NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • May 2008

2008: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • June
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 and www.gmwatch.eu

31 May 2008

Ireland: No vote may end EU membership - MEP

The Irish Times, 31 May 2008. By Jamie Smith in Brussels.

VOTE OPTIONS: The Chairman of the European Parliament's constitutional affairs committee, Jo Leinen, has suggested that Ireland could be asked to leave the EU if it votes against the Lisbon Treaty.

He also said that another option would be for Ireland to seek opt-outs from various European policies and put an amended treaty to another referendum.

"If one country, Ireland or anyone else, is having a No and 26 (states) are having a Yes, it is as well not very democratic or acceptable that the 26 are blocked. Then I think it is reasonable to find out exactly what the No means. Is it a No to the total EU? Then, in fact, the country should leave the EU," Mr Leinen told The Irish Times.

Mr Leinen, who is one of the most senior German MEPs, said all member states had an obligation of "loyalty or loyal co-operation" to the EU, which meant a state should not misuse its veto right and block other countries.

"In the event of a No vote the Union has to ask Ireland what exactly it objected to? If it has a principled problem with EU integration then it must negotiate a special relationship with the EU," he said. "Ireland would be part of the EC (European Community), but not part of the EU."

One example of this type of arrangement is Norway, which rejected joining the EU in referendums held in 1972 and 1994.

Mr Leinen's comments conflict with those of European Commission president José Manuel Barroso, who has consistently said there is no "plan B" if there is a No vote. But a majority of MEPs have already voted against an amendment that would have committed them to respect the Irish referendum result, suggesting the parliament would try to implement Lisbon, with or without Ireland.

Mr Leinen said he did not think Ireland would leave the EU because it generally accepted European unity. A more likely option was adding opt-outs or declarations to the treaty to enable a new referendum, as occurred with the Nice Treaty, he added.

But he said this would not be easy because there were very few new EU competences created by the Lisbon Treaty and Ireland had already negotiated opt-outs.

A country tends to be weakened when it opts out of various EU policies, added Mr Leinen, citing Denmark, which after saying no to the Maastricht treaty in 1992 negotiated opt-outs from justice, defence, citizenship and the euro. Denmark is to hold a referendum in the autumn to remove some of these exceptions.

"So you [Ireland] could lose time and lose comfort and be a bit marginalised," he added.

He said for this reason it was risky for the Government to hold a referendum on the treaty, which all other EU states are ratifying through their parliaments.

Mr Leinen said he was in favour of holding EU-wide referendums in the future, which would enable all EU citizens to vote on treaties or big ethical issues such as genetic engineering or genetically modified organisms. These would be based on the will of the majority of EU citizens. This would engage citizens on European issues rather than allow internal or local issues to dominate referendums in any one member state, he added.

A No vote would also provoke a crisis in the EU that would boost anti-EU forces ahead of next year's European elections and severely weaken the EU's position internationally, Mr Leinen said.

He said a referendum defeat would block the implementation of the treaty, and mean a host of necessary policies on energy, fighting terrorism and migration could not be passed. EU states would remain fragmented and could not create a common energy policy, leaving the Baltic states and Poland vulnerable to Russia, which he noted was "still playing games with them".

Europe could not expect to leave foreign policy issues such as Kosovo to the US. But each member state was too small to solve this issue on its own, he said.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

The statement by the Chairman of the European Parliament's constitutional affairs committee, Jo Leinen MEP, that Ireland "could be asked to leave the European Union if it votes against the Lisbon Treaty" is fear-mongering with no basis in political reality or European law.

It also reveals how less democratic the EU will become if Irish citizens don't vote against the Treaty in our referendum on 12 June.

A majority of MEPs have already voted to reject a "no" result in our referendum (499 to 129, with 33 abstentions, on 20 February). This makes a mockery of the democratically agreed requirement that Lisbon and other Treaties require unanimous approval by all member states. What's the point of having a veto if it will be ignored?

Mr Leinen's declaration that all member states have an "obligation" of "loyalty or loyal cooperation" to the EU reminds one of similar proclamations by Hitler, Mao, and George W. Bush, whose administrations stifled democratic discourse by requiring oaths of allegiance and loyalty to the Official Doctrine and the Great Leader. We want a democratic Europe, not a totalitarian superstate!

Mr Leinen's apparent support for future EU-wide referenda "on treaties or big ethical issues such as genetic engineering or genetically modified organisms" sounds nice. But in reality, 482 million citizens of the other member states are now being denied their democratic say on the Lisbon Treaty. And he proposes that Ireland should be kicked out of the EU if the results of our referendum do not please him!

The mention of GM food and farming as a subject for EU-wide referenda may be a sop to our Government policy to ban GM crops on this island. But if the Lisbon Treaty is approved, the Commission will have greater powers to continue ignoring the results of such referenda – just as it has ignored the EU-wide petition signed by one million citizens in 2007 which demands mandatory labelling of food produced or derived from GM ingredients (including meat, poultry and dairy produce), based on citizens' fundamental right to information required for consumer choice.

Far from recognising the democratic right of member states to have the final say on policies such as food safety and GMOs, the Lisbon Treaty will – if approved – extend Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) to 60 new policy areas. QMV is repeatedly used when the EC requests member states to approve or reject the placing on the market of GM seeds, animal feed and food. Despite the member states' failure to reach a qualified majority for or against in over a dozen votes, the so-called "comitology" procedure empowers the EC bureaucracy to legalise the GMOs anyway, against the wishes of the actual majority of Member States and over 70 per cent of EU consumers.

Unless Ireland comes to the rescue, the Lisbon Treaty will copperfasten the growing power of unaccountable transnational corporations to make unelected EC bureaucrats decide policy in almost every major issue of collective concern, for decades if not centuries to come. As Gistard d'Estaing said, "Public opinion will be led – without knowing it – to adopt the policies we would never dare present to them directly. All the earlier proposals [of the rejected EU Constitution] will be in the new text but will be hidden or disguised in some ways..."

The Lisbon Treaty is a flawed proposal for an undemocratic Europe. Let's hope the citizens of Ireland reject it, for the sake of the 482 million other citizens of EU member states who are being denied their right to do so.

Ireland: Agriculture to be worth €40bn by 2030 - Teagasc

The Irish Times, 31 May 2008. By Sean Mac Connell, Agriculture Correspondent.

THE VALUE of agriculture to the national economy will double to €40 billion by 2030, according to a report commissioned by Teagasc, the agriculture and food development authority, which held a conference in Dublin Castle yesterday.

Teagasc director Gerry Boyle predicted an exciting new era in farming and food production in the future with the agri-food sector playing a wider role in a broader knowledge-based bioeconomy.

The report, Teagasc Foresight 2030 was presented at the conference, at which the organisation marked 50 years of service to agriculture. The forerunner of Teagasc, An Foras Tal™ntais (AFT), was set up in 1958.

Prof Boyle said agriculture was on the cusp of profound change. There were immense challenges and opportunities, but also a positive future for the sector.

"An internationally competitive Irish dairy industry, exploiting the natural advantage that grass provides, is set for substantial expansion as the EU milk quota system changes. We anticipate a period 'post-peak oil' when industries switch from fossil fuels, with a need to derive chemicals from plants as an alternative to petroleum-based products," he said.

"The opportunities to find alternative sustainable fuels from plants will provide a challenge for research and exciting opportunities for those involved in the agri-food industry," he said.

Teagasc's role would be to provide science-based innovation support requiring partnership, leadership and accountability. "Teagasc is adapting and ready for change," he added. He told the conference, attended by more than 300 people, that a number of critical initial steps had already been taken, including the establishment of bioscience research centres, to ensure that science, technology and innovation were at the heart of development of the agri-food sector, he said.

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Brendan Smith, said the report would strengthen the strategic capabilities of Teagasc and its relevance to its stakeholders, enabling it to provide proactive leadership in the rapidly changing open market environment.

He said we were now entering a new debate around the issue of food security which would serve to further heighten the importance of the agri-food sector. As a food-producing nation, Ireland had a responsibility to ensure the issue of food security features at EU level.

Recalling the establishment of AFT in 1958, the Minister said that at the time, somewhat over 60 per cent of total national exports were agricultural, and that production levels had been relatively static for a considerable period. Its establishment was critical to the subsequent development of Irish agriculture.

Significant progress, he said, had been made since then but it was essential that we continued to seek to build a truly knowledge-based society which offered new opportunities for employment and social advancement.

The keynote speaker, Dr Gale Buchanan of the United States department of agriculture, said that applying science and education to agriculture had improved human health and environmental quality.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Teagasc continues to rip-off Irish taxpayers by using public funds to promote patented GM crops owned by Monsanto and other foreign transnational agri-biotech corporations.

Last year Teagasc made the fabulous claim that Irish farmers would lose €60 million unless the European Commission allows more contamination of our food chain with untested GM ingredients that are illegal in the EU for health and environmental safety reasons.

Now they claim that allowing GM pharma crops in Ireland will double Ireland's agricultural income to €40 billion!

This is not surprising, since Teagasc Director Prof Gerry Boyle is an agricultural consultant to the World Bank, which uses public tax-payer funding from the rich countries to distribute and promote patented GM seeds and biopiracy in the developing countries.

Teagasc's propaganda requires some linguistic deconstruction:

•

For "a need to derive chemicals from plants as an alternative to petroleum-based products", read GM pharma or agrofuel crops which contribute to rising food prices, world hunger, and contamination of food crops with genes that produce industrial chemicals.

•

For "Teagasc's role... to provide science-based innovation" read increased taxpaper funding for GM crop R&D owned by foreign transnational corporations, including the existing €10m "bioscience research centres" at Oak Park and other locations.

•

For "a truly knowledge-based society" read one where the revolving door between biotech industry and government policy makers and regulatory bodies ensures that scientific research which does not support GM industry policies is ignored and whistleblowers are discredited.

Teagasc's selection of Dr. Gale Buchanan as the keynote speaker for its conference in Dublin castle is further proof of its GM advocacy. This man was appointed by George W. Bush as USDA Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education and Economics. USDA is notorious for its revolving door policy with Monsanto et al. It co-owns patents on the highly controversial GM Terminator seeds together with Delta and Pine Land Co., now part of Monsanto. After violating US environmental laws, USDA lost three federal court cases filed by the U.S. Center for Food Safety for its failure to implement environmental risk assessments on GM alfalfa, bentgrass and biopharmaceutical crops which it released into the environment. More recently, USDA cut its pesticide reporting programme which until then provided the only reliable and nuanced statistics on pesticide use in American agriculture.

In August, Teagasc will host an international conference promoting GM seeds and crops at University College Cork, on behalf of a Canadian biotech industry front group called the Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference (ABIC) Foundation, managed by Ag-West Bio Inc. and funded by Monsanto. ABIC's Board of Directors includes Jimmy Burke (the former head of Teagasc Crops Research), the conference chair Ashley O'Sullivan (a former Monsanto employee), Roger Kemble (President of Syngenta Biotechnology Inc), and Malcolm Devine (former employee of Aventis CropScience and Bayer CropScience)!

Our new Minister for Food and Agriculture Brendan Smith should support the agreed programme for Government to declare this island a GM-free zone. Instead of lending credibility to Teagasc's biotech propaganda, the Minister should immediately shut down all Teagasc funding for GM research, and redeploy the public spend for research and development of the safe, sustainably produced and organic food which the vast majority of Irish and European consumers want.

30 May 2008

Global Biofuel Output To Soar In Next Decade-Report

Reuters, 30 May 2008. By Sybille de La Hamaide

PARIS - Global production of biofuels will rise rapidly over the next decade, helped by high government blending targets and subsidies, the OECD and the UN's FAO food agency said in a report published on Thursday. *

These rises will boost already soaring world agricultural commodities prices and reduce their availability for food and feed, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Food and Agriculture Organisation said in co-drafted report.

"With a biofuel output that should more than double over the next 10 years, according to the most conservative estimates, the pressure on agriculture will flare up," Jacques Diouf, head of the Rome-based FAO, told a news conference in Paris.

Global ethanol production was projected to reach about 125 billion litres in 2017, twice the quantity produced last year.

Biodiesel output was set to grow even faster with production forecast at around 24 billion litres by 2017, up from nearly 11 billion at the end of 2007 and less than 1 billion in 2000, the report said.

"Increased blending mandates should stimulate demand and boost international trade in the initial years of the (2008-2017) outlook," the report said.

Biofuels were not blamed directly, as they can increase farmers' revenue both in developing and wealthier economies, but on "distortive" policies in some large producing countries, which encouraged production of fuel-destined crops on land previously devoted to food, they said.

Ethanol trade to grow

Biofuels, mainly made of grains, oilseeds and sugar, have been increasingly accused of causing sharp rises in food prices by diverting production away from food and animal feed towards an additive for vehicle fuel.

Protests and riots in many poor countries over high food costs have added urgency to the debate. A sharp rise in biofuels output that would influence food prices could keep the issue high on the international political agenda.

The OECD and FAO stressed that their forecasts did not anticipate changes in the United States and/or European Union policies which widely support the production and use of biofuels through blending targets and tax incentives.

Second generation biofuels, made from domestic and agricultural waste rather than food crops, were not expected to be produced on a commercial basis over the next decade.

Ethanol prices were seen exceeding $55 per hectolitre in 2009 as crude oil prices rose, but should fall back to levels around $52-53 per hectolitre later in the 2008-2017 period covered by the report, as production capacity expanded.

International ethanol trade was expected to grow rapidly to reach 6 billion litres in 2010 and almost 10 billion litres by 2017. Most of this trade would originate in Brazil and would be destined for markets in the EU and the United States, it said.

The growth in biodiesel output would occur despite the fact that world prices were expected to remain well above production costs of fossil diesel, within the range of $104-106 per hectolitre, for most of the projected period.

International trade of biodiesel was seen largely unchanged in following years, notably due to technical constraints in the use of palm-oil based biodiesel in cool climates and as output in the main consuming countries increased.

(Editing by Christopher Johnson)

Poland - a guinea pig?

Sunday Catholic Weekly, 30 May 2008. By Stanislaw Wiackowski.

The activities of big biotechnological concerns aim at gaining control over the food production and farmers, including the Polish farmers, and subordinating them to their commercial objectives.

Dangerous GM soy

The biotechnological industry makes the highest profit on GM soy, which has driven the branches of agriculture, which have been important so far, e.g. the production of cattle, milk and diary, crops as well as orchards and various branches of horticulture. This has been accompanied by massive social tragedies and bankruptcies of small firms and farms. Hundreds of farmers had to move to slums in big cities. If the world demand for soy decreases, and it is very likely to happen in the U.S.A., Brazil or Paraguay, it will cause a real catastrophe. The decrease is caused by lower prices in international markets, constant growth of production costs, transport and energy, drought, mycotic diseases, massive growth of super weeds and super pests. No wonder that the countries that are interested in selling GM soy exert great influence on the EU.

Influence on the EU

They use many false arguments, e.g. difficulties in buying more expensive unmodified soy, the threat to cattle breeders because of the lack of soy as a valuable ingredient of feedstuff, which can lead to liquidation of the animals. Some are afraid of the lack of soy because China can buy it out. These are false arguments. We have genetically modified soy and it can be bought without any difficulty. Paraguay has 20% of the soy and Brazil has 60%. Although China imports soy but not for feedstuff but for growing. Being aware of the boom for soy China has planned soy production on a large scale since 2003. Considering the low labour cost in China its soy will be surely cheaper than the soy produced in both Americas. The cost of soy production in Ukraine or the EU countries with warm climates, e.g. in Romania or Greece, should be even lower due to the low cost of transport.

Profit before ethics?

We often hear the argument about the lack of research that would justify our keeping away from GMO. It is the producer, and not the customer, that is responsible for the quality of his products. However, the biggest biotechnological giant Monsanto, whose worth is estimated to be over 73 billion dollars, claims that its aim is profit and not ethics, and because of that he has neglected the obligatory tests, conducting only pilot studies, which cannot be regarded as sufficient in any case. At the same time this firm uses huge means to corrupt politicians and higher officials. Thus the firm shuts the mouth of all those who would like to inform society on the basis of their own research about the danger of GM plants for people's health, for animals and for the environment. In Indonesia alone, Monsanto spent ca. 700,000 dollars to bribe officials. After this scandal was revealed and the case had been brought into court the firm had to pay one million dollars for infringing the anti-corruption law. In spite of saving money on research the industry was extremely wasteful because it spent immense sums for corrupting the people they needed and not allowing any publications that were unfavourable to the interests of the big concerns. The firm has lost its credibility completely. The initiatives to conduct research have been taken by institutions and independent scientists in spite of them having any special financial means. In the years 2002-2005, in Italy Manuela Malatesta and her collaborators conducted solid research for two years and showed that GM soy given to mice caused serious changes in their liver, pancreas and testicle cells. Other authors had similar results after having fed rats with GM soybeans. In the years 2005-2006, the scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences informed that the rats fed with genetically modified soy had an excessive number of stunted offspring. Over half of them died within three weeks whereas those who survived were completely sterile. Recently, a team of outstanding French biotechnologists directed by Prof. Seralini has proved the toxic effects of MON863 corn, which has been forced in Europe and in Poland, on kidneys and liver. Besides the solid and long standing research one should mention the famous London scientific panel, signed by over 600 scientists from all over the world, and the books 'Seeds of Deception' or 'Genetic Roulette' by Jeffrey Smith, which include hundreds of publications about the negative effects of GM plants on people's health, animals and the environment. Those who have not read these works should not present their opinions on this subject.

The world defends itself against GMO

Because of such information the world is less interested in GM. An increasing number of countries stop using GM soy. Many Italian and French producers of cheese seek GM-free feedstuff. One can observe similar reactions of Austrian and Dutch producers of milk and beef. In Great Britain the poultry in hypermarkets is marked as GM-free. Since September 2006 Poland has imported soy having the certificate 'GMO-free product', as feedstuff for pigs in firms exporting to the German market. In response to the information about the toxic effects of MON863 corn Russia has also closed its market to GM soy. Last year the biggest Russian importers and soy processors 'Sodruzhestwo' and 'Rybflotoprom' declared trade free of GMO. This undermines the claim of the Polish producers of feedstuff that the production based on unmodified ingredients is impossible.

Healthy Polish food

The idea to produce transgenic food in the light of the difficulties with the excess of food produced both in Poland and in the entire European Union is commonly undermined. One cannot allow Poland to be treated as a laboratory and to treat Poles as guinea pigs. Poland has no reason to import, and moreover to produce, GMO, having overproduction of her own, increasingly more praised food. Poland is a region that produces highly tasty foods. The Polish export goes up from ? to 1/3 every year. It has not been disturbed by the high exchange rate of zloty and the Russian embargo. The number of people who like Polish foods is increasing. The report 'Polish foreign farm and food trade in 2006' says that it was a record year. The export had a 21% increase ‚ to 8.5 billion euros. The important importers of Polish foods include: Germany (16%), Czech Republic (44%), Great Britain (36%), Holland (24%), Italy (33%), China (82%), Ireland (74%) and Lithuania (56%) ‚ the increase in percentage was given in brackets. Russia has fallen to a lower place at her own wish. As a result, the Polish agriculture is experiencing a great success and the less the world is interested in GM the more prosperous the situation could be for us. In this situation the introduction of toxic products in our market and the predatory strange competition for Polish agriculture would be an unimaginable stupidity.

Prof. Dr. Engineer Stanislaw Wiackowski

He is a professor emeritus at Jan Kochanowski University of Kielce. He directed the Chair of Ecology and Environmental Protection; was appointed professor 24 years ago. He has written over 500 scientific and popular works, including 25 books. He was an MP and president of the Parliamentary Commission for Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry. He was delegated to two commissions of the Council of Europe in Strasburg. He was the president of the Parliamentary Club for Ecology and an advisor to the Minister of Environmental Protection.

Portugal: Attack on GM cornfield labelled as terrorist act

Euro Weekly News, 30 May 2008.

IN the last 'EU terrorism situation and trend' report released by European police force, Europol, the partial mowing of a genetically modified cornfield in Silves last summer, has been classified as an act of terrorism.

The report says it received information from Portugal concerning one single issue terrorist attack believed to be linked to environmental terrorism which took place last year. It concludes that the attack was committed against a transgenic cornfield, adding that more than 100 people took partÝ and more than one hectare of the field was destroyed in the attack.

Environmentalist group NGO GAIA have already issued a protest against this report, stressing that: "...in France, Germany and the UK, similar actions are often far more radical and happen regularly, yet, they are not classified as terrorist acts in the report. Currently, in Germany an occupation of experimental GM fields is taking place." GAIA who are running a national campaign against GMO (genetically modified organisms) in agriculture, has a strong activist component, addressing ecological problems by criticising the social and economical model which, according to them, "exploits and harms our planet, our society and our future generations".

GAIA member Johan Diels said: "Even the lawyer of the accusing party declared that he could not see any elements that would justify labelling the destruction of the GM field of his client as 'terrorist'. A specialist in penal law also declared he could not establish any relation between the action in Silves and terrorist acts." Blaming the government for this 'huge amplification of a small symbolic event', Diels stated:

"It is becoming obvious that the Portuguese government is grabbing all opportunities to crush opposition against GM crops, by classifying a non-violent, political action as an act of terrorism."

29 May 2008

US says biotech key to easing food crisis

AFP, 29 May 2009

WASHINGTON - The United States will propose biotechnology as a strategy to boost agricultural production at a UN global food crisis summit in Rome next week, the top US farm official said Thursday.

Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer, who will lead the US delegation to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) world food security conference that opens Tuesday in Rome, said he would deliver a "straightforward" message.

With the United States contributing more than one-half of all the world's food aid, he said, "the world's other developed nations have an obligation to provide food efficiently without obstructing access to it or limiting safe technologies to produce it."

Schafer said he would propose "a long-term, three-pronged strategy to combat rising global prices."

The US will focus "immediate and expanded" humanitarian aid to countries unable to meet minimum nutrition standards and supports "urgent measures" to combat the underlying causes of food scarcity in developing countries that have the capacity to rapidly increase production and availability of staple foods.

The third measure, he said, will be a US proposal "that all countries consider strategies that expand research, promote science-based regulations, and encourage innovative technology -- including biotechnology."

Schafer said he would host an exhibit on new technologies on the sidelines of the three-day Rome summit "to showcase developing countries that have moved forward with public investment in adoption of bioengineered products."

US to urge end to limits on technology to boost food supply

TREND, 29 May 2009

The United States will urge other countries to boost food supplies by lifting restrictions on bio-engineering technologies to drive down costs and alleviate the global crisis in food shortages, a top US official said Thursday, dpa reported.

US Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said he will press developed nations to become more efficient in producing food to combat the rising price of food at a UN conference in Rome June 3-5 to address the shortages in poorer countries.

"The United States contributes more than one-half of all the world's food aid, and the world's other developed nations have an obligation to provide food efficiently, without obstructing access to it or limiting safe technologies to produce it," Schafer told reporters.

Some European and African countries are sceptical about the safety of bio-engineered or genetically modified foods.

Schafer said he will also try to dampen the argument that bio- fuel production has been the main source of the spike in food costs. He said a Department of Agriculture analysis concluded that the shift in recent years by farmers to produce bio-fuels instead of food crops has only accounted for a 2-3 per cent rise in food costs.

"Bio-fuels are just one contributor to increased food prices, as demonstrated by price increases on all commodities, both food and nonfood," Schafer said.

Some developing countries have called for an end to subsidies for bio-fuels derived from food crops such as maize. The World Bank has said US production of maize-based ethanol is the chief cause of a spike in maize prices over the last few years.

Schafer said ethanol production was spurred by an increased yield from US maize crops and was not pulling resources out of "traditional markets."

He said the increase in food prices can be largely blamed on record-high energy prices that have also prompted a rise in food transportation costs. Bio-fuels help cut down on the dependence on oil and greater production of bio-fuels would ease the crunch in producing and shipping food.

"This is not distorting the global price of food and it's an important direction we need to go," Schafer said.

Schafer said the United States has focused on humanitarian assistances to countries unable to meet minimum nutritional standards and will urge countries at the conference to expand research into innovative technology to produce food, including biotechnology.

"Some basic examples of this are encouraging a policy environment that invests in water management, fertilizer and seed marketing, agriculture credit, and improved post-harvest management," he said.

More than 40 heads of state are expected to attend the UN conference.

GM crops banned in Switzerland until 2012

Agra Europe, 29 May 2008

The Swiss Federal Council (government) has voted to extend the country's moratorium on genetically modified (GM) plants for a further three years beyond the current expiry date of November 2010, Dow Jones reports.

The extension is to allow time for a national research programme into the benefits and risks of GM crops to be completed and the results assessed. Questions over the biological safety of GM plants and the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops are being addressed.

The Council imposed a moratorium on the commercial cultivation of GM crops in 2005, on the basis that there was no demand for them in Switzerland at the time and that big gaps remained in scientific knowledge about the risks of this technology.

Shortly after that, the research programme was launched, and this is expected to reach a conclusion around the middle of 2012. However, the Council said last week that it must be allowed to take its course without political pressure.

According to the Council, the moratorium has not caused any obvious problems, either for the farming industry, researchers, or international relations. In fact, it claimed, Swiss farmers have benefited from being able to market their produce on international markets as GM-free.

Penalties deferred on GMOs

Western Producer.com (Canada), 29 May 2008. By Sean Pratt.

[Extract only]

Saskatoon -- Grain producers, handlers and exporters have received a two-year reprieve from potential liability rules associated with GMO contamination.

Governments gathering at the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety couldn't agree on a deal that would make the grain industry pay for damages caused by the presence of unwanted genetically modified crops.

Full text (subscription required): http://www.producer.com/free/subscriptions/

Food, Fuel, Famine

The Baltimore Sun (USA), 29 May 2008. By Stephen J. Hedges.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer, who travels to a world food security conference in Rome next week, laid out the Bush administration's strategy today for meeting the current worldwide crisis of rising food costs and shortages.

The Bush plan, though, may not play well in Rome.

Speaking to reporters, Schafer said he will press the Bush administration's campaign to use bio-engineered, or genetically modified, crops as a way to help countries that now face food emergencies.

Schafer said that new crop technology can increase crop yields, especially in places where drought and harsh conditions are prevalent.

Schafer also defended the development of biofuels, arguing that they have not diverted significant amounts of the food supply to energy production.

"We think that policy-wise in the United States of America, and certainly in the rest of the world, as we see the price of oil and petroleum escalate dramatically beyond everyone's imagination, one of the ways to deal with that is biofuels," Schafer said, adding that, "In the U.S. and other countries as well, all ethanol production specifically has come from increased yields in corn corps, not pulling out of any traditional markets."

Some aid groups have argued that, worldwide, the increased production of biofuels has contributed to increasing crop demand and food prices.

Higher food prices have made it difficult for those living on the edge of poverty to afford food. The UN estimates that more than 850 million people worldwide face daily food emergencies.

The Bush administration has tailored its food aid to include the use of genetically modified organisms, or GMO, crops, which are made by a number of U.S. companies. The White House argues that development aid that emphasizes GMO crops will help countries feed their own populations. It contends that those crops are more resistant to drought and pests, and will work well in countries where farming is difficult.

The organic farming community opposes the use of such crops, which they argue require sophisticated and expensive fertilizers and other pesticides. But some aid groups say the use of higher yield crops makes sense, especially in drought-prone East Africa.

Schafer described the U.S. strategy going into the Rome food summit as three-pronged: "Provide food and other support to people who are hungry now, direct development assistance to those countries best able to rapidly increase the production of key food staples that can help feed the hungry, and encourage action to address multilateral and country-specific policies that prevent access to food and the technologies that produce food."

The use of GMO crops, though, will probably meet with opposition from European countries at the conference. Many won't allow GMO seed, or the import of foods made from GMO crops. They argue that the health effects of such crops are not clear.

That ban even caused several African nations in 2002 to consider forgoing U.S. aid that included GMO crops because they feared important European export markets would be lost. Eventually the U.S. grain aid was crushed into flour to prevent its use as seed.

Schafer and U.S. negotiators hope that the dire food emergency will change opinions on GMO crops, both abroad and at home.

"Certainly the bioengineered crops are but one of many solutions," Schafer said, "for increasing yields across the country if we're going to meet the demand of increased consumption."

MEPs divided over EU biofuels target

ENDS Europe Daily, 19 May 2008.

The European parliament's energy committee is split over EU plans to raise the share of renewable energy in the transport sector to ten per cent by 2020. The proposal is part of a plan to grow the share of renewables in total EU energy consumption to 20 per cent by 2020 (EED 23/01/08 http://www.endseuropedaily.com/24683). Most of the target in the transport sector would be met by increasing the use of plant-based biofuels.

In an unlikely alliance, the committee's rapporteur on the plans, Green MEP Claude Turmes, and centre-right shadow rapporteur MEP Werner Langen of the parliament's largest group, the EPP, both called for the ten per cent target to be scrapped in a committee debate on Wednesday. All other MEPs that spoke wanted to retain it.

Socialist MEP Dorette Corbey, who has previously questioned the target, even suggested that ten per cent would be a "rather low" target if it included electric cars using renewably generated power (EED 16/04/08 http://www.endseuropedaily.com/25244).

But Mr Turmes called the biofuels issue a "smokescreen" that was hiding EU "transport policy failures". It is impossible to achieve the ten per cent target with strict biofuel sustainability criteria, he said. "Maybe five per cent, maybe eight per cent," he offered instead.

MEPs could reach a compromise around eight per cent. Centre-right MEP Anders Wijkman, who is leading parliamentary debate on related biofuel sustainability criteria, supports eight per cent.

Mr Wijkman and Mr Turmes say EU sustainability criteria should apply to all biomass, not just biofuels. In a separate report for the environment committee (see below), Mr Wijkman says biofuels should create net greenhouse gas savings of at least 50 per cent to be eligible to contribute to the EU target, and that the saving must be calculated regionally according to local circumstances, to take better account of emissions from land use change and soil carbon (EED 08/05/08 http://www.endseuropedaily.com/25381).

Mr Turmes has strong support across all political groups for making interim targets for increasing the share of all renewables across the EU binding (EED 13/05/08 http://www.endseuropedaily.com/25401). His plan to set more detailed, demanding requirements for national action plans met with approval by MEPs and the European commission.

Many MEPs supported Mr Turmes's proposal for an "opt-in" rather than "opt-out" renewables trading system. This would provide greater legal certainty and protect national renewables support schemes, they said. Some governments also want this (EED 28/05/08 http://www.endseuropedaily.com/25511).

Follow-up: Industry, research and energy committee
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/homeCom.do?language=EN&# 38;body=ITRE, tel: +32 2 28 43299,
plus Turmes's amendments
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/pr/722/722155/722 155en.pdf
and Wijkman's amendments
http://www.endseuropedaily.com/docs/80529a.doc.
See also Copa-Cogeca on biofuels http://www.copa-cogeca.be/Download.ashx?ID=393440&fmt=pdf.
Article Index: biodiversity, climate, energy, sustainability, transport

Top chefs say no to GM food

Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), 29 May 2008.

More than 50 of the country's top chefs have united to protest against the introduction of genetically modified (GM) food crops to Australia. Last month, GM canola crops were planted for the first time in NSW and Victoria after the two states announced they would let their bans on genetically engineered food crops expire.

In response, local celebrity chefs including Neil Perry and Kylie Kwong have signed on to the GM Free Chefs' Charter, launched in collaboration with Greenpeace in Sydney today.

The charter, unveiled at chef Jared Ingersoll's Danks Street Depot restaurant in the inner-city Sydney suburb of Waterloo, calls for the NSW and Victorian governments to reverse their position on growing GM canola and demands thorough labelling of all food products that contain GM ingredients.

Oils, starches and sugars, as well as animal feed derived from GM ingredients, should all come with a label, says the charter, which will be presented to Australian governments later this year.

Meat from animals which have eaten GM feed should also be signposted, it says.

There are currently no laws on the labelling of food containing GM canola.

Speaking at the charter's launch, Mr Ingersoll said the unknown long-term effects of eating GM foods were a major concern to him, both as a chef and a parent.

"I don't really want to put food in the mouth of my children that I'm not sure whether or not it's going to be damaging for them," he said.

"I'm not the sort of person that stands in the way of technology making advancement to make things better for people ... but with genetically modified food, once we go down that path then there's no going back.

"We are in the very unique position of having an amazing countryside that can produce lots of beautiful food and if we do take the path of Canada and other GM nations, it's going to be really limiting as to what direction we go in," he said.

GM food crops are known to be difficult to contain, and a 2001 Western Australian parliamentary inquiry into gene technology found the segregation of GM crops from non-GM crops was not practical and cross-contamination was "inevitable".

Mr Ingersoll said the rigorous labelling of GM foods was essential to allow consumers to make informed choices about what they ate.

"What I want to see happen today is that we start to see some labelling, we start to see some responsible action being taken that gives the consumer the opportunity to make the decision, because one thing I know is that politicians will do what they want, big companies will do what they want, but everybody relies on customers," he said.

"Without people supporting these (GM) businesses then these businesses won't be there. So we need to get this labelling in place to give consumers the ability to make their decisions."

Top chefs whip up a GM-free charter

Greenpeace Australia Pacific, 29 May 2008.

SYDNEY, Australia – It reads like a "who's who" of Australia's top food experts. Over 50 of our most respected chefs have signed their names to a charter opposing GM food. Australia's top chefs have united to oppose serving genetically modified (GM) food in their restaurants, by endorsing the GM Free Chefs Charter.

The charter calls for thorough labelling of all food products containing GM ingredients. It also opposes the recent introduction of GM canola in New South Wales and Victoria. The Chefs Charter is a major initiative launched by Greenpeace and was unveiled at Jared Ingersoll's Danks Street Depot, attended by chefs from some of Sydney's top restaurants. Among the many high profile signatories are Maggie Beer, Stephanie Alexander, Kylie Kwong, Justin North, Sean Moran, Margaret Fulton, Dure Dara, Neil Perry and Holly Davis.

Read the charter and full list of chefs
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/issues/GE/solutions/corporate/ge-free/chefs-charter

Chefs call for GM labelling

This year, Australia will grow GM canola for the first time. Canola is used in a huge range of everyday foods, from breakfast cereals to oil, margarine and bread. But, under current laws, it won't be labelled as GM.

Greenpeace and the Chefs Charter call on the federal government to introduce labelling of all GM foods and food products derived from GM crops, so that Australians can avoid GMÝ ingredients if they want to.

The charter will continue to grow and will be delivered to Australian governments later in 2008. Supporting chefs can also choose to display a GM free Chefs Charter logo in their restaurant, windows and on their website to certify their support.

Chefs who want to endorse the GM Free Chefs Charter can email chefscharter@au.greenpeace.org.

Secret Ingredients

Seattle Post Intelligencer, May 29 2008. Andrew Schneider.

Absence of food labeling laws keep U.S. consumers from knowing whether or not their food is genetically altered.

Back a couple of months, a couple of you asked how you could determine whether or not your food contained genetically modified organisms. It took a while, but I found a bit of information that might help you better understand this bomb-filled arena, or just add to your confusion.

Here's one point that's indisputable. It is difficult for consumers to know whether the food they're buying was genetically modified, especially in this country. Most of the industrialized countries demand that GMO products be labeled as such. But not the U.S.

The Pew Research Foundation reported that more than 90 percent of American shoppers want food labeled as to its contents, including GMO. Unless I missed it, there was nothing in the farm bill that finally passed last week that will give us a clue to the presence of GM ingredients.

Monsanto, which has a chokehold on the world's use of genetically modified seeds, is now using its extensive network of lawyers and lobbyists to pressure state agriculture agencies not to allow milk producers to label dairy products as not coming from cows fed with GM food or bovine growth hormone.

To learn more about Monsanto, check out this link to Don Barlett and Jim Steele's very well done and balanced investigative report in this month's Vanity Fair. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805?printable=true¤tPage=all

As with almost everything controversial, all the opinions on GMO have to be weighed by considering the source of the information. The Institute for Responsible Technology makes no pretense about its concern over the danger of using genetically modified substances in our food.

The institute, founded in 2003 by Jeffery Smith, the author of "Seeds of Deception," says many consumers in the U.S. mistakenly believe that the FDA approves GM foods through rigorous, in-depth, long-term studies. In reality, the agency has absolutely no safety testing requirements.

Smith says it's easy to understand the FDA's industry-friendly policy on regulation of GMOs when you see the revolving door between agency regulators and the companies they regulate.

The FDA has claimed it was not aware of any information showing that GM crops were different "in any meaningful or uniform way" from non-GMO crops and therefore didn't require testing. But Smith says that 44,000 internal FDA documents made public by a lawsuit show that this was not true.

But getting back to the original question of how to identify GMO-tainted food, the institute has released a four-page guide on what to watch out for, including a lengthy list of food items containing GM ingredients.

The guide and other GMO information can be found at the institute's Web site at this link. http://www.seedsofdeception.com/documentFiles/144.pdf

As expected, Monsanto says its processes are safe and beneficial and it "helps farmers grow food more efficiently and in a more sustainable manner. We do this through science and the development of agricultural technology. Our products have changed the way food is grown, to the benefit of both farmers and consumers," its Web site states.

For the rest of the story, or at least Monsanto's side of the GMO issue, this link will take you to a long list of stories that the worldwide chemical company has presented on its position. http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=59&WT.svl=2

Good luck sorting through all of this.

Wouldn't shopping be an easier and possibly safer chore if all food were properly labeled?

Food prices to stay high as "grain drain" fuel blamed

Reuters, 29 May 2008. By Brian Love.

Paris -- Food prices will remain high over the next decade even if they fall from current records,, meaning millions more risk further hardship or hunger, the OECD and the U.N.'s FAO food agency said in a report published on Thursday.

Beyond stating the immediate need for humanitarian aid, the international bodies suggested wider deployment of genetically modified crops and a rethink of biofuel programmes that guzzle grain which could otherwise feed people and livestock.

The report, issued ahead of a world food summit in Rome next week, said food commodity prices were likely to recede from the peaks hit recently, but that they would remain higher in the decade ahead than the one gone by.

"It's time for action," Jacques Diouf, head of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation told a news conference in Paris, saying he expected 40 leaders in Rome for a summit on what should be done immediately or in the future.

"There's an immediate need for humanitarian aid to avoid poor people going hungry," added Angel Gurria, head of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Beef and pork prices would probably stay around 20 percent higher than in the last 10 years, while wheat, corn and skimmed milk powder would likely command 40-60 percent more in the 10 years ahead, in nominal terms, the joint FAO/OECD report said.

The price of rice, an Asian staple expected to become more important also in Africa in the years ahead, would likely average 30 percent more expensive in nominal terms in the coming decade than over the 1998-2007 period.

"In many low-income countries, food expenditures average over 50 percent of income and the higher prices contained in this outlook (report) will push more people into undernourishment," the report said.

Millions of people's purchasing power across the globe would be hit, said the report.

The cost of many food commodities has doubled over the last couple of years, sparking widespread protests and even riots in some of the worst affected spots, such as Haiti.

Many factors, including drought in big commodity-producing regions such as Australia, explained some of the acceleration in prices, as did growing demand from fast-developing countries such as China and India, the report said.

Grain drain

But it singled out the big drive to produce biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels, a push the U.S. government is sponsoring heavily, and Europe as well.

"Biofuel demand is the largest source of new demand in decades and a strong factor underpinning the upward shift in agricultural commodity prices," said the report, adding it was time to consider alternatives.

The benefits at environmental and economic level as well as in terms of energy security were "at best modest and sometimes even negative", the report said.

Under U.S. plans, about a quarter of the U.S. corn crop will be channelled into ethanol production by 2022 while the European Union is also aiming for as much as 10 percent of road transport fuel to be produced using crops by 2020.

The impact of high food commodity prices on retail food prices is clearer in developing countries than wealthy nations.

The proportion of total funds that households use to pay for food varies hugely, from more than 60 percent in Bangladesh, to 27 percent in China and just 10 percent in the United States or Germany, the report said.

It also highlighted the impact of financial investors in the commodities futures markets, saying this added upwards pressure on prices in the short term but that the jury was still out as to the long-term impact, beyond generating greater volatility.

(Additional reporting by Sybille de la Hamaide, Editing by Peter Blackburn)

Most Developing Countries Ill-Equipped To Ensure Global Biosafety: UN University

Medical News Today, 29 May 2008.

A two-year UN study of internationally funded training programmes in biotechnology and biosafety warns that as many as 100 developing countries are unprepared to effectively manage and monitor the use of modern biotechnologies, leaving the world community open to serious biosafety threats.

The report, from the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies, says training and management deficiencies in most countries of Africa, Central Asia, Oceania and the Caribbean, "are so pervasive and broad that there is no effective international system of biosafety at the moment."

In addition, the global resources available from donor countries and agencies, already inadequate to help developing countries meet basic international agreement obligations, are being cut back. It is estimated that, over the past 15 years, just $135 million has been invested globally by public and private sources in capacity building in developing country.

The UNU-IAS assessment, released at this month's Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Bonn, takes no sides on genetically modified organisms and other biotech-related controversies. It was designed simply to shed a neutral, independent and objective light on international biotechnology and biosafety training programmes intended to allow developing countries to make and implement informed choices.

Among other questions examined:

•

Are current capacity building initiatives directed towards particular policy or regulatory outcomes?

•

Do they drive the policy process in developing countries?

•

Are capacity building initiatives in biosafety and biotech demand driven?

•

How can integrated capacity building be provided given lack of international consensus about nature and extent of risks posed by Living Modified Organisms?

•

Are regional approaches appropriate for capacity building in biosafety and biotech?

•

Is there sufficient donor coordination to avoid inappropriate duplication?

•

Are existing activities sustainable?

•

How should capacity building differentiate between developing countries at different stages of uptake of modern biotech?

•

How can capacity building gaps and problems be addressed?

Authors, Sam Johnston, Catherine Monagle, Jessica Green and Ruth Mackenzie say the use and prevalence of biotechnology in agriculture and other sectors seems certain to increase. And the widespread ratification of the world's Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB), which will mark the 5th anniversary of its coming into force on Sept. 11, 2008, "demonstrates the desire for biosafety measures to go hand in hand with the development of biotechnology."

However, they cite the lack of technical, policy and enforcement capacities in developing countries as "a potentially contributing factor to the spread of bioterrorism" -- the deliberate release of naturally-occurring or human-modified bacteria, viruses, toxins or other biological agents.

Among other points and observations:

•

Globalization, resulting in the increasing flow of information, people and resources, has weakened the power of states to manage technology development and will make it harder to develop an effective international regime;

•

The lack of capacities and the associated policy vacuum allow for vested interests to predominate, dampen support for research and create hesitation on the part of governments to properly engage with the issue;

•

A country that lacks capacity is more likely to bring in very restrictive systems in order to counterbalance its deficiencies and undermines their ability to consider less contentious uses of biotechnology, such as in diagnostics, industrial enzymes, pollution remediation, combating drought and reversing salinity;

•

The lack of capacity creates dependency in developing countries;

•

The use of genetically-modified crops in many developing countries makes future trade bans and disruption likely;

The lack of an effective biosafety regime undermines the potential for developing countries to consider the role of biotechnology in critical areas such as addressing climate change.

Most available capacity building resources to date have been devoted to developing policy and regulatory regimes, including approval procedures and risk assessment. Scientific training has focused mostly on risk assessment and, to a lesser extent, on the detection of genetically modified organisms.

The authors offer a suite of recommendations, emphasizing that capacity needs should be identified locally, not internationally, and point to success stories on which world efforts should be built.

The findings raise fundamental questions about "the extent to which capacity deficits are undermining the promise that advances in biotechnology would directly address the needs of the poor," says UNU-IAS Director A.H. Zakri.

"There may also be broader implications of a capacity deficit in biosafety and biotechnology. These may include an impaired ability to meet the challenges of global issues such as climate change, or to protect humans and the environment against biosecurity risks."

----------------------------
Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.
----------------------------

Information for the assessment was assembled from available literature and previous assessments, country visits to the Philippines, Uganda, Bangladesh and Cameroon, stakeholder interviews and participation in several international meetings, overseen by an advisory committee of senior experts and critiqued by a range of reviewers.

The full report is online here (pdf)

UNU Institute of Advanced Studies

The Institute of Advanced Studies is part of the United Nations University's global network of research and training centres. IAS undertakes research and postgraduate education on leading sustainable development issues, convening expertise from disciplines such as economics, law, biology, political science, physics and chemistry to better understand and contribute creative solutions to pressing global concerns. UNU-IAS works to identify and address strategic issues of concern for all humankind, for governments and decision makers and, particularly, for developing countries.

United Nations University

Established by the U.N. General Assembly, UNU is an international community of scholars engaged in research, advanced training and the dissemination of knowledge related to pressing global problems. Activities focus mainly on peace and conflict resolution, sustainable development and the use of science and technology to advance human welfare. The University operates a worldwide network of research and post-graduate training centres, with headquarters in Tokyo

Source:

Terry Collins
United Nations University http://www.unu.edu/

28 May 2008

EU makes a pig's ear of GM-free feed regulation Farmers slam EU's zero tolerance approach

Food Manufacture.co.uk, 28 May 2008. By Rick Pendrous.

Farmers' leaders have raised the spectre that Britain's pig and poultry sectors could be "decimated" by spiralling genetically modified (GM)-free feed costs after a virtual ban on GM animal soya feed in the EU.

Meurig Raymond, deputy president of the National Farmers' Union, said the "zero tolerance" approach to GM contamination would cause feed prices to soar. "It could easily add &ound;200/t in two years' time," he warned.

"The amount of land that is being planted with GM soya across the world has just rocketed," said Raymond. "So the chances of being able to purchase non-GM protein in the next two years is going to be difficult." His harshest criticism was the slowness of the EU in authorising the use of new GM soya varieties and the low 0.9% tolerance level allowed for GM contamination in imported soya. "Unless the European Commission eases the conditions on tolerance, then it is going to make life difficult, particularly for the pig and poultry sector," he said.

Raymond called for a tolerance of 25-40% to be permitted. But he recognised getting agreement on this would take a long time. He claimed the French government was one of the main protagonists against GM technology and relaxing the tolerance levels. "They have changed their stance in the last couple of months and I can't understand why," he said.

The irony is that pigs and poultry fed on GM feedstock can be legally imported into the EU. "If we are uncompetitive in western Europe in pigs and poultry, we are going to be importing [more of] the product which has been fed on GM material anyway," he added. "So there is some hypocrisy here."

His concerns were echoed by Patrick Wall, chairman of the European Food Safety Authority.

Comment by GM-free Ireland

The UK National Farmers Union is flogging a dead horse as reports have long since made it clear that rising feed costs have nothing to do with the EU's requirement to protect European farmers from illegal GM animal feed varieties. The NFU is advocating a race to the bottom against meat from GM-fed livestock imported from South America which Europe can never win, based on lower labour and input costs there. Instead of promoting the interests of the giant consolidated agri-biotech companies and commodity traders bent on forcing the EU market open to their unwanted GM products, EU farmers' organisations can - and should - (a) source certified non-GMO soya which, despite the propaganda, is available for only a small extra premium from Brazil and other countries, and (b) leverage the EU's market clout to request farmers in the feed producing countries to grow the GM-free soya which the EU market demands.

Organically reared cows produce healthier milk says Newcastle University

The Times (UK), May 28 2008. By Valerie Elliot.

Milk from organic cattle that eat a fresh grass diet is likely to be better for your health, according to a new study by the University of Newcastle

This organic milk contained more good fatty acids such as omega-3 and conjugated linoleic acid known as CLA9 than milk produced at intensive commercial dairy farms. The difference was even more marked during the summer with levels of CLA9 about 60 per cent higher in milk from cattle that graze in fields.

Gillian Butler, livestock project manager for the university's Nafferton Ecological Farming Group, who led the research, said: "Our work has not looked at the impact on human health, but I would say organic milk should be better for health from what we know of the benefits of these good fatty acids. She added: "They are effective in combating cancer, coronary heart disease and type II diabetes."

The sampling of milk took place during 2004 and 2005 but the results were published only yesterday in the Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture.

Mrs Butler, 53, said that she had switched to drinking organic milk three years ago after analysing the data. "My interest now is that if we can improve the quality of milk we can also improve the health qualities of butter and cheese," Mrs Butler said.

Organic cattle in the South of England spent most of their lives out of doors but in the North and Scotland cattle are brought indoors to live in sheds from the end of September or October, depending on rain and cold temperatures.

Researchers found that by adding a mix of soya beans, rapeseed and linseed to the daily food rations for each cow kept indoors, milk quality improved and was comparable to the milk from an outdoor cow eating a fresh grass diet.

"We've shown that significant seasonal differences exist. Our future research is focusing on how to improve the nutritional composition of milk during the winter, when cows are kept indoors and fed mainly on conserved forage," she said.

The study, which was a collaboration between scientists at Newcastle and the Danish Institute for Agricultural Science, is part of a European Commission-funded project about milk quality and minimising use of antibiotics in dairy production. The scientists also discovered interesting results from a group of non-organic farms that used similar production methods to organic systems.

These cattle lived outdoors from March until November, eating almost a 100 per cent fresh grass diet. This milk had higher levels of the good fatty acid CLA9, whereas organic milk had higher levels of omega-3.

Further work is under way but Mrs Butler believes that the difference is linked to the amount of clover in fields. Organic farms have more because they do not use fertilisers.

The findings delighted the Soil Association, which champions organic food and farming in Britain.

Peter Melchett, policy director at the the association, said: "This research confirms what organic farmers and consumers have long believed to be true.

"Some sceptics have thrown doubts on the benefit of organic milk because scientists had not shown precisely how organic farming makes a positive difference. This latest research demonstrates that it is the cows' organic diet that makes their milk healthier. Other research has shown the same is true for beef and lamb reared on grass."

Biofuel production Africa threatens wetlands and forests

Wetlands International press release, 28 May 2008.

Bonn, 28 May 2008. Africa is expected to produce a substantial part of the global biofuel demand in 2020. Production will hardly take place in current agricultural areas. Especially natural areas of wetlands and rainforest - the hotspots for biodiversity - are vulnerable for this development.

These are the main outcomes of the study 'Biofuel production in Africa' , presented by Wetlands International at the Convention of Biological Diversity in Bonn. The report describes the expected impact of biofuel production on African wetlands and their values in 2020.

Little risk for African wide food production

Africa wide food production is not directly at risk being pushed away by biofuel production. Although millions of African hectares might be turned into biofuel production, this will largely take place outside existing agricultural areas. The African share of biofuel production for EU and North American and upcoming Asian markets is expected to remain relatively modest in the coming decades (an assumed 5% in 2020). Major consumer markets (US, EU) will preferably support their own agricultural sector to produce feedstocks for biofuels. Countries like Brazil will remain better equipped to extend its biofuel production and to serve the world markets with low production costs.

Increasing agricultural prices

A large and increasing share of European and American agricultural production is turned into biofuels. As a result, African food prices too will rise. This creates opportunities for farmers but also jeopardizes the position of the landless and urban poor when foodprices rise.

Southern and Eastern Africa for sugar cane

The most promising crops are sugar cane for ethanol and palm oil for biodiesel; and sorghum and cassava at a later stage. Jatropha will only be attractive for smallholders, for local use; not for global markets. Southern Africa and Eastern Africa (South-Africa, Monzambique, Tanzania and Kenya) are expected to become the most important producers for sugar cane. Western Africa will be more suitable for palm oil.

Promising crops cause wetland loss

Oil palm fruits and sugar cane are very perishable and need processing within one or two days. This demands huge plantations of thousands of hectares in the proximity of a mill. These crops also use lots of water, usually much more than rainfall provides. These two factors make natural wetlands and rainforests with uninhabited or communal lands very attractive areas for biofuel production: enough water and little problems with land rights when establishing huge plantations at once. Even with a modest share at the global level, African biofuel production for the Northern markets and for domestic African use will demand millions of hectares in Africa. The areas at risk, with low population densities and enough fresh water are also the most important 'hotspots' for African biodiversity. Similar trends are visible in South-east Asia where complex land rights in populated areas make peatswamp forests popular for palm oil plantations. The first examples in Africa (like the Tana wetlands in Kenya, TanoÈ swamp forest Ivory Coast, Wami wetlands in Tanzania) confirm this expectation.

Impact on people locally

In addition to the loss of natural areas, biofuel production has negative local impacts on people downstream of the plantations. Biofuels like sugar cane consume large quantities of water, cause erosion and demand fertilizer and pesticides. Especially in Africa, this will affect many people as many directly depend on water quantity and quality of nearby wetlands such as rivers and marshes. Locally, food production might be at threat by the establishment of biofuel plantations.

The need for rapid processing of feedstocks make farmers dependent on the owners of the mills. This makes exploitation of farmers more likely than for other cash crops, with little opportunities for smallholders.

Opportunities for Africa

While biofuel production for EU and USA markets are expected remain relatively modest, according to the study there are promising opportunities for African countries to shift their fuel demands to biofuels. Currently, African countries spend around 10 to 20% of their import value on fuels. This is increasing due to high oil prices. Biofuels can provide better and eventually cheaper energy security, improved trade balance and create added value. A country like Brazil depends now mostly on bio-ethanol for fuel, as it is cheaper compared to fossil oil. Biofuel support policies of for instance South-Africa and Malawi are the first examples of this.

Wetlands International sees major threats but also opportunities for biofuel production in Africa. The NGO calls for global biodiversity and social criteria to apply in consumer countries, producing countries and within product sectors and for donor policies to guide this major development. Wetlands International is working on an early warning system of wetland conversion.

Note: This press release is based on a study commissioned by Wetlands International and carried out by AIDEnvironment about the expectations for 2020 on biofuel production in Africa. You can download our report on www.wetlands.org/publication.aspx?ID=73e3807d-010e-47dd-9f03-e62bcd216592

Contact:

Alex Kaat
Wetlands International
Alex.kaat@wetlands.org
www.wetlands.org
+31 (0)6 50601917 (mobile)
+31 (0)317 486776

No evidence GM increases yields

Farmers Weekly (UK), letter to the editor, 28 May 2008.

Did anyone else spot that throughout Julian Little's talking point (It's yield that will matter from now, 9 May 2008), in which he attempted - on behalf of the GM industry - to make the case for GM crops on the basis of increased yields, he failed to provide a shred of evidence that GM crops do in fact increase yields?

This is not surprising given that the conclusion of the recent United Nations International Agriculture Assessment report, written by 400 scientists and supported by 60 countries, was that there was no evidence that GM crops increase yields. The biotech industry was so disgruntled by the report's lack of support that it pulled out of the entire process last year, and the USA has refused to sign up to the final document for the same reasons.

No one disputes that we face huge challenges; farming must be both competitive and environmentally friendly. But GM crops have failed to deliver on both counts. Most GM crops grown are modified to be herbicide tolerant, leading to dramatic increases in the use of pesticides as more and more resistant weeds emerge. There is not a single GM drought tolerant crop on the market.

The International Agriculture Assessment made it clear that the way forward must be through localised solutions, combining scientific research with traditional knowledge in partnership with farmers and consumers. The fact that the UK does not grow GM crops is a chance for UK farmers to continue to produce the GM-free food the market demands.

Clare Oxborrow
Food Campaigner
Friends of the Earth
London N1 7JQ

The facts on productivity

GREATER PRODUCTIVITY?

"currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential... In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars".

Authors: Fernandez-Cornejo, J. & Caswell
Title: Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States
Source: USDA/ERS Economic Information Bulletin No. 11, April 2006
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib11/eib11.pdf

An earlier US Department of Agriculture report also noted that GM crops do not increase yield potential and may reduce yields (p21). That report also says, "Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative." (p24)

Authors: Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo and William D. McBride
Title: Adoption of Bioengineered Crops
Source: Agricultural Economic Report No. AER810, May 2002
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/

Australian News: MAdGE marches against GM food

Green Left Weekly issue #752, 28 May 2008. By Sue Bolton.

MAdGE (Mothers Against Genetic Engineering) took its opposition to genetically modified food to the streets on May 21, to coincide with a May 21-22 GM crops summit in Melbourne.

MAdGE was formed in 2007 when the Victorian ALP government announced it was reviewing the moratorium on GM food. Premier John Brumby's government lifted the moratorium on February 28.

MAdGE organiser Fran Murrell slammed the limitations of the government review: "The panel ... was only required to look at the economic aspects of lifting the ban. There was no obligation to examine the health effects of GM crops or their effect on the environment.

She added: "Data from the US Department of Agriculture shows 15 times more pesticide is sprayed on US crops since the introduction of GM crops ... Farmers have reported that pigs fed GM corn had fertility problems and gave birth to bags of water. We need this dangerous technology out of our food until full tests are done."

Vicki Wilson from the Concerned Consumers Group told the protesters, "This technology is in its infancy ... they are playing with our food and making us the guinea pigs. Eventually, like the tobacco industry, the harm that GM could do to us will be revealed, but at what cost?" MAdGE points out that Food Standards Australia New Zealand does no independent testing of GM foods, relying instead on studies done by the biotech companies themselves.

Several Gippsland farmers were among the 100 protesters. One told Green Left Weekly that she was disgusted with the Victorian Farmers Federation for believing the Monsanto propaganda about GM crops.

The protest demanded: that governments stop approving GM crops and food until multi-generational, independent trials are done; that GM foods currently in the food chain be removed until they are proven safe; and that GM canola planted in Australia this year be uprooted before it can flower, spread pollen and seed, and pollute the environment.

27 May 2008

UK: Government accused of "GM crop fixation" while food crisis deepens

Press Notice from GM Free Cymru (Wales), 27th May 2008.

The Government has been accused of maintaining a fixation on GM crops and foods while international food prices escalate and while the spectre of starvation is faced by millions of poor people worldwide.

In spite of frequent appeals from scientists and NGOs the UK Government continues to promote GM crop approvals within the EC, with Peter Mandelson taking an aggressive pro-corporate and pro-GM stance on the spurious grounds that "trade liberalisation" will assist the poor (1). Supposedly independent regulatory bodies like FSA and ACRE continue to maintain the pretence that GM crops and foods are harmless and healthy, and to peddle the "freedom of choice" argument in spite of the fact that no consumers actually seem to want to eat GM products. In other words, they slavishly follow the line laid down by DEFRA and the Government.

More to the point, the Government has pointedly refused to sign up to the recent IAASTD report which was very sceptical about the role of GM in contributing to future sustainable and environmentally friendly agriculture in the poorer nations. Scientists, aid workers, civil servants, and farm representatives from around the world endorsed instead a pattern of agriculture which is sustainable, independent of high chemical and energy inputs, and responsive to local needs and aspirations. The Report was signed by 57 nations (2), and the only ones which have refused to sign are the USA, Canada, Australia and the UK. In response to frequent prompting, the Government has still done no more than "welcome" the report, while pointedly refusing to "support" it. This is embarrassing, to say the least, for Professor Bob Watson, Chairman of IAASTD, who also acts as Chief Scientific Adviser to DEFDRA (3). Without much conviction, he has tried to convince the media that his statements about the limitations of GM technology have the "full support" of the Prime Minister. On the other hand Douglas Alexander, the Secretary of State for International Development, has confirmed in a letter to GM Free Cymru (4) that he will continue surreptitiously to use taxpayers' money to fund GM research, in spite of the wishes of the poorer nations for future research to be concentrated on conventional crop breeding and cultivation methods which will enhance food security, maintain biodiversity and facilitate the survival of rural communities.

Commenting on the Government's refusal to support the aspirations of the nations which have signed up to the IAASTD Report, GM Free Cymru spokesman Brian John said: "We find the Government's attitude to the IAASTD recommendations patronising and even arrogant. Clearly, the colonial "donor/client" mind-set within DFID is still present, with the Government apparently convinced that it knows better than the poorer nations themselves what is good for them (5). This Government is scared to death of the USA and the WTO, and far too close to despicable multinational corporations like Syngenta and Monsanto. It is high time that it started to listen to what British taxpayers and representatives of the developing nations are saying to them -- namely that the GM fixation has wasted millions of pounds thus far, has never delivered any benefits to the poor and hungry, and has no role to play in the delivery of future food security."

ENDS

Contact:

Dr Brian John
Tel + 44 1239 820470

Notes:

(1) http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?n=77418-m-mandelson

(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/16/food.biofuels
http://www.research4development.info/news.asp?ArticleID=50205

(3) http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/how/adviser.htm

(4) Rt Douglas Alexander MP
Secretary of State for International Development DFID
22nd May 2008
Dear Mr Alexander
The IAASTD Report and the DFID fixation on GM crops
(Text available on request)

(5) http://www.gmfreecymru.org/open_letters/Open_letter16Apr2008.html
OPEN LETTER from GM Free Cymru
to: Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP, Prime Minister 10 Downing Street, London
SW1A 2AA
16th April 2008
Dear Prime Minister
GM crops will not feed the world

Global Forest Coalition:
Activists Symbolically Cut Trees to Save Forests and Call for GE Trees Ban

Global Forest Coalition press release, 27 May 2008.

Bonn, Germany - A large number of activists today stopped and cut Genetically Engineered frankentrees that attempted to invade a tree planting ceremony outside of the meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

"We came here to this event because this tree planting ceremony is representative of corporate green-washing initiatives pretending to protect biodiversity," said Peter Gerhardt of the German based group Robin Wood. "The tree planting ceremony is symbolic of what industry is pushing--non-native, often invasive trees for monoculture timber plantations. If industry has its way, in the near future these will be genetically engineered (GE) trees for production of second generation agrofuels or pulp and paper," he continued.

The activists expressed concern about the refusal of the EU and Brazil to ban GE trees. "These trees are simply too dangerous, not only to forests, but also to local communities and Indigenous Peoples who depend on forests for their existence," stated Camila Moreno of Terra de Direitos of Brazil.

"Already forest dependent communities, especially women, are threatened by monoculture timber plantations and GE trees will mean more plantations and an even greater threat," stated Anne Petermann, of Global Justice Ecology Project, and the STOP GE Trees Campaign. [1] "Imposing a ban on the release of genetically engineered trees into the environment is the only sensible position, which is supported by the entire African delegation plus numerous Parties from Asia and Latin America."

The environmentalists also expressed their concern about the One Billion Trees campaign of the UN Environment Program. [2] "This campaign fails to inform people that planting the wrong tree at the wrong place can be ecologically and socially harmful", stated Dr. Miguel Lovera, Chairperson of the Global Forest Coalition.

"Companies also want to use GE trees and other tree monocultures for offsetting carbon emissions," highlighted Ana Filippini of World Rainforest Movement and the STOP GE Trees Campaign. "The destruction of forests, which are important carbon sinks, for new tree plantations releases huge amounts of carbon, worsening climate change. What we need is forest restoration with native species, not monocultures."

A potential ban on GE trees was discussed at length during the first week of the Biodiversity Convention and will now move into the High Level Session where Ministers from around the world will decide what will happen with this issue. A decision to stop GE trees is considered critically important at this time because of the rapid advancement of GE trees technology, which is being especially driven by the projected increase in demand for wood that would accompany cellulose-based second generation agrofuels.

Notes:

[1] The STOP GE Trees Campaign is comprised of 137 organizations in 34 countries.

[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has launched a major worldwide tree planting campaign called Plant for the Planet: Billion Tree Campaign.

Contact:

Orin Langelle, GFC Media Coordinator Tel: +49 (0)176 771 87583

Dr. Miguel Lovera, GFC Chairperson Tel: +49 (0)152 225 344787

South Africa: Minority judgment defends public interest litigation

Legalbrief Environmental, 27 May 2008.

Non-governmental organisation Biowatch has won a protracted legal battle to force the bodies responsible for regulating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to grant access to a range of records relating to how those bodies made decisions to authorise the growing and sale of GMO crops.

Despite the victory, Acting Judge Dunne refused to order those bodies or the Minister of Agriculture to pay Biowatch's legal costs and ordered Biowatch to pay the costs of the multinational giant Monsanto, which had intervened in the litigation. Biowatch appealed this judgment. Last November two judges of the Transvaal High Court decided that, despite the fact that making costs orders against parties that litigate in the public interest to enforce constitutional rights would have a 'chilling effect' and discourage such litigation, it would not be appropriate for the Appeal Court to interfere with the discretion of Acting Judge Dunne regarding costs. However, in a strongly worded and meticulously researched dissenting judgment released last week, Judge Poswa rejected the view of the majority that there was no rule that a winning party should be awarded costs and held that although a judge must apply this rule flexibly, he or she must have good reasons to depart from it. Poswa found that Biowatch had demonstrated that it was acting in the public interest and had been 'wholly successful' against the state and Monsanto and was accordingly entitled to its costs. Biowatch has announced its intention to appeal to the Constitutional Court on the basis of this dissenting judgment. All those who believe that public interest litigation has a vital role to play in upholding our Constitution will be hoping that Biowatch succeeds in overturning a precedent that has substantially increased the risks of such litigation.

Visit the EnAct International site http://www.enact-international.com/

Read an additional report in the Cape Argus (subscription needed) http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=3136&fArticleId=4415404

View the court papers (including the minority judgment) on the Biowatch site http://www.biowatch.org.za/main.asp?include=docs/courtcase.html

USA: Kiplinger comments on Monsanto

AgriMarketing.com, 27 May 2008.

Kiplinger.com reports:

Simply put, Monsanto helps farmers grow more food than they would otherwise. And the company can charge a pretty penny for its assistance thanks to innovative products, such as seed that results in corn that is resistant to pests.

Monsanto (symbol MON) is the top dog in the herbicide and seed sector. DuPont (DD) is second and Syngenta (SYT) a distant third, says Credit Suisse analyst Mark Connelly. He says Monsanto will continue to remain ahead of the competition over the next five years.

Monsanto's domination of the market is no secret. The stock has climbed from around $7 in 2003 to more than $100 today.

Sales and profits of the herbicide Roundup, or glyphosate as chemists call it, has contributed mightily to Monsanto's performance. In the second fiscal quarter, which ended Feb. 29, sales of glyphosate and other herbicides soared 85 percent, to $982 million, from the same period a year earlier.

Meanwhile, gross profit (sales minus cost of goods sold) surged 133 percent, to $595 million. The company forecasts a doubling of gross profit from glyphosate sales for the fiscal year that ends Aug. 31.

Corn and soybeans are the engines of Monsanto's seed business. Corn accounted for 57 percent of Monsanto's profit in fiscal 2007, while soybeans contributed 19 percent. All other crop seeds accounted for the rest.

Strong demand for corn in Argentina, Brazil and the United States is boosting results. In the second quarter, the company generated gross profit of $1.6 billion, up 37 percent from the same quarter a year ago. Sales totaled $2.5 billion, up 39 percent.

Some agricultural analysts expect that farmers will plant less corn this year to take advantage of higher soybean prices. Such a move could hurt Monsanto's sales. But Argus Research analyst Bill Selesky calls those concerns "overblown."

Monsanto has yet to unleash a possibly game-changing innovation. It has partnered with Dow Chemical (DOW) to combine eight genetically engineered traits -- such as herbicide tolerance and insect resistance -- into one corn hybrid. Farmers buy hybrid seed because it produces more corn per acre and allows them to use less herbicide.

Monsanto recently raised its quarterly dividend 40 percent, to 17.5 cents a share. The stock yields 0.6 percent based on an annual dividend rate of 70 cents per share.

BASF Plant Science and Academia Sinica (Taipei) to cooperate on gene discovery;
Focus on yield increase and stress tolerance in crops such as rice and corn;
Third plant biotech agreement by BASF Plant Science in Asia within eight months

MacroWorldInvestor.com, 27 May 2008.

Limburgerhof, Germany and Taipei, Taiwan -- BASF Plant Science and Academia Sinica, the leading research institute in Taiwan, today signed a cooperation agreement.

Focus is on the discovery of genes that increase yield and improve stress tolerance in major crops such as rice and corn.

Financial details have not been disclosed.

Within the scope of the cooperation, Academia Sinica will continue their work on the detailed functional analysis of genes in rice. BASF will evaluate genetically modified rice plants and further develop the most promising genes in rice as well as other crops. Target is to market several genetically enhanced crops with improved yield. The duration of the cooperation has initially been set for two years.

We are impressed by the broad expertise that our partner brings to the coopera-tion, said Dr. Jurgen Logemann, Vice President Technology Management, BASF Plant Science. BASF was able to select those genes from preliminary studies at Academica Sinica that show the largest potential to increase and secure yield in crops.

We are delighted to partner with BASF Plant Science for identification of rice genes that control stress tolerance and beneficial agronomic traits through study of our gene library and database called TRIM, said Dr. Su-May Yu of the Institute of Molecular Biology at Academia Sinica, who heads the project. TRIM stands for Taiwan Rice Insertional Mutant library and database.

Essential genes identified during the cooperation could be used to improve yield in rice and other cereal crops such as wheat, corn, and grass species, which are very much needed in order to ensure food and bioenergy security for the rapidly growing world population, Dr. Yu added.

After agreements with CFGC (South Korea) and NIBS (Beijing), the agreement with Academia Sinica is the third cooperation agreement that BASF Plant Sci-ence has entered within the past eight months. BASF Plant Science highly values the quality of work carried out by research institutes in Asia-Pacific, said Logemann.

About Academia Sinica

Academia Sinica, is the most prominent academic institution in Taiwan. It was founded in China in 1928 to promote scholarly research into the sciences and humanities. After the Republic of China government moved to Taiwan in 1949, Academia Sinica was re-established in Taipei. It is now a modern institution with a worldwide reputation and a proud tradition.

Academia Sinica is currently under the leadership of President Chi-Huey Wong. It is divided into three divisions, the Division of Life Sciences, the Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, and the Division of Mathematics and Physical Sciences. Altogether it boasts a total of 24 institutes and 7 centers, the research from which can be seen regularly in international scholarly journals. In the 10 years from 1996 to 2006 Academia Sinica published a total of 9662 papers, 104 of which were listed as within the top 1% of highly cited research papers worldwide.

More at www.sinica.edu.tw/main-e.shtml About BASF Plant Science BASF the Chemical Company consolidated its plant biotechnology activities in BASF Plant Science in 1998. Today, about 700 employees are working to optimize crops for more efficient agriculture, renewable raw materials and healthier nutrition.

Projects include yield increase in staple crops, higher content of Omega-3s in oil crops for preventing cardiovascular diseases, and potatoes with optimized starch composition for industrial use. To find out more about BASF Plant Science, please visit www.basf.com/plantscience.

About BASF

BASF is the worlds leading chemical company: The Chemical Company. Its portfolio ranges from oil and gas to chemicals, plastics, performance products, agricultural products and fine chemicals. As a reliable partner BASF helps its customers in virtually all industries to be more success-ful. With its high-value products and intelligent solutions, BASF plays an important role in finding answers to global challenges such as climate protection, energy efficiency, nutrition and mobility.

BASF has more than 95,000 employees and posted sales of almost 58 billion in 2007. Further information on BASF is available on the Internet at www.basf.com.

26 May 2008

U.S. rice farmers want class-action suit against Bayer

Associated Press, 26 May 2008. By Christopher Leonard.

ST. LOUIS – A federal judge will decide whether to consolidate several lawsuits over genetically engineered rice under one class-action suit that would include thousands of rice farmers throughout the United States.

U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry heard arguments in the case Thursday that hinged on whether farmers suffered economic damage after a strain of Bayer CropScience AG's experimental rice was released into the food supply in 2006.

Some foreign countries temporarily banned U.S. rice exports after the release of the so-called Liberty Link rice, drying up key foreign markets and causing the price for U.S. rice to drop.

Perry made no ruling last week, but if she grants the suit class-action status, it could have potentially enormous implications for the biotech seed industry.

Every major biotech seed company grows experimental biotech crops outdoors. The U.S. rice farmers say the companies should be held liable for any economic losses on global grain markets if experimental strains escape and crimp export markets.

Bayer attorney Mark Ferguson said making dozens of lawsuits into a single class-action against his client would be impractical because it would include any rice farmer who set a price for their crop after Liberty Link was released in August 2006.

Don Downing, an attorney for Gray Ritter and Graham of St. Louis, who represents a group of farmers in the case, said the farmers suffered the same damage because they sell a commodity whose price is set by global markets.

Downing didn't say what kind of financial damages the farmers would seek. But the sum could be vast, according to testimony from Colin Carter, an agricultural economics professor at the University of California, Davis. Carter said the rice markets were "shocked" in 2006 when European nations restricted U.S. rice imports. Such a shock becomes a permanent factor in setting the price for a commodity like rice, because traders always know it might happen again.

Africa: How Media is Pushing GM Crops

The East African, 26 May 2008. By John Mbaria (Nairobi).

Unwitting African countries are being coaxed and coerced to cultivate and consume genetically modified crops in a campaign bankrolled by giant biotech multinationals and executed by cash-rich "scientific" organisations who extol technology as the panacea for the continent's hunger and low agricultural productivity.

The big-bucks campaign has been picking up steam in East Africa in recent months with one announcement after another being made through compliant media outlets of grandiose initiatives aimed at helping the region's countries to fight hunger.

The media reports on these initiatives rarely query the role of the global biotech giants nor do they examine the broader agenda behind the big pro-GMO push in African countries. Almost all the reports on the GMO initiatives either explicitly endorse them or end up reproducing without comment the glowingly positive picture painted by the GMO proponents.

As a result, the possible social, economic and health consequence of cultivating and consuming GM "Frankenfoods" are rarely covered. Observers say the uncritical attitude of the media means that it has unwittingly been incorporated into the campaign and has failed to inform millions of African smallholder farmers and their families about the entire truth on GMOs.

The safety aspects aside, this is likely to prove a fatal oversight in a region that has in the past few decades invested heavily in production for export of coffee, vegetables, flowers and other agricultural produce to Western markets - a growing proportion of it comprising organic or specialty items tailored to niche markets obsessed with purity and traceability of ingredients.

The European market in particular is increasingly hostile to genetically modified crops. In April 2007, according to the GMO-Free Europe website, at least 174 regions, over 4,500 municipalities and other local entities and tens of thousands of farmers and food producers in Europe have declared themselves "GMO-free," expressing their commitment not to allow the use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture and food in their territories.

On May 7 this year, the European Commission sent three controversial genetically modified crops back to its food safety agency in what activists described as "a huge vote of no-confidence in the EU's approval system."

The European Food Safety Authority was asked to review its previous opinion on the safety of a genetically modified potato in light of concerns raised by the World Health Organisation, the Institut Pasteur and the European Medicines Agency. The GM potato, produced by German chemicals company BASF, contains a gene which confers resistance to certain antibiotics considered "relevant" for human and animal health.

The food safety body was also asked to review its previous assessment of two GM maize varieties developed by the companies Syngenta and Pioneer/Dow, that are engineered to produce their own pesticide and which it had originally stated were safe. There is said to be growing scientific evidence showing that the insecticide could affect wildlife and may have knock-on effects on Europe's biodiversity.

Last week, the Chicago Tribune reported that the United States government is using the prevailing global food crisis to promote the use of genetically modified crops particularly in Africa. Recently, the paper said, US had proposed a $770 million package to ease the global crisis. However, Bush had subsequently directed the USAid to spend $150 million of the money "on development farming, which would include the use of GMO crops." The paper also reported that the Bush administration has been trying to "persuade European nations to lift their objection to the use of GMO crops in Africa."

In April, the paper reported, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had suggested at a Peace Corps conference that, "We need to look again at some of the issues concerning technology and food production. I know that GMOs are not popular around the world, but there are places that drought-resistant crops should be a part of the answer."

The US had earlier tried to introduce GMO crops to Africa in 2002, with an offer of aid that included corn, some of which was genetically modified. Despite a severe drought, Zambia, under European Union pressurer rejected the aid altogether. Several other countries accepted the US corn, but only after it was milled. The Bush administration is reportedly working to persuade European nations to lift their objection to the use of GMO crops in Africa.

Not to be left behind, in its 2008 World Development Report, the World Bank urges rich countries to "sharply" raise financial support to countries willing to embrace genetic engineering in food production.

Perhaps taking its cue from the World Bank, Britain's Department for International Development (DfID) recently set up a $13 million fund to finance research on genetic engineering to control pests that ravage a number of staple crops in Kenya and Tanzania - bananas, rice, maize, sweet potatoes and coconuts.

Indeed, biotech multinationals appear to be designing GM-varieties specifically for particular African countries. For instance, on May 3, 2006, the head of Monsanto's Kenyan subsidiary, Kinyua M'Mbijiwe, revealed that the US-based giant had developed a GM-maize variety for the Kenyan market.

Meanwhile, the latest major initiative was covered in this very paper. In The EastAfrican last week, it was announced that the Africa Bio-fortified Sorghum Project - a consortium of nine scientific bodies - is to launch a scheme to use genetic engineering in loading sorghum with additional nutritional contents. The $21 million initiative intends to "fortify" sorghum with vitamins A and E as well as iron and zinc, thus converting it into a more nutritious, easily digestible and attractive foodstuff.

It was claimed that when fully introduced, the GM-sorghum would solve a range of nutritional problems in sub-Saharan Africa, where "millions of people suffer from health problems associated with vitamin and mineral deficiency." And like similar reports on the potential benefits of GMOs for Africa, the report graphically replayed the plight of the poor in the continent. Arid climates and poor soils, the story stated, mean that 80 per cent of the children in the region "receive inadequate amounts of vitamin A (while) half the entire population suffers from iron deficiency and a third from zinc deficiency."

Typically, once the news reports paint the African scenario in such heartrending terms, they proceed to predict almost magical scenarios in which the yet-to-be-tested GMOs eradicate such difficulties once and for all. In many cases, such self-declared GMO proponents as the head of Africa Harvest, Dr Florence Wambugu, are invited to make supporting arguments.

"Malnutrition remains a leading direct and indirect cause of the rise in many non-communicable diseases in Africa," Dr Wambugu told The EastAfrican last week, adding that lack of micronutrients brings about impaired immune systems, blindness, low birth weight and so on.

In most cases, such stories conclude at that point. Rarely is any effort made to answer such questions as who is behind the funding of the GM research or who will end up getting the patents for such improved crop varieties. "There is a lot of manipulation going on and Unwitting African countries are being coaxed and coerced to cultivate and consume genetically modified crops in a campaign bankrolled by giant biotech multinationals and executed by cash-rich "scientific" organisations who extol technology as the panacea for the continent's hunger and low agricultural productivity.

Mr Ngonyo said East Africans are not only provided little or no information about the health consequences of consuming GM-crop varieties but are also left in the dark about the implications of cultivating them in the poor and/or fragile soils prevailing in the region.

"The way the GMO story is told is like a fairy goddess has come to us, eager to give Africa all it ever needed," he added.

Local oversight institutions mandated to police the proliferation of plant materials also appear oddly complacent. In a report carried in our sister paper, The Sunday Nation, in late March, this writer cited evidence that Kenyans have unwittingly been growing and consuming genetically modified maize.

The variety in question - PHB30V53 - is a hybrid that has its origins in the US and is patented by Dupont, one of the world's leading biotech companies. It is imported into Kenya from South Africa ,where it is multiplied and packaged for the African market.

A determined effort by a group of 45 farmer organisations and non-governmental organisations operating under the auspices of the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition (KBioC) led to the finding that PHB30V53 is contaminated with traces of the genetically modified organism Mon810, which is patented by Monsanto. KBioC had sought the help of Greenpeace scientists who took 42 samples of maize seeds from agrovet shops in Kibwezi, Machakos, Thika, Nakuru, Eldoret and Kitale towns. The samples were of maize seed varieties owned and marketed by local and international seed companies.

After sampling, the scientists ground the seeds into flour and after preliminary testing, 19 of the samples were found to be suspect and shipped to the laboratories of the Germany-based Eurofins GeneScan GmbH for further tests.

"Eurofins isolated PHB30V53, a variety that is owned and patented by Pioneer, a South African company," Dr Daniel Maingi, a scientist with KBioC, told this writer.

The sampling and testing took place late last year. Several South African and European publications covered the saga, with South Africa's Business Day quoting the director of the African Centre for Biosafety, Mariam Mayet, on March 20 as saying, "The maize seeds are contaminated with a genetically engineered variety, Mon810, belonging to Monsanto, that has not been approved in Kenya."

She added that maize laced with Mon810 contains a novel gene that is considered unsafe and is banned in several European countries. When the matter became public in Kenya, the Kenya government temporarily banned the marketing of the variety, only to lift the ban following an announcement by the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (Kephis) that its own analysis had established that the GMO traces in PHB30V53 were insignificant.

The organisation's director, Chagema Kedera, criticised KBioC for going public over the matter before getting the signed certificate from Eurofins. This writer then managed - through the assistance of GreenPeace officials - to secure a signed certificate from Eurofins. It also emerged that the Kephis tests of the maize variety could only have been "preliminary" since the organisation does not have the necessary equipment to do a proper GMO test.

Later, Jan van Aken, of Greepeace's Sustainable Agriculture Campaign, told The EastAfrican that though Eurofins had detected a mere 0.1 per cent contamination, this did not mean that the contaminated PHB30V53 variety is safe to grow and consume or that it has no negative effects on the environment.

"Even at 0.1 per cent, it could be disastrous in the long run," he said, further arguing that even if it is assumed the Pioneer maize variety were planted on a mere 1,000 hectares in the country, this would mean a total of 80 million plants - in other words, 0.1 per cent of the 80 million plants amounts to 80,000 genetically modified plants "growing, pollinating and seeding" in Kenya this year alone.

In mid June last year, officials from the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition sampled 10 food items sold in some of Nairobi's key supermarkets. They then sought assistance from Greenpeace International in screening the items for GMOs. KBioC released the results at a press conference on October 15, 2007, in which they announced that genetically modified foods had actually infiltrated the Kenyan market without being labelled as such.

The findings flew in the face of government officials repeated denials that GM foods are on sale in the country.

With the billions of dollars they generate each year, the giant biotech multinatinals have a great deal of clout when it comes to pushing for their interests with governments in industrialised countries, let alone Africa. In Death of Bees: GMO Crops and the Decline of Bee Colonies in North America, Brit Amos says that the power wielded by biotech conglomerates is enough to "manipulate government agricultural policy with a view to supporting their agenda of dominance in the agricultural industry."

He alleges that such American conglomerates as Monsanto, Pioneer HiBred and others, have created "seeds that reproduce only under certain conditions, often linked to the use of their own brands of fertiliser and/or insecticide."

This power may now be translating into decisive influence not only over East African agricultural policies but also law-making processes in Kenya and other countries.

Observers cite the saga surrounding the yet-to-be enacted Biosafety Bill in Kenya that played out publicly over much of last year.

Although there was ample evidence that the Bill was weak in many respects, top politicians and a number of officials in Kenya's Agriculture Ministry gave the nod to the Bill.

GM patents exploit the poor

Eureka Street (Australia), May 26 2008. By Dr Charles Rue *

My work colleagues in Eastern Asia and Latin America have witnessed the negative effects of genetically modified crops on the farmers they work with.

Farmers in the developing world have been used as guinea pigs. Film stars, employed by biotech companies as PR agents, con farmers into buying GM seed with promises of increased crop yields.

This is a lie. Neither GM cotton yields in India nor GM soy bean yields in Latin America have increased.

Unsuitable cotton crops in India have failed. The net result is that the farmers who borrowed money to buy the failed GM seed cannot pay back their debts. Hundreds have committed suicide in despair.

GM also undermines farmers' practice of saving and swapping seeds for their next crop, by contaminating the traditional seed banks. The multiple varieties developed by these farmers over thousands of years to cope with varied soil and weather conditions were their insurance policy, but seed contamination destroys this insurance.

Destroying natural seed banks has worldwide implications for the bio-diversity of staple food crops, exposing nations to starvation as countries lose their food security.

Australia has aligned itself with countries such as the USA and Switzerland in implementing the Trade Related Intellectual Properties Agreement (TRIPs). GM companies use international patenting laws as their legal mechanism of control and extortion.

Often the seeds that are patented as GM varieties capture traits which were first bred into crops by farmers in the developing world. These poor farmers are robbed twice over.

GM companies claim that GM is needed to feed the hungry of the world. The Vatican was almost conned into supporting this PR line and was stopped three years ago by the lobbying of my fellow Columbans and Jesuits from southern Africa.

Rumour has it that the PR companies have again lobbied the Vatican for its support of GM on the pretext that it will feed the world. If so, this is blatant lying and must be opposed.

Brazil produces plenty of food, has large exports and, notably, grows plenty of GM crops. Yet 40 per cent of its people go to bed hungry. GM is about making money, not about feeding the hungry.

The proposal by GM companies to insert a terminator gene into living organisms to make them infertile and so guarantee company profits from patents shows how much they really care about feeding the hungry.

Some Australian states, including Victoria and New South Wales, have lifted the moratorium on GM crops, although it was extended in South Australia. When Australia permits the growing of GM crops locally and supports the international agreement on patenting laws, it is cooperating in ripping off the poor of the world.

I challenge the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Tony Burke, to stop listening to the pro-GM economic analysis from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and listen to the experience of poor farmers in developing countries.

* Dr Charles Rue is a Sydney-based priest of the Columban Missionary Society, and coordinator of Columban JPIC (Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation). This article is adapted from his speech at Wednesday's rally of MAdGE (Mothers Against Genetic Engineering) in Melbourne. Following short speeches by mothers and farmers, more than 200 people, escorted by police, marched from the State Library to the steps of Parliament House. Other speeches followed from political leaders, teachers, organic farmers, and Greenpeace.

Links:

MAdGE (Mothers Against Genetic Engineering): http://www.madge.org.au

Columban Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation: http://www.columban.org.au/Our-works/jpic/about_jpic.html

Are We Ready to Risk Smaller Brains, Livers And Testicles?

The East African / All Africa Global Media, 26 May 2008. By John Mbaria.

Nairobi -- Although evidence is mounting that GM crops are not safe for consumption and that they pose significant risks for the environment, Africa is still being exhorted to feed its people on GMOs.

The GMO push, backed by big dollars, is coming at a time when the technology is being rejected elsewhere. For instance, in April 1999, the anti-GMO campaign in Europe forced most big manufacturers there to publicly commit themselves to stop using GM ingredients in their European brands.

European anti-GMO campaign received a massive boost from one of the top researchers in the field, Arpad Puszai, in early 1999. Working at the Rowett Institute in Scotland, he managed to prove that rats fed on supposedly harmless GM products developed cells that were potentially cancerous, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, and ended up with damaged immune systems. Puszai found that the rats' plight was due to the unpredictable side-effects arising from the very process of manipulating genes.

By implication, this meant that GM foods already on the European market, which were created from the same process, could also have been having such effects on humans. The interesting part of the Puszai experiment came when he publicly expressed his concern: He was fired from his job and subsequently silenced with threats of a lawsuit, while his 20-member research team was disbanded. There are also reports that authorities embarked on an extensive disinformation campaign to discredit the study's results and protect the reputation of GM foods.

This scenario was to change when Puszai managed to secure an invitation to testify before the UK parliament. From then onwards, Europeans seem to have fundamentally altered their attitudes to GM foods.

But even with such evidence, Africa is still being enticed with big cash to embrace and consume GMOs with no questions asked. Besides the media, some top scientists working in outfits such as the 15 "harvest centres" under the umbrella of the Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), and others with such national research organisations as Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) seem to be abetting the process.

Their principal argument is that genetic engineering has the potential to turn around African agriculture from a low productivity, smallholder-dominated and unsustainable sector into one characterised by high productivity, food security and market orientation. Others have argued that Africa cannot afford to ignore the prospects being opened up by the manipulation of naturally occurring genes.

Another argument states, "When GM-biomass is used to generate energy in an efficient and sustainable way, it has a role to play in the fight against climate change."

Greenpeace sees this as yet another of the many myths spread by the biotech giants. It cites counter-argument raised by independent studies that portray fuel based on maize as an "unsustainable" form of bio energy.

"Firstly, the use of maize for ethanol drives up food prices and threatens the food security of the poor in certain regions," says Greenpeace, adding that the carbon dioxide savings from maize-based fuels "are small or even negative" when one takes into account the production techniques used and the source of the energy inputs. Further, it says that the use of genetically engineered maize for biofuels poses an unacceptable risk since the GM-maize designed for industrial fuel contains proteins that are not normally present in the human diet.

It seems, therefore, that GE ethanol maize can easily contaminate the food chain.

"In other words, if the agrochemical industry gets its way, your breakfast cornflakes could soon contain GE ethanol maize, an energy boost you don't need."

That using GM-maize for fuel has the potential to pump toxins into the environment besides causing allergies was underscored by the South African Department of Agriculture, which rejected Syngenta's application for the approval of its GE maize for ethanol in March 2007 on the basis that the company's testing was inadequate.

Interestingly, those who raise concerns over the concerted campaign to introduce GM foods into Africa are often reminded that Americans and, to some extent, Canadians have been cultivating and consuming such foods for over a decade now and that no serious health effects have been noticed.

While this is largely true, there have been recent attempts to kick such foods out of US supermarkets.

For instance, many retailers, distributors, manufacturers, and growers have joined the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, which hopes to eliminate GMOs from thousands of products. The campaign also aims to force the major food companies to stop using GMOs to make it easier for American families to feed on a "healthier" non-GMO diet. They also hope to totally eradicate genetic engineering from the entire US food supply.

24 May 2008

Campaign for a GM-free U.S.A.
"Genetic Roulette" documents health risks by genetic engineering

PresseText.de, 24 May 2008.

Bonn - With approximately half of all the GM-planted acreage globally, the U.S.A. undisputedly is the number one country in genetic engineering. Thus the plan of the American science journalist Jeffrey Smith, which he presented [here recently] on the Planet Diversity conference (www.planet-diversity.org), sounds accordingly unbelievable: Within two years Smith intends to render the U.S. free of genetic engineering.

The basis of the "Campaign for Healthier Meals in America" (http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showPage/index.cfm?objectID=gmfree,5096) is made up of dozens of scientifically documented cases that point out health risks through genetically modified organisms (GMOs). "Healthy meal means No GMOs" is the core message of the campaign. Health-conscious shoppers are to force the food industry to do completely without GM components in their products. This is to be implemented in three steps: It is important first, in cooperation with the organic food manufacturers, to develop a generally recognized definition for the term "GM-free". Then health-conscious buyers are to be provided with information everywhere and finally shopping guides are to be handed out making it possible for consumers to target products free of biotechnology.

In his new book Genetic Roulette Smith not only points out the health risks from GMOs on the basis of 65 documented cases, but also the lies by the responsible US authorities around the approval. "To start off with, something can go wrong with the gene transfer", Smith explains. It is thus possible that the DNA changes by around two to four percent, which can lead to "substantial collateral damage".

The most prominent example are the research results, hotly debated in 1998, by British-Hungarian scientist Arpad Pusztai, who, in the context of a 1.6-million pound research project, modified potatoes and fed them to rats at the Scottish Rowett Research Institute. To everyone's complete surprise, some of the animals showed solid signs of disease. White blood cells reacted more slowly making the animals more susceptible to infections and disease, thymus glands and spleens showed damages. Some of the animals fed with GM potatoes had smaller, badly developed brains, livers and testicles, while others had tissue enlargements, also in the pancreas and in the intestines. In addition, significant structural changes and a growth of cells in stomach and intestines provide indications that a higher cancer risk could exist. Out of "gratitude" for his findings Pusztai was dismissed and discredited. One year later the British scientific magazine "Lancet" published his results that turned out to be correct. "The problems arose from the implanting of the foreign gene", explained Pusztai in the context of the Planet Diversity conference.

As an additional basis for health risks Smith points to the newly produced protein in the plant, like, for example, the poison of Bacillus thuringiensis. Thirdly, there is the possibility that the transgene mutates and produces an unexpected protein, as it happened in a trial of the national Australian research institute CSIRO. A bean gene was brought into a pea, which surprisingly led to health damages in the experimental animals, whereupon the project was put to rest. Smith also lays out in his book how the accumulation of toxic substances and the horizontal gene transfer caused health problems.

23 May 2008

GM Foods the Problem, Not the Solution

Inter Press Service, 23 May 2008. By Julio Goday.

BONN - The food crisis has prompted some looks towards genetically modified food production as a solution. That in turn has led to stronger warnings over the consequences of such food for health and the environment.

These concerns have been raised in Bonn again as more than 3,000 delegates from 147 countries met for the UN conference on biosafety. The conference has sought to ensure safe use of modern biotechnology.

Feeding the debate, scientists, farmers and environmental activists in many countries continue to warn that genetically modified agriculture presents a risk, and not a contribution, to food production.

In France, organic farmers are complaining that genetically modified (GM) plants are poisoning their plantations. Julien and Christian Veillat, two farmers who grow organic maize in the Breton locality of Villiers-en-Plaine some 400 kilometres west of Paris, say their fields have been contaminated with GM maize, even though the nearest GM crops field is 35 kilometres away.

The contamination was established during a routine analysis late in April by an organic agriculture cooperative near the Veillats' village. Following the detection, the organic maize was diverted for use as cattle fodder.

The Veillats have now filed a legal complaint against the central government in Paris. "The contamination could only have come from the GM maize," spokesperson for the local association against GM agriculture Georges Castiel told IPS. "At the organic cooperative, they control the seeds very carefully."

Jean-Pierre Margan, producer of organic wine in the Provence in the south told IPS that contamination of organic farms is a constant problem. "Particles of GMOs are transported by wind and water, and can be carried very far away, and contaminate your plantation even if you have worked hard to protect it from every risk," he said.

Serge Morin, deputy president of the local government in the province of Poitou Charentes said it is necessary that "the French state revises all procedures concerning GMOs, including the immediate stop of all open air GM plantations. In addition, all organic farmers whose plantations are contaminated should be paid indemnities."

Such instances have led renowned chefs and wine producers in France to launch a public campaign to prevent the spread of GMOs in food and beverages.

"We don't have the scientific competence to intervene in the debate on the health consequences of GMOs," they wrote in a public letter addressed to the French parliament. "But we consider that, in accordance with the precautionary principle in questions of food and health, GMOs must simply remain banned from our tables." Similar campaigns are under way in other European countries.

Several scientists and environmental activists say that apart from the health concerns, GMOs are not a solution for food scarcity either.

"Most of the genetic modifications introduced in crops aim at making them resistant to pests or weed killing, but not to increase yields," says Hans-Joerg Jacobsen, biologist at the University of Hanover in Germany.

Jacobsen told IPS that "modern cultures, free of any genetic modification, have higher yields than genetically modified seeds."

"The idea that GM agriculture could help feed the world is part of the propaganda that the biochemical industry has used for years, but it is false," Arnaud Apoteker, who heads the campaign against GMOs for the French branch of the environmental organisation Greenpeace, said in an interview.

Some representatives of the biochemical industry acknowledge this. "Genetically modified agriculture will not solve the world's hunger problem," Hans Kast, managing director of the plant science branch of the chemical giant BASF told the German newspaper Die Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

Take Africa, the only continent that does not produce enough food to feed its own population, even though some 70 percent of African people work in agriculture.

"By applying conventional agricultural methods, free of any genetic modification, you can substantially increase agricultural productivity in Africa," Hans Joachim Preuss, managing director of the German non-governmental food organisation Welthungerhilfe told IPS. "What African agriculture mostly needs is better, more efficient irrigation systems, and not genetically modified seeds."

According to figures released in Bonn by CropLife International, a global federation representing the biochemical corporations, last year "biotech crops were grown on 114.3 million hectares in 23 countries by over 12 million farmers."

Should Scotland go GM-free?

FWI.co.uk, 23 May 2008.

The case for a GM-free Scotland by organic farmer Carey Coombs

GM-free status for Scotland gives the country the opportunity to invest in modern agricultural food systems which deliver environmental and economic efficiency, according to a leading organic farmer from Lanarkshire.

Carey Coombs, who produces organic beef and lamb on his 900-acre hill farm near Biggar, argues that far from being a saviour, GM cultivation will only exacerbate food security issues.

"Global food problems are likely to be severe in future, but the solutions must be driven by the needs of the people who are to consume, whereas GM research at the moment is driven by the need to commercialise and profit," he states.

Mr Coombs, who has been an organic farmer for 10 years and grows cereals in a bid to make his farm self-sufficient, says he is sympathetic to the economic pressures of those buying in animal feed from the global market, but says that believing a slackening of the GM approvals procedure would help is a red herring.

"If we are serious about feeding ourselves into the future, then we must take a very hard look at livestock farmers' dependence on imported protein crops. With a rising global population, these importations make absolutely no economic, ethical or environmental sense. It is time we undertook real agri-ecosystem design and management. It might be a lot more successful than GM."

Author: Nancy Nicolson

Should Scotland go GM-free?

FWI.co.uk, 23 May 2008.

Against a GM-free Scotland, by farmer Shirley Harrison

The Scottish government's GM-free zone policy is creating division, frustration and resentment in a country which has a global reputation for being at the forefront of agricultural advances and plant breeding.

And at a time when livestock farmers are struggling with spiralling feed costs, and food security has a higher profile than at any time since the last war, the pros and antis appear to be lining up for a second-round battle which the biotechnology companies are determined to fight all the way.

The one-year-old SNP administration and its conviction that Scotland should be prepared to take an independent stance on the controversial technology have prompted the NFU Scotland president, Jim McLaren, to call for urgent talks with environment minister Mike Russell in a bid to persuade him to change one of his government's main policies.

But while Mr Russell told Farmers Weekly he was "always willing to have a debate", he went on to condemn as "unreliable" the technology already used by 12 million farmers in 22 countries.

"There is a lack of reliable science, there is a potential risk to the environment, and the subsequent damage to the reputation of Scottish produce, should there be a problem," the minister said. "And even if there was greater faith in the science, the reputational damage would pose such a threat there would be a positive disadvantage.

"A situation exists where there is a level of GM in food which we, alas, in European terms have to accept. But there is a big difference between that and saying we have to give up the fight."

According to Jim McLaren, however, there is a fatal flaw in the Scottish government's argument.

"It would be a case of having to reverse from where we already are, because retailers' shelves are full of GM tomato paste or imported meat products, and many of the livestock produced in Scotland are fed on GM crops, so we need to get real on what we're actually doing at the minute," he stated.

The industry will not go against the informed opinion of consumers, but he believes restrictions have already cost the country a global advantage.

"When we do come to adopt the technology in the future, it's almost certain that it will be work that has been developed in other countries, and I'd have far more faith in technology developed in Scotland and the UK than any developed in either North or South America," he said.

Author: Nancy Nicolson

Comment by GM Watch:

The UK's Farmers Weekly have done podcasts and interviews on GM in Scotland, including a great interview with Mike Russell, Scotland's Environment Minister.

Podcasts on GM in Scotland ‚ interviews with Mike Russell, (anti) and Jim McLaren, NFU Scotland (pro). http://farmersweeklyint.podomatic.com

And farmers' views for and against, including McLaren's are given above.

Incidentally, despite the fact that McLaren demands that with GM "we need to get real on what we're actually doing at the minute", he claims that Scottish "retailers' shelves are full of GM tomato paste", which is very odd given that the last can of GM tomato paste was sold in the UK in June 1999 after which it was withdrawn because of the lack of consumer acceptance.

This level of inaccuracy seems to be par for the course with Jim McLaren who has also claimed leading environmentalists recognise the value of GM crops. However, the only "leading environmentalist" he's actually named is Jonathon Porritt who has very little to say that is of comfort to McLaren. http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9925

22 May 2008

Causes and Strategies on World Hunger
Green Revolution versus Sustainable Agriculture

Global Policy Forum / World Economy & Development in Brief, May 2008. By Katarina Wahlberg.

World hunger is not new. Before the current price increase, 850 million people - 13% of the world's population - were chronically hungry. The number of under-fed people has steadily climbed over the past decade. Now, the World Food Programme estimates that the crisis has driven another 100 million people into hunger, including even urban middle class people in Indonesia and Mexico. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, World Bank President Robert Zoellick and other leaders are urging governments to act promptly. But before jumping on the official bandwagon, we must ask what kind of action, and what brought this crisis on.

Green Revolution for Africa?

Food prices are escalating because agricultural production has not increased fast enough to meet booming demand. According to conventional economic theory, production will rise automatically to meet this demand, and once supply is up, prices will fall. Following this approach, the World Bank, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation are promoting a "New Green Revolution" in Africa. Already underway, this initiative will "seize an opportunity from the higher demand for food" - to increase agricultural production through scientific development of more productive crops, improved fertilizers, and better farming techniques. The World Bank is doubling its lending to $800m to increase agricultural productivity. And the Rockefeller and the Gates Foundations have allocated $150m to make seeds more productive and suitable for Africa's unpredictable rainfall patterns.

The World Bank is also urging countries to cut tariffs and eliminate barriers to international trade. Again, this follows conventional economic theory, which holds that a liberalized market will foster growth as each country specializes in producing the goods and services that it is particularly suited to produce.Unfortunately, conventional economic theory fails to recognize that the earth cannot be exploited indefinitely. Following the Green Revolution of the 1960s, farm productivity increased but at a high social, economic and environmental cost. Industrial farming and heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides led to soil degradation, health problems and climate change. Agriculture currently contributes 30% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. And climate change is already threatening production in many countries through shifting weather patterns, including an increase of droughts and floods.

New dependencies

The last three decades of international trade liberalization may have increased overall economic growth, but wealth has been distributed very unevenly. The rich have become richer, while the poor are poorer. Through the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and numerous trade agreements, rich countries pressured poor countries to dismantle tariffs and other barriers to trade. Meanwhile rich countries have supported large agribusiness with almost $300bn each year in agricultural subsidies. Now, a handful of companies, such as Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra and Monsanto dominate the global production and trade of many commodities. Unable to compete with large agribusiness and subsidized goods, millions of small-scale farmers have been driven off the land. Meanwhile, large-scale industrialized farming of export crops dominates remaining agricultural production. Most poor countries no longer produce enough food to satisfy domestic needs. Thirty years ago, Haiti was almost self-sufficient in rice. Today, Haiti imports most of its rice from the US. Mexico used to produce enough corn to feed its population but since joining the North American Free Trade Agreement, Mexico depends on imports from the US. International trade also puts a strain on the environment as agricultural commodities are being processed, packaged and transported over long distances.

What about demand?

The most important factors behind the current price hike relate to the demand side - not the production side - of the equation. So why not reduce demand? Hunger analysts identify biofuel production as a leading cause of the current crisis. In the US and the EU, large subsidies, tax exemptions and mandatory targets have created an artificial demand for biofuels. Instead of producing for human consumption, farmers make larger profits from growing biofuel crops. But, filling one SUV car tank with biofuel requires 200kg of corn, which could feed one person for one year. Climate scientists also warn that biofuel production is speeding up global warming. Rising global consumption of meat and dairy is another major factor behind the rising food prices. Beef is grain-intensive. To produce one pound, seven pounds of grain are needed. Since the 1970s, global meat production has more than doubled, putting enormous strain on global cereal stocks, as well as the environment. The cattle industry is responsible for 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

While analysts identify population growth as a less immediate cause of the food crisis, population plays a major role over the long term. The UN expects world population to grow from 6.7 to 9.2 billion in 2050. But these numbers depend on fertility decreases in the poorest countries, which require improved access to family planning and reproductive health services. Partly due to the anti-family planning policy of the US government, international organizations promoting these issues have faced financial constraints. Since 2002, the US government has withheld $34m in annual funding from the UN Population Fund and millions more in grants to private agencies.

Sustainable agriculture as an alternative

The global food crisis has brought attention to the long-standing problem of hunger. It is time that world leaders are held accountable for their past promises of food for all. Governments must immediately increase food aid, ban biofuel production and develop policies to supersede factory farms and other unsustainable farming practices. In recent weeks, an important international report presented a compelling vision of truly sustainable agriculture. The IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development) based this report (see reference) on three years of international research, involving 400 scientists and development specialists.

The landmark project provides an alternative to the "New Green Revolution." It focuses less on increasing yields, and more on reducing hunger, through "environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable development." The report talks about addressing the needs of small-scale farmers, by increasing their access to land and natural resources. It cautions against Genetically Modified (GM) crops, as too little is known about their long-term effects. Further, the report warns that patenting of GM crops undermines local farming practices and concentrates ownership of resources. Finally, the authors propose financial incentives to reduce deforestation and conserve natural habitats so as to mitigate climate change. A "fundamental shift" in agricultural policy is needed. Otherwise, says IAASTD Director Robert Watson, hunger, income inequality and environmental degradation will increase further and "we face a world no one would want to inhabit."

Reference:

Synthesis Report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), see www.agassessment.org; for the NGO debate on the report see www.agassessment-watch.org.

About the Author: Katarina Wahlberg is Social and Economic Policy Coordinator at Global Policy Forum.

Agreement lays groundwork for holding producers liable for biotech

Feedstuffs (USA), 22 May 2008. By Jacqui Fatka.

The Cartagena Protocol on the transboundary movement of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will be revised by 2010 to include legally binding rules on liability and redress for damage to biodiversity. This is the basic path agreed on by the 147 parties to the international convention at the 4th meeting of the UN Conference on Biosafety (MOP 4) in Bonn, Germany.

However, many questions concerning the details remain unanswered. Experts are to clarify how damage to biodiversity is identified, evaluated in financial terms and compensated. "What is clear is that the burden of proof will lie with the injured party. The injured party will have to prove the causative link between the use of GMOs and the biodiversity damage claimed. Then the injured state will be able to claim damages from the party responsible for the environmental damage," according to information from the GMO Safety EU team. "For developed industrial nations, this means practically no change to the status quo, according to an expert involved in the negotiations. Developing countries in particular, however, would gain legal certainty vis-ý-vis GMO-exporting states by ratifying the revised Cartagena Protocol."

The agreement would not be legally binding on the United States, however, since Washington has not ratified the 1992 Biodiversity Convention and is not a party to the convention's Cartagena Protocol on the safety of biotech products.

Cartagena Protocol fails to ensure global liability

Yahoo India, 22 May 2008.

The fourth meeting of parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety which concluded in Bonn in Germany last week failed to ensure a global liability regime for the damages likely to be caused by the living modified organisms (LMOs) due to India not taking an assertive position, alleged the convener of Gene Campaign, Suman Sahai.

Gene Campaign was invited to attend the Bonn meeting as observer and Sahai said "we were closely watching the position of different countries which are parties to the Cartagena Protocol.

India is a member of the "like minded" group of 80 countries which has a common stand on demanding a global liability regime and strict implementation of the precautionary principles of the Cartagena Protocol. While Malaysia, The Philippines, Columbia and other countries of the group strongly lobbied for the birth of a global liability regime, Brazil, Japan and Peru opposed the move and as a result the conference could not take a decision, but agreed to discuss in the next meeting, she said.

Indian delegation was led by the ember-secretary of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), Ranjani Warrier. Sahai alleged "India instead of asserting for a global liability regime made an utterly presentation saying that it had implemented the relevant provisions of the Cartagena Protocol."

She said, "India has no provision for participation of civil society groups or public representatives in the decision making on issues relating to LMOs, which is contrary to Article 23 of the protocol. Though there is a law relating to right to information, the government had on many occasions refused to divulge data on biosafety. The social and economic impact of GM crops has not yet been assessed so far. Government has not yet accommodated precautionary principles relating to GM crops or any mechanism for addressing liability and redress and has not introduced labeling of GM food. Instead it is introducing GM brinjal [aubergine] in the centre of its origin."

Terminator seed ban under threat

The Guardian (UK), letters to the editor, 22 May 2008.

As the world grapples with the impact of global food shortages (Six million Ethiopian children at risk of malnutrition, May 21), the livelihoods of 1.4 billion of the world's poorest farmers who rely on harvesting seeds from one crop for sowing the next season is under threat from biotech companies which are pushing to commercialise "terminator" technology - genetic engineering that results in plants producing sterile seeds.

The advent of these so-called suicide seeds represent an insidious attempt to privatise plant life - and force poor families in developing countries to buy new seeds each year from the large companies that control the $19bn global seed market.

A global ban on terminator technology struck eight years ago is now under threat from a powerful alliance of biotech companies and countries with vested interests. They argue terminator technology should be considered on a case-by-case basis, thereby undermining the blanket moratorium. We fear the ban will once again come under pressure at this week's UN summit on the convention on biological diversity in Bonn.

Biotech companies' claims that terminator technology will prevent contamination between GM and non-GM crops are hotly contested, yet the EU and, by implication, British taxpayers are contributing to the development of the technology through a GBP3.4m EU research project investigating ways that seeds can be brought back to life with chemicals.

In the developing world, small-scale farming is how millions of families survive. It is vital that at the Bonn summit this month the UK government strongly supports the continuing global ban on terminator technology.

Sol Oyuela
Environmental Officer
Progressio

Note:

For Progessio's press release on Terminator see http://www.progressio.org.uk/progressio/internal/96160/ban_on_terminator_technology_under_threat/

Read their full report at http://www.progressio.org.uk/shared_asp_files/GFSR.asp?NodeID=96159

Tasmanians urged to go organic

FoodWeek (Australia), 22 May 2008

The Tasmanian government wants to expand the state's organic farming industry.

Primary Industries Minister, David Llewellyn, says it wants to brand the state with clean and natural practices. To that end it is hosting a conference on organic conversion in Launceston this week.

Llewellyn says organic produce commands premium prices in national and international markets.

"It's something that I really think is very important and we've redoubled our efforts to try to get some interest in organics, more than what is already very significant interest already here in Tasmania."

Meanwhile, a group of Tasmanian farmers has secured a deal to supply Japan with canola that's free of genetically-modified materials.

They will combine with farmers from South Australia's Kangaroo Island to supply canola.

Two shipments have already arrived in Japan.

The deal will treble the amount of canola grown in Tasmania to about 3,000 tonnes next year.

21 May 2008

Biotech Companies Using Food Crisis as Opportunity for More GMO Crops

Disaster Capitalism in the News, April 21 2008. By Naomi Klein.

Soaring food prices and global grain shortages are bringing new pressures on governments, food companies and consumers to relax their longstanding resistance to genetically engineered crops....

With food riots in some countries focusing attention on how the world will feed itself, biotechnology proponents see their chance. They argue that while genetic engineering might have been deemed unnecessary when food was abundant, it will be essential for helping the world cope with the demand for food and biofuels in the decades ahead.

Opponents of biotechnology say they see not so much an opportunity as opportunism by its proponents to exploit the food crisis. "Where politicians and technocrats have always wanted to push G.M.O.s, they are jumping on this bandwagon

Captain Hook Awards for Biopiracy 2008

The Coalition Against Biopiracy* exposes Hooks and celebrates Cogs
Winners announced at the UN's Biodiversity Convention in Bonn

Coalition Against Biopiracy, 21 May 2008

Today the world learned which corporations, governments, institutions and individuals earned a spot in biopiracy's hall of shame when the Coalition Against Biopiracy (CAB) announced the winners of the 5th Captain Hook Awards at a lunch-time ceremony during the Ninth Conference of the Parties (COP9) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Bonn, Germany.

"The Maritim Hotel, where the CBD meets this week and next, was the perfect place to dock our ship and divvy up booty between black-hearted biopirates and hard-working cogs ‚ those tireless biopiracy resistors working to foil plots to monopolize genetic resources and indigenous knowledge," said Golda Hilario of SEARICE, who doubled as Tinkerbell at today's award ceremony. SEARICE, based in the Philippines, is a member of the Coalition Against Biopiracy. [N.B. In the Middle Ages, cogs were small ships built with high sides to make them less vulnerable to pirate attacks.]

"Climate-change profiteers commanded the stage for the first time at the biopiracy awards," noted Jim Thomas of Ottawa-based ETC Group, another CAB member. Thomas donned eye-patch and cape to transform himself into Captain Hook, Tinkerbell's less endearing counterpart. "Climate chaos offers biopirates unprecedented opportunities for pillaging the commons," explained Thomas. "On the one hand, we have Gene Giants like Monsanto and BASF monopolizing so-called 'climate-ready' genes in crops; on the other hand, we have geo-engineering companies like Planktos, Inc. and ONC trying to break into the carbon market with reckless ‚ and scientifically dubious ‚ schemes to sequester carbon in algae; and, on the...hook, we have companies pilfering high oil-content plant varieties to grow more of their destructive agrofuel crops."

A special crowd pleaser at today's award ceremony was the prize for "Best Smokescreen" won by non-profit Public Research and Regulation Initiative, "for tirelessly advocating and defending corporate biotech interests under the banner of publicly funded researchers."

But biopirates have met their match in the most resilient cogs sailing the high seas. Today's Captain Hook winners were forced to make room at the podium for Cogs to receive well-deserved recognition. Veronica Villa of ETC Group points out that, "While some are trying to profit from climate change, others are working to help the world survive it. The Nyeleni World Forum on Food Sovereignty, involving more than 500 people from over 80 countries, received a Cog award for advocating the right to food sovereignty and the primacy of community-based food." Villa laments, however, that many Cogs honored today must spend so much of their time, energy and talent on fighting out-of-control biopirates. "Civil society organizations in the Philippines, for example, received a Cog award for demanding their government to stop an Australian-based company called Ocean Nourishment Corp. from carrying out a dangerous climate-change profiteering scheme that involved dumping urea in the Sulu Sea."

Hope Shand of ETC Group points out that, "Ironically, the majority of biopirates receiving awards in Bonn today haven't broken the law. The problem is that intellectual property regimes and internationally trade agreements legally condone patents and activities that are predatory on the indigenous knowledge or sovereign genetic resources of other people. And the CBD, thus far, has failed to provide mechanisms to effectively combat these regimes and agreements."

Two posters listing all the awards presented today in Bonn, along with citations, can be downloaded from the CAB web site: www.captainhookawards.org.

For further information about biopiracy and the Captain Hook Awards, please contact:

Hope Shand, Kathy Jo Wetter or VerÛnica Villa, ETC Group
hope@etcgroup.org
kjo@etcgroup.org
veronica@etcgroup.org
mobile tel. in Bonn: 49 17628423278

Golda Hilario, SEARICE
golda.hilario@gmail.com

Pat Mooney, ETC Group
mobile tel. in Bonn: 49 17677126044

Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group
silvia@etcgroup.org
mobile tel. in Bonn: 49 17677064731

* The Coalition Against Biopiracy is a group of civil society and peoples' organizations that first came together at the 1995 Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Jakarta. CAB notes that the Awards are a collaborative effort and acknowledges it would could not identify the most deserving Hooks and Cogs without the vigilance and analysis of civil society and peoples' movements from around the world. This fifth Captain Hook Awards ceremony is preceded by ceremonies at COP8 in Curitiba, Brazil (2006), COP7 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (2004), COP6 in The Hague (2002) and COP5 in Nairobi (2000).

Anti-GM protest in Melbourne

Concerned Consumers Group, 21 may 2008

ANTI-GM protesters marched on the streets of Melbourne, Australia this week to protest about the lack of scientific testing on Genetically Modified food and the non-labeling of GM contaminants.

More than 200 people attended the rally, marching from the State Library representing the font of knowledge to parliament house steps representing the government, voicing their concerns that they want a choice to avoid GM food which would be impossible due to contamination.

Vicki Wilson from the Concerned Consumers Group said "full independent scientific testing was needed before consumers were forced to eat this food and all testing is not to be manipulated by any corporation or government".

She also said "This technology is in its infancy no matter what they say, and they are playing with our food and making us the guinea pigs. But eventually, like the tobacco industry, the harm that GM could do to us, will be revealed, but at what cost?"

Boxes of scientific evidence with the dangers of genetically modified food, were presented to Senator Lyn Allison to give to her associates in the government to show that GM food is not sufficiently tested for dangers to the health of consumers and this research clearly showed that there is a potential for harm to all consumers.

US biotech company offers to clone man's best friend

AFP, 21 May 2008.

WASHINGTON - A US biotech company on Wednesday announced it will auction off the right for five dog owners to have their furry best friend cloned, with bidding starting at 100,000 dollars.

"BioArts International ... will sell five dog cloning service slots to the general public via a worldwide online auction," the California-based biotech start-up said in a statement.

Registration for the auctions opens Wednesday. Bidding in that first auction begins on June 18 at 1300 GMT and runs for 24 hours, BioArts says on its bestfriendsagain.com website.

BioArts is the only company in the world licensed to clone dogs, cats and endangered species, the company statement says.

It uses the same cloning method that gave the world Dolly the sheep, the first mammal to be cloned in July 1996 from an adult cell.

Dogs are arguably the most difficult mammal to clone, according to BioArts.

"We may or may not perform any additional commercial dog cloning services after this auction," the company says on its website.

GM food good: Vatican in policy switch

Catholic News, 21 May 2008.

The Vatican has moved from a neutral position in a Europe-US confrontation over GM food and will come down in favour of genetic modification in a major report to be released next month.

Truthabouttrade reports the Vatican has stunned opponents of genetically modified foods by declaring they hold the answer to world starvation and malnutrition.

Until Sunday's statement the Vatican had been neutral in the European Union-US confrontation over GM food, the paper says. Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said the Vatican was preparing an official report on biotechnology, to be published next month, which would come down in favour of genetic modification. The document will coincide with a debate on GM by EU farm ministers.

He said the Pope was greatly interested in new technologies for food development as part of a policy of sustainable agriculture. He noted that 24,000 people died every day from starvation.

Cardinal Martino, who until last year was the Vatican representative at the UN, said he had lived for 16 years in the US "and I ate everything that was offered to me, including genetically modified products. They had no effect on my health. This controversy is more political than scientific."

The Vatican study will argue the future of humanity is at stake and that there is no room for the ideological arguments advanced by environmentalists.

Cardinal Martino said the Pope had been influenced by the growing weight of advice from the Vatican's scientific advisers. "The Pope ardently desires to do something for the billions of people who go to bed hungry every night," he said.

He said freedom from hunger was one of the fundamental rights of man. The Vatican's stand was consistent with its belief in "the right to life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death."

Vatican officials said many in the West had made up their minds about genetic modification while ignoring the benefits to the world's hungry.

Velasio De Paolis, a professor of canon law at the Pontifical Urban University, said it was "easy to say no to GM food if your stomach is full."

Scientific progress was part of the divine plan, he said. "The introduction of new and more efficient technologies such as second and third generation GM foods, in harmony with sustainable development, is not a threat but a benefit."

Water gives life: Martino

In another story, Cardinal Martino has delivered a message for an international exhibition, Expo Zaragoza 2008, on the theme, "Water and sustainable development."

In his remarks, Cardinal Martino expressed the hope that the forthcoming exposition "will provide an opportunity to explore and raise awareness of water in the life of the world. This will be important for two reasons. First, the Social Doctrine of the Church recognises the nature of water as life-giving. ... Satisfying the needs of all, especially of those who live in poverty, must guide the use of water and of the services connected with it," he said.

"The second reason takes us back to our faith. At our Baptism, water was used as a sign of cleansing and new life. ... Water is life giving - both physical and spiritual; it is through water that we are invited to share in the life of Christ."

The cardinal also recalled one of the goals of the United Nations' Millennium Development, to halve the number of people unable to access safe drinking water by the year 2015. He pointed out that "clean water and safe sanitation are acknowledged as essential elements in the lives of every human being."

SOURCE Vatican says GM food is a blessing (Truthabouttrade, 20/5/08): http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/1575/54/ [see article below under 20 May].

Comment by GM-free Ireland

The above story is bogus. The Catholic News was fooled by Truth About Trade and Technology (a GM lobby group) which gave yesterday's date for a story originally published in The Times of London in August 2003, under a different pope!

You can read the original story on the web site of another agri-biotech lobby group (AgBioWorld.org) at http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/religion/blessing.html

As GM Watch points out, "The joke is, of course, that the story turned out to be bogus the first time around - the Vatican never did endorse GM crops. But, hey, all the more reason to give it another whirl!"

This incident provides a good example of agri-biotech spin doctors planting lies that get disseminated by journalists who fail to excercise basic due diligence and fact checking.

Let's see if more media outlets disseminate this disinformation further in the days ahead.

Sure enough, the story was picked up on 21 May by Reason magazine under the headline Vatican Not Worried about the "Dignity of Plants" (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126606.html).

On 27 May the story was spun again by AgriMarketing.com in an article called "Vatican set to support biotechnology" which quotes the US National Association of Wheat Growers story "Reversing Course, Vatican Said to Support Food Biotechnology" (http://www.agrimarketing.com/show_story.php?id=49411)!

Swiss retailers introduced new code of conduct

Organic-Market.info, 21 May 2008.

Switzerland's leading food retailers introduced a new code of conduct. It obliges their food and packaging suppliers to provide detailed information about nanotechnology products. The code, which is drawn up by the IG DHS (Swiss retailers association), responds to the criticism drawn by some store operators after they stocked genetically modified food. Ý

According to Mr. Meili, CEO of the Innovation Sociaty, which specialises in nanotechnology risk management, retailers like Migros and Coop had negative experience with GM products. Therefore, they wanted to avoid bad consumer publicity regarding nanotechnology, reports FoodProductionDaily.com. The Innovation Sociaty worked with the retailers to assess the potential risks from nanotech products in food and packaging and to draw up the code of conduct. Ý

Mr. Meili continues that consumers are not sceptical about nanotechnology as such. But with food, consumers want to know and be able to make informed decisions. Ý

The Swiss retailers used the definition of 'nano' which is also used by the national government, applying to particles that are 100 nanometers in diameter or less. Mr. Meili states that this is just a working definition, however, and it would have to be refined within time. Ý

There has been no feedback from food producers when the code was drawn up, but Mr. Meili stressed that the retailers expected to hear from their suppliers in the near future once the code became more widely known.

20 May 2008

Cottonseed changes to impact Georgia economy

Farm Press (USA), May 20 2008. By Paul L. Hollis.

Future changes in cottonseed technologies could be costly to Georgia farmers and the state's cotton industry and general economy, according to a recent study conducted by the University of Georgia Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development.

Cotton is now ranked as Georgia's No. 1 row crop in acreage and farm income. However, the elimination of currently available single-gene Bollgard technology could lead to declines in cotton productivity, resulting in losses to the state's cotton industry and economy, according to the study, conducted by Archie Flanders, Don Shurley and John McKissick.

The total economic output loss to the Georgia economy due to changing seed technology could be $128.32 million, say the economists, with changes in the Georgia cotton industry having economic impacts throughout the state's economy.

Due to expected declines in production, Georgia cotton producers are expected to lose $54.65 million in income, which averages approximately $59 per acre. Reduced yields also will contribute to lost revenues associated with ginning, marketing, classing and storing cotton.

Monsanto, which owns the single-gene Bollgard technology, has opted not to re-register the variety with the Environmental Protection Agency due to insect resistance concerns. The registration for Bollgard (B1) is set to expire on Sept. 30, 2009. EPA will allow growers to plant carryover seed in 2010 as long as the seed is purchased and delivered by Sept. 30, 2009.

The study estimates employment declines by 808 jobs as declining cotton production has impacts in other sectors of the state economy. Employment declines in the agricultural sector are concentrated in ginning but also extend to other agricultural support industries including those related to cotton marketing.

According to the study, a decline in the services sector of 255 jobs occurs because of decreased spending. Decreased employment in the trade sector is concentrated in retail trade as demand decreases due to declining income.

Losses in total state wages and benefits are pegged at $78.87 million. Income to farmers declines by $54.65 million which averages $59 per acre.

Diminished economic activity and income losses also impact tax revenues collected by state and local governments. State tax revenue losses are estimated to be $2.36 million, and local governments in the state have declining revenues of $1.84 million.

As expected, economic impacts associated with a change in cottonseed technology are concentrated in rural Georgia counties with economies that are dependent on cotton production.

Georgia continues to be a national leader in cotton production, ranking second in the United States in cotton acres planted and typically third in total cotton production. This past year, Georgia accounted for 9.5 percent of U.S. acres harvested and 8.7 percent of U.S. production.

In 2007, Georgia and U.S. cotton acres decreased due to high prices and relatively high net returns from corn and soybeans, but cotton remains the state's largest crop in acreage and value. Georgia farmers planted 1.03 million acres of cotton in 2007. Cotton acres in the state reached a high of 1.5 million acres in 1995 and again in 2000.

The 2007 Georgia crop is valued at an estimated $550 million of lint and cottonseed. Cotton production in the state had a $1.4 billion economic output impact on Georgia's economy in 2006 and led to 11,700 jobs. Cotton production composes more than 1 percent of the total economy in 46 Georgia counties. Of these 46 counties, total economic output impact from cotton is greater than 3 percent of the economy in 21 counties, greater than 7 percent in 10 counties, and greater than 10 percent in three counties.

Of last year's total acreage, more than 92 percent was planted in B1 varieties, reports the University of Georgia study. More than 83 percent of the state's cotton acreage is planted in the DPL 555BR variety, which contains the single-gene Bollgard technology. DPL 555BR has proven to be a consistently high-yielding variety in the University of Georgia Official Variety Trials.

Newer two-gene Bt varieties such as Bollgard II and WideStrike have not yet gained widespread acceptance among growers, but Extension cotton specialists and industry leaders are encouraging farmers to begin planting a portion of their cotton acreage in these insect-resistant varieties.

Bollgard II was commercialized in 2003 and WideStrike was commercialized in 2005.

"From an insect resistance management standpoint, the move from the single-gene Bollgard technology to two-gene Bt cotton technologies is advantageous," says Phillip Roberts, University of Georgia Extension entomologist.

"In terms of insect control, both Bollgard II and WideStrike are superior to Bollgard. The two-gene Bt cottons have a broader spectrum of activity and increased efficacy," says Phillips. "However, the potential of caterpillar damage remains and both technologies should be scouted and treated on an as-needed basis. We have evaluated these technologies for several years and have a general understanding of insect control performance. However, as these cottons are planted on tens or hundreds of thousands of acres, we will learn more."

Growers, he adds, should consider planting a portion of their acres to varieties with Bollgard II or WideStrike technology. "Growers need to gain experience in how these two-gene technologies and varieties perform on their farms and in their production systems," he says.

e-mail: phollis@farmpress.com

Peer Review under the Spotlight

Institute of Science in Society press release, 20 May 2008.

What matters most is the lack of public scrutiny rather than the lack of peer review in times of corporate corruption of science Prof. Peter Saunders

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members' website. Details here

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 £3.50. Please e-mail the title of the report to: report@i-sis.org.uk

You've probably come across the expression "peer-reviewed" a lot recently, especially in discussions on GM food, mobile phones, or organic farming. . It's almost always used as part of a sentence that begins "There is no peer-reviewed evidence for..." or "There is nothing about this in any peer-reviewed journal..." What you're meant to understand by that is: "there is no credible evidence for whatever it is, and you can safely ignore anything you've heard about it." When the question is about safety, as it often is, it means the regulatory authorities are not going to look into it.

A lot of people take peer review very seriously, or at least they say they do. When Sir David King, then the Chief Scientific Adviser to the British government, put forward a code of ethics for scientists, one of his chief examples of unethical behaviour, right up there with plagiarism, was "disseminating work before it has been peer reviewed". You may remember Arpad Pusztai who spoke for 150 seconds in a television programme on unpublished results indicating that genetically modified (GM) potatoes were harmful to rats, because he saw it his duty to warn the public. He was subjected to fierce attacks from the scientific establishment (led by the Royal Society) that continue to the present day.

The scientific establishment's double standard

The scientific establishment may claim to oppose disseminating results that have not been peer-reviewed, but there is a blatant double standard being applied, and all too often. Just recently, a UK government research funding agency, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) put out a press release that was not only highly misleading about farmers being upbeat about GM crops ("UK Farmers Upbeat about GM Crops" Debunked and Marketing Masquerading as Scientific Survey, SiS 38); but was also based on research that had not been peer-reviewed, according to the ESRC's own web site.

Another recent example came from the top mainstream journal Nature Biotechnology. In an editorial, it criticised the Italian National Research Institution for Food and Nutrition (INRAN) for not publishing some results that were allegedly favourable to GM crops.

The director of the project in question, Giovanni Monasatra, wrote to the journal to put the story straight, and his letter was published along with a response from the editor, Andrew Marshall. In his letter,Ý Monastra dealt with the points raised in the editorial and expressed his surprise that Marshall, far from criticising Salute, Agricolura, Ricerca (SAGRI) for organising a press conference to publicise data that were, according to Marshall, "too preliminary for peer-reviewed publication," instead complained that the Italian media did not give it even more coverage than they did.

Marshall's response is that the data had [his italics] to be press released by SAGRI because they were of interest to the public and political debate. Yet, in 1999, Marshall had written in Nature Biotechnology that Arpad Pusztai's work should be submitted for peer review before it could be considered, even when safety was at stake.Ý The difference is that he was then writing about results that were against the interests of the biotech industry.

It is not at all unusual for scientific bodies and lobby groups to issue press releases and hold press conferences on non-reviewed material.Ý The people who set themselves up as the guardians of sound science either say nothing or even join in, except when it is a matter of things the corporations don't want the public to hear. In that case, they suddenly rediscover their strong objection to the practice.

Peer review is a useful part of the scientific process, but it is not as effective, as important, or as universal as some would have us believe, and it needs to be put in perspective.

What is peer review?

One of the distinguishing features of science is that when you discover something, you don't expect other people just to take your word for it. You're expected to describe exactly what you have done and why this justifies what you claim, and the usual way of doing this is to publish a paper in a scientific journal. When you submit your paper to a journal, the editor will generally send it to be reviewed by experts in the field. The referees, usually two or three, are supposed to read the manuscript carefully and assure themselves as best they can that the work was done using appropriate techniques, that it takes into account and properly acknowledges earlier relevant work, and that the conclusions are properly derived from the data, or, in the case of a theoretical paper, that the arguments are sound. They advise on whether the work is interesting enough and contains enough that is new to be worth publishing, and, even if it is, whether they consider it is suitable for the particular journal. They may also suggest ways in which the paper could be improved.

This peer review system is important in science. It prevents many very poor papers from being published and it improves many others. Above all, it helps maintain a consensus of what is expected in a scientific paper; what you find in a scientific journal is very different not only from the popular press but even from most papers in the humanities or social sciences.

But peer review is very limited in what it can do. Referees, who are not paid, vary considerably in the time and effort they devote to the task. They are all too likely to nod a paper through if it looks plausible and comes from a lab or a group that they know and trust, or to reject one because they disagree with it or don't understand it and haven't the time or inclination to go through it carefully. They may reject a paper as "not interesting" when what they mean is that it's not the sort of thing they and their friends are interested in.

Referees do not go into the laboratory to watch the experiments being carried out. They do not have access to the authors' notes and raw data. They make their decisions on the basis of nothing more than what the reader will see if the paper is accepted. Even the most conscientious are simply not in a position to guarantee that the results are correct or even that the work was done properly.

Peer review could certainly be improved, and there are a number of ways in which this might be done. For example, research has confirmed the suspicion of many scientists that there is often bias, whether conscious or not, and it has been suggested that referees should not be told the authors' names or institutions, or even their gender. But while the system could be improved, it is hard to see how it could do much more, even if we really want it to. The real test of a paper comes after it is published and is open for comment by the whole of the scientific community, and that can be a far more stringent test. Indeed, many poor or outright fraudulent works have been exposed after they were in print. One recent example is a paper published in the British Food Journal and given an Award for Excellence, which provoked 40 scientists and two MPs to sign an open letter demanding its retraction (Wormy Corn Paper Must be Retracted, SiS 37). We shouldn't expect peer review to do more than it actually can, and by the same token we shouldn't claim to the public that it does.

Not all science is peer reviewed

If all real science were peer reviewed before it was made public or used in decision making, then you might want to say that peer review, rightly or wrongly, defines real science. In fact, there are a number of ways in which science often gets into circulation without peer review. For example, the work can be published in the proceedings of scientific meetings or, especially in rapidly moving subjects like theoretical physics, circulated as a preprint or posted on a web server.

On the whole, exceptions like those don't matter much. Most of the work will eventually be refereed or else just forgotten. In any case, it is out in the open for anyone to see and criticise. The absence of peer-review matters in regulation but not as much as the absence of public scrutiny

There is, however, an area in which the absence of peer review matters a great deal, and that is in regulation. Many products, including pharmaceuticals and GM foods, have to be licensed. The manufacturers are required to carry out trials, safety tests and risk assessments and submit the results to the regulators. Much of this work is never peer reviewed. What is more, much of it is never published, and worse, concealed from the public and often from the regulators as well under claims of "commercial confidentiality", so that other scientists are never able to comment on it.

Companies use commercial confidentiality in much the same way that the UK government uses the Official Secrets Act, less as a means of keeping sensitive information from a possible competitor than to ensure that nothing embarrassing reaches the public. And as with the Official Secrets Act, the claim that something must be kept confidential on commercial grounds is seldom challenged. Just to quote one example, even after the TGN1412 trial went so disastrously wrong (see Post Mortem on the TGN1412 Disaster, SiS 30), and it was abundantly clear that the drug would never be developed further, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) still refused to release some details of the test protocol on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. It is hard to imagine how a competitor of either Te Genero, the company that developed the drug, or Parexel, the company that ran the trials, could have gained any unfair advantage from the information, though it might have been of use to anyone trying to improve the safety of trials, and more importantly, to provide effective remedy for the victims.

The absence of peer review is nowhere near as important as the absence of public scrutiny. To make claims on the basis of research that you will not reveal to the scientific community is to go against one of the basic principles of science: that we provide evidence for the claims we make. It is all the more serious when these claims can affect health and the environment. Such data should never be held secret on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

Conclusion

Peer review is a useful part of science but it is not and cannot be the dividing line between good science and bad, between what can be relied upon and what must be dismissed out of hand. In particular, when we are told that there is no peer-reviewed evidence,Ý that does not mean that there is no evidence, nor does it mean there is no credible evidence. The scientific establishment has been deliberately applying a double standard to exclude evidence unfavourable to industry. What is worse, our regulators have accepted all kinds of evidence in approving new products and processes not just without peer review, but without the possibility of scrutiny by the public or even by the regulators themselves.

Vatican says GM food is a blessing

TruthAboutTrade.org, 20 May 2008.

The Times THE Vatican has stunned opponents of genetically modified foods by declaring they hold the answer to world starvation and malnutrition.

Until Sunday`s statement the Vatican had been neutral in the European Union-US confrontation over GM food.

Archbishop Renato Martino, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said the Vatican was preparing an official report on biotechnology, to be published next month, which would come down in favour of genetic modification. The document will coincide with a debate on GM by EU farm ministers.

Archbishop Martino said the Pope was greatly interested in new technologies for food development as part of a policy of sustainable agriculture. He noted that 24,000 people died every day from starvation.

Archbishop Martino, who until last year was the Vatican representative at the UN, said he had lived for 16 years in the US "and I ate everything that was offered to me, including genetically modified products. They had no effect on my health. This controversy is more political than scientific."

The Vatican study will argue that the future of humanity is at stake and that there is no room for the ideological arguments advanced by environmentalists.

One Vatican official said: "The Book of Genesis clearly establishes the domination of man over nature. God has entrusted mankind to preserve nature but also to use it."

Archbishop Martino said the Pope had been influenced by the growing weight of advice from the Vatican`s scientific advisers. "The Pope ardently desires to do something for the billions of people who go to bed hungry every night," he said.

Archbishop Martino said freedom from hunger was one of the fundamental rights of man. The Vatican`s stand was consistent with its belief in "the right to life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death".

Vatican officials said many in the West had made up their minds about genetic modification while ignoring the benefits to the world`s hungry. Velasio De Paolis, a professor of canon law at the Pontifical Urban University, said it was "easy to say no to GM food if your stomach is full".

Scientific progress was part of the divine plan, he said. "The introduction of new and more efficient technologies such as second and third-generation GM foods, in harmony with sustainable development, is not a threat but a benefit."

Carlo Bernardini, editor of Italy`s leading scientific magazine, Sapere, said he hoped Italy, which holds the rotating EU presidency, would take its lead from the Pope.

But Alfonso Scanio Pecoraro, head of the Italian Greens and a former agriculture minister, said he was horrified by the Vatican`s intervention. "The church is using its authority to support a scam by the US multinationals," he said.

He suspected the administration of US President George W. Bush had put pressure on the Holy See.

Comment by GM-free Ireland

The above story is bogus. Truth About Trade and Technology (a GM lobby group) gave today's date for a story originally published in The Times of London in August 2003, under a different pope!

You can read the original story on the web site of another agri-biotech lobby group (AgBioWorld.org) at http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/religion/blessing.html

As GM Watch points out, "The joke is, of course, that the story turned out to be bogus the first time around - the Vatican never did endorse GM crops. But, hey, all the more reason to give it another whirl!"

This incident provides a good example of agri-biotech spin doctors planting lies that get disseminated by journalists who fail to excercise basic due diligence and fact checking. The false story was disseminated on 21 May by the Catholic News (see above under 21 May).

Let's see if other media outlets disseminate this disinformation further in the days ahead.

French lawmakers pass bill on GM crops

Reuters, 20 May 2008. By Emile Picy.

PARIS - French legislators passed a bill on genetically modified crops on Tuesday, after blocking the same text by a single vote last week in what had been an embarrassment for President Nicolas Sarkozy.

The bill, which will regulate the cultivation of GM crops in France, passed by 289 to 221 after the ruling right wing UMP party achieved an almost unified front along with centrists.

Last week, the right had been split and many deputies were absent for the vote on the bill, a thorny issue which stirs strong passions in France.

At one point on Tuesday, clerks had to intervene to stop deputies coming to blows. Pro-GM members see the bill as too restrictive and opponents call it overly lax.

France is the European Union's main agricultural power and its largest exporter of farm products. The bill has drawn criticism from a wide spectrum of interest groups on both sides.

France's upper house of Parliament, held by a UMP majority, will examine the bill on Thursday and still has to approve it before it becomes law.

Opposition Socialists, left-wing parties, and environmental campaigners oppose the bill, which they say is too favourable to the interests of biotech companies such as U.S. giant Monsanto.

Environmentalists say it blurs the line between natural and GM foods to the detriment of farmers and consumers, while advocates of GM crops say it does not go far enough in protecting biotech companies from sabotage.

Opinion polls show a vast majority of French people are opposed to GM crops because they have not seen enough proof that such crops pose no risk to consumers and the environment.

(Writing by Brian Rohan; Editing by Charles Dick)

Klein warns of climate disasters

Metro.co.uk, 20 May 2008. By Andrew Williams.

Naomi Klein is the brains behind worldwide best-seller No Logo, which raised awareness of globalisation. Her new tome, The Shock Doctrine, argues Western capitalists have exploited global crises - from wars to natural disasters - for their own economic benefit. The Shock Doctrine is out now, published by Penguin, £8.99.

What is the main point of your argument?

The book documents how, over the past 35 years, radical pro-corporate policies have required large-scale crises to advance.

How has this been done?

While New Orleans was under water there was aggressive lobbying not to rebuild the public school system but replace it with a privatised one. Not repair the public housing projects but replace them with hotels. The response to the disasters is also being privatised. The private company Blackwater USA showed up after the levees broke, playing the role of the police force. We're seeing more examples of 'disaster capitalism' in the current food crisis. Agribusinesses are using the crisis to push through genetically modified crops in countries where they're banned.

Where will it all end?

During the California fires last year, we saw the emergence of private fire fighters for the first time in more than a century in the US. This basic government service is now seen as a market opportunity. If we don't avert climate chaos, disasters will become the new market opportunity. There is now VIP fire protection in wealthy areas, insurance companies send out private fire fighters if you pay the premium. It's ending with a vision of disaster apartheid where response to the crises caused by the current economic model is the final frontier for privatisation. The way to get off this course is to get serious about tackling global warming, which will also reduce resource wars over oil, gas and water. We need to create a more sustainable economic model.

What impact can you have on that as an individual?

Put pressure on your political leaders. Changing your shopping habits isn't enough. There's bafflement as to why our leaders are so sanguine in the face of climate change and a global economy that creates serial crises. We need to respond as political beings.

Aren't people cynical about politics? We've seen governments ignore huge public marches.

People are cynical - and rightly so. However, the right wing exploits crises and responds to emergencies by putting through unpopular policies because they know if they don't take advantage of these crises there will be a progressive response. After the Wall Street crash, people knew the market couldn't regulate itself - they saw mass poverty and hardship - and didn't just sit back and let politicians make changes for them. They organised social movements. The current crises can also be used to make social progress. The current economic model is an attempt by the elites to liberate themselves from the advances that cut into their profits. People are cynical about what a march or vote can do, that's why we have to use sustained political pressure that organising change requires.

If we don't take action to avert climate chaos, disasters will become the new market opportunity

Haven't the days of grass roots activism gone?

You can't effect change by going on a demonstration alone. It's all interlinked. The economic model of the past 30 years doesn't just create a divide between rich and poor, it wages war on organisations such as trade unions, which weakens society. We've been reduced to blogging or going on a march - that's different to organising a counter-power.

Are you hoping to politicise people with the book?

My goal was to track the strategy which takes advantage of disorientation after a crisis - demonstrated by what happened after 9/11. The political leadership in the US expertly started hoarding power and privatised huge parts of the economy without any debate whatsoever. It's a strategy that relies on us not knowing it happened. The process of understanding how it works means the next time this tactic is employed you don't become disorientated. It makes people more able to organise in the face of a crisis.

Did No Logo make a different or was it just a fashion accessory for middle class lefties?

It was clearly not about saying 'don't buy this or that' it was a gateway for understanding how globalisation worked. There was very little literacy about what globalisation meant. I was talking about how these brands had become education tools, young people were learning how this baffling economic model worked by tracing the journey of their running shoes or Big Macs. I ended the book saying you don't change the world one brand at a time or by changing your shopping habits. Changing the system was about addressing the World Monetary Fund. The Seattle protest outside the World Trade Organisation happened in 1999, it changed the focus from individual companies to questioning the whole economic model. What happened after September 11th was that a lot of progressives became focussed on stopping wars. The economic model, which was fuelling the wars, fell off the agenda. I'm trying to connect the wars and economic agenda with the new book. They are intimately connected.

The Global Forest Coalition:
Governments Prioritize Forest Exploitation
Many Governments Fail to Comply with CBD Mandate

Calibre.mworld.com, 20 May 2008.

Bonn, Germany--Global Forest Coalition [1] released a major report, "Forests and the Biodiversity Convention," [2] at the Convention on Biological Diversity today. This report contains the summaries and research undertaken in 22 countries [3] by independent country monitors [4] to examine whether or not Parties are implementing the decisions made through the CBD Programme of Work (POW) of Forest Biological Diversity [5]. The civil society groups from the 22 countries who elaborated the reports presented at their findings at a press conference this morning.

The Coordinator of the report and Chairperson of the Global Forest Coalition, Dr. Miguel Lovera said, "Even though isolated actions have been taken by some governments, they fall short of complying with the CBD/POW which mandates that forests be regarded as ecosystems and not as mere resources." He continued, "The consequences of this are that forest species are being lost at a rate of more than 100 a day and huge areas of forests are being lost, such as in the Amazon, Congo Basin and throughout the earth. To make things worse, governments and corporations are obsessed with promoting false solutions to climate change, like relying on agrofuels and genetically engineered trees to replace oil."

Wolfgang Kuhlmann, Director, ARA (Working group on Rainforests and Biodiversity) from Germany stated, "To implement the Expanded Programme of Work on Forest Biodiversity of the CBD the German government supports numerous activities abroad (e.g. National Forest Plans in 20 countries). However, up to now activities in Germany can't compare to that." Kuhlmann adds, "The POW is hardly known by anybody outside those German government agencies that are directly involved in CBD and UN Forum on Forests related activities. Reports on CBD/POWs implementation primarily refer to ongoing activities that have started well before 2002. New activities are either lacking or insufficient. So what are they doing?"

Many countries omitted implementing the CBD/POW for diverse reasons, but one outstanding example is the lack of political will as exemplified by Brazil.

"After the resignation of Marina Silva as Minister of the Environment, any agreement with Brazil on environment and forests becomes a blank check" said Camila Moreno, from Terra de Direitos, the country monitor for Brazil. "It is clear that there isn't any support from popular movemnts and civil society for the environmental aberrations of (President) Lula's government to the ethanol crusade. This crusade is already an obsession of international corporations and governments. This is not admissible," she adds.

Hubertus Samangun, Director of ICTI, Tanimbar, Indonesia, Southeast Asia Regional Coordinator of the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests explained, "The Indonesian government is cutting down millions of hectares of forests and replacing them with palm oil plantations." Samangun continued by quoting an Indonesian NGO saying, "The government is on high speed to destroy the biodiverse forests of Indonesia.

Agrofuel expansion and the expansion of large-scale monocultures for both agrofuels and other agro-industrial purposes, bad forest governance and the lack of a proper definition of forests were identified as some of the main causes of forest loss in the 22 countries monitored. The report concludes that there have been some clear success-stories of forest conservation, especially on indigenous lands and territories, but indigenous peoples are still not able to participate in national and international forest policies.

Notes:

[1] The Global Forest Coalition (GFC) is an international coalition of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples' Organizations (IPOs) involved in international forest policy. The GFC was founded in 2000 by 19 NGOs and Indigenous Peoples Organizations from all over the world. It is a successor to the NGO Forest Working Group, which was originally established in 1995. It participated in international forest policy meetings and organized joint advocacy campaigns on issues like Indigenous Peoples Rights, the need for socially just forest policy and the need to address the underlying causes of forest loss.

[2] The report can be downloaded http://www.globalforestcoalition.org/paginas/view/28#IM [3] The countries monitored are Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Georgia, Germany, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Russian Federation, Samoa and Uganda.

[4] Country Monitors are available for interviews. Please see ENDNOTE as they are listed with different areas of expertise, regional knowledge and languages.

[5] The CBD/POW provides Parties to the CBD guidance on how to achieve the biodiversity conservation goals enshrined in the Millennium Development Goals, which mandate United Nations members to "reverse the loss of environmental resources." However, deforestation rates are extraordinarily high, in the order of 2% per year (FAO 2005). Rapid deforestation and degradation of forests is also leading to an estimated extinction of up to 100 species every day (WRI 2001), and the rampant erosion of forest peoples rights, knowledge and habitats.

Contact:

Miguel Lovera, GFC Chairperson
Tel: +316 15345379 Spanish, English, French, Portuguese, Dutch and Italian.

Wolfgang Kuhlmann, Director, ARA (Working group on Rainforests and Biodiversity)
Tel: +49 (0)175 6040772 German and English

Orin Langelle, GFC Media Coordinator
Tel: +49 (0)176 77187583 English

Human Impacts, Climate Change Pushing Species to Extinction

Environment News Service, 20 May 2008.

BONN, Germany - German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel Monday urged governments to take stronger action to protect the diversity of life. Opening the largest UN biodiversity gathering yet, Gabriel warned that the world is not on the right path to protect the diversity of species and said the world would not reach its agreed target of the year 2010 for reversing biodiversity loss.

Nearly 7,000 participants from 191 countries opened the United Nations Conference on Biodiversity in Bonn on Monday. Before the meeting closes on May 30, participants are expected to take steps to conserve and sustainably manage the world's biodiversity in light of what UN officials are calling "the alarming rate of loss of species, compounded by the pressures from climate change."

Gabriel called for a clear roadmap, similar to the one on climate reached in Bali last December, toward a plan to establish an international set of rules for biodiversity that would govern the providing of access and equitable sharing of the benefits.

Rules would set the terms under which users of biodiversity resources, such as pharmaceutical companies, would have access to resources.

These terms would be balanced with provisions to guarantee that the providers of these resources, such as local communities or national governments, many of which are in developing countries, receive an equitable share of any of the benefits that are produced, said the minister.

The conference is timed to coincide with the International Day for Biological Diversity on May 22.

As food prices spiral ever upwards, this year's theme for the day is "Biodiversity and Agriculture."

The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, an international treaty, wants the Parties to highlight sustainable agriculture "not only to preserve biodiversity, but also to ensure that we will be able to feed the world, maintain agricultural livelihoods, and enhance human well being into the 21st century and beyond."

Representatives of the International Youth Conference called Biodiversity on the Edge, which took place last week in Bonn, are seeking the integration of sustainable development education into school curricula; a protocol on protected areas; no patents on living organisms; prohibition of genetically modified organisms; full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities; and measurable targets for biodiversity protection.

Urgent issues before participants include the food price crisis, the loss of forests, climate change, and efforts to eradicate poverty.

The gathering will submit its results next week to the Bonn Biodiversity Summit, which will be chaired by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The attendance of 120 heads of states and ministers is expected.

Another deadline looming over this Bonn conference to create a fair-share system was agreed by the government Parties to the treaty two years ago in Brazil.

They intend to devise a system that provides access to, and shares the benefits from the genetic resources of the world fairly between developing and developed countries.

The Bonn Biodiversity meeting is taking place at a defining moment in the history, said Ahmed Djoghlaf, executive secretary to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

"Every species is a vital piece in the complex puzzle of the life web of our planet. Interlinkages are what keep the puzzle glued together - for the planet to function," Djoghlaf told the participants in his opening address to the conference on Monday.

"About two thirds of the food crops that feed the world rely on pollination by insects or other animals to produce healthy fruits and seeds. Included among these are potato crops," Djoghlaf said.

"Here in Germany, there has been a 25 percent drop in bee populations across the country," he said. "In the eastern United States, bee stocks have declined by 70 percent. If pollinators disappear, so too will many species of plants. If we take away one link, the chain is broken."

Djoghlaf quoted the great physicist Albert Einstein as saying, "'If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man.'"

"The unfolding global food crisis sounds like a wake-up call to the serious consequences of human activities on the ability of our planet to continue sustaining life on Earth," Djoghlaf said. "The dramatic rise in crop prices is a symptom of the unprecedented loss of agricultural biodiversity and certainly a reflection of its far-reaching impacts on humankind."

"The challenge is daunting and I call upon all states to adopt exceptional efforts," he said.

Losing the benefits that biodiversity provides would cost the world $3.1 trillion a year or six percent of the global gross national product, according to a new study by development economist Pavan Sukhdev, cited by Djoghlaf during his speech.

In Bonn, countries also will consider how to address the problem of invasive alien species, the loss of rainforest biodiversity, the degradation of marine ecosystems, and methods to value biodiversity in economic terms.

The conference will consider how to expand the successful establishment, maintenance, expansion and financing of a global network of protected areas, both on land and in marine ecosystems.

Currently over 10 percent of the terrestrial area is covered by parks and conservation areas, but the level of protection in the oceans and seas of the world is lower, according to the secretariat.

With 191 governments as Parties, the Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD, has near-universal participation among countries committed to preserving life on Earth.

From its Montreal headquarters, the CBD seeks to address all threats to biodiversity and ecosystem services, including threats from climate change.

It employs scientific assessments, develops tools, incentives and processes, transfer of technologies and good practices, and tries to engage "the full and active involvement of relevant stakeholders," including indigenous and local communities, youth, nongovernmental organizations, women and the business community.

South Africa: Biowatch to go to ConCourt on costs

LegalBrief Environmental, 20 May 2008.

SA anti-genetically modified organisms (GMO) lobby group Biowatch is to lodge an application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court against the order that it pay the costs of Monsanto SA (Pty) Ltd, local component of the world's largest genetically modified seed company, notes an I-Net Bridge report.

The option of appealing to the Constitutional Court has been opened by a dissenting judgment from one of the three judges who heard Biowatch's appeal in April 2007. In his judgment handed down this month, Judge Justice Poswa said the costs order in favour of Monsanto SA (Pty) Ltd should be reversed, according to Biowatch. Poswa also said that SA's statutory bodies responsible for regulating GM crops should pay Biowatch's legal costs. These are the Minister of Agriculture, the GMO Executive Council and the GMO registrar. All of this is in line with Biowatch's appeal to a full Bench of the Pretoria High Court in 2007. The costs order arose from a court application from Biowatch for access to information that would shed light on decision-making about the permitting of GM crop applications. Biowatch asked the court to order the Minister of Agriculture, the GMO Executive Council and the GMO registrar to provide access to information about the permitting of GM crops.

Full I-Net Bridge report: http://www.thetimes.co.za/Business/BusinessTimes/Article.aspx?id=769189

Poland doesn't want GMOs

Polskie Radio, 20 May 2008.

The environment ministry has prepared a new bill on GMO, which does not include a formal ban on the cultivation of transgenic plants, but provides tools which allow to practically excludeÝGMOs. Ý

Former environment minister professor Jan Szyszko said that the bill practically allowsÝregions of Poland to remain GMO-freeÝzones.Ý Ý

Poland is seen as an ecologically clear country in theÝEuropean Union, whichÝproduces more food than is needed in the country, but is restricted by EU quota. Ý

The EU law forbids the member statesÝto overtly ban the cultivation of transgenic food. The current Polish regulations protect the agriculture from GMOs,ÝandÝare in conflict with the European Commission. Ý

AÝscientific conference on genetically modifiedÝorganisms has been held today in Torun. Professors and students of the local university debated the issue with invited guests.

Poland eyes new GMO rules

UPI, 20 May 2008.

WARSAW -- Poland's Environment Ministry says it has authored a bill that would keep genetically modified organisms out of some Polish regions.

The ministry said the bill would not constitute a complete ban on cultivating transgenic plants, but would effectively create zones free of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, in the country, Poland Radio reported Tuesday.

European Union laws prevent member states from creating outright bans on transgenic food. Officials said current Polish regulations on GMOs, which are designed to protect the country's agriculture, contradict the EU regulations.

Poverty exacerbated by GM seeds
UN Committee censures Indian Government's support for GM seeds
Case was presented on behalf of small farmers at a UN Committee in April 2008. The Committee has urged the Indian Government to provide subsidized generic seeds which farmers can save.

MYNews.in, 20 May 2008. By Arun Shrivastava.

In its 40th session, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has stated that genetically modified seeds produced by Trans-national corporations are exacerbating extreme poverty of small-hold farmers. The full paragraph is quoted below:

"The Committee is deeply concerned that the extreme hardship being experienced by farmers has led to an increasing incidence of suicides by farmers over the past decade. The Committee is particularly concerned that the extreme poverty among small-hold farmers caused by the lack of land, access to credit and adequate rural infrastructures, has been exacerbated by the introduction of genetically modified seeds by multinational corporations and the ensuing escalation of prices of seeds, fertilisers and pesticides, particularly in the cotton industry."
[Item 29; E/C.12/IND/CO/5; page 5 & 6]

It may be noted that many civil society organizations had made their presentation to the Committee during the consultative phase in April-May 2008. In one of the presentations, the representative of Delhi-based Navdanya had linked the steps taken by the Government of India to release genetically modified organisms to violation of human rights.

The introduction of GMOs (particularly seeds) and the escalation in price of other agriculture inputs like fertilizers and pesticides has been adversely impacting the operations of small and marginal farmers. Needless to say, the worst hit are cotton farmers who have reported repeated crop losses, lower yield, more expenditure on pesticide, despite claims by trans-national corporations that their seeds are pest resistant and enhance yield. These claims have been proved to be incorrect.

In its direction to State Party (in this case India) the Committee has urged that state subsidy be given to farmers to purchase generic seeds which would allow them the re-use of saved seeds. The Committee feels that this strategy would eliminate farmers' dependence on trans-national seeds companies who only sell patented seeds and also prohibit replanting from saved seeds.

Readers should also note that the Indian Government has approved many food crops for trials without proper bio-safety assessment.

Africa: maize prices still high

The Citizen / All Africa Global Media, 20 May 2008. By Hassan Mghenyi [EXTRACT ONLY]

East Africa's maize prices are still high although a harvest season is approaching, a Regional Agricultural Trade Intelligence Network (Ratin) report shows.

As of last week, a tonne of maize was sold for $292 in Dar es Salaam, $332 in Nairobi, $317 in Kampala and $271 in Kigali. In Mombasa, the price was $349 while in Eldoret and Nakuru prices were $308 and $323 respectively.

The wholesale price statistics maintained by Ratin indicate that maize prices have increased significantly in the last two months in Nairobi by over $40 per tonne.

The prices are forecast to continue to rise steadily until fresh supplies are received.

...Meanwhile, Kenya has approved a plan to import 270,000 tonnes of white maize free of genetically modified organisms from South Africa through the National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB). This is an emergency measure to cushion the country's food anticipated food deficit in August and September.

Kenya's maize stocks will run below the minimum requirement of 270,000 tonnes a month in August.

NCPB will import maize duty free under this arrangement which would have otherwise attracted a 50 per cent duty because it is originating from outside the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa.

Harvesting GM-free white maize in South Africa will start next month.

The earliest time Kenya can receive the maize is early August. In addition, only limited quantities will be available since most of the white maize produced is genetically modified.

Full article: link

'Living Computers' Created Using Genetically Altered Bacteria

Medical News Today, 20 May 2008.

US researchers have created 'living computers' by genetically altering bacteria. The findings of the research, published in BioMed Central's open access Journal of Biological Engineering, demonstrate that computing in living cells is feasible, opening the door to a number of applications including data storage and as a tool for manipulating genes for genetic engineering.

A research team from the biology and the mathematics departments of Davidson College, North Carolina and Missouri Western State University, Missouri, USA added genes to Escherichia coli bacteria, creating bacterial computers able to solve a classic mathematical puzzle, known as the burnt pancake problem.

The burnt pancake problem involves a stack of pancakes of different sizes, each of which has a golden and a burnt side. The aim is to sort the stack so the largest pancake is on the bottom and all pancakes are golden side up. Each flip reverses the order and the orientation (i.e. which side of the pancake is facing up) of one or several consecutive pancakes. The aim is to stack them properly in the fewest number of flips.

In this experiment, the researchers used fragments of DNA as the pancakes. They added genes from a different type of bacterium to enable the E. coli to flip the DNA 'pancakes'. They also included a gene that made the bacteria resistant to an antibiotic, but only when the DNA fragments had been flipped into the correct order. The time required to reach the mathematical solution in the bugs reflects the minimum number of flips needed to solve the burnt pancake problem.

"The system offers several potential advantages over conventional computers" says lead researcher, Karmella Haynes. "A single flask can hold billions of bacteria, each of which could potentially contain several copies of the DNA used for computing. These 'bacterial computers' could act in parallel with each other, meaning that solutions could potentially be reached quicker than with conventional computers, using less space and at a lower cost." In addition to parallelism, bacterial computing also has the potential to utilize repair mechanisms and, of course, can evolve after repeated use.

Scientists Make Stem Cells Without Embryos

Newsr.com, 20 May 2008.

Scientists have figured out how to make stem cells out of ordinary skin cells – a long-awaited breakthrough that could bypass ethical wrangling over embryos and eggs. Two teams of researchers, one American and one Japanese, arrived at the process independently, the Washington Post reports. One scientist called the discovery "the biological equivalent to the Wright Brothers' first airplane."

The researchers used genetically engineered viruses to change ordinary cells into stem cells. The development carries huge implications for the future of stem cell research, because opponents of harvesting embryos as a source will likely have no objection to stem cells made in this way. "I see no reason on Earth why this would not be eligible for federal funding," said an NIH official.

UK lawmakers approve embryo research

Associated Press, 20 May 2008. By David Stringer.

British lawmakers voted Monday to approve controversial plans to allow the use of animal-human embryos for research. The proposed laws, the first major review of embryo science in Britain for almost 20 years, have provoked stormy debate - pitting Prime Minister Gordon Brown and scientists against religious leaders, anti-abortion campaigners and a large number of lawmakers.

Brown has said he believes scientists seeking to use mixed animal-human embryos for stem cell research into diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's are on a moral mission to improve - and save - millions of lives.

The process involves injecting an empty cow or rabbit egg with human DNA. A burst of electricity is then used to trick the egg into dividing regularly, so that it becomes a very early embryo, from which stem cells can be extracted.

Scientists say the embryos would not be allowed to develop for more than 14 days, and are intended to address the shortage of human embryos available for stem cell research.

By allowing such mixed embryo experiments, Britain is expected to maintain its reputation as a leading center for stem cell research. Unlike the United States, where such research is tightly controlled, British scientists say the progressive environment in the U.K. has led to many firsts, including the world's first test tube baby and cloned animal.

Legislation in Britain might also influence other European countries where such research is pursued. Chinese laws on stem cell and embryology research also closely mirror those in Britain.

"I believe that we owe it to ourselves and future generations to introduce these measures, and in particular, to give our unequivocal backing within the right framework of rules and standards, to stem cell research," Brown wrote Sunday in an op-ed piece for The Observer newspaper.

But opponents warn that an easing of laws on creating the embryos could lead to the genetic engineering of human beings.

Legislators voted 336 to 176 against a proposed ban on research using animal-human embryos and by 286 to 223 against a separate proposal covering a specific type of animal-human embryos.

Human Genetics Alert, a science watchdog in favor of the ban, claims the laws could lead to the creation of genetically modified "designer babies."

"Once we start down the road to human genetic modification, it will be very difficult to turn back," the group warned in a briefing paper for lawmakers.

Opposition Conservative lawmaker Edward Leigh, who tabled an amendment seeking to ban the practice, said the technique was a step too far for science.

"In many ways we are like children playing with land mines without any concept of the dangers of the technology that we are handling," he said in the House of Commons.

Britain's Human Fertilization and Embryology law, which regulates all stem cell and embryology research, was drafted in 1990. Brown has said it must be completely redrawn to take account of scientific advances.

Debate on other aspects of the bill are to be debated Tuesday. A final vote is expected in the coming weeks.

South Korea: Maeil Dairy announces plans to give GMOs a wide berth

Joong Ang Daily, 20 May 2008. By Cho Jae-eun Staff Reporter [jainnie@joongang.co.kr]

With public concern over food safety rising to new heights in Korea, Maeil Dairy said yesterday that it will not use genetically modified ingredients in its products.

Present food safety laws do not require that labels indicate when genetically modified objects are used when producing oils or sugars, including those made from cornstarch, meant for human consumption, but Maeil plans to make all its products GMO-free by the end of the year.

With regards to baby foods, the company said that the new policy was implemented yesterday. The company is in the process of executing the policy for its beverages as well, it said.

We will have to spend around 5 billion won ($4.8 million) yearly to replace all our ingredients with their non-GMO counterparts, said Han Do-mun, an executive at Maeil.

However, we decided to do this because we felt food which is meant for babies needs to be as safe as possible, he added.

The company also stated that it will strengthen the quality control process and carry out strict food safety inspections at its factories.

Korean consumers and civic groups have given the 57,000 tons of genetically modified corn that arrived in Ulsan, South Gyeongsang on May 1 from the U.S. a mixed reception. Leading starch manufacturers, Daesang and Samyang Genex ordered the corn. Both companies said they will use the corn to make starch and starch sugar for snacks, breads and beverages.

This was the first time that Korea has imported GM corn as a raw material intended for human consumption. Previously, GM corn has been bought from other countries, but only as animal feed.

UK: 'Frankenstein' embryo bill backed by MPs

Daily Express, 20 May 2008. By Gabriel Milland Political Correspondent

MPs last night backed a new law which will let scientists create "Frankenstein-style" part-human, part-animal embryos.

A Tory backbencher's amendment, which would have banned the practice, was defeated by 176 to 336 - giving the Government a majority of 160.

Another amendment which would have banned only certain types of hybrid was defeated by a much smaller majority of just 63.

Scientists hope that cells from the so-called "Frankenstein" embryos can be used to create brain, skin, heart and other tissue for treating diseases.

The Tories and Lib Dems have given their MPs a free vote on all parts of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

But Gordon Brown allowed Labour MPs and ministers a free vote on only four key issues for the Bill's committee-stage reading in the Commons. His decision followed a fierce campaign led by the Catholic Church.

When the Bill returns for its third and final reading later in the summer, prominent Labour Catholics like Ruth Kelly will have to fall into line or face the sack. The Transport Secretary voted in favour of the outright hybrids ban and the compromise.

Apart from Ms Kelly, those who voted in favour of the ban and the compromise included Defence Secretary Des Browne, Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy and Europe Minister Jim Murphy.

Tory leader David Cameron voted against the full ban but abstained on the compromise, despite it being put forward by his frontbench.

Scientists will now be allowed to insert human DNA into animal eggs.

Smaller than a pinhead, the hybrid embryos will be allowed to grow for up to 14 days before being destroyed.

Scientists believe that stem cells harvested from these embryos could provide the key to the treatment of conditions such as Parkinson's disease, cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy.

Research is currently being held up by the shortage of human eggs to create stem cells.

MPs were also due to vote on so-called "saviour siblings" - babies genetically engineered to provide material for ill family members.

Tory MP Edward Leigh, who gave the Frankenstein warning, said the Bill would allow for the creation of true hybrids - in which an animal egg is fertilised by a human sperm.

Opening the debate with an amendment prohibiting outright the creation of hybrid "admixed" embryos, Mr Leigh claimed there was "no evidence yet to substantiate" the claims that they could lead to cures.

But Labour MP and former biology lecturer Ian Gibson said: "Some people have done that, actually.

"It is kind of secret in some ways because there is commercial interest, but some drugs have been developed using embryos and the effects of them."

Today debate will centre on making it easier for lesbians to have IVF babies, as well as the abortion limit.

Mr Brown will vote for the removal of a requirement for IVF clinics to consider a child's "need for a father", while Mr Cameron believes it should stay.

The Tory leader has also indicated that he would like to see a reduction in the current 24-week limit for abortion, while Mr Brown wants it to remain.

'Stuffed and Starved' Should Be Widely Read
Important book takes on global food conglomerates

Ohmy News, 20 May 2008. Book review by Benjamin Terrall.

The arrival of Raj Patel's Stuffed and Starved in US bookstores could not come at a more appropriate time. Global food distribution is suddenly big news, as a result of poor populations rioting over dramatic price increases in rice and other staples in Cambodia, Indonesia, Egypt, Haiti and in countries throughout Africa. The predictably superficial US media discussion of this rioting leaves an enormous vacuum, which Patel's book fills nicely.

A former policy analyst with the US progressive outfit Food First, Patel spent years pulling together the research marshaled in this book. He shows how giant companies like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland helped push policies that created an enormous surplus of corn, which ADM and others then turned into high fructose corn syrup, one of the key contributors to the obesity epidemic now plaguing the US. Today, that corn surplus is feeding government-subsidized ethanol, which takes more energy to produce than it releases and produces more CO2 than it saves.

Along with tracking the rise of global food conglomerates, Patel introduces us to peasants and poor farmers confronting those giant corporations. Some of the best sections in the book are Patel's descriptions of spending time with the landless peasant movement (MST) in Brazil, and with poor farmers in India connected to the international Via Campesina network.

Patel talks to the daughter of the founder of the KRRS farmer's movement in Karnataka, India, who tells him, "All we want is a fair price. We're not asking for anything more. My father called it a "scientific" price -- a price that includes the cost of growing, the costs of labor, the cost of land. Nothing more."

Another KRRS farmer tells Patel, "Our message is this to the world: we the farmers need to stand on our own two legs. We don't want financial assistance; we know how to do this with our own resources. We don't want to be dependent on the WTO, the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the World Bank. What they give, they give to spoil us. We're not beggars. We're creators. We have self-respect and we can be self-reliant. We can control our own resources."

Sometimes this demand for basic human dignity leads to militant tactics. A farmer in Haryana state responded to Monsanto's overtures to rent his land for growing genetically modified crops by saying, "It's not good for the farm, for the environment, for human life; I'm happy to see it burn." Given that in most cases other avenues of resistance have either been blocked or exhausted, increasing numbers of farmers around the world feel the same way, and more are taking the route of the Indian farmers' association, which in 1998 launched "Operation Cremate Monsanto."

One of the book's more-horrific sections examines recent suicides of Indian farmers, most of whom took their lives by eating pesticides provided by agents of global agribusiness. Patel connects this tragic development to the wave of farmer suicides that began among US farmers, especially black farmers, in the 1980s. Not coincidentally, that trend began when "Big Agra," with the help of taxpayer subsidies, was taking over markets that used to sustain small farmers.

Patel avoids the obfuscation that too often plagues mainstream analysis of these issues. On GMO food he writes: "The technology presents itself as a feel-good solution for politicians who'd rather not face the more profound, persistent and difficult questions of politics and distribution.ð The plain fact is that the majority of children in the Global South suffer and die not because there is insufficient food, or because beta-carotene is nationally lacking. They are malnourished and undernourished because all their parents can afford to feed them is rice."

He continues, "It is absurd to ask a crop to solve the problems of income and food distribution, of course. But since that is precisely the root cause of vitamin A deficiency, the danger of crops such as Golden Rice is not merely that they are ineffective publicity stunts. They actively prevent the serious discussion of ways to tackle systemic poverty."

In a recent interview, Patel argued, "People do need to get their hands dirty by getting involved in social change. There is a particularly American fantasy that we can together create a better world by shopping. It's absolutely a case of thinking we can go to Whole Foods, choose the right thing, shop here, pay for this and all of a sudden we will lift the righteous above the impure."

The political activism Patel was referring to will have to involve more than simply replacing Republicans with Democrats. The Democratic Party played a key role in pushing a new Farm Bill through the US Congress which will continue disastrous policies of deregulation and massive subsidies for ecologically and socially destructive mega-farms.

The first step in moving beyond this disastrous status quo is countering the propaganda that says it is acceptable. Patel's book should be a key part of that work.

19 May 2008

Consumers Worried about Genetically Modified Foods despite Mandatory Labeling

Centre for European Economic Research, 19 April 2008.

The labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods is mandatory in the European Union. Nevertheless, it is easy to unsettle consumers when it comes to differentiate between GM foods and non-GM foods. This is the finding of a study conducted by the Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW) in Mannheim, which analyses consumer behaviour by means of controlled laboratory experiments. German consumers require a price reduction of about 50 percent to purchase GM foods. The sales opportunities for GM foods in Germany and the impacts of different labelling regulations on customer behaviour are spotlighted in the study.

In total, 164 volunteers aged between 18 and 75 participated in the laboratory experiments. The participants bid in real auctions for candy bars and soy bean oil. These products either contained GM or non-GM ingredients. It was the first study in Germany in which participants had to make real purchase decisions about GM foods. In contrast to surveys in which the participants only answer hypothetical questions, auctions give participants the incentive to reveal what they are willing to pay in reality.

The study's findings indicate that consumers definitely prefer non-GM foods. More than 80 percent of the auction participants offered higher prices for non-GM foods than for GM foods. On average, participants demanded a price reduction of about 50 percent to purchase GM foods. GM foods, therefore, are only likely to sell if they are offered at a much cheaper price than non-GM foods.

Current regulations allow additional labeling of non-GM foods with labels saying "produced without genetic engineering", and products labeled "GM-free" are readily found on the German market. The ZEW study shows that this redundant labelling affects consumers' trust in the current mandatory labelling scheme, shattering consumer confidence in the GM-free character of products that do not carry a label.

As the imminent commercialisation of GM foods in the German market is likely to increase producer incentives to label their product as GM-free, consumers' lack of confidence in the regulatory scheme may worsen. Policy makers should act promptly to either increase consumers' trust in the existing labelling regulations, for example through information campaigns, or consider the possibility to change the existing regulation by banning or requiring "GM-free" labels.

This study is published as ZEW Discussion Paper No. 08-029 in English language. Download: www.zew.de/publikation4386

Contact:

Astrid Dannenberg
Tel: + 49 621/1235-332, Fax: -226 E-Mail: dannenberg@zew.de

Sara Scatasta
Tel: + 49 621/1235-202, Fax: -226 E-Mail: scatasta@zew.de

Bodo Sturm
Tel: + 49 621/1235-186, Fax: -226 E-Mail: sturm@zew.de

Agri-biotech firms committing 'intellectual property grab'

ENN, 19 May 2008.

Some of the world's major agri-biotech companies are applying for hundreds of patents on genetically engineered 'climate crops', carrying out what amounts to an "intellectual property grab" in the lucrative market, according to a recent report.

BASF, Monsanto and Syngenta have applied for patents to control almost two-thirds of gene families resistant to environmental stresses that will increase with climate change, according to the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC) Group, a Canada-based civil society organisation.

About 530 patents have been applied for worldwide, with a few dozen granted and hundreds pending. They include traits such as drought, flooding, high salt level, high temperatures and ultraviolet radiation – all of which endanger food security.

The report says that this move could hinder farmers in the developing world. Patents demand that farmers purchase new seeds every year, rather than saving seeds for subsequent re-plantation.

Control of the seed industry by only a few multinationals may undermine publicly- funded creation of freely available crop varieties, the report says, as well as using the dominance of the crops to tap into previously resistant markets.

Spokespeople from the companies said that they should be acknowledged for developing climate-change resistant crop varieties – which would not have occurred without patent protections.

But others say that both sides have oversimplified the argument. Richard Jefferson, from Cambia, an organisation that helps companies work together on patents, says it's not patents but the lack of competition that is the problem.

"We don't have the economic ecology that lets other companies compete with [the large multinationals] - the big guys end up in a place like a cartel".

Link to full article in The Washington Post; www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051202919_pf.html

France: vote on GMO law this week

L'Ecologiste, 19 May 2008.

Over 40,000 people have signed the petition organised by L'Ecologiste magazine and the OGM Dangers association demanding a ban on GMOs, thus contributing to the rejection of the proposed law on GMOs going throught its second reading in the General Assembly on 13 May.

The same law proposal will be presented Tuesday 20 May to the deputies and on Thursday 22 May to the Senators.

Bear in mind that the proposed law would authorise transgenic plants and animals, against the wishes of the vast majority of French people, according to unanimous polls over the past ten years.

The Ecolgiste magazine and the GMO Dangers association thus appeal to the conscience of all parliamentarians to confirm their rejection of the proposed law.

We request the secretary-general of the UMP Patrick Devedjian to vote in favour of a ban on cultivation of GMOs at the National Assembly, in line with the ban on GM food in canteens, which he has passed in his capacity as President of the Assembl of the Hauts de Seine.

You may circulate this email for people to sign online at www.ogm-jedisnon.org and to write and get others to write letters to the parliamentarians from the web site. It's urgent and effective!

Association OGM Dangers www.ogmdangers.org

L'Ecologiste magazine www.ecologiste.org

UK lawmakers vote on new laws to govern hybrid embryo research, abortion

Associated press, 19 May 2008.

LONDON - Contentious plans to allow the use of animal-human embryos for research, legitimize so-called "savior siblings" and offer easier access to fertility treatment to lesbians were being considered by British lawmakers on Monday.

The proposed laws, the first major review of embryo science in Britain for almost 20 years, have provoked a stormy debate - pitting Prime Minister Gordon Brown and scientists against religious leaders, pro-life campaigners and a large section of lawmakers.

Debates taking place in the House of Commons on Monday and Tuesday also will include the first major vote on revising British abortion laws since 1990.

Opposition party chief David Cameron - and several Cabinet ministers - advocate a lowering of the 24-week limit for abortions in Britain. Legislators will vote Tuesday on whether to retain the current limit or lower it to 22, 20 or 16 weeks.

Brown has said he believes scientists seeking to use mixed animal-human embryos for stem cell research into diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's are on a moral mission to improve - and save - millions of lives.

The process involves injecting an empty cow or rabbit egg with human DNA. A burst of electricity is then used to trick the egg into dividing regularly, so that it becomes a very early embryo, from which stem cells can be extracted.

Scientists say the embryos would not be allowed to develop for more than 14 days, and are intended to address the shortage of human embryos available for stem cell research.

"I believe that we owe it to ourselves and future generations to introduce these measures, and in particular, to give our unequivocal backing within the right framework of rules and standards, to stem cell research," Brown wrote Sunday in an op-ed piece for The Observer newspaper.

But opponents warn that an easing of laws on creating hybrid embryos could lead to the genetic engineering of human beings.

Human Genetics Alert, a science watchdog opposed to the proposed changes, claims the laws could lead to the creation of genetically modified "designer babies".

"Once we start down the road to human genetic modification, it will be very difficult to turn back," the group warns in a briefing paper for lawmakers.

Ann Widdecombe, an opposition Conservative lawmaker, said there is no proof that hybrid embryo research could help treat diseases that currently have no cure. "There is no evidence at all that it will save millions of lives," Widdecombe told Britain's GMTV.

Dr. Robin Lovell-Badge, a stem cell biologist at the U.K.'s National Institute for Medical Research, said that greater understanding of genetic diseases at the cellular level could speed the development of treatments.

"We have to be careful not to overhype it, because we can't promise anything will work, but if it does work then there will be a lot more understanding. More understanding is crucial to developing new treatments," he said.

Britain's Human Fertilization and Embryology law, which regulates all stem cell and embryology research, was drafted in 1990.

Lawmakers will vote Monday on whether to fully authorize the screening of embryos for genetic characteristics to create "savior siblings." These are cases where parents seek to have a child with specific non-diseased characteristics to help a diseased older sibling through tissue or organ donation.

The proposed laws are in line with the latest scientific developments and would provide Britain's Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority with clearer guidelines. The decisions are currently vulnerable to challenges in court, Lovell-Badge said.

Proposals to end the requirement for in-vitro fertilization clinics to consider the need for a child to have a father are being debated on Tuesday. Advocates say the change is necessary to enable lesbian couples and single women to gain easier access to fertility treatment.

Opponents insist the change fails to acknowledge the role of a father in a child's life.

Brown has said he will allow his Labour Party lawmakers to vote as they wish on the three controversial sections.

Three Catholic Cabinet members - including Defense Secretary Des Browne - and around nine junior ministers are believed to have reservations about some aspects of the plans.

UK lawmakers back hybrid embryo research
Proposed laws would allow scientists to create and use human-animal cells

Associated press, 19 May 2008.

LONDON - British lawmakers voted Monday to approve controversial plans to allow the use of animal-human embryos for research. The proposed laws, the first major review of embryo science in Britain for almost 20 years, have provoked stormy debate – pitting Prime Minister Gordon Brown and scientists against religious leaders, anti-abortion campaigners and a large number of lawmakers. Brown has said he believes scientists seeking to use mixed animal-human embryos for stem cell research into diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's are on a moral mission to improve – and save – millions of lives.

The process involves injecting an empty cow or rabbit egg with human DNA. A burst of electricity is then used to trick the egg into dividing regularly, so that it becomes a very early embryo, from which stem cells can be extracted.

Scientists say the embryos would not be allowed to develop for more than 14 days, and are intended to address the shortage of human embryos available for stem cell research.

By allowing such mixed embryo experiments, Britain is expected to maintain its reputation as a leading center for stem cell research. Unlike the United States, where such research is tightly controlled, British scientists say the progressive environment in the U.K. has led to many firsts, including the world's first test tube baby and cloned animal.

Legislation in Britain might also influence other European countries where such research is pursued. Chinese laws on stem cell and embryology research also closely mirror those in Britain.

"I believe that we owe it to ourselves and future generations to introduce these measures, and in particular, to give our unequivocal backing within the right framework of rules and standards, to stem cell research," Brown wrote Sunday in an op-ed piece for The Observer newspaper.

But opponents warn that an easing of laws on creating the embryos could lead to the genetic engineering of human beings.

Legislators voted 336 to 176 against a proposed ban on research using animal-human embryos and by 286 to 223 against a separate proposal covering a specific type of animal-human embryos.

Human Genetics Alert, a science watchdog in favor of the ban, claims the laws could lead to the creation of genetically modified "designer babies."

"Once we start down the road to human genetic modification, it will be very difficult to turn back," the group warned in a briefing paper for lawmakers.

Opposition Conservative lawmaker Edward Leigh, who tabled an amendment seeking to ban the practice, said the technique was a step too far for science.

"In many ways we are like children playing with land mines without any concept of the dangers of the technology that we are handling," he said in the House of Commons.

Britain's Human Fertilization and Embryology law, which regulates all stem cell and embryology research, was drafted in 1990. Brown has said it must be completely redrawn to take account of scientific advances.

Debate on other aspects of the bill are to be debated Tuesday. A final vote is expected in the coming weeks.

UK: MPs back creation of human-animal embryos

Metro.co.uk, 19 May 2008.

MPS voted on Monday to allow the creat?ion of hybrid human-animal embryos for research, in one of the most emotive pieces of legislation for 20 years.

They voted 336 to 176 against banning study which could lead to treatments for Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's.

'The ignoramuses have voted to waste money that will achieve nothing,' said Phyllis Bowman of Right to Life.

But Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris argued: 'If scientists can show the best way to make progress in research into treatments, then it should be permissible to use the hybrids.'

To make a hybrid, an empty cow or rabbit egg is injected with ?human DNA and made to divide regularly with an electric shock.

It creates a very early embryo, from which stem cells can be taken for study.

They will not be allowed to develop for more than 14 days and will help address a huge shortage of embryos for research.

But critics fear it may lead to the ?creation of genetically modified babies.

At the weekend, Gordon Brown hailed it as 'an inherently moral endeavour', which could save millions of lives.

But ministers had a free vote, meaning they could go against the proposals.

Three Roman Catholics did - defence secretary Des Browne, transport secretary Ruth Kelly and Welsh secretary Paul Murphy.

MPs were also expected to allow 'saviour siblings' - children born to provide tissue to seriously ill brothers or sisters.

On Tuesday, the Commons will decide whether to cut the time a foetus can be aborted from 24 to 20 weeks and whether a father needs to be named for IVF treatment.

Ready for Frankenbeer?

The East African, 19 May 2008. By Kitavi Mutua.

Nairobi -- Two high-profile parallel initiatives are underway to promote the production of genetically modified sorghum grain in Kenya for domestic and industrial use.

Launched separately by different agricultural experts, if successful, the twin initiatives will have far-reaching economic implications for thousands of peasant farmers in the country.

The first plan is an international scientific research innovation aimed at improving sorghum grain to nutritious levels through genetic engineering.

The Ksh1.3 billion ($21 million) project intends to turn the widely unpopular sorghum grain, largely considered food for the poor and underprivileged into a more nutritious foodstuff.

A consortium of nine global scientific research bodies have come together under the Africa Bio-fortified Sorghum (ABS) project to develop the nutritional value of sorghum in search of long-term solutions to malnutrition in Africa.

Sorghum is ranked the fifth most important staple food in the world after wheat, rice, maize and barley.

The project seeks to develop more nutritious and easily digestible sorghum varieties that contain increased levels of essential amino acids, vitamins A and E, and more available iron and zinc.

The approach adopted by the ABS project is to introduce selected genes mainly from plant sources into the genome of sorghum in a more careful and gradual way that does not compromise other attributes of the grain.

At the local level, a parallel legislative plan is in progress to change agricultural policies that have discouraged the crop's production over the years.

This second initiative seeks to discourage brewing firms in the country from importing barley for beer making in favour of the cheaper, locally produced sorghum in order to benefit farmers.

Kitui south MP Isaac Muoki wants to introduce legislation to compel the government to impose heavy taxes on barley importation in order to promote sorghum growing.

The legislator says that if adopted, the move would substantially improve the economic wellbeing of millions of poor farmers in arid regions where erratic weather patterns make farming difficult.

"This country is living a big irony. We import barley from Russia and Canada at very exorbitant prices to make beer when cheap sorghum can be grown locally for the same purpose at great economic benefits to poor farmers," he said.

Farmers, Mr Muoki said, would effectively cultivate enough sorghum as long as the market for their produce was guaranteed.

Barley, the grain traditionally used to brew most beer, grows best in countries with cooler climates, but its rising price due to high global demand and shipping costs have made beer making more expensive than ever.

The ABS project, the first of its kind in Africa, is the first attempt to use genetic modification for the improvement of sorghum, which is an indigenous crop with wild relatives in many African countries.

The GM sorghum's proponents say millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa suffer from health problems associated with vitamin and mineral deficiency. The situation is made worse by arid climates with poor soils that cannot support the production of the foods such as fruits and vegetables needed to naturally supply these essential nutrients.

It is estimated that up to 80 per cent of children in the region receive inadequate amounts of Vitamin A, which half the entire population suffers from iron deficiency, and a third from zinc deficiency.

Sorghum is one of the few crops that grow well in arid climates, but it lacks most essential nutrients, hence the move to improve it through genetic engineering.

The institutional partners in this initiative are Kenya's Africa Harvest, South Africa's Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Pioneer HiBred International and the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) based in the US.

Others are the Agricultural Research Council (ARC), the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), the International Crops Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics (Icrisat) and the Universities of Pretoria and California-Berkeley.

Dr Florence Wambugu, the chief executive officer of Africa Harvest, the lead organisation in the ABS consortium, said that in the wake of global warming challenges, food security cannot be achieved without improving locally bred cultivars of some indigenous grain crops like sorghum and other staple foods.

"Malnutrition remains a leading direct and indirect cause of the rise in the many non-communicable diseases in Africa where deficiencies in essential micronutrients bring about impaired immune systems, blindness, low birth weight and stunting and impaired neuropsychological development," Dr Wambugu said.

She said that the nine-member consortium had adopted the GM technology because the regular breeding approaches can not produce the magnitude of change needed to make a significant impact.

"We hope that through this project will substantially improve grain digestibility and make essential vitamins and micro-nutrients more available," she added.

UK: A design for life
Embryo bill: The proposed law is more about paving the way for GM children than alleviating disease or furthering research

The Guardian unlimited, 19 May 2008.

Is the mother of parliaments about to give birth to designer babies?

While the Commons debates today and tomorrow the contentious issues of human-animal hybrid embryos, same-sex parents and saviour siblings, all permitted by the new human fertilisation and embryology bill, overlooked in the general melee will be the bill's most dangerous innovation it would lift a ban in the HFE Act 1990 (pdf) against the genetic modification of human embryos. This would permit researchers here in the UK to try to alter the DNA that makes us human. Some enthusiasts applaud such a measure, seeing it as the first step towards bringing evolution under human control, but others (pdf) fear the complete commodification of children or even the rise of a genetically fixed two-tier society, as in the film Gattaca.

Are these hopes or fears excessive? After all, the bill prohibits implanting GM embryos in either human or animal wombs. The embryos are to be created "for research purposes" only. But what is the ultimate goal of such research?

You might think it's to prevent children from being born with genetic diseases. The fact is that we already know a considerable amount about how to do this. Couples who know they carry genes for a hereditary disease can have fertility treatment and their embryos screened, with only unaffected ones placed in the mother's womb, a less harrowing alternative to the older process of pre-natal testing and abortion of affected foetuses. They can use eggs or sperm from unaffected donors. They can adopt. They can choose to remain childless. In the case of some diseases, scientists are close to discovering ways of correcting genetic defects later in life, as has recently been done with one form of hereditary blindness.

So there is really no need to alter human embryos in order to combat genetic diseases. However, if the ultimate goal is to be able to learn safe ways of adding genes at will to human embryos to boost their intelligence, say to create true "designer children", then this tinkering is absolutely essential. Indeed, in the consultation document preceding the HFE bill, the government stated that its goal was the development of safe forms of human genetic modification.

More recently, the government's declared aims have been much more modest. They've claimed that such embryos might be useful for studying inherited disease. In fact, isolated cell cultures are far more powerful and convenient research tools.

The other principal reason the government gives when pressed on this issue is that altering embryos would help scientists to understand how they develop and implant in the womb. However, the law requires embryos to be destroyed before or at 14 days (when the nervous system begins to develop), too early to learn much, and as implantation continues to be prohibited, the bill itself undermines this reason. Or could the government have long-term plans to extend the 14-day limit or to permit GM embryos to be implanted, most likely when artificial wombs become available?

But most likely the government's real reason for allowing early experiments in altering the genes of human embryos is to allow UK scientists to establish a lead and claim intellectual property rights in basic techniques. We should not overlook the fact that Robert Winston and Ian Wilmut already hold patents on some methods that could be used to create genetically modified children.

But does the British public want GM children? Do members of parliament want to approve this measure without even properly debating it? If MPs don't wake up soon, they will set themselves up for a perfect storm of public opprobrium that will make the furore over GM crops the merest shower by comparison.

USA: Scientists Create First Genetically Modified Primate

RedOrbit, 19 May 2008.

Scientists at Emory University have genetically engineered monkeys to have Huntington's disease in hopes of gaining a better understanding of the fatal, hereditary ailment to develop possible new treatments.

The researchers, from Emory University's Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, said the monkeys are the first primates to be genetically modified.

Describing their work, they said one of two surviving rhesus macaque monkeys engineered to have the defective gene that causes Huntington's in humans is already is exhibiting the tell-tale signs of the disease at an age of only 10 months. Ý

Huntington's disease is the result of a single irregular gene that causes certain nerve cells in the brain to deteriorate.Ý Although people are born with the gene, symptoms of the disease do not usually appear until middle age.

While researchers frequently perform laboratory studies on animals such as mice to gain insight into the fundamental biology of various diseases, monkeys and other primates are closer to people than rodents in neurological, physiological and genetic characteristics.

"Rodent species can capture some of the characteristics of the disease, but they have not been satisfactory in being able to really capture the essence of the disease," Stuart Zola, head of the Yerkes center, said during a telephone interview with Reuters.

"Now we have a genetically modified nonhuman primate that really has captured the clinical signs that we see in patients with Huntington's disease."

Those with the progressive, degenerative disease experience uncontrolled movements, mental deterioration and emotional problems.

And while drugs can help manage symptoms, they do not prevent the mental and physical decline, and patients typically die within 10 to 15 years after symptoms appear.

The researchers said they decided to genetically modify the monkeys with Huntington's because of the simplicity of the disease, which is associated with mutations in a single gene rather than multiple genes.

Zola said the achievement could lead the way to studies of other genetically modified primates with neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.

"This research allows scientists to advance beyond mouse models, which do not replicate all of the changes in the brain and behavior that humans with Huntington's disease experience," John Harding, a primate resources official at the National Institutes of Health, told Reuters.

Using something called viral vector technology, the researchers transferred the Huntington's gene into an egg cell of a monkey.Ý Through in vitro fertilization, the egg grew into a four-cell embryo and was then implanted in the womb of a female monkey acting as a surrogate mother.

Two of the five babies born using the process had died within about a day, and another one died about 30 days later.ÝÝ Two are still living and are approximately 10 months old, according to Anthony Chan of the Yerkes center.ÝÝ Chan said one of the two surviving monkeys is exhibiting the telltale Huntington's disease symptoms of involuntary movements of the face and hands.

The other monkey has not shown any symptoms, but may develop them later, Chan said.

South Africa: Biowatch says to appeal Constitutional Court cost order

Creamer Media's Engineering News, 19 May 2008. By Christy van der Merwe.

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) Biowatch said it would lodge an application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court against the order that it pay the legal costs of Monsanto South Africa - the local component of the world's largest genetically modified (GM) seed company.

This came after Biowatch had put in a court application for access to information on decision-making about the permitting of GM crop applications. Biowatch asked the court to order the Minister of Agriculture, the genetically modified organism (GMO) executive council and the GMO registrar to provide access to information.

"Monsanto insisted on joining in as a respondent, arguing its confidential business information was at risk. It was the only respondent to insist on costs, right to the end of the case," Biowatch said in a statement.

In February 2005, acting judge Eric Dunn ordered that Biowatch be granted access to almost all the information it had requested. He reaffirmed that Biowatch had a constitutional right to this information, that access to the information was in the public interest and that Biowatch had been forced to go to the court to get access to it. But, he also ordered Biowatch to pay the legal costs of Monsanto South Africa.

Biowatch appealed to a full bench of the Pretoria High court to reverse the costs order in favour of Monsanto and for South Africa's GM crop regulatory authorities to be ordered to pay Biowatch's legal costs.

In November 2007, judge Fanie Mynhardt and judge Mpho Molopa-Sethosa dismissed the Biowatch costs order appeal. They ordered Biowatch to pay Monsanto's legal costs and also ordered the NGO to pay the appeal legal costs of the government statutory bodies against whom the original court application was brought.

The option of appealing to the Constitutional Court was opened by a dissenting judgement from one of the three judges who heard Biowatch's appeal in April 2007. In his judgement handed down in May 2008, judge Justice Poswa said the costs order in favour of Monsanto South Africa should be reversed.

Judge Poswa said that South Africa's statutory bodies responsible for regulating GM crops should pay Biowatch's legal costs. These were the Minister of Agriculture, the GMO Executive Council and the GMO registrar.

The Real Villain in the World Food Crisis

Huffington Post, May 19 2008. By Carl Pope.

What's behind the world food crisis? Yes, the growing world population is a huge contributor to the need for more food. Yes, reckless food- and oil-seed-based biofuel subsidies have added to the problem. Yes, the climate crisis will contribute enormously. Yes, greater prosperity by previously vegetarian consumers in India and China will increase demand for feed grains.

But the media only occasionally touch on why we are having this particular food crisis: market fundamentalism and the privatization of world food security. Sunday's New York Times has a devastating article on the dismantling over the past 20 years of the network of publicly funded and accountable agricultural research centers.

What was supposed to take the place of public research? Privatized, market-driven, corporate research. How were they going to ensure food security? By developing genetically modified foods. What would motivate them? Profit -- geared to patented GMO (genetically modified organism) seed varieties. These patented seeds would cost more, but farmers' yields would go up so much that the world would be better off. Unfortunately, the hard truth is that GMOs have actually made the world's food supply smaller -- because the varieties developed for crops like soy beans and cotton, thus far at least, have yields that are lower than the conventional strains they replace.

This might mean that GMO crops simply can't produce the continually increasing crop yields that their advocates have promised. But it is also fair to say that we have no real idea whether they can or can't, because the privatized market for developing GMOs has almost no interest in crop yield per se -- it has been developed for purposes such as making crops that are more tolerant of the herbicide Roundup.

In fact, the Department of Agriculture concedes that not a single GMO crop on today's market was designed to increase yields. By contrast, the entire focus of the publicly funded agricultural research that led to the Green Revolution was increased yields.

For years a staple of the literature advocating GMO crops has been salt-tolerant barley for marginal soils in Africa. I'm not a crop scientist, so I have no idea whether salt-tolerant barley is feasible -- and if it is feasible, no idea whether GMO crops are the most likely pathway to develop it. But I know enough economics to be pretty sure that Monsanto won't get rich selling the seeds of a GMO salt-tolerant barley to marginal farmers in Mauritania -- the market is neither big enough nor rich enough. Wheat farmers in the Dakotas are a much better investment for Monsanto, especially when they are backed by huge crop subsidies, and the company has followed the market signals. As a result, virtually all the crops emerging from the privatized corporate agricultural research establishment are designed not to increase yields or to lower costs but to increase resistance to herbicides or a narrow range of first-world pests.

Even today, we don't need GMO rice to fight the current devastating outbreak of brown plant hopper on Asian rice fields. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) has identified more than a dozen conventional varieties that could produce resistance if they were crossbred into the commercial types in common use in Asia. But the IRRI lacks the funds to do the necessary work. And private seed companies lack the financial inventive, because the hopper continually evolves, so even if a private food corporation developed a resistant variety, it could market it for only a few years. Seed sales just wouldn't make a big enough profit.

As a result, we have poor farmers in India committing suicide because their GMO cotton crops didn't meet expectations or failed; we have governments trembling from Haiti to Afghanistan because their people can no longer afford to eat; we have newly empowered pests chewing their way through the world's rice paddy fields; we have inadequate stores of grain to survive even modest droughts in Australia -- and we act as if this should be a surprise.

It's not as if this is a new problem. At least as far back as the Irish potato famine, it has been clear that unregulated markets can't handle the inevitable ups and downs of food production. Ireland actually had plenty of food to feed itself, but Victorian market fundamentalists insisted that most of it be exported. Then, as now, intentional public policy was needed to avoid famine and starvation.

Dare we hope that this fall that the Presidential candidates will actually be asked about this issue? Only if we insist. And the debate will be meaningful only if we ask the hard questions about why we have abandoned publicly funded and accountable agricultural policy mechanisms for the long-discredited concept that privatization of research and market fundamentalism will feed the world.

Jatropha: Another Bad Path to Biofuels

IstockAnalyst.com, 19 May 2008. By The Panelist.

As I mentioned on The Panelist...

With oil at an all-time high of $128 per barrel, and gasoline prices soaring - not to mention double-digit inflation in food prices (4.9 in 2007-08 as compared to the usual 2.1), some consumers are becoming hard-pressed to fuel their bodies or their vehicles.

Biofuels may be the answer, but not as currently practiced in the U.S. and elsewhere. Currently, biofuel production diverts food crops like wheat, soybeans and corn, or plants alternative crops on the same land, reducing food-crop harvests.

In fact, diverting corn from food supplies to biofuel has resulted in a 60-percent rise in cornmeal prices in Mexico over the past few years, making a staple food like corn tortillas almost unaffordable to Mexico's poorest. One expert estimates that, by 2009 - if all proposed U.S. biofuel plants become operational - U.S. grain supplies for food will be reduced by almost 30 percent. The effect on bread and other staple prices will be inconceivable.

Some have speculated that the use of non-food crops, planted on marginal land useless for food production, could resolve the food and biofuels conflict. Since 2007, a company called ArborGen has been trying to genetically modify eucalyptus trees to reduce lignine content, that stuff that makes it so hard to extract cellulose for bioethanol production. Latin American partners in this attempt (the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, the Catholic University of Brasilia, and the Genolyptus project) project that, if successful, eucalyptus growing on S. American plantations could solve Latin America's burgeoning fuel crisis.

The danger of these GMO trees is that they proliferate wildly, displacing native species and contaminating native seed and rootstocks by cross-pollination (as is currently happening in China with native poplar trees). Monocultures also use up regional water supplies, displace indigenous people and habitats, and benefit (often government-subsidized) corporations and large landholders at the expense of the poor, whose government-funded social welfare net is depleted by these subsidies. In countries like Brazil, Chile and Argentina, natives forests and savannahs have given way to soy and palm oil plantations, leaving the poor both poorer and landless, and agribusiness giants like Cargill (a private company), Archer Daniels Midland (ADM - $43.35) and Bunge (BG - $124.48) hip-deep in the new wealth of biofuels.

In the U.S., proposed monocultures like jatropha, eucalyptus and palm across the South will have the same effect as in S. America, for several reasons. First, the South is historically an area of depressed economies, where residents are often forced to work at low-paying jobs just to survive. Second, the South's climate - warm winters and moderate to heavy rainfall - is largely conducive to food crops, which would inevitably be displaced by biofuel crops. Last, the tremendous biodiversity of areas like the Everglades would be seriously impacted by both non-native and GMO species. Look at the damage already done by kudzu, Australian pine and melaleuca.

One company, Terasol Labs, is developing jatropha, a species of euphorbia (a succulent native to Central America) that produces seeds which contain up to 40 percent oil. Jatropha is resistant to pests and drought and grows vigorously in many soil types. In its native habitat it is a weed. Jatropha oil, once extracted, can be used to fuel diesel engines with little or no further preparation or additives. Terasol is not genetically modifying jatropha, but is looking for suitable cultivars via tissue propagation and hybridization. These jatropha strains are maximized for their tolerance to various climates, pest-resistance, and oil yields. In other words, they are being adapted to survive in ways that no native plants can compete with.

In LaBelle, Florida, My Dream Fuel LLC is promoting jatropha, and looking for farmers willing to plant the more than 1 million seedlings currently in the ground at a Hendry County nursery. My Dream's owner and founder, Paul Dalton (a former attorney and child advocate who has apparently re-evaluated his career choice) plans to open a $1.5 million, 15,000-square-foot seed-processing and plant cloning facility in Fort Myers, Fl. Local environmentalists don't appear to be opposing jatropha development, and local growers seem keen on the idea of a crop that doesn't require vast amounts of water or intensive labor. No one seems concerned about cross-species contamination, the destruction of biodiversity, or jatropha's effect on soils - this latter an unknown quantity.

Money talks, and jatropha is clearly a cash crop. In 10 years or so, when the downside of jatropha cultivation begins showing up as orange trees bearing strange fruit (or none at all) and native plant species are all but wiped off the face of the earth, I probably will be too. This is likely a good thing since I seem to be the only one who has glimpsed the dark underside of this project to fuel gas-guzzling American cars and SUVs made by companies like GM and Ford. Of course, there is always the possibility of changing our driving habits and purchasing decisions based on environmental considerations.

"What experience and history teach is this - that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it." ~ G. W. F. Hegel

Disclosure: I don't own stock in any of the companies mentioned in this article.

ThePanelist.com is a website that analyzes ethical investments.

New report: European banks financing damaging agrofuels in Latin America
Friends of the Earth International urges banks to stop fuelling harmful agrofuel boom

Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 19 May 2008.

Brussels (Belgium) / Montevideo (Uruguay) - Many major European banks are funding the rapid expansion of agrofuel production in Latin America, leading to large scale deforestation, increasing human rights abuses and threatening food sovereignty, according to a new report released today. [1]

The report - released by Friends of the Earth Europe amid global worries about the increasing impacts of rising food prices - calls for an end to investments by European banks in harmful agrofuel projects. [2]

Agrofuels have been blamed as a major factor driving up food prices. According to the UN and the World Bank, 100 million more people are currently facing severe hunger due to higher prices for basic foods. [3]

'European financing of agrofuel production in Latin America' documents how major European banks, such as Barclays, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, Axa, HSBC, UBS and Credit Suisse are investing billions of Euros in the production and trade of sugar cane, soybeans and palm oil in Latin American countries.

Fuels from sugar cane, soybeans and palm oil are increasingly used in Europe. Their large scale production in countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Colombia is extremely controversial as it leads to the destruction of the Amazon and other valuable ecosystems, as well as to the contamination of drinking water. Large scale plantations also lead to human rights violations against peasants, with working conditions on some plantations in Brazil classed as modern slave labour.

At the same time agrofuel companies are making record profits, enabled by loans, investments and other financial support from private banks. All major European banks have invested billions of Euros over recent years in agrofuel producing companies such as Cargill, Bunge, ADM, Cosan and Brasil Ecodiesel. Several of these companies have been involved in, and convicted of, illegal activities in Latin America. [4]

Some examples of European banks involvement:

•

in 2007 Deutsche Bank owned 35 per cent of the shares of Brasil Ecodiesel

•

Bunge currently has credit facilities worth more than a billion Euro from banks such as Barclays, BBVA, BNP Paris, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, KBC and Credit Suisse

•

in 2007 Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse provided financial services totalling more than a billion Euros to Cosan

Paul de Clerck, Friends of the Earth International corporate campaign coordinator, said: "Agrofuels are a booming business and banks are out to make maximum money while millions of people are suffering from lack of food and the environment is being destroyed. Banks should immediately stop their investments in such harmful agrofuel development."

Friends of the Earth is also calling on the European Commission to revise its plans for a mandatory 10 per cent target for the use of agrofuels in transport by 2020, which it says will exacerbate the problems associated with the production of agrofuels. Agrofuels are billed as a solution to climate change but growing scientific evidence shows that they may actually increase rather than decrease greenhouse gas emissions, especially if wider knock-on effects, such as changes in land use, are taken into account.

"Using crops to feed cars instead of people is a false solution to climate change," added Mr de Clerck.

For more information, please contact:

In Brussels
Paul de Clerck, Friends of the Earth International: Mobile: +32494380959, paul@milieudefensie.nl

In Montevideo:
Carlos Santos, Friends of the Earth Uruguay: Mobile: +5491160191836 / +59898889498 carlos.santos@redes.org.uy

Notes:

[1] The full report 'European financing of agrofuel production in Latin America' is online at: http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/financers_report_May08.pdf

[2] Biofuels are plants grown to make fuel instead of food. When they are grown in intensive agricultural systems, such as environmentally-damaging large-scale monoculture plantations, they are called agrofuels.

[3] This number was cited by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on April 29 2008 when he announced a new task force to tackle the global food crisis.

[4] In March 2007, the Supreme Court in Brazil judged that Cargill operated illegally while constructing a terminal on the banks of the Tapajos River to facilitate exports of soy beans without proper Environmental Impact Assessment. See fact sheet at: http://www.foeeurope.org/corporates/cases/Cargill_Factsheet_May08.pdf

In March 2008 the Federal Regional Tribunal in Brasil ordered Bunge to immediately stop using wood as energy source for its facilities in Piaui due to the lack of necessary permits. See fact sheets at: http://www.foeeurope.org/corporates/cases/Bunge_Factsheet_May08.pdf and http://www.foeeurope.org/corporates/cases/Bunge_Factsheet2_May08.pdf

Behind Latin America's Food Crisis

Americas Program Center for International Policy, Special Report, 19 May 2008. By Laura Carlsen.

Even a year ago, few people would have predicted that a global food crisis would make headlines as one of the major concerns for the future of the world. Yes, critics of agrofuels warned that food shortages and price hikes would result from the headlong rush to divert land from food to fuel production. And climate change experts predicted that global warming would hit small farmers – who even in today's world of industrialized agribusiness still produce much of what we eat – the hardest. Agricultural economists alerted the world to the dangers of leaving the food supply to a highly concentrated international market.

But all these threats seemed nascent, not imminent.

So what happened? How did we get to a full-blown crisis, with children who before were fed going to sleep hungry, with rioters banging empty pots in the streets, with mud cakes standing in as dinner?

The answer involves all the dire warnings above. How they have played out depends in part on where you are. The interplay of pests and policies, drought and dollars, futures and farmers has always made agriculture a hard call for both almanac writers and policymakers. But international trends and a case-by-case analysis show common culprits.

In the Western Hemisphere, two countries – Haiti and Mexico – reveal the forces that are leading societies into a crisis that could become permanent if deep changes aren't made to our food and agriculture systems.

Death and Dirt Cookies in Haiti

The half-island nation of Haiti is the West's basket case. The suffering there makes the news only when it explodes into violence. That happened again in early April, when demonstrations began across the country to protest rising food prices. Beginning in the provinces and spreading quickly to the nation's capital Port-au-Prince the mobilizations left five dead, stores looted, and desperation unmasked.

It wasn't just spring fever that drove people into the streets. In a recent Americas Program article, researcher Mark Schuller reports back on street interviews done shortly before the disturbances. The comments of Sylvie St. Fleur, a laid-off factory worker, summed up the frustration among the poor: "The thing that destroys the country is that you can't buy anything. This high cost of living is killing us in Haiti."

In a nation where half the population lives on less than one dollar a day, price increases of 50% and more in staples like rice and beans mean the difference between eating or not.

Or eating dirt cookies. This invention of resourceful street vendors to trick empty stomachs rapidly became a tragic symbol of how intense hunger even broke the usual human taboo on eating dirt. Food items bore the brunt of price increases and are most keenly felt. But these hikes combined with low wages and high gas prices to decimate family economies.

No Harvard-educated economist keeps better statistics on prices than a poor woman feeding a family. Sylvia proves the point: "If you used to buy a sack of rice for 1,000 goud, now you have to buy it at 1,500 goud ($37.50). Only now, a cup of sugar costs 25 goud, a cup of rice costs 18 or 19 goud, a cup of beans costs 25 goud. Even if you work for 70 goud per day (minimum wage), you buy a gallon of gas for 150 goud ($3.75) ... you see? Here you can work two whole days and you can't even buy a gallon of gas."

Haiti is not a poor country for all Haitians. UN statistics show it's the second most unequal nation in the world. Haitian millionaires live a life thousands of slum-dwellers cannot even imagine.

Both the social inequality and the food crisis stem from neoliberal economic policies. Haiti was self-sufficient in rice, its main staple, until the 1980s but by the 1990s when trade liberalization policies took hold imports began to surpass production. In 1995, rice tariffs were slashed from 35% to 3% under an IMF "medium-term structural adjustment strategy." Direct food aid from the United States following the 1991-94 coup period that supplanted local production and diversion of resources to pay an onerous foreign debt also added to the slow demise of Haitian agriculture.

After a coup d'etat that bore signs of U.S. involvement drove out President Jean-Bertrand Aristide on Feb. 29, 2004, Interim Prime Minister Gerard Latortue further lowered tariffs and promoted an export-oriented approach to reinvigorate the nation's agriculture. As a result of all these factors, Haiti is almost entirely dependent on foreign food imports and now imports an estimated 82% of total rice consumption.

According to a 2004 study by American University, "... rice production in Haiti has collapsed, threatening the economic well-being of Haitian rice farmers and tens of thousands of others who participate in the cultivation, processing, and sale of Haitian rice. Though this decline can be blamed on a variety of causes including the poor condition of Haiti's natural environment, and several other factors that have handicapped Haitian farmers ... trade liberalization policies are at the center of this phenomenon."

Haiti's rice tariffs are the lowest in the Caribbean and Haiti has earned a top rating on the IMF's trade-restrictiveness index. But this is a case where the top student is at the bottom of the class, which makes one wonder what exactly is being taught. Tariff reduction has decimated production and led to an influx of "Miami rice" at what some experts have called dumping prices.

Journalist Reed Lindsay quotes Frantz Thelusma, a community organizer, expressing the demands of the mobilizations: "First, we demand the government get rid of its neoliberal plan. We will not accept this death plan. Second, the government needs to regulate the market and lower the price of basic goods." The protests led to the recall of Prime Minister Jacques-Edouard Alexis on April 12, and negotiations to lower the price of imported rice.

The world responded to Haiti's "food riots" with major media attention and promises of emergency aid. The UN made a commitment to establish community kitchens and school meals, as well as delivering 8,000 tons of food hand-outs. In implicit recognition of Haiti's broken food supply, international agencies promised to "jump-start" Haiti's agriculture through programs to provide fertilizers, and restore environmentally damaged areas.

If everyone knew that Haitian agriculture has been stalled by the side of the road for some time now, why didn't anyone think of this sooner? As long as imports were available and the country could accumulate the foreign debt needed to pay for them, most policymakers seemed to think the system was working fine. Until now.

Mexico's Tortilla Crisis and the Battle for Corn

In Mexico, an eventual showdown over corn wasn't difficult to predict. Mexicans have been battling over corn for decades. Nothing brings to the fore the contradictions in Mexican society, the clash of values and class confrontation, the way the nation's staple crop and main food source does.

In January of 2007 tens of thousands of Mexicans marched in the streets to protest a leap of 50% in the price of corn tortillas. Although many analysts have attributed the sudden spike to a rise in international prices due to demand for ethanol production, the root cause is far more complex and predates the biofuels boom.

What happened in Mexico, and continues to happen, was caused by the confluence of several factors: the rise in the international price, the increase in the price of gas, and the concentration of corn markets by transnational companies as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

As Mexican maize expert Ana de Ita points out, "The price rises were not due to a lack of national production, since in 2006, 21.9 million tons were produced, a record output. At the same time record volumes of corn were imported – 7.3 million tons of yellow corn and 254,000 tons of white corn. If imports of broken corn are included, the total reaches 10.3 million tons. Bizarrely, in a year of crisis allegedly due to a decrease in the corn supply, corn stocks reached their highest volumes ever."

It wasn't due just to the international market either. In late 2006, the price of corn on the international market showed a clear upward tendency. But the steep rise in prices within Mexico far surpassed the tendency on the world market. The main culprit was speculation and hoarding on the part of the transnationals. Four companies – Cargill, Maseca-Archer Daniels Midland, Minsa-Arancia Corn Products International, and Agroinsa – are the main buyers of the Mexican corn harvest and also the principal importers of corn from the United States.

The large corporations had two motives in driving the price up. The first was profit. De Ita's research shows that these buyers – whose access to capital and storage and transportation facilities gives them a tremendous edge in the Mexican market – bought corn at 1,450 pesos from the autumn-winter 2005-2006 harvest, which starts in April for producers in Sinaloa and Tamaulipas, and at 1,760 pesos from the producers of the 2006 spring-summer cycle, which starts in September. In late December they began selling this same corn on the domestic market for between 3,000 and 3,500 pesos.

The second reason was to capture the corn flour market. In Mexico about half of tortillas are made with industrialized corn flour and the other half with corn milled the traditional way from whole corn by small mills. The traditional sector includes 70,000 small mills and tortilla producers. The large corn processors have long wanted to make further inroads into this market. After spiking the price of corn to the mills, they moved in to sell corn flour at lower prices to tortilla producers and flood large retail chains with processed tortillas below the cost of the traditionally made tortillas. Maseca alone accounts for 73% of the corn flour market and just three other companies make up most of the rest. Small producers have dubbed this collusion of interests and market control in the hands a few large corporations the "corn-tortilla cartel" and accused the Mexican government of " discouraging domestic production, gambling on unstable imports, and (causing) volatility in domestic corn prices ..."

Indeed, the Mexican government handed over millions of pesos in marketing subsidies. According to data from the government marketing agency Aserca, the Mexican government paid 37,776,174 pesos in "direct payments for marketing" to Cargill and Minsa alone for the fall-winter white corn harvest of 2005-2006 in the state of Sinaloa. The subsidy program has been harshly criticized; according to farm organization leader VÌctor Su·rez, "Aserca is the main agency for transferring public resources to monopolies ... maintaining disorder in agriculture and food markets, and advancing the concentration of production, marketing, and industrialization in very few hands."

As the poor clamored for food in the streets, Cargill – the world's largest grain trader – registered an 86% increase in profits from commodity trading in the first quarter of 2008. In Mexico, small farmers have seen producer prices fall as a result of imports and the elimination of government programs. Two million farmers have been displaced since NAFTA went into effect.

What many people don't know is that the tortilla crisis of January 2007 is not over. The government's voluntary program to place a ceiling on corn prices remains in place and the price has stabilized in some areas but the higher price continues to affect the diet of the poor. On May 5, tortilla vendors in the state of Chiapas announced a nearly 18% price hike to 10 pesos a kilo. Although a 15-cent increase may seem like a pittance to many consumers in the developed world, in Mexico's poorest state it threatens nutritional intake for thousands of families.

In a survey at a market in Mexico City's low-income urban neighborhoods, women shoppers said that after the January 2007 tortilla crisis they had to reduce their family's tortilla consumption by half. As one seÒora pointed out, "If we can't eat corn, we can't eat."

No part of the tortilla crisis had to do with a real problem of scarcity. And yet the response has been focused on unsustainable agricultural practices to raise yields. The biotech lobby has used the crisis to argue for an end to a government ban on cultivation of genetically modified corn. The new rules of a biosafety law made-to-order to their interests have encouraged seed companies like Monsanto to pressure for permits to sow GM corn, now claiming that the higher yields of these varieties will solve the tortilla crisis and lead to greater food security. Farmers' organizations warn that lifting the ban threatens native corn varieties, livelihoods, and the nation's food sovereignty. Mexico is a center of origin for corn, with hundreds of native varieties developed over the years by indigenous and non-indigenous small farmers. GM corn cross-pollinates naturally with native varieties, leading to already documented cases of genetic contamination of varieties that indigenous farmers have developed over centuries. The use of GM seed also makes farmers dependent on transnational seed companies, instead of relying on the millennia-old practices of seed-saving.

According to experts, a full-blown food crisis in Mexico is gestating. Tortilla vendors show signs of breaking the pact, and meat prices are on the rise. Food expert Blanca Rubio warns that scarcity could become a problem. Since NAFTA has eliminated all controls on imports, transnational corporations can threaten to import rather than paying decent prices to local producers, leading to disincentives to produce.

The Bank of Mexico reports that in 2007 Mexico paid $5 billion dollars more for 127 basic foods and agricultural inputs than in 2005 – a 62% increase. Two-thirds of the increases were for five products: corn, wheat, soy, powdered milk, and seeds. The cost of Mexico's food dependency totally cancelled out its windfall earnings from high oil prices.

"The Rich Don't Understand the Poor"

The standard explanation for the global food crisis rests on the convergence of the demand for food crops due to agrofuels, the hike in gas prices, urbanization, increased demand from emerging economies, climatic changes, and environmental deterioration from erosion and pollution.

All of these factors have played a part in the crisis. Agrofuel development has been mandated well into the future, although it may be slowing down as criticism mounts. A recent report by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) blames biofuels in part for price hikes. The report concludes, "Governments need to carefully consider the impact of bio-fuels on the poor." Gas prices are likely to remain high. With so much food moving around under free trade policies this will continue to affect the price and access.

Another, less mentioned, factor in the hike is speculation as investors search for new opportunities to make money out of money. On the Arancia corn website, a typical pitch from an investment company titled " How to Profit from the Corn Crunch of 2008" offers an easy way "to profit from ag-flation – a way that could reward forward-thinking investors with returns of 61% or more." The Economist reports "more febrile behavior seems to be influencing markets: export quotas by large grain producers, rumors of panic-buying by grain importers, money from hedge funds looking for new markets."

With agribusiness corporations posting record highs (like Cargill, ADM saw profits soar from $363 million in 2006 to $517 for 2007) and investors salivating over "ag-flation" windfalls, it's clear that what's a crisis for some is a bonanza for others. That in itself should be a clue that the structural problems with the global food system do not lie in poor yields, "inefficient" small farmers, or climatic disasters. It's manipulated prices; faulty trade, aid, and promotion policies; distribution and wrong priorities that are starving the world's most vulnerable inhabitants.

In Port-au-Prince, Sylvie St. Fleur has a simpler explanation. "Haiti doesn't suffer from a lack of food because there's no food, no! It is because the rich don't understand the poor."

Inadequate Proposals From the International Community

The food crisis is here to stay. The World Bank reports a 181% increase in wheat prices over the 36 months prior to February 2008, and overall global food prices registering an 83% percent rise. It predicts that food crop prices will remain high in 2008 and 2009 and then begin to decline, but maintain levels far above 2004 prices through 2015. World Bank president Robert Zoellick warns that the food crisis could push 100 million people worldwide into deeper poverty.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called it " an unprecedented challenge of global proportions that has become a crisis for the most vulnerable," and t he FAO has summoned a High-Level Conference on World Food Security, Climate Change, and Biofuels for June 3-5. U.S. President Bush has asked Congress for an emergency request of $700 million in food aid.

With information pouring in on the breakdown of access to food for the world's poorest across the globe, it's clear that the crisis is real. But a crisis mentality in seeking solutions only serves to divert attention from the deep structural faults in global food production, distribution, and consumption.

Oddly enough, international solutions do not address these fundamental issues. Policy prescriptions from the wealthy countries and international financial institutions emphasize hand-outs and more free trade. They tend toward increasing, not diminishing, developing country dependence on imports and aid, and further lining the pockets of the companies that are fleecing the public.

The World Bank's proposals include: "calling on the international community to make up the $500 million food gap required by the UN's World Food Program to meet emergency needs," increasing its loans for agriculture (promoting the same model that led to the loss of food sovereignty in developing countries facing today's food crisis), "expanding and improving access to safety net programs, such as cash transfers, and risk management instruments to protect the poor" and strengthening free trade through "advocacy on the negative impacts of policies such as export bans, which create price spikes in importing countries, and the high levels of trade tariffs and subsidies in the developed world." World Bank President Robert Zoellick, IMF Director Dominique Strauss-Kuhn, and former WTO President Pascal Lamy have all used the food crisis to argue for a reinvigorated Doha Round of the WTO to deepen the free trade system. This constitutes an offensive against measures that question the international markets which helped cause the food crisis.

Emergency aid measures focus on moving food around the globe, from where there's too much to where there's too little. This movement of food will add even more to the coffers of traders and agribusiness surplus producers, paid for by taxpayers. At the same time, it will do little or nothing to improve production. Moreover, wasn't that exactly what the free market system was supposed to do?

Bush's aid request once again repeats the model of food aid in-kind that has been harshly criticized for destroying markets for local production. Although he announced that approximately a quarter would go to purchasing local production, this is still a fraction of the amount and does not represent a thought-out change in priorities or practices.

Some proposals also center on boosting yields. The Economist , which has called the food crisis "the silent tsunami," inexplicably concludes that "farmers, slow to respond, will eventually plant more to reach a new market equilibrium." The conclusion is inexplicable since its own article states that "in most places there are no absolute shortages and the task is to lower domestic prices without doing too much harm to farmers." So why has the response of international agencies been focused on increasing production through technological innovation?

The answer is that international agriculture and food policy have been playing a stuck record for decades. Pat Mooney of the ETC Group has extensively criticized what he calls the "Silver Bullet" approach to the food crisis that relies on new technologies to increase yields when evidence shows that the lack of access to food for the hungry stems far more from prices and distribution. The "silver bullet" approach became global policy with the advent of the "Green Revolution" in agricultural technologies, which increased yields but led to environmental degradation and dependency of small farmers on chemical and seed purchases.

Small farmers should be supported to produce more food so their communities can depend less on the corporate-controlled international market. But under current conditions that will be difficult. Fertilizer prices in some cases have tripled over the last year. Some organizations note that this is a good opportunity to convert to organic production but they will need government support to do this and that support has not been forthcoming. If the price and market system is not corrected, small farmers will not be able to produce more in a more sustainable way, nor will they be able to market their product at decent prices.

Asking the Right Questions

As experts and policymakers begin to ask questions and commission studies to solve the global food crisis, it's remarkable that certain questions prevail and others have been virtually shut out of the discussion. The excluded areas of the debate include:

•

Government subsidies: Many articles and statements to date have named government subsidies as the cause of market distortions in food distribution and production. Indeed, free trade in agriculture with wealthy nations that heavily subsidize already privileged producers has hurt small farmers in developing countries. But how to encourage capital-starved family farmers in both developed and developing countries without government support programs? Negotiations in the World Trade Organization and bilateral agreements treat government agricultural subsidies as if they were the same issue for developed and developing countries, for agribusiness and for family farmers. They are not. Why not take into account the purpose, the type of subsidy (beyond the boxes), and who it helps? Why not create subsidies that encourage society's goals of agriculture that leads to creation of stable livelihoods, a sustainable food supply, and environmental conservation, and eliminate those that work contrary to those interests?

•

Patents on living organisms: Patents inhibit public research into public-interest agriculture by restricting the ability to share findings. Moreover, they have led to cases of looting of public gene banks by private interests. The production and promotion of patented plant and seed products has led to genetic contamination and stolen knowledge and livelihoods from small farmers and indigenous peoples. It's time for a serious debate about who these protections really benefit.

•

Concentration of global food trade: Institutions of global governance must take a hard look at the human cost of allowing a handful of transnational companies to control so much of our global food supply. Anti-trust laws must be applied to break up their stranglehold on international markets.

•

Supply management and market control measures: Governments need to rethink their absolute dependence on the international market for food. In addition to developing national food sovereignty policies, they should consider building reserves and supply management systems to control price volatility.

The policy recommendations of Mexican small farmers' organizations in the Chilpancingo Declaration of February 2007 sum up an alternative approach to the food crisis that reflects proposals of farmers' organizations in other parts of the world. Among them are to e stablish policies that promote food sovereignty through production of basic foods; campesino subsistence agriculture and organic production and that finance and assist campesino-owned corn storage and distribution businesses; strengthen campesino training and education and promote their organization in collective marketing agencies; eliminate subsidies to large producers, corporate sellers, and processors; renegotiate the agriculture chapter of NAFTA and eliminate any commercial agreements on "basic and strategic" products; establish a floor price for corn and other basic food products that compensates the costs of production; establish a mechanism by which the state regulates prices, supply, imports, and exports for corn and other basic foods.

The mass media portrays "food riots" in Latin America – demonstrations in the streets of Haiti, women banging on empty pots in Lima, cries for an affordable tortilla in Mexico – as ominous signs of instability. Instead they should be seen as wake-up calls to fix our most vital link to each other and to life itself – the food system.

Laura Carlsen (lcarlsen(a)ciponline.org) is director of the Americas Policy Program (www.americaspolicy.org) in Mexico City.

Biofuels: Whose Cry for Food Shall Be Answered?

Commodity Online, 19 May 2008.

MUMBAI -- amished bellies are crying from across the globe and the world's granaries are empty. Still, developed and developing nations are busy converting foodgrains into biofuels to feed their monster automobiles. Here, there is a question of priority for the world to answer. Whose cry for food should be answered first the man or the machine. It seems, if the present indications are anything to go by, nations are turning a deaf ear to the screams of empty stomachs in the world.

Hell-bent on tackling the global warming issues and bust to embrace the so-called development bandwagon, nations are blindly converting food grains like corn into fuel. But, one thing they forget is that you cannot convert thousands of litres of petroleum into a single wheat grain.

If you want to know the story of growing hunger, read on. The great wheat panic of 2007 saw global prices of the grain shoot up by over 92%. Rice and corn prices also rose sharply. Food riots have been reported from Kolkata to Namibia, Zimbabwe, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Austria, Hungary and Mexico. And the Food and Agricultural Organisation declared that 854 million people go hungry around the world. Things are expected to get worse in 2008.

Global consumption of wheat and rice has outstripped production for the past seven years running, except in 2004-05. Production is growing, but population is growing faster. If production is less than demand, then how do people get enough food? Each year, a certain portion of foodgrains is kept in stock, to be used next year. This is now getting used up for meeting excess demand.

Global wheat stocks were down to 107 million tonnes in 2007, compared with over 197 million tonnes in 2001; rice stocks were just 71 million tonnes compared with 136 million tonnes. All this means that the future supply of both wheat and rice is becoming more uncertain. That means prices are likely to shoot up further.

India stands at a tipping point, especially as foodgrain production is stagnating. Wheat output was 72.8 million tonnes in 2002. This year it is estimated at about 74 million tonnes. Rice output was 93.3 million tonnes in 2002 and this year it is estimated at about 90 million tonnes. Meanwhile, population has increased by about 88 million. So, there will be need for imports.

This, in turn, will fuel global prices. Several nations, which are facing food scarcity, have blamed the U.S. policy of diverting foodgrains such as corn for producing biofuels for the spurt in food grain prices globally. Union finance minister P. Chidambaram also criticised lack of adequate regulations in the U.S. sub-prime market, which has caused global financial uncertainties.

"It has been estimated that nearly 20% of corn grown in the United States is diverted for producing biofuels. As citizens of one world, we ought to be concerned about the foolishness of growing food and converting it into fuel," Chidambaram said. He said the demand for staple food was on the rise, leading to higher prices, but diverting food for fuel had also contributed to increase in food prices. "If this had happened in developing countries, we would have been lectured on the virtues of bankruptcy. Since this is happening in developed countries, no one pauses to ask whether all the old arguments are not being made to stand on their head," Chidambaram said. Wondering what had happened to the declaration of the Millennium Development Goals and the inspiring slogan 'Make Poverty History', Chidambaram said, "If we are serious about ending poverty, the place to start is to make food and fuel available at reasonable prices at which people can consume adequate quantities of food and at which fuel becomes not a constraint but a driver of growth."

Joining Chidambaram's concerns is Nobel Peace Prize winner and climate change scientist Rajendra Pachauri. He said: "The world must take care when developing biofuels to avoid perverse environmental effects and higher food prices." He questioned whether the United States' policy of converting corn into ethanol for use as a transport fuel would reduce the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

Environmentalists and politicians say the move has raised food prices, distorted government budgets and led to deforestation in Southeast Asia and Brazil. "We should be very, very careful about coming up with biofuel solutions that have major impact on production of food grains and may have an implication for overall food security," Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said. Scientists say some kinds of biofuels generate as much carbon dioxide (CO2) as the fossil fuels they replace.

Supporters, however, say biofuels are the only renewable alternative to fossil fuels and do generally result in greenhouse gas emission savings. Pachauri said it was crucial to look at other ways of producing biofuels, including investing strongly in research and development to convert cellulosic material into liquid fuels, as well as using agricultural residues. Even if all of the American land under cultivation today is used to produce biofuels, U.S. will only be able to meet 6% of its diesel and 12% of its petrol requirements by 2020.

Similarly, some 40% of Europe's cultivated land would need to go under biofuel production to meet the 10% replacement target. Clearly diverting this amount of land currently under cultivation in the U.S. and E.U. to biofuels is unlikely and the burden of biofuel and grain production would hence shift, in part, to the already stressed developing countries.

It is noted that even with the current level of diversion of soybean cultivation to corn in the U.S. has doubled its price in a year. Prices of edible oils, wheat, corn, rice and other food commodities have also gone through the roof in recent years as more and more land provides the feedstock for biofuels. The world food stocks are at a 25-year low. It is pointed out that the high price of foodgrains does not help the poor and hungry.

It is estimated that for every 1% rise in the price of cereals the calorie intake of the poor goes down by half a percent. Thus, instead of eradicating hunger, the world is at a risk of doubling its 800 million hungry by 2030 if it sticks to its plans for growing first generation biofuels based on corn, sugarcane, edible oils and newer crops such as sweet sorghum and jatropha.

Clearly, the roadmap for promoting first generation biofuels is a treacherous one. Yet India and the world must pursue biofuels in an energy-starved world, the choice is not which energy form should nations pursue, but which other energy form can we pursue. This is even more critical for India where bioenergy is, and shall remain, an important part of its energy mix.

The Positive Side

And, the rosy side of biofuel is also there. In Brazil, cars have been running on biodiesel for years, while in Sweden, Ford's flex-fuel models are outselling its ordinary petrol and diesel cars. Such progress for the fuel is not primarily due to a particularly environmentally-aware customer base. Rather, it has come about through government incentives.

In Brazil, where biofuel cars now outsell ordinary cars, a state-run bioethanol fuel programme was originally set up for patriotic, not financial or environmental reasons. It was a strategic decision taken by the military government that ran the country from 1964 to 1985, inspired by a desire to reduce its dependence on petroleum imports following the 1970s oil crisis.

Sweden's state-backed bioethanol programme, meanwhile, ensures that there is no duty on the fuel. E85-enabled cars are offered free parking in Gothenburg, Stockholm, and other municipalities. Biofuel cars are also 20% cheaper to insure and are exempt from the Stockholm congestion charge, while both personal and fleet users pay less tax.

But if this sounds like a high economic price to pay for a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, consider this: Sweden gets more than that for its money. As is the case in Britain, Sweden too needs to create rural jobs, and the biofuels sector has the potential to provide that in spades. Then there is the potential benefit from being at the cutting edge of a new technology; there is even talk of a future where grain is genetically modified to create more efficient biofuels.

The world market for biofuels has expanded rapidly in recent years as combination of domestic politics, rising oil prices, increasing concerns about global warming, and potential economic opportunity have spurred a broad range of countries to pass laws that support biofuel industries.

World biofuel production will track increases in demand as most countries seek to foster domestic biofuel industries, both to reduce reliance upon imported oil and to spur domestic economic development. This will continue to favour the development of cereal-based (maize and wheat) bioethanol capacity in North America and Western Europe, as well as sugarcane-based bioethanol production in Latin America.

Basic biofuels 'make no sense,' EU commissioner says

EU Observer, 19 May 2008. By Leigh Phillips.

The EU's enterprise and industry commissioner has called for a stronger focus on so-called second-generation biofuels, which do not compete with food crops and are more environmentally friendly.

"It makes no sense to make car fuel from plants that ought to provide human and animal food," commissioner Gunter Verheugen said in an interview with German newspaper Bild am Sonntag over the weekend.

"What matters to the commission is sustainable development," he added. "It will not work if production of basic foodstuffs is hindered or tropical forest is cut down [to make way for biofuel crops]."

The commissioner highlighted technology using hydrogen, referring to the second-generation fuel, biohydrogen, which is produced from biomass feedstock and can be used in fuel cells to produce electricity.

Biofuels in transport

EU leaders last spring agreed that the EU should increase the use of biofuels in transport fuel to 10 percent by 2020, up from a planned 5.75 percent target to be achieved by 2010.

But Mr Verheugen's statement echoes worries that first-generation biofuels such as biodiesel and bioethanol in some cases emit more greenhouse gases over the course of their lifecycle and use source crops which can compete with staple food crops, helping push up world food prices.

Second-generation biofuels, also known as "lignocellulosic" fuels can use any parts of a plant - stalks, leaves, corncobs, rice hulls and other "waste."

Such fuels are much more environmentally friendly, with a much higher net energy gain than first-generation biofuels. Lignocellulosic ethanol can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by around 90% when compared with fossil petroleum.

As the source materials are not edible, they should not have any effect on food prices.

Production technology is not yet as advanced as for first-generation counterparts, however.

And some environmentalists worry that using agricultural waste as biofuels rather than to replenish fields with nutrients would mean an increased use of fertilisers, and hence still requiring a dependence on fossil fuels as they are used in the production process, in particular nitrogen fertiliser's use of natural gas.

The biofuels industry, for its part, is concerned that without policy support for first-generation biofuels, investment funds will not become available for the development of second or even third generation models.

Biofuels moratorium

In a separate development on Friday (16 May), the International Food Policy Research Institute issued a report urging the European Union and the United States to halt biofuel subsidies and called for a biofuels moratorium.

The Washington-based research centre described a basket of influences that had resulted in high food costs. "Rising energy prices and subsidised biofuel production, income and population growth, globalisation, and urbanisation are among the major forces contributing to surging demand," it said.

The report also blamed land and water constraints, poor rural infrastructure, weather disruptions and export bans in certain countries.

It singled out EU and US biofuels policy for particular criticism: "With the US government and the European Union subsidising agriculture-based energy, farmers have massively shifted their cultivation toward crops for biofuel."

"Increased biofuel demand from 2000-2007 contributed to some 30 percent of the average increase of cereal prices," the report said.

18 May 2008

Biosafety Protocol parties to work for legally binding rules

APU Newswire, 18 May 2008.

New York -- A week-long meeting of parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-Safety has agreed to work towards legally binding rules of liability and redress for potential damage caused by movement of genetically modified organisms (GMO).

But reaching an actual agreement could take years as several contentious issues would need to be sorted out.

The contents of the legally binding instrument for liability and redress for the GMOs will be discussed at the next meeting of the parties to the Protocol, itself a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

That meeting is scheduled to take place in October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan.

Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Secretary to the Convention, welcomed the agreement, calling it "great news for the biodiversity family." While GMOs have the potential to increase agricultural yields and to grow in habitats otherwise unfavourable to crops, there are also widespread concerns that they might pose major threats to local ecosystems and biodiversity.

The Protocol on Biosafety, which came into force on Sept 11, 2003, seeks to protect biodiversity from potential risks posed by living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology.

Biopirates hijack traditional knowledge about nature

Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 18 May 2008.

Hamburg - Business concerns in the West often make money by patenting their own medicines and agricultural products based on the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples.

A US company has patented a yellow bean grown for thousands of years in South America, while pesticides using substances from the Indian neem tree have been sold by transnational corporations in Europe and elsewhere.

A company in Germany is marketing a cure for respiratory ailments based on extracts from the African Pelargonium plant genus.

Some of these patents have been returned after years of litigation, but that is not enough for some participants at the UN conference on biodiversity, which takes place in Bonn from May 19-30.

The UN gathering wants to make traditional knowledge less vulnerable to unauthorized use and ensure that adequate financial compensation is made to the communities that possess such knowledge.

'The foundation stone has to be laid so that we can come to a concrete agreement by 2010,' says Konrad Uebelhoer, biodiversity director at the German Society for Technical Cooperation (GTZ).

One of the main demands, he said, is that business and researchers be required to seek permission in the individual countries before they start searching for medicinal plants or genes.

The local communities should also be consulted in the application of traditional knowledge, which is based on practice and has often been passed on through many generations.

'It is necessary to have a clear formula for profit-sharing,' according to Uebelhoer. This could also include transferring the technology used to identify the active ingredients to the countries of origin, he says.

Some 190 nations have signed up to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. The only industrialized nation that has not joined is the United States, one of the world's leading pharmaceutical producers.

Washington, Uebelhoer says, does not object to the first two goals of the convention - the protection of biodiversity and its sustainable development. It is the third aim of justly distributing the profits from the use of biological agents that has run into opposition from the powerful US pharmaceutical industry.

Andreas Drews, who also works for the GTZ, says those applying for patents are not required to state where the biological ingredients come from, leading to an undetermined amount of biopiracy.

The scientist wants changes made to the way patents are granted in order to stop this practice.

'We demand a formal disclosure of where the resources come from before biological ingredients, novel food and cosmetics can be registered,' he says.

'Novel food' is the term used for new foodstuffs, in particular genetically modified foods.

This is already the case in Norway, says Drews, whose organization is responsible for carrying out projects authorized by the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.

There has already been some success in ensuring that some of the wealth gained from derivatives of traditional knowledge is returned to the holders of that knowledge.

Among the beneficiaries are the San people in southern Africa, according to Frank Barsch, an expert on the protection of species at the environmental organization WWF.

These hunter-gatherers chew the cactus-like hoodia plant to still hunger and thirst pangs on their long journeys through the inhospitable Kalahari desert.

The South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) isolated the appetite suppressant P57 contained in the plant and patented it as a dietary supplement. Dutch-based Unilever is now developing the product.

After much protest, CSIR signed a deal with the San in 2003 on sharing the potential benefits of the product, which is being touted as a potential cure for obesity.

Under the deal, to which Unilever is expected to contribute from 2009, San communities will be able to access royalties from a trust fund to finance social projects.

'This does not happen enough because the peoples involved have to be taught how to make an application for compensation,' says Barsch, who spent three years with the San, helping them replant the hoodia because it was in danger of being eradicated.

The WWF wants the Bonn conference to agree to royalties from such products being used for a social and ecological sustainable development.

Conservationists lament departure of Brazilian minister

World Wide Fund for Nature, 18 May 2008.

The sudden resignation of Brazilian Environment Minister on 13 May has been greeted with shock and regret by the conservationist community.

"This is a clear sign that environmental issues are not in the agenda of the government"?, said Denise Hamú, WWF-Brazil's Secretary General.

"Since Marina Silva took office in January 2003, she was counteracted and discredited by the Federal Government"?, said Hamú. "Examples include during the debates on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), alternatives for agri-business and especially the process to license hydroelectric dams on the Madeira River in the Amazon."

WWF-Brazil paid tribute to significant progress in the environmental field achieved during Minister Silva's office. Among others: the forestry policy to grant forest concessions, measures to monitor, prevent and fight deforestation, the creation of the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) to manage federal protected area sites; efforts for the approval of the Atlantic Forest Law in the Congress, and the creation of the Brazilian Forestry Service.

According to Denise Hamú, the minister's resignation is generating much insecurity towards the future.

"She tried in vain to build a sustainable development policy that involved all ministries and not just her own.

Another factor that, according to WWF-Brazil, contributed to the Minister's resignation was President Lula's recent decision not to delegate to her the coordination of the Sustainable Amazon Plan launched earlier in May.

For WWF-Brazil's Secretary General, the resignation of Marina Silva is also a great loss, because of her background. She was born in a village in a remote area of the Amazon region, has strong links with the social movement and has been very active in environmental defence during her whole political career.

"Marina Silva's resignation will have international repercussions for Brazil, and the only positive aspect is that we will have an excellent senator back", said Hamú.

The politician was re-elected senator in 2002 for the State of Acre and her terms ends in 2010.

On the same day Marina Silva resigned, some 200 farmers, forest product workers and fishermen participated in a public hearing in the House of Representatives on the delay caused by defining the status of protected area sites.

And on May 13 also, a demonstration was held in front of the National Congress with the objective to put the Federal Government under pressure so as to accelerate the creation of extractive reserves in the northern, northeaster and Midwestern regions of the country.

Brazil: Environmental cloud over Silva's exit seen to clear

Financial Times, 18 May 2008. By Jonathan Wheatley in São Paulo.

Brazil will get a new environment minister this week amid a storm of controversyover the departure of his predecessor.

Marina Silva, who held the job for five years, stepped down last week after becoming increasingly isolated within government. Her resignation caused dismay among environmental activists around the globe.

It is easy to see why. Ms Silva has a powerful personality and a straight-talking determination that helped her overcome poverty, disease and illiteracy in her childhood and adolescence in the Amazon state of Acre. In rising to the ministry and, in effect, the guardianship of more than half of the world's surviving tropical rainforest, she showed a readiness to tackle the loggers and farmers who have cleared 1m sq km of land in the Amazon in recent decades.

Her departure has been seen as clearing the way for this destruction to continue unchecked. But Ms Silva's going may not precipitate the disaster many have predicted. She was remarkably unsuccessful in her job, losing one battle after another to the "developmentalists" in President Luiz In·cio Lula da Silva's government and, most recently, antagonising farmers and ranchers, many of whom had begun to adopt more responsible practices.

"For the environmental movement, she was the best minister we've ever had, no doubt about it," says Paulo Moutinho, head of Ipam, an Amazon research institute in BrasÌlia. He counts among her big achievements the formulation of a forest management programme and the fact that 11 different ministries now share responsibility for the environment.

"She changed the government's way of thinking," he says. "Five years ago it hated even talking about deforestation." Now Brazil is leading moves to get international funding to pay for environmental services provided by forest preservation.

But in terms of battles fought and lost - over genetically modified crops, Brazil's third nuclear reactor and many others - Ms Silva was a failure. Most damaging, perhaps, will be the antagonism she has sparked over what appears to be a worsening pace of deforestation on the southern rim of the Amazon, after three years of substantial improvement.

Ms Silva's punitive measures especially irritated Blairo Maggi, governor of Mato Grosso state, where most of the worst-affected counties are located. Mr Maggi is one of the world's biggest producers of soya and in recent years has gone from villain almost to hero of the environmental movement for his leadership of a soya moratorium, under which traders have stopped buying the crop from recently deforested land.

Ms Silva opposed moves to help farmers and ranchers conform with the law, insisting they should be punished. Yet many producers say they are forced into criminality by legal inconsistencies and that her tough line will undermine initiatives encouraging them to replant sensitive areas.

Ms Silva's successor is Carlos Minc, formerly environment secretary in the state of Rio de Janeiro, where he earned a reputation for cutting red tape holding up environmental licences for infrastructure projects.

He has promised less bureaucracy but greater rigour in the licensing process and has also pledged to continue Ms Silva's policies unchanged. His biggest challenge will be to deliver results as successfully as Ms Silva raised awareness of environmental issues.

Groups and Scientists Call for Halt to Releases of Genetically Engineered Trees

The Canadian, 18 May 2008. by Phiona Hamilton-Gordon, ed.

BONN, Germany -- Organizations and scientists from around the world spoke about their opposition to genetically engineered trees in relation to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity's Ninth Conference of the Parties (CBD COP-9). [1] They are demanding that governments at the UN agree to accept the proposal to suspend all releases of genetically engineered (GE) trees into the environment, due to their extreme ecological and social threats.

Camila Moreno, a researcher from Terra de Direitos in Brazil further explained, "there is a clear link between two of the major issues to be discussed at this meeting -- agrofuels (biofuels) and GE trees." She added, "A clear sign of this is the ethanol cooperation agreement being signed by Brazil and Germany. While German Chancellor Angela Merkel was in Brazil, Brazil's President Luiz In·cio Lula da Silva assured her that so-called second generation biofuels -- made from GE trees and other cellulose -- would better suit the German market."

"Genetically Engineered trees threaten to contaminate native forests around the world with unnatural and destructive traits such as the ability to kill insects, or have reduced lignin--the substance that enables a tree to stand up straight and withstand disease," stated Anne Petermann, Co-Director of Global Justice Ecology Project (the North American Focal Point for Global Forest Coalition) and Co-Coordinator of the STOP GE Trees Campaign. "Escape of these GE tree traits into forests would devastate wildlife, biodiversity and forest-dependent communities. It is for this reason that 137 groups from 34 countries have become members of the STOP GE Trees Campaign to demand a global ban on genetically engineered trees," she added.

At the CBD COP-8 in Curitiba, Brazil in 2006, the CBD passed an historic decision that urged countries to use the precautionary approach with regard to genetically engineered trees. This amounts to a de facto moratorium since the precautionary approach is a direct reference to the precautionary principle, enshrined in the CBD. Groups are now calling on the CBD to strengthen this decision into a binding halt to any release of GE trees into the environment.

"The CBD should take measures to stop the expansion of large-scale monoculture plantations, and ban both transgenic trees and 'terminator' technology. This is the request supported by many organizations around the world as stated in our 'Open letter to the COP', " said Ana Filippini, of the World Rainforest Movement, one of the organizations promoting this initiative. WRM is the Southern Hub of the STOP GE Trees Campaign. The Campaign will have a very visible and vocal presence throughout the COP-9, with numerous events and activities planned throughout the two-week period.

Endnotes:

[1] Speakers included:

Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher, biologist, geneticist, Director, EcoNexus, Representative, Federation of German Scientists; Dr. Michael Hansen, Researcher, Consumers Union Camila Moreno, Researcher, Terra de Direitos, Brazil; Anne Petermann, Co-Director, Global Justice Ecology Project, North American Focal Point for Global Forest Coalition and Co-coordinator of STOP GE Trees Campaign; Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

India: 'Panel ignored Bt cotton toxicity evidence'

The Times of India, 18 May 2008

NEW DELHI: While Bt brinjal is at an advanced stage of being cleared for commercial cultivation, a Supreme Court nominee to the regulatory body has come up with a "major argument" to suspend the existing cultivation of Bt cotton due to bio-safety concerns about genetically modified crops.

Molecular scientist P M Bhargava, who was appointed three months ago at the instance of SC as a special invitee to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), found that the regulator had ignored evidence of toxicity in Bt cotton leading to the death of hundreds of sheep in Andhra Pradesh.

In a letter to GEAC dated May 14, Bhargava said that the three documents relied upon by the regulator "contradict ... unequivocally" its own claim that the mortality of sheep might be due to pesticide residues rather than Bt toxin.

According to the minutes of the GEAC meeting held on April 2, other members told Bhargava that the studies commissioned by them "indicate that the sheep deaths might be due to high content of nitrates/nitrites, residues of hydrocyanide (HCN) and organophosphates which are common ingredients of pesticides used during cotton cultivation and not those of Bt toxin."

But the three expert reports given to Bhargava subsequently, in a bid to justify GEAC's clean chit to Bt cotton, have turned out to be, in his opinion, evidence strongly suggesting "the possibility or even the probability" of Bt cotton causing the death of sheep which had grazed on that crop.

Dept of Animal Husbandry, govt of AP, in its letter dated May 9, 2007, admitted that "bio-safety studies were not taken up in sheep and also trials did not include continuous grazing/feeding of complete Bt cotton plants to animals."

It also said that the samples were "negative for HCN, Nitrates, Nitrites, Alkaloids and Glycocides." The state government therefore advised shepherds "not to graze their animals in harvested Bt cotton fields till the definite cause is established."

Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh, in its letter dated June 18, 2007, said, "Bt cotton samples tested in the Toxicology Laboratory of this centre showed absence of HCN, Nitrate/Nitrite, Alkaloids and Glycocides."

Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, wrote to GEAC that "the bio-safety studies on grazing Bt cotton crop by sheep are lacking."

In keeping with his SC-given mandate of lending more transparency to GEAC's functioning, Bhargava called for a review of its assertion that the rise in sheep mortality had nothing to do with Bt cotton. He said the three reports cited by GEAC "underscore the fact that no serious studies to rule this out have been done so far.

This would be a major argument to suspend all cultivation of Bt cotton until we have definitive data on the toxicity of Bt plants to animals on field."

Founder director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Bhargava was a member of the Knowledge Commission set up by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

In February, the Supreme Court directed his appointment to GEAC along with another scientist, M S Swaminathan, on a PIL filed by activist Aruna Rodrigues alleging that the regulatory system for GM crops was skewed in favour of multinational companies to the detriment of bio-safety.

Is biotech food ethical?

Beyond Biotechnology: The Barren Promise of Genetic Engineering
Craig Holdrege and Steve Talbott
University Press of Kentucky, 272 pp., $45

The Star-Ledger (USA). Book review by Kitta McPherson.

One of the most disturbing as pects of the bitter, roiling 1990's debate over the safety of genetically modified food was the fact that it pitted groups of very good scientists against one another.

How was a public to decide?

Molecular biologists, made confident by the medical advances brought on by the techniques of genetic engineering, could see little difference between those earlier experiments and those proposed in altering or substituting genes in plants or animal products that would be consumed by humans. Ecologists, on the other hand, were shocked by what they viewed as the cavalier attitude of the mol-bio crowd to play dice with what ecologists saw as an intricately connected web of life in which every change matters.

Ultimately, the U.S. government, through agencies like the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, allowed such food to be brought to market. But it's difficult to say who really won the argu ment, if the success of chains like Whole Foods is any indicator. Eco logical scientists have certainly not conceded defeat and have not given up watching and waiting. They take the long view.

With this work, Craig Holdrege, director of the Nature Institute, and Steve Talbott, a senior researcher there, are laying the philosophical groundwork for this continued opposition. They are in good company. The book is part of a se ries examining the "new agraria nism" with an advisory board that includes some of ecology's leading lights -- Wendell Berry, Wes Jackson, Bill McKibben and Michael Pollan among them.

Agricultural biotechnology, the authors say, is doomed to fail be cause its practitioners have the wrong worldview -- one that is too reductionist. The gene manipula tors, they say, literally cannot see the forest for the trees, and are doomed by such ignorance. The book opens with the iconic image of an endless expanse of Nebraskan prairie, filled with gently swaying, genetically engineered corn. The reader is invited to decide whether the vision is ideal or hellish.

Genetic engineering allows us the possibility of manipulating living organisms, by zeroing in and making single-gene changes, much more efficiently than ever before. But that precision, the authors say, is illusory. Mankind does not know enough about the complexities of a cell, let alone an ecosystem, to be making such changes. And, the authors press on, even if we did possess such knowledge, such changes would be morally wrong.

"This is the decisive question," they write: "Does the organism possess a wholeness, an integrity, that demands our respect? And can we gain a deep enough understanding of it to say, 'This change is a further expression of the organism's governing unity, and that change is a violation of it.'?"

While some chapters are dedicated to criticizing other aspects of agricultural biotechnology, questioning claims about the viability of the much celebrated and still experimental "golden rice" (genetically engineered to contain Vitamin A), the book extends its inquiry by looking more widely at genetics research.

The authors correctly skewer some of the architects of the human genome project whose claims to have decoded the "book of life" now seem premature. The authors are on shakier ground when they try to link the mindsets of molecular biologists and particle physicists. True, scientists in both fields often do focus on the realm of the super-small. They can still, however, possess a view that's as big-picture as any ecologist's.

Kitta MacPherson is a science writer based in Princeton.

17 May 2008

Participants at UN-backed meeting agree to work towards rules on biosafety

UN News Centre, 17 May 2008.

More than 2,000 participants attending a week-long biosafety meeting that wrapped up yesterday have agreed to work towards legally binding rules for liability and redress for potential damage caused by the movements of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) reports.

The participants at the fourth meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, held in Bonn, Germany, and said to be the largest ever gathering on the issue, have reached a deal on both a timetable and a framework for negotiating the rules and procedures.

The contents of the legally binding instrument for liability and redress for the GMOs, also known as living modified organisms (LMOs), will now be discussed at the next meeting of the parties to the Protocol, itself a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity. That meeting is scheduled to take place in October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan.

Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Secretary to the Convention, welcomed the agreement, calling it "great news for the biodiversity family."

While GMOs or LMOs have the potential to increase agricultural yields and to grow in habitats otherwise unfavourable to crops, there are also widespread concerns that they might pose major threats to local ecosystems and therefore biodiversity.

USA: Tomato Genetically Modified To Be More Expensive

The Onion.com, 17 May 2008.

PASADENA, CA – Geneticists at the California Institute of Technology announced Monday that they have developed a tomato with a 31 percent larger price tag than a typical specimen of the vine-ripened fruit. "By utilizing an exciting new breakthrough in gene-splicing technology, we've been able to manipulate this new tomato with recombinant DNA in such a manner as to make it nearly as pricey as a similarly sized tangelo," said Dr. Lee Nolan, who headed up the project.

"Genetically modified crops such as this will be instrumental in helping average grocers keep pace with unaffordable organic stores such as Whole Foods." In addition to vastly surpassing similar produce in expense, the new tomato will reportedly wipe out four species of ladybugs.

16 May 2008

Study shows: Research and authorities infiltrated by biotech lobby

www.lobbycontrol.de/blog, 16 May 2008.

The non-governmental organization Corporate Europe Observatory exposes who is behind the allegedly independent "Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI)". PRRI claims to represent thousands of scientists of various institutions. It is also present at the Ninth Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and at its preparatory conference. A leading member of PRRI is Gerard Barry who used to work for the biotech company Monsanto. Willy de Greef, board member of PRRI, was recently elected to be the secretary general of the lobbying organization EuropaBio, representing the interests of the biotechnology industry in Europe. Among others, this initiative is financed by Monsanto, CropLife International and by ISAAA, an organization promoting the spreading of biotech seed material in developing countries.

•

Corporate Europe Observatory Study "How public are the public research lobbyists of PRRI?" [1]

How intimately business, lobbying organizations and approving authorities are intertwined is shown in a study commissioned by Ulrike Höfgen, spokesperson for Nutrition and Consumer Questions of the Green Party Faction in the [German] Parliament. The interests of the biotech industry can, repeatedly, be found in the scientific positions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the [German] Federal Agency for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL). One of the reasons for this is, e.g., that working groups formulating the guidelines for the surveillance of biotech plant cultivation are manned by agro-multinationals such as Bayer and Monsanto. Currently, the biotech lobby is attempting in Bonn to prevent international regulations concerning the liability for contamination and consequential effects and to put "voluntary commitments" in its place.

•

Study by Antje Lorch and Christoph Then commissioned by Ulrike Höfken "Kontrolle oder Kollaboration ‚ Agro-Gentechnik und die Rolle der Beh–rden" (title translation: "Control or Collaboration ‚ Agro-Biotechnology and the Role of Government Authorities") [2]

•

Report and Comments on the Study on Ulrike H–fgenís website "Alles Filz, oder was?"[3]

[1] http://www.corporateeurope.org/docs/PRRIbriefing.pdf (in English)

[2] http://www.ulrike-hoefken.de/cms/default/dokbin/232/232887.
kontrolle_oder_kollaboration_agrogentech.pdf (in German)

[3] http://www.ulrike-hoefken.de/cms/default/dok/232/232885.
kontrolle_oder_kollaboration_agrogentech.html (in German)

Group agrees on liability for GMO damage

Business Week, 16 May 2008. By Arthur Max.

Amsterdam, Netherlands -- An international conference agreed Friday to hold producers or handlers of genetically engineered organisms liable for damage their products cause to native plants or animals when transported across borders.

The agreement, concluding a five-day, 147-nation conference in Bonn, Germany, will be refined into an accord that will have the force of law for its signatories -- a process expected to take two years, said the German government representative, Ursula Heinen.

The agreement would not be legally binding on the United States, however, since Washington has not ratified the 1992 Biodiversity Convention and is not a party to the convention's Cartagena Protocol on the safety of biotech products, which came into force in 2003, conference spokesman David Ainsworth said.

"We will have a legal obligation as regards to liability and redress for damage caused to biodiversity, to plants and animals," Heinen said at a news conference broadcast on the Internet.

"This is a political compromise. Now the legal experts will begin working at it," she said.

The agreement, adopted by consensus at the final plenary, could be a major step in the bitter debate over genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, which are widely used in U.S. agricultural products.

Most GMO products are banned in Europe, for fear that their seeds will accidentally spread and alter the natural surroundings.

The Greenpeace environmental movement, which denounces gene-modified plants as dangerous, says the agreement has too many loopholes that could be exploited during the next two years of negotiations.

Brazil, an exporter of modified crops, led the opposition to legally binding measures, but finally agreed to a text that could allow it to opt out under certain conditions, said Greenpeace campaigner Doreen Stabinsky.

"There's still a big fight ahead of us. I am not at all optimistic about the ultimate outcome," Stabinsky said.

The meeting, which focused on safety and responsibility for transporting and handling GMOs, set the stage for a major conference of 6,000 delegates on the Biodiversity Convention, due to begin Monday in Bonn.

Talks on liability have been going on for four years and were to have been concluded in Bonn. That target has now been set back to the next Biodiversity Convention conference in 2010 in Japan.

The accord says "operators" responsible for contamination by GMOs will be held liable, but the experts must define how responsibility will be assigned and how they would be assessed for damages, said Heinen, who is a deputy minister for food, agriculture and consumer protection.

Ahmed Djobhlaf, the secretary general of the Biodiversity Convention, said public pressure is mounting on companies to protect biodiversity and produce green products.

"This battle of life on earth we will not win if we do not have the active economic sector on board," he said.

UN biosafety conference agrees in principle on liability deal

Deutsche Presse Agentur, 16 May 2008.

BONN - A UN conference on biosafety reached a preliminary agreement Friday on liability for environmental damage arising from the use of genetically modified organisms in farming. The accord initially provides for countries to claim compensation from those directly responsible for environmental damage or from the manufacturers of the genetic products that caused the damage.

But the conference was unable to finalize an internationally legally binding agreement that identifies those who should be held liable and who should pay compensation.

Further negotiations were needed to work out the details, said Ahmed Djoghlaf, executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, at the end of the five-day meeting in Bonn.

He said the negotiations would take place over the next two years and the result presented to the next biosafety conference to be held in Japan in 2010.

Ursula Heinen, the agriculture ministry secretary of state who represented Germany at the Bonn conference, called the outcome "a genuine success."

It was the first time in four years that the around 150 nations linked by the convention were able to agree in principle on rules for government liability and compensation, she said.

Environmental groups claimed the agreement did not go far enough.

Greenpeace's Doreen Stabinsky said the conference "has failed" because it did not agree on clear rules that would hold gene technology concerns accountable for damage.

The organization's biosafety expert, Jan van Aken, blamed Japan and Brazil for blocking a legally binding agreement.

The negotiations centred on who is liable for compensation caused by possible damage to the environment resulting from the use of genetically modified crops or plants.

The signatories to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety had set 2008 as the goal for reaching a binding agreement.

The world's leading gene technology companies wanted a voluntary agreement instead of binding rules but dropped this demand in Bonn, Heinen said.

There are no legally defined redress and liability elements in the Cartagena Protocol, making it difficult to determine who can claim and who has to pay for economic, health or environmental damage.

Less well-off developing countries are particularly keen on binding rules, otherwise they see little chance of success in damage claims involving biotechnology concerns.

Terminator seeds are "grossly immoral" say theologians

Independent Catholic News (LONDON), 16 May 2008

Three widely respected theologians have condemned Terminator technology - which produces genetically engineered plants with sterile seeds - as "grossly immoral".

Writing in a new publication, commissioned by Catholic development charity Progressio, Jesuit Priest Roland Lesseps, Father Seán McDonagh and Father Donal Dorr say the controversial GM technology, which is currently restricted by a temporary UN ban, offers "no benefit for farmers and consumers" and would have "long-term consequences for the environment".

Biotechnology companies claim that 'Terminator' seeds would be used to produce GM crops and trees which are engineered to stop GM traits spreading to other plants by inserting a 'suicide' gene. But Father Seán McDonagh, writing in the new publication, says: "There is simply no such thing as a safe and acceptable form of Terminator".

Instead, the theologians warn that the technology could have catastrophic effects on the poorest farmers in the developing world. Presently, 1.4 billion farmers rely on the practice of seed-saving to grow food to feed their families. If Terminator technology is commercialised, farmers' food security would be under threat. "Since poor farmers cannot afford to buy seed every year, they will go hungry", writes Roland Lesseps.

The theological argument against Terminator is equally striking, say the report's authors. "Terminator technology attacks the very principle of life itself", writes Lesseps. "Destroying the life principle in an organism is not a right relationship with creation which should be received as a gift from God to be shared by all."

The new publication, entitled "Unless the grain of wheat shall die", has been produced to coincide with the May 19-30 meeting of the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), where the current UN ban on Terminator technology is likely to be discussed. The CBD has the power to lift the ban completely.

Progressio also launches its new report on Terminator technology, Against the Grain, today. The report urges the UK and EU to voice their support for the current UN ban on the technology and ensure it is upheld. The new report is available online at: http://www.progressio.org.uk

Progressio is a UK-based Catholic charity working to tackle poverty and injustice in developing countries. It has been campaigning against Terminator technologies since 2005 and is a founding member of the UK Working Group on Terminator technology and its current Chair. Progressio is also a member of the UK Food Group.

Key UN Committee slams effects of GM corporate feudalism in India

UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
Fortieth session
28 April - 16 May 2008
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/cescrs40.htm

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLES 16 AND 17 OF THE COVENANT

Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights INDIA

29. The Committee is deeply concerned that the extreme hardship being experienced by farmers has led to an increasing incidence of suicides by farmers over the past decade. The Committee is particularly concerned that the extreme poverty among small-hold farmers caused by the lack of land, access to credit and adequate rural infrastructures, has been exacerbated by the introduction of genetically modified seeds by multinational corporations and the ensuing escalation of prices of seeds, fertilisers and pesticides, particularly in the cotton industry.

69. The Committee urges the State party, in addition to the full implementation of the planned farmer debt waiver programme, to take all necessary measures to address the extreme poverty among small-holding farmers and to increase agricultural productivity as a matter of priority, by inter alia: developing the rural infrastructures including irrigation as part of the Bharat Nirman programme; providing financial and other forms of assistance to families of suicide victims; ensuring that the existing agricultural insurance schemes, including the Crop Insurance Scheme and the Calamity Relief Fund, are fully implemented and are accessible to all farmers; providing state subsidies to enable farmers to purchase generic seeds which they are able to re-use, with a view to eliminating their dependency on multinational corporations. The Committee also recommends the State party to review the Seed Bill (2004) in light of its obligations under the Covenant and draw the attention of the State party to para. 19 of the Committee's General Comment No.12 on the right to adequate food (1999).

Aresa has achieved to get permission from the Serbian authorities to plant transgenic tobacco for the detection of explosives

M2 Presswire, 16 May 2008.

Aresa has achieved to get permission from the Serbian authorities to plant transgenic tobacco for the detection of explosives It is the second time in two attempts that Aresa has achieved to get permission to plant transgenic plants in Serbia. This time the permission is related to the recently transformed RedDetect version in the tobacco plant.

"I am very delighted that we receive the permission now, as it means we can continue our plans of sowing our genetically modified tobacco for the detection of explosives from land mines in Serbia this summer", says Steen Thaarup, CEO of Aresa, and continues: "We have now achieved two of the four objectives we set up for 2008, and we still expect to be able to report a successful color change in tobacco after growth in soil with explosives by the end of 2008".

The first objective achieved in Q1 was the successful transfer of the RedDetect technology into tobacco, and the second is this permission from Serbia.

It is still part of the objectives to establish a winter test area in a subtropical or tropical area to have a longer growth period for the tobacco plants enabling more results in 2008.

The content of this message is not expected to have impact on the result for the current financial year.

About

Aresa is a plant biotech company established in 2001 by the company's current CSO, Carsten Meier. It originates from the Institute of Molecular Biology at Copenhagen University.

Aresa focuses on the plant-based technology platform: BioSensor for the detection of substances in soil, including leakage of explosives from landmines.

Australia plays the biotechnology cowboy

On Line Opinion, 16 May 2008. By Duncan Currie.

In the global biotechnology arena, Australia has once again taken on the cowboy role, by refusing to participate in the international United Nations Biosafety Protocol negotiations being held in Bonn, Germany this month. This meeting will deal with the impacts of genetically engineered organisms (GMOs) contaminating the food chain. Issues of liability and redress for damage caused by GM contamination will culminate at these negotiations with no input from Australia.

This is a crucial misrepresentation of Australian interests. The recent lifting of the New South Wales and Victorian bans on commercial genetically modified (GM) food crops has brought GM contamination and liability issues into sharp focus. Australian farmers, communities and the environment face threats as a result of gaping holes in state, national and international law.

By standing outside the Biosafety Protocol negotiations, Australia has joined the minority group of pro-GM countries. The United States, Canada and Argentina, all big exporting countries of GM foods and seeds, also refuse to be bound by the protocol - yet they are profiting the most from the trade. If their products are safe, why not stand behind them, with liability provisions and an international fund to ensure that any damage caused as a result of GM contamination can be cleaned up?

On January 29, 2000, the Conference of Parties of the Biodiversity Convention - the United Nations organisation set up in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to protect the world's biodiversity - agreed a Biosafety Protocol to regulate the international trade in GMOs. The protocol provides countries with information, procedures and the ability to control the import of GMOs into their territory.

The protocol gathered massive support internationally with 103 signatures by June 2001. Australia however, was absent. Now the protocol is in force and 147 countries have joined it. But still not Australia.

GMOs, if they escape or behave in an unexpected way, can cause damage to plants and biodiversity as well as injury to humans, such as through eating or otherwise ingesting GMOs not intended for humans. Countries have been meeting intensively for four years to determine how the protocol can best include liability and redress provisions in order to hold companies trading GMOs accountable for damages. And yet, even though Australia has now embraced GM crops, its delegates still remain outside this important process.

A regime to protect the environment and people from damages caused by GMOs is needed to ensure that victims can get compensation for damage, or to prevent or repair environmental damage. The "polluter-pays" and "precautionary principles" should be implemented to provide assurance for countries when considering the import and use of biotechnology. There are already situations where this liability should have been applied internationally.

For example in Mexico, maize (corn), is a staple crop and has significant traditional, cultural, symbolic and spiritual value in Mexico. Most importantly it is a centre of origin for maize. GM maize is not approved for cultivation in Mexico but it is approved as an import for animal feed and processing from the United States. However, between 2003 and 2007 significant GM contamination of maize crops was found in many states in Mexico. This contamination is likely to be persistent and is in essence a contamination of the genetic reserves of maize in a centre of origin for this staple crop.

In 1995 herbicide tolerant GM canola was introduced into commercial agriculture in Canada. Within three years, three weeds were found to be resistant to the same herbicide due to out-crossing or gene stacking within these weeds. Today the extent of contamination of Canadian canola with GM canola is so high that over 90 per cent of certified non-GM canola contains unintended transgenes from GM canola. Contamination is so wide spread that organic canola farming cannot continue in Canada, as no assurance can be given that organic canola will be GM free.

Farmers stand to lose the most through loss of international markets and GM-free certification. They are also most vulnerable to the damage caused by GMOs which could escape, contaminate fields and the environment and act unpredictably.

If Australia wants to ride with the biotechnology cowboys, there must be recognition of the threats posed to farmers, individuals and the environment, and responsibility taken for harmful impacts of rogue genetic organisms.

Ireland: ICSA says food crisis exacerbated by GM vested interests

Leitrim Observer, 16 May 2008.

ICSA [Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association] President Malcolm Thompson has said the current food crisis will be exacerbated by the vested interests of global GM companies, following comments mad by Olivier de Schutter, UN Food Envoy, who described food shortages affecting 100 million people as a "Silent Tsunami".

Mr De Schutter criticised the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few large multinational companies that provide seeds and fertiliser, process food and distribute it.

"Mr De Schutter has hit the nail on the head. ICSA have been saying for years that regardless of the health benefits or otherwise of GM food, and most people would agree that the jury is still out on that one, it is economic suicide to put our business and livelihoods in the hands of these enormous conglomerates who basically own the right to produce the seed that farmers need. Small farmers worldwide are struggling to stay in business, and the idea that they will no longer be able to harvest their own seeds spells disaster for them", said the ICSA President.

"These companies are trying to patent genetic material that has been used for centuries, and taking away the most basic rights of farmers in the process. We cannot have the world being held to ransom by these corporations, who are acting only in the interests of shareholders."

15 May 2008

Predatory Agribusiness

Alai-amlatina, 15 May 2008. By Silvia Ribeiro.

Food prices continue rising around the world giving rise to intolerable conditions in the most vulnerable countries like famine, often combined with drought or flooding, the perverse effects of climate change. Faced with the seriousness of the crisis, the masks slip and the speeches get emptier with biofuel prescriptions, the supposed benefits of free trade and agriculture for export.

Now head of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick announces that those food prices will stay high for several years and that it is necessary to strengthen food aid to manage the crisis. Zoellick, who took up that post after being chief negotiator at the World Trade Organization for the United States, knows what he is talking about: from that former position he did all he could to destroy countries' food sovereignty in favour of the interests of big agribusiness multinational corporations.

Even that prescription of food aid is in fact yet more covert assistance to those same multinationals who have traditionally sold to grain to the World Food Programme, which then charitably hands it over to starving people, all on condition that they themselves do not produce the foods they need. The big winners in the crisis are also the main big winners in the promotion of biofuels: the multinational corporations that dominate national and international grain trade, seed businesses and who make pesticides and herbicides.

In many cases, the same companies dominate these last two sectors: globally, Monsanto is the main commercial seed company and the fifth in agro-toxins. Bayer is the first in agro-toxins and the seventh in seeds. Syngenta is the second in agri-toxins and the third in seeds. Dupont is the second in seeds and the sixth in agro-toxins. Including BASF and Dow (third and fourth in agro-toxins), these six corporations control all the world's genetically manipulated seeds, which coincidentally is also the solution they put forward to every new problem - problems they have been prime movers in bringing about.

Along with the businesses that control more than 80% of the world cereals market - Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra, Bunge, Dreyfus - all these corporations have profited quite shamelessly from food shortages, the encouragement and subsidy of biofuels and the increase in oil prices (agro-toxins are petro-chemicals). GRAIN's excellent report "The business of killing by hunger" documents these profits: for 2007, Cargill's profits increased 36%; Archer Daniels Midland's by 67 %; ConAgra by 30%; Bunge's by 49%; and Dreyfus's profits in the last quarter of 2007 grew by 77%. Monsanto's profits increase was 44% over 2006 and Dupont-Pioneer's 19%.

To this situation one can add the fact that, faced with the financial and property crisis, the big speculative investment funds transferred money by the billion to control agricultural products and commodities in international markets. Right now it is reckoned these funds control 60% of wheat and large percentages of other basic grains. The greater part of the next few years' soya harvest is already bought up as futures. These foods have become just one more object of stock market speculation, whose price changes and rises not on the movements of local markets or on people's need but on speculative snatches.

Despite the global beating ordinary people have taken, worse for the most dispossessed, the multinationals are still not satisfied and are going after more. They are now preparing the next hijack, monopolizing via patents the genetic characteristics they consider useful to make plants resistant to drought, salinity and other climatic stress factors.

The governments who serve them, like Mexico's, try gasoline to put out the fire: instead of food sovereignty and rural families controlling seeds and inputs, they propose genetically modified products carrying even more changes and risks, genetically modified maize to increase contamination and dependence and that even the most impoverished rural families, with public subsidies, sow biofuels instead of food.

Silvia Ribeiro is a researcher with the Erosion, Technology and Concentration Group

Translation copyleft Tortilla con Sal.

Seed giants see gold in climate change

Asia Times, May 15 2008. By Hope Shand.

First the biotech industry promised that its genetically engineered seeds would clean up the environment. Then they told us biotech crops would feed the world. Neither came to pass. Soon we'll hear that genetically engineered climate-hardy seeds are the essential adaptation strategy for crops to withstand drought, heat, cold, saline soils and more.

After failing to convince an unwilling public to accept genetically engineered foods, biotech companies see a silver lining in climate change. They are now asserting that farmers cannot win the war against climate change without genetic engineering.

According to a new report from ETC Group, the world's largest seed and agrochemical corporations such as Monsanto, BASF, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow, along with biotech partners such as Mendel, Ceres and Evogene, are stockpiling hundreds of patents and patent applications on crop genes related to environmental stress tolerance at patent offices around the world. They have acquired a total of 55 patent families corresponding to 532 patents and patent applications.

In the face of climate chaos and a deepening world food crisis, the gene giants are gearing up for a public relations offensive to rebrand themselves as climate saviors. The companies hope to convince governments and reluctant consumers that genetic engineering is the essential adaptation strategy to insure agricultural productivity.

In the words of Keith Jones of CropLife International, an industry-supported non-profit organization, "GM foods are exactly the technology that may be necessary to counter the effects of global warming." But rather than an effective way to confront climate change, these so-called "climate-ready" crops will be used to drive farmers and governments onto a proprietary biotech platform.

Human-induced climate change is triggering climate shocks in all ecosystems. It will profoundly affect crops, livestock, fisheries and forests and the billions of people whose livelihoods depend on them. Agriculture and food systems in the South, especially in South Asia and southern Africa, will be the first and most negatively affected. Extreme climate events (especially hotter, drier conditions in semi-arid regions) are likely to slash yields for maize, wheat, rice, and other primary food crops.

For instance, Asian rice yields will decrease dramatically due to higher night-time temperatures. With warmer conditions, photosynthesis slows or ceases, pollination is prevented, and dehydration sets in. A study by the International Rice Research Institute reports that rice yields are declining by 10% for every degree Celsius increase in night-time temperatures. Such declines will affect, for example, South Asia's prime wheat-growing land, the vast Indo-Gangetic plain that produces about 15% of the world's wheat crop, with losses that will place at least 200 million people at greater risk of hunger.

For the world's largest agrochemical and seed corporations, genetic engineering is the technofix of choice for combating climate change. It is a proprietary approach that seeks to expand an industrial model of agriculture, one that is largely divorced from on-the-ground social and environmental realities. It is also an approach that fails to learn from history.

Many of the problems with saline soils and soil degradation, for example, have been exacerbated by the use of intensive production systems. The gene giants are now focusing on the identification and patenting of climate-proof genetic traits (genes associated with abiotic stresses), especially related to drought and extreme temperatures. "Abiotic" stresses refer to environmental stresses encountered by plants, such as drought, temperature extremes, saline soils and low nitrogen.

The monopoly game

Monopoly control of crop genes is a bad idea under any circumstances. But in the midst of a global food crisis with climate change looming, such control is unacceptable and must be challenged. Patented gene technologies will concentrate corporate power, drive up costs, inhibit independent research, and further undermine the rights of farmers to save and exchange seeds. Globally, the top 10 seed corporations already control 57% of commercial seed sales. A handful of transnational seed and agrochemical companies are positioned to determine who gets access to patented genes and what price they must pay.

Many of these patent claims are unprecedented in scope because a single patent may claim several different environmental, or abiotic, stress traits. In addition, some patent claims extend not just to abiotic stress tolerance in a single engineered plant species, but also to a substantially similar genetic sequence in virtually all engineered food crops.

The corporate grab extends beyond the United States and Europe. Patent offices in major food producing countries such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Mexico, and South Africa are also swamped with patent filings. Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, and BASF, the largest chemical firm) have entered into a US$1.5 billion partnership to engineer stress-tolerant plants. Together the two companies account for nearly half of the patent families related to engineered stress tolerance.

Farming communities in the developing world, those who have contributed least to global greenhouse emissions, are among the most threatened by climate chaos created by the world's richest countries. Will farming communities now be stampeded by climate profiteering? The focus on genetically engineered, so-called climate-ready crops will divert resources from affordable, farmer-based strategies for climate change survival and adaptation.

In a bid to win moral legitimacy for their controversial GM seeds, the gene giants are also teaming up with philanthro-capitalists to introduce climate-tolerant traits in the developing world. Monsanto and BASF, for instance, are working with the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center and national agricultural research programs in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and South Africa to develop drought-tolerant corn. The program is supported by a $47 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In March this year, the African Agricultural Technology Foundation announced that Monsanto and BASF have agreed to donate royalty-free drought-tolerant transgenes to the African researchers.

Market-based philanthropy aims to open African markets for high-tech seeds that will undoubtedly be accompanied by intellectual property laws, seed regulations, and other products and practices amenable to agribusiness. To African farmers, this is hardly philanthropic.

As the climate crisis deepens, governments may well offer corporate subsidies by encouraging farmers to adopt prescribed biotech traits that are deemed essential adaptation measures. The US government's Federal Crop Insurance Company announced in October 2007 that it would begin a pilot program that offers a discount to farmers who plant Monsanto's "triple-stack" corn seeds on non-irrigated land, reportedly because the biotech corn, engineered for herbicide tolerance and two kinds of insect resistance, provides a lower risk of reduced yields when compared with conventional hybrids. The decision was especially controversial because USDA relied on Monsanto's data to substantiate this claim.

Staying the corporate hand

In the face of climate chaos and a deepening global food crisis, the corporate grab on so-called climate-tolerant genes is business as usual. Governments must respond urgently by:

Recognizing, protecting, and strengthening farmer-based breeding and conservation programs and the development of on-farm genetic diversity as a priority response for climate change survival and adaptation.

Suspending all patents on climate-related genes and traits and conducting a full investigation of the potential environmental and social impacts of transgenic abiotic stress-tolerant seeds.

Adopting policies to facilitate farmers' access to and exchange of breeding materials and eliminate current restrictions on access to seeds and germplasm (especially those driven by intellectual property, agribusiness-inspired seed laws, trade regimes, and corporate oligopoly). In the midst of climate crisis, spiraling food prices and food scarcity, restrictions on access to seeds and germplasm are the last thing that farmers need in their struggle to adapt to rapidly changing climatic conditions.

Genetically engineered "climate-tolerant" seeds are a technological fix that distracts from the root causes of climate change and the imperative to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reverse consumption patterns - especially in the North.

Hope Shand is the research director of the ETC Group (http://www.etcgroup.org) and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

Buffer Zones Can Not Prevent GMO Cross-contamination
GMO cross-fertilization by airborne pollen found at surprisingly large distances

Keisuke Amagasa (No! GMO Campaign), 15 May 2008.

Tokyo, Japan -- Genetically modified organisms (GMO) pollution caused by pollen drift is spreading in GM crops cultivation areas such as the USA and in Canada. GMO contamination will occur once GM crops are cultivated. Therefore, the co-existence between GMO farming and conventional farming or organic farming is very difficult. This fact was proven by a research study conducted in Hokkaido, Japan.

The national guidelines for GM crop cultivation in Japan by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan (MAFF) has set the buffer zones for outdoor cultivation for research purposes. However the distances for buffer zones are set extremely short, thus there is no way to prevent GMO pollution under such circumstances.

According to Hokkaido's Ordinance for Prevention of Cross-fertilization Cultivation of GM Crops, which was enforced in January 2006, commercial planting of GM crops is banned in principle, trial cultivation is allowed upon notification, in which case isolation buffer zones from conventional crops on ordinary farmland are stipulated. The isolation buffer zone distances stipulated under the Ordinance are quite severe, being at least twice those mentioned under MAFF guidelines. For rice, for example, the MAFF guideline buffer zone distance is 30 m, but under Hokkaido's Ordinance it is 300 m.

Hokkaido has carried out cross-fertilization trials for three years from 2006 to 2008 in order to test whether the isolation buffer zone distances stipulated in the Ordinance were meaningful or not. The results announced on 13 February 2008 were the results for the trials in 2007.

The five crops covered by the trials were rice, soybean, maize, rapeseed and sugar beet. With regard to rapeseed, only the kinds of insects that visited the flowers and the preventive effect of insect nets were investigated. For soybeans, a similar investigation as that for rapeseed was carried out in addition to the cross-fertilization trial. In the cross-fertilization trials, pollen collecting pots were placed at various distances downwind, each grain being analysed after collection.

In the case of rice, since cross-fertilization had occurred during the 2006 trial at the maximum distance stipulated in the Ordinance, 300 m, the trial was carried out using the distances of 450 m and 600 m in 2007. The result was that cross-fertilization occurred even at the 600 m distance. Cross-fertilization was also found to occur for maize at the maximum distance of 1200 m, and at 990 m for sugar beet.

As can be seen from the case of rice, it has been confirmed that airborne diffusion of pollen occurs over surprisingly large distances. The view that the current buffer zone distances are insufficient to prevent the occurrence of cross-fertilization is now becoming widespread. At the same time, the unrealistic nature of the MAFF guidelines has been thrown into sharp focus.

From this data we have to conclude that buffer zones can not prevent GMO cross-contamination.

Table 1: Cross-fertilization Trial Results

[table can be seen at http://www5d.biglobe.ne.jp/~cbic/english/2008/journal0805.html]

As for the cases of sugar beet, 57 test spots were set within 4 m and 2500 m. In the result, within 4 m and 50 m, cross-fertilizations were found in all spots, and 4 spots among 33 spots in the areas further than 80m cross-fertilizations were found. Those 4 spots are shown in the table. (Source: Hokkaido Department of Agriculture, Food Safety Promotion Agency, Food Administration Section)

Table 2: Isolation Buffer Zone Distances

[table can be seen at http://www5d.biglobe.ne.jp/~cbic/english/2008/journal0805.html]

Table 3: Estimation of Cross-fertilization Possibility

Rice

Life-span of pollen
5-6 minutes
WV 1m/sec
0.3 km
WV 3m/sec
0.9 km
WV 5m/sec
1.5 km

Maize

Life-span of pollen
2-3 days
WV 1m/sec
172.8 km
WV 3m/sec
518.4 km
WV 5m/sec
864.0 km

Wheat

Life-span of pollen
5-6 days
WV 1m/sec
432.0 km
WV 3m/sec
1296.0 km
WV 5m/sec
2160.0 km

The numbers were calculated using the lower limits of life-span multiplied with the wind velocity. 1 month is calculated as having 30 days.

(Source: Mr. Hyoji Namai, former professor at Tsukuba University, Japan)

Japanese Government blocks UN Talks
NGOs call on Japan to protect their consumers from GMO damage

Consumers Union of Japan press release, 15 May 2008.

Bonn -- The Consumers Union of Japan is condemning today the Japanese Government for their blocking attitude during United Nations talks on Genetically Modified Organisms. More than 140 Countries are meeting now in Germany with the aim of achieving an agreement to tackle damage derived from GMOs.

The majority of countries have called for strong rules to deal with the risks of GMOs, and the damages that can occur after they are released into our environment and our food. Despite the strong demands from the majority of countries present in the UN talks, the Japanese Government has systematically blocked almost every key issue.

"It is not acceptable that our Government behaves in this way. Japanese consumers want to be protected from the risks of GMOs and we expect our delegation in Germany to support the adoption of strict rules on liability to deal with GMO damages" said Ryoko Shimizu of Consumers Unions in Japan.

The attitude of Japan is not in line with a country that has offered to host the next round of UN talks on GMOs. These talks are expected to take place in the next Meeting of the Parties in 2010 in the Japanese city of Nagoya.

"The Japanese Government deserves to be criticized because it betrays the hope of the international community to be protected from GMOs. If the Japanese Government continues to have the same attitude it doesn't deserve to host the next UN talks in 2010 in Japan" said Keisuke Amagasa the President of the Citizens Biotechnology information Center of Japan

"The attitude of the Government of Japan is very disrespectful towards the majority of countries, which are negotiation in good faith to protect their citizens from the risks of GMOs," said Juan Lopez Villar of Friends of the Earth International

The UN Treaty on GMOs called the Biosafety Protocol was adopted in 2000 and has been ratified by more than 140 countries. Japan is a member since 2004. (1)

For more information:

Ryoko Shimizu, Consumers Union of Japan in Bonn: + 81 90 6001 0495

(1) www.cbd.int/biosafety

Seed aid to African farmers not meeting local communities needs: Experts

ANI, May 15 2008

Analysts participating in a recently held international meeting of agriculture and development experts in Norwegian capital Oslo have called for alternatives to 'seed aid', mass handouts of seeds to crisis-stricken African farmers.

The analysts believe that help through seed handouts has not been successful in meeting the needs of local communities to date.

Louise Sperling, a Rome-based analyst at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture, said that seed handouts might in fact undermine the recovery of farming markets.

She pointed out that farmers just might develop a tendency to continue accepting handouts long after they should have been able to make themselves self-sufficient.

Sperling and her colleagues wrote in their study report that they examined the seed aid given to 15 African countries dating back to 1974, and found that the international community had spent huge amounts of money on seed handouts for crops such as maize (corn).

The analysts said that though seed aid accounted for only two to three per cent of the amount spent on direct food aid, the amount spent on seeds run to hundreds of millions of dollars.

"When seed aid started it was seen as something very innovative. Instead of giving food and making people (feel like) victims, you give them seed and empower them," Nature magazine quoted Sperling as saying.

"Very often seed availability is not the problem farmers don't have the cash to access it, so social networks break down," she added.

Sperling further said: "One of the big things we have learned is that you can have big drops in food for example 95 per cent of your sorghum harvest might fail but with five per cent left you still have enough for seed."

The meeting in Oslo is the first sign that European governments are beginning to follow suit.

The Norwegian Government has issued a white paper calling for a revision of its international food aid strategy.

"We are hoping Norway will bring this to the attention of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the European Union," says Sigrid Nagoda, a Norwegian spokesperson for international aid agency Caritas, which jointly sponsored the meeting. (ANI)

Latin American summit confronts hunger crisis

Workers World, 15 May 2008. By Berta Joubert-Ceci.

With the theme "Sovereignty and Food Security: Food for Life," delegations from 15 countries met in Managua, Nicaragua, on May 7 to discuss and plan strategies to confront the serious hunger crisis that is affecting the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean.

This presidential summit was the result of an April 23 emergency meeting of four of the five ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America) countries held in Caracas, Venezuela. At that time, Bolivian President Evo Morales, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and Cuban Vice President Carlos Lage met with Venezuelan President Hugo Ch·vez to sign a special agreement that would develop agricultural and industrial sectors to increase the production of grains like rice and corn, oil-containing beans, meat and milk. According to Prensa Latina, "The agreement reached by the ALBA member countries also favors the setting up of a food commercialization network and includes a joint commitment to create a fund with $100-million initial capital to allow the implementation of the programs and plans with the initiative."

However, since the essence of ALBA is the integration and well-being of all the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean, a larger summit was necessary to address the current food crisis.

The May 7 summit in Managua was attended by delegations from Bolivia, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Honduras, Haiti, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Cuba, Venezuela, El Salvador, Guatemala, Belize, Panama, Dominican Republic, Mexico and Nicaragua. There were also representatives of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, U.N. World Food Program, UNICEF, PARLACEN (Central American Parliament) and PARLATINO (Latin American Parliament).

Opening remarks from each country addressed concerns and proposals about the crisis, but also overwhelmingly pointed to the policies of the imperialist countries as the main culprit of the catastrophe. The television network TeleSUR covered the session.

Ralph Gonsalves, prime minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, eloquently stated the need to include fishing in the agricultural and food discussions, noting that small island countries such as his do not have the space for cattle raising and depend more on small farm animals and sea products, but global warming is affecting fishing, since the fish tend to go deeper in the sea. He concluded, "I do not see the Americans helping us, or the Europeans, and in fact, many times when they bring programs for diversification, agriculture production, etc., they perpetuate a fraud among the people, they increase their expectations and there are few things they deliver."

Vice President Lage from Cuba summed up the real basis of the current crisis: "The essence of the crisis is not in these recent phenomena, but in the unequal and unjust distribution of the wealth at global level, and in the untenable neoliberal economic model, imposed with irresponsibility and fanaticism over the last 20 years."

President Ortega, who chaired the meeting, conveyed the hunger crisis through the facts: "Data from the international organizations tells us that every 5 seconds a child under 10 years of age dies from undernourishment, from hunger. Every minute that we are here talking, exchanging ideas about this problem, 12 children are dying. And every hour, 720 children under 10 years are dying from hunger!"

The final declaration signed by 12 countries rejected subsidies in the developed countries and the unfair trade that affects the underdeveloped countries. They also rejected the use of food for biofuel. A detailed Action Plan was proposed that would help strengthen the countries' economies and food production in a sustainable way. A proposal from Mexico, which volunteered to host a high-level meeting on technology at the end of May, was accepted.

Other gatherings about the issue have been taking place in Latin America. The Cuban News Agency (ACN) reported that more than 100 representatives from 30 Latin American and Caribbean countries participated in a conference on child malnutrition in Santiago de Chile on May 6. On May 16-17, the Fifth European Union-Latin America and Caribbean Summit (EU-LAC) will take place in Lima, Peru. The main themes will be "Poverty, inequality and inclusion" and "Sustainable Development: the environment, climate change and energy." At the May 7 presidential summit, it was decided that the food crisis be raised at the EU-LAC and all other international meetings in the near future.

Imperialists meet behind closed doors

Nine days before the Managua summit, on April 28, World Food Program Executive Director Josette Sheeran and World Bank President Robert Zoellick met behind closed doors in Berne, Switzerland, with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and executives from 27 U.N. agencies to discuss rising food prices and uprisings in 37 countries due to extreme hunger.

According to ACN, Ban demanded $2.5 billion in aid to help fight the world food crisis during a press conference in Berne on April 22.

What was Zoellick's solution to the food crisis? Showing his real class interest, he called on not restricting the export of oil products.

How can the imperialists solve a crisis they created? As Via Campesina, an organization of Indigenous, small farmers and peasants throughout the world, stated in a document entitled "An Answer to the Global Food Crisis" (www.viacampesina.org), neoliberal policies have destroyed the capacity of the countries to feed themselves.

Although they mention biofuel and global warming that affects harvests as causes for the food crisis, they see the lack of sovereignty in food as the most prominent cause: "This crisis is also the result of many years of destructive policies that have undermined domestic food production. ... Farmers have been forced to produce cash crops for transnational corporations (TNCs) and buy their food on the world market."

The article shows the example of Mexico, which, after NAFTA, went from being a corn-exporting country to one dependent for 30 percent of its corn on imports from the U.S. However, now that U.S. corn production is increasingly used for fuel, there is less available for Mexico. It also mentions the case of Indonesia, which in 1992 produced enough soy to satisfy domestic consumption of the staples tofu and tempeh. After opening its doors to neoliberal policies, cheap soy from the U.S. inundated its market, bringing domestic production down. Sixty percent now is imported from the U.S. and prices have doubled.

Therefore, without the ability to produce their own food due to neoliberal prescriptions, combined with severe climate changes, poor countries are victims to the speculation of the food market and the diversion of food production to biofuel. While food consumption accounts for probably 10 to 20 percent of a person's income in most developed countries, in the Third World it is 60 to 80 percent. And the products most affected by the current crisis are staples of poor people's tables, like rice and corn.

No wonder masses have been rising up in Mexico, Indonesia, Yemen, the Philippines, Cambodia, Morocco, Senegal, Uzbekistan, Guinea, Mauritania, Egypt, Cameroon, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Peru, Bolivia and Haiti.

Haiti merits special attention, since it is one of the poorest nations on Earth where the genocidal greed of the transnational corporations is obscenely and patently clear. Eighty percent of the population lives under the poverty line and 54 percent in abject poverty. According to Servicio Paz y Justicia en América Latina, "Twenty years ago Haiti produced 95 percent of the rice that its people consumed; today it imports from the U.S. 80 percent of that product." (www.serpajamericalatina.org).

The extreme hunger in Haiti has forced people to feed their children with "Pica" crackers made of mud, a poisonous remedy against hunger. In Cité-Soleil, the crackers are made with yellow mud from the country's central plateau, mixed with salt and oil. It costs $5 to make 100 crackers, but even at that price, many Haitians cannot afford a cracker made of dirt! It might fill a child's belly, but the mud also carries parasites and potentially deadly substances.

Cuba and Venezuela have stepped up to help the Haitian people. Among other actions, Venezuela sent 600 tons of food on April 13 and 50 farm trucks. Cuba has been providing medical care to the most poor, who did not have access to doctors. For five years, 400 Cuban doctors have been working in Haiti; and 600 Haitian students study medicine in Cuba. According to Haitian President René Préval, for the Haitian people "after God, there are the Cuban doctors."

People starve while food corporations thrive

In an April 14 press release, U.S. food giant Cargill reported "net earnings of $1.03 billion in the 2008 third quarter ended Feb. 29, up 86 percent from $553 million in the same period a year ago. Earnings in the first nine months totaled $2.9 billion, a 69 percent increase from $1.71 billion a year ago." (www.cargill.com)

The release continues: "'Cargill posted a third consecutive strong quarter in a year in which the dimensions of change in global agriculture are striking,' said Greg Page, Cargill chairman and chief executive officer. 'Demand for food in developing economies and for energy worldwide is boosting demand for agricultural goods, at the same time that investment monies have streamed into commodity markets. Relative to demand, world grain stocks today are at their lowest levels in 35 years. Prices are setting new highs and markets are extraordinarily volatile.'"

Monsanto, another U.S. company, also reported huge profits. In a newswire on May 6, the company stated: "As a technology company in agriculture, we have a unique opportunity because our technology creates value for our farmer customers regardless of which crop they grow, where they ultimately sell their grain, or at what price that grain is sold on the commodity markets. ... Monsanto's strong earnings growth continues to be reflected in dividend payouts. Monsanto has increased its dividend six times – an increase of 200 percent – since 2001." (www.monsanto.com)

Monsanto is the main culprit behind the genetically engineered seeds that have inundated and destroyed agriculture in Third World countries, making them dependent on Monsanto's seeds and products.

Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Ireland: Anti-GM lobby seek funding

Irish Farmers Journal, 15 May (dated 17 May) 2008.

The anti-GM campaign group 'GM-free Ireland' has circulated an interesting document looking for funding.

It describes itself as having "membership of 130 organisations, with the greatest number and broadest diversity of any NGO on this island, with over 22,000 members."

It claims that the campaign has mostly been funded by its coordinator, Michael O'Callaghan, to the tune of around €150,000, since 2004. The document says that the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association (IOFGA) chipped in €40,000 from 2006 to 2008, while Glenisk are credited with a €5,000 contribution in 2007.

The document states that "Michael can no longer continue to fund the campaign, and also wants to phase in someone to replace him as coordinator as soon as possible."

In the remainder of the document, GM-free Ireland implies that some of the island's leading scientific advisers are "biotech industry lobbyists."

Dr Paddy Cunningham, the nation's Chief Scientific Officer, is "outed" as a member of a taskforce of the European Federation of Biotechnology, and a member of the Irish National Council on Bioethics, whose report on GM foods is described as "a masterfully crafted work of biotech industry spin."

The proof supplied of this is the report's conclusion that "the genetic modification of crops is not morally objectionable in itself".

Teagasc [the Irish Government Agriculture and Food Authority] Director, Professor Gerry Boyle, is revealed to be an agricultural consultant to the World Bank, according to the missive. This organisation is also part of the global GM conspiracy.

The Irish Farmers Journal is accused - along with IFA [Irish Farmers Association], IGFA [Irish Grain and Feed Association], and Teagasc - of being part of a massive disinformation campaign by the usual suspects.

Half the cabinet is listed as failing to halt the march of the biotech industry. Mary Coughlan [Deputy Prime Minister and former Minister for Agriculture and Food], Mary Harney [Minister for Health and Children], Micheal Martin [Minister for Trade and Enterprise], Dermot Ahern [Minister for Foreign Affairs], and even John Gormley [Head of the Green Party and Minister for Environment and Local Government] fail the meet the approval of GM-free Ireland. As Kermit the frog once sang, it's not easy being green!

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

To make a donation to our campaign please see www.gmfreeireland.org/support

Ireland: Playing God

The Irish Catholic, 15 May 2008. By Breda O'Brien.

In March, there were a spate of media report that the Vatican had named seven new deadly sins. Of course, no such thing had happened. Bishop Giancarlo Girotti, and official of the Apostolic Penitentiary, was merely musing aloud in an interview with L'Osservatore Romano about social sins, and their increasing importance in a globalised world.

The author of Ecclesiastes suggests in his first chapter, written several centuries before Christ, that there is nothing new under the sun. With apologies to that royal philosopher, the infinite variety of ways in which humans can conspire to damage their fellow human beings never fails to amaze me. Certainly, there are no new sins, but we are very inventive about new variations on old sins.

Ever since the advent of farming, some 10,000 years ago, seeds and domestic animals have been central to that enterprise. For most of that time, the idea that seeds could be patented, or that farmers would not be allowed to save seed for the next season, would have been seen as bizarre.

It is still an essential part of life, especially in the developing world. Farmers plant in the spring, harvest in the autumn, then save and clean the seeds in winter to re-use the following spring.

It takes a certain kind of perverse genius to intervene in that natural cycle for commercial profit, but the giant Monsanto corporation has done just that. It developed genetically modified seeds that would resist its own herbicide, 'Roundup', offering farmers a convenient way to spray crops without damaging them.

Monsanto then patented the seeds. It has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds, and has won 674 biotechnology patents. Farmers who buy this seed must sign an agreement not to clean and re-use it.

Incidentally, most of the information from this article was gleaned from the May edition of Vanity Fair, which led to an interesting conundrum. Remember that old excuse of males for reading Playboy, that they only bought it for the articles? I feld a bit like that, given that the cover of Vanity Fair features Madonna, in all her almost fifty-year-old glory, wearing a corset and thigh-high boots. The things I have to do for research!

The article paints a deeply disturbing vision of a company ruthlessly enforcing its patents. Monsanto goes after farmers, farmers co-ops, seed dealers, anyone it suspects may have infringed its patents of genetically modified seeds.

As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners and co-ops, infiltrate community meetings and gather information from informants about farming activities. Innocent farmers, who have never bought Monsanto seeds, have been threatened with court action, simply because GM seeds from neighbouring farms have blown onto their land and grown. The majority of the farmers cave in and settle. The prospect of going to court against a global giant with deep pockets is simply too much for them.

Monsanto seeds are estimated to account for 90% of soybean production, used in products without counting. People who wish to avoid GM products in the US have virtually no possibility of doing so.

There is great resistance to GM food in Irelandm, not least because it threatens Ireland's image a producer of green food.

Monsanto now manufactures an artificial hormone, known as rBGH, that makes cows produce more milk. Some US milk producers had grave doubts about it, and advertised that their cows are not treated with it. Unsurprisingly, sales soared for non rBGH milk.

Monsanto turned its guns on these milk producers, claiming that to advertise that the cows were not treated with this bovine growth hormone was to suggest that there was something damaging about their product. They want such advertising banned, on the grounds that they have scientific proof that ther is no harm to cows, or to people, who consume milk from treated cows.

However, according to Vanity Fair, Monsanto admitted that possible side effects include lameness, disorders of the uterus, calving difficulties, and mastitis.

As someone reared on a farm, it strikes me as profoundly wrong that a giant corporation should have the ability to patent seeds, especially for plants that are resistant to such a toxic blend of chemicals. Pity, too, the poor cows that are forced into even greater milk production. Perhaps it might strike readers as far-fetched, but to me, these are variations on old, old sins. The sins of greed and attempts to play God have been around forever.

Monsanto have just invented a new twist on these old sins. When will we learn that such attempts always end in tears?

Genetically modified crops not a solution to poverty, hunger, and climate change: Report

New Kerala (India), 15 May 2008.

Washington, May 15 : Based on an assessment of the global agriculture scenario, experts have come to the conclusion that genetically modified (GM) crops are not a solution for poverty, hunger or climate change.

The final report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), which was signed by the governments of about 60 countries in April in Johannesburg, suggests that it is necessary to introduce a fundamental change in farming practices to address soaring food prices, hunger, social inequities, and environmental disasters.

The report acknowledges that GM crops are highly controversial, reports the Environmental News Network.

IAASTD Director Robert Watson said that much more research was needed to prove whether GM crops offer any benefits, and are harmless to human health and the environment.

The study-sponsored by a number of major international organizations, including the United Nations, the World Bank, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, and UNESCO-revealed 22 facts about global agriculture.

An analysis of its findings gives the impression that industrial large-scale agriculture is unsustainable because such farming is dependent on cheap oil and causes negative impacts on ecosystems.

The comprehensive report produced by over 400 scientists also warned against the expansion of biofuels, saying that turning food crops into fuels could exacerbate food shortages.

It recommends small-scale farming and agro-ecological methods as ways to solve the current food crisis and to meet the needs of local communities, declaring that indigenous and local knowledge play as important a role as formal science.

The United States, Canada, and Australia were the only governments in attendance not to sign.

Despite being among the stakeholders who selected the report's authors, they accuse the assessment of being "unbalanced", and are attacking the authors' independence.

U.S. promotes GMO crops in food package

United Press International, 15 May 2008.

WASHINGTON -- U.S. officials say a $770 food aid package proposed by President George Bush contains language promoting the use of bio-engineered food.

Proponents say genetically modified crops can result in higher yields from plants that are hardier in harsh climates, the Chicago Tribune reported Wednesday.

"We certainly think that it is established fact that a number of bio-engineered crops have shown themselves to increase yields through their drought resistance and pest resistance," Dan Price, a White House food aid expert, told the newspaper.

Opponents say genetically modified crops could cause medical problems and are being promoted to to help U.S. agribusiness. "I think it's pretty obvious at this point that genetically engineered crops -- they may do a number of things, but they don't increase yields, Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association told the newspaper.

USA: Montville resident stands by seed moratorium

Morning Sentinel (Maine), letter to the Editor, 15 May 2008.

Monsanto-funded spokesman, Doug Johnson, recently wrote about one of Montville's main concerns with genetically modified seeds: health.

Corporations that create genetically modified organisms (and stand to make billions when on the market) do most of the testing, along with government agencies under enormous lobbying pressure.

Independent third-party testing does not exist.

How can we know if people are having adverse reactions when labels don't tell us which GMOs people are consuming?

Perhaps the recent rise in autism is due to GMO foods?

We can thank Monsanto for PCBs and dioxin, which it tested and promised were safe and for 50 Superfund sites ("Monsanto's Harvest of Fear" by Pulitzer-prize winning journalists, Donald Bartlett and James Steele).

The human body is extremely resilient.

For example, a person can smoke tons of cigarettes a day for years without getting cancer or suffering severe symptoms. But eventually the body can no longer protect itself, and illness sets in.

Feeding people GMOs is a human health experiment. We simply cannot know what these products will do with a few years of profit-driven testing.

This year, Johnson never requested to attend our meetings.

Montville is full of smart, well-informed people who would have listened to him. Most, however, would have found that the information he offered had that somewhat fishy smell of propaganda disguised as science and truth.

The overwhelming majority voted to place a 10-year moratorium on GMO seeds. This ordinance has no affect on biomedical research.

Susie O'Keeffe
Montville

Monsanto's Harvest of Fear

Vanity Fair, May 2008. By Donald L. Bartlett and James B. Steele.

Monsanto already dominates America's food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation's tactics - ruthless legal battles against small farmers-is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.

Gary Rinehart clearly remembers the summer day in 2002 when the stranger walked in and issued his threat. Rinehart was behind the counter of the Square Deal, his "old-time country store," as he calls it, on the fading town square of Eagleville, Missouri, a tiny farm community 100 miles north of Kansas City.

The Square Deal is a fixture in Eagleville, a place where farmers and townspeople can go for lightbulbs, greeting cards, hunting gear, ice cream, aspirin, and dozens of other small items without having to drive to a big-box store in Bethany, the county seat, 15 miles down Interstate 35.

Everyone knows Rinehart, who was born and raised in the area and runs one of Eagleville's few surviving businesses. The stranger came up to the counter and asked for him by name.

"Well, that's me," said Rinehart.

As Rinehart would recall, the man began verbally attacking him, saying he had proof that Rinehart had planted Monsanto's genetically modified (G.M.) soybeans in violation of the company's patent. Better come clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him – or face the consequences.

Rinehart was incredulous, listening to the words as puzzled customers and employees looked on. Like many others in rural America, Rinehart knew of Monsanto's fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them. But Rinehart wasn't a farmer. He wasn't a seed dealer. He hadn't planted any seeds or sold any seeds. He owned a small – a really small – country store in a town of 350 people. He was angry that somebody could just barge into the store and embarrass him in front of everyone. "It made me and my business look bad," he says. Rinehart says he told the intruder, "You got the wrong guy."

When the stranger persisted, Rinehart showed him the door. On the way out the man kept making threats. Rinehart says he can't remember the exact words, but they were to the effect of: "Monsanto is big. You can't win. We will get you. You will pay."

Scenes like this are playing out in many parts of rural America these days as Monsanto goes after farmers, farmers' co-ops, seed dealers – anyone it suspects may have infringed its patents of genetically modified seeds. As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the "seed police" and use words such as "Gestapo" and "Mafia" to describe their tactics.

When asked about these practices, Monsanto declined to comment specifically, other than to say that the company is simply protecting its patents. "Monsanto spends more than $2 million a day in research to identify, test, develop and bring to market innovative new seeds and technologies that benefit farmers," Monsanto spokesman Darren Wallis wrote in an e-mailed letter to Vanity Fair. "One tool in protecting this investment is patenting our discoveries and, if necessary, legally defending those patents against those who might choose to infringe upon them." Wallis said that, while the vast majority of farmers and seed dealers follow the licensing agreements, "a tiny fraction" do not, and that Monsanto is obligated to those who do abide by its rules to enforce its patent rights on those who "reap the benefits of the technology without paying for its use." He said only a small number of cases ever go to trial. Some compare Monsanto's hard-line approach to Microsoft's zealous efforts to protect its software from pirates. At least with Microsoft the buyer of a program can use it over and over again. But farmers who buy Monsanto's seeds can't even do that.

The Control of Nature

For centuries – millennia – farmers have saved seeds from season to season: they planted in the spring, harvested in the fall, then reclaimed and cleaned the seeds over the winter for re-planting the next spring. Monsanto has turned this ancient practice on its head.

Monsanto developed G.M. seeds that would resist its own herbicide, Roundup, offering farmers a convenient way to spray fields with weed killer without affecting crops. Monsanto then patented the seeds. For nearly all of its history the United States Patent and Trademark Office had refused to grant patents on seeds, viewing them as life-forms with too many variables to be patented. "It's not like describing a widget," says Joseph Mendelson III, the legal director of the Center for Food Safety, which has tracked Monsanto's activities in rural America for years.

Indeed not. But in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, turned seeds into widgets, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the world's food supply. In its decision, the court extended patent law to cover "a live human-made microorganism." In this case, the organism wasn't even a seed. Rather, it was a Pseudomonas bacterium developed by a General Electric scientist to clean up oil spills. But the precedent was set, and Monsanto took advantage of it. Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data.

Farmers who buy Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising not to save the seed produced after each harvest for re-planting, or to sell the seed to other farmers. This means that farmers must buy new seed every year. Those increased sales, coupled with ballooning sales of its Roundup weed killer, have been a bonanza for Monsanto.

This radical departure from age-old practice has created turmoil in farm country. Some farmers don't fully understand that they aren't supposed to save Monsanto's seeds for next year's planting. Others do, but ignore the stipulation rather than throw away a perfectly usable product. Still others say that they don't use Monsanto's genetically modified seeds, but seeds have been blown into their fields by wind or deposited by birds. It's certainly easy for G.M. seeds to get mixed in with traditional varieties when seeds are cleaned by commercial dealers for re-planting. The seeds look identical; only a laboratory analysis can show the difference. Even if a farmer doesn't buy G.M. seeds and doesn't want them on his land, it's a safe bet he'll get a visit from Monsanto's seed police if crops grown from G.M. seeds are discovered in his fields.

Most Americans know Monsanto because of what it sells to put on our lawns – the ubiquitous weed killer Roundup. What they may not know is that the company now profoundly influences – and one day may virtually control – what we put on our tables. For most of its history Monsanto was a chemical giant, producing some of the most toxic substances ever created, residues from which have left us with some of the most polluted sites on earth. Yet in a little more than a decade, the company has sought to shed its polluted past and morph into something much different and more far-reaching – an "agricultural company" dedicated to making the world "a better place for future generations." Still, more than one Web log claims to see similarities between Monsanto and the fictional company "U-North" in the movie Michael Clayton, an agribusiness giant accused in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit of selling an herbicide that causes cancer.

Monsanto's genetically modified seeds have transformed the company and are radically altering global agriculture. So far, the company has produced G.M. seeds for soybeans, corn, canola, and cotton. Many more products have been developed or are in the pipeline, including seeds for sugar beets and alfalfa. The company is also seeking to extend its reach into milk production by marketing an artificial growth hormone for cows that increases their output, and it is taking aggressive steps to put those who don't want to use growth hormone at a commercial disadvantage.

Even as the company is pushing its G.M. agenda, Monsanto is buying up conventional-seed companies. In 2005, Monsanto paid $1.4 billion for Seminis, which controlled 40 percent of the U.S. market for lettuce, tomatoes, and other vegetable and fruit seeds. Two weeks later it announced the acquisition of the country's third-largest cottonseed company, Emergent Genetics, for $300 million. It's estimated that Monsanto seeds now account for 90 percent of the U.S. production of soybeans, which are used in food products beyond counting. Monsanto's acquisitions have fueled explosive growth, transforming the St. Louis-based corporation into the largest seed company in the world.

In Iraq, the groundwork has been laid to protect the patents of Monsanto and other G.M.-seed companies. One of L. Paul Bremer's last acts as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority was an order stipulating that "farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties." Monsanto has said that it has no interest in doing business in Iraq, but should the company change its mind, the American-style law is in place.

To be sure, more and more agricultural corporations and individual farmers are using Monsanto's G.M. seeds. As recently as 1980, no genetically modified crops were grown in the U.S. In 2007, the total was 142 million acres planted. Worldwide, the figure was 282 million acres. Many farmers believe that G.M. seeds increase crop yields and save money. Another reason for their attraction is convenience. By using Roundup Ready soybean seeds, a farmer can spend less time tending to his fields. With Monsanto seeds, a farmer plants his crop, then treats it later with Roundup to kill weeds. That takes the place of labor-intensive weed control and plowing.

Monsanto portrays its move into G.M. seeds as a giant leap for mankind. But out in the American countryside, Monsanto's no-holds-barred tactics have made it feared and loathed. Like it or not, farmers say, they have fewer and fewer choices in buying seeds.

And controlling the seeds is not some abstraction. Whoever provides the world's seeds controls the world's food supply.

Under Surveillance

After Monsanto's investigator confronted Gary Rinehart, Monsanto filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Rinehart "knowingly, intentionally, and willfully" planted seeds "in violation of Monsanto's patent rights." The company's complaint made it sound as if Monsanto had Rinehart dead to rights:

During the 2002 growing season, Investigator Jeffery Moore, through surveillance of Mr. Rinehart's farm facility and farming operations, observed Defendant planting brown bag soybean seed. Mr. Moore observed the Defendant take the brown bag soybeans to a field, which was subsequently loaded into a grain drill and planted. Mr. Moore located two empty bags in the ditch in the public road right-of-way beside one of the fields planted by Rinehart, which contained some soybeans. Mr. Moore collected a small amount of soybeans left in the bags which Defendant had tossed into the public right-of way. These samples tested positive for Monsanto's Roundup Ready technology.

Faced with a federal lawsuit, Rinehart had to hire a lawyer. Monsanto eventually realized that "Investigator Jeffery Moore" had targeted the wrong man, and dropped the suit. Rinehart later learned that the company had been secretly investigating farmers in his area. Rinehart never heard from Monsanto again: no letter of apology, no public concession that the company had made a terrible mistake, no offer to pay his attorney's fees. "I don't know how they get away with it," he says. "If I tried to do something like that it would be bad news. I felt like I was in another country."

Gary Rinehart is actually one of Monsanto's luckier targets. Ever since commercial introduction of its G.M. seeds, in 1996, Monsanto has launched thousands of investigations and filed lawsuits against hundreds of farmers and seed dealers. In a 2007 report, the Center for Food Safety, in Washington, D.C., documented 112 such lawsuits, in 27 states.

Even more significant, in the Center's opinion, are the numbers of farmers who settle because they don't have the money or the time to fight Monsanto. "The number of cases filed is only the tip of the iceberg," says Bill Freese, the Center's science-policy analyst. Freese says he has been told of many cases in which Monsanto investigators showed up at a farmer's house or confronted him in his fields, claiming he had violated the technology agreement and demanding to see his records. According to Freese, investigators will say, "Monsanto knows that you are saving Roundup Ready seeds, and if you don't sign these information-release forms, Monsanto is going to come after you and take your farm or take you for all you're worth." Investigators will sometimes show a farmer a photo of himself coming out of a store, to let him know he is being followed.

Lawyers who have represented farmers sued by Monsanto say that intimidating actions like these are commonplace. Most give in and pay Monsanto some amount in damages; those who resist face the full force of Monsanto's legal wrath.

Scorched-Earth Tactics

Pilot Grove, Missouri, population 750, sits in rolling farmland 150 miles west of St. Louis. The town has a grocery store, a bank, a bar, a nursing home, a funeral parlor, and a few other small businesses. There are no stoplights, but the town doesn't need any. The little traffic it has comes from trucks on their way to and from the grain elevator on the edge of town. The elevator is owned by a local co-op, the Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator, which buys soybeans and corn from farmers in the fall, then ships out the grain over the winter. The co-op has seven full-time employees and four computers.

In the fall of 2006, Monsanto trained its legal guns on Pilot Grove; ever since, its farmers have been drawn into a costly, disruptive legal battle against an opponent with limitless resources. Neither Pilot Grove nor Monsanto will discuss the case, but it is possible to piece together much of the story from documents filed as part of the litigation.

Monsanto began investigating soybean farmers in and around Pilot Grove several years ago. There is no indication as to what sparked the probe, but Monsanto periodically investigates farmers in soybean-growing regions such as this one in central Missouri. The company has a staff devoted to enforcing patents and litigating against farmers. To gather leads, the company maintains an 800 number and encourages farmers to inform on other farmers they think may be engaging in "seed piracy."

Once Pilot Grove had been targeted, Monsanto sent private investigators into the area. Over a period of months, Monsanto's investigators surreptitiously followed the co-op's employees and customers and videotaped them in fields and going about other activities. At least 17 such surveillance videos were made, according to court records. The investigative work was outsourced to a St. Louis agency, McDowell & Associates. It was a McDowell investigator who erroneously fingered Gary Rinehart. In Pilot Grove, at least 11 McDowell investigators have worked the case, and Monsanto makes no bones about the extent of this effort: "Surveillance was conducted throughout the year by various investigators in the field," according to court records. McDowell, like Monsanto, will not comment on the case.

Not long after investigators showed up in Pilot Grove, Monsanto subpoenaed the co-op's records concerning seed and herbicide purchases and seed-cleaning operations. The co-op provided more than 800 pages of documents pertaining to dozens of farmers. Monsanto sued two farmers and negotiated settlements with more than 25 others it accused of seed piracy. But Monsanto's legal assault had only begun. Although the co-op had provided voluminous records, Monsanto then sued it in federal court for patent infringement. Monsanto contended that by cleaning seeds – a service which it had provided for decades – the co-op was inducing farmers to violate Monsanto's patents. In effect, Monsanto wanted the co-op to police its own customers.

In the majority of cases where Monsanto sues, or threatens to sue, farmers settle before going to trial. The cost and stress of litigating against a global corporation are just too great. But Pilot Grove wouldn't cave – and ever since, Monsanto has been turning up the heat. The more the co-op has resisted, the more legal firepower Monsanto has aimed at it. Pilot Grove's lawyer, Steven H. Schwartz, described Monsanto in a court filing as pursuing a "scorched earth tactic," intent on "trying to drive the co-op into the ground."

Even after Pilot Grove turned over thousands more pages of sales records going back five years, and covering virtually every one of its farmer customers, Monsanto wanted more – the right to inspect the co-op's hard drives. When the co-op offered to provide an electronic version of any record, Monsanto demanded hands-on access to Pilot Grove's in-house computers.

Monsanto next petitioned to make potential damages punitive – tripling the amount that Pilot Grove might have to pay if found guilty. After a judge denied that request, Monsanto expanded the scope of the pre-trial investigation by seeking to quadruple the number of depositions. "Monsanto is doing its best to make this case so expensive to defend that the Co-op will have no choice but to relent," Pilot Grove's lawyer said in a court filing.

With Pilot Grove still holding out for a trial, Monsanto now subpoenaed the records of more than 100 of the co-op's customers. In a "You are Commanded Ö " notice, the farmers were ordered to gather up five years of invoices, receipts, and all other papers relating to their soybean and herbicide purchases, and to have the documents delivered to a law office in St. Louis. Monsanto gave them two weeks to comply.

Whether Pilot Grove can continue to wage its legal battle remains to be seen. Whatever the outcome, the case shows why Monsanto is so detested in farm country, even by those who buy its products. "I don't know of a company that chooses to sue its own customer base," says Joseph Mendelson, of the Center for Food Safety. "It's a very bizarre business strategy." But it's one that Monsanto manages to get away with, because increasingly it's the dominant vendor in town.

Chemicals? What Chemicals?

The Monsanto Company has never been one of America's friendliest corporate citizens. Given Monsanto's current dominance in the field of bioengineering, it's worth looking at the company's own DNA. The future of the company may lie in seeds, but the seeds of the company lie in chemicals. Communities around the world are still reaping the environmental consequences of Monsanto's origins.

Monsanto was founded in 1901 by John Francis Queeny, a tough, cigar-smoking Irishman with a sixth-grade education. A buyer for a wholesale drug company, Queeny had an idea. But like a lot of employees with ideas, he found that his boss wouldn't listen to him. So he went into business for himself on the side. Queeny was convinced there was money to be made manufacturing a substance called saccharin, an artificial sweetener then imported from Germany. He took $1,500 of his savings, borrowed another $3,500, and set up shop in a dingy warehouse near the St. Louis waterfront. With borrowed equipment and secondhand machines, he began producing saccharin for the U.S. market. He called the company the Monsanto Chemical Works, Monsanto being his wife's maiden name.

The German cartel that controlled the market for saccharin wasn't pleased, and cut the price from $4.50 to $1 a pound to try to force Queeny out of business. The young company faced other challenges. Questions arose about the safety of saccharin, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture even tried to ban it. Fortunately for Queeny, he wasn't up against opponents as aggressive and litigious as the Monsanto of today. His persistence and the loyalty of one steady customer kept the company afloat. That steady customer was a new company in Georgia named Coca-Cola.

Monsanto added more and more products – vanillin, caffeine, and drugs used as sedatives and laxatives. In 1917, Monsanto began making aspirin, and soon became the largest maker worldwide. During World War I, cut off from imported European chemicals, Monsanto was forced to manufacture its own, and its position as a leading force in the chemical industry was assured.

After Queeny was diagnosed with cancer, in the late 1920s, his only son, Edgar, became president. Where the father had been a classic entrepreneur, Edgar Monsanto Queeny was an empire builder with a grand vision. It was Edgar – shrewd, daring, and intuitive ("He can see around the next corner," his secretary once said) – who built Monsanto into a global powerhouse. Under Edgar Queeny and his successors, Monsanto extended its reach into a phenomenal number of products: plastics, resins, rubber goods, fuel additives, artificial caffeine, industrial fluids, vinyl siding, dishwasher detergent, anti-freeze, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides. Its safety glass protects the U.S. Constitution and the Mona Lisa. Its synthetic fibers are the basis of Astroturf.

During the 1970s, the company shifted more and more resources into biotechnology. In 1981 it created a molecular-biology group for research in plant genetics. The next year, Monsanto scientists hit gold: they became the first to genetically modify a plant cell. "It will now be possible to introduce virtually any gene into plant cells with the ultimate goal of improving crop productivity," said Ernest Jaworski, director of Monsanto's Biological Sciences Program.

Over the next few years, scientists working mainly in the company's vast new Life Sciences Research Center, 25 miles west of St. Louis, developed one genetically modified product after another – cotton, soybeans, corn, canola. From the start, G.M. seeds were controversial with the public as well as with some farmers and European consumers. Monsanto has sought to portray G.M. seeds as a panacea, a way to alleviate poverty and feed the hungry. Robert Shapiro, Monsanto's president during the 1990s, once called G.M. seeds "the single most successful introduction of technology in the history of agriculture, including the plow."

By the late 1990s, Monsanto, having rebranded itself into a "life sciences" company, had spun off its chemical and fibers operations into a new company called Solutia. After an additional reorganization, Monsanto re-incorporated in 2002 and officially declared itself an "agricultural company."

In its company literature, Monsanto now refers to itself disingenuously as a "relatively new company" whose primary goal is helping "farmers around the world in their mission to feed, clothe, and fuel" a growing planet. In its list of corporate milestones, all but a handful are from the recent era. As for the company's early history, the decades when it grew into an industrial powerhouse now held potentially responsible for more than 50 Environmental Protection Agency Superfund sites – none of that is mentioned. It's as though the original Monsanto, the company that long had the word "chemical" as part of its name, never existed. One of the benefits of doing this, as the company does not point out, was to channel the bulk of the growing backlog of chemical lawsuits and liabilities onto Solutia, keeping the Monsanto brand pure. But Monsanto's past, especially its environmental legacy, is very much with us. For many years Monsanto produced two of the most toxic substances ever known – polychlorinated biphenyls, better known as PCBs, and dioxin. Monsanto no longer produces either, but the places where it did are still struggling with the aftermath, and probably always will be.

"Systemic Intoxication"

Twelve miles downriver from Charleston, West Virginia, is the town of Nitro, where Monsanto operated a chemical plant from 1929 to 1995. In 1948 the plant began to make a powerful herbicide known as 2,4,5-T, called "weed bug" by the workers. A by-product of the process was the creation of a chemical that would later be known as dioxin. The name dioxin refers to a group of highly toxic chemicals that have been linked to heart disease, liver disease, human reproductive disorders, and developmental problems. Even in small amounts, dioxin persists in the environment and accumulates in the body. In 1997 the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, classified the most powerful form of dioxin as a substance that causes cancer in humans. In 2001 the U.S. government listed the chemical as a "known human carcinogen."

On March 8, 1949, a massive explosion rocked Monsanto's Nitro plant when a pressure valve blew on a container cooking up a batch of herbicide. The noise from the release was a scream so loud that it drowned out the emergency steam whistle for five minutes. A plume of vapor and white smoke drifted across the plant and out over town.Residue from the explosion coated the interior of the building and those inside with what workers described as "a fine black powder." Many felt their skin prickle and were told to scrub down.

Within days, workers experienced skin eruptions. Many were soon diagnosed with chloracne, a condition similar to common acne but more severe, longer lasting, and potentially disfiguring. Others felt intense pains in their legs, chest, and trunk. A confidential medical report at the time said the explosion "caused a systemic intoxication in the workers involving most major organ systems." Doctors who examined four of the most seriously injured men detected a strong odor coming from them when they were all together in a closed room. "We believe these men are excreting a foreign chemical through their skins," the confidential report to Monsanto noted. Court records indicate that 226 plant workers became ill.

According to court documents that have surfaced in a West Virginia court case, Monsanto downplayed the impact, stating that the contaminant affecting workers was "fairly slow acting" and caused "only an irritation of the skin."

In the meantime, the Nitro plant continued to produce herbicides, rubber products, and other chemicals. In the 1960s, the factory manufactured Agent Orange, the powerful herbicide which the U.S. military used to defoliate jungles during the Vietnam War, and which later was the focus of lawsuits by veterans contending that they had been harmed by exposure. As with Monsanto's older herbicides, the manufacturing of Agent Orange created dioxin as a by-product.

As for the Nitro plant's waste, some was burned in incinerators, some dumped in landfills or storm drains, some allowed to run into streams. As Stuart Calwell, a lawyer who has represented both workers and residents in Nitro, put it, "Dioxin went wherever the product went, down the sewer, shipped in bags, and when the waste was burned, out in the air."

In 1981 several former Nitro employees filed lawsuits in federal court, charging that Monsanto had knowingly exposed them to chemicals that caused long-term health problems, including cancer and heart disease. They alleged that Monsanto knew that many chemicals used at Nitro were potentially harmful, but had kept that information from them. On the eve of a trial, in 1988, Monsanto agreed to settle most of the cases by making a single lump payment of $1.5 million. Monsanto also agreed to drop its claim to collect $305,000 in court costs from six retired Monsanto workers who had unsuccessfully charged in another lawsuit that Monsanto had recklessly exposed them to dioxin. Monsanto had attached liens to the retirees' homes to guarantee collection of the debt.

Monsanto stopped producing dioxin in Nitro in 1969, but the toxic chemical can still be found well beyond the Nitro plant site. Repeated studies have found elevated levels of dioxin in nearby rivers, streams, and fish. Residents have sued to seek damages from Monsanto and Solutia. Earlier this year, a West Virginia judge merged those lawsuits into a class-action suit. A Monsanto spokesman said, "We believe the allegations are without merit and we'll defend ourselves vigorously." The suit will no doubt take years to play out. Time is one thing that Monsanto always has, and that the plaintiffs usually don't.

Poisoned Lawns

Five hundred miles to the south, the people of Anniston, Alabama, know all about what the people of Nitro are going through. They've been there. In fact, you could say, they're still there.

From 1929 to 1971, Monsanto's Anniston works produced PCBs as industrial coolants and insulating fluids for transformers and other electrical equipment. One of the wonder chemicals of the 20th century, PCBs were exceptionally versatile and fire-resistant, and became central to many American industries as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and sealants. But PCBs are toxic. A member of a family of chemicals that mimic hormones, PCBs have been linked to damage in the liver and in the neurological, immune, endocrine, and reproductive systems. The Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, now classify PCBs as "probable carcinogens."

Today, 37 years after PCB production ceased in Anniston, and after tons of contaminated soil have been removed to try to reclaim the site, the area around the old Monsanto plant remains one of the most polluted spots in the U.S.

People in Anniston find themselves in this fix today largely because of the way Monsanto disposed of PCB waste for decades. Excess PCBs were dumped in a nearby open-pit landfill or allowed to flow off the property with storm water. Some waste was poured directly into Snow Creek, which runs alongside the plant and empties into a larger stream, Choccolocco Creek. PCBs also turned up in private lawns after the company invited Anniston residents to use soil from the plant for their lawns, according to The Anniston Star.

So for decades the people of Anniston breathed air, planted gardens, drank from wells, fished in rivers, and swam in creeks contaminated with PCBs – without knowing anything about the danger. It wasn't until the 1990s – 20 years after Monsanto stopped making PCBs in Anniston – that widespread public awareness of the problem there took hold. Studies by health authorities consistently found elevated levels of PCBs in houses, yards, streams, fields, fish, and other wildlife – and in people. In 2003, Monsanto and Solutia entered into a consent decree with the E.P.A. to clean up Anniston. Scores of houses and small businesses were to be razed, tons of contaminated soil dug up and carted off, and streambeds scooped of toxic residue. The cleanup is under way, and it will take years, but some doubt it will ever be completed – the job is massive. To settle residents' claims, Monsanto has also paid $550 million to 21,000 Anniston residents exposed to PCBs, but many of them continue to live with PCBs in their bodies. Once PCB is absorbed into human tissue, there it forever remains.

Monsanto shut down PCB production in Anniston in 1971, and the company ended all its American PCB operations in 1977. Also in 1977, Monsanto closed a PCB plant in Wales. In recent years, residents near the village of Groesfaen, in southern Wales, have noticed vile odors emanating from an old quarry outside the village. As it turns out, Monsanto had dumped thousands of tons of waste from its nearby PCB plant into the quarry. British authorities are struggling to decide what to do with what they have now identified as among the most contaminated places in Britain.

"No Cause for Public Alarm"

What had Monsanto known – or what should it have known – about the potential dangers of the chemicals it was manufacturing? There's considerable documentation lurking in court records from many lawsuits indicating that Monsanto knew quite a lot. Let's look just at the example of PCBs.

The evidence that Monsanto refused to face questions about their toxicity is quite clear. In 1956 the company tried to sell the navy a hydraulic fluid for its submarines called Pydraul 150, which contained PCBs. Monsanto supplied the navy with test results for the product. But the navy decided to run its own tests. Afterward, navy officials informed Monsanto that they wouldn't be buying the product. "Applications of Pydraul 150 caused death in all of the rabbits tested" and indicated "definite liver damage," navy officials told Monsanto, according to an internal Monsanto memo divulged in the course of a court proceeding. "No matter how we discussed the situation," complained Monsanto's medical director, R. Emmet Kelly, "it was impossible to change their thinking that Pydraul 150 is just too toxic for use in submarines."

Ten years later, a biologist conducting studies for Monsanto in streams near the Anniston plant got quick results when he submerged his test fish. As he reported to Monsanto, according to The Washington Post, "All 25 fish lost equilibrium and turned on their sides in 10 seconds and all were dead in 3 and a half minutes."

From the beginning some consumers have consistently been hesitant to drink milk from cows treated with artificial hormones. This is one reason Monsanto has waged so many battles with dairies and regulators over the wording of labels on milk cartons. It has sued at least two dairies and one co-op over labeling.

Critics of the artificial hormone have pushed for mandatory labeling on all milk products, but the F.D.A. has resisted and even taken action against some dairies that labeled their milk "BST-free." Since BST is a natural hormone found in all cows, including those not injected with Monsanto's artificial version, the F.D.A. argued that no dairy could claim that its milk is BST-free. The F.D.A. later issued guidelines allowing dairies to use labels saying their milk comes from "non-supplemented cows," as long as the carton has a disclaimer saying that the artificial supplement does not in any way change the milk. So the milk cartons from Kleinpeter Dairy, for example, carry a label on the front stating that the milk is from cows not treated with rBGH, and the rear panel says, "Government studies have shown no significant difference between milk derived from rBGH-treated and non-rBGH-treated cows." That's not good enough for Monsanto.

The Next Battleground

As more and more dairies have chosen to advertise their milk as "No rBGH," Monsanto has gone on the offensive. Its attempt to force the F.T.C. to look into what Monsanto called "deceptive practices" by dairies trying to distance themselves from the company's artificial hormone was the most recent national salvo. But after reviewing Monsanto's claims, the F.T.C.'s Division of Advertising Practices decided in August 2007 that a "formal investigation and enforcement action is not warranted at this time." The agency found some instances where dairies had made "unfounded health and safety claims," but these were mostly on Web sites, not on milk cartons. And the F.T.C. determined that the dairies Monsanto had singled out all carried disclaimers that the F.D.A. had found no significant differences in milk from cows treated with the artificial hormone.

Blocked at the federal level, Monsanto is pushing for action by the states. In the fall of 2007, Pennsylvania's agriculture secretary, Dennis Wolff, issued an edict prohibiting dairies from stamping milk containers with labels stating their products were made without the use of the artificial hormone. Wolff said such a label implies that competitors' milk is not safe, and noted that non-supplemented milk comes at an unjustified higher price, arguments that Monsanto has frequently made. The ban was to take effect February 1, 2008.

Wolff's action created a firestorm in Pennsylvania (and beyond) from angry consumers. So intense was the outpouring of e-mails, letters, and calls that Pennsylvania governor Edward Rendell stepped in and reversed his agriculture secretary, saying, "The public has a right to complete information about how the milk they buy is produced."

On this issue, the tide may be shifting against Monsanto. Organic dairy products, which don't involve rBGH, are soaring in popularity. Supermarket chains such as Kroger, Publix, and Safeway are embracing them. Some other companies have turned away from rBGH products, including Starbucks, which has banned all milk products from cows treated with rBGH. Although Monsanto once claimed that an estimated 30 percent of the nation's dairy cows were injected with rBST, it's widely believed that today the number is much lower.

But don't count Monsanto out. Efforts similar to the one in Pennsylvania have been launched in other states, including New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Utah, and Missouri. A Monsanto-backed group called afact – American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology – has been spearheading efforts in many of these states. afact describes itself as a "producer organization" that decries "questionable labeling tactics and activism" by marketers who have convinced some consumers to "shy away from foods using new technology." afact reportedly uses the same St. Louis public-relations firm, Osborn & Barr, employed by Monsanto. An Osborn & Barr spokesman told The Kansas City Star that the company was doing work for afact on a pro bono basis.

Even if Monsanto's efforts to secure across-the-board labeling changes should fall short, there's nothing to stop state agriculture departments from restricting labeling on a dairy-by-dairy basis. Beyond that, Monsanto also has allies whose foot soldiers will almost certainly keep up the pressure on dairies that don't use Monsanto's artificial hormone. Jeff Kleinpeter knows about them, too.

He got a call one day from the man who prints the labels for his milk cartons, asking if he had seen the attack on Kleinpeter Dairy that had been posted on the Internet. Kleinpeter went online to a site called StopLabelingLies, which claims to "help consumers by publicizing examples of false and misleading food and other product labels." There, sure enough, Kleinpeter and other dairies that didn't use Monsanto's product were being accused of making misleading claims to sell their milk.

There was no address or phone number on the Web site, only a list of groups that apparently contribute to the site and whose issues range from disparaging organic farming to downplaying the impact of global warming. "They were criticizing people like me for doing what we had a right to do, had gone through a government agency to do," says Kleinpeter. "We never could get to the bottom of that Web site to get that corrected."

As it turns out, the Web site counts among its contributors Steven Milloy, the "junk science" commentator for FoxNews.com and operator of junkscience.com, which claims to debunk "faulty scientific data and analysis." It may come as no surprise that earlier in his career, Milloy, who calls himself the "junkman," was a registered lobbyist for Monsanto.

Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele are Vanity Fair contributing editors.

14 May 2008

Market signs improving, but GMO caution crucial

Farm Week (USA), 14 May 2008.

While global food pressures may be reshaping attitudes toward GMO crops, European market concerns continue to dictate that U.S. producers be cautious.

Jack Bernens, Syngenta head of industry relations for seeds and biotechnology, is encouraged by growing biotech acceptance (see accompanying story). At the same time, Bernens stressed the need for continued awareness of GMO market acceptance this fall.

That's especially true of "triple stacks" and "quad stacks" that combine various insect resistance and herbicide tolerance traits in one variety. Several stacked varieties are approved for the Japanese market but have not yet been cleared for grain export to the European Union (EU).

That underlines the continued importance of observing GMO corn production stewardship guidelines and post-harvest marketing agreements.

"Good progress is being made around the world - Korea and Japan taking shipments of biotech corn for food purposes is evidence of that," he told FarmWeek.

"The EU is still an area where approvals are coming very slowly. In fact, a number of products being sold in the U.S. - particularly some of the stacked products - are not approved in Europe. Of course, there's not much corn going to Europe anymore -not even corn gluten."

Producers can review EU GMO approvals at the National Corn Growers Association Know Before You Grow website ( www.ncga.com/biotechnology/Search_hybrids/know_where.asp) .

The U.S. saw a major pullback in European gluten sales beginning in the fall of 2006. Bernens is "hopeful but not overly optimistic" the EU might re-evaluate its GMO stance amid tight, high-priced corn/feed grain supplies.

The European Commission last week delayed approval for EU production of Syngenta Bt11 and Pioneer Hi-Bred-Dow Agrosciences 1507 corn varieties, pending additional scientific review by the EU's food agency.

But Bernens noted some European producers are "pushing hard" for GMOs, and Illinois Corn Growers Association Executive Director Rodney Weinzierl sees a more "top-down push" for biotech movement despite continued squabbling among EU member nations. "Having a shortage of feed is helping," Weinzierl said.

As GMO crop production accelerates in Brazil and Argentina, "they're going to be taking on more of the trait stacks," fueling GMO importation pressures, Bernens argued. American Farm Bureau Federation biotech analyst Russell Williams agrees with Bernens' assessment that the EU is "quickly becoming more and more of an island."

"With food prices and everything, you start to hear grumblings across the world that maybe biotech's not such a bad idea," Williams said. "That's even starting in Europe." - Martin Ross

Switzerland: Cabinet calls for GMO-free agriculture

Swiss Info, May 14 2008.

The government has come out in favour of extending a ban on genetically modified organisms (GMO) in agriculture until 2013. Voters approved a five-year blanket ban in a nationwide ballot in 2005, but research remains permitted. Parliament is to debate the government proposal.

The Federal Environment Office said the current moratorium had had no adverse impact on farming or research in Switzerland, and Swiss agriculture could benefit from its GMO-free status.

Results of a national research programme into genetically modified plants are expected by 2012.

Leading farmers' organisations, environmental and consumer groups support the government's policy on GMOs, according to the authorities.

France: Setback for Sarkozy as parliament throws out GM bill

AFP, 14 May 2008

PARIS - French President Nicolas Sarkozy's government suffered a setback on Tuesday as lawmakers unexpectedly threw out a controversial bill on genetically-modified (GM) crops.

Although Sarkozy's ruling right holds an absolute majority in the National Assembly, one third of his UMP party rebelled and joined left-wing lawmakers to vote out the text on technical grounds, by a whisker-thin 136 votes to 135.

Cheers broke out outside the parliament building where anti-GM campaigners had gathered in protest as the bill, which aimed to bring France into line with a 2001 European Union law, was rejected.

Anti-globalisation activist José Bové, who has been jailed several times for ripping up GM crops, called it a "historic victory".

"This is a collective victory for the citizens of this country who refuse GMOs (genetically-modified organisms). The government will not be able to do anything it wants after this," said a cheering Bové.

Left-wing critics attacked the legislation, drawn up following a national conference on the environment last October, as lacking strong enough safeguards to protect conventional crops from possible contamination from GMOs.

They also attacked its plans to make ripping up GM crops, a tactic of choice for French anti-GM activists, a criminal offence punishable by up to two years in jail.

Opposition among members of Sarkozy's UMP party was for different reasons: many argued the text gave too much ground to environmentalists by making it compulsory to publicly disclose any GM field under cultivation.

Green party deputy Noel Mamere said the National Assembly vote was "a fine lesson for the government and for Nicolas Sarkozy", while Greenpeace said it was "happy" the text had been voted out.

GM crops have proved divisive even in French government ranks, where Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo and his junior minister, Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, have openly clashed on the issue.

Prime Minister Francois Fillon said the text would be submitted to a new vote in both the lower-house National Assembly and the supper house Senate, and that a bi-partisan committee would meet Wednesday to start studying the text.

But the Socialist opposition warned the government it would not accept the text being forced through parliament.

Reflecting widespread public hostility to GM crops in France, the government in February banned the only strain of genetically-modified corn currently grown in France, MON810, produced by the US agribusiness giant Monsanto.

GM crops cover less than one percent of farmland in France, Europe's top agricultural producer.

While production of GM maize remains small, it has increased: some 22,000 hectares (54,000 acres) of the crop were planted in France in 2007, up from 5,000 hectares in 2006.

France: Sarkozy suffers legislative blow

Time magazine, 14 May 2008. By Bruce Crumley.

[Photo caption: Anti-GMO activists demonstrate in front of the National Assembly as a much disputed law is likely to be approved, which they say blurs the line between natural and GM foods.]

The raucous standing ovation of French parliamentarians on Tuesday was a scene French President Nicolas Sarkozy could have done without; it was the opposition Socialists, not his own conservative majority, that were celebrating. The government suffered a surprise defeat over a law on genetically modified crops, but more importantly, the divisions that vote revealed within the French right threaten more trouble for the President in the future.

In any other country, the proposed legislation on the cultivation of genetically modified crop organisms (GMO) would have produced more yawns than fireworks; it was intended only to bring restrictive national laws in line with European Union directives that are more tolerant of GMOs. Yet wide public hostility towards GMOs – combined with disapproval of Sarkozy's heavy-handed leadership style – turned Tuesday's vote into political drama of the first order. Conservatives have an enormous parliamentary majority of 343 out of 577. But on Tuesday, many of them were missing, and others ready to defect to a leftist motion to reject the bill. The result: a razor-thin 136-135 defeat of the government's GMO measure. It was the first time in ten years that an opposition-led effort has defeated legislation proposed by a French government.

"This is a very beautiful lesson for the government and Nicolas Sarkozy," said Green Party legislator NoÎl MamËre, one of many Sarkozy opponents who have criticized the conservatives for seeking to ram through controversial legislation without consultation or debate. "I hope that, as I speak, the President is eating the Elysée carpet, because this is a victory of the French people over a government that wanted pass a law by force."

José Bové, the environmentalist and anti-globalist who sat in the public gallery during the vote, had a similar message. "This is a collective victory for the citizens of this country who refuse GMOs," he said. "The government will not be able to do anything it wants after this."

French Prime Minister FranÁois Fillon immediately convened a committee of both houses of French parliament to review and reintroduce the legislation for another vote, when whips will presumably insure a full turnout to gain passage. Despite public suspicion of GMOs, that shouldn't prove difficult, since the bill is hardly radical. It obliges farmers to separate natural and GMO cultivation, and sets permitted limits of GMO "contamination" to surrounding plots; requires public disclosure of where GMO crops are located; and make the destruction of GMO crops by protesters – an act for which Bové has been repeatedly arrested – a criminal offense. Such measures would be considered minimal in many countries, and will have limited impact even in France, where less than 1% of all crops raised are GMOs. So why all the fuss?

Because of what it says about Sarkozy, of course, who totally dominates political debate in France even as he languishes in the opinion polls. "This setback is mainly significant against the background of serious public displeasure with Sarkozy's leadership, and the growing incidence of conservatives openly defying him and the government to show their disagreement," says Dominique Reynié, a French political analyst and professor at the Fondation National des Sciences Politiques in Paris. Despite the President's recent efforts to alternatively charm and threaten his party members back into order, Reynié says unhappiness over the meager results of Sarkozy's reform agenda have left conservatives disinclined to follow his lead. That wariness among his own allies contributed to the multiplication of problems the increasingly unpopular Sarkozy has faced this year. "As long as he was popular and helping the right win elections, conservatives in parliament were happy to vote through whatever Sarkozy told them to," says Reynié. "Now they are not only refusing to do that, but on issues like the GMO law, openly demonstrating that they stand with the public, not with the President and government."

That does not bode well for Sarkozy, who must get the reintroduced GMO bill passed before tabling sweeping institutional and constitutional reform, including changes to parliament itself, in June. Many conservatives have already expressed concern over such measures and are looking to the left as possible allies to turn them away. If that happens, Sarkozy may soon be hearing more parliamentary applause of the sort he'd prefer to avoid.

French assembly rejects proposal on GM crops

AFP, 14 May 2008. By D. Crossan.

The Government's law proposal on GM crops was rejected by the French Assembly. French PM FranÁois Fillon has appointed a commission of deputies and senators to find a consensus and put the proposal back on the table.

The French parliament rejected a bill on genetically modified (GM) crops on Tuesday after hundreds of activists marched in Paris to protest against a text they said blurred the line between natural and GM foods.

In a shock move, National Assembly members used a procedural veto to block debate on the text, postponing a vote indefinitely. The veto was passed by 136 votes to 135, mostly due to the absence of many legislators from the ruling party, which has been divided on the bill. Ý

The bill was intended to lay down conditions for the cultivation of GM crops in France, Europe's largest grain producer and exporter, and create a body to oversee GMO use. Ý

Prime Minister Francois Fillon said immediately after the vote he would ask a committee to work on a new bill that would be submitted to the lower and upper chambers. The new bill could be very similar in content since Tuesday's vote was on a technicality, not on the substance of the bill. Ý

The setback for the government's bill is the latest sign that the debate on transgenic food is still vivid in France. Ý

Polls show that a vast majority of people are opposed to GM crops because they lack proof that they pose no risk to consumers and the environment. Ý

Opposition parties including the Socialists and the Greens, as well as environmental activists, welcomed the news. Ý

"The government has been defeated, clearly and starkly, on a subject that worries the French," the head of the Socialist group at the National Assembly said. Ý

Hundreds of protesters, some wearing yellow hats in the shape of maize cobs and others dressed in white suits imitating scientists, had gathered near the National Assembly ahead of the debate to voice their opposition to the proposed text. Ý

"We must give consumers the choice of eating quality products, with or without GMO," said Jean Terlon, a cook at the restaurant Le Saint-Pierre in Longjumeau, close to Paris. Ý

While GM crops are common in the United States and Latin America, France and many other European countries are dubious about using the new genetic technology in agriculture. Ý

France banned the sole GM crop grown in the European Union, a maize (corn) developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, in February because it had serious doubts about whether it was environmentally safe. GMO cultivation is still legal, however. Ý

The new French bill was criticised both by pro-GMOs who said it did not go far enough and by opponents, including members of the ruling majority, who said changes made in exchanges between the parliament and the upper house had made it too lax. Ý

"The problem of this law is that it legalises contamination because anything with a GMO content of less than 0.9 percent can be called GMO-free," Romain Chabrol, a spokesman of the environmental group Greenpeace France, said.

U.S. using food crisis to boost bio-engineered crops

Chicago Tribune, May 14 2008. By Stephen J. Hedges Washington Bureau.

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has slipped a controversial ingredient into the $770 million aid package it recently proposed to ease the world food crisis, adding language that would promote the use of genetically modified crops in food-deprived countries.

The value of genetically modified, or bio-engineered, food is an intensely disputed issue in the U.S. and in Europe, where many countries have banned foods made from genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

Proponents say that GMO crops can result in higher yields from plants that are hardier in harsh climates, like those found in hungry African nations.

"We certainly think that it is established fact that a number of bio-engineered crops have shown themselves to increase yields through their drought resistance and pest resistance," said Dan Price, a food aid expert on the White House's National Security Council.

Problems anticipated

Opponents of GMO crops say they can cause unforeseen medical problems. They also contend that the administration's plan is aimed at helping American agribusinesses.

"This is a hot topic now with the food crisis," said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association. "I think it's pretty obvious at this point that genetically engineered crops - they may do a number of things, but they don't increase yields. There are no commercialized crops that are designed to deal with the climate crisis."

President George W. Bush proposed the food package two weeks ago as aid groups and the UN World Food Program pressed Western governments to provide additional funds to bridge the gap caused by rising food prices. The aid must win congressional approval.

It would direct the U.S. Agency for International Development to spend $150 million of the total aid package on development farming, which would include the use of GMO crops.

The U.S. is the UN food program's largest donor, providing nearly half the help the group receives from governments. It gave about $1.1 billion to the WFP in both 2006 and 2007. The WFP provided $2.6 billion in aid in 2006.

In April, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested at a Peace Corps conference that "we need to look again at some of the issues concerning technology and food production. I know that GMOs are not popular around the world, but there are places that drought-resistant crops should be a part of the answer."

Some aid organizations agree that it is time to consider GMO crops.

"I think it's good, that it should be part of the package," said Mark Rosegrant, an environment and technology specialist with the International Food Policy Research Institute. "It shouldn't be the only thing in the package. It is now showing quite a bit of potential in starting to address some of the long-term stresses, drought and heat."

But Noah Zerbe, an assistant professor of government and politics at Humboldt State University in California, said that GMO crops might not be appropriate for developing countries.

"You get fantastic yields if you're able to apply fertilizer and water at the right times, and herbicides to go along with that," Zerbe said. "Unfortunately, most African farmers, they can't afford these inputs."

Africa ambivalent

The U.S. tried to introduce GMO crops to Africa in 2002, with mixed results. European Union opposition was part of the reason that several African nations that year balked at an offer of U.S. aid that included corn, some of which was genetically modified.

In a severe drought, Zambia rejected the U.S. aid altogether. Several other countries accepted the U.S. corn, but only after it was milled.

The NSC's Price said the administration is working to persuade European nations to lift their objection to the use of GMO crops in Africa. Rosegrant of the research institute said that, given current food shortages, new bio-safety measures could resolve such problems.

"There's evidence that those fears tend to be overblown," Rosegrant said.

German universities bow to public pressure over GM crops
Plug is pulled on maize research

Nature News, 14 May 2008. By Quirin Schiermeier.

Scientists have decried the decision by two German universities to pull the plug on field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops, calling it a "disgraceful" interference with scientists' freedom to research.

"I am not happy at all with this decision," says Stefan Hormuth, president of the Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Hesse.

"Unfortunately, we were no longer able to deal with the massive opposition from politicians and the general public. The university has a reputation in the region that we cannot risk losing."

Andreas Schier had to stop his field trials of GM maize.

Last month, the university announced that it would stop its planned cultivation of insect-resistant GM maize in nearby Gross-Gerau after activists occupied the 1,500-square-metre field.

Another local field trial of GM maize, in Rauischholzhausen, was also stopped because of massive protests from the public and local politicians. Both trials had been approved by the national consumer protection and food safety body (BVL) and were to be conducted on behalf of Germany's authority for agriculture variety and seed affairs.

Earlier in April, the rector and external advisory board of N¸rtingen-Geislingen University in Baden-W¸rttemberg "urgently recommended" that a faculty member stop his field trials on insect-resistant and fungal-resistant GM maize. The experiments, which were also approved by the BVL, had been going on since 1996. "We have always been very critical of this kind of research," says economist Werner Ziegler, the university's rector. "Lately things got out of control. There were e-mail attacks, vandalism, intimidation and personal threats. People started calling us 'Monsanto University'."

The final straw, Ziegler says, was when the local population brought food and blankets to activists occupying the university's Oberboihingen test site. Local media and supporters hailed the illegal action as a brave act of civil inconvenience.

The university's experiments were led by Andreas Schier, who studies fungal toxins in maize. Although legally the university could not have forced him to stop the field trials, he says he eventually gave in because the pressure on him had become too great. "Scientifically, there was no reason whatsoever to discontinue the experiments," Schier says. "But scientific arguments don't count in a climate of mass hysteria."

Schier claims that Ziegler and members of the advisory board threatened to publicly distance themselves from him and his research if he were to continue. "I couldn't stand the pressure any more," he says.

The incidents reveal a new level of public hostility to plant genetic engineering in Germany, says Heinz Saedler, a director at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, which this year is not cultivating GM crops either. "It is a very sad thing that some universities here haven't got the backbone to withstand illegal activism and public pressure," he says. "I honestly don't have much hope left for the future of academic research on GM crops in Germany."

"If it is indeed true that universities in Germany hinder faculty members from doing field research on GM crops for fear of being vandalized by anti-GM activists, then this is disgraceful," says Vivian Moses, a visiting professor of biotechnology at King's College London.

Brazil's environment minister quits

Financial Times, 14 May 2008. By Jonathan Wheatley in São Paulo

Brazil's environment minister has resigned after becoming increasingly isolated within the government.

Marina Silva, who rose from poverty in the Amazon state of Acre to become a global figurehead for environmental activists, resigned late on Tuesday in a manner typical of her way of operating: she wrote to President Luiz In·cio Lula da Silva and immediately announced her decision to the media, leaving no room for possible negotiation.

The final straw for Ms Silva appears to have been the appointment of Roberto Mangabeira Unger, the minister for strategic affairs, to take charge of a new plan for sustainable development in the Amazon.

But during five years in the job she found herself in growing conflict with ministers pressing for the approval of infrastructure projects, many of which have been held up by the long process of obtaining environmental licences.

The most visible such project concerns the River Madeira in the Amazon, where two hydroelectric generating plants are to be built against fierce resistance from indigenous people and environmental groups. Mr Lula da Silva irritated Ms Silva by commenting that Brazil's economic development was being held up "for the sake of a few fish".

Many environmentalists were dismayed by Ms Silva's departure from government, which came days after a landowner in the Amazon had a conviction for ordering the killing of a US missionary nun overturned.

Ms Silva described the ruling in the case of Dorothy Stang, apparently murdered in 2005 for her activism on behalf of landless family farmers, as "lamentable".

In a statement, Greenpeace, the international environmental group, said Ms Silva had "taken the credibility of Lula's government with her". It said: "With her exit, a faction of the government which is pressing for economic development at any cost . . . has won a major victory against those who seek to reconcile development with sustainability."

Others will be less alarmed. Ms Silva was criticised by many for seeing conservation as a "zero-sum game" and for her opposition to initiatives attempting to reconcile the interests of ranchers and farmers with conservation. No replacement had been announced on Wednesday.

Groups say Amazon vulnerable after resignation

Associated Press, 14 May 2008.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil - Marina Silva brought impeccable credentials to her post as Brazil's environment minister: The daughter of a poor Amazon rubber tapper, she was a colleague of slain rain forest defender Chico Mendes.

But environmentalists said Wednesday that her sudden resignation a day earlier showed that her prestige had masked the intentions of a government bent on economic growth and development regardless of the environmental cost.

"Now the emperor has no clothes. The intention of Lula's government is clear," said Roberto Smeraldi, director of Friends of the Earth Brazil, referring to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva by his nickname. "This thing where Marina says one thing and the government does the opposite has ended."

Marina Silva, who is not related to the president, resigned at a moment when Brazil's rain forest is threatened by dams and other big public works projects, as well as farmers bent on tilling the region's soil to meet the world's growing demand for food and biofuels.

President Silva said Wednesday that the resignation took him by surprise. But he vowed it would not weaken protection of the Amazon.

"Brazil's environmental policy will not change," the president said at a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "The policies are not the minister's policies but the government's policies."

Conservation International's vice president for Latin America, Jose Maria da Silva _ not related to the president or the former minister _ said the resignation complicates Brazil's efforts to reassure the world that ethanol and other biofuels do not threaten the Amazon.

"Without her, the government's credibility drops significantly," he said. "The government still hasn't proven its guarantees about the environmental sustainability of biofuels." Merkel called Silva's resignation a "warning sign."

"Biofuels are a way toward replacing classic fossil energy sources," she said, "but only if they are cultivated sustainably."

Since assuming her post in 2003, Marina Silva had opposed genetically modified crops, tightened environmental licensing for public works projects and urged limiting biofuel plantations in the rain forest.

She tried to work with other agencies for an integrated approach to protecting the environment _ but lost almost every time she was opposed by another department.

Recently she came under attack from the president's powerful chief of staff, Dilma Rousseff, who complained about delays in granting environmental licenses. Agriculture Minister Reinhold Stephanes criticized her policy of denying government credit to farmers caught illegally deforesting. He advocates opening more of the Amazon to sugarcane crops for ethanol.

The final straw apparently came last week, when the government announced its "Sustainable Amazon" plan led by the minister of long-term planning, Mangabeira Unger, long known for arguing that the Amazon cannot be left untouched.

Marina Silva's resignation letter cited "difficulties in advancing the federal environmental agenda."

She now returns to her seat in the Senate representing the Amazon state of Acre.

The president's office announced she will be replaced by Rio de Janeiro state Environmental Secretary Carlos Minc.

Interview about attacks on GM Watch

GM Watch, 14 May 2008.

Here is a transcript of a new GM Watch podcast in which you can hear GM Watch founder, Jonathan Matthews, being interviewed by Peter Brown - GM Watch's podcast producer, about the cyber attacks that recently drove the GM Watch website offline.

We had a few problems with phone line quality when recording this so if Jonathan sounds like he's got a heavy cold and is less than fully audible at any point, please refer to the transcript.

Our podcasts are available for free by subscribing via iTunes. If you don't already have iTunes installed, it's best to do this first. iTunes is available for free at http://www.apple.com/itunes and it will work on a PC or a Mac. When iTunes is installed, click on the following URL: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=158600210

This will open iTunes, where you can subscribe to our podcasts, and this podcast should then automatically download. When you've downloaded the podcast, you can use iTunes to play it on your computer or you can transfer the file onto a portable media player (an mp3 player or iPod).

Once you've subscribed to the GM Watch channel, any future GM Watch podcasts will automatically become available.

Transcript

Peter Brown: This is the first in a series of GM Watch podcasts in which we're going to look at the PR war that continues to rage over GM crops.

With me to discuss this is Jonathan Matthews, the founder of GM Watch, which for a number of years has been in the front line of those trying to challenge and expose the often bogus PR claims and dubious tactics employed by the biotech industry.

Jonathan, I want to begin this series by asking you about the recent attacks on GM Watch that forced your website and all your lists offline. What's the current state of play on this?

Jonathan Matthews: Well, we're back online again, so that's the good news. We've got a temporary website and we've also re-established our lists and we've been contacting all our subscribers, so they have got the opportunity to resubscribe with us. So we're gradually picking up the pieces but it's been a very damaging attack.

Peter: But, just to be clear about this, now, the GM Watch site has profiles on the PR players in the promotion of GM crops, and George Monbiot has called it the world's most comprehensive database on the impact and politics of GM crops - is that still offline?

Jonathan: Yes, obviously we hope to make the same information available again in the not too distant future - but the GM Watch site as was is gone.

Peter: And that's because of this recent attack?

Jonathan: Yes, following the most recent attack our web host decided to take the GM Watch site offline - and to keep it offline, unfortunately, until we found someone else to host the GM Watch and LobbyWatch sites.

Peter: But surely that's a bit short sighted. Aren't these attacks on websites getting really common these days? I saw a recent headline from Computer World that said that something like half a million web pages had been infected by hack attacks. How does it help to discontinue the relationship with GM Watch?

Jonathan: Well, yes it's certainly true that there have been a lot more websites getting hacked recently, and we're talking about websites that people might expect to be pretty secure, so that includes government websites, in the U.K. for instance, and United Nations websites have been hacked and even, I understand, the Dept. of Homeland Security apparently! So it's certainly not just GM Watch.

Peter: So if these attacks are going on, doesn't that mean that the attack on your website might be just indiscriminate. In other words it might not have been an attack personally against the GM Watch organisation? Surely, you're just one amongst many who are suffering from this?

Jonathan: Well, it's certainly possible that we're talking about something random, but that's not the view of our web host - for a number of reasons. The first one is that this most recent attack wasn't a one-off. In fact, he's actually been at the sharp end of about 14 months of this, so...

Peter: So that's been a really sustained attack - for over a year, you mean?

Jonathan: Yes, though the form of the attacks has varied quite a bit in that time. It originally started in February of last year when the server was hacked into and a lot of material was deleted off both our sites at that time, and they also got at the back up for the sites on the server and attacked that, so that caused us a lot of problems.

That's where it started, but after that they stopped hacking for a while and it moved over to what are called Denial of Service attacks, you know, which are attacks where they try and make it hard for people to access your site.

Peter: So how does that work? How do they do that?

Jonathan: Well, initially they were exploiting the fact that the pages on our sites were generated from a database type system and this enabled them to inject into that in a way that completely slows down the site and makes it difficult to access.

And that went on and on and on. They just kept that up - it's something that can be automated, apparently. And in the end we agreed with our web host that the site should be changed over from dynamic to static pages, so it moved off that database system.

And that was effective in bringing those attacks to a halt, but the interesting thing is as soon as we made it impossible for them to launch that form of attack, then they hacked back in again and they defaced the site again. But that time we were ready for them - you know, we had new measures in place and it was easy to restore the sites (and) get back online.

And then they shifted over to a new form of Denial of Service attack where they pounded the sites with huge numbers of hits. Again that's a type of attack that can be automated, but actually the site stood up to it pretty well. So then they hacked back in again and really attacked the site big time.

Peter: So now you're talking about the most recent attack? What did they exactly do?

Jonathan: Well, the attack itself was pretty devastating. They hacked into the server and attached over 20 different viruses plus spyware to the GM Watch site. And they may also have put in some malicious code, as well. A network engineer who our web host brought in to advise on what damage had been done said that he'd actually never seen anything like it in his 20 years in the industry. They also deleted some of the site content, as well.

Peter: Some of the site content? So what did they delete?

Jonathan: Well, the home page off the LobbyWatch site went. The interesting thing actually was that in this last attack, unlike the earlier attacks when they hacked in and defaced the sites - on those occasions what they'd done, it was clear, was just try to delete everything they could - but this time they seemed to just target certain specific pages.

So we lost, as I said, the home page on the LobbyWatch site. We had some pages linking through to GM Watch material that had been translated into different languages - pages with those links on were deleted for some reason. And then we had an interview I'd done with Marina Littek of Green Planet which went into a lot of detail about the dirty tricks campaign Monsanto and its Internet PR agency Bivings had been involved in that we'd uncovered. So that interview went, and the main page on the 'wormy corn' scandal, that was deleted as well.

Peter: So that 'wormy corn' scandal... that was what lead to calls for the retraction of a pro-GM paper in a science journal, wasn't it?

Jonathan: Yes, and to legal threats against our web host by one of the researchers, and that lead to the GM Watch site being shut down for... only about a week last August. Those were the only pages we've been able to identify as having been deleted in this last attack.

Peter: But don't you think this is just another example of the current attempts to target certain types of servers on the Internet?

Jonathan: Well, our web host thinks not. His point is that if these attacks had simply been coming about because hackers had spotted certain vulnerabilities in his server - you know, certain things they could exploit, like versions of code or software products they knew they could target, then why over that 14 month period did they always target our websites and not any of the 300 or so other websites he's also got on that server. I mean, it was just always us and I think that persuaded him that there was something personal about this!

Because those other websites are operating off exactly the same kind of platforms as us - and in fact over time because of the attacks, obviously, he was making changes to our sites, like moving us off a dynamic system onto static pages and doing other things to make it hard to attack us, so in a way other sites on his server became relatively easier to attack than us, but they didn't ever attack those, even though they still had those loopholes and we'd closed them on our sites. They kept coming after our sites each time, changing tactics and the form of attack.

Peter: Yes, it does seem rather strange. So none of these other websites have suffered any defacement - any deletion of pages - or viruses - or spyware-attachments, or any Denial of Service attacks, or anything like that, then?

Jonathan: No, that's right. All the attacks have been focused exclusively on us, so he feels that when you're looking at multiple attacks, and attacks sustained over a period of more than a year, that that's got to be beyond any sort of coincidence.

Peter: So that's why your web host doesn't want to continue to host GM Watch?

Jonathan: Well, in fairness, it's not that he doesn't want to continue to host us. He's very uncomfortable with the sort of freedom of speech issues that this brings up. It's just a commercial decision that he can't actually afford it. He's had to make that decision because of the costs it's involving him in - the work and the time, as well as money from bringing in other people's expertise. He's just been spending time trying to make his server more secure, trying to make it impossible to go on attacking our sites, but the tactics keep changing and the attacks keep coming. And, funnily enough, since he shut down our site nearly 3 weeks ago, it's all stopped.

Peter: He's had no more attacks?

Jonathan: No. Our web host has not failed to inform us that in the 3 weeks since our site's been down, he's had no problems at all. So peace reigns after 14 months of attacks. And... you know, perhaps I shouldn't mention this, because perhaps they'll now attack his server just to prove they weren't chasing after us!

Peter: And do you have any idea who's behind these attacks? Is there any technical way of identifying that?

Jonathan: Well, to an extent there is. There are logs - web logs - for the site, which can give some information about what's going on and where any attack has apparently come from. So that should be able to tell you what machine, which country, etc. But, in fact, the information from our site logs has been pretty limited because when our web host came to examine it, he discovered a lot of the logs had been corrupted.

Now, he assumes that this has come about as the result of the most recent attack, because he didn't have a problem with web logs before that, and he hasn't got a problem with the logs on any of his other sites. They all seem to be OK. It's just ours where there's a problem, so his assumption is that our logs have been targeted in some way.

Peter: So the information is pretty limited that he's gleaned?

Jonathan: Yes, it is limited, though one thing that is clear is that not all the attacks have come from the same place.

Peter: But doesn't that mean if it isn't the same people that are targeting you, doesn't that support the idea that these attacks are not really connected?

Jonathan: Well, in the view of our web host, then because the focus has been exclusive to our sites and because of the continuity of the attacks, then he feels that even though different attackers have been involved, then it means the attacks are being deliberately directed at us as an organisation.

So, what he thinks has been happening is that someone - you know, some individual or some organization - has actually been commissioning the attacks - probably commissioning them from well-known hacking and defacing communities that have expertise in this sort of thing.

Something that might support that is the timing of some of these attacks. From our point of view, being on the receiving end of these attacks, there have been some remarkable coincidences.

Just to give a couple of examples, after the first attack we got the site back online and we launched a financial appeal and 24 hours later the Denial of Service attack was up and running for the first time. Now what was interesting about that was that our financial appeal was heavily dependent on people going to a page on the site and linking from there to make a donation online, and that's the way that most people would donate. And, of course, the effect of the Denial of Service attack was that we were getting loads of e-mails from people saying, 'Look, we want to donate, we want to support you, but we can't actually get onto your site, we can't get onto this page to make the donation'. So, if you were going to design an attack and time an attack, it couldn't have been timed better.

There was another remarkable coincidence, which was at the end of this sequence of attacks, so in terms of the latest attack. And what was interesting about that was that about a week before that attack we actually commented on the attacks, which we hadn't really done for about a year. And we put out a statement on our lists saying how these attacks had been going on - giving some idea of what had happened, but basically saying that we seemed to have weathered the storm. And actually, you know, we were feeling fairly complacent in a way because of the changes that had been made. We didn't feel that their most recent attacks had really been very successful, so we were feeling a little bit smug almost. And then in comes this huge attack that drives us off line and makes our web host decide that we need to go and find someone else to host us.

Peter: I suppose the other question is why would anybody want to drive you off line. There are lots of effective anti-GM campaigns out there, in some cases involving big hitting organisations, so why pick on GM Watch?

Jonathan: Well, I suppose I could use the well known mosquito analogy: you don't always have to be big to get under people's skin or to make them want to swat you. And it's also the case that we've published some quite hard hitting material - you know, sometimes exposing dubious claims, and sort of underhand tactics - dirty tricks campaigns and so on, and that definitely hasn't been welcomed. Our sites, as you mentioned, have also included extensive personal profiles on biotech PR players, and these have sometimes contained material that we know that people would prefer not to have disclosed. So there is probably no shortage of people who 'owe us a grudge', you might say.

And, I think, the other thing that our investigative work has taught us is that there are people out there engaged in promoting GM who are willing to engage in pretty dubious tactics to ach