analytical report issued by an official or accredited laboratory which demonstrates that the product does not contain Bt63 or b) satisfactory results of analysis are received by the food authority at the point of entry to the Community, following sampling carried out by or under the supervision of that authority."

It added that positive and negative results must be reported to the Commission as emergency measures "need to be taken to ensure that products which are found to contain, consist or to be produced from GM rice 'Bt63' are not placed on the market".

Although the Agency says it is unaware of any health implications for consumers who eat rice products containing Bt63, European regulation 1829/2003 states that GM food and feed should not be placed on the EU market unless it is covered by an authorisation.

GM rice incident

GM contamination of Chinese rice was first discovered in September 2006. The Chinese authorities announced measures to address the problem of GM rice in 2007, including sampling and testing and an official Chinese Inspection and Quarantine Certifical.

Despite these measures, the presence of some material containing BT 63 was still being reported in some countries late last year, meaning the European Commission was forced to draw up stringent testing policies.

The Commission's Standing Committee of Food Chain and Animal Health voted in February to introduce the emergency measures.

The European Commission has now set out the chain of responsibility for ensuring that imported products do not contain GM material.

It says that China is responsible for ensuring that Bt63 does not enter the EU food chain, and that imports are certified as free from this GMO.

Authorities in member states are responsible for controlling imports at their borders, and preventing contaminated consignments appearing on the market.

Member states should also conduct controls on products already on the market to ensure they are Bt63-free.

Finally, businesses importing rice products from China are responsible for ensuring Bt63 does not enter the food chain, and that imports are Bt63-free.

US contaminated rice

This appeal to businesses comes the same week it was decided rice imported from the United States no longer needs to be tested for GMO presence both at the point of export and on arrival in the EU, following an amendment to measures following a similar contamination incident.

Bayer's LL Rice 601, deisgned to tolerate the herbicide glufosinate ammonium, was discovered in batches of American long grain rice in the EU in August 2006. At that time the rice variety was not approved for human consumption. It has since been approved in the US, but no GM rice is allowed in the EU.

The two incidents have had a large impact on the rice industry, and brought into question the efficiency of the food alert system.

The FSA came under considerable fire when LLRice 601 was discovered in American rice supplies intended for export.

Friends of the Earth called for a judicial review, saying the FSA should have done more work with local authorities and the food industry to ensure illegal GM rice was detected and removed from shelves and other parts of the market.

USA: Council votes no GMO Taro

The Garden Island (Hawaii), 28 March 2008. By Nathan Eagle.

A deeply rooted community debate over the future of a culturally important crop on Kaua'i climaxed late Thursday night at the Historic County Building.

After hearing hours of heartfelt pleas and hopeful comments from farmers and scientists, keiki and kupuna, the County Council passed a resolution supporting a bill pending in the state Legislature that would place a 10-year moratorium on growing or developing genetically modified taro.

Councilmembers Mel Rapozo, Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, Tim Bynum and Jay Furfaro cast votes in favor of the resolution; JoAnn Yukimura, Ron Kouchi and Bill "Kaipo" Asing against it. The split 4-3 vote reflected a torn community.

Supporters want taro, or kalo in Hawaiian, to remain pure. Generations of Native Hawaiians consider it disrespectful to even consider messing with the genetic make-up of the sacred plant.

Legend has it Kalo sprouted from Haloa, the stillborn child of Wakea, the sky father, and Ho'ohokukalani, the star mother, to become the first taro plant thousands of years ago.

Kalo provides the kanaka maoli's life-giving sustenance, poi, and is seen as the older brother of mankind, according to Senate Bill 958, which would impose the temporary ban on genetically modified taro.

Bynum, a first-term councilman, said he was pulled in by the cultural arguments.

"I'm a transplant here. I was embraced with aloha by a whole lot of people who live here," he said yesterday. "They're saying it's sacred and are asking to honor the culture. That's what wooed me. It was my toughest decision yet."

While the vast majority of oral testimony pushed for the resolution's passage, some residents argued that genetic engineering research could uncover ways to produce a disease-resistant plant ó securing its future.

"All the taro farmers understand and are sensitive to the cultural significance of taro to the Hawaiian community and also have reservations about GMO taro," Kaua'i Taro Growers Association President Rodney Haraguchi said in his written testimony. "However, they are opposed to have a law passed for 10 years restricting research which may be necessary."

Kaua'i farmers produce roughly 75 percent of the state's taro, Bynum said.

The crop comprises less than 1 percent of all agricultural lands in cultivation in Hawai'i, according to state legislation.

The public hearing spanned some nine hours with the final roll call vote around 11:30 p.m., Bynum said. The council had to wade through this testimony in addition to input from another public hearing two weeks ago and a steady stream of written remarks.

Yukimura released a written statement yesterday explaining why she voted against the resolution.

"I do not believe it is pono to pass a law instituting a 10-year moratorium without taking the time to understand the objections, reservations and concerns of those who produce the majority of the taro in the state ó most of whom are Kaua'i farmers, our neighbors and friends who for generations have been keeping poi on all of our tables," she says. "This doesn't mean that I don't believe a moratorium might or should be eventually instituted, but I think that decision should be made by the stakeholders, not county councils or legislators ó at least not until after those with a stake in taro have gone through a process and come to a consensus or an agreement to disagree."

Council deferred the resolution at its March 12 meeting after hearing from residents who rallied with signs and taro-related shirts. The numbers were almost double on Thursday when an estimated 30 community members, some carrying taro plants as proof of a healthy GMO-free crop, filled council chambers.

The resolution's passage makes a policy statement, Bynum said, noting that its weight remains uncertain.

There is no genetically modified taro in production in the state and the University of Hawai'i recently abandoned attempts to patent some strains of the plant.

There are some 70 taro varieties in existence today, Senate Bill 958 states, down from an estimated 300 or more at the time European explorers arrived.

"For me, the question is how do we solve the problems of taro security and purity, including the debate over the 10-year moratorium, without breaking the 'ohana apart?" Yukimura says. "I passionately believe that there is a way to do that. That way is often harder because it takes deep listening, suspending our judgments and positions and really seeking to understand before seeking to be understood. But, in fact, the solutions to our problems, whatever the solutions may be, depend on the "ohana staying together and working together."

When 'ohana is broken into root words, "oha" is the smaller taro corms growing from the older part of the plant that is used to feed one's family and "ana" is a conjunctive word connoting regeneration or procreation, according to state legislation.

"In voting against the council resolution supporting SB 958, I know that there will be people who say that I am for GMOs. Or, that I don't have respect for the native Hawaiian culture, which will hurt me, but I accept that condemnation with the humility of knowing that in this job as a councilmember I will sometimes be misunderstood," Yukimura says. "I hope some people will try to read my heart and will understand that it is my respect for relationships and "ohana, also a value of our host culture, that underlies my position, and my passionate belief that people can come together, respect and listen to each other and resolve an issue together."

Both sides of the debate acknowledge a lack of information on the health risks associated with genetically modified taro.

Moratorium supporters say the temporary ban would provide time to learn more, but critics say it simply goes too far.

The House Agriculture Committee deferred Senate Bill 958 on March 19.

The council unanimously passed two separate taro-related resolutions in support of Senate Bill 2518 and Senate Bill 2915.

The House referred Senate Bill 2518, which would provide $500,000 in grant funding for taro research, to the Ways and Means Committee.

The House Finance Committee on Thursday passed an amended version of Senate Bill 2915, which would create a taro security and purity task force.

County councils on Neighbor Islands have recently passed measures supporting Senate Bill 958. Big Island passed its resolution Jan. 24. Maui passed its version out of committee two weeks ago and it is expected to head to a full council for a vote yesterday.

Former EU agriculture commissioner calls for positive GMO policy

EurActiv, 28 March 2008.

New political measures are needed to ensure thatİglobal food demand is met in an environmentally sustainable way, said Franz Fischler, who argued in favour of GMO technology to help produce new food crops that meet changing climatic conditionsİand can be used inİbiofuel production.

"We need a modern policy framework which enables our farmers to meet world food demand in an environmentally sustainable way," saidİFischler, speaking at aİforum on the future of EU agriculture on 27 March 2008.İ

The former agriculture commissionerİsaid thatİa market-driven approach to agricultureİcannotİdeal with issues such asİenvironmental security. "Participants in this conference acknowledge market failure in respect of food security and environmental security. Neither receives sufficient government attention or support," said Fischler,İcurrently chairman of theİRISE foundation , which supports and monitors rural private investment.

İ As forİthe current EU debate on GMOs, the former commissioner said that the problemİregardsİreal benefits forİconsumers. "Asİlong as we are not able to demonstrate to consumers that there is a benefit, their consumption behaviours won't change."İ

In addition to this, there are "two fundamental open problems" linked to the debate.İThe first, heİsaid, isİthat the agricultural sector must in future alsoİproduceİnew plants which are not used for food and feed but for other purposes, such as biofuels. "For these non-food purposes, GMO techniques could play anİincreasing role."

Theİsecond question isİclimate change and the need toİadapt plant varieties to newİclimatic conditions in a way that allowsİplants to consume, for example,İless water. "The discussion here is to know whether there is enough time to do this through traditional breeding methods orİwhether the development is soİfast that it will be necessaryİto use GMO techniques which canİproduce new varieties far more quickly," said Fischler.

Fischler's views were echoed by John AtkinİofİSyngenta,İa world leader inİagribusiness based in Switzerland, which sponsored the conference. "By 2030, 50% more food will be needed. This is two billion more people and mouths to feedİvia better diets," said Atkin. "Technology can contribute hugely toİresponding to the challenges of food security. For this, it is important to demonstrate what technology can do and illustrate the consequences of better seeds, better chemicals and better use of fertilisers," he added.İ

Regardless of several positive safety assessments from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the EU 27 remain divided over theİacceptability of GMOs and several member states are resistingİpressure from the European Commission to lift theirİindividualİGMO bans on certain varietiesİof GM maize exported by the Americanİgiant GM producerİMonsanto, for example.İİ

Early this year, French President Nicolas Sarkozy joined Austria, Germany and Polandİin invoking an EU safeguard clause enablingİFrance to suspend the marketing and growth on its territory of a GM crop that has EU-wide authorisation.İ The Commission has never substantiated the applications invoking the safeguard clause while EU environment ministers haveİrepeatedly failed to reach a qualified majority for or against the Commission's proposals to lift the national bans.

UK: EU approves Syngenta biotech maize for import

The Guardian, 28 March 2008. By Jeremy Smith. BRUSSELS, March 28 (Reuters) - The European Union has authorised imports of a genetically modified (GM) maize type for sale across its 27 national markets for the next 10 years, European Commission officials said on Friday.

The maize, known by its codename GA21, is marketed by Swiss agrochemicals company Syngenta and will be used in food and animal feed, not for growing in Europe's fields.

EU law allows for rubberstamp GMO authorisations when ministers cannot agree after a certain time. Since 2004, the European Commission has approved a series of GM imports -- nearly all maize -- in this way, outraging green groups.

In February, EU farm ministers were unable to reach a consensus agreement that would allow imports of five separate biotech products, one of which was GA21 maize.

EU approval of GA21 maize is of particular interest to grain traders in Spain, and also Portugal, since until now, the GM strain has only been permitted for import in processed form.

Spain's growing demand for grain for use in feed is mainly focused on maize. The EU's approval allows GA21 imports as grain and those shipments are expected to come into EU markets mainly from Argentina, a major GM crop grower.

"We welcome today's decision from the European Commission. Clearly it's good that we have GA21 approval. It makes it easier for grain traders in Argentina, Canada and the United States to export," Medard Schoenmaeckers, head of media relations at Syngenta International, said by telephone from Switzerland.

"It's encouraging as it shows the EU is open again for these GM varieties, with current high food prices and a rise in demand," he said.

GA21 maize has been engineered to provide resistance to herbicides containing glyphosate. The authorisation will only take effect once it has been published in the EU's Official Journal, likely to happen in the next few days, officials said.

(Reporting by Jeremy Smith, editing by Chris Johnson)

Syngenta welcome EU authorisation extension of GA21 GM maize

CNNmoney, 28 March 2008.

BRUSSELS, Mar. 28, 2008 (Thomson Financial delivered by Newstex) -- Syngenta (NYSE:SYT) welcomed today's EU authorisation extension of the group's GA21 genetically-modified maize and said the the approval could help boost sales, a spokesman said.

'We welcome today's decision. While we are unable to give specific sales figures, today's authorisation will make import easier and my thus contribute to better sales,' the spokesman said.

The sale of GA21 in processed form had already been authorised in the Europe Union.

The commission said today's decision extends the authorisation of products derived from GA21 to maize grains and thus allows imports from third countries where this GMO is cultivated.

GA21 is not approved for cultivation in the EU.

EU: Romania set to ban approved GM corn crop

Financial Times, March 28 2008. By Andrew Bounds in Brussels and Thomas Escritt in Bucharest.

Romania intends to join six other European Union members in banning the only genetically modified crop approved for use in the bloc, its environment minister said on Thursday, in a fresh blow to the biotechnology industry.

Attila Korodi called for a moratorium on planting MON810, a corn produced by Monsanto, the US company, and said his country's bio-security committee would start examining the possibility of a ban on April 15.

Romania, a major agricultural producer, was a big grower of GM crops before it joined the EU last year.

Mr Korodi told the Financial Times a ban was likely as the committee would examine studies used by Hungary and France to justify their recent prohibition of MON810 because of its negative impact on the environment.

"If they say they have concerns, then we will ask the European Commission for a temporary ban," he said. "We simply don't know what its environmental impact will be."

Italy, Austria, Greece and Poland have also banned the insect-resistant corn, claiming that the toxin it contains could be harmful to other wildlife. However, the Commission, which regulates the market, has yet to sanction their bans.

Stavros Dimas, the environment commissioner, has asked the European Food Safety Authority for an expert evaluation of MON810 and recommended that two similar products not be allowed on to the market because of environmental concerns.

Polls have shown most Romanians do not want to eat GM food, in tune with public attitudes in most EU countries.

Greenpeace, the environmental group, welcomed the news. "The Romanian people overwhelmingly reject this unsafe, unnecessary and unsustainable technology. It is vital the ban is in place as soon as possible, so natural crops can be safe from GM contamination before the sowing season starts," said Gabriel Paun of Greenpeace Romania.

Europabio, which represents biotech companies, said the concerns were baseless and the bans would hurt farmers.

"The specific biotech maize has also been the subject of thorough scientific reviews by scientific communities around the world and has received positive approvals by the world's most robust approval systems, as well as EFSA," it said in a statement.

Spain: Government of Canary Islands declares the archipelago a GMO-free region

EuropaPress.es, 28 March 2008.

The government of the Canary Islands has declared the entire archipelago as a GMO-free region, according to the Council of the Government in a proposal from the Regional Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Food, The regional Ministry of Environment and the Territorial Planning and Land Management Registry. The council has also decided to make the Islands part of "The organisation of GMO-Free Regions".

Full article in Spanish:
http://www.europapress.es/epsocial/00313/20080325192002/
gobierno-canarias-declara-archipielago-zona-libre-cultivos-transgenicos.html

Short piece in English:

The government of the Canary Islands declares the archipelago free zone of GMOs

26 March 2008, translated by Isabel Bermejo, Ecologistas, Spain.

42% of the insular territory is declared as a Natural Space, the highest figure in all the national territory. The government of the Canary Islands has declared the archipelago as a GMO-free region, according to the information facilitated by the Council of the Government in a common proposal from the Regional Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Food, The regional Ministry of Environment and the Territorial Planning and Land Management Registry.

Also, the council has decided to integrate the Islands in the communitarian forum "The organisation of GMO-Free Regions" to defend in front of the Communitarian Institutions the need for EU regulations which take into consideration the different productive and environmental strategies of the diverse regions of Europe.

"It would be highly valued within the National Commission of Bio-security, as general criteria, for the approval of GMO crops in the Canary Islands, the negative impact on the productive strategies of the whole Canaries agricultural sector" expressed the note from the Government.

27 March 2008

UK: GM rice 'unsafe' says Food Standards Agency

Friends of the Earth press release, 27 March 2008.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has this week declared that illegal GM rice found in the UK food chain eighteen months ago is "unsafe". In a letter to food companies the FSA advises them to recall any affected products that have reached consumers. The FSA will also shortly issue a food alert to local authorities with advice over what enforcement action they should take. Friends of the Earth welcomes this move - something the environmental organisation has demand in response to illegal GM contamination incidents.

The GM rice (Bt63) is an experimental variety genetically modified to produce an insecticide. It is not approved for human consumption or commercial cultivation anywhere in the world. The contamination in China stems back to 2005 and in September 2006, Friends of the Earth discovered two contaminated foods on sale in Asian specialty stores in London [1].

Scientific studies have raised raise concerns about the rice's risk to human health, particularly the potential to cause food allergies [2]. So little data on the rice exists that it is not even possible to carry out safety tests [3].

Friends of the Earth took the FSA to court last year over its failure to act over a similar contamination incident involving GM rice from the US [4]. In that case, the judge noted that the FSA should have issued a food alert to local authorities, something Friends of the Earth called for from the start of the incident. This decision to issue a food alert over Bt63 rice marks a shift in the way the FSA has responded to GM contamination incidents.

Friends of the Earth's GM Campaigner, Clare Oxborrow, said "We welcome the fact that the FSA is finally taking action over illegal GM rice. But it's outrageous that it took a court case and eighteen months since the contamination was first discovered in the UK to get there. In that time unquantifiable numbers of people have been exposed to this untested rice, with unknown health implications. The FSA must ensure local authorities carry out thorough testing to ensure that any contaminated foods are identified, removed from sale and recalled. It must also urgently introduce measures to prevent illegal GM ingredients entering our food in future".

For further information see Friends of the Earth and GM Freeze background briefing: www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/GM_Rice_Contam_final_edit.pdf (PDF)

Notes

[1] In September 2006, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace discovered that the illegal Bt rice had contaminated Chinese rice products in the UK www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/illegal_gm_rice_found_in_u_05092006.html

This contamination incident stemmed from field trials in China. In 2005 an investigation by Greenpeace found that research institutes and seed companies in China had been illegally selling unapproved GM rice seeds to farmers. Further testing indicated that the whole food chain had been contaminated, with the most recent case being the contaminated Heinz rice cereal baby food in Beijing, Guangzhou and Hong Kong. The Chinese government, in the wake of the situation, reportedly punished seed companies and destroyed illegally grown GM rice crops.

However, new contamination incidents were reported in the EU in Autumn last year, which finally prompted the EC to put in place an Emergency decision on Bt63 rice, which will come into force on 15 April.

[2] The toxin detected is either the Cry1Ac protein, or a fusion Cry1Ab/Cry1Ac protein. A 1999 study partly sponsored by the US Environmental Protection Agency found evidence to suggest that the Bt protein Cry1Ac can elicit antibody responses consistent with allergic reactions in farm-workers and a series of studies published in 1999 and 2000 by a Cuban researcher Vasquez-Padron on Cry1Ac documented immunogenic responses to which indicate the potential for allergic reactions or other immune system responses: www.humboldt.org.ni/transgenicos/docs/what_experts_says_human_effects.pdf

[3] FSA Draft minutes of Bt63 scoping meeting, 22 February 2008

[4] www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/food_standards_agency_take_21022007.html

www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/ruling_on_legal_challenge_23022007.html

EU: Romania mulls national ban on Monsanto maize

Reuters, 27 March 2008.

BUCHAREST - Romania's environment ministry wants to impose a national cultivation ban on Monsanto (MON.N: Quote, Profile, Research) MON 810 genetically modified maize this year, minister Attila Korodi said on Thursday.

"We're in the process of forming a committee on biosecurity that can start (working) on April 15. Taking into account all the European studies which raised too many questions regarding this maize, we will ask it to give a verdict," minister Attila Korodi told Reuters by telephone.

"We will request the committee to consider a ban on the commercial cultivation of MON 810 because we are worried."

Korodi said Romania has put around 330 hectares under MON 810 last year.

(Reporting by Radu Marinas; editing by Chris Johnson)

USA: Creamery pushes for tougher GMO rules
A local creamery will be certified as GMO free and wants tougher standards

ABC, 27 March 2007. By Terry McSweeney.

WEST MARIN, CA (KGO) -- A Bay Area creamery is about to become the first in the United States to certify its products to be free of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. It may give organic consumers peace of mind, but there's no chance it will end the fierce battle over the safety of food containing GMOs.

The Straus family creamery in West Marin went organic in 1995 and wants to keep that certification. That's why it was so disturbing to find genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, contaminating its organic ingredients.

"GMOs are not natural, they are not allowed by organic law and it's a huge issue for us," said Albert Straus, Straus Creamery owner.

Pollen from genetically modified plants has been contaminating organic crops. It had been turning up in milk and eggs used at the Straus Creamery and feed used at the Straus Dairy. About 75 percent of America's corn and soy are genetically modified. That means scientists have transferred genetic information from one plant to another. Making the recipient plant more like the donor plant; more drought resistant for example, or more tolerant to herbicide. But Straus doesn't think anyone knows what GMOs do to humans.

"I feel that not only am I a guinea pig for their research but all consumers are that we're supplying food for," said Albert Straus.

Which is why, in the next month, you will begin to see a 'No-GMO' certification on Straus yogurt and by September, on the side of all Straus products.

"All organic ingredients and products have a paper trail and a certification that goes along with them. We get a copy of all that, we get a copy of their tests as well as we do verification on our end," said Albert Straus.

Although it's a case of Straus certifying its own products and suppliers, it is still approved by the West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety, Rebecca Spector.

"At least Straus is taking the effort through the rigorous process to actually go to levels to make sure feed has been tested for GMOs. And what they are saying is that they won't accept shipments that are above a certain threshold," said Rebecca Spector, Center for Food Safety. Peggy Lemaux is with the Department of Plant and Microbial Biology at U.C. Berkeley. She says, yes, GMOs have only been in the human food chain for 13 years, but they were tested on animals for years before that.

"I've looked at all the safety tests that have been done on the products, that are in the commercial marketplace now, and there is nothing that has been confirmed as being an adverse effect in any of these animal tests that have been done," said Peggy Lemaux, U.C. Berkeley biologist.

Back at the Straus Creamery and Dairy, they're not convinced.

"We're encouraging the rest of the industry to step up and move forward as quickly as possible to get a verification program in place," said Albert Straus.

The GMO controversy in the United States pales in comparison with what's going on in Europe. Thousands of municipalities and tens of thousands of farmers and food producers in Europe have declared themselves GMO free and refuse to allow the use of genetically modified organisms in the agriculture and food in their territories.

Ireland: Poll shows majority are not in favour of GM food

Irish Farmers Journal. Letters to the editor, 27 March (dated 29 March) 2008.

Dear Sir,

In response to Mr Shane Morris's letter in last week's Irish Farmers Journal, I would like to suggest that he reads the results of the latest Eurobarometer poll.

This poll surveyed 26,740 people. It found that 58% are against GM food, while a mere 21% were for it.

Polls throughout Europe have consistently shown this trend. I think we can safely ignore this abberation highlighted by Mr Morris.

Kate Carmody
Beal Lodge
Asdee, Co Kerry
Ireland

EU's top maize producers reject genetic engineering;
Greenpeace applauds action and calls for European Commission to ban GE maize

Greenpeace Media Release, 27 March 2008

International - Greenpeace welcomes the Romanian Government's landmark decision to ban genetically engineered (GE) maize, announced today. The move is particularly significant as GE maize is the only commercially cultivated GE crop permitted in Europe.

Mr Attila Korodi's, Minister of Environment and Durable Development, announcement banning Monsanto's GE maize MON 810, makes Europe's largest per hectare maize producer [1] GE-free. Romania is the seventh of Europe's leading maize producers to ban the growing of GE varieties, following France, Hungary, Italy, Austria, Greece and Poland.

"Romania's GE ban marks a seismic change. It sends a critical message that this dangerous technology will not be tolerated. It is vital the European Commission [2] protects all of Europe's farmers, consumers and environment by introducing an EU-wide ban against GE cultivation," Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International GE campaign coordinator said.

Concerns over safety prompted the government to take action. Scientific studies show MON 810 maize is harmful to wildlife, soil and human health. Its inbuilt toxin which is designed to kill the cornborer, a pest considered insignificant in Romania and other parts of Europe, seeps into soil harming animals critical to soil health, such as earthworms, and other wildlife including butterflies, ants and spiders. Proof of its safety for human and animal health are inconclusive [3].

"The Romanian people overwhelmingly reject this unsafe, unnecessary and unsustainable technology [4]. It is vital the ban is implemented as soon as possible, so natural crops can be safe from GE contamination before the sowing season starts," said Gabriel Paun, GE Campaign Coordinator Greenpeace Romania.

Contamination of natural crops from GE cultivation is a serious problem. In 2007 alone, there were 39 new instances of crop contamination in 23 countries last year alone [5]. Despite this, there is no international standard holding biotech companies to account for the damage and financial losses they cause.

Notes to Editor

1) Romania is the European Union's top maize producer in terms of hectares with about 3 million hectares cultivated annually. Some 300 hectares of MON 810 have been cultivated in Romania since 2007, representing only 0.01 per cent of Romania's total maize production.

2) In 1998, Monsanto was granted a 10-year licence by the European Commission to grow GE maize MON 810 throughout the EU. The licence is now coming up for renewal, creating an important opportunity for the Commission to withdraw permission for the cultivation MON 810 maize throughout the EU, which would be in line with the majority of maize growing countries in Union. MON 810 is the only GE crop allowed for cultivation throughout the EU.

3) A recent study by Professor Gilles Eric SÈralini, a French governmental advisor on GE from the University of Caen, found signs of toxicity in the internal organs of tested animals fed with GE.

In late 2007, EU Commissioner for Environment, Mr Stavros Dimas used similar studies to block the cultivation of two other GE maize varieties, similar to MON 810, in the EU. He also referred to new studies showing that the Bt toxin produced by GE maize has negative effects on aquatic ecosystems.

4) An opinion poll, conducted by Mercury research and commissioned by Greenpeace in the summer of 2007, showed that 67 per cent of Romanians do not want to eat GE food.

5) Greenpeace and GeneWatch UK's annual GM Contamination Register Report. Since 2005, the Register has recorded 216 contamination events in 57 countries since GE crops were first grown commercially on a large scale in 1996.

Contact information

Beth Herzfeld, Greenpeace International, Media Officer, Tel: +44 (0) 7717 802 891

Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International, GE Campaign Coordinator, Tel: (0) +31 646 197 328

Gabriel Pã:un, Greenpeace Romania, GE Campaign Coordinator, Tel: + 40 (0) 744351977

UK: lllegal GM Rice "Unsafe" say FSA

GM Freeze press release, 27 March 2008

Rice products imported from China contaminated with the unapproved and illegal GM trait Bt63 have been confirmed as "unsafe" by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

v In a letter to food regulators and the food industry sent on 26 March, the FSA state:

"The Agency takes the view that the unauthorised GM material is 'unsafe' as defined in Article 14 of Regulation (EC)178/2002 and that food business operators should inform enforcement authorities if such rice has left their possession, initiate procedures under Article 19 of Regulation (EC) 178/2002 to withdraw it and to recall it if has reached consumers."

The EC regulations define food as "unsafe" if it is a) injurious to health or b) unfit for human consumption.

Bt63 was developed at the Huazhong Agricultural University in China and has not been approved anywhere in the world for commercial growing. Concerns have been expressed that the GM protein in Bt63 rice could cause allergic reactions, but the European Food Safety Authority has been unable to assess its food safety risk because of lack of data on the GM crop. The FSA will issue a Food Alert on Bt63 shortly.

Bt63 genes have been detected in foodstuffs in China and Europe since 2005. The illegal GM genes were found in a number of speciality rice products (such as rice sticks and noodles) in the UK, France, Germany and Sweden in September 2006. In 2007 the UK imported nearly 1,000 tonnes of these rice-based pasta products from China.[1]

In February the EU issued an Emergency Decision, which comes into force on 15 April, to prevent further import and distribution of rice and rice products contaminated with Bt63. Any presence of Bt63 would mean it would be illegal to market the products in question.

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

"We welcome the moves to remove products contaminated with Bt63 rice from the market, but why has it taken so long? The EU and FSA have been aware of the contamination in Europe for 18 months, and now they tell us the GM rice is "unsafe". Why the delay? We have no idea how many people might have been exposed to contaminated products. We are concerned that immune system or allergic reactions could occur in people eating them. The EU seems to have been too reliant on the Chinese authorities to deal with the contamination, but they have failed to do so. This case provides another warming about how easy it is to contaminate food with GM and how difficult it is to clean up the mess afterwards. Businesses affected by this incident should be compensated as soon as possible, and the EU should seek recompense from the Chinese Government."

ENDS

Calls to Pete Riley 0845 217 8992 or 07903 341065

1. See GM Freeze/Friends of the Earth briefing www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/GM_Rice_Contam_final_edit.pdf

Romania considers to ban the GM maize

GMO Informnation Centre, Bucharest, 27th of March 2008

Romania's Ministry for Environment publicly stated its support for the ban on MON810 genetically modified maize, during an organic lunch held at the Romanian Traditional Museum in Bucharest. The event was organized by Greenpeace and Romania's Federation of Organic Farmers (FNAE). Farmers came from all parts of Romania to participate in the event and show their disapproval of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in their products.

At the present time, Romania's Ministry for Environment (ME) is working to make the temporary ban of MON810 Monsanto maize official, with the approval of the Government. ME declared that it is highly important that the Government support this decision. "As we are at the beginning of the seeding season, I urge the farmers and the companies from the agricultural sector to avoid the cultivation of the GM maize. ME received new scientific studies which raise serious doubts about the safety of MON810 toward human health and the environment. These studies have been used by other EU Member States such as France, Hungary, Austria, Greece, Poland and Italy in order to avoid cultivation of this maize variety, which produces it's own pesticide. The European legislation allows the Member States to take restrictive measures against a GMO. We have significant questions concerning the release of MON810 maize into the environment and in these conditions we cannot be in favor of it's cultivation." said the Ministry of Environment Attila Korodi.

However, based on declarations made by the same Minister, we cannot consider this latest decision to be final. The Biosafety Commission, a scientific body under the control of Romania's Minister for Environment, will decide some time after 15th of April 2008 whether a moratorium on MON810 will indeed be imposed. At the moment this Commission is not functional because it has no members. Its nomination process has been ongoing since January this year and its activity is suspended until the nominations are made.

On the very same day, Dacian Ciolos, Romania's Minister of Agriculture reassured the public during the News aired by the Romanian TV channel 'Antena3' that the Ministry of Agriculture strongly defends organic farming and consumer's health and therefore, it would not allow, under any legal form, the contamination of this type of agriculture with GMOs. In Romania, the level of GMO contamination in organic agriculture must be 0%, according to national regulation.

"This new official position of the Ministry of the Environment is extremely good news for Romania's organic farmers. Unfortunately, there remain some worrisome aspects which we consider rather pertinent. The GM maize ban will be decided after seeding has taken place. Without any real preventive measures, the MON810 will thus already be cultivated by the time the Biosafety Commission expresses its decision. Unrelated perhaps but still interesting to note, Monsanto's permit for MON810 will expire in August. In the event that they will ask for a renewal of their authorization, will the Minister for Environment have the strength to say 'no'? This is a justified question particularly given that there will be parliamentary elections in Romania later this year; meaning that the head of the Ministry of Environment may very well change", declared Dan Craioveanu, GMO campaigner on behalf of FNAE.

For more informations, please contact:

Ramona Duminicioiu
President ‚ GMO Information Centre - InfOMG
Fax: +40 364 119 862
Mobile: +40 746 337 022
E-mail: infomg@ngo.ro

Norwegian Government: Svalbard Global Seed Vault
Summary of the Svalbard Conference

www.individual.com, 27 March 2008

The conference was held on the 25 th. of February, the day before the official ceremonial opening of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault.

Draft - Nancy Hart

The Conference "Svalbard Global Seed Vault - Saving Seeds for Eternity?" included as speakers representatives from a range of organizations and areas of expertise that contributed to the development of the Seed Vault and also will be in a position to benefit from its existence. The fact that the title of the conference was presented as a question challenged the speakers to put the Seed Vault into both an immediate and long-term perspective. The conference was held the day before the official ceremonial opening of the Seed Vault.

Why a Seed Vault? Why Norway? Why Svalbard?

Terje Riis-Johansen, Norwegian Minister of Agriculture and Food "Norway is well aware of farmers' contributions" Norwegian Minister of Agriculture and Food, Terje Riis-Johansen, set the tone for the conference held in connection with the opening of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault.

In his talk, he paid homage to the work that has gone on in the international community in the past two decades that set the stage for the Seed Vault.

He recounted the Nordic Gene Bank's efforts, in the early 1980s, to find a safe place for its security collection and the fact that it chose to store those valuable seeds in an old Svalbard mine very close to the location chosen for the Seed Vault. The success of that endeavor made them believe in the viability of the Seed Vault project.

"Of course, it never would have happened without the parallel evolution in the global community which led to establishment of a legal framework that provides common rules for the sharing of genetic diversity among nations. It brought the right mix of policy-makers, politicians and government leaders together with scientists and farmers and allowed this idea to be discussed in formal and informal settings."

During his talk, Minister Riis-Johansen announced Norway's commitment to support plant-breeding efforts in poor countries. Starting in 2009, the Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture and Food will make annual payments equal to 0.01 percent of the values of seeds sold in Norway to the benefit-sharing fund of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources that supports on-farm conservation efforts in developing countries.

"We all know that the real work of selecting, conserving and improving crop diversity has taken place in farmer's fields throughout the millennia. The establishment of this vault does not curtail that effort at all. The Government of Norway is well aware of farmers' contributions and, for us, it's 'pay-back time." He further challenged other OECD countries to make the same commitment.

Opening address

Dr Jacques Diouf, Director-General, UN Food and Agriculture Organization "... We all share a common future ..." In calling seeds "the vehicles of life", Dr Jacques Diouf, Director General of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, pointed out that current global population trends indicate that the world will have 9 billion inhabitants by 2050, 3 billion more than today. He also noted that cereal production will have to increase by 50 percent in the next 25 years to keep up with demand.

Calling the Seed Vault "one of the most innovative and impressive acts in the service of humanity," Dr. Diouf said that the seeds that will be housed in the Seed Vault will be essential for increasing crop productivity, mitigating environmental stress such as climate change, pests and diseases, and ensuring a genetic resource base for the future.

Dr. Diouf also recognized that the way to the Seed Vault's establishment had been paved by the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. The International Treaty, already ratified by 116 countries, has ensured conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources with fair and equitable sharing of benefits.

"We may live in a world divided by inequalities but we all share a common future," he said. "No country is self sufficient in natural resources and all are ecologically interdependent. Wealth safeguarded in Svalbard will be global insurance to solve future challenges. Today, I urge countries to join the effort to securing world's crop diversity now and in the future."

Safe harbour in a perfect storm - the story of the Vault in the context of threats facing agriculture

Dr Cary Fowler, Executive Director, Global Crop Diversity Trust "Death of a thousand cuts" Dr. Cary Fowler, head of the Global Crop Diversity Trust, the organization entrusted with securing the funds to endow the worlds crop gene banks as well as overseeing the maintenance of the Seed Vault, is also referred to as the visionary whose lead position on the original feasibility study led to the construction of the Seed Vault. In addressing the Conference, Dr. Fowler referred to the current world situation in terms of viability for feeding future generations as "the perfect storm of challenges," ranging from climate change, declines in energy and water availability, development pressures and a burgeoning population.

"Diversity is threatened by climate change. On the other hand we're going to have to be making some major changes in the nature of the crops we have in the fields, which is going to require diversity. If ever there was a moment in history when conserving this diversity was worthwhile and yielded a great cost benefit ratio, it would be now," he said.

In referring to the threat to the viability of seed collections currently held in gene banks as well as to diversity of crops growing in the field, he called it "more than an apocalypse."

"It is death of a thousand cuts. We loose diversity every day - which is a benign way of saying it is becoming extinct. We are dependent," he said pointing to a chart showing the percentage of crop samples currently held in gene banks, huge collections that represent only a small portion of the total.

"We are all in the same boat and if we don't learn to share and cooperate, that will be a sinking boat."

Plant genetic resources conservation from a farmer's point of view

Tatay Gipo, Filipino rice farmer "From the 25 kilos, I harvest 132 sacks of rice" When Tatay Gipo introduced himself to the conference participants by showing photos from his family album, it was the perfect illustration of how individual farmers have potential to help the world's agricultural production. Mr.

Gipo only reached the fourth grade in school, and started farming when he was 12 years old. Yet he comes from many generations of farmers who have passed farming knowledge to him and because of his background, Mr. Gipo is credited with the discovery and development of a new robust rice variety.

When he began farming in 1957, he used traditional varieties and used pesticides to kill the pests that attacked the crops.

In 1966 he built his own farm and in 1967, the first varieties arrived from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) along with fertilizers and pesticides. But still, diseases appeared in the field.

In 1985, he adopted a high-yielding variety of rice that had been developed by IRRI. Yet, that variety also was attacked by pests. However, he observed that one plant in his field was not attacked by the virus. It was a different color and had a different stand, so he saved it.

"The next cropping season," he said, "I planted it. During the harvest, I could not believe I could harvest 25 kilos from the seeds that I had saved. I repeated it the next season. From the 25 kilos, I harvest 132 sacks of rice."

In 1993, Mr. Gipo received recognition as one of the outstanding farmers from the local government. He then set about learning about crop breeding and crop technologies. The NGO SEARICE, Philippines, has provided him with training and from the original variety discovered, he has made more than 10 crosses and is maintaining 15 lines from a cross he made between bordagol and basmati rice.

The role of crop diversity for food security

Maria Mayer de Scurrah, President Grupo Yanapai "Food security comes from variety" Speaking on behalf of Peruvian potato farmers, Maria Mayer de Scurrah, president of Grupo Yanapai of Lima, offered impressive numbers. Peru has nine species of potatoes, the average farming family farms eight varieties and the average community has 122 varieties.

"In the world," she said, "you know 'potato', but in Peru, we grow 'potatoes'. We know that food security comes from varieties. Everyone shares."

Grupa Yanapai is an NGO working on research and development of small-scale farming, especially on conservation of plant genetic resources and development of low input technology. Her work has included research in areas once inhabited by Incan population where she found a very important native variety was growing but also two wild species. "The question is whether the wild species are still interacting with our crops."

The farmers used to farm with huge community fields in which the individual farmers moved in rotation, taking their own varieties with them. This was a good defense against disease because the plantings changed each year. Now, they have moved to family plots which means they now must deal more with diseases.

Arctic climate change and global consequences

Pl Prestrud, Director CICERO "Warming in the Arctic is at twice the rate of the global average" The Arctic zone is experiencing some of the most rapid and severe climate change on earth, according to Pl Prestrud, Director of the Norwegian Climate Change Center (CICERO). "The warming in the Arctic is at twice the rate of the global average," he said.

The reason for the faster increase is because snow and ice reflect solar radiation while open water captures it. Thus, as temperatures increase and snow and ice melts, there is more water, meaning more radiation is captured. In addition, as the sea ice melts, the water below it warms up and decreases the amount of freezing for the following year. This scenario has meant that the reduction of the snow cover is moving much faster than predicted, with an 8-9 percent reduction in the last 50 years. In addition he points to changes such as spring arriving 2-3 weeks earlier in the Arctic, Alaska's growing increasing by one and a half months, and the melting glaciers in Svalbard that have potential to increase sea level by 6-7 meters.

He said this will have both global and local consequences.

"Globally," he explained, the huge amounts of carbon stored in the permafrost will be released. There is more carbon stored in organic material and methane hydrates in the permafrost than is found in the atmosphere. Cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water, so as the water warms up, less CO2 will be captured."

Locally, people will face enormous challenges. "Although the warmer temperatures may mean more opportunity for agriculture, it will affect the biodiversity. We have a community of animals and plants connected to the ice." In addition, there will be more accessibility for exploitation of mineral resources which will impact land values.

In addition, in just a few years, it will be possible to go between North America and Europe via the Arctic Circle. This will have enormous political ramifications.

Future challenges regarding plant genetic resources and the role of the global seed vault

Patrick Mooney, Executive Director ETC group "We need seeds in the vault" In praising Norway for its contribution of the Global Seed Vault and its commitment to contribute to the benefit-sharing fund of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Patrick Mooney, Executive Directorof ETC group also warned that "we are not there yet."

Referring to a "lack of trust", Mooney sated that "if we are going to survive climate change, we need the ecosystem knowledge of farmers. If we are going to have a chance to adjust and shift to threats, we need the farmers to help us."

Farmers, he said, "have the ability to adjust. They were able to do it in the past and have the capacity to use it today, in situ. But, above all, there must be trust"

Mooney, who has some 30 years experience working with civil society organizations dealing with agriculture and biodiversity, spoke of what caused the problems of trust among farmers, scientists and governments in the first place. He listed genetic erosion of crops caused by monoculture farming practices of industrial agriculture, marketplace pressures, trade barriers and international property issues. "Problems," he says, "that are still there."

He recounted that 30 years ago there were 30,000 seed enterprises listed by FAO. Today the top ten countries have 55 percent of the seed market and four countries have almost 100 percent of the GMO market. Along with this, there are new challenges such as extreme genetic engineering that brings with it a risk, "we must remember that we cannot depend on technology to solve our problems. We need seeds in the vault." Ministry of Agriculture

Contact

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Norwegian Government Tel: +47 22 24 90 90 Fax: +47 22 24 95 55 e-mail: postmottak@lmd.dep.no

UK: GM crops: menace or blessing?

Letters, The Independent, 27 March 2008

Sir: Country Life magazine is wrong to suggest that GM crops are the way the world should feed itself ("It's crazy to ignore benefits of GM food, says Country Life", 20 March). GM crops have not produced increased yields, lower use of fertilisers, pesticides etc. Worse, peer-reviewed research is increasingly showing evidence of the negative health impacts.

A Russian study which investigated the effects of feeding GM soya to pregnant rats found very high mortality among their litters, and recently published Australian research showed GM peas fed to mice triggered allergic reactions. There is no sign of any retailer planning to stock GM food, and no advantage to consumers in buying these products.

GM companies are being irresponsible by spreading this poorly understood, inherently uncertain and potentially very dangerous technology, and people are right to continue to reject it.

Emma Hockridge
Policy Department, Soil Association, Bristol

"UK Farmers Upbeat about GM Crops" Debunked
Government Funding Industry to Market GM Crops

Institute for Science in Society, 27 March 2008. By Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Peter Saunders.

How UK government funding agency misled the public

The UK Government's Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) recently put out a press release entitled, "What farmers think about GM crops" [1], which began: "Farmers are upbeat about genetically modified crops", according to research it funded.

It went to say that a research team at the Open University has taken "the first systematic look" at what large-scale, commodity farmers (specifically excluding those mainly involved in organic growing) think about GM crops. The research, aimed at the attitudes of farmers expected to be most favourably disposed to using GM crops, found that they regard GM as a simple extension of previous plant breeding techniques, and GM crops an innovation that "they would assess on its merits." Their real interest is in "how GM crops would work in practice and whether they can contribute to the profitability of their farms."

The research was actually done in 2005 [2], and involved interviewing just 30 commodity farmers. Half of the farmers, selected by SCIMAC (the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops), the industry group that supports GM crops, were among those who had hosted the three-year Farm Scale Evaluation of GM crops that SCIMAC had got the UK government to fund in 2000. And even this small, restricted group of farmers, expected to be most favourably inclined towards GM crops, have adopted a wait-and-see attitude.

But the ESRC press release quoted the lead researcher Prof. Andy Lane saying: "New technology such as GM is attractive to farmers. They want to produce high-quality food profitably and they want to farm in an environmentally sensitive way. GM may allow them to reconcile this conundrum by doing both of these things at onceğ.A particular advantage of GM is its potential to allow farmers to grow crops with high yields while using less herbicide."

Lane's statements are not based on any evidence provided by the Open University research team, the ESRC or anywhere else, and have been contradicted again and again by data from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and studies carried out in universities (see below).

Predictably, the misleading message from the ESRC was widely repeated, often with embellishment, in the popular press. One headline went as far as saying: "UK farmers want to grow GM crops" [3]. Julian Little, Chair of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, a GM industry group, wrote that [4]: "A study into the attitude of farmers by the Open University this week, announced that farmers recognise the clear economic and environmental benefits of GM crops to themselves and the wider public. It demonstrated that new technologies are seen as a way to achieve high quality produce at a low cost for consumers, while being socially responsible." He added: "Scientific trials of GM crops must go ahead unmolested." Biotech giant Monsanto, too, lost little time in posting one such article on its website [5]: "Shhhh - Farmers Love Frankenfoods. British farmers are ready to throw in the organic cotton towel and start growing biotech crops just like their American cousins, finds a new study from Open University."

Data consistently show that GM crops reduce profit for farmers and increase pesticide use

GM crops are neither profitable for farmers nor do they result in less herbicide use. Data from the USDA and US universities have consistently shown that GM crops gave no increase in crops yields or profitability, and more often a reduction in both, while increasing rather than decreasing the use of pesticides (reviewed in The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World [6]. Both the two major GM traits that make up nearly 100 percent of all GM crops, Bt and glyphosate tolerance, have decisively failed at least as far back as 2005 [7, 8] (Scientists Confirm Failures of Bt-Crops and Roundup Ready Sudden Death, Superweeds, Allergens..., SiS 28), and promoting them can be a recipe for ecological and agronomic disaster.

The Friends of the Earth report [9] released January 2008 confirms those findings. It highlights the more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate herbicide on the major crops - soybeans, corn and cotton - from 1994 (when GM crops were first introduced) to 2005, based on data from the USDA. The increase in glyphosate is not compensated by a decrease in other herbicides. While farmers growing glyphosate tolerant Roundup Ready crops initially used lower quantities of herbicides other than glyphosate, that trend soon reversed. Increasingly, farmers have found it necessary to apply larger amounts of both glyphosate and other herbicides to kill weeds that have become resistant to glypohsate. From 2002 to 2006, the use of the second leading soya herbicide 2,3-D more than doubled from 1.39 to 3.67 million lbs, while glyphosate use on soybeans increased by 29 million lbs (a 43 percent rise). Similarly, glyphosate on corn increased 5-fold from 2002 to 2005 simultaneously with a rise of atrazine by nearly 7 million lbs (12 percent up). Atrazine, the most heavily used herbicide on corn in the US, is banned in Europe because of its links to serious health problems such as endocrine disruption, breast and prostate cancer.

Finally, a 4-year study just completed by researchers at the University of Georgia and the USDA concluded that the use of transgenic cotton does not provide increased returns to the farmer [10]. They found that no transgenic technology system produced significantly greater returns than a non-transgenic system in any year or location.

ESRC complicit in supporting marketing for the biotech industry disguised as research

ESRC spokesperson Astrid Wissenburg stated in a reply to Dr. Brian John of GM-Free Cymru [11] that while accepting "the phrasing of the opening line of the press release could have been more precise, ğ the facts as stated in the press release are accurate and stand as written [though obviously the quotes attributed to Andy Lane are not accurate]ğThe purpose of the research was never to undertake a survey of views on GM, but to undertake an in-depth study of farmers' views on GM crops as a new technology and investigating the major influences on their views and decisions." The original proposal was to interview 60 farmers, but for "both funding and scientific reasons" the total number was scaled back to thirty.

Why was such a research project undertaken at all? It cost the taxpayer at least GBP131 000 to interview a select group of 30 farmers and it did not tell us anything remarkable or new. Wissenburg explained: "Given the very limited extent of GM trials in the UK, and the decision not to proceed with licensed GM varieties, the pool of those who could have participated is quite small, so the project could not draw upon a random sample from the whole UK farming population."

That makes it clear why this research was carried out and why no conclusions about UK farmers can be drawn from it. A representative sample of the whole UK farming population would indeed have included only a very few farmers who have grown GM crops, simply because only a small proportion of UK farmers have grown GM crops. A survey based on such a sample could have provided a basis for determining the views of UK farmers about GM, which is what is claimed in the title of the project, in the press release, and in subsequent articles in the media.

The next sentence in Wissenburg's reply confirms the real purpose of the research: "The group involved in the research was therefore relatively small, but not 'unrepresentative' of farmers with experience of GM crops. Because of the sensitive nature of the project, access to GM farmers was facilitated by SCIMAC."

The project was intended to target "farmers with experience of GM crops". In reality, it was little more than a marketing exercise aimed at promoting GM crops to commodity farmers [12] (see Marketing Exercise Masquerading as Scientific Research, SiS 38). SCIMAC and the biotech industry had more than a facilitating role. The nine project advisors included Bob Fiddaman and Daniel Pearsall, respectively chair and secretary of SCIMAC, Helen Ferrier, NFU Food Science Advisor, responsible for assembling and distributing the GM propaganda newsletter called Agbiotech News Roundup; and Richard Powell and Karen Holt from Syngenta Seeds Ltd.

The ESRC later told Times Higher Education that the report had been "subject to peer review" [13] but as recently as 17 March 2008, the ESRC specifically said on its own website that the final report had not been peer reviewed [2]. It had certainly not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.

The Farm Scale Evaluation revisited

What Wissenburg said of the GM crop trials was also inaccurate. The UK government had agreed to fund the 3-year Farm Scale Evaluations for SCIMAC to the tune of GBP3 million of taxpayers' money, which critics generally regarded as commercialisation via the backdoor.

The trials were rigged in favour of GM crops right from the start, and crucial aspects such as safety or crop yields were not investigated [14] ("Cynical & Dishonest Science" in GM Maize Trials, SiS 20) because it would have revealed GM in a bad light, as exposed by citizens monitoring their local trials, who provided photographic evidence that the GM maize was severely stunted with fewer and much smaller cobs compared to the conventional maize variety [15] (Bogus Comparison in GM Maize Trial, SiS 22). Despite all attempts to manipulate the trials and conceal unfavourable data, the official findings went against GM crops. But the UK government gave the go ahead to grow GM maize without a debate in Parliament, a move condemned by the influential all party Environment Audit Committee. In the event, gene giant Bayer withdrew, saying it was "economically non-viable" [16].

So it was against such a background of failures that this 'research project' was funded, presumably in the hope of resuscitating GM crops for Britain. It would actually have been interesting to find out what UK farmers in general think about GM crops, but perhaps the researchers and their funders were as sure as we are about what the outcome would have been and would rather not ask the question.

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members' website. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/UKFUAGMDFull.php

[Membership] Details here http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.php

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

26 March 2008

BAYER refuses to accept liability for damage in Germany

Countermotions to Bayer's Annual Stockholders' Meeting
Press Release, March 26 2008
Coalition against BAYER Dangers (Germany)

The German group Coalition against BAYER Dangers introduced countermotions to Bayer's Annual Stockholders' Meeting. The Coalition will discuss the proposals within the meeting in Cologne on April 25. Main topics will be the marketing of Trasylol, the construction of waste incinerators and coal plants on Bayer's sites, Bayer's business activities in Burma and Bayer's continued participation in illegal price fixing cartels. Several environmental groups announced to participate in the meeting.

Bayer published the countermotions on their website. Please find the full text at http://www.cbgnetwork.de/2396.html

[EXTRACT] Last August, the Agricultural Ministry of the State of North-Rhine Westphalia came across genetically modified rape seed that is not approved in Germany. Despite this, the seed was sown on an area of 1,500 hectares. The contamination is due to a herbicide-resistant product from BAYER CropScience. As in the United States, where conventionally grown rice was contaminated by a herbicideresistant type from BAYER in 2006 and was subsequently distributed on the worldwide market, the contamination of the rape is probably due to field trials carried out many years ago. BAYER refuses to accept liability for the damage.

This case shows once again that genetic engineering in agriculture inevitably leads to contamination of conventional seeds. Despite this, BAYER is pushing into new markets. In Australia, BAYER wants to cultivate genetically modified rape, while the company has also applied for import permits from the EU for genetically manipulated rice and rape.

Romania reconsiders its welcome of biotech corn

International Herald Tribune, March 26 2008. By James Kanter.

PARIS: Romania, which has been one of the most receptive markets on a skeptical Continent for genetically modified crops, is moving toward a reversal of its stance, in what would be another setback for the beleaguered biotechnology industry in Europe.

Attila Korodi, Romania's environment minister, said he would ask a committee of experts Thursday to revaluate a gene-altered version of corn, MON810, the only modified crop that has been approved for commercial planting in the European Union.

During an interview, Korodi said not enough studies had been done to gauge the effects of the corn on ecological systems in Romania, including in the Black Sea area.

In addition, he said, banning biotech crops could increase rural prosperity by allowing farmers to take advantage of a growing global demand for organic feed and foodstuffs, which, in addition to being unaltered, are grown without chemical pesticides or fertilizers.

Such products can command higher prices - although experts question whether farming practices in much of Eastern Europe are developed enough for such a specialized market.

"I think becoming an organic country is a good thing," Korodi said. "We have to analyze the true costs of growing GMOs," he added, since the technology was potentially harmful to the environment and had become widely unpopular in Romania.

An actual ban would still be some ways off and could require parliamentary support, he said.

But its consideration, coming a month after France imposed a similar ban on the corn variety, would be another obstacle for the industry in Europe, where there is widespread skepticism about biotech foods. Specifically, it would hurt the U.S. seed company Monsanto, which produces MON810.

Romania, the biggest corn grower in the 27-member EU by hectares under cultivation, represents a vast potential market for Monsanto and other biotechnology companies. MON810 is designed to combat pests and enhance yields.

"We would be very disappointed to see Romania following France even in attempting to ban such a product, which has proved its benefits to farmers in Romania," said Cristina Cionga, the manager for public and government affairs for Monsanto Romania. "Our products are completely safe for planting and consumption."

EU authorities approved MON810 for cultivation a decade ago, but since then four EU countries - Austria, Greece, Hungary and, most recently, France - have imposed bans. Poland operates restrictions on the sale and import of gene-altered seeds, and very little cultivation takes place there.

Most of these countries, including France and Hungary, which are the second- and third-biggest corn growers in Europe, justified the bans on the grounds that the crops potentially could harm soils and reduce biodiversity.

Even in countries that do not operate formal bans, there are impediments.

Italy, which grows roughly the same amount of corn as Hungary, has delegated decisions on biotech crops to its regions, many of which operate de facto bans. In Tuscany, for example, the supply of gene-altered produce is prohibited in catering for schools, hospitals, convalescent homes and in local and regional government offices.

Romania planted only about 325 hectares, or 800 acres, of MON810 in 2007 and this year is expected to plant about 10,000 hectares. That still represents just a fraction of the roughly 2 million to 3 million hectares of corn planted each year in Romania.

Even so, Korodi's strategy would mark a major change for Romania.

Over the past decade, Romania became the largest producer of gene-altered crops in Europe because of large amounts of modified soy, mostly produced by Monsanto and Pioneer, a unit of DuPont. That crop was approved for use by farmers in Romania but not in the EU, and the government had to pledge to stop growing the crop when Romania joined the bloc in 2007.

In the future, Korodi said, farmers - particularly those with small plots in mountainous areas - could prosper from selling smaller quantities of unmodified produce, as it would command higher prices on local and international markets.

"GMOs mean crops are cheaper to produce," Korodi said. "But if we look at the market price that GMO-free crops earn, and we look at the costs to biodiversity of using GMOs, then non-GMO crops are better," he said.

Early this month the Hungarian agriculture minister, Joszef Graf, said his country's seed industry earned 25 percent more by selling seeds that had not been cross-pollinated with altered crops.

But Nathalie Moll, a spokeswoman for Europabio, a group representing the biotechnology industry, said seed companies had disputed the minister's statement.

Klaus Reinsberg, a senior researcher at the Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe, said growing nonbiotech crops was often more expensive, requiring more manual labor to remove weeds and to control pests. But labor costs in Romania remain low compared to other parts of the EU, potentially giving the country a competitive advantage.

USA: Soy companies forming alliance

Plainsman, 26 March 2008.

MILLER ó World Food Processing LLC of Oskaloosa, Iowa, and South Dakota Oilseed Processors LLC of Miller are forming a strategic alliance.

World Food Processing is a leader in the development of soy products for the domestic and international markets, utilizing non-GMO and organic soybeans. The company uses a state-of-the-art traceability program where the end user of its products can go on its Web site and enter a code off of its World Food package and meet the farmer who grew the soybeans used to make the end product.

South Dakota Oilseed Processors is building a soybean crush facility six miles east of Miller, using traditional expeller pressing with the addition of a new technology developed by Crown Iron Works of Roseville, Minn. It allows the company to manufacture a high quality soy-meal and a high quality soy-oil with no chemical residual associated with hexane soybean extraction.

"We see tremendous potential for both our investors and for soybean growers in South Dakota in the Identity Preserved Soybean Markets," said Mike Trosen, chief executive officer of the Miller company.

"Our new alliance with World Food will allow us to combine our resources by combining current World Food marketing opportunities with SDOP soy-meal and soy-oil products," he said.

"Our goal is to serve the health-conscious American and international consumer and livestock producer by providing them with natural, high-quality soy products."

Germany: Countermotions to Bayer's Annual Stockholders' Meeting

NewsBlaze.com, 26 February 2008.

The German group Coalition against BAYER Dangers introduced countermotions to Bayer's Annual Stockholders Meeting. The Coalition will discuss the proposals within the meeting in Cologne on April 25. Main topics will be the marketing of Trasylol, the construction of waste incinerators and coal plants on Bayers sites, Bayers business activities in Burma and Bayers continued participation in illegal price fixing cartels. Several environmental groups announced to participate in the meeting.

Bayer published the countermotions on their website. Please find the full text below:

[Extracts only]

ANNUAL STOCKHOLDERS MEETING ON APRIL 25, 2008

Countermotion to Item 3: The actions of the members of the Supervisory Board are not ratified

Reasoning: The Supervisory Board does not adequately fulfill its functions of overseeing the work of the Board of Management, and its actions should therefore not be ratified. Below are some examples of an irresponsible corporate policy that is tolerated by the Supervisory Board:

•

Last August, the Agricultural Ministry of the State of North-Rhine Westphalia came across genetically modified rape seed that is not approved in Germany. Despite this, the seed was sown on an area of 1,500 hectares. The contamination is due to a herbicide-resistant product from BAYER CropScience. As in the United States, where conventionally grown rice was contaminated by a herbicide-resistant type from BAYER in 2006 and was subsequently distributed on the worldwide market, the contamination of the rape is probably due to field trials carried out many years ago. BAYER refuses to accept liability for the damage.

This case shows once again that genetic engineering in agriculture inevitably leads to contamination of conventional seeds. Despite this, BAYER is pushing into new markets. In Australia, BAYER wants to cultivate genetically modified rape, while the company has also applied for import permits from the EU for genetically manipulated rice and rape.

USA: No ban on genetically modified coffee

Star Bulletin (Hawaii), 26 March 2008. By Mark Niesse, Associated Press.

Hawaii won't ban genetically altered coffee, a decision that worries growers of the Kona coffee brand who want to keep it pure.

State lawmakers shelved a bill recently that would have prohibited growing genetically modified coffee in Hawaii until 2012. Instead, they want to order a study into the science, benefits and dangers of genetically enhanced crops.

Coffee farmers are worried that genetically modified coffee could contaminate expensive Kona blends, which are only grown on Hawaii's Big Island and exported worldwide.

"The fact that you're creating a 'frankenfood' is very scary. What will it do to my morning cup of coffee?" asked John Langenstein, sales manager for Koa Coffee Plantation.

Coffee drinkers in Japan and parts of Europe wouldn't buy Kona coffee if it becomes mixed up with genetically changed coffee, causing it to lose its value and uniqueness, Langenstein. Others argue that genetically modified coffee poses little danger to Kona coffee because it would be grown on a different island and could benefit the economy.

One company plans to begin planting a special kind of modified coffee on Oahu, likely early next year, that grows decaffeinated naturally.

"Our field trials would have absolutely no effect on Kona coffee, so it doesn't really make sense to ban field trials of transgenic coffee across the whole state," said John Stiles, chief executive officer for Integrated Coffee Technologies Inc. "We don't want to be known as the anti-technology state." Hawaii lawmakers won't even hear the proposal to impose a moratorium on genetically modified coffee.

Instead, they'll form a task force to consider the merits of genetically modified coffee, labeling effectiveness and consumer education, said Sen. Jill Tokuda, chairwoman for the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Hawaiian Affairs.

"We need more time to really examine these issues and understand all of the facts," said Tokuda (D, Kaneohe-Kailua). "When you have a moratorium on research, that sends a negative message out."

A decaffeinated coffee bean could double Hawaii's overall coffee production, invigorate the agriculture industry and create new jobs, Tokuda said.

Even though the genetically altered decaffeinated coffee would be grown on Oahu, far from the Big Island's Kona coffee fields, its seed could spread through human dispersal, said Una Greenaway, whose Kuaiwi Farm Kona Old Style coffee won the top prize at last year's annual Kona Coffee Cultural Festival's cupping contest.

"We really need to protect our industry. If those plants come to Kona, we'd be in serious economic trouble," she said at the state Capitol, where she was joined by a few other coffee growers.

Lisa Gibson, president of the Hawaii Science and Technology Council, said legislators should avoid passing laws limiting scientific study.

"It's a very slippery slope to begin legislating research," Gibson said. "If we're going to diversify our state, it needs to be based on knowledge."

China: Big funding for GM research

RSC / Chemistry World, 26 March 2008. By Hepeng Jia.

Beijing -- Chinaİis to launch a huge research programme on genetically modified (GM) crops by the end of the year, according to top agricultural biotechnology advisors.İ

Huang Dafang, former director of theİChineseİAcademy of Agricultural Sciences' (CAAS)İInstitute ofİBiotechnologies, says the programme could receive as much as 10 billion yuan (US$1.4 billion) over the next five years - five times more than the country spent on GM research in the preceding five years.

A member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC),İChina's upper house, and a key government advisor on biotechnology policies, Huang revealed the news at a briefing on the annual report of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), a non-profit organisation promoting agricultural biotechnology.

The ISAAA report indicates in 2007 a total of 114.3 million hectares of GM crops were cultivated worldwide - an increase of 18.3 per cent from 2006.

The most widely adopted GM crop is Bt cotton, engineered to produce a toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to fight bollworm.İChina has developed GM petunias, tomatoes, sweet peppers, poplar and papaya, and several varieties of rice but to date policymakers have only allowed GM cotton to be marketed.

Huang says that yield, quality, nutritional value and drought resistance will be major targets of the new research programme. As well as rice and cotton - which have been the focus of GM technology research in the past - corn and wheat will also now be priority crops for research.

Receptive farmers