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 partƯ 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 GMƯ 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 Inter