NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • October 2008

2008: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov
2007: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • 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 • 2004 • 2003

More GM news is available on our news feed and www.gmwatch.eu

31 October 2008

Greenpeace calls on Commission to shut down EFSA GMO panel

Greenpeace press release, 31 October 2008.

Belgium -- The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) should be banned from issuing opinions on genetically modified crops until it is able to assess the long-term impact of GM technology on health and the environment, said Greenpeace today following EFSA's opinions on three highly controversial GM crops. While the EU is in the middle of a crucial debate on the reform of its authorisation system for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), EFSA has issued positive opinions on a Syngenta pesticide-producing maize (Bt11) and a Pioneer-Dow pesticide-producing and herbicide-tolerant maize (1507). EFSA has also stated that there is no scientific evidence to justify the French ban on Monsanto pesticide-producing maize (MON810).

"EFSA is becoming the laughing stock of the scientific community. Rubber-stamping anything the agro-biotech industry puts forward, with the blessing of the European Commission, is destroying its credibility," said Márta Vetier, Greenpeace EU GMO campaigner.

For two of these GM crops (Bt11 and 1507), EFSA had already issued positive opinions. Nonetheless, these were sent back to the authority in May 2008 after the Commission found that essential elements were missing from the risk assessment. But nothing has been done yet to improve the system.

EFSA's opinions reject recent scientific evidence highlighting the negative impact caused by GM crops on biodiversity and the environment (1).

The Commission's health and environment director-generals recently wrote to EFSA's executive director urging the authority to assess health and environmental impacts related to the increased use of herbicides because of GM crops (2). In April this year, EFSA also agreed with the Commission to spend two years improving its capacity to assess the long-term and indirect impacts of GMOs (3). The majority of member states currently debating GMOs at Council level also agree that EU risk assessment must be strengthened.

"Greenpeace calls on the Commission to shut down the EFSA GMO panel until it is able to function properly under EU law," said Vetier.

Notes to Editor

(1) http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/GM-crops-too-many-risks-to-ignore

(2) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902125247.htm

(3) http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionDetailsRO.jsf

Contact information

Márta Vetier - EU GMO campaigner, +32 (0)2 274 1920, marta.vetier@greenpeace.org

GM maize soon to return to French fields?
The European Food Safety Authority rules that the safeguard clause invoked by France to suspend the cultivation of Monsanto's GM maize was not justified.

Libération, 31 October 2007. By Guillaume Launay.
[French to English translation by GM-free Ireland]

Will the GM maize Mon 810 return to French fields? It is back in the debate, at any rate. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has advised that the safeguard clause, invoked by France in February to suspend the cultivation of Monsanto's GM maize, was not justified. In an opinion released on 29 October, the agency's GMO panel concluded that the data provided by Paris to support its request "did not present new scientific proofs of risks to human or animal health, or to the environment, which could have justified the invocation of the safeguard clause".

A principle of the Grenelle de l'environnement falters

The "serious doubts" invoked by the advance commitee on GMOs are thus swept aside, and one of the principles of the Grenelle de l'Environnement [France's national stakeholder discussions on the environment held in late 2007] is faltering. Mon 810 is not thereby formally authorised: the decision reverts to the European Commission. But the latter usually follows EFSA's opinions.

Greenpeace reacted strongly to this announcement, describing it as a "serious decision" and criticising EFSA which has almost always ruled in favour of GMOs: "Despite the serious doubts over EFSA's competence on GMOs, it continues to do as it has always done with total impunity: providing positive assessments of all GMOs!", complains Arnaud Apoteker of Greenpeace France. "Faced with adversity, EFSA thus refuses to listen and ignores concerns, at the expense of French and European citizens. This is unacceptable! Under these conditions, EFSA must be shut down until it has implemented the reforms expected by everyone". The reform of the GMO assessment at the European level is indeed one of the projects which France put on the agenda during its presidency of the Union.

In a press release issued at the end of the day, the Ministry of Ecology made a point of playing down the implications of EFSA's opinion, noting that while it may "constitute a step in the procedure, the decision returns the Council of European Ministers, and then possibly to the European Commission." Jean-Louis Borloo [Minister of Ecology and Sustainable Development and Planning] and Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet [Secretary of State of Ecology] emphasised that "France therefore maintains its position on the safeguard clause and will uphold it at the Council of European Ministers".

Campaign Mobilizes Health Conscious Shoppers To Non-GMO Brand

Spilling the Beans newsletter, October 2008. By Jeffrey M. Smith.

Subscribe to e-newsletter Spilling the Beans
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMFree/AbouttheInstitute/NewsletterSignup/index.cfm

Non-GMO Education Centers are now appearing in natural food stores nationwide. These six-foot high blue towers feature books, DVDs, CDs, and handouts about genetically modified organisms. The sign on top offers two potent messages. The first – "Healthy Eating Starts with No GMOs" – is the slogan that The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America wants shoppers to understand. The second is what the Campaign wants shoppers to do: "Ask for Non-GMO Products."

A similar one-two punch already knocked down genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Consumers learned that milk from treated cows is less healthy; it has more pus, antibiotics, growth hormone, and IGF-1 – a hormone linked to cancer (seeÝhttp://www.YourMilkonDrugs.com). When shoppers asked for non-hormone-treated milk, the food industry responded. Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, and about 40 of the 100 top dairies so far have removed rbGH products over the past couple of years. Monsanto recently abandoned the cow drug altogether, selling it off at a steep discount to Ely Lilly's animal division Elanco.

The demise of rbGH began in trend-setting natural food aisles before spreading mainstream. That is the Campaign's plan for genetically modified (GM) crops, which they expect to follow closely on the heels of rbGH.

No one knows exactly how many devout non-GMO shoppers are needed to achieve the "tipping point," but because GMOs offer no consumer benefits, the critical mass will likely be quite small – perhaps 5%. With a population of 300 million, that translates to only 15 million people or 5.6 million households. Now consider that 28 million people buy organic products regularly; another 54 million occasionally shop organic. Thus, the tipping point can be generated exclusively by health-conscious shoppers.

The vast majority of these folks would choose non-GMO brands if given a clear choice. That's why the most important item in the Education Center is the Non-GMO Shopping Guide. The free 16-page pocket Guide lists brands as GMO or non-GMO, and also explains how to evaluate other food items not yet listed.Ý View the Press ReleaseÝ[http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/MediaCenter/ReleaseNewNon-GMOShoppingGuide/index.cfm] explaining how the Non-GMO Shopping Guide can help you create a Non-GMO Thanksgiving

On the top row of the Education Center next to the Guides are free GMO Health Risk brochures, providing extra motivation to shop non-GMO. They summarize many of the alarming documented risks of GMOs, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. These and other problems are further elaborated in the popular DVDs and books available in the shelves below, including the DVDs The World According to Monsanto, Future of Food, and The GMO Trilogy, and the books Seeds of Deception, Genetic Roulette, and Your Right to Know.

View the Non-GMO Shopping Guide
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/documentFiles/144.pdf.

View the GMO Health Risks Brochure
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/DocumentFiles/140.pdf.

Purchase 50 of the Guides and/or Brochures, price approximately at our cost
http://www.fsicart.com/seeds/.

Natural Food Stores play pivotal role

Whether or not natural food stores host the full Non-GMO Education Center, they can still distribute GMO Health Risk brochures and Shopping Guides at no charge. They can also download the Retailer Campaign Kit [http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMFree/CampaignforHealthierEatinginAmerica/Retailers/Tool-CampaignKit/index.cfm], which includes staff education materials, articles for their website or newsletter, and publicity materials and handouts to use in conjunction with free public showings of the blockbuster new documentary The World According to Monsanto.

Nature's Pantry of Independence Missouri demonstrated the impact of a natural food store Non-GMO Campaign. They ran a series of five of our articles in their printed newsletter, circulation 19,000. Another was written for their 20-page Kansas City Star insert, that went to 190,000 homes.Ý

"After reading the articles," says store manager Michele Conway, "a lot of shoppers are now very aware of what they are eating. We have customers coming in specifically looking for labels that say non-GMO or organic, much more than before."

In October 2008, the store sponsored a free public showing of the feature-length film The World According to Monsanto, as well as a GMO lecture. More than 20,000 bag stuffers announcing the lecture were distributed over three weeks.Ý

Nature's Pantry co-owner Bob Perkins says, "Our events are about educating customers. We hope to be the catalyst for GMO education in the Kansas City area, and our customers will help spread the news. They will take the story to their friends."

While his primary motivation is customer education and better health, Bob sees an impact on his bottom line as well. "We have the largest selection of organic and non-GMO in town, so we are getting more loyal customers who are seeking non-GMO."

Michele says, "People are shocked at what is in their food. We are looking at the long term effect of this education. People will tell their friends, who will tell their friends. It will snowball."

Message Spreads to Physicians, Chefs, Schools, Websites, Organizations...

Since the Non-GMO Education Centers and Shopping Guides were made available in October, several physicians have ordered them as patient education materials. Chefs and schools are also distributing materials, as are magazines, websites, and other organizations. The non-GMO tidal wave is being launched.

When Europe reached the non-GMO tipping point in April 1999, within a single week virtually all major manufacturers publicly committed to stop using GM ingredients in their European brands. Now, with so many stores and organizations jumping on board to educate consumers about GMOs, the Campaign expects to achieve the US tipping point before the end of 2009.Ý

Action alert:

Download the information to give to your natural food store [http://www.seedsofdeception.com/DocumentFiles/182.pdf], ask them to carry the Non-GMO Education Center, and get involved with the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America.ÝSeveral natural products distributors carry the Centers. If you want to order a Center for your own business, you can also contact charles@responsibletechnology.orgÝfor details.

Other action alerts:

Tell Hershey's to Kiss GM Sugar Goodbye!
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/TakeAction/Hersheys/index.cfm

Tell USDA (by Nov 3!!) not to allow GM papayas to grow in Florida
http://ga3.org/campaign/GEpapayas/3gd8n8u2z7knnjjw

Delay in ratifying Aarhus Convention barrier to democracy

Irish Green Party statement, 31 October 2008.
By Dan Boyle, Spokesperson on Finance, Social and Family Affairs.

Deputy Leader of Seanad Šireann and Green Party Chairperson Senator Dan Boyle told The Access Initiative Global Gathering in Sligo today that Ireland could take no pride in the length of time it has taken to ratify the Aarhus Convention, which allows access to information on the environment.

Senator Boyle said at the conference today: "For too long we have lived under the mistaken belief in political and administrative circles, that because knowledge is power, little knowledge should be made available so that little power can be dispersed.

"A mature democracy needs people to be informed, so that they can be engaged, so that they can be directly involved in the decisions that affect their everyday lives. Since the arrival of the Green Party in Government we have prioritised the removal of the barriers for Ireland to finally ratify Aarhus and catch up with the rest of the European Union. It has taken longer than we had hoped but I'm confident that legislation will now be available in 2009.

"A ratified Aarhus Convention by the Irish government will help give flesh to another significant Programme for Government commitment that an environmental pillar be established within the social partnership process to promote long term sustainability, in ways that other social partners are not capable of."

US election impact on GM food

FoodNavigator.com, 31 October 2008. By Sarah Hills.

Genetically modified food companies should be paying particular attention to the results of next week's presidential election as they could face tough times ahead, according to a Soil Association report. Consumers, food manufacturers and farmers are increasingly moving away from GM products, the new study called Land of the GM-Free? How the American public are starting to turn against GM food, claimed. At the same time the UK environmental charity said 87 percent of Americans want labels on food telling them whether Genetically Modified (GM) products have been used or not.

The SA added: "These developments, combined with the possibility of Democrat Presidential Candidate Barack Obama's pledge to support legislation to label GM food if he should get elected, suggest that GM companies are in for a difficult few years in the USA."

In September the environmental media company, Plenty, published its Election Issues Index outlining the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates' stand on issues including food, ahead of the vote on Tuesday.

Its [sic] says Obama:

•

Believes GM plants are beneficial with tests for environmental and health effects and regulatory oversight.

•

Supports law requiring meat product labels to indicate country of origin.

•

Wants to increase funding for the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program to help farmers afford compliance. Meanwhile Republican presidential candidate John McCain wants to:

•

End all farm subsidies "not based on clear need" and cap subsidies to farmers with an adjusted gross yearly income of $250,000.

•

Direct US Department of Agriculture to develop more drought-resistant higher-yield crops.

GM debate

The anti-GM lobby is concerned about possible contamination of non-GM crops and argues that the long-term safety of GM crops has not been established.

Experts say GM crops have passed the most rigorous tests and there is no one scientifically documented case of it causing problems for health, safety or the environment.

Similarly, research has shown that GM can help boost food supply with, for example, drought resistant traits at a time of food insecurity.

GM developments

The SA report highlighted moves towards GM labeling such as the ëNon-GMO Project'. This is backed by 400 natural and organic industry companies in the US and Canada, including Whole Foods and Nature's Way. It offers a Non-GMO verification scheme and the Non-GMO seal will be launched on labels in October 2009.

Also, since 1994 Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH) has been used widely in the US dairy industry to increase the yield of milk.

However in response to consumer demands, manufacturers and retailers such as Starbucks have removed all rBGH from its products or stores.

In August Elanco acquired the worldwide distribution and US production facilities of Monsanto's rBGH brand Posliac. Monsanto did not mention the controversy over rBGHs as a reason for divesting the business.

Germany names little-known MP as farm minister

Reuters, 31 October 2008.

HAMBURG - Ilse Aigner, a little-known backbench member of parliament, was officially named as Germany's new Agriculture and Consumer Protection Minister on Friday.

She takes over from Horst Seehofer, who left the cabinet to become prime minister of the state of Bavaria in south Germany.

Both Aigner, aged 43, and Seehofer are members of the Bavarian CSU conservative party, part of Germany's ruling coalition and her appointment was largely viewed as maintaining the CSU's quota of cabinet seats. She has been a member of parliament since 1998 and has no ministerial experience although she has been noted as a high-flyer in the CSU.

Aigner has not been involved in agricultural policy, concentrating largely on educational and research issues.

She is an engineer and before entering parliament was involved in development of the Eurocopter helicopter project.

Aigner's Internet homepage crashed because of the huge number of visits it received after she was named. "Many people wanted to know, who is that exactly," said Germany's largest television channel ARD. Aigner will face a testing start in office with major decisions due by the European Union in November on cuts to farm subsidies which could hit German farmers especially hard.

EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel is proposing changes to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), targeting wealthy farmers by cutting subsidies to larger farms and channelling the saved cash into rural development schemes.

German milk farmers are also set to suffer from the reform of the heavily-protected dairy sector. The opposition Green Party had claimed she supports an expansion of farming of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).

Aigner said on television only that she would continue Seehofer's current GMO policy. Seehofer had been pressing the EU to allow individual member states to decide whether to permit GMO cultivation. Currently the EU gives approvals for GMO crops allowing their cultivation throughout the 27-member country bloc.

(Reporting by Michael Hogan; Editing by Peter Blackburn)

EU agency says French GMO maize ban unjustified

Reuters, 31 October 2008.

Paris -- Europe's top food safety agency said on Friday that France's ban on a genetically modified maize developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto was unjustified.

Monsanto's MON 810 is the only GM crop grown in the European Union, unlike in the United States and Latin America, where they are more common. Many European countries doubt the safety of using the genetic technology in agriculture.

"No specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health and the environment, was provided that would justify the invocation of a safeguard clause," the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said in an opinion released on its website. The EFSA is based in Parma, Italy.

France suspended the use of MON 810 earlier this year, invoking a so-called safeguard clause against the European Commission's decision to authorize the GM maize.

The French government said it had serious doubts about whether Mon 810 maize was safe for the environment.

However, the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMO) has remained legal. The European Commission, which monitors food safety and implementation of EU food standards across the bloc's 27 member countries, had requested the opinion from the EFSA.

The Commission will consider the opinion and will very likely order France to lift its ban, diplomats said.

If the Commission did order removal of the ban and France chose to oppose it, it could provide more information to justify the ban or appeal the decision at the European Court of Justice.

France is the European Union's main agricultural power and its largest exporter of farm products. Its GMO ban has drawn criticism from interest groups on both sides of the issue.

Polls show that the vast majority of French are opposed to GM crops because they have not seen enough proof that they do not pose risks to consumers and the environment.

Monsanto says the protein contained in the maize has selective toxicity but is harmless to humans, fish and wildlife.

(Reporting by Sybille de La Hamaide)

EU agency confirms two GM maize types are safe

Reuters, 31 October 2008.

Paris -- Europe's top food safety agency reaffirmed on Friday that two genetically modified (GMO) maize varieties, waiting for a green light to enter the European Union, were safe enough to be cultivated in the bloc.

The European Food Safety Authority's opinion on the Bt11 seed, developed by Swiss agrochemicals company Syngenta , and the 1507 made by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a unit of DuPont Co, and Dow AgroSciences unit Mycogen Seeds, was seen paving the way for possible EU approval.

'The GMO Panel (of EFSA) reaffirms its previous conclusions on the environmental safety of maize Bt11 and 1507, expressed on 19 January 2005, 20 April 2005 and 7 November 2006,' the said in an opinion released on its website.

The EFSA is based in Parma, Italy.

Its declaration on Bt11 and 1507 was issued on the same day as an opinion that France's ban on a genetically modified maize variety developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto and already cleared in the European Union, was unjustified.

Dow AgroSciences greeted the EFSA's opinion.

'We welcome EFSA's assessment of this information and are not surprised by the content, which reflects the safety of 1507 maize,' a spokesman of the company said.

'We now call for the approval of this product without further delay, to boost farmers' choice of insect resistant maize to cultivate in Europe.' Unlike in the United States and Latin America, where GM crops are common, many European countries doubt the safety of using genetic technology in agriculture.

But some members are favouring it and the EU's 27 countries consistently clash over whether to approve new, finished GM varieties for import. The Commission usually ends up issuing a rubber stamp approval, which it may do under EU law.

(Reporting by Sybille de La Hamaide, Editing by Peter Blackburn)

American Soybean Association troubled by EU decision to delay changes to its zero tolerance policy

American Soybean Association, 31 October 2008.

Last week, the European Commission said it will for now keep its "zero tolerance" policy on allowing the presence of unapproved varieties of genetically engineered plants in imported food and animal feed, according to a spokeswoman for the European Commission.

The American Soybean Association (ASA), biotech companies, and EU farmers, feed importers and users have urged the European Commission to find a workable and commercially viable solution to the EU's zero tolerance for the low-level presence of EU-unapproved biotech events because of concerns that imports with trace amounts of unapproved biotech plants would be blocked from the EU.

The concern is particularly acute for soybeans because the EU imports about 75 percent of its supply, and soybeans form a crucial source of protein in the diet of Europe's livestock.

The EU believes it is making progress toward approving new plant varieties for import, according to EU Commission health spokeswoman Nina Papadoulaki, citing the biotech clearance of one corn and one soybean event in the last seven months.

Last week, the Commission sent the Roundup Ready 2 dossier to the European Council for approval, putting it on track for final import clearance by next year's harvest in the fall.

"We believe with the authorization of these products, there won't be any need for a (policy change), at least for the time being," Papadoulaki said.

The commission said it will continue to monitor the situation and may decide that a change to the zero tolerance policy is in fact necessary, she added.

In a July letter to Paola Testori Coggi, Deputy Director General, DG SANCO, European Commission, ASA President John Hoffman said U.S. soybean growers and our European customers in the feed and farm sectors recognize the urgent need for a sensible solution to the EU's wholly impractical zero tolerance law.

This is especially crucial given the increasing number of biotech soybean events that have either gained authorization from functioning regulatory systems in many other countries or are very close to commercialization.

The EU approves biotech plants at a much slower rate than the United States and other import countries around the world. The difference has already stopped corn exports to the EU from the United States.

The comments from the Commission are surprising given the conclusions reached by the so-called Sherpa Group set up by Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

This group was set up to have the EU Member States Prime Ministers send one senior official empowered to discuss biotech issues across all aspects of the technology's issues.

Barroso saw this as a way to break the logjam of "No Opinion" votes where political interference gets in the way of the science and approvals become delayed.

At a Sherpa Group meeting held Oct. 10, a majority of these Member State experts concluded that EU agriculture is threatened by the time lag in biotech approvals.

The group also concluded that zero tolerance was still an issue, albeit there were different views on how solutions could be achieved.

The Group urged the Commission to continue work on "possible technical solutions" for low-level presence of non-approved GMOs in imported food and feedstuffs.

Steve Connor: Purple tomatoes sow seeds of doubt

The Independent (UK) Science Notebook, 31 October 2008.

Few subjects are able to generate as much heated controversy as GM food. Attempts about 10 years ago to get the British public to accept the idea of food that had been genetically modified failed miserably, largely because of the furore over "mad cow" disease and the fact that the GM food on offer seemed to be of no benefit to anyone but the multinational agro-chemical business.

Now up pops another attempt. A team of British scientists announced this week that they had developed a purple tomato with health-promoting properties. They genetically engineered the plant's DNA by inserting a couple of genes from the snapdragon plant. These snapdragon genes boosted the production of pigments called anthocyanins, found in blackberries and blueberries, within the fruit of the tomato plant (yes, tomatoes are a fruit, scientifically, although in the kitchen we think of them as veg, presumably because we add salt to them).

Professor Cathie Martin of the John Innes Centre in Norwich, where the study was carried out, said that an anthocyanin-stuffed tomato could help ward off all sorts of illnesses, from cardiovascular disease to cancer. The GM purple tomato is designed to offer choice to the consumer, she said.

But what do they taste like, I asked her? They taste good, she said somewhat coyly. There is a problem here, as no one is technically allowed to eat a whole GM tomato because of the risk of seeds in the fruit escaping into the outside world through the human digestive system. Such an act would constitute an unlicensed release of a GM organism in to the environment - which would be unlawful.

After some further questioning, Professor Martin explained that the seeds were carefully removed from the purple tomatoes before the fruits were expertly tasted. Phew, what a relief.

Reining in the influence industry
Around GBP1.9bn is spent on lobbying. Registration and transparency is now required

The Guardian (UK), 31 October 2008. By David Miller.

It comes as no surprise that the European Commission is relaxed about Peter Mandelson's meetings with the aluminium magnate, Oleg Deripaska, at a time when the trade commissioner was party to discussions that would affect the business of the Russian.

Brussels has long had a reputation as being unaccountable to public opinion. Despite the commission's attempts to open up EU decision-making to greater public scrutiny - through its European Transparency Initiative - secrecy remains the modus operandi. The system governing the behaviour of officials allows for widespread conflicts of interest. Parliamentary rules for MEPs have been described by one British MEP as a "scandal waiting to happen".

Numerous cases have been documented of apparent conflicts of interests involving MEPs. Giles Chichester hit the headlines this summer after breaking the rules on MEP's expenses and was forced to resign as chairman of the Conservative party in Brussels. However, little has been made of his problematic ties to the nuclear industry. He is president of a pro-nuclear industry lobby group known in Brussels as "The submarine of the energy industry". Until recently, he also held the key position of chair of the EU parliamentary committee with responsibility for nuclear issues, including nuclear safety, decommissioning and nuclear waste disposal.

Another example is Scottish Conservative MEP, John Purvis, who has a financial stake in a firm that invests in the biotechnology sector. At the same time he has been seen as a leading advocate for biotech in the European parliament. Another Brit, Caroline Jackson MEP, sits on the parliament's environment committee and drafted a report on the EU's waste framework directive while at the same time being a paid advisor to private waste company, Shanks.

Jackson is one of five EU officials nominated for a "Worst Lobby Award", an initiative organised by a coalition of civil society groups pushing for greater transparency in Brussels. Among the corporate interests up for an award is the International Air Transport Association for its deceptive lobbying campaign to avoid CO2 reduction obligations in the aviation sector. Also nominated is The European Alliance for Access to Safe Medicines for hiding the involvement of the big pharmaceutical companies in their campaigns.

The awards spotlight just a few of the thousands of mainly commercial organisations that seek to influence EU policy. In Brussels, as in Britain, lobbyists operate in an almost entirely unregulated environment. In June the European Commission attempted to increase transparency in the industry by introducing a register of lobbyists. Registration, however, is voluntary and as few as 10% of the thousands of commercial lobbying firms that peddle influence and access in Brussels have so far chosen to sign on to it.

Thanks to the recent insight into the affairs of the rich and powerful, we should be under no illusion in Britain that undue influence is also being exerted on our policy-makers. Our lobbying industry, which today includes law and accountancy firms, management consultancies, think tanks, charities and others, has grown to be worth an estimated GBP1.9bn. It is embedded in our political system, and, as in Brussels, it operates away from the public gaze.

Under the radar of most journalists, a parliamentary inquiry has been taking place into the normally opaque world of lobbying. Throughout the last 12 months, the influential public administration select committee, chaired by Tony Wright MP, has taken evidence on whether certain interests are being afforded privileged access to, and undue influence over, our decision makers. It has also sought to find out what effect this is having on public trust in politics.

The recommendations the select committee will make in the next few weeks are key. If it finds, much as the British public suspects, that there is an enormous disparity in access and influence in our political system, it should recommend action: that the government introduce a mandatory register of lobbyists. This is the first step in opening up the opaque world of lobbying to public scrutiny. The effect will be to increase the accountability of government to the people they serve. Something that the majority of the British public has long ceased to expect but should now demand.

The Mandelson-Deripaska affair gives us a rare insight into the relationship between politics and the wealthy elite. A register of lobbyists would guarantee that information on those who seek to influence our politicians is systematically put into the public domain.

GM: Halt the Growing Threat

The Ecologist Newsletter, 31 October 2008. By Pat Thomas.

Growing anxiety, growing concern, growing doubts, growing uncertainty. If you are one of a growing number of people who want to be heard on the subject of GM, and to find out how you can become involved in keeping the future GM-free, here are some places to start.

Get reading

•

The November edition of the Ecologist features a special GM foods report with contributions from some of the leading scientists, academics and campaigners in the GM arena. Based on the science, the report challenges the current assumption that GM crops have what it takes to feed, fuel and heal the world. Essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the issues surrounding genetic modification. Referenced versions of all the articles in the magazine will be made available here soon. Read Pat Thomas, editor of the Ecologist's editorial here.

•

If you think GM food, engineered to contain higher levels of nutrients is the answer to pressing problems of malnutrition, you may wish to read this article, written by Professor David Schubert, a professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla CA, and a molecular biologist with interests in the development of the nervous system and the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and other neurological disorders.

Log on

•

A massive PR push is once more underway - thanks to the food crisis, promoting GM foods as the way to feed the world. So a new campaigning website - www.banGMfood.org - has been launched to provide a tool kit for fighting back. The site includes easy-to-read downloadable leaflets with all the latest evidence and up-to-date arguments on the dangers of GMOs and why there are far better alternatives for feeding the world. The site also has details of exactly who to contact to make sure your views are heard, plus loads of links and other campaigning information.

•

The Ecologist has joined up with campaigning website greenvoice.com to offer a wider forum for the GM debate. Log on to vote in the poll, be heard and take action

Write to your supermarket

The GM-Free foods campaign is asking everyone to write to the major supermarkets to urge them to continue to keep own-brand products GM-Free (pressure from the Government and the biotech industry is making the supermarkets think seriously about banding together to introduce a united pro-GM front). Click here for details. http://www.bangmfood.org/take-action

Download the leaflet

You can download a short leaflet '10 Reasons Why We Don't Need GM Foods' here. http://www.bangmfood.org/images/stories/10reasons.pdf

More detailed information can be accessed at www.banGMfood.org

Appeal to your MP

Suggest that he or she writes to environment secretary Hilary Benn to request that government legislation and Defra's regulations be more stringent surrounding GM produce. Follow the links on Friends of the Earth's 'Say no to GM contamination' web page for a simple way to send a letter to your local MP. See: http://www.stopgmcontamination.org

Watch the film

The World According to Monsanto

On 11 March, a documentary made by French journalist and film-maker Marie-Monique Robin, The World According to Monsanto, was aired on French television channel ARTE. Unsurprisingly, it has never aired in the US, but you can view it on various sites on the internet. A good place to start is YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMleWZXhi6s

Attend the conference

Feeding the WorldÖ Are GM crops fit for purpose? If not, what then?

12 November 2008, London

The gauntlet has been thrown down by government for GM critics either to 'put up or shut up' within the year. This conference will examine, searchingly and honestly, the claims and counter-claims of one of the most critical environmental issues of our time. It will tackle the GM lobby and discuss how best to feed a hungry world. http://www.feedingtheworldconference.org

Suppport these groups

Friends of the Earth http://www.foe.co.uk
GM Freeze http://www.gmfreeze.org
GM Watch http://www.gmwatch.org
Soil Association http://www.soilassociation.org
Gene Watch http://www.genewatch.org
Genetic Food Alert http://www.geneticfoodalert.supanet.com
Institute for Responsible Technology http://www.responsibletechnology.org

GM supermarket campaign

Keeping UK supermarkets GM-Free

Now that the GM-foods issue is again in the spotlight, please join the GM-Free Foods Campaign* in writing to the major supermarkets to urge them to continue to keep their own-brand products GM-Free (pressure from the Government and the biotech industry is making the supermarkets think seriously about banding together to introduce a united pro-GM front).
[more details of what to do at http://www.banGMfood.org]

Growing concern

The Ecologist - November edition 2008. Editorial by Pat Thomas.

Online subscription to the magazine: http://www.theecologist.org

Genetically modified food. It's a big issue. So big that we have turned over half of this month's magazine to it. Increasingly, we are handed the notion that GM food is just like any other food, only better, because of its almost magical power to solve our most immediate crises of poverty, hunger, fossil-fuel depletion and climate change. In a world where we are daily met with the grief of an imploding financial system and the day-to-day hardships of making ends meet, it's understandable to want to believe in such easy magic.

But GM isn't like switching to a low-energy light bulb. If it doesn't work you can't take it back to the shop or, more importantly, remove it from the environment. Because only a handful of large multinational companies are behind its development (page 26), a GM future takes our food supply out of the hands of individual farmers and puts it in the grip of conglomerants, disconnected from the land and from those who work and rely upon it. In this vision of the future our relationship to land and food fundamentally changes; we are less resilient and more dependent on others to feed us. These are complex issues of growing concern.

What will become apparent as you read this special edition, written by leading thinkers, academics and campaigners in the field, is that the GM crops that promise increased yields (page 18), and drought- and saline-resistance (pages 22 and 25) don't actually exist anywhere but on the drawing board. What is more, these same traits can be achieved through normal plant-breeding, and in many cases such plants will outperform GM varieties. Normal plant-breeding also means bread and butter today, rather than the jam-tomorrow promise of GM.

Why, then, the big political push for a GM solution? The answer lies in the same faulty logic that says if you want to stimulate the economy, start a war - only in this case the war is against the natural environment. Much of biotech's money is spent on PR and spin (page 30) that tells us Nature is letting us down by failing to provide enough food, and fast enough, to feed a hungry world. Let us be clear: it is humanity that has let its own kind down. The failure to feed the world is a failure of political will and of free-market economics. Indeed, none of the current crises we face is due to a lack of technofood; that is why introducing GM crops - which have never been evaluated for safety (page 21) - into an already volatile mix, while ignoring the real causes of our problems, won't get us any closer to solving our problems.

Sometimes people become frustrated with the Ecologist. They ask: 'Why are you never satisfied? Why are you anti-science?' We are not anti-science. We are only against the inappropriate or unnecessary application of scientific principles and discoveries as a quick fix to deeply rooted cultural, political and economic problems.

As with every issue of the Ecologist, this month's edition tries to supply sufficient tools to help you tackle the big issues of the day effectively, with integrity and intelligence, and perhaps most importantly, to help others see the bigger picture too. Take the information here and pass it along. Talk, argue and debate, but most importantly act (page 37). Watch the films, vote in the poll, download the brochure, participate in the write-to-your-supermarket campaign and attend the conferences. You are powerful. You are persuasive. Your actions can unshackle us from a GM future. Let your voices be heard.

Purple GMO Tomato Inferior to Nature's Offerings

Natural News, October 31 2008. By Ethan Huff.

In what appears to be an attempt at softening the public's attitude toward genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), British scientists have engineered a purple tomato, rich in antioxidants, by splicing certain genes from the snapdragon flower with those of a tomato in order to create a "super tomato" that they say may fight cancer. Cancer-prone mice that lacked the p53 gene, also called the "genome guardian", were fed the altered tomatoes in a scientific study and were shown to live an average of 40 days longer than other p53-deficient mice on a standard diet. But do these findings tell the whole story?

Of the hundreds of worldwide sources that reported these findings, some honestly side-noted that natural tomatoes already have cancer-fighting properties, also mentioning that natural, unmodified fruits such as blackberries, blueberries, currants, and a host of other dark red and dark purple fruits already contain high levels of cancer-fighting anthocyanins. Others were not so forthright, shrouding nature in inferiority as this "franken-fruit" was hoisted to miracle status.

The study is clear and limited in its findings that this new fruit has been shown to lengthen the life-span of a group of cancer-prone mice as opposed to other cancer-prone mice not fed the fruit. The study did not investigate the long-term safety of genetically-modified foods, especially in human beings, and it was not tested alongside natural alternatives. It merely "discovered" what many health-minded people already know - that high levels of antioxidants are vital to maintaining health and preventing cancer cells from forming in the body. Yet reports of the study's findings vary in exotic verbiage, describing the find as everything from a new treatment to help keep cancer "at bay", to celebrating it as a new possible cure for cancer. Still others glowingly endorsed it as a unique new form of cancer prevention, which was not part of the study at all. Why all the hype when we already have a myriad of cancer-fighting fruits and vegetables?

One writer begins her report on this study by declaring,

"Now that we have tried and failed to win the cancer war, it's time to change our strategy. A new study suggests that eating a new genetically modified tomato may help prevent many types of cancer."

This same writer later contradicts herself by mentioning that natural fruits and vegetables with high levels of anthocyanins also provide protection against cancer (even though the cancer war has already been lost, according to the author), but states that it takes many more servings of these natural fruits and vegetables to achieve the same effective benefits of this genetically-modified tomato. But is this actually true? On what basis is she making this claim?

While it is true that the typical Western diet is deficient in nutritional foods, including antioxidant-rich fruits and vegetables, the conclusions drawn from this study by both the scientists who performed it and most of the journalists reporting on it are ultimately ill-informed and deceptive, favoring this engineered "fruit" that even the scientists themselves wouldn't eat over natural fruits and vegetables that are readily available and far superior to anything that man creates in a lab.

The range of varying conclusions about this study all have the same incorrect common denominator, asserting that this new genetically-engineered tomato is a breakthrough in cancer prevention and treatment unlike anything currently available. Even those reports that admit the cancer-fighting properties of natural fruits and vegetables make the claim that this genetically-modified version has superior potency and effectiveness, discounting the comprehensive effectiveness of anything else in its natural, unadulterated form. These assumptions are clearly misguided and dangerous.

Interestingly, no mentions were made in any of the articles about natural, organic purple heirloom tomatoes that already exist, have high levels of anthocyanincs, and are perfectly safe and nutritious for both humans and mice.

Credit is due to the many reporters who did at least admit the cancer-fighting properties of fruits and vegetables in general, considering the FDA doesn't even believe that food and nutrients play a role in health promotion and disease prevention. Yet all natural mentions were positioned as inferior in order to paint the picture that this new, genetically-modified tomato has unique cancer-fighting properties superior to its natural counterparts, a blatant lie. The presumptive belief that only man-made products are effective in the treatment, prevention, and cure of disease is a misconception that runs deep in conventional, nutritionally-illiterate thinking. In this case, writers around the world are reinforcing this lie while not-so-subtly plugging the "benefits" of GMOs to the public.

Speaking in regards to the supposed "positive effect" of the genetically-engineered purple tomato in the experiment, Cathie Martin, a plant biologist, said in a news release, "It is enormously encouraging to believe that by changing diet, or specific components in the diet, you can improve health in animals and possibly humans." Much like the altered tomato, this is hardly a breakthrough discovery; there are plenty of natural foods that will prevent, treat, and cure cancer without having to undergo dangerous genetic surgery.

In conclusion, there was absolutely no reason to fund and conduct the research, creation, and experimentation of a genetically-modified "super tomato" when we already have the real thing. Genetically-modified foods of any kind are dangerous, untested, and shouldn't be touched with a ten foot pole. Thanks, but no thanks.

GM rally sends message

Guardian Express (Australia), 31 October 2008.

HUNDREDS of farmers, consumers and environmentalists rallied in the city yesterday to send a strong message to the State Government that genetically modified crops are not wanted in WA.

The Organic Growers Association, Network of Concerned Farmers, Vegetables Growers WA, Organic and Biodynamic Meats, Conservation Council of WA, Greenpeace, The Wilderness Society all participated in the rally.

High profile conservationist and gardener Peter Cundall joined the protest and said Western Australia's international reputation as a clean, green State would be compromised if GM crops were allowed.

"Genetic modification, especially in relation to crops, is driven by greed; greed for money and greed for power," he said.

"The aim of those pushing genetically modified crops is to destroy choice. Remember that GM food is not marked and the reason is because people won't buy it."

Williams canola farmer Janette Liddelow is concerned the introduction of GM crops will mean losing any choice to remain non-GM.

"If we go down the GM path farmers would be handing vast control of our cropping regimes to biotech companies and effectively remove the rights of all other farmers to crop what and how they choose," she said.

Demonstrators presented a petition with 27,000 signatures to Agriculture and Food Minister Terry Redman, calling on the Government to extend the GM moratorium in WA and introduce a strict liability regime.

Up close and personal with the genetic modifiers
My two-day field trip with Germany's BASF Plant Science.

Gourmet (USA), 31 October 2008. By Jocelyn C. Zuckerman.

Day 1: Press conference and visit to CropDesign, Ghent, Belgium

About three quarters of the way through the press conference touting the $1.5-billion collaboration on high-yield, drought-tolerant genetically modified crops initiated last year by Monsanto and BASF Plant Science, a Dutch woman on the far side of the room raised her hand and asked in a tremulous voice, "Forgive me if this is off-topic, but what about the taste?"

The four guys up on the dais looked uniformly stumped. Finally, Steve Padgette, Monsanto's stylish young president of biotechnology (and co-inventor of its Roundup Ready seeds), spoke. "The taste of crops that go into human consumption directly is very, very important," he said. "But the number-two yellow corn that we're talking about here, that's not for human consumption."

In fact, nothing had been said about human consumption since the second slide in Padgette's PowerPoint presentation – the one that talked about how, with the population expected to balloon to nine billion by 2050, it was going to take the biotechnological wonders of companies like his to feed the hungry masses. Not that Padgette pretended to be solely about saving the world: His very next slide depicted the global market for various biotech traits, forecasting its total 2025 value at a robust $50 billion. And so it went throughout the next 48 hours, with the possible benefits in store for farmers a seeming afterthought to those guaranteed to accrue to shareholders.

Imagine the Slow Food event held last month in San Francisco and then turn the whole thing on its head: What you'd end up with is something along the lines of the two days I spent in Europe a few weeks back for a behind-the-scenes peek at the biotech operations of Germany's BASF Plant Science. Maybe it was because most of the journalists in attendance had come from publications like Agrow: World Crop Protection News, Chemical Weekly, Chemical & Engineering News, and Successful Farming, but any experience of cognitive dissonance appeared to belong to me alone. Sample conversational snippet from Daniel Davidson, staff agronomist for the Omaha-based Progressive Farmer, on the 1,000 acres he farms back in Nebraska: "Planted the whole thing with Monsanto's GM corn. Didn't even think about it."

The press conference, which took place in a beautifully re-tooled early 19th-century farmhouse in Ghent, Belgium, provided us 30 or so journalists with an overview of the year-old BASF/Monsanto collaboration on stress-tolerant corn, soybeans, cotton, and canola. Afterwards, we trundled onto a bus and made our way across town to CropDesign, a ten-year-old company (acquired by BASF in 2006) that uses "phenotypic screening" – monitoring how properties like shape, size, color, etc., respond to environmental changes – to determine gene function in plants. Johan Cardoen, the company's CEO, told us that CropDesign's original goal had been to find a single gene to increase yield. "Today we are on the verge of realizing that business opportunity," he said, with no reference in sight to the farmers that the partnership's "climate-ready" crops were supposedly designed to rescue.

We stripped off our blazers and sweaters and snapped into plastic lab coats, then followed company manager Marnix Peferoen through a pair of sliding glass doors and into the tropical heat of an enormous greenhouse. Before us, the wispy greens of some 64,000 individual transgenic rice plants spread out to the horizon. (Any gene effects achieved in rice are expected to duplicate themselves in corn and other cereals, explained Peferoen, and BASF believes it's only a matter of time before its genetically modified rice finds a market – a big oneóin Asia.) There was something slightly chilling about the number of them, but the plants themselves, nestled tightly in what resembled plastic deli containers and labeled with tiny barcodes, looked perfectly innocent, like something your kindergartener would perch on the kitchen windowsill. And aside from the souped-up bicycle rigged to tracks set above the rice (the technicians ride it out over the plants to make adjustments), the greenhouse appeared no different from any other.

The plants would be kept in the facility's paddy-like conditions for two to three months, we were told, being transferred weekly to a conveyor belt that rolls them through the MRI-like "imaging cabinet," which is programmed to photograph from six angles, yielding precise measurements of such attributes as volume, color, and root width. Like most everything else I would see over the next 36 hours, the cabinet appeared to be in a serious hurry: It runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week, enabling CropDesign to process some 50,000 digital images a day and test more than 140,000 plants a year.

Once the plants have generated seeds in the "maturation area," a less-humid, basketball-court-sized expanse (where they also get repeatedly photographed), they are ready for harvesting. Because of the precision required, this is done by actual humans. The day our group walked through, eight twenty-somethings in bright orange BASF T-shirts sat around a table on tall stools mechanically picking off seeds and dropping them into tiny, bar-coded envelopes. From there, the seeds would be dried out and analyzed yet again to determine how likely they were to hold genes that might produce traits like yield boosting and drought resistance. The winners, paired with those that emerged from the work of the Berlin-based Metanomics – whose mind-bogglingly futuristic operation we would see the following day – would move into the pipeline for the collaboration with Monsanto. In retrospect, the operation here at CropDesign would strike me as downright bucolic.

Day 2: Behind the scenes at Berlin's Metanomics

The morning after we visited CropDesign, our group of journalists caught an early flight to Berlin, where we transferred directly to Metanomics, a "metabolic profiling" operation located in a technology park in a far western section of the city. Founded ten years ago by BASF Plant Science and staff members of the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Plant Physiology, the company studies gene functions by analyzing the changes that occur when an individual gene in a plant's genetic code is modified. CEO and managing director Arnold Krotzky, who looked like a mad scientist with his flyaway gray hair, compared what his company does to looking under the hood of a car – as opposed to studying a vehicle's exterior, à la CropDesign.

As with the operation in Ghent, though, this one appeared to be wasting no time. Richard Tretheway, the boyish Cambridge Ph.D. who co-founded Metanomics and currently serves as its science director, told us the company carries out more than 100,000 experiments a year, and its digital library contains some 1.7 million metabolic profiles of plant genes. On average, he said with pride, it submits one major patent application every five days. (To date, Metanomics has filed more than 150,000 gene-function patents around the world.)

Our cameras tucked safely out of sight, we donned white lab coats and peered into what Krotzky called the "emergency room for plants," a long, narrow chamber where two rows of tiny GM Arabidopsis plants sat under bright lights in precisely calculated growing conditions. Metanomics had modified each of the plants by individually "switching off," or knocking out, one of its 35,000 or so genes, or else by adding a new one, and now its scientists were observing how the altered plants functioned under a range of environmental stresses.

We strapped on thick goggles and made our way upstairs, where we traipsed down long, sterile hallways and dipped in and out of labs housing the all-important extractors. These giant contraptions operate sort of like espresso machines, freezing plant samples in liquid nitrogen and then using high pressure and various solvents to extract metabolites, products of thousands of chemical reactions that can be used as "biosensors" to interpret metabolic changes. In one room, a life-sized robot with a giant hinged arm repeatedly picked up and jerkily transferred samples into a centrifuge, separating out yet more metabolites. (The robot got the job, we were told, not just because he works nights – he has a cell phone in case of emergencies – but also because he is far more precise than a human could ever be.)

With software developed in-house, Metanomics' 70 or so computers are able to measure several hundred metabolites at a time. The results get combined with those from CropDesign's phenotypic screening, and that information, along with whatever's been learned from hundreds of field trials, gets integrated into a "bio-informatics platform" known as the "MetaMap." Touted by BASF as the largest gene-function database in the world, the map – imagine the proofs Russell Crowe was always scribbling in A Brilliant Mind – links millions of metabolome reactions directly to individual genes and gene groups, furthering the scientists' ability to select the best candidates for traits like drought resistance, increased yield, even high vitamin content.

While the Ghent and Berlin programs are operating 24/7, Monsanto is conducting its own gene-discovery initiative back in St. Louis. (The company has invested $75 million in proprietary software to sort through plant germ plasm.) The "lead genes" recognized by all the programs are identified (along with their functions) in patent applications and then entered into the joint development pipeline. Whatever emerges will benefit from Monsanto's not inconsiderable marketing might.

But while the hopes are high – some 175 yield and stress field trials on promising gene traits are already underway in the U.S., and the first generation of drought-tolerant GM corn is set for release in 2012 – not everything is progressing exactly according to plan. Over the course of the two-day program, conversation returned repeatedly to the irony of this gigantic genetic-modification operation having its home in the heart of Europe. A presentation by Dirk Enze, one of the founders of CropDesign, took as its sole topic "Biotechnology and Europe: Challenges and Opportunities." Among the challenges, of course, is that most of the people there want nothing to do with the stuff. To date, only one GM crop, Bt corn, has been approved for cultivation by the EU commission. Enze recommended "educating the children" and bringing them into the lab as one way to combat the general fear of GM. In the meantime, said Hans Kast, president and CEO of BASF Plant Science, the collaboration has renounced any plans to develop crops aimed at the European market. Still, he wondered aloud whether the Europeans weren't making a big mistake in denying GM technology. "We have to ask ourselves," he said in heavily accented English, "can we afford to miss the boat?"

Of course, if you're to believe BASF, there's nothing at all to fear from genetic modification – or genetic "optimization," as it was repeatedly referred to there. A presentation by Graham Brookes, director of the England-based PG Economics Limited, showed hard evidence of the overwhelmingly positive economic and environmental impacts of the crops. Mind you, this is a man whose company gets a paycheck from such pro-GM trade associations as CropLife International and Green Biotech Europe, and who summed up his view of the Indian environmental activist Vandana Shiva with the couplet "bloody idiot."

Whether Brookes' numbers would hold up to scrutiny or not, it does appear that the tide is turning elsewhere in the world. According to an article by Paul Collier in this month's Foreign Affairs, GM crops currently are growing on some 300 million acres, or about ten percent of the world's total crop area. And BASF expects that number to climb steadily. (Among the regions where they anticipate a shift in public opinion is Africa, which may explain why the BASF/Monsanto collaboration has agreed, through an initiative known as WEMA, or Water Efficient Maize for Africa, to provide its drought-tolerant maize to farmers there royalty free.) "The future is in genes," said Juergen Logemann, BASF Plant Science's vice president of technology management. "And I hope we can convince you that we've got the genes."

That they do. And given the serious minds – and the very serious money – behind them, they're likely to claim ownership of hundreds of thousands more of them before they're through. "My enthusiasm wanes," said Monsanto's Padgette at the press conference in Ghent, "only when the genes run out."

Organizations like the Ottawa-based ETC Group and Vandana Shiva's Navdanya recently renewed their call on governments around the world to stop issuing patents on living organisms. But when you consider the magnitude of operations like the one I've just seen – and when you imagine the kind of legal machinery that's undoubtedly in line to defend those investments – you can't help but wonder whether, to borrow an image from Hans Kast, that ship hasn't already sailed.

30 October 2008

Audience of growers hears case against GM

Yorkshire Post (UK), 30 October 2008. By Mark Casci Agricultural Correspondent.

GENETICALLY modified crops came under the spotlight in Yorkshire at a lecture given by one of their most celebrated opponents.

Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser visited Driffield to talk to farmers about the effects GM crops could have on the future of the industry.

Mr Schmeiser achieved world-wide fame following his battles with GM giant Monsanto and now travels the world delivering lectures on the subject.

He made his appearance at The Bell Hotel in Driffield last week and spoke to more than 50 farmers about his experience of GM crops on his farm in Canada.

Mr Schmeiser emphasised the fact that GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) cannot be contained and said that the results of the engineered seed spread naturally - even over hundreds of miles - as well as through human transportation.

He claimed this would take away everyone's right to choose food free of GM contamination.

"You will say goodbye to your organic farms", he said.

When quizzed over the claims from some quarters that GM foods could help feed the world Mr Schmeiser had a clear message.

"GM is not the answer to the world food crisis.

"In fact the 14 years of Canadian experience show that GM yields are lower than conventional methods and GM necessitates the use of more and more toxic chemicals."

So far, the UK has held out against GM crops being grown and currently the UK does not allow imports of United States or Canadian GM foods.

Mr Schmeiser has been battling Monsanto ever since the company's GM plants were found on his land, even though he had never brought any crops from them. He claimed that the crops had blown onto his land and spent years battling the company over the issue.

The UK tour included Driffield since East Yorkshire is a major arable area.

Shan Oakes, of the area Green Party, was among those at the meeting.

She said: "GM threatens food production - and therefore all of us everywhere. Our food should not be in thrall to huge biotech companies.

"Unfortunately many people still think GM is just about the same as selective breeding but it is completely different: Genes from animals are introduced into plants and vice versa - transfers which could never happen in nature. In addition, the corporations who do this 'engineering' then own patents on the new life forms - genetically modified organisms - plants or animals.

"Is this what we want in Britain? The Government is currently reconsidering the GM issue, and big business is working on them - and on the public too. People should continue to let their MPs know that they don't accept this technology and they don't accept this way of doing business."

Europe: A Phone Book Without Numbers

IPS, 30 October 2008. By David Cronin.

BRUSSELS - A new European Union initiative officially aimed at improving transparency is providing only scant details about the influence that corporate lobbyists wield over the decision-making process, according to environmental and consumer rights advocates.

In June, the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, launched an online register to store details of public relations firms, lawyers and non-profit organisations who liaise with EU officials.

Unlike a similar scheme in the U.S., the lobby is entirely voluntary and, in the view of many campaign groups, its operation is not providing a clear picture about the resources lobbyists employ in seeking to shape legislation.

Jorgo Riss, head of the Brussels office of Greenpeace, said the register does not even give basic details of who works for firms active in the Brussels lobbying scene. "A lobby register without the names of lobbyists is as useful as a phone book without numbers," he said.

Riss argued that the U.S. system of mandatory disclosure of lobbyists -- which includes financial penalties for those who flout the regulations - works better. Every three months, pressure groups in Washington have to fill out a four-page form, stating who they employ and how much money they have spent campaigning on each item of legislation they are following. This system, he said, has helped journalists and researchers uncover 'revolving door' cases -- where public officials have 'sold' their expertise to the private sector -- and other conflict of interests.

For example, the U.S. mandatory register has been deemed useful in drawing attention to the activities of Jack Abramoff, a Republican Party activist convicted of seeking to corrupt lawmakers with money, meals and free holidays.

According to estimates cited by the European Commission in 2005, Brussels has some 15,000 lobbyists, most of which represent corporate clients. Just 480 groups have so far registered their activities. These include 286 'in-house' lobbying departments of companies, 39 public relations firms or professional consultancies, and 120 non-governmental organisations or 'think-tanks'. Although many lawyers are known to be involved in drafting legislative proposals, just four law firms have registered so far.

Some of the world's largest public relations firms such as Burson Marsteller and Hill and Knowlton -- the company tasked with convincing the U.S. public of the 'necessity' of going to war against Iraq in the early 1990s -- have not yet signed up to the register, even though they have offices in Brussels. Burson Marsteller has been especially active in tracking environmental laws on behalf of the chemicals industry in recent years.

The register is limited to organisations, and does not apply to individuals hired to work on ad hoc campaigns. Nor does it provide any real transparency about 'expert groups' formed by the Commission to provide advice when it is drafting new proposals. When the Commission set up such groups to deal with the EU's policy on biofuels, those invited to participate came almost exclusively from an industry background, rather than one of campaigning on environmental or human rights issues.

A coalition of non-profit organisations known as the EU Civil Society Contact Group this week unveiled guidelines for improving the register. It is asking its affiliates to submit precise details of who works for them, and their budgets, as well as criticisms of the register's flaws to the Commission.

Fintan Farrell from the European Anti-Poverty Network said that the register "does not provide a clear answer to questions which we think are very important to citizens."

Many organisations, he added, had considered boycotting the scheme. But after a lengthy debate they decided it was "much more important to offer a constructive critique."

Monique Goyens, spokeswoman for the European Consumers Organisation (known by its French acronym BEUC) noted that the defeat of the EU's Lisbon treaty in a referendum in Ireland earlier this year had indicated that many ordinary people regard the Brussels institutions as aloof. "A strong register is in the interest of democracy and European citizens, who want to know who the real players in Brussels are, particularly at a time when the EU is struggling to gain the trust of Europeans."

About 80 percent of consumer legislation applying in the EU has been drafted in Brussels, she added, contending that there should be transparency about companies seeking to dilute particular proposals. For example, she said that manufacturers of chocolate eggs have had some success in ensuring that new legislation on toy safety will not affect them, despite evidence that children can choke on such gifts.

Valérie Rampi, the Commission's spokeswoman on transparency issues, declined to comment about the criticisms of the register, other than to say that its operation will be reviewed during 2009.

Pigs with Mouse Genes: How GM Animals May Be Entering the Food Chain without Labeling

AlterNet, 30 October 2008. By Ari LeVaux.

The FDA may be taking the public, and nature, down a dangerous path.

On September 18, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released guidance on a regulatory framework for approving the entrance of genetically modified (GM) animals into the nation's food supply. The term "guidance" is agency-speak for the law will look something like this. Put another way, the FDA has offered advice, considerably weaker than legally enforceable regulation. With the announcement, a 60-day period for public comment was opened.

The only GM animal currently licensed for sale in the U.S. is the glow-in-the-dark zebra fish, a pet. With the exception of a few drunk frat boys, this fish is not expected to be consumed by humans, and its need for warm water precludes any possibility of it escaping into the wild. But the glowing zebra fish will soon have some GM company in stores near you.

The new guidance is primarily directed at animals genetically modified for food-production purposes, but it's based on the approval process used for animals that are genetically modified for pharmacological purposes, such as pigs designed to grow human livers, or goats that produce insulin in their milk. Under the guidance, all GM animals, be they of the farm or pharma variety, will be classified as drugs.

Technically, the drug is the bit of foreign DNA that's spliced into the animal's cells, and the FDA will grant or deny approval to just those bits of DNA, not to the whole organism. This creates a dangerous regulatory gray area, says Jaydee Hanson, a policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, who calls this arrangement a "fiction."

"The gene is in every cell of the animal, and regulating the animal is the only tool they have to control these genes, but they say they're only regulating the gene, not the animal," he says. "Drugs don't get loose and breed with each other. Animals do."

As a case in point he mentions the "AquAdvantage" line of GM salmon created by Aqua Bounty Technologies of Waltham, Mass., in 2001. The regulated "drug" in this case is a gene that makes salmon secrete extra growth hormone, causing the fish to reach maturity in 18 months instead of 30.

Should any of these fish escape into the wild, they would take their recombinant genes with them, posing unknown -- and therefore, Hanson says, unacceptable -- risk to wild salmon stocks and the ecosystems they inhabit.

It's rumored that AquAdvantage salmon will be the first GM food animal approved for sale by the FDA. Meanwhile, a growing number of GM animals are being developed for the food market, says Hanson, and given this fact he thinks an approval process is long overdue. But while steps toward the creation of a regulatory framework for GM food animals are steps in the right direction, he says the FDA's guidance as currently written leaves much to be desired.

"They're not offering good peer review, because the drug-approval process is held in secret," he says. This is ostensibly to protect trade secrets, but it's still a bad idea, says Hanson, who suggests that lack of transparency could compromise the integrity of the approval process.

"The genetically modified food industry is a small world," he says. "You're going to have someone who used to work for a company who now works for FDA, or serves on its review panel, in the position to approve something from their former company."

Many other food activists, policy analysts, and interested parties are also taking issue with the FDA's stance, contained in the guidance, against the labeling of foods containing GM animal products. Only foods that can be shown to have dietary properties different from their non-GM counterparts require labeling.

"They're talking about pigs that are going to have mouse genes in them, and this is not going to be labeled?" says Jean Halloran, director of food policy for Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports magazine. "We are close to speechless on this."

Another concern is how the proprietary rights associated with modified genes will be enforced. Because genetic modifications are easily traceable, small livestock producers who introduce GM animals into their herds -- or who acquire animals with modified genes unintentionally -- might someday receive an unexpected bill for the use of those genes if they are traced to future generations of animals.

Producers of GM seeds have already sued farmers on such grounds, including cases in which the defendant's crops were contaminated by someone else's GM pollen from neighboring fields. Hanson says most cattle growers aren't paying enough attention to the prospect.

"The breeding industry is mostly concerned with tracking animals descended from clones," he says. Clones are genetic copies of other animals, but don't necessarily have foreign DNA inserted. But most GM mammals, Hanson points out, are clones. "Once you get it right," he says, "you clone it."

On September 19, the day after the FDA's "Draft Guidance on the Regulation of Genetically Modified Animals" was released, the USDA announced a call for public comment on the need to regulate the movement of GM animals to ensure they don't mix with wild animals or other livestock.

For producers and consumers alike, the onslaught of new biotech developments and the rapidly expanding world of associated potential consequences presents a near-overwhelming amount of information to digest.

But if ever there was an important time to comment on food and food safety, says Hanson, "this is it."

Genetically Engineered Salmon May Soon Hit Stores

CBS (USA), 30 October 2008.

Boston -- Genetically engineered food: It's either a great scientific leap forward, or a potentially dangerous experiment. And for the first time, the door is open to the possibility of genetically engineered meat and fish on grocery shelves.

The idea is hotly debated. One of the first companies trying to bring this new food to the market is Aqua Bounty Technologies, which has created genetically engineered salmon.

"It looks like a salmon, it acts like a salmon," said Aqua Bounty CEO Ron Stotish. "All attributes of the fish are the same as normal Atlantic salmon."

But there's one big difference. The Aqua Bounty salmon grow really fast.

"We can get from fish egg to a 3 to 4 kilo salmon in a little over a year. Now by comparison, the normal Atlantic salmon would take 4 or 5 years to reach that size," said Stotish.

Genetic engineering is a process where genes are manipulated to give new characteristics to, in this case, fish or animals.

For example, cattle that can resist mad cow disease, or chickens that lay eggs that are healthier for your heart.

To get their salmon to grow so fast, Aqua Bounty has added a gene.

"What we've done is overcome a barrier that's evolved in the salmon over centuries," said the company's CEO. And that gives some people the creeps.

Several people CBS spoke with in a local supermarket were hesitant about the possibility of buying genetically engineered meat or fish. But for the first time, the Food and Drug Administration is taking proposals from Aqua Bounty and other companies that could lead to the commercialization of these new food products.

Scientists working on genetically engineered food say it's safe, but the Union of Concerned Scientists says, not so fast.

"We have to look very carefully at what the risks and the benefits are," said Doug Gurian Sherman, who studies the issue for the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, DC. "At this point, I think the FDA seems to be putting the cart before the horse."

There are 3 main concerns: The potential impact on people's health, possible environmental damage if the engineered animals get into the wild, breed and become dominant, and no requirement to label the food as "genetically engineered."

"We don't have a very good handle on how to assess the risks. And until we do, we really should take a really deep breathe, and not go forward with this," said the Union of Concerned Scientists' Doug Gurian Sherman.

But Aqua Bounty's Ron Stotish counters, "It's people's right not to buy our products. It's people's right to hold whatever opinions they choose. It's not their right to prevent the acceptance of new technology that may be very helpful to society, in the interests of their personal concerns."

Other companies are watching to see if the salmon are approved for market, and if they are, expect to see a number of other proposals begin to move forward.

In the case of these salmon, they are also being engineered to be sterile, so if any escaped into the wild, they would not be able to breed."

Chile: Maize Contaminated with Transgenics

Inter Press Service, 30 October 2008. By Daniela Estrada.

SANTIAGO - - The Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology (INTA) at the University of Chile has detected genetically modified organisms in four samples of conventional maize grown near fields where transgenic maize seeds are being produced for export.

"These results are extremely serious. The question is, who will take responsibility? Who will pay for this contamination?" MarÌa Isabel Manzur of the non-governmental Sustainable Societies Foundation (FSS), which along with the Sustainable Chile Programme contracted INTA to analyse 30 maize samples, told IPS.

The maize contaminated with genetically modified (GM) organisms is sold in Chile as corn on the cob, seeds and animal feed.

GM crops are created in laboratories by inserting genes from other species of plants or animals, in order to improve certain qualities or increase their resistance to environmental factors.

FSS and the Sustainable Chile Programme handed the results to Agriculture Minister Marigen Hornkohl on Oct. 23, calling for independent studies to determine the extent of the contamination, as well as laws prohibiting growing GM crops in the country, on the grounds that they are harmful to the environment and public health.

The next step will be to meet with the farmers whose crops were affected, to inform them about the situation and decide whether to press legal charges.

In Chile, transgenic crops may only be grown for producing transgenic seeds for export, but importing GM products and ingredients for human and animal consumption is allowed.

In 2007, the Agriculture Ministry's Agriculture and Livestock Service (SAG) authorised the sowing of transgenic seeds on 24,921 hectares of land. GM maize was planted on 94 percent of the area.

At the request of FSS and Sustainable Chile, the non-governmental Colchagua Rural Development (DRC) organisation collected maize grains and leaves early this year from 30 farms spread over nine municipalities in the central O'Higgins region. INTA detected GM organisms in four of the samples, from the municipalities of Placilla, Santa Cruz and Chimbarongo.

"O'Higgins is one of the regions in the country where most transgenics are released. Now they are spreading further south, to the Maule region," Manzur said.

The DRC had a difficult task, because there is no information available about the exact location of the areas where GM seed production takes place.

"We were surprised by the results, because although I was certain that there was contamination, our samples were taken practically at random. We really didn't know how close the transgenic seed plots were to the fields we chose for sampling," said Manzur. "Under these conditions, the fact that contamination was found shows that it must be quite widespread in the region," she said.

The head of the Sustainable Chile Programme, Sara LarraÌn, called on the authorities to "review the policy on transgenics, since it is clearly difficult to control contamination and segregate the crops," a problem that principally affects organic products and native species.

Romilio Espejo, the head of INTA's biotechnology laboratory, confirmed to IPS that both FSS and the Sustainable Chile Programme contracted INTA's services to determine whether the 30 samples they provided were contaminated with transgenics, and if so, to what degree.

The qualitative analysis for the presence of bacteria found in most transgenic crops currently on the market was carried out by INTA under the ISO 21569 quality standard, and the quantitative tests were based on ISO 21570.

"A small quantity of transgenics" was found in four samples, Espejo said. Three of them had 0.03 percent of GM organisms, and the fourth had 0.13 percent.

In the samples where INTA did not find traces of transgenics, it reported that they contained less than 0.01 percent, "the method's detection limit." According to Espejo, "they cannot be stated to be transgenic-free, but only that they contain less than 0.01 percent."

Although he clarified that INTA cannot vouch for the origin of the maize samples analysed, the head of the biotechnology laboratory acknowledged he was "concerned" about the results, if the samples were from Chilean farms.

"If the source of the contamination is transgenic maize sold worldwide for food, it would not be a major problem, but if the source is transgenic maize produced for other purposes, or that has not yet been approved as risk-free for the population, then it is worrying, even though the contamination is at a very low level," he said.

FSS and the Sustainable Chile Programme affirm that the areas where transgenic maize is grown for seed were responsible for the contamination of nearby fields where samples were taken. But they do not know whether the contamination was caused by transgenic seeds or by wind-blown pollen.

The analysis by INTA did not include identification of the type of GM organisms found, but according to Espejo, "the best explanation" for the results is that "contamination" had occurred.

"I don't think (the results) should cause alarm about maize consumption in Chile, but they are a warning that more control is needed over what is happening with maize grown in this country," he said.

"The contamination is at a very low level. For example, one can export maize to Europe containing less than 0.9 percent contamination, because it is not regarded as transgenic. But the GM crop in question has to have been approved for human consumption," he stressed.

"It would be of the utmost importance to analyse the samples again, to identify the transgenic maize involved. This is technically possible, but it takes time and resources," Espejo said.

"It would be a good thing for the government to investigate this and, if possible, rule out any chance that the source of contamination is a type of maize not authorised for human consumption. That would be a great relief for the population," he said.

But Manzur disagreed with Espejo. The FSS representative said that all the transgenic products sold in this country are only just going through an approval process, decreed by the Health Ministry in 2007, which includes technical standards on biotechnological modification of foods.

So far there have only been two applications, which have not yet been approved, she said.

Manzur also called on parliament not to approve a draft law, introduced by lawmakers belonging to the centre-left governing coalition and the rightwing opposition, to promote cultivation of GM crops for domestic consumption, without specifying any kind of labelling.

The transgenic analysis initiative is backed by the Sustainable Southern Cone Programme, a network of non-governmental organisations from several South American countries.

In fact, the INTA services, which cost some 3,700 dollars, were financed by Sustainable Uruguay, an organisation that carried out a similar study in its own country, where contamination was also detected. The detailed results will be made known soon, said Manzur.

Monsanto Accused Of Biopiracy

Farm Chemicals International, 30 October 2008.

In Hyderabad, India, the Andhra Pradesh Biodiversity Board is seeking royalty payments from Monsanto India Ltd. for genetic information it alleges was "stolen" from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacteria found in local soils, reports livemint.com. India is asking for 1-2% of sales revenue earned from the sale of Bt cotton seeds.

The board claims that this bacteria strain was used in developing Monsanto's genetically modified, bollworm-resistant Bt cotton seeds sold in India.

Raj Ketkar, deputy managing director of Mahyco Monsanto Biotech Ltd, a 50%-50% joint venture between Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Corp. (Mahyco), which sells Bt cotton seeds in IndiaA Monsanto executive in charge of sales of its Bt cotton seeds, strongly denied the allegation. "There is absolutely no Bt research which Monsanto is doing in Andhra Pradesh. All Bt research was done in the US," he said.

However, several of the more than 23 Indian firms to which Mahyco Monsanto sub-licenses Bt cotton sales rights have breeding research facilities in Andhra Pradesh, explained Ketkar: "Through what is called as breeding research, these companies cross the parent US Bt cotton seed, which Monsanto developed and provided them, with local disease-resistant varieties of cotton to develop hybrid seeds, which are then sold in India," he said. Royalties are paid by all firms to which Mahyco Monsanto has sub-licensed the sales rights for Bt cotton.

The board's chairman, R. Hampaiah, said Bt bacteria found in the soil in the Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh has been used in developing the indigenous version of Bt cotton, claiming the company is also using the same technology for developing pest-resistant versions of corn and tomato. Hampaiah also claims to have held discussions with Monsanto India regarding what he terms its "bio-piracy."

"Monsanto denied stealing any genes but admitted that information regarding the genetic sequence of the Kurnool Bt was used," he said. "All we are seeking is benefit sharing." Hampaiah said that while Monsanto was not willing to consider royalty payments, it offered to build roads and contribute to other physical and social infrastructure in the Mahanandi area as part of benefit sharing, which, he said, was not adequate in the board's assessment.

Hampaiah said that the board will seek legal action if Monsanto doesn't comply. Lawyers representing the board are in the process of consulting legal experts in the US where Monsanto has a patent relating to Bt cotton, he said, claiming a legal case against Monsanto could be filed in the next couple of months.

According to Rimmi Harindran, a Monsanto spokesperson, Monsanto Holdings' wholly-owned, research and development unit Emergent Genetics India Pvt. Ltd has operations in five different locations in Andhra Pradesh including Kurnool. Harindran says the meeting that Hampaiah claims never took place, adding that there may have been meetings with the board on other issues. She added the company has also not received any official communication from the board on this issue.

Worries of planting of GM grass

ABC (Australia), 30 October 2008.

Critics of genetically modified crops are upset over plans to trial new grasses in Victoria.

The Department of Primary Industries will grow 500 lines of GM ryegrass and fescue varieties, that make the nutritional content of grass more accessible to animals.

Developers say it will reduce the amount of grass an animal needs to eat.

But former CSIRO scientist Doctor Maaten Stapper argues that similar results can be achieved naturally.

"We have to start working on a good soil, on a biologically active soil and then the genes will express themselves," he says.

"And I've seen amazing results on farms that have gone the biological farming way and then cows eat the grass and they only eat half the time."

Rally against GM crops surprises backers

Perth Now (Australia), 30 October 2008.

A RALLY against the introduction of genetically modified crops drew nearly 1000 people to the steps of the WA Parliament today, organisers have claimed.

Farmers attending brought along goats, chickens and even a prize-winning bull, the Conservation Council of WA said.

It said their message was that GM crops not only risked WA's reputation as a clean, green state but might also have consequences for human health.

An ABC report put the number of protesters at about 500.

The Conservation Council quoted conservationist and gardener Peter Cundall as saying he was surprised by the big turn-out.

"I was absolutely astounded by the success of the rally," he said.

"I knew that GM crops and GM technology are unpopular but today just goes to show just how unpopular it is.

"There is no question about it - the overall majority don't want GM and the State Government must take notice and let democracy prevail."

Julie Newman, from the Network of Concerned Farmers, was also quoted saying she was impressed by the level of support.

"I was overwhelmed with the support, not just those of who marched in the rally but hundreds of people who voiced concerns from the side as we marched down the street," she said.

"I just hope that the Minister is now aware of the level of support of people, everyday people, who have genuine concerns about GM."

The WA Liberal Party, which won government at the recent election, campaigned with a policy of allowing the planting of genetically modified cotton, and going ahead with commercial-size trials of GM canola in the northern Ord River irrigation area.

Protesters heckled Agriculture Minister Terry Redman when he addressed them today, the ABC said on its website.

Mr Redman said he had asked his department to find a forward path for trials of GM canola in WA.

Piers Verstegen, director of the Conservation Council, said: "It's clear by the number of people who came to the rally today that there is no place for GM in WA."

Genetically Modified Menagerie Puts Reputation At Risk

Voxy.co.nz, 30 October 2008.

Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ) has lodged a submission to the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) opposing AgResearch's application to introduce a range of genetically modified animals, saying that it would undermine ERMA's authority and risks New Zealand's 'clean green' international reputation.

OANZ Chief Executive Officer, Dr Jon Tanner, also criticized AgResearch's applications as seeking unrestricted time limits for a number of farms around the country to raise a genetically modified menagerie. "This application is so broad that it provides no oversight on what kinds of animals would be raised where or when - undermining the transparency, accountability and independence that Kiwis demand from ERMA", Dr Tanner said.

"The inter-governmental International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development report from April 2008 identifies that genetic modification globally is not resulting in the productivity gains which scientists predicted would be possible. This report is endorsed by many of New Zealand's major trading partner governments, particularly in Europe.

"Our international trade and tourism relies on New Zealand's reputation as responsible environmental stewards. ERMA is being asked to risk this on the basis of phantom productivity gains and the vague promise of potential pharmaceuticals - at least some of which AgResearch's application admits could be made without genetic modification.

"The future of farming lies in high-value premium productions - including certified organics - rather than 'lowest common denominator' genetically modified products which are expensive, risky and controversial to both develop and bring to market.

"By turning down genetic modification field trials, New Zealand stands to gain a competitive advantage over other countries which have already forfeited their food chain to GM contamination.

"New Zealand is at a crossroads between championing sustainable agriculture - which provides premium prices, ensures the integrity of our food chain and builds on our international environmental reputation - and continuing the 'race to the bottom' of farmers working ever-harder to produce standard commodities", Dr Tanner said.

Monsanto battles biopiracy claims
The Andhra Pradesh Biodiversity Board is seeking royalty payments from Monsanto India Ltd for genetic information it alleges was 'stolen' from Bt bacteria found in the soils of Mahanandi village in Kurnool district

LiveMint.com, 30 October 2008. By Lison Joseph and C.R. Sukumar.

Hyderabad: India is asking the local arm of multinational Monsanto Co. to pay a royalty for genetic information that forms the basis of a genetically modified seed sold by the firm here because it believes this information is that of a bacteria found in Andhra Pradesh.

The Andhra Pradesh Biodiversity Board, a statutory body set up by the Union government under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, is seeking royalty payments from Monsanto India Ltd for genetic information it alleges was "stolen" from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacteria found in the soils of Mahanandi village in Kurnool district.

This bacteria strain, claims the board, was then used in developing Monsanto's genetically modified, bollworm-resistant Bt cotton seeds sold in India.

A Monsanto executive in charge of sales of its Bt cotton seeds strongly denied the allegation. "There is absolutely no Bt research which Monsanto is doing in Andhra Pradesh. All Bt research was done in the US," said Raj Ketkar, deputy managing director of Mahyco Monsanto Biotech Ltd, a 50:50 joint venture between Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd and Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Corp. (Mahyco), which sells Bt cotton seeds in India.

Ketkar added that "several" of the "more" than 23 Indian firms to which Mahyco Monsanto sub-licenses Bt cotton sales rights have breeding research facilities in Andhra Pradesh. "Through what is called as breeding research, these companies cross the parent US Bt cotton seed, which Monsanto developed and provided them, with local disease-resistant varieties of cotton to develop hybrid seeds, which are then sold in India," he said.

All firms to which Mahyco Monsanto has sub-licensed sales rights for Bt cotton pay royalties to it.

Monsanto Holdings, a 100% subsidiary of US firm Monsanto Co. has a 26% stake in Mahyco. It is also present in India through Monsanto India, an India-listed entity that is 72% owned by the US firm, and 28% by public shareholders here.

Board's chairman R. Hampaiah said Bt bacteria found in the soil of Mahanandi in Kurnool district in Andhra Pradesh has been used in developing the indigenous version of Bt cotton capable of resisting Indian bollworm strains. Dubbing Monsanto's act "bio piracy", he claimed the company was also using the same technology for developing pest-resistant versions of maize and tomato.

"We are seeking 1-2% of sales revenue earned from the sale of Bt cotton (seeds) as royalty and we have had discussions with the company regarding the same," said Hampaiah, who served as research director at Pioneer Seeds Ltd, a hybrid seeds development company in Andhra Pradesh, between 1981 and 1990. This royalty payment sought by the state is linked to the sales of Bt cotton seeds in India by Monsanto and its associates, according to the board.

Hampaiah claimed that Monsanto officials met the board after coming to know of the board's claim. "Monsanto denied stealing any genes but admitted that information regarding the genetic sequence of the Kurnool Bt was used," he added. "All we are seeking is benefit sharing."

According to Hampaiah, while Monsanto was not willing to consider royalty payments, it offered to build roads and contribute to other physical and social infrastructure in the Mahanandi area as part of benefit sharing, which, he said, was not adequate in the board's assessment.

If Monsanto doesn't comply, Hampaiah added, the board will seek legal action. Lawyers representing the board are in the process of consulting legal experts in the US where Monsanto has a patent relating to Bt cotton, he said, claiming a legal case against Monsanto could be filed in the next couple of months.

Monsanto Holdings' wholly-owned, research and development unit Emergent Genetics India Pvt. Ltd has operations in five different locations in Andhra Pradesh including Kurnool, according to Rimmi Harindran, a Monsanto spokesperson. Harindran denied the meeting that Hampaiah claims took place, adding meetings on other issues with the board may have taken place. She added the company has also not received any official communication from the board on this issue.

While Monsanto doesn't disclose details of the amount it earns from sales of Bt cotton seeds, financial daily BusinessLine reported on 8 September, quoting industry sources, that 27 million packets of Bt cotton hybrid seeds worth at lease Rs2,000 crore were sold in the current season. A 1-2% royalty on that could work out to Rs10-20 crore.

Monsanto India says on its website that there has been a 58% or 2.95 quintals per acre increase in yield when farmers use Bt cotton seeds, translating into a profit increase for farmers of Rs5,950 an acre.

Besides increase in yield, there was also reduction of an average four-five pesticide sprays against bollworm translating to a saving of Rs1,137 per acre.

The genetically modified seeds have come under fire from environmental groups and consumer organizations that allege that they "contaminate" existing cotton strains and are overpriced.

This is the second time a government body here is getting into a legal tangle with Monsanto. In January 2006, the state government filed a case against a few firms including Monsanto, before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, or MRTPC, alleging that the Bt cotton seed price at Rs1,850 for a 450g packet was "abnormally high".

After the commission, India's apex body that looks at issues related to competition, cartelization, and pricing, ruled that May in favour of the government, Monsanto appealed in the Supreme Court, which refused to intervene in June 2006, resulting in the company having to comply with Rs750-a-packet price fixed by the state government.

Shares of Monsanto India fell 6.75%, or Rs83.25, to close at Rs1,150.10 on the Bombay Stock Exchange on a day when the bourse's benchmark index moved up 0.40%.

29 October 2008

Animal Pharm
The FDA's lax approach to labeling foods from GM animals comes under fire.

Metroactive.com, 29 October 2008. By Ari LeVaux.

[Photo caption: Udderly Disturbing: Annie the cow's cells were engineered to resist mastitis, but her milk wouldn't need to be labeled GM under new FDA guidelines. ]

The only genetically modified (GM) animal currently licensed for sale in the United States is the glow-in-the-dark zebra fish, a pet. With the exception of a few drunk frat boys, this fish is not expected to be consumed by humans, and its need for warm water precludes any possibility of its escaping into the wild. But the glowing zebra fish will soon have some GM company in stores near you.

On Sept.18, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released guidance on a regulatory framework for approving the entrance of GM animals into the nation's food supply. The term "guidance" is agency-speak for the law will look something like this. Put another way, the FDA has offered advice, considerably weaker than legally enforceable regulation. With the announcement, a 60-day period for public comment was opened.

The new guidance is primarily directed at animals genetically modified for food-production purposes, but it's based on the approval process used for animals that are genetically modified for pharmacological purposes, such as pigs designed to grow human livers, or goats that produce insulin in their milk. Under the guidance, all GM animals, whether they're of the farm or the pharma variety, will be classified as drugs.

Technically, the drug is the bit of foreign DNA that's spliced into the animal's cells, and the FDA will grant or deny approval to just those bits of DNA, not to the whole organism. This creates a dangerous regulatory gray area, says Jaydee Hanson, a policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, who calls this arrangement a "fiction."

"The gene is in every cell of the animal, and regulating the animal is the only tool they have to control these genes, but they say they're only regulating the gene, not the animal," he says. "Drugs don't get loose and breed with each other. Animals do."

As a case in point he mentions the "AquAdvantage" line of GM salmon created by Aqua Bounty Technologies of Waltham, Mass., in 2001. The regulated "drug" in this case is a gene that makes salmon secrete extra growth hormone, causing the fish to reach maturity in 18 months instead of 30.

Should any of these fish escape into the wild, they would take their recombinant genes with them, posing an unknown--and therefore, Hanson says, unacceptable--risk to wild salmon stocks and the ecosystems they inhabit.

It's rumored that AquAdvantage salmon will be the first GM food animal approved for sale by the FDA. Meanwhile, a growing number of GM animals are being developed for the food market, says Hanson, and given this fact he thinks an approval process is long overdue. But while steps toward the creation of a regulatory framework for GM food animals are steps in the right direction, he says the FDA's guidance as currently written leaves much to be desired.

"They're not offering good peer review, because the drug-approval process is held in secret," he says. This is ostensibly to protect trade secrets, but it's still a bad idea, says Hanson, who suggests that lack of transparency could compromise the integrity of the approval process.

"The genetically modified food industry is a small world," he says. "You're going to have someone who used to work for a company who now works for FDA, or serves on its review panel, in the position to approve something from their former company."

Many other food activists, policy analysts and interested parties are also taking issue with the FDA's stance, contained in the guidance, against the labeling of foods containing GM animal products. Only foods that can be shown to have dietary properties different from their non-GM counterparts require labeling.

"They're talking about pigs that are going to have mouse genes in them, and this is not going to be labeled?" says Jean Halloran, director of food policy for Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports magazine. "We are close to speechless on this."

Another concern is how the proprietary rights associated with modified genes will be enforced. Because genetic modifications are easily traceable, small livestock producers who introduce GM animals into their herds--or who acquire animals with modified genes unintentionally--might someday receive an unexpected bill for the use of those genes if they are traced to future generations of animals.

On Sept. 19, the day after the FDA's "Draft Guidance on the Regulation of Genetically Modified Animals" was released, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a call for public comment on the need to regulate the movement of GM animals to ensure they don't mix with wild animals or other livestock.

For producers and consumers alike, the onslaught of new biotech developments and the rapidly expanding world of associated potential consequences presents a near-overwhelming amount of information to digest.

But if ever there was an important time to comment on food and food safety, says i Hanson, "this is it."

Tighter labelling of GMO products and GMO-free zones in the Nordic Region

Norden - Official co-operation in the Nordic region, 29 October 2008.

What affect do genetically modified organisms (GMO) have on animals and humans? We don't know enough about it. For that reason the Nordic Council now calls for GMO-free zones and tighter labelling of GMO products in the Nordic Region.

Setting up GMO-free zones in the Nordic countries could give the region a competitive advantage by producing organic GMO-free products. Moreover it will give the Nordic consumers the opportunity to make conscious consumer choices, as long as the products they buy are properly labelled.

Therefore, the Nordic Council at its Session in Helsinki on Wednesday 29 October agreed that the Nordic governments should report on the opportunities for tightening current norms and regulations for the labelling of GMO products.

"There is considerable anxiety about what GMO manipulated food may lead to", said Elina Linna, one of the proposers from the Citizens' and Consumer Committee in the Nordic Council.

The use of GMO in food and fodder is partially regulated by the EU today, with the exception of certain animal products manufactured with the help of GMO. This means that food manufactured with the help of GMO is labelled but food such as eggs, meat and milk from animals that have eaten GMO fodder is not labelled.

Since there is not enough knowledge on whether animals fed with GMO fodder are affected by their diet or not, nor whether people are affected by eating food from animals that have eaten GMO fodder, it is important for Nordic consumers to have the chance to avoid such products.

"Labelling must be tightened" said Finnish Ville Niinistö, chair of the Citizens' and Consumers Committee during the debate on Wednesday.

The Council also encourages the Nordic governments to work with the EU to approve the establishment of GMO free zones.

Contact:

Silje Bergum Kinsten
siki@norden.org
+45 21 71 71 56

Health is at hand
Soy offers significant health benefits but, as John Dunn reports, there is also the issue of genetic modification which consumers have yet to buy into

FoodManufacture.co.uk, 29 October 2008. By John Dunn.

In Europe more than 30M people - about 18% of us - have tried soyfoods according to ENSA, the European Natural Soyfood Association. Formerly considered health-foods (and thus a bit special), soy products are far more popular than we might think, says ENSA.

Somehow the word 'popular' doesn't really seem adequate to describe soy's dominant role in feeding the world today. 'All-pervading' would be better at signifying the rise and rise of soy from a poor peasant food a few millennia ago to today's multi-billion dollar global agribusiness.

But with that omnipresence has come trouble - and the potential for future price rises and supply restrictions for what is now a major global food ingredient.

First to hit the headlines was the use of genetically modified (GM) soy. Genetic modification made it more resistant to weed killers, vastly improving yields for soy farmers, but rapidly turning off consumers, particularly in Europe. Then non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as Greenpeace and WWF started raising public awareness about the way huge swathes of the Amazon rain forest in Brazil were being chopped down to make way for soy production, threatening global warming and global biodiversity.

Now the two concerns have come together in a series of global actions on sustainable and responsible soy, bringing with them the very real threat to food manufacturers of supply restrictions and higher prices.

Earlier this month in Brussels, we had the 2nd International Non-GMO Soy Summit. It was in effect the coming-out party for a new organisation called Abrange, the Brazilian Association of Non-GMO Soy Producers and Processors. This aims to become the world's leading supplier of genetically modified organism-free soy.

And next May we are promised a global certification scheme for the responsible production of soy from the Round Table on Responsible Soy Association (RTRS). RTRS members consist of soy growers in Brazil and other Latin American nations, but with some members in China and India; as well as the big global soy producers such as Cargill, ADM and Bunge; and bankers and civil bodies.

But there is a distinction to be made between the soyfoods that ENSA members such as Alpro produce, and processed soy derivatives and ingredients. Alpro, for example, will take only 'food grade' whole soy beans to make soyfoods such as soy 'milk', tofu, soy 'yoghurts' and soy desserts.

Global soy suppliers such as Cargill, Bunge and ADM on the other hand produce soy protein isolates, soy oil and lecithin on an industrial scale from industrial-grade soy beans.

There's also a distinction to be made between the relatively small amounts of soy used for soyfood products and processed soy compounds and the vastly huger amounts of soy grown for high-protein animal feed.

And then, of course, there is the distinction between GM soy and non-GM soy. Under EU rules, any food product containing more than 0.9% of GM soy has to be labelled as containing GM soy. But GM soy animal feed is whole different question. Food products from animals fed on GM soy do not need to be labelled as such, although a number of retailers including Marks & Spencer, have banned GM soy-fed animals from their meat and dairy products.

Dr John Fagan is chief scientific officer for Cert-ID, one of the principle sponsors behind the soy summit. Cert-ID has been certifying products as non-GM since the late 1990s through its ProTerra certification programme. This year it will certify over $1bn worth of soy and soy derivatives as being sustainable, responsible and non-GM.

"This year between 50% and 55% of all soy grown in Brazil will be non-GM," says Fagan. "But three years ago it was more like 70%. GM soy is coming to Brazil. However, since the demand for non-GM soy is growing and premiums for this material are increasing, there is significant motivation for farmers in Brazil to grow more non-GM soy.

"The only way GM soy can enter Europe without being disclosed to consumers is as animal feed. But there are a number of companies that are excluding GM animal feed because they know that consumers are getting concerned about it. There is certainly concern among German retailers about excluding GMOs from their supply chain and they are exploring the possibility of excluding GMOs from animal feed. Certain premium grades of meat have already gone that way. And there is now some control within the egg sector over the animal feed that is being used."

Alpro is also a sponsor of the summit. Commercial director John Allaway says that Alpro has been in the soya business 27 years, building relations with farmers in Brazil, China, and Canada and paying them a premium for their soy beans over and above the benchmark, the Chicago Board of Trade price, which includes soy for feed.

"We pay them a premium because we want them to produce non-GMO soy, the core of our activity. Across the globe something like 95% of soy in the world goes to animal feed. So we are a very small part of total soya. In the last seven years our market has seen been double digit growth. But we are now seeing a slow-down. Our competitive landscape now is speciality healthy dairy. We are now competing with dairy products. It is a big challenge for us to get dairy consumers to start trying soya milk as well as dairy milk."

A growing role for soy

Nevertheless, Allaway sees a growing role for soya in feeding people in future. "The World Health Organisation says people need 50g of protein a day. That's not going to be fulfilled by the dairy and meat industries. So we think there is a role for a soya-protein type product. Now we are not going to overtake the dairy and meat industry in feeding everybody, but the good source of protein that we offer through soya, is going to help.

"And that is part of our philosophy - being part of that story of the future. But at the moment we have to focus on delivering better-tasting products and ensuring that consumers get the message that these products are healthy and very tasty."

But Allaway is cautious: "There is a lot of pressure on suppliers of meat and dairy products to feed their animals on non-GM soya because the consumer is waking up to GM in feed going into the animal. This will force producers to find a source of non-GM soya and the price of non-GM soya beans could increase." One estimate reckons non-GM soya bean prices could rise by 600% within two years, he says.

According to Steve Fairbairn, head of external communication at Cargill Europe, Cargill along with the rest of the soy industry in Brazil signed a moratorium on soy in 2006. "We as an industry committed to not purchase soy from land that had been deforested from the 24th of July 2006. We have been working with NGOs such as WWF, IPAM [the Amazon Institute for Environmental Research in Brazil], The Nature Conservancy and Conservation International, to put in place a monitoring process to ensure that soy is grown sustainably in the Brazilian Amazon biome.

"The moratorium is sharing best practice and a lot of the same players are involved in the Round Table on Responsible Soy as well, such as Cargill, Bunge, and ADM. There is a recognition that soy needs to be grown sustainably. It's not just consumer driven - we recognise that if you want to continue having a good supply of soy, then it has to be done in a sustainable manner. So there is good commercial sense to this as well."

Standard for sustainability

Proforest in Oxford is a consultancy helping people to manage natural resources responsibly and sustainably. It has been employed by RTRS to develop its standard for responsible soy production. Dawn Robinson, associate director, says the aim is for certified producers to be able to say they produce soy responsibly as defined by this standard. "It includes things like good agricultural practice, good soil and water management, protection of biodiversity, responsible community relations, workers' rights, health and safety, and responsible business practices. We are discussing how to create a language that would not penalise people who have already got plantations established, but which would limit the expansion into untouched forest areas."

But won't this restrict supplies and raise prices? Robinson doesn't think so. "There are a lot of opportunities for soy to expand into different areas including degraded land. It won't affect at all the global supply of soy. But it will create the opportunity for people to purchase exclusively from sources that they know are responsible.

"It's going to be a global standard, applicable to anybody. It's a voluntary standard. The idea is that retailers and people who use soy as animal feed will want to make a statement to reassure their end customers that they are doing the right thing. The RTRS doesn't discriminate against GM soy - responsible production can be GMO or non-GMO," says Robinson.

One of the speakers at the soy summit is Jonathon Bayne, technical development and regulatory affairs controller at Musgrave Retail Partners, which includes Budgens and Londis supermarkets. "As a small retailer we see difficulties working with our producers in trying to have non-GM feed fed to the animals that end up in our finished products. We work with the major meat processors and so for us to make such a demand would put us at a commercial disadvantage.

"We have spoken to our suppliers in the past about going down the non-GM soya route and, yes, it can be done but there is a commercial impact. It also puts a limitation on the availability of the raw material.

"The momentum is there, but there are an awful lot of hoops and hurdles that we would have to jump through and jump over. And I'm not sure that our customers are prepared to pay more for the product. We'd like to give it a go; it can be done, but ultimately at this moment in time it is one step too far." FM

Key contacts:

Alpro 01536 720600
Cargill 01932 861000
Cert-ID 01827 874849
ENSA 0032 2 741 6215
Musgrave 0870 0500 158
Proforest 01865 243439

GM is Not the Way to Sustainability

ISIS - Institute of Science in Society, 29 October 2008

GM crops are unsound and unsafe; the biotech corporations are still making promises that they cannot keep while their real aim is to tighten their stranglehold on seeds to starve the world. Prof. Peter Saunders

Conventional agriculture is not the answer, neither is GM

"In agriculture, the starting point, I think, has to be the recognition that the commercial industrial technologies that are used in agriculture today to feed the world are technologies that are not inherently sustainable and they have not worked well to promote either self-sufficiency or food security in developing countries." Most people would be surprised to learn that these are the words of Robert Shapiro, then the CEO of Monsanto [1]:

And earlier [2]: "Loss of topsoil, salinity of soil as a result of irrigation and ultimate reliance on petrochemicals [which are] obviously not renewable. That clearly isn't sustainable."

This is the sort of statements you'd expect to come from a campaigning group rather than a big corporation. It's a solid condemnation of the Green Revolution and a warning that the current attempt to extend it to Africa is misguided. Of course Shapiro was pushing what he saw as the alternative to industrial agriculture, namely genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for crops and livestock.

In fact, the evidence shows that the answer lies neither in conventional industrial agriculture nor in GMOs, but in organic agriculture. The 400 scientists who contributed to the recent report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) certainly did not see GM as the answer to the food problem. On the contrary, they concluded it could have at most a relatively minor role [3, 4] (GM-Free Organic Agriculture to Feed the World, SiS 38).

The truth about genetic engineering is that it has consistently failed to deliver. It has not increased yields [5]: for example, researchers at the Universities of Kansas in the United States found that the yields of GM soya were about 6 per cent lower than those of their nearest conventional relatives [6], confirming results obtained since 2002 [7] (GM Crops Failed, SiS 13/14). It has not decreased the amount of herbicides and pesticides used. Since Roundup Ready crops have been widely grown in the USA, glyphosate application on major crops has gone up by a factor of 15 [8]. That has not been merely a matter of farmers switching to Roundup (Monsanto's proprietary formulation of glyphosate); the application of other herbicides has also gone up. And it has not increased the profits of farmers: for example, a study has shown that farmers in the American state of Georgia who grew Bt cotton did not make more money than those who did not [9, 10] (Transgenic Cotton Offers No Advantage, SiS 38) and the mass suicides of cotton growers in India are all too well known (see GM is Dangerous and Futile [11], SiS 40).

The only group that have gained from GM are the biotech companies.

The supporters of GM continue to make extravagant claims for what it can accomplish, and you can easily be taken in if you do not look carefully at the evidence. For example, in the abstract of a recent paper in Science [12] the authors write: "Our data suggest that Bt cotton not only controls H. armigera on transgenic cotton designed to resist this pest but also may reduce its presence on other host crops and may decrease the need for insecticide sprays in general."

The abstract is all you can read for free on the web, and it is what most commentators are likely to quote, especially if they are supporters of GM. In the full paper, however, the authors report that mirids, podsucking bugs that used to be controlled by spraying and by competition with the bollworm, have now become key pests of cotton in China. They conclude their paper with the statement: "Therefore, despite its value, Bt cotton should be considered only one component in the overall management of insect pests in the diversified cropping systems common throughout China." That's not at all what you would infer from the abstract.

Do they really believe what they say?

How far do the biotech people themselves really believe the claims they make in public? In their more thoughtful moments, some of them talk quite differently.

Nature Biotechnology is more or less the house journal of the biotech industry, and regular readers of SiS will know that we and others have criticised them twice within the past year for blatant bias in favour of GM [13-16] (Letter to Nature Biotechnology: Systematic bias in favour of no adverse impacts from GM feed, Letter to Nature Biotechnology: Prepublication Review Yes, But Review Panel Must be Balanced, and From the Editors, Science in Society 37). Even so, here are extracts from an editorial that appeared a couple of months ago [17].

The Biotechnology Industry Organization's (BIO) slogan for its annual meeting held in San Diego in June was 'Heal, fuel, feed the world.'

On no count is this equivocal or faltering or modest. Of course, perhaps that should be expected of an industry lobby organization whose job it is to proselytize the potential of its members' technology and products. But the problem is the slogan just isn't very realistic.

"There are hundreds of thousands of acres of genetically modified (GM) crops being grown around the world, but they are not at present addressing key agricultural problems for poor farmers, such as salinity, desertification and drought. Nor are they addressing problems such as malnutrition (although with Golden Rice, they could)."

(Actually, Golden Rice can't contribute to the problem of malnutrition because it can't supply anything like the required amount of β-carotene and what there is won't be converted to vitamin A if you are undernourished [18] ('Golden Rice' - an exercise in how not to do science, TWN/ISIS publication), but let's go on.)

And although biotech has addressed a few orphan diseases, produced new therapies in infectious disease, cancer and autoimmune disorders, and recombinant versions of biologics for diabetes and growth disorders, it hasn't delivered on the promised 'cures' of genetic therapies or even the wide adoption of molecularly targeted medicine. Certainly, it hasn't done much to address disease and malnutrition among the world's poor.

"This journal champions biotech research, so we are not downbeat on its prospects to, one day, generate products that will heal, fuel and feed the world. That is, nevertheless, an outrageous act of faith bordering on the religious." [emphasis supplied]

All that from a committed supporter of GM!

What can GM do?

In September 2008, the British government announced that it was going to change its policy and allow GM crops to be grown in the UK. The then science minister, Ian Pearson, explained that the world needs GM because "we can grow drought resistant crops". (And as we have just learned from environment editor Geoffrey Lean of the Independent on Sunday [19], that was part of a secret plan instigated by the pro-GM president of the European Commission JosÈ Manuel Barroso with the UK and 26 other European governments to spread GM crops in Europe.)

Except that we can't make drought resistant crops by GM. Even the editor of Nature Biotechnology admits we can't. What the minister should have said was "The biotech companies have promised us that at some unspecified time in the future they will produce drought resistant crops by some method that they haven't yet developed, and that is why in the present we are going to allow them to grow Bt maize in the UK even though we don't need it and the consumers have made it abundantly clear that they don't want it."

There's a gap in the logic there, and an even more important gap in the science. In the first place, contrary to what is often stated, genes don't make traits like higher yields, drought-resistance, or being perennial instead of annual, or even, make women want to marry older men and men want to marry younger women [20]. (No, I didn't make the last one up. It's one of the classic claims of so-called evolutionary psychology). What genes do is to code for the production of proteins. The traits we observe, what biologists call the phenotype, as distinct from the genotype, arise through the complex interactions of these gene products with other gene products and with the environment.

Secondly, while most people think of a gene as a piece of DNA, that is at best a vast oversimplification. Not only do genes come in many separate pieces, the pieces don't even all have to be on the same chromosome. The same piece of DNA can be part of two genes at the same time. And there are other complications as well. The situation is so complicated that modern molecular biologists define a gene by what it does rather than by what it is. [21] (see also [11]).

Now in genetic engineering, what we do is to cut out or copy a piece of DNA from one genome, or take an entirely synthetic piece of DNA, and insert that into a DNA molecule in another genome. But whatever a gene is, it is not a single stretch of DNA, so what is being transferred cannot be a gene. Add on to this the fact that most traits are determined by more than one gene, and there is little reason to suppose that genetic engineering can work at all, save for the simplest characteristics, such as insect resistance or herbicide tolerance, which is practically all we have now.

We certainly cannot just choose any trait we want and use genetic engineering to make a crop that has it. Stan Cox has described how he and his colleagues at the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas, are using the traditional techniques of selection and hybridisation to produce perennial grain crops [22] (Ending 10 000 Years of Conflict between Agriculture and Nature, SiS 39). This may strike you as a bit old fashioned, and you may have wondered why they do not simply transfer the gene for being perennial to the crop plant, or the gene for high yield to the perennial. The answer, as Cox pointed out, is that there are no such genes. For example, for sorghum, originally a tropical plant, to be perennial in a temperate climate depends on genetic material on 9 of the plant's 10 chromosome pairs. Transferring such a trait by genetic engineering is clearly impossible.

So if we want perennial crop plants that yield as well as their annual counterparts, it looks like we're going to have do it by the sort of breeding that's been known for centuries. The same is true for most traits, including almost all of those we would really like our crops to possess.

GM hazards to health

We should not lose sight of the fact that there are serious health hazards associated with GM crops [11], which would be a reason for rejecting them even if they performed better than conventional crops, and they do not.

The biotech industry is fond of saying there is no evidence that any humans have been harmed by eating GM food. In the first place, that's because they've very carefully not looked for evidence and have ignored all the reports of real incidents. They have also worded their usual statement very carefully to make it sound much stronger than it is. Eating GM food is not the only exposure that can be harmful, as in the Philippines and in India, where villagers and farmers exposed to Bt maize pollen and Bt cotton suffer allergy-like symptoms since 2005 [23, 24] (GM Ban Long Overdue, SiS 29; More Illnesses Linked to Bt Crops, SiS 30), and this is continuing in India to the present day [25] (see Save Farmer Movement for the latest news, http://www.kisanbachaoandolan.co.cc).

There is ample evidence that animals have been harmed by GM feed in laboratory experiments [11]; from the findings of Arpad Pusztai and colleagues on rats fed GM potatoes, of Irina Ermakova on the offspring of rats fed GM soya, of researchers at the CSIRO in Australia on mice exposed to transgenic pea containing a gene from a bean, which you would have thought would be relatively safe because the two plants are closely related, but the transgenic pea made the mice seriously ill. Then farmers have witnessed cows in Germany that died after being fed on Bt maize; and sheep, goats, cows and other livestock in India that fall ill and died after grazing on Bt cotton crop residues or even cotton seed cakes [25].

Whether humans have been harmed by actually eating GM food is hard to tell because there is no labelling in countries like the USA where people are most likely to be eating GM food (though most of it has probably gone into animal feed after processing). Also, the effect may take time, just as the effects of smoking and asbestos do.

We do know, however, that serious allergies are much more common now than they used to be, and we also know that humans and animals can get allergic reactions to GM food and pollen, which is not surprising as new molecules are involved. That doesn't prove GM was the cause, but there's certainly no justification for claiming that it wasn't.

GM hazards to the environment

Contrary to what Shapiro claimed, GM crops are no better than conventional agriculture in their effect on the environment, and in most cases worse: more pesticides and herbicides used after just a few years [8], less biodiversity [11], secondary pests explode as the targeted primary pest becomes diminished [12], or worse, become resistant to the pesticide; and herbicide resistant superweeds [11]. Just like conventional crops only more so, GM crops degrade the soil because of the heavy use of herbicides and pesticides and because of their reliance on chemical fertilisers. They also contaminate other crops by of cross pollination [26] (GM Contamination At 21 km and Farther. No Co-Existence Possible, SiS 35) or by horizontal gene transfer between unrelated species, especially via bacteria in the soil [27] (Horizontal Gene Transfer from GMOs Does Happen, SiS 38).

The biotech industry and the regulators sometimes claim that a separation of only a few metres between GM and conventional fields is enough to prevent contamination. This is patently not the case, as confirmed by the most recent large scale study carried out by scientists at the US Environment Protection Agency, showing contamination at 21 km away [26]. In large areas of Canada there is no longer any GM-free canola [28].( Do Not Let our Nightmare Become Yours, Warn Canadian Farmers, SiS 17}; The herbicide resistance has also spread to weeds [11]. So after a few years of whatever gain there is from growing Roundup Ready crops, the farmer is likely to be worse off than before. And it is not just the farmers who choose to plant GM seed that will have the problem. All farmers will have to cope with GM superweeds.

Monopoly on food

The only party that have profited from GM are the biotech companies. Some supporters of GM will even admit to that, though they immediately go on to say that in the future we will all gain, clearly a case of pie in the sky.

The reason biotech companies are so keen on GM crops is because they are patentable, unlike ordinary crops. If you breed seeds by conventional methods, you can only get "breeder's rights". Exactly what that entitles you to varies a bit from country to country, but essentially it means that no one else can market seeds of that variety until the rights expire. Farmers are, however, specifically permitted to save seeds for their own use. In complete contrast, because GM varieties can be patented, the biotech companies can and do prevent farmers from saving the seeds, as Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser discovered.[29] (Schmeiser's Battle for the Seed, SiS 19).

The big seed companies are buying up the smaller ones, and Monsanto has been particularly aggressive in acquiring seed companies in recent years. It controls more than 90 percent of the market in many important crop seeds, and Iowa attorney general Tom Miller has been investigating the company to determine if it violates antitrust laws.[30]. As the company controls more and more of the market, it makes non-GM seeds harder and harder to get, and it won't make any attempt to improve those that remain. It is able to raise prices to whatever level it likes, and farmers are already paying higher seed prices with less choice in the marketplace. If nothing is done to combat this, every farmer in the world will have to buy seeds every year from one of half a dozen or fewer corporations that will thus have a complete stranglehold on the world's food supply.

That's bad enough in the USA, but in the third world, where farmers are typically close to the margins, it is disastrous. If farmers have to borrow money to buy seeds they stand to lose their farms if the harvest is not what they were promised. Thousands of suicides in India have been blamed on GM cotton. The only thing that saves them is to switch back to growing organic with their traditional varieties [31] (Message from Andra Pradesh:Return to organic cotton & avoid the Bt cotton trap, SiS 29), the seeds of which they can save from year to year and get a bumper harvest without fertilizers and pesticides to get them into a cycle of debt..

Conclusion

The evidence is clear: industrial agriculture is out; GM agriculture is worse and unsafe. Organic agriculture, on the other hand, can feed the world, and feed it well, as Catherine Badgley and colleagues in the University of Michigan have shown by a careful analysis of data already published [32], and as many other studies have confirmed in ISIS' own report [33] (Food Futures Now *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free). Especially relevant is the project carried out by Sue Edwards and colleagues at the Ethiopian Institute of Sustainable Development in Tigray over a period of seven years, documenting how compost produced yields 30 per cent greater than chemical fertilisers. (Not surprisingly, crops treated with chemical fertiliser did better than those that were not treated at all, so if this had been a Green Revolution project it would be claimed as a great triumph for chemicals.)

A couple of years ago, some ordinary rice in the USA became contaminated with GM rice that was being trialled. This was not picked up by the Americans, which shows how feeble their testing is, but was noticed in Europe. The authorities were slow to act, the UK worst of all [34] (GM Rice Contamination How Regulators Tried to Sidestep the Law, SiS 32), but the consumers would not tolerate it. You can see just how strongly they objected from a packet of rice found in a London greengrocer. The original label described the contents as "American Long Grain Rice", but this apparently referred to the variety of rice, not its origin. So the distributor had covered it with a new label, informing the consumer that this was "Long Grain (Non USA Origin): Please Ignore All References to the USA".

Can GM be stopped? Yes, it can, if consumers refuse to buy it and if farmers refuse to grow it. That little package of rice reminds you what can happen when consumers will not buy something they don't trust and don't want. And if consumers don't want to buy GM, farmers have even less reason to grow it. Among the strongest critics of the lax US regulation and quality control that allowed contaminated rice to be exported were American rice farmers who saw their overseas markets disappear.

And when governments and industry give up devoting so much time, effort and resource to what even the IAASTD considers to be a side issue as far as feeding the world is concerned, we will be able to concentrate on measures that will really make a difference.

This article is based on lectures delivered at the International Conference on Climate Change, GMOs and Food Security, held on 1-2 October, 2008, in New Delhi. India, and the Forum on Genetically Modified Organisms: "Have GMOs Delivered?" held on 16 October 2008 in Manila, Philippines.

References

1. Shapiro, R. Agriculture and biotechnology: Considerations for the future. Talk given to the 4th annual Greenpeace Business Conference, 8 October 2000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/468147.stm

2. Shapiro, R. Talk to the Society of Environmental Journalists, 1995.

3. Report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. April, 2008. http://www.agassessment.org

4. Ho MW. "GM-free organic agriculture to feed the world". Science in Society 38, 14-15, 2008.

5. FAO The State of Food and Agriculture, 2003-4, http://www.fao.org/es/esa/en/pubs_sofa.htm

6. Gordon, B. Manganese resistance of glyphosphate resistant and conventional soybeans. Better Crops with Plant Food No. 4, 2007. See http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/bcrops.nsf/$webindex/70ABDB50A75463F085257394001B157F/$file/07-4p12.pdf

7. Lim, LC and Matthews J. GM Crops Failed. i-sis news 13/14, 31, 2002.

8. Who benefits from gm crops? The rise in pesticide use, executive summary, Friends of the Earth International, Amsterdam, January 2008.

9. Jost P, Shurley D, Culpepper S, Roberts P, Nichols R, Reeves J and Anthony S. Economic Comparison of transgenic and montransgenic cotton production systems in Georgia. Agronomy Journal 2008, 100, 42-51. (doi:10.2134/agronj2006.0259)

10. Ho MW and Saunders PT. Transgenic cotton offer no advantage. Science in Society 38, 30, 2008.

11. Ho MW. GM is dangerous and futile. Science in Society 40 (to appear).

12. Wu, KM, Lu, YH, Feng, HQ, Jiang, YY and Zhao, JZ, Suppression of Cotton Bollworm in Multiple Crops in China in Areas with Bt Toxin-Containing Cotton. Science 321, 1676-1678, 2008.

13. Ho MW and Saunders PT. Letter to the editor. Nature Biotechnology 25 (2007) 1355.

14. Ho MW. Systematic bias in favour of no adverse impacts from GM feed. Letter to Nature Biotechnology (not published in journal). Science in Society 37 , 10, 2008.

15. Saunders PT. Prepublication review yes, but panel must be balanced, Letter to Nature Biotechnology (not published in journal) Science in Society 37 , 11, 2008.

16. Saunders PT and Ho MW. A very inconvenient truth. From the Editors, Science in Society 37 , 3, 2008.

17. Marshall A. Join the Dots: Pushing biotech as the 'solution' to the world's problems is doing more harm than good. Nature Biotechnology 2008, 26, 837.

18. Ho MW. 'Golden Rice' - An Exercise in How Not to Do Science, TWN Biosafety Series No. 6, TWN, Penang, 2002.

19. "Europe's secret plan to boost GM crop production", Geoffrey Lean, 26 October 2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/europes-secret-plan-to-boost-gm-crop-production-973834.html

20. Buss DM. . Mate preference mechanisms: Consequences for partner choice and intrasexual competition. In The Adapted Mind. (Barkow, JH, Cosmides, L & Tooby J, eds). pp 249-266, Oxford University Press, New York. 1992.

21. See, for example, Darnell, J, Lodish, H and Baltimore, D. Molecular Cell Biology. Scientific American Books, New York, 1986. This text is over 20 years old, so the realisation that the gene is not a simple piece of DNA came long before the big push into genetic engineering that depends on the assumption that it is.

22. Cox S. Ending 10 000 years of conflict between agriculture and nature. Science in Society 39, 12-15, 2008.

23. Ho MW. GM ban long overdue. Dozens ill & five deaths in the Philippines. Science in Society 29, 26-27, 2006.

24. Ho MW. More illnesses linked to Bt crops. Science in Society 30, 8-10, 2006.

25. Save Farmer Movement, 23 October 2008, http://www.kisanbachaoandolan.co.cc

26. Ho MW. GM contamination at 21 km and farther, no co-existence possible. Science in Society 35, 30-31, 2007.

27. Ho MW and Cummins J. Horizontal gene transfer from GMOs does happen. Science in Society 38, 22-24, 2008.

28. Lim LC. "Do not let our nightmare become your". Science in Society 17, 28, 2003.

29. Ho MW. Schmeiser's battle for the seed. Science in Society 19, 13-14, 2003.

30. Peterson, C. Seed Company has expensive monopoly. Des Moines Register, 17 October 2008, http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081017/OPINION04/810170347/-1/NEWS04

31. Gala R. Return to organic cotton and avoid the Bt cotton trap. . Science in Society 29, 38-39, 2006.

32. Badgley C, Moghader, J, Quintero, E, Zakem, E, Chappell MJ, Aviles-V·squez K, Samulon A and Perfecto, I. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22 (2007) 86-108.

33. Ho MW. Burcher S. Ching LL. & others. Food Futures Now Organic and Fossil Fuel Free ISIS/TWN, London, 2008.

34. Saunders PT. GM rice contamination: How regulators tried to sidestep the law. Science in Society 32, 4-5, 2006.

EU Leaders Develop Plan to Help Increase GM Food Acceptance

Daily Mail (UK), 29 October 2008.

European leaders have drawn up plans to speed up the introduction of controversial GM crops, it emerged yesterday.

Minutes of a private meeting between 27 government representatives reveal that EU leaders also want to deal with public resistance to the technology.

The leaders also want agricultural representatives and industry to do more to counteract concerns from environmentalists.

Details of the plan is set to create a storm of protest at a time when popular concern about GM technology is increasing.

The President of the EU Commission Jose Manuel Barroso has called a series of meetings to discuss GM foods.

These were headed by his head of cabinet, Joao Vale de Almeida. The prime ministers of each of the EUs 27 member states were asked to nominate a representative.

Minutes of the meeting reveal that the representatives discussed how to speed up the introduction of GM crops and how to persuade the public to accept them.

One document calls for the speeding up of the authorisation process based on robust assessments so as to reassure the public. Another added: Decisions could be made faster without compromising safety.

Public opposition has prevented any modified crops from being grown in Britain.

France, one of only three countries in Europe to have grown them in any amounts, has suspended their cultivation, and resistance is rising rapidly in the other two, Spain and Portugal.

The GM process involves inserting a foreign gene, which might come from a virus or an animal, into a plant to give it new and supposedly beneficial properties.

Opponents argue the side-effects of the GM experiment are unknown and potentially risky.

EU: DG Sanco debates consumer reception of new technologies

FoodNavigator.com, 29 October 2008.

A conference taking place in Brussels is examining how best to deal with emerging technologies like cloning and nanotechnology, and to ensure that consumer confidence is addressed.

Called Delivering for Tomorrow's European Consumers, the Directorate General for Health and Consumers (DG Sanco) conference sets out to map future challenges for consumer health and protection, and will be used to finalise a strategic paper on action areas before the new Commission.

DG Sanco has just published a draft paper 'Future Challenges: 2009-2014', setting out the most important challenges it expects to face in the coming years. The paper, which gives a basis for the broad topics at the conference, is the result of two years' of discussions, and takes account of wide-ranging stakeholder comments.

This morning's session took case studies of technologies that have already elicited some response from consumers. In addition to the questions over the use of animals for meat and other derivatives, and whether the safety nanotechnology has been established, it also looked at consumer views of genetically modified foods.

The panelists were asked to draw from these case studies some recommendations. Amongst the include Catherine Geslain-Laneelle, executive director of the Europe Food Safety Authority, and Dr Bernward Garthoff, chairman of EuropaBio.

Latest on cloning

A new Eurobarometer survey that has revealed consumers' views on animal cloning for food production to be overwhelmingly negative. It found that there was a good (80 per cent of respondents) understanding of what cloning is.

But an overwhelming 86 per cent were sceptical about who had the most to gain for cloning animals for food - saying the food industry would be in line for the greatest gains.

Fifty-four per cent said cloning would not ultimately benefit consumers; and 44 said it would not ultimately benefit farmers.

Some 43 per cent said they would not buy produce from cloned animals; and 41 per cent would not buy produce from the offspring of cloned animals.

Latest on nanotechnology

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) this month issued a draft opinion that there are broad uncertainties over the safe use of nanotechnology for foodstuffs, and more research is recommended.

The conclusion of the draft, which is open for comment until December 1 2008, is that existing risk assessment methods can be applied. However it goes further by drawing attention to considerable limitations and uncertainties on characterizing, detecting, and measuring ENM, and on their toxicity, distribution, metabolism, absorption and excretion.

Broader financial turmoil threatens biotech's innovation and cash

International Herald Tribune, 29 October 2008. By Andrew Pollack.

So many biotechnology companies talk about "extending the runway" these days, you might think they had entered the airline business.

But for them, runway refers to the time before a company runs out of money. And with financial markets in turmoil, the runways are looking dangerously short for many small biotechnology companies. A biotech crash, if it comes, could threaten an industry that plays a vital role in turning scientific advances into usable medicines.

"If you imagine a plane falling slowly to earth, the financial crisis just tipped the nose straight down," said Andrew Baum, chief executive of SemBioSys Genetics in Calgary, Alberta, whose stock trades on the Toronto exchange.

SemBioSys, which hopes to use genetically engineered safflowers as a low-cost way to produce insulin and other drugs, said last week it would cut about 30 workers, or more than 40 percent of its work force. Even so, the company's cash might last only until the middle of next year, Baum said.

Many other biotechnology companies are starting to cut their work forces and even eliminate research and drug development projects in a desperate effort to extend the runway. Some might have to sell themselves at a bargain price, like Avalon Pharmaceuticals, a biopharmaceutical company based in Maryland, did Tuesday to Clinical Data for $10 million in stock.

The problem is that newly risk-averse investors are shunning biotechnology stocks, which are among the riskiest investments around, because most experimental drugs fail.

Biotech companies accounted for 86, or 25 percent, of the 344 companies that, as of Oct. 9, were in danger of being delisted by Nasdaq because their share price was less than $1 or they failed to have an adequate market valuation.

One of those is DeCode Genetics, which has regularly made headlines for discovering genes linked to cancer, heart attacks and numerous other diseases. The company's stock has fallen more than 90 percent in the last year to 29 cents a share.

Investors apparently are concerned that the company's cash is running low and that it will have trouble paying a $230 million debt that comes due in 2011. It has not helped that DeCode is based in Iceland, which has suffered a financial collapse, and that it lost millions of dollars on investments in auction rate securities. The company is now planning to sell certain operations.

There are exceptions, of course. The big biotechnology companies, including Genentech and Amgen that are both based in California, have products on the market and are highly profitable. The biggest companies are in such strong financial shape, in fact, that their shares are roughly flat for the year, far better than stocks as a whole.

But most biotechnology companies - several hundred publicly traded ones and thousands more in private hands - are unprofitable and can sustain themselves only with periodic infusions of cash from willing investors or pharmaceutical companies. It can take hundreds of millions of dollars and 10 years or longer to bring a drug to market.

"For a biotech company, cash is a raw material," said George Milstein, head of investment banking at Pacific Growth Equities, an investment bank specializing in health care.

Some 113 biotechnology companies, up from 68 in the first quarter, now have less than a year of cash at their current spending rates, according to Rodman & Renshaw, an investment bank. That is about one-third of the publicly traded biotech companies it tracks.

Lack of access to credit is not the main problem for small biotechnology companies, which are considered so risky that even in boom times they cannot borrow much money from banks.

Some, though, have issued securities convertible into common stock, which might have to be paid back in cash if the stock price falls below the conversion rate.

That happened to AtheroGenics after its drug for heart disease failed in a clinical trial. Paying off $30.5 million in notes that came due in September would have left it with little cash to test its drug as a treatment for diabetes. So it defaulted, entered bankruptcy and is now trying to sell itself or the drug.

For biotechnology companies, though, the main impact of the credit crisis involves the broader market. Some hedge funds have pulled out of biotechnology investing, while others have had to sell shares to cover losses elsewhere or to return money to their investors.

To be sure, the industry has been through funding droughts before, such as in 1998 and again in 2002, and most companies survive.

But this crisis comes as other factors were already souring investors on biotechnology. Drug development has become longer and more costly, in part because the Food and Drug Administration has become more demanding. And there is more pressure to cut drug prices.

So far this year, public and private biotechnology companies have raised $5.6 billion, according to the publishing company FDC-Windhover's Strategic Transactions database. That is only one-third the amount in all of 2007 and likely to be the lowest amount since 2002.

It has been virtually impossible for biotech companies to go public this year. That deprives venture capitalists, who help start and nurture small companies, of one of the main ways of realizing a return on their investment. And it means they have to keep financing their companies longer. Those factors - plus the fact that some venture capitalists are investing in publicly traded biotechnology companies because their shares have become so cheap - mean there will be less money left for starting new companies.

When investors do invest, they are more often insisting on quick returns. Robert Blum, chief executive of Cytokinetics, a publicly traded company based in South San Francisco, California, said hedge funds had constantly pressed him to spend money only on the company's drugs that were already in clinical trials and to abandon earlier-stage research aimed at finding new drugs.

"They were challenging us and critiquing us for still investing in research," Blum said. He said such pressure threatened to dry up innovation.

Cytokinetics partially bowed to the pressure in September, cutting some of its early research and dismissing 45 employees, or 29 percent of its work force.

As a company's cash and stock price diminish, raising money becomes even harder. Companies do not like to sell new stock cheaply because it dilutes existing shareholders. And potential new investors, sensing a company is desperate, drive a harder bargain. So do pharmaceutical companies, which are desperate for new drugs and have the cash to buy smaller biotechnology companies.

"I have a sense that Big Pharma is sitting on the sidelines waiting for them to hit bottom," said Dennis Purcell, senior managing partner of Aisling Capital, a life-sciences investment firm based in New York.

Fund-raising would also get harder if Nasdaq carried through on its threat to delist biotech companies that have become penny stocks. But with so many companies in various industries in trouble, Nasdaq has now suspended enforcement of its delisting rules for three months, until Jan. 19.

Some companies are managing to get money. Phenomix, a San Diego company, put off trying to go public but licensed a diabetes drug to Forest Laboratories for an initial payment of $75 million. Ista Pharmaceuticals of Irvine, California, got a $65 million credit line from Deerfield Management and two other shareholders.

But risk aversion is spreading even to some companies not in immediate danger of running out of cash.

Despite having about $200 million on hand, Maxygen last week suspended work on its lead drug - aimed at protecting cancer chemotherapy patients from infections - rather than commit $100 million or so to move the drug through clinical trials. The company, based in Redwood City, California, said it would reduce its work force by 30 percent and would explore selling itself.

Russell Howard, the chief executive, said the company's market valuation was only about $130 million. That is less than its cash on hand, meaning investors were placing no value on the drug or any of the company's other programs.

"Why would you be investing more in this business," he said, "if the market doesn't care?"

EU approves Bayer biotech cotton for import

Reuters, 29 October 2008.

The European Union has authorised imports of a genetically modified (GM) cotton type for sale across its 27 national markets for the next 10 years, an official at the European Commission said on Wednesday.

The cotton, known as LLCotton25, is marketed by Bayer CropScience and will be imported into EU markets for use in food and animal feed. It will be grown outside the EU.

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

Codex Presentation - Stroud - Thurs 13th Nov 2009

Press release, 29 October 2008.

Uncommon Knowledge is a brand new series of talks and presentations at the Painswick Inn Project, Gloucester Street, Stroud (UK). The regular events, organised by Christopher Hill and Theresa Johnson, will bring together top speakers from different fields under a common theme:

"Many societies seem to be entering a period of transition, whether environmental, cultural or economic. We feel this is a good time to be raising questions, re-evaluating old perspectives, and looking at ourselves and the world with fresh eyes. We hope Uncommon Knowledge will provide a platform for new and exciting research that will entertain us and challenge some of our preconceptions."

The series kicks off on Thursday 13th November at 7.15 pm with The Global Food and Drug Code, a presentation by Scott Tips and Ian R Crane. Scott is President of the US based National Health Federation and author of the book 'Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism'. Independent researcher Ian R Crane is the author, presenter and producer of one of the most informative DVD's on the Codex agenda, focusing on what is being seen by many as an international threat by corporate industry and global organisations like the WTO (World Trade Organisation) to natural farming, global food standards and complementary health.

This topic is extremely pertinent following the recent revelation that, 'Gordon Brown and other European leaders are secretly preparing an unprecedented campaign to spread GM crops and foods in Britain and throughout the continent...', as reported in the 26th October edition of The Independent on Sunday. The following day the headline of the Daily Express screamed, 'PURPLE TOMATO CAN BEAT CANCER'. So it would seem that the 'campaign' is already underway.

Event organiser Christopher Hill said, "This will be Scott's first public presentation in the UK, so we are particularly excited to welcome him to Stroud, home of the Biodynamic Agricultural Association."

Admission price is £4 on the night, and doors open at 7pm.

28 October 2008

Concern over anti-cancer tomato
Leading oncologist sparks debate over potential of GMOs

ANSA, 28 October 2008.

Rome - A leading oncologist and former minister has provoked anger in Italy after praising the cancer-fighting potential of some genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Addressing an oncology conference in London, Umberto Veronesi cited a genetically engineered purple tomato unveiled last week by British researchers that has been shown to extend the lives of mice susceptible to cancer. "There is a great deal of resistance to this fantastic projection into the future and I've never understood why," said Veronesi. "GMOs cause no problems; they are exactly the same as other organisms only better, because conscious efforts have been made to improve their qualities.

"It's difficult to predict what will happen but I hope there will be a growing awareness of the benefits such developments offer". But Veronesi's comments were greeted with concern in Italy, where there has traditionally been widespread hostility to GMOs.

Consumer group Codacons implied the former minister had painted a biased picture of the research "Veronesi should also be telling us about the side effects of this GM tomato and what cancerous cells it can increase," said Codacons President Carlo Rienzi.

"Only after ensuring there is absolutely no danger to human health should a GM food be given to the public". The president of the Genetic Rights Foundation, a research group, stressed the results of the British study were still at an early stage. "Caution is called for: announcements are one thing, reality another," said Mario Capanna. "We have been stunned by the credence given to research that has so far only been carried out on mice and which cannot at the moment be repeated on humans".

Environmental group VAS pointed to the fact that the antioxidant contained in the tomato occurs naturally in fruits such as blackberries and cranberries. "So one really has to wonder exactly who this tomato will benefit," asked VAS's biosecurity representative, Simona Capogna. "It will undoubtedly help those who hold the patent, those firms that sell it (at an inflated price) and those researchers who use it as a career move or who buy shares in biotech firms".

Animal rights group LAV said the results were useless as they had been tested on genetically altered mice. "Mice, like many other mammals, don't develop cancer naturally and are not subject to metastasis," explained LAV's vivisection spokesperson, Michela Khan.

"This means that the mice themselves have been genetically altered in order to study the anti-cancer effects of the purple tomato, creating a vortex of aberrations that will make any results exponentially less applicable and useful". The British study by the John Innes Centre, which was published in monthly Nature Biotechnology, focused on ways to produce a fruit rich in the antioxidant anthocyanin, which has been shown to slow the growth of colon cancer cells.

The researchers introduced anthocyanin-producing genes from snapdragon flowers, which are naturally high in the antioxidant, into the tomato.

The resulting high concentration of anthocyanins turned the tomato skin and flesh a deep purple colour. Tests showed that cancer-susceptible mice who were fed the purple tomatoes lived far longer than those fed normal tomatoes.

Italy's 'Sun Black', a purple tomato without GMOs

News of the British discovery comes not long after an Italian research team announced their own variety of purple tomato, the 'Sun Black'. The tomato was created using traditional cross-fertilization techniques and has a purple skin but traditional red flesh.

Like the British project, the team of researchers from institutes in Pisa, Modena, Reggio Emilia and Tuscia were trying to boost anthocyanin levels in the tomato.

"This Italian tomato is completely free of GMOs and combines all the nutritional elements of tomatoes, black grapes and blackberries, which contain high levels of the antioxidant anthocyanins," commented Rienzi on Monday. "It is now in its second harvest and combines the nutritional qualities of several fruits in a single foodsource".

EFSA overcharged and undervalued

AllAboutFeed.net, 28 October 2008.

Herman Koëter recently resigned as Science Director with the European Food Safety Authority passing fierce criticism on the organisation.

According to Koëter EFSA is seriously overcharged, while political preferences of the European Commission more and more are reflected in research questions.

Koëter says that the head of EFSA, Frenchwoman Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle, is too much influenced by politicians and industry. "Several times we have been asked by the European Commission to have another look at the dangers of genetically modified food, while we just had delivered a report on this subject," he said.

GMO-lobby

Koëter sees ugly roles of anti-GM countries, such as Italy and Austria, on the one side and pro-GM countries on the other. "They just don't take one answer for granted. The European Commission is solving this by endlessly doubting our judgements and asking for further new research. This way they are continuously pushing the final verdict forward."

The independence of the Scientific Committee and the Panels was the most important reason for starting EFSA in 2002, Koëter writes in a letter.

Consumer trust

"The success of EFSA and its foundation - consumer trust - was built on this independence," he said, referring to several feed scares that preceded the formation of EFSA.

The organisation has no time for political driven research, since it is already overcharged. The situation is acute. "We are researching the safety of food additives, which has to be done in shorter period of time. This sometimes conflicts with the highest standards of scientific methods," he said.

Health claims

For example the qualification of new health claims are a considerable problem. "We were equipped to do several hundreds of claims per year. However in the first year we received 40,000 claims. Geslain-LanÈelle limits what and how we have to research. That is practical, but not according to my standards." It also does not reflects the standards of other workers at EFSA, who are increasingly unhappy, emphasises Koëter.

EFSA is just capable of guaranteeing food safety, but everything has its limits. I say: Parma [EFSA HQ, ed.] has a problem. It is time for openness, not for denial."

EFSA refused to react on the allegations of an "ex-employee".

Studies could help assure consumers over GM

Farmers Guardian (UK), 28 October 2008. By Jack Davies.

CONSUMERS will accept GM foods - but only if their safety can be proved, claimed the Government's chief scientific advisor.

Speaking at the English Food and Farming Partnership's (EFFP) annual conference today (Tuesday, October 28), Professor John Beddington said work was currently underway to determine the role of biotechnology - including GM - in answering the challenge of global food security.

Challenged on the Government's perceived lack of activity on biotechnology, he said: "There are things happening at Government level. The Royal Society has started a study looking at the way in which biotechnology can contribute to food security."

He also expressed his own opinion that the problem of consumer opposition - one of the major barriers to GM technology - will change if the safety of GM products can be proved.

He said: "We have to try to determine the evidence base. I think that when that evidence base is there the problems will change.

"We will have to ask difficult questions and we must be prepared to operate not in ignorance but based on what the science tells us."

He told delegates GM was not a panacea to all the industry's challenges, but had the potential to offer part of the solution to some of the issues facing the industry.

He highlighted other biotechnologies such as marker assisted breeding, and further improvements in efficiency which could also help the industry to address global food security as well as issues of climate change mitigation and water shortages also currently facing farmers.

Genetically Engineered Food Hotly Debated

WBZ (Boston, Massachussets, USA), 28 October 2008.

Genetically engineered food: It's either a great scientific leap forward, or a potentially dangerous experiment. And for the first time, the door is open to the possibility of genetically engineered meat and fish on grocery shelves.

The idea is hotly debated. One of the first companies trying to bring this new food to the market is headquartered in Massachusetts. Aqua Bounty Technologies, based in Waltham, has created genetically engineered salmon.

"It looks like a salmon, it acts like a salmon," says Aqua Bounty CEO Ron Stotish. "All attributes of the fish are the same as normal Atlantic salmon."

But there's one big difference. The Aqua Bounty salmon grow really fast.

"We can get from fish egg to a 3 to 4 kilo salmon in a little over a year. Now by comparison, the normal Atlantic salmon would take 4 or 5 years to reach that size," says Stotish.

Genetic engineering is a process where genes are manipulated to give new characteristics to, in this case, fish or animals.

For example, cattle that can resist mad cow disease, or chickens that lay eggs that are healthier for your heart.

To get their salmon to grow so fast, Aqua Bounty has added a gene.

"What we've done is overcome a barrier that's evolved in the salmon over centuries," says the company's CEO. And that gives some people the creeps.

Several people WBZ spoke with in a local supermarket were hesitant about the possibility of buying genetically engineered meat or fish. But for the first time, the Food and Drug Administration is taking proposals from Aqua Bounty and other companies that could lead to the commercialization of these new food products.

Scientists working on genetically engineered food say it's safe, but the Union of Concerned Scientists says, not so fast.

"We have to look very carefully at what the risks and the benefits are," says Doug Gurian Sherman, who studies the issue for the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, DC. "At this point, I think the FDA seems to be putting the cart before the horse."

There are 3 main concerns: The potential impact on people's health, possible environmental damage if the engineered animals get into the wild, breed and become dominant, and no requirement to label the food as "genetically engineered."

"We don't have a very good handle on how to assess the risks. And until we do, we really should take a really deep breath, and not go forward with this," says the Union of Concerned Scientists' Doug Gurian Sherman.

But Aqua Bounty's Ron Stotish counters, "It's people's right not to buy our products. It's people's right to hold whatever opinions they choose. It's not their right to prevent the acceptance of new technology that may be very helpful to society, in the interests of their personal concerns."

Other companies are watching to see if the salmon are approved for market, and if they are, expect to see a number of other proposals begin to move forward.

In the case of these salmon, they are also being engineered to be sterile, so if any escaped into the wild, they would not be able to breed.

To learn more about the debate over genetically engineered food check out these resources:

•

Aqua Bounty Technologies http://www.aquabounty.com/

•

Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org/

•

FDA: Genetic Engineering: The Future of Foods http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/603_food.html

•

U.S. Natl. Library of Medicine http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002432.htm

•

Center for Food Safety http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/geneticall7.cfm

•

New Scientist Articles: Genetically Modified Organisms http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gm-food

•

WebMD: No Labels For Genetically Engineered Food http://www.webmd.com/news/20080918/no-labels-for-genetically-engineered_food

Tokyo Takes Global Leadership Position on Environment and Sustainability

Sports-City.org, 28 October 2008.

[Excerpt: full story at http://www.sports-city.org/news_details.php?news_id=6055&idCategory=36]

Tokyo 2016 has received a further boost towards hosting the greenest Olympic and Paralympic Games in history, after the Tokyo Metropolitan Government adopted every environmental initiative put forward by planners from major cities around the world at one of the world's premier climate change conferences hosted in Tokyo.

Japan's vibrant capital - known for its environmental commitments - welcomed leaders from the world's major cities for the C40 Conference on Climate Change, an international forum to discuss the measures needed to develop sustainable low-carbon cities.

The talks set out 13 areas of action that cities should take to address the risks of climate change. Each city agreed to begin implementing initiatives that focus on the 13 areas and will report on the status of those actions at a C40 "climate summit" in Seoul next year.

Ideas included expanding green space in metropolitan areas, monitoring genetically modified (GM) food products and the effects of global warming, as well as developing systems to allow maximum air flow and access to water. Representatives also explored solar power solutions and innovations such as water-retentive pavements to counter the heating effects of concrete.

27 October 2008

Good, Clean, Fair and... Sacred

Slow Food International press release, 27 October 2008.

The last in the series of the Terra Madre-Salone del Gusto conferences dealt with the themes of spirituality and sacredness in food. Moderated by Carlo Petrini, the meeting brought together Enzo Bianchi, prior of the Bose community, and Satish Kumar, a friend and disciple of Mahatma Gandhi. A Hindu monk since the age of 9, he once spent three years walking 15,000 km around Asia to discover "the chemistry of hospitality."

Beyond a profound understanding of religion, the two intellectuals are linked by a friendship with Ivan Illich, the Austrian theologist, philosopher and anarchist social critic, who brought together spirituality and social commitment, creating the idea of "conviviality" opposed to productivity.

Bianchi immediately launched into a clarification of the concept of "sacred," seen as "something to respect." As a result, he said, even food can be sacred. "In the history of the Church it plays a central role, with a chapter in The Rule of Saint Benedict dedicated entirely to the quality and quantity of food." He then analyzed some practices that linked the Church to food: "Why do monks pray before meals? Not so much to give thanks, but to underline the sacredness of the moment. For modern humans food has become just fuel, to be consumed whenever and however one wants. Food is certainly a necessity, represented by bread, but it is also joy, such as wine, a drink that is not essential but which brings happiness."

Kumar then recounted the link between food and Indian philosophy. "Krishna, the most important aspect of God, was a herder who dedicated his whole life to goats, becoming the divinity of farmers." Today, said Kumar, food is just an object of consumption. He then recalled the relationship Gandhi had with food: "He taught that loving food was an expression of gratitude."

Both speakers dwelled on the problem of malnutrition. Asked Kumar rhetorically, "Have you ever seen an apple deny fruit to someone, or ask for a credit card? Try and go into a supermarket and take an apple without paying. They'll chase you out, and then throw it out as waste. Food in nature is not discrimination nor waste, but today that's how things are. Economists have created a 'fear of scarcity' but in nature it doesn't exist. The seed is the symbol of abundance par excellence, because it has the potential to become fruit and feed us."

Bianchi continued this reasoning: "Food is today assigned to the individual and no longer to the community. People at the table are selfish, they don't know how to share. We have to rediscover the sacredness of being at the table, together!"

Council of environment ministers of the European Union
No joint alignment on GM authorisation

GMO Compass, 27 October 2008.

EU Member States continue to have different ideas about possible changes in the authorisation process for genetically modified plants in Europe. At their session in Luxemburg last week, the EU environment ministers were unable to come to an agreement on joint proposals.

France, which holds the Presidency of the EU Council to the end of 2008, set up a working group this summer to work on proposals for changes to the current authorisation process for GMOs. A decision is to be made in December at the Council's session, but political discussions within the Council of environment ministers shows once again that the Member States are far from reaching a compromise.

Some Member States want to allow for the possibility of prohibiting the planting of GM crops in certain ecologically sensitive or protected areas. Others want that such restrictions be applied only if there is a scientifically-based protective measure.

Even France's proposal that GMO authorisation be decided not only on scientific safety evaluations, but also on socio-economic factors, did not get wide-spread approval. While it is considered important when authorising GMOs to assess possible consequences to agricultural systems already in place, there are currently no clear, practical definitions within the framework of the authorisation process. Some Member States stressed that such socio-economic factors not be allowed to override scientific safety evaluations. It also has to be kept in mind that the authorisation process should not violate World Trade Organization (WTO) contracts, which the EU is obliged to uphold.

According to the French Presidency, the Member States unanimously agree to improve the process for assessing long-term effects of GM crops on the environment. Some countries are calling for the revision of safety evaluation guidelines used by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

Changes to the GM plant authorisation process are supposed to be finally decided at the Council's session in December.

Purple tomatoes won't beat cancer

Cancer Research UK / Science Update blog, 27 October 2008.

Today's cancer fruit story du jour involves tomatoes - specifically, special genetically modified purple tomatoes that "can beat cancer", according to the headlines.

In case you missed the reports, they claim that scientists have developed a new GM tomato that's packed full of antioxidants called anthocyanins, which, apparently, will protect people who eat them against cancer and other diseases.

If only life were that simple.

As we've said before, cancer is a complex disease that has lots of 'causes' - including the genes you inherit from your parents, the lifestyle you subsequently lead, and, sadly, a bit of bad luck too.

The problem with a lot of the coverage of the super-tomato story is that it misses out on this complexity, and suggests that one single lifestyle change - buying high-tech fruit and veg - can compensate for all of the above.

There's also a big - and in our opinion unwarranted - assumption in these stories. And that's the simple equation that antioxidants = good.

There's a fair amount of evidence that some antioxidants in our foods can help prevent some kinds cancer in some people. But the complexity of this evidence often gets translated in the media and in advertising to 'antioxidants prevent disease'. And that's not what the science says.

Here's an excellent, well-argued article [http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg19125631.500] looking at the evidence for the role of antioxidants in health and disease. It's well worth a read before you pop to the shops to splash out on the latest health fad.

Henry

Purple tomatoes could ward off cancer

New Scientist, 27 October 2008

Tomatoes engineered to be chock-full of purple pigments could have the same cancer-protecting properties as fruits such as blueberries.

The purple pigments are potent antioxidants called anthocyanins that mop up the free-radicals that cause cancer and heart disease. Anthocyanins naturally occur in blueberries, blackberries and blackcurrants, but natural tomatoes only contain negligible amounts of the compounds.

Previous attempts to create tomatoes with higher levels of anthocyanins had achieved low levels of the chemicals in the skin, but not within the flesh of the fruit, says Eugenio Butelli from the John Innes Centre in Norwich, UK, who engineered the purple tomatoes.

The team's purple tomatoes, however, contain high concentrations of anthocyanins throughout the fruit - at levels comparable to blackberries and blueberries. Tomato plants have all the necessary genes to create the pigments, but they are normally dormant, so the team inserted two additional genes from the snapdragon flower that trigger these genes to become active.

In front of the two additional genes, the team also added promoter sections of DNA that are activated only when the tomatoes are ripening - meaning that only the fruit contain high levels of the pigments, while the leaves or stems of the plants grow as they would without the extra genes.

When fed to 20 mice genetically predisposed to develop cancer, the purple tomatoes increased the average life span by roughly 36 days compared to the 15 mice fed with normal red tomatoes - which lived just 146 days on average.

The same two genes from the snapdragon flower should also work in many other types of fruit too, which is good news for fussy eaters who won't change their diet to include more unusual fruit, says Butelli. "It's difficult to change people's dietary habits, but instead they can eat enriched versions of the food they do like," he says.

The team don't think the anthocyanins will change the flavour of the tomatoes. However, before humans can reap the benefits of the added pigments, the tomatoes will need to be subjected to toxicology studies to be sure the snapdragon genes haven't activated the production of other, less beneficial, chemicals.

Journal reference: Nature Biotechnology (DOI: 10.1038/nbt.1506)

Comment by GM Watch:

This story, like all the "GM apples to fight tooth decay" type tales, is getting wide media coverage. But, leaving aside the issue of the safety of tomatoes genetically engineered in this way, the raison d'etre for this new "top super food" seems oddly self-contradictory.

These GM purple tomatoes are supposed to be good for people who eat badly because they will provide them with similar amounts of anthocyanins, which help protect against cancer, as thy would get if they ate blueberries or raspberries or blackberries or blackcurrants or cherries or red cabbage or cranberries or bilberries, etc.

But why would the people this tomato is said to be designed for - described as "fussy eaters who won't change their diet", adopt a tomato that looks like a cross between an orange and a black pudding?

Toughen up GM food labelling, say scientists

Stock & Land (New Zealand), 27 October 2008. By Kelly Burke.

State and Federal governments have promised an independent review of food labelling laws, which will revisit the "traffic light" system of labelling for salt, sugar and fat content.

The review was agreed to in principle at the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council in Adelaide on Friday and will also examine the issue of labelling all food sourced from genetically modified crops.

The decision coincided with an open letter signed by 15 internationally recognised scientists protesting over Australia's comparatively lax labelling laws for GE food, sent to the federal Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, last week.

The letter calls for an urgent independent review of Food Standards Australia New Zealand, noting that the authority is one of only a few regulators in the world to have approved every single application it has received for GE products.

Many other countries are passing more stringent food labelling laws controlling GE foods but products such as oils, starches and sugars still require no labelling in Australia.

One of the letter's signatories, Dr Judy Carman, a director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, said the decision not to mandate the labelling of GM oils was based on FSANZ's flawed belief the oils do not contain DNA or protein.

Meat, milk, cheese and eggs produced by animals that have been fed genetically engineered crops are also exempt from labelling.

"There is strong scientific evidence that FSANZ is wrong and that these animal products should be labelled," she said.

The separate issue of front-of-pack traffic-light labelling will be examined in the proposed review.

The labelling system is loathed by many food manufacturers because it identifies products high in salt, sugar, saturated fats and total fat through a simple code using red, amber and green spots.

The issue is complicated by the absence of any regulation mandating the labelling of trans fatty acids.

These are more harmful than saturated fats, yet under the proposed traffic light system these would still be classified under total fats.

Last week the Australian Medical Association added its weight to the trans fats debate, backing legislation introduced by the Greens in the NSW Parliament to move towards a total ban, as Demark has done.

New Non-GMO Shopping Guide for Consumers Launches

Newsire Today (USA), 27 October 2008.

Learning how to avoid foods made with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) with their new Non-GMO Shopping Guide.

Give your family the gift of healthier eating by learning how to avoid foods made with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) with their new Non-GMO Shopping Guide. There are now 65 documented health risks of GMOs.

The Institute's Campaign for Healthier Eating in America free Non-GMO Shopping Guide, can be used to cook a dinner free of GMOs. Shoppers can download a copy for their next shopping trip on the world wide web at responsibletechnology.org

According to the Institute for Responsible Technology, "hidden" Thanksgiving GMOs include:

GMO Turkey:

•

GM animal feed;

GMO Cranberry Dishes

•

High fructose corn syrup;

•

Soy lecithin;

GMO Pies

•

Vegetable oil (soy, corn ,cotton or canola);

•

Aspartame;

GMO Green Bean Casserole

•

Soy protein concentrate in cream soups;

Genetic Engineering or Genetic Modification of food involves the laboratory process of artificially inserting genes into the DNA of food crops or animals. GMOs can be engineered with genes from bacteria, viruses, insects animals or even humans.

Three simple tips for buying Non-GMO food staples are:

Oils: Replace oils from the four major GM oil crops, corn, cotton, canola and soy, with other readily available oils such as olive, safflower, grape seed or peanut.

Dairy: Avoid buying products from cows fed with GM corn and soybeans or injected with the (rBST or rBGH) bovine growth hormone.

Sweeteners: Avoid corn sweeteners made from GM corn like high fructose corn syrup. Shun beet sugar that will be in hundreds of your favorite products starting with the 2008 crop. Buy cane sugar products.

Organic products are another way to avoid GMOs.

The Institute for Responsible Technology's Campaign for Healthier Eating in America mobilizes citizens, organizations, businesses, and the media, to achieve the tipping point of consumer rejection of genetically modified foods.

The Institute educates people about the documented health risks of GMOs and provides them with healthier non-GMO product choices.

The Institute also informs policy makers and the public around the world about the impacts of GMOs on health, environment, the economy, and agriculture, and the problems associated with current research, regulation, corporate practices, and reporting.

Campaign against Bt brinjal picks up

Business Standard (India), October 27 2008. By Krishna Mohan.

Hyderabad - A campaign is gaining momentum against the introduction of genetically modified food crops, particularly Bt brinjal [aubergine], the first-ever transgenic food crop, which is now undergoing trials.

The campaign titled 'I am no lab rat' initiated by Coalition for a GM - Free India, a network of farmers, consumer organisations, environmental and women's rights organisations, aims at promoting an informed debate on genetically modified crops and foods in India.

The Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) is leading the campaign in Hyderabad. The CSA recently conducted a survey and found that just about 8 per cent of the people surveyed knew something about genetically modified products. Many seemed 'indignant' after knowing that the food they eat would be altered, informed Kavita Kuruganti of CSA.

The new transgenic varieties may threaten the existence of native varieties in India. The practitioners of Ayurveda have written to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the apex-body under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, opposing introduction of Bt brinjal, which is widely used in making diabetes drugs.

In fact, there is a regulatory vacuum now in India. "The GEAC agreed to regulate the genetically modified products till the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India starts functioning. But that notification lapsed on September 30 this year and a fresh notification is yet to be issued," a volunteer pointed out.

The campaign is demanding testing by independent organisations on the effects of Bt brinjal on humans. The 'I am no lab rat' is asking other states to announce themselves free from genetic engineering as Uttarakhand did. Several villages in Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Orissa and others are declaring themselves GE-free, the CSA pointed out, adding that genetic engineering will de-skill farmers and erode their knowledge of the ecosystem.

The seed companies have a different version though. According to M K Sharma, GM, Mahyco, Bt brinjal will reduce chemical use on plants. "Bt brinjal provides continuous control of pest and beneficial insects are not affected. Cultivated brinjal cannot cross-pollinate wild species and therefore the impact on the latter would be minimal, if at all. Bt brinjal will have no impact on humans," he stressed.

But the CSA thinks otherwise. Citing cotton as example, Kavita said the chemical use decreased only in the initial years but there was no difference thereafter between chemical usage in GM and non-GM cotton.

26 October 2008

Europe's secret plan to boost GM crop production
Gordon Brown and other EU leaders in campaign to promote modified foods

Independent on Sunday (UK), 26 October 2008. By Geoffrey Lean,

Gordon Brown and other European leaders are secretly preparing an unprecedented campaign to spread GM crops and foods in Britain and throughout the continent, confidential documents obtained by The Independent on Sunday reveal.

The documents - minutes of a series of private meetings of representatives of 27 governments - disclose plans to "speed up" the introduction of the modified crops and foods and to "deal with" public resistance to them.

And they show that the leaders want "agricultural representatives" and "industry" - presumably including giant biotech firms such as Monsanto - to be more vocal to counteract the "vested interests" of environmentalists.

News of the secret plans is bound to create a storm of protest at a time when popular concern about GM technology is increasing, even in countries that have so far accepted it.

Public opposition has prevented any modified crops from being grown in Britain. France, one of only three countries in Europe to have grown them in any amounts, has suspended their cultivation, and resistance to them is rising rapidly in the other two, Spain and Portugal.

The embattled biotech industry has been conducting a public relations campaign based round the highly contested assertion that genetic modification is needed to feed the world. It has had some success in the Government, where ministers have been increasingly speaking out in favour of the technology, and in the European Commission, with which its lobbyists have boasted of having "excellent working relations".

The secret meetings were convened by Jose Manuel Barroso, the pro-GM President of the Commission, and chaired by his head of cabinet, Joao Vale de Almeida. The prime ministers of each of the EU's 27 member states were asked to nominate a special representative.

Neither the membership of the group, nor its objectives, nor the outcomes of its meetings have been made public. But The IoS has obtained confidential documents, including an attendance list and the conclusions of the two meetings held so far - on 17 July and just two weeks ago on 10 October - written by the chairman.

The list shows that President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany sent close aides. Britain was represented by Sonia Phippard, director for food and farming at the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The conclusions reveal the discussions were mainly preoccupied with how to speed up the introduction of GM crops and food and how to persuade the public to accept them.

The modified products have to be approved by the EU before they can be sown or sold anywhere in Europe. But though the Commission officials are generally strongly in favour, European governments are split, causing the Council of Ministers, on which they are represented, to be deadlocked.

In that event the bureaucrats on the Commission wave them through anyway. They are legally allowed to do this, but overruled governments and environmental groups are unhappy.

The conclusions of the first meeting called for the "speeding up of the authorisation process based on robust assessments so as to reassure the public", while the second one added: "Decisions could be made faster without compromising safety."

But the documents also make clear that Mr Barroso is going beyond mere exhortation by trying to get prime ministers to overrule their own agriculture and environment ministers in favour of GM. They report that the chairman "recalled the importance for prime ministers to look at the wider picture", "invited the participants to report the discussions of the group to their heads of governments", and "stressed the importance of drawing their attention to ongoing discussions in the Council [of Ministers]".

Helen Holder of Friends of the Earth Europe said: "Barroso's aim is to get GM into Europe as quickly as possible. So he is going straight to prime ministers and presidents to tell them to step on their ministers and get them into line."

The conclusions of the meetings on public opposition are even more incendiary. The documents ponder "how best to deal with public opinion" and call for "an emotion-free, fact-based dialogue on the high standards of the EU GM policy". And they record the chairman emphasising "the role of industry, economic partners and science to actively contribute to such a dialogue". He adds that "the public feels ill-informed" and says "agricultural representatives should be more vocal". And in a veiled swipe at environmental groups he says that the debate "should not be left to certain stakeholders who have a legitimate but vested interest in it".

What they say

'We have to feed an extra 2.5 billion people. It would be extraordinary if we chose not to exploit the most important breakthrough in biological science'
Professor Allan Buckwell

'New developments will benefit the world's poorest farmers: GM rice that is drought-resistant; transgenic crops with genes to protect against disease'
Lord Dick Taverne, Sense About Science

'GM crops pose unacceptable risks to farmers and the environment and have failed to increase yields despite funding at a cost of millions to UK taxpayers'
Kirtana Chandrasekaran, FoE

'GM crops do not increase yields. Scientists have found genetically engineered insecticide in crops can leak and kill beneficial soil fungi'
Peter Melchett, Soil Association

Q & A: The trouble with modified crops

How much GM is grown in Europe?

Very little. The documents boast the area increased by 21 per cent last year, proving "growing interest". But it still only covered 0.119 per cent of Europe's agricultural land.

What are the problems?

Mainly environmental. Official trials in Britain showed that growing GM crops was worse for wildlife than cultivating conventional ones. Worse, genes escape from the modified plants to create superweeds and to contaminate normal and organic crops, denying consumers a choice to be GM-free.

Do they endanger health?

Hard to tell. Some studies show that they may do, others (including almost all those by industry) are reassuring. The trouble is that very few truly independent, peer-reviewed research has been done. Most consumers have sensibly concluded that they would sooner be safe than sorry, particularly as they get no benefit from buying GM.

Can they feed the world?

Almost certainly not. Despite all the hype, present GM varieties actually have lower yields than their conventional counterparts. The seeds are expensive to buy and grow, so wealthy developing-world farmers would tend to use them and drive poor ones out of business, increasing destitution. The biggest agricultural assessment ever conducted - chaired by Professor Robert Watson, now Defra's chief scientist - recently concluded that they would not do the job.

Swiss Syngenta Hands Over Field Test in Brazil Where Two Were Killed

Brazzil Magazine, 26 October 2008

Marking an end to a violent conflict, agrochemical multinational Syngenta has handed over its experimental farm in Paran· state, in the South of Brazil, to the state government. This brings to a conclusion a long standing land dispute between landless workers movements and the Swiss company, which led to the deaths of two men.

Syngenta gave the land to the Paran· state government on October 14, 2008. The government has promised to use the land for the production of native seeds for distribution to small holder farmers and impoverished countries who have suffered devastation from hurricanes.

The 127-hectare farm in Santa Tereza do Oeste was used by Syngenta to field test its genetically modified (GM) crops. This was contested because it potentially contravened an environmental zoning law and because it was identified as a possible site for the settlement of landless agricultural workers.

Two men were killed after the landless workers movements, MST and Via Campesina, occupied the farm in protest on October 21, 2007. An illegal and violent eviction by 40 armed employees of NF SeguranÁa, the private security company hired by Syngenta to protect the farm, led to the deaths of MST leader Valmir Motta de Oliveira (known as Keno) and security guard F·bio Ferreira.

Human rights groups and land activists in the state of Paran· have previously suffered threats and intimidation from a number of groups formed by landowners. In a public hearing on 18 October 2007, local rights groups presented a dossier of evidence to the state human rights commission that highlighted the activities of armed men hired by landowners and agricultural companies. According to the report, they act with no legal controls, often using violent and illegal methods to forcibly evict, threaten and attack land activists.

Several investigations into irregular and illicit behavior by NF SeguranÁa, including the investigation into Keno's murder, have led to its licence being revoked. The company continues to operate pending its appeal.

Amnesty International has said it is vital that steps are taken by federal and state authorities across Brazil to control the flood of irregular and/or illicit security companies, many of whom are effectively acting as illegal militias in the service of landowners or agro-industry.

"It is essential that the state and federal authorities investigate individuals, organizations or companies which use security companies that commit human rights violations or criminal acts," said Susan Lee, Amnesty International's America's director. "Those found to have failed in their duty to adequately vet or oversee their security company must be held to account." With the trial of the suspects of the killings of Keno and Fabio Ferreira about to begin in November Amnesty International calls on the authorities to ensure that it meets international standards for fair trials.

"It is vital that those individuals truly responsible for these deaths are brought to justice, ending the long history of impunity for rural killings and the protection of vested economic and political interests." Susan Lee stated.

Amnesty International called Syngenta's decision to give back its 127 hectare experimental farm to the Paran· state government a welcome end to a violent conflict over the site.

Syngenta's decision to relinquish the land, Amnesty says, stands as an important step in the defense of the human rights of those struggling for their rights to land and survival across the state.

The trial of those accused of the murders of MST leader Keno and Fabio Ferreira will begin in November. Amnesty International is calling on the Paran· state authorities to ensure that it meets international standards for fair trials in order that only those responsible are brought to justice. It is time to end impunity for rural killings and the protection of vested political and economic powers.

What Happened

Early in the morning of October 21, 2007, members of the Via Campesina and the Movimento de Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST), both landless workers' movements, occupied the 127-hectare farm near the town of Santa Teresa do Oeste. The land was used for field trials of genetically modified crops.

The use of the land was contested both because it potentially contravened an environmental zoning law and because it was identified as a possible site for land reform for the settlement of landless agricultural workers.

Hours after the occupation, 40 armed men entered the farm and shot MST leader Keno dead in the chest at point blank range. One of the security guards, Fabio Ferreira, was also killed. At the time the police suggested he was accidentally shot by his colleagues, though prosecutors later charged a member of the MST with the killing, informing Amnesty International that these possibilities had to be tested in court. Eight others were injured in the attack, including MST member Izabel Nascimento, who was beaten unconscious and remains in a coma in hospital, in a critical condition.

Human rights groups and land activists in the state of Paran· have previously suffered threats and intimidation from members of landowners' associations or those acting in their name. In a public hearing on October 18 2007, local rights groups presented a dossier of evidence to the state human rights commission which highlighted the activities of armed men hired by landowners and agricultural companies. According to the report, they act with no legal controls or oversight, often using violent and illegal methods to forcibly evict, threaten and attack land activists.

25 October 2008

Focus on Salone del Gusto / Terra Madre: Fighting the war against GMOs

Sloweb, 25 October 2008.

What are GMOs for? What can be done to give consumers, communities and countries the free choice to decide for themselves whether or not they want to cultivate and eat GMO crops?

These were the questions debated today at the Salone del Gusto, in a conference held together with Terra Madre. The panel discussion was moderated by Roberto Burdese. Slow Food Italy's president, he was speaking today as the coordinator of the GMO-Free Italy-Europe Coalition which brings together 32 organizations representing 10 million people.

The case against GMOs was forcefully put by geneticist Marcello Buiatti, a professor at the University of Florence. "From a scientific point of view GMOs are a total failure," he stated. GMOs use out-dated technology, do not increase production of useful food crops, do not help fight famine and do not do what their patents claim. They are a symbol of what he termed the "wicked economy," based on the exchange of money instead of material products. In his view GMOs serve only to make their owners rich as farmers have to pay royalties to the multinationals to use their seeds.

Specific examples of the failure of GMOs to help solve problems of poverty, hunger and environmental destruction came from Mexico and Kenya. Raúl Hernández Garciadiego explained the need to rediscover ancient crops and restore the water table through traditional irrigation techniques in the mountainous Mexican region of Tehuacán. Samuel Karanja Muhunyu described some of the past "goofs" of the scientific and political community in Kenya which have led to, among other environmental disasters, the complete loss of biodiversity in Lake Victoria. "We need participatory development involving communities," he said, lamenting the African habit of copying Western lifestyles, including food cultures, and imposing laboratory-developed solutions to solve food crises, when the answers lie in the traditions of rural small-scale farmers.

Finally two European politicians, Joseph Stockinger from Austria and Marie-Hélène Aubert from France, described the work of the European GMO-Free Regions Network and its efforts to get legal recognition from the European Union so that regions can be implement their own decisions about GMOs.

Food and Markets: A Crisis of Faith

Ellinghuysen & Atlantic Free Press, 25 October 2008. By Adam W Parsons.

In the wake of a food crisis that gripped the media's attention during the summer of 2008, a new set of questions is beginning to surface. As analysts predict that the era of cheap resources is finally over, that the food emergency is no blip but a situation that could last indefinitely, the international community is being forced to re-examine the basic direction of world development.

Could it be that the interlinked crises in food, energy and financial markets indicate the commencement of a terminal decline in the export-led, free market development model that has defined the past few decades of globalisation? Or will the emergency in food provision, as previously happened in 1974, reinforce the same policies in favour of large-scale industrial farming that have already devastated rural communities throughout the developing world?

The inability of world leaders to face up to the root causes or policy contradictions of a food crisis is nothing new. Throughout the 1980s and 90s, mass protests over a recurring food crisis in developing countries were popularly known as "IMF riots", although the solutions - as today - were handed to the very structures that caused those crises.

The Ethiopian famine during the 1980s led not to initiatives that helped sustain poor rural dwellers, but rather the dedication of good land to export crops under the tutelage of the World Bank, thus further exacerbating food insecurity and storing up a repeat of the famine situation that is surfacing today. In Peru in August 1990, following the dictats of the IMF, fuel prices increased 30 times overnight, and bread prices increased 12 times within a day. In Caracas, 1989, after a 200 percent increase in the price of bread, anti-IMF riots led to the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children.[1]

More examples could be repeated ad infinitum. Compared to the last major food and fuel crisis of 1973/4, which culminated in similarly vain promises from the FAO's first World Food Conference to end hunger and prevent a repeat occurrence, the needed lessons after 34 years are far from being acknowledged.

The main difference today is in the parting of extremes, or the deepening polarisation between alternative paradigms, narratives and solutions. On one side of the court stand the impassioned NGOs and hardened campaigners who have long opposed large-scale agribusiness in place of food sovereignty, bottom-up development, and the empowerment of small farmers through local and regional markets. The food price crisis, they say, has exposed the disaster of global agricultural production and the conclusive failure of a market fundamentalist ideology left unchecked for far too long.

On the other side of the court, supported by Gordon Brown, George W. Bush, Bill Gates' pockets and the most powerful financial institutions in the world, stand the Green Revolutionaries led by chemical technologies and multinational corporations from the E.U and U.S.A. One path, say almost all of the NGOs, will lead to social justice, the strengthening of local communities and food security for all, while the current path is inherently unsustainable, responsible for continued hunger in a world of plenty, and incapable of ending poverty.

By 2008 it should be a platitude to state that the escalating global food crisis, which some NGO's are pointedly distinguishing as the "food price crisis", is the inevitable long-term consequence of misguided economic policies and a disastrous free market restructuring of agricultural land. The official version of history over the past few decades as interpreted by G8 governments, however, could not be more different. In the World Bank's latest World Development Report 2008 on agriculture, the same model of development that has created a global crisis in food production in the first place - import liberalization, elimination of tariffs, a dependency on cash crops, GMO seeds and fertilizers, and all other measures that work in favour of agribusiness and against the millions of small-scale farmers struggling against poverty and hunger - is being promoted as the only solution.[2] The $1.2 billion of extra loans as part of the World Bank's 'Global Food Crisis Response Facility' will be handed out with the same underlying conditions of further trade liberalisation and market reforms.

Likewise, the IMF used the crisis to augment its existing arrangements under the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF), attaching the same conditions requiring structural adjustment to the 10 countries, mostly in Africa, already forced to make new agreements.[3] The World Trade Organisation similarly tried to capitalise on the crisis by working to increase its mandate through the Doha Round of trade agreements, alongside a push to persuade developing countries to further liberalise their financial sectors under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).[4] Between the expert rhetoric and analysis by international financial institutions on the catastrophic extent of the crisis, with even the IMF declaring that some countries are at "tipping point",[5] their proffered medicine is still being mixed with the same deep-seated poisons.

This basic contradiction of agreeing to increase agricultural production in developing countries to address the plight of small and poor farmers, while promoting policies that achieve the opposite ends, was set in stone after the UN's emergency food summit held in Rome. The final declaration made no attempt to address the structural problems and deeper causes of the crisis, as evidenced in key paragraph 7(e) that concluded: "We encourage... efforts in liberalizing international trade in agriculture by reducing trade barriers and market distorting policies."[6] A rare mention of small farmers was only made in reference to international markets, underlining the continued prioritising of market fundamentalism and trade over food security.[7] A renewed commitment was made to reduce by half the number of undernourished people by 2015, but after 45 years of similar promises one NGO called this "the big lie" that no-one at the Summit believes will happen.[8]

Despite both Ban Ki-moon and Jacques Diouf's impassioned speeches and articles over the period of the Summit, neither of them sought to address the entrenched structural origins of the food crisis. Most worrying was Ban's simplistic prescriptions for improved market efficiency and a 50 percent rise in food production by 2030 to meet rising demand,[9] thus playing into the hands of politicians who seek to divert political debate away from the role of agribusinesses in the current food crisis, as well as the corporations who wish to accelerate a "Doubly Green Revolution" in agriculture as propounded by Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation.

The inevitable result, without a critical re-examination of the unsustainable manner in which food is produced and distributed, will be more of the same; more privatization, more corporate monopolization of food systems, more GMO crop initiatives, more displacement of poor farmers, more migration into cities and slums, more hunger, more poverty, more overconsumption and obesity. And all this without even considering the environmental footprint of producing more food on less available land, or transporting more food through international markets which contradicts the urgent need of reducing CO2 emissions. The search for technical fixes to produce cheap and abundant food may have made sense in the 1940s, but 70 years of the "productionist" model has led to the vital challenge of defining a sustainable diet - one that recognises the central crisis of distribution and overcomes the co-existence of under-, over- and mal-consumption in a world defined by extremes of inequality.[10] Not even Ban Ki-moon, it seems, was able to acknowledge the most basic contradiction of all: that already we are producing more than enough food.

There are signs, however, that the world direction is changing course. As a knee-jerk response to skyrocketing food price inflation, those developing governments fortunate enough to have export stocks began pulling out of the global market to safeguard their domestic prices. The failure of the Doha round of trade negotiations, which sought to further liberalise agricultural markets, was widely interpreted as recalcitrance on the part of developing countries - and the issue of agriculture, in the light of the food crisis, was cited by most accounts to have provoked the collapse.

The only source of good to emerge from spiralling food price inflation is the resultant crisis of faith amongst poorer and developing countries in neoliberal economic orthodoxy. Unlike the crisis of 1970s stagflation that signalled the end for the Keynesian social-democratic model, 2008 could be marked down in history for setting in motion an opposite trend. A notable example of this gradual shift in economic thinking is set down in the UN's latest World Economic and Social Survey (WESS), released a week before the G8 Summit. A belief in the self-regulating market is no longer credible, was the Report's message, noting that "John Maynard Keynes, until recently persona non grata in policy circles, is once again the 'defunct economist' to consult."[11]

Such an acknowledgement of the redistribution agenda is no longer confined to renegade economists exempt from mainstream discussion. Although the food price crisis has failed to serve as a wake-up call to world leaders, a crucial international debate has started to emerge on the whole theology of food security. For now, the redundant model of export-led agriculture and import dependency has won through, but the calls for people-led social change are rapidly achieving a long-awaited consensus.

24 October 2008

Climate Change Manifesto Presented at Salone del Gusto

Slow Food International press release, 24 October 2008.

As part of the joint Terra Madre-Salone del Gusto series of conferences, the International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture's new Manifesto on Climate Change and the Future of Food Security was presented today at Lingotto's Sala Gialla. The manifesto was explained and discussed by a panel moderated by commission member Bernward Geier.

The first to speak was Indian scientist and activist Vandana Shiva, founder of Navdanya and vice-president of Slow Food International. She went through the manifesto point by point, providing a concise and passionate summary of its principles. The manifesto's cornerstone is the strong link between climate change and agriculture; the contribution to the problem and vulnerability of the industrial globalized food system, and the potential to mitigate the problem and ability to adapt of ecological and organic farming. According to Shiva, 35% of the climate change crisis comes from agriculture, and therefore 35% of the solution also lies in farming and food. This vital component is often undervalued in analyses of climate change and discussions of possible solutions, she said, and condemned the Kyoto Protocol as false and creating a market in carbon trading, effectively outsourcing pollution to countries like India and China.

Instead there must be a renewed focus on agriculture, with a return to sustainable, local, biodiverse systems that are better adapted to dealing with the cyclones and floods created by climate change, as well as contributing to cleaner air and water and better food.

She had harsh words for the genetic engineering industry, saying that this supposed "miracle solution" to climate change and food security was also false; genetic engineering cannot create climate resilience and is instead pirating resilient seeds from nature and farmers. "First they are causing climate change and then they are forcing you to buy patented climate-resistant seeds," she said.

Biofuels, widely praised a few years ago, were another false solution, said Shiva, and detrimental to food security. The conservation of biodiversity, water and traditional knowledge were all key, as is the manifesto's final point, economic transition towards a sustainable and equitable food future. This transition must be made if humanity is to survive, concluded Shiva. Next, Slow Food International President Carlo Petrini expressed his happiness at seeing the hall so packed, especially with so many young people. He recalled when he first met Shiva five years previously at a meeting of some of the world's greatest environmentalists. As a gastronomist, he said, they all looked at him, wondering if he was going to talk about peppers or cheese when they were discussing the future of the world. But now the importance of agriculture was better understood. Food is the way to solve the problem, he said, the way to understand the complexity of the world.

Petrini's speech focused primarily on the manifesto's eighth point, knowledge transition for climate adaptation. "This is the central point, the most important cultural and political point," he stated. "Virtuous practices already exist in the cultural biodiversity of the farmers of the world. They have extraordinary knowledge and there must be a dialog with official science, an honest, frank and sincere dialog as equals."

"An Indian farmer who can distinguish between 600 kinds of seeds by touch, does he not know as much as a Harvard professor?" he asked rhetorically.

Petrini finished by urging all the young people in the audience to go out in the world and record the practices and knowledge of older farmers and food produces, a vast wealth of information which will otherwise be lost. The meeting was concluded by Tuscany's Environment and Energy Councilor, Anna Rita Bramerini, who explained what her region, one of the founders of the International Commission on the Future of Food, was doing to promote sustainable agriculture and renewable energy, including establishing a series of GMO-free networks and setting up projects for short supply chains. Manifesto on Climate Change and the Future of Food Security: http://www.future-food.org

Genetically modified seeds and breeds - a false solution and dangerous diversion

The Manifesto on Climate Change and the Future of Food Security,
International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture, May 2008.

Section Five: [full document available at:
http://www.arsia.toscana.it/petizione/documents/clima/CLIMA_ING.pdf]

Genetically modified crops are a false solution and a dangerous diversion from our task of mitigating climate change, running counter to providing sustainable food and energy and to conserving resources. GM food, fibre, and fuels aggravate all the shortcomings of industrial monoculture crops: more genetic uniformity and hence less resilience to biotic and abiotic stresses; and more demand for water and pesticides. They have been created on the basis of a discredited and obsolete genetic determinist paradigm and thus carry extra risks to health and the environment. They also lead to patent monopolies which not only undermine farmers' rights but also impede the dedication of research on biodiversity for adaptation to climate change. Genetically modified organisms, (GMOs), also referred to as genetically engineered organisms (GE), are often presented as the solution to many problems critical for the survival of our species. Proponents claim that GMOs are the answer to feeding the hungry, especially in light of population increase; that they will cure diseases; and will mitigate climate change.

To date, none of these claims have been substantiated and there is much scientific research, as well as on-farm experience that repudiates such claims. In fact, biotechnology companies have failed to introduce a single genetically modified crop that increases yields, enhances nutrition, and is either drought- or salt-tolerant.

Failures of GMOs

Not only have GMOs failed to deliver on its claims, it has caused a host of other serious problems which include GM contamination of non-GM crops; an increase in chemicals and pesticides; a reduction in biodiversity; harm to wildlife; creation of "superweeds;" and the ability of corporations to further control seeds and food supplies.

To date, plant genetic engineering has delivered merely two traits, or characteristics, of GMOs in only four plant species. The four GMO crops are 28 / 29 maize, soybean, canola, and cotton and they are modified in two characteristics: insect resistance (Bt) and herbicide tolerance.

GMO proponents claim that these two traits lower pesticide and water usage, and therefore will mitigate climate emissions. However, the reality is quite different.

There have been major crop failures of insect resistant (Bt) cotton. We cite here one such example that can be repeated in many regions of the world: Monsanto's Bt cotton entered South Sulawesi, Indonesia, in 2001 promising farmers higher yields and less need for pesticide. Instead, a drought led to a pest population explosion on Bt cotton, though not on other cotton varieties. As a result, instead of reducing pesticide use, farmers had to use a different mix and larger amounts of pesticides to control the pests.

Furthermore, the Bt cotton - engineered to be resistant to a pest that is not a major problem in Sulawesi - was susceptible to other more serious pests. The average yield was only 1.1 ton per hectare (instead of the promised 3-7 tons), with some fields experiencing total harvest failure. Some 70 percent of the 4,438 farmers growing Bt cotton were unable to repay their credit after the first year of planting. To make matters worse, the company unilaterally raised the price of the seeds. 12

In India the largest number of suicides of farmers pushed into debt for costly seeds and high priced chemicals have taken place in regions where Bt. Cotton has spread most.

The trait of herbicide tolerance, in which plants are designed to survive direct application of an herbicide (i.e., pesticide) to kill nearby weeds, has demonstrated similar failures.

Monsanto's herbicide (glyphosate)-resistant soy, introduced in Argentina in the mid-1990s, is a prime example of failures common to herbicide-tolerant crops. In recent years soy farmers have turned to using highly potent herbicides to combat the proliferation of weeds that are naturally resistant to glyphosate and "volunteer" GM soy plants that have become a weed problem. This heavy herbicide use has affected neighboring farms, causing human health problems, death of farm animals, and crop damage. Some of the other problems associated with the GE soy include loss of soil fertility, deforestation, and flooding, as well as displacement of small farmers and farm laborers.

According to the most comprehensive, independent analysis based on data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), GM crops increased pesticide use in the U.S. by 122 million pounds from 1996-2004.13 Claims of lower water usage for GMO plants are also, to date, unsubstantiated. The opposite seems to be the case. Farmers are finding that GMO plants require more amounts of water than crops that are indigenous, or traditional, to a region. This is the case because GM was introduced into commercial high yielding plant varieties, which require much more water because they typically have shorter roots and therefore need shallow sources of water such as irrigation.

Additional Risks of GMOs

It is now known that pollen is regularly passed between GMOs and cultivated or wild plants. Depending on the crop and the type of pollination, the pollution may spread far beyond the official limits laid down to protect neighbouring fields. And other species, as well as closely related ones, are contaminated. If GMO field trials become widespread, we know that biological farming will soon become impossible. Growing GMOs is an irreversible act of ecological folly. With such disastrous performance, it is difficult to fathom how GMOs help to mitigate climate change. In practice, the opposite obtains.

No GMOs - govt
Zambia's position on Genetically Modified Products has not changed

Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation, 24 October 2008.

Lusaka Province Minister, Lameck Mangani, says government will not allow Genetically Modified (GMO) products into the country.

Mr. Mangani says there is need to continue protecting the country from the danger posed by GMO products.

He said this in a speech read on his behalf by Lusaka province permanent secretary, Elijah Chisanga.

This was during the official opening of the Chongwe Organic Producers and Processors Association, CHOPPA, meeting in Chongwe.

Mr. Mangani also commended CHOPPA for embarking on organic farming as it is a good alternative for increasing food production.

And CHOPPA chairperson, Penias Tembo, said organic farming is a cheaper way of improving soil fertility and increases crop yields.

Questioning the Present, Preserving the Future
Alternatives to genetically engineered crops discussed.

Moloka'i Dispatch (Hawai'i, USA), 24 October 2008. By Catherine Cluett.

For Andrew Kimbrell, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) aren't just some futuristic scientific enigma that doesn't really concern him - their existence affects his life every day.

He's the founder and executive director of the Center for Food Safety (CFS), a non-profit organization dedicated to public interest and environmental advocacy, established for the purpose of challenging the production of potentially harmful food products and technologies, and instead promoting sustainable alternatives. He's also an attorney who has won many major law suits against the spread of GMOs, including federal cases banning genetically engineered wheat and alfalfa.

Genetic engineering is the insertion of one organism's genetic material into the permanent genetic code of another organism. This technology has been used to alter both plants and animals, as well as to incorporate animals' gene into plant structures. Genetic modification allows for the development of traits many farmers and large-scale growers believe is helpful for production. "Roundup Ready" soybeans, for example, are resistant to the herbicide Roundup. BT corn has been developed to contain its own insecticide by adding a gene from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis.

Kimbrell, along with CFS Science Policy Analyst Bill Freese, visited Molokai last Sunday. Kimbrell drew on his experience with GMO companies like Monsanto to highlight the work that CFS has done, as well as brought to the table reasons to re-examine the presence of Monsanto in Hawaii. "I don't think people like the association of Hawaii as the GMO capitol of the world - an experimental lab for unknown new crops and harmful chemicals," he says.

Many people aren't even aware of that fact, adds Kimbrell. That was the purpose of their trip to Molokai: education. "We want to raise awareness and suggest alternatives," they said. Kimbrell and Freese also say they are keenly aware of the important economic role corporations like Monsanto play as employers on Molokai.

"When we talk about Monsanto, we are talking about them as a corporation, not their employees," Kimbrell emphasized.

Acknowledging the need for an employment alternative to go side by side with their arguments against the work Monsanto, Kimbrell and Freese presented the organic seed and food production industry as a valid option. "Right now, Hawaii is known for tourism and defense," they point out. They hope the third association with Hawaii will become sustainable agriculture instead of a reputation as leading producer of GMO corn seeds in the world, a title Hawaii already holds.

But even the organic standard is not perfect as it exists now, they argue. The label "organic" says nothing about several factors necessary to the success of sustainable agriculture. "We need to expand 'organic' to include ideas like local, humane, social justice, and biodiversity," says Kimbrell.

For Freese, the world-wide food crisis plays a key role in the decision about whether or not to grow GMOs. "If biotech really offers the last hope to feed humanity, how can we turn our back on it?" he asks.

"But," he adds, "Biotech crops actually have very little potential to help developing countries with their food crisis, or to become a worldwide solution."

Freese cited a recent, comprehensive international study conducted by 400 experts from around the world and sponsored by the United Nations (UN). Their task was to explore the best global food solutions and present their findings.

Their result? GMOs are not the answer. Instead, they found the best solution lies in utilizing indigenous knowledge, diverse farming practices, and highlighting local and regional community food production.

Freese also busted two common myths about GMOs.

"One of the biggest myths is that using GMO crops reduces the use of pesticides," he says. But in fact, pesticide use increased by 122 million pounds in the U.S. from 1996 to 2004, after the development of GMO crops, he says. "It makes sense. You engineer a crop to be used with a chemical, and guess what? Farmers use more chemicals," points out Freese.

The second myth Freese banishes is that using GMOs increases crop yield. This is not the case, he says. "It's been found that genetically engineered crops often actually produce less."

A third speaker, Nancy Redfeather, also joined the Molokai audience to relate her experiences as a farmer and activist on the island of Hawaii. Redfeather is also Director of the Hawaii Island School Gardens Network.

After seven years of unsuccessfully trying to get a ban on the genetic engineering of gourmet Kona coffee passed through state legislature, her and her fellow farmers recently saw the bill to protect local farmers passed through county council.

"Our county council members felt that if the Hawaii State Legislature would not stand up for farmers, then it was their job to do it," says Redfeather. Council members figured out how to pass the bill at the county level by inserting a law into the county codes under the General Welfare section that would prohibit growing, planting testing, and research of both GMO taro and coffee, Redfeather explains. After two eight-hour hearings with many testimonies for either side, the bill passed unanimously.

Redfeather hosts an annual seed exchange at her farm, Kawa Nui, to promote farmer cooperation and interest in sustainable agriculture. She says over 300 people attended this year, participating in "a free exchange of gardeners' bounties."

The evening's gathering at the Mitchell Paoule Center concluded with a video highlighting the personal experiences and testimonies of U.S. farmers whose crops or careers have been devastated by Monsanto. As a patented product, the producers of GMO crops have been known to sue farmers growing conventional crops when GMO pollen contaminates neighboring fields. Farmers are often unable to pay either the royalties for allegedly growing the patented crop or the legal expenses for defense.

"It's an industry where large subsidized companies are putting small farmers around the world out of business," says Freese.

23 October 2008

Terra Madre 2008 Inaugurated with Statements from the Prince of Wales and UN Secretary-General

Slow Food International press release, 23 October 2008.

The Prince of Wales and the United Nations Secretary-General today highlighted the importance of traditional farming knowledge in finding a sustainable solution to the global food crisis at the inauguration of Terra Madre 2008, the third world meeting of food communities. Organized by Slow Food and the Terra Madre Foundation, the opening ceremony began at 2.30 pm at Turin's Palasport Olimpico, welcoming over 7,000 participants and observers from 1,652 food communities of 153 different nationalities to the four-day event.

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, who attended the inaugural edition of Terra Madre in 2004, sent a warm greeting to all the delegates via video and spoke about his views on organic agriculture, biofuels and genetically modified foods, emphasizing that the solution to these problems and the current global food shortages, "rests largely with the truly sustainable farmer...it is crucial for your voices to be heard in these global debates."

"Finding long-term solutions to the world food crisis is one of the priorities of the United Nations. I welcome initiatives such as yours which contribute to building new partnerships and focus public opinion on small-scale farming." These were the words of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a message sent to the gathering and read by Carlos Lopes, director of the United Nations System Staff College.

"Your support can help small farmers adopt new technologies and modern farming methods and it can help attract more young people to farming, especially in urban areas of the world," continued the statement, drawing attention to one of the most important themes of Terra Madre, with a youth delegation of a thousand young people attending for the first time this year.

Vandana Shiva, Slow Food International Vice-President and founder of Navdanya, thanked the delegates for continuing to farm in a mode that, by maintaining traditional knowledge, will be extremely important to our future. "We are in the middle of three major crisis: the financial crisis, a food crisis and an environmental crisis which are all rooted in the same problem - greed', said Shiva.

Vandana then asked African farmers to say no to a Green Revolution on their continent, which would, "be accompanied by chemicals and costly seeds and generate profits for agribusiness. Chemical fertilizers kill the soil, pollute the atmosphere and create dead zones in the ocean. I would like our friends in Africa to be able to see what the Green Revolution did to India's fertile land some decades ago," Shiva said.

Carlo Petrini, Slow Food President, concluded the ceremony with a reminder that agriculture is not only an economic sector but also a complex vision that links to the environment, landscape, culture and conviviality. Regarding the economic crisis, the president stated, "this is not a short-term crisis: it is historical problem and it will be long-term. This crisis will encourage us to reflect and develop greater respect for our true economy: agriculture and the rural economy, giving value to labor and artisan crafts".

"Let us all be proud,' Petrini said to the delegates. "We represent diversity. Just as there is biodiversity in nature, your identity, your traditions and skills are a piece of the world that cannot be relinquished. And by coming together we strengthen our identities. So now, let the third edition of Terra Madre begin. Live the next four days to the fullest. Let us be open, let us meet each other, let us talk."

Other speakers included Luca Zaia, Italian Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry; Mercedes Bresso, President of the Piedmont Regional Authority; Sergio Chiamparino, the Mayor of Turin; and Paolo Di Croce, Secretary of Slow Food International. From outside Italy came Tewolde Berhan Gebre-Egziabher, Director General of the Environmental Protection Agency of Ethiopia and UN "Champion of the Earth"; Humberto Oliveira, Secretary of Regional Development of the Ministry for Rural Development of Brazil; and Sam Levin, student at Monument Mountain Regional High School in Massachusetts, USA.

In addition to the speakers, sounds and songs from food communities enlivened the launch of their world meeting: from Sardinia's haunting traditions of the Mamuthones to San Salvario's drums and Bandakadabra's Balkan rhythms. The moving Pequeñas Huellas choir - made up of two hundred children of various nationalities - closed the ceremony with songs from farming cultures around the world.

Delegates will come together tomorrow in 29 regional meetings, and on Saturday and Sunday in a wide range of Earth Workshops - themed meetings to discuss issues facing small scale farmers and artisan food producers - before the closing ceremony and concert on Sunday evening.

Prince of Wales speech at Terra Madre 2008.

Terra Madre opening ceremony, Turin, 23 October 2008 (by video).

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

It hardly seems possible that it is four years since I was with you in Turin, but I still remember that remarkable day when you gave me the warmest of welcomes. It made me feel immediately among friends with a shared passion for good food, for family farming and rural communities. Needless to say, I am particularly sorry I can't be with you again today and I hope dear Carlo Petrini will forgive me, but I am delighted to be able to send you this distant message.

The whole question of food production and food shortages is, of course, very much in the news at the moment, and there are plenty of people arguing that the only way to feed the world's growing population will be through ever greater intensification of agriculture and with the widespread adoption of GM crops. However, I do not believe the arguments stack up, particularly when climate change is added to the equation. Intensive agriculture turns oil into food, which is not something we can afford to go on doing, and most current GM crops are actually yielding less, not more, than their conventional equivalents.

Rather than pushing ever harder to overcome nature's limits and introducing wholly new sources of potential environmental damage, I think we need to be aware that transgenic contamination is now widely acknowledged to be unavoidable, hence there can be no co-existence of GM and non-GM agriculture. I happen to think that we should be concentrating our efforts on improving the sustainable techniques that work in harmony with nature.

We should also, dare I say it, be looking harder at the projections of the number of people the world will need to feed in the future, and asking ourselves whether they are as inevitable as they seem.

Population growth is, I know, a fraught and difficult subject, but surely one that must be addressed.

The hard fact is that in one African country, for instance, around £480 million will be spent this year on HIV AIDS, whereas expenditure on family planning and reproductive health will be just £7.7 million. The expenditure on HIV AIDS is crucial and so desperately needed, but how much human suffering could be alleviated by increasing awareness of family planning issues?

We surely have to ask: when will our world's population stabilize and what are the consequences ... and at what level ... and what are the consequences for our planet's ability to sustain it?

As the imperative of addressing climate change becomes ever more pressing, it may provide a further reason to re-examine the whole issue of population growth. Of course, every individual in the developed world needs to find ways to reduce their carbon footprint, which is many times greater than those in the developing world. But every human being contributes to climate change, not least through agriculture. In exploring the links between rapid population growth and accelerating climate change, it must surely be important not to ignore, for instance, the issue of the huge increase in water consumption, water which is in increasingly short supply as a result of deforestation and the decline in arable land. We also need to find new ways to obtain more from sustainable agricultural systems. This was a conclusion from the recent United Nations Report on Agriculture, Knowledge, Science and Technology. The report identifies many of the problems with global agriculture and talks sensibly about what is needed. This includes systems, and I quote, '... that enhance sustainability, while maintaining productivity in ways that protect the natural resource base and ecological provisioning of agricultural systems'.

There is also a reference to another issue close to my heart, and I suspect to many of yours, where the report declares that, 'traditional and local knowledge constitutes an extensive realm of accumulated practical knowledge and knowledge-generating capacity that is needed if sustainability and development goals are to be reached'. These are some of the wisest words I have heard in recent years and each and every one of you, if I may say so, ladies and gentlemen, is a testament to their truth.

All this may, of course, seem far removed from the everyday concerns of small-scale food producers, farmers, cooks and academics, but it is crucial, if I may say so, for your voices to be heard in these global debates.

The solution to global food shortages rests largely with the truly sustainable farmer and I am enormously encouraged that so many more people are now recognising the benefits of working with nature and harnessing positive forces through healthy soil, healthy crops and healthy animals in order to provide healthy food.

I have so many fond memories of my last visit to Terra Madre. I only wish I could be there to tour the marketplace and join your discussions as you learn from each other about how better to produce, market and cook sustainable food. That is certainly what I am trying hard to do through some of my own ventures, both in the United Kingdom and, for instance, India. However, I fear this will have to wait for another time.

Let me just end by paying a warm and affectionate tribute to one of my great heroes, Carlo Petrini, and to salute each and every one of you who, with Carlo in the lead, are doing so much to challenge the massed forces of the industrialisation of agriculture and the homogenisation of food.

I can only conclude by expressing nothing but my greatest admiration for all you stand for. You are the guarantors of our long-term food security, based upon your dedicated care of the natural environment.

I send you many blessings.

Note:

For more information about the Terra Madre 2008 festival see http://www.terramadre.info

Govt considers Monsanto's offer to sell Bt cotton

The News (Pakistan), 23 October 2008.

ISLAMABAD: The government is considering a multinational company's offer of selling its Bt cotton by [the government] paying a seed subsidy of $247 million (Rs19 billion) annually, The News has learnt.

The company during the next 10 years of its technology transfer to local seed companies would pocket $1.2 billion and the federal government would pay the sum in the name of seed subsidy to the company, a senior official in the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock told this correspondent after attending a high-level meeting on Bt cotton with Federal Food Minister Nazar Mohammad Gondal in the chair.

Monsanto, a US-based multinational agricultural biotechnology company, has offered its hi-tech Bollguard-II for enhancing cotton output and to meet local demand of the commodity. The company will get $20 per acre as the price of Bollguard-II for selling it to local farmers during the first five years of its operation and $10 per acre for the next five years, the official said.

Cotton is cultivated on nearly 3.2 million hectares. When multiplying it with 2.47 for turning into acres and then $20, it comes to $158 million annually. About this dolling out of billions of rupees in the name of technology transfer, a progressive farmer from Multan said that actually some of the high ups in the concerned departments are getting "rewarded" for this lucrative deal.

The company is the world's leading producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed as "Roundup". Monsanto is also by far the leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed, holding 70Ò100 per cent market share for various crops. Earlier, Punjab government was also interested in getting Bollguard-I technology, an obsolete technology, by paying Rs5 billion but it was blocked by the opposition from the federal government. The company also requested MINFAL to completely ban the existing Bt varieties in the local market, thus having a monopoly of this multinational company, another official familiar with the development told this correspondent.

Ireland: Davis College are top debaters

Vale Star, 23 October 2008.

Davis College's senior debating team enjoyed a fine victory over Christian Brothers' Secondary School, Cork, in the Concern debating competition on Monday 20th October at Loreto College, Fermoy. In a highly entertaining debate on the motion that "genetically modified food is essential in the stuggle against world hunger", the Davis College team successfully opposed the motion. The team consisted of Laura Brennan, David Hayes, Markus Knutsson and Séan Tanner and was coached by teacher Gerard O'Sullivan. The Davis College team will be in action again in November.

22 October 2008

Chile enters the list of countries contaminated with GMOs:
A report from INTA has detected transgenic contamination of maize in the fields of central Chile.

The presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) poses a risk to organic agriculture and the exports of conventional seeds from companies in central Chile. The contaminated corn was illegally sold in the market for human consumption and for seed.

The Institute for Nutrition and Food Technology (INTA) dependent of the University of Chile, has detected the presence of contamination in samples of maize growing nearby fields of transgenic maize for seed export. The samples were collected in the Region of O'Higgins, during the first months of 2008, from 30 different fields. Four fields in the sectors of Placilla, Santa Cruz and Chimbarongo, marked positive for transgenic contamination. The transgenic maize growing nearby contaminated the conventional maize in these farms. The study was ordered by the Programa Chile Sustentable and the Fundacion Sociedades Sustentables and the samples were collected by the regional organization Desarrollo Rural Colchagua.

"This study shows for the first time, that contamination does occur in the fields in Chile. This is a very serious situation as the contaminated corn was grown illegally, was not approved for seeds by the Agriculture and Livestock Service (SAG), nor for human consumption", says Maria Isabel Manzur from FundaciÛn Sociedades Sustentables.

During 2007, 216 cases of transgenic contamination were registered in 57 countries, which means that contamination is widespread in the world. The Director of the Programa Chile Sustentable, Sara LarraÌn, demanded the authorities to "reconsider their policies regarding transgenic crops, given the impossibility to control the contamination and the segregation of crops".

Both organizations demanded the Minister of Agriculture, to order independent studies to evaluate the extension of the transgenic contamination of crops and seeds in the country, to adopt measures to erradicate the present contamination, to ratify the Biosafety Protocol and to pass a new law to ban transgenic crops in Chile, as they are dangerous for the environment and human health.

The price paid for the INTA analysis was 2.4 million Chilean pesos (near US$4,500), showing the high cost any farmer would have to pay to detect GM contamination in its field. "This situation endangers the export of agriculture produce of Chile, of organic agriculture and conventional seed production from companies in the O'Higgins region", stated Manzur.

In 2007, SAG approved 25,000 ha of transgenic crops in Chile, mostly maize seed for export. At the same time, the Congress now discusses a Project Law sponsored by the Senators - Alberto Espina (RN), Eduardo Frei (DC), Fernando Flores (Chile Primero), Andrés Allamand (RN) and Juan Antonio Coloma (UDI - to expand transgenic crops in Chile for internal consumption and without labeling.

More information:

Sara Larrain, Programa Chile Sustentable
slarrain@entelchile.net / 09-3197588 (2097028)

María Isabel Manzur, Fundación Sociedades Sustentables
mimanzur@gmail.com/ 2235459-2771429

Patricio Larrabe - Óscar Letelier, Desarrollo Rural Colchagua
patriciolarrabe@gmail.com/ 08-9054327

Organic farming 'could feed Africa'
Traditional practices increase yield by 128 per cent in east Africa, says UN

The Independent (UK), 22 October 2008. By Daniel Howden in Nairobi.

Organic farming offers Africa the best chance of breaking the cycle of poverty and malnutrition it has been locked in for decades, according to a major study from the United Nations to be presented today.

New evidence suggests that organic practices - derided by some as a Western lifestyle fad - are delivering sharp increases in yields, improvements in the soil and a boost in the income of Africa's small farmers who remain among the poorest people on earth. The head of the UN's Environment Programme, Achim Steiner, said the report "indicates that the potential contribution of organic farming to feeding the world maybe far higher than many had supposed".

The "green revolution" in agriculture in the 1960s - when the production of food caught and surpassed the needs of the global population for the first time - largely bypassed Africa. Whereas each person today has 25 per cent more food on average than they did in 1960, in Africa they have 10 per cent less.

A combination of increasing population, decreasing rainfall and soil fertility and a surge in food prices has left Africa uniquely vulnerable to famine. Climate change is expected to make a bad situation worse by increasing the frequency of droughts and floods.

It has been conventional wisdom among African governments that modern, mechanised agriculture was needed to close the gap but efforts in this direction have had little impact on food poverty and done nothing to create a sustainable approach. Now, the global food crisis has led to renewed calls for a massive modernisation of agriculture on the hungriest continent on the planet, with calls to push ahead with genetically modified crops and large industrial farms to avoid potentially disastrous starvation.

Last month the UK's former chief scientist Sir David King said anti-scientific attitudes among Western NGOs and the UN were responsible for holding back a much-needed green revolution in Africa. "The problem is that the Western world's move toward organic farming - a lifestyle choice for a community with surplus food - and against agricultural technology in general and GM in particular, has been adopted across the whole of Africa, with the exception of South Africa, with devastating consequences," he said.

The research conducted by the UN Environment Programme suggests that organic, small-scale farming can deliver the increased yields which were thought to be the preserve of industrial farming, without the environmental and social damage which that form of agriculture brings with it.

An analysis of 114 projects in 24 African countries found that yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used. That increase in yield jumped to 128 per cent in east Africa.

"Organic farming can often lead to polarised views," said Mr Steiner, a former economist. "With some viewing it as a saviour and others as a niche product or something of a luxury... this report suggests it could make a serious contribution to tackling poverty and food insecurity."

The study found that organic practices outperformed traditional methods and chemical-intensive conventional farming. It also found strong environmental benefits such as improved soil fertility, better retention of water and resistance to drought. And the research highlighted the role that learning organic practices could have in improving local education. Backers of GM foods insist that a technological fix is needed to feed the world. But this form of agriculture requires cash to buy the patented seeds and herbicides - both at record high prices currently - needed to grow GM crops.

Regional farming experts have long called for "good farming", rather than exclusively GM or organic. Better seeds, crop rotation, irrigation and access to markets all help farmers. Organic certification in countries such as the UK and Australia still presents an insurmountable barrier to most African exporters, the report points out. It calls for greater access to markets so farmers can get the best prices for their products.

Kenyan farmer: 'I wanted to see how UK did it'

Henry Murage had to travel a long way to solve problems trying to farm a smallholding on the western slopes of Mount Kenya. He spent five months in the UK, studying with the experts at Garden Organic a charity in the Midlands. "I wanted to see how it was being done in the UK and was convinced we could do some of the same things here," he says.

On his return 10 years ago, he set up the Mt Kenya Organic Farm, aimed at aiding other small farmers fighting the semi-arid conditions. He believes organic soil management can help retain moisture and protect against crop failure. The true test came during the devastating drought of2000-02, when Mr Murage's vegetable gardens fared better than his neighbours'. At least 300 farmers have visited his gardens and taken up at least one of the practices he espouses. "Organic can feed the people in rural areas," he says. "It's sustainable and what we produce now we can go on producing."

Saving money on fertilisers and pesticides helps farmers afford better seeds, and composting and crop rotation are improving the soil. Traditional maize, beans and livestock farming in the area have been supplemented with new crops from borage seeds to cayenne peppers and honey, with buyers from the US to Europe. Now he is growing camomile for herbal tea, with buyers from the UK and Germany both interested.

Comment by the Soil Association:

The study by UNEP that 'the potential contribution of organic farming to feeding the world may be far higher than many had supposed' confirms a gathering body of scientific evidence.

Danish research presented at the UN's 'Organic Agriculture and Food Security' conference in May 2007 showed that a shift to organic farming in sub-Saharan Africa could help the region's hungry, leading the Assistant Director-General of the Food & Agriculture Organisation to acknowledge that, 'a shift to organic could be beneficial'.

The more recent report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science & Technology for Development (IAASTD) published this April and the product of 400 scientists globally concluded that, 'Business as usual is no longer an option' - instead favouring an 'agroecological approach', in which it included organic farming. IAASTD's questioning of the benefits of transgenic GM crops and greater enthusiasm for organic farming caused GM giant Syngenta to storm out of the process.

The real proof of organic farming's relevance and effectiveness is in the words of those practising it in Africa, such as Dr Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher, "Some organic detractors argue that only industrialised agriculture can feed the world. Our research and farming experience in Northern Ethiopia shows that you can actually achieve high yields using a combination of composting and traditional agricultural techniques. I believe that organic farming is the way forward for developing countries because it reduces greenhouse gas emissions, sustains rural employment, supports long-term food security and protects soil fertility."

From hope to husk

Financial Times, October 22 2008. By Kevin Allison and Stephanie Kirchgaessner
[extract only - full story at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32a108a0-9fd2-11dd-a3fa-000077b07658.html]

It was an American dream that has failed to become a reality. For much of the last decade, enthusiasts from President George W. Bush down have touted corn-based ethanol as something approaching a superfuel, a home-grown alternative to foreign oil that would help cut smog and bring hope to struggling farmers.

It has not worked out that way. Instead, the ethanol industry has undergone a great boom and bust in which a Financial Times analysis has found investors as savvy as Bill Gates, Microsoft's founder, have collectively lost billions of dollars.

Despite the billions more in taxpayers' dollars that was spent to subsidise it, ethanol now eats up nearly one-quarter of the US corn crop without so far fulfilling the hopes held for its beneficial effect either on the environment or US dependence on foreign energy.

It may have helped keep gasoline prices lower in the world's wealthiest nation, but a growing band of influential critics say it has also contributed to higher food prices in the world's poorest countries. So far, the only sure beneficiaries from the ethanol promise have been the investors clever enough to get into the industry early and the corn farmers who have enjoyed a lucrative new market for their grain.

In short, the story of ethanol is a cautionary tale of the unintended and costly consequences that can arise when the interests of politicians and influential industries collide...

Open at your own risk

Mountain Express (North Carolina, USA), 22 October 2008.)

If you've opened a bag of Genetically Modified seed, you've agreed to the terms of the seed company's licensing agreement or contract - so read the small print. Those are two of the many warnings and highlights released by the Rural Advancement Foundational International in its Farmers' Guide to GMO Contracts.

The guide serves as a pocket-size complement to the Farmers' Guide to GMOs, a lengthier joint publication of RAFI and the Farmers' Legal Action Group. The brochure explains the terms of the Monsanto contract (Monsanto is one of the world's largest developers and manufacturers of GM seeds). Grassroots organizations are invited to distribute the brochure to their own constituencies and can add their contact information to a blank space on the back panel.

You can view the brochure at the RAFI's Web site (under the New Publications section), http://www.rafiusa.org.

NZ To Host GM Biosafety Symposium

www.voxy.co.nz, 22 October 2008

The 10th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms will be held in Wellington from 16-21 November 2008 at The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, marking the first time an Australasian country has hosted this prestigious event.

Held biennially since 1990, the symposium provides a forum for biosafety researchers and those engaged in the risk assessment and regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to share information and exchange ideas. It is hosted by the International Society for Biosafety Research (ISBR), a not-for-profit organisation that aims to further sound scientific investigation into the safe use of GMOs.

The symposium brings together scientists, policy-makers, regulators, non-governmental organisations and industry representatives from many different countries to present and discuss the latest scientific insights into GMO risk assessment. Some 200 people from New Zealand and around the world are attending this year's event.

The symposium is of particular significance to New Zealand, a country that has experienced the impacts of introduced species on the native environment, and has one of the strictest biosafety regimes in the world. Past host countries of the symposium include USA, Germany, Japan, Canada, China, France and Korea.

This year's event theme is "Biosafety Research: Past Achievements and Future Challenges" and includes a full programme of plenary sessions and workshops covering a wide range of topics: the environmental impacts of GM plants and animals; preventing the spread of GM seeds and pollen; environmental monitoring; assessing and managing risk; sharing information on GMO biosafety with decision-makers and the wider public.

On Thursday 20 November, there will be an open public forum to provide members of the general public with an opportunity to put questions about the safe use of GMOs directly to a panel of international experts.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

The International Society for Biosafety Research (http://www.isbr.info) appears to be a front organisation for the agri-biotech industry. In the summer of 2007, its founding president, Alan McHughen (former Professor at the University of Saskathewan in Canada) and three other scientists (Bruce M Chassy, L. Val Giddings, and Vivian Moses) contacted the Editor of Nature Biotechnology and asked him if he would facilitate an opportunity for them to attack the research methods and findings of Russian scientist Dr Irina Ermakova, who found evidence indicating that the fertility of animals fed on the GM material was compromised, and that the survival rates of offspring were dramatically reduced.

For details see Journal editor admis involvement in Ermakova "set up", GM-free Cymru, September 2007: http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/involvement_ermakova.htm

21 October 2008

Bee learning behaviour affected by consumption of Bt Cry1Ab toxin

The Bioscience Resource Project News Service, 21 October 2008

Concerns over bees, especially the European honey bee (Apis mellifera) have rarely been higher. Although there are few hard data there is a general consensus that both solitary and social bee populations are declining and that recently the still-mysterious colony collapse disorder (CCD) has dramatically worsened this situation. No definitive cause for CCD has yet been established but there is widespread agreement that CCD is caused by more than one factor (Calderone, 2008 ; Oldroyd, 2007).

One of the speculated contributors to this decline is transgenic crops and specifically those containing Bt proteins since these are insect-active toxins to which bees are exposed through various routes. In particular, bee larvae are exposed since they consume large quantities of pollen which they sometimes source from maize plants (Sabugosa-Madeira et al. 2007). Up to now however there has been no specific evidence that any Bt toxin has negative effects on bees, but equally such studies have been rare. Particularly lacking are studies on sub-lethal effects of Bt toxins on bees.

In the view of many, there is clear evidence from laboratory settings that Bt toxins can affect non-target organisms. Usually, but not always, affected organisms are closely related to intended targets (reviewed in Lovei and Arpaia 2005 and Hilbeck and Schmidt 2006). Typically, exposure is through the consumption of plant parts such as pollen or plant debris or through Bt ingested by their predatory food choices. Nevertheless, due to significant data gaps, the real-world consequences of Bt transgenics remains unclear.

Thus the lepidopteran-active Cry1Ab is, not unexpectedly, toxic to some butterflies (e.g. Losey et al 1999 and Lang and Vojtech 2006) while more distantly-related organisms affected by Cry1Ab are ladybird larvae, caddisflies and Daphnia Magna (Rosi-Marshall et al 2007; B¯hn et al 2008; Schmidt et al 2008). Other variants of Bt, such as Cry3Bb, are considered coleopteran-active but have been the subject of less research. Nevertheless, these may also affect non-target coleopterans such as ladybird larvae as well as more distantly related organisms such as lacewings (Hilbeck and Schmidt 2006; Schmidt et al 2008).

A recent paper adds to the non-target story by demonstrating that honey bees fed on the active form of purified Cry1Ab protein can be affected in the learning responses necessary to associate nectar sources with odourants (Ramirez-Romero et al 2008). This learning response is important in bee foraging behaviour and it has attracted the attention of CCD researchers since it is known to be inhibited by the insecticide imidacloprid (e.g. Decourtye et al 2004). In this latest study bees consuming artificial nectar containing 5000ppb of Cry1Ab continued to respond positively to a learned odour even in the absence of a food reward, while normal bee behaviour is to become discouraged and seek more abundant food sources.

Left unstudied by the authors however was the likely mode of action of this behavioural effect. This is of considerable interest since the principal means of Bt lethality, which is thought to be a receptor-mediated effect on gut integrity, fails to explain the observed behavioural modification. The new finding is therefore particularly interesting since it lends weight to a previous suggestion that Bt toxins may have other, non-lethal effects which become apparent only when the normal (i.e. lethal) effect is absent (Hilbeck and Schmidt 2006; Schmidt et al. 2008). If there were to be multiple modes of Bt action then many more non-target organisms would likely be at risk from Bt transgenics.

The authors propose that bees are unlikely to be exposed to the quantity of Cry1Ab that led to the defects in behaviour they observed. However, this conclusion seems premature since Bt concentrations in plants are highly variable (Lorch and Then 2007). It is also probable that in real situations bees may be exposed earlier in their development and over longer periods. Bt Researcher Angelika Hilbeck believes that experiments simulating real-world bee experiences are still lacking. "What really needs to be looked at are combinations of both the Bt toxin AND imidacloprid and not Bt toxin OR imidacloprid, and in a form that simulates the exposure routes in the field".

References

Bøhn T., Primicerio R., Hessen D.O., Traavik T. (2008) Reduced Fitness of Daphnia magna Fed a Bt-Transgenic Maize Variety. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 55:584-92

Decourtye A.; Armengaud C., Renouc M.; Devillers J.; Cluzeau S.; Gauthier M. and Pham-Delègue M-H. (2004) Imidacloprid impairs memory and brain metabolism in the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 78: 83-92

Hilbeck A. and Schmidt J.E.U. (2006) Another View on Bt Proteins - How Specific are They and What Else Might They Do? Biopestic. Int. 2: 1-50

Lang A. and Vojtech E. (2006) The effects of pollen consumption of transgenic Bt maize on the common swallowtail, Papilio machaon L. (Lepidoptera, Papilioni). Basic and Applied Ecology 7: 296-306

Lövei G.L. and Arpaia S. (2005) The impact of transgenic plants on natural enemies: a critical review of laboratory studies. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 114: 1-14

Lorch A. and Then C. (2007) How much Bt toxin do MON810 plants actually Produce? www.greenpeace.de/fileadmin/gpd/user_upload/themen/gentechnik/greenpeace_bt_maize_engl.pdf

Losey J.E. Rayor L.S.; and Carter M.E. (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae Nature 399: 214

Oldroyd B. (2007) What's Killing American Honey Bees? PLoS Biol 5(6)

Ramirez-Romero R.; Desneux N.; Decourtye A.; Chaffiol A.; Pham-DelËgue M.H. (2008) Does Cry1Ab protein affect learning performances of the honey bee Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae)? Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 70:327-33

Rosi-Marshall, E.J.; J. L. Tank; T. V. Royer; M. R. Whiles; M. Evans-White; C. Chambers; N. A. Griffiths; J. Pokelsek and M. L. Stephen (2007) Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 16204-16208

Sabugosa-Madeira B.; Abreu I.; Ribeiro H. and Cunha M. (2007) Bt transgenic maize pollen and the silent poisoning of the hive Journal of Apicultural Research 46: 57-58

Schmidt J.E.; Braun C.U.; Whitehouse L.P.; Hilbeck A. Effects of Activated Bt Transgene Products (Cry1Ab, Cry3Bb) on Immature Stages of the Ladybird Adalia bipunctata in Laboratory Ecotoxicity Testing. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2008 Aug 20

France hopes to break GMO deadlock by December

Euractiv, 21 October 2008.

EU envrionment ministers continued to disagree on whether member states should be allowed to establish GMO-free zones for sensitive areas, although they did concur on the need for better long-term environmental risk assessment of GMOs.

Following a number of informal discussions earlier this summer, the EU-27 environment ministers debated the bloc's GMO authorisation procedure in a Council meeting on 20 October.

But member states clashed on the issues of protecting sensitive and protected territories and establishing GMO-free zones. Some delegations underlined that the current legislative framework already allows for such protection measures if there is scientific evidence of risk.

Others would like to retain control of their national territories and see the subsidiarity principle better respected in this regard, allowing them to establish GMO-free zones for sensitive eco- and agro-systems.

According to the French Presidency, the ministers agreed on the need for better long-term environmental risk assessment. Several delegations also said the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) guiding principles should be revised. Its safety assessments would always take account of the latest research findings as scientific knowledge evolves.

As for including socio-economic considerations in the GMO authorisation process (such as cost-benefit analysis of the possible consequences of GMO seeds entry into the overall agricultural system), ministers described this as both an "important" and a "complex" issue. They underlined that if such criteria were to be considered, they would need to respect EU's obligations vis-ý-vis the World Trade Organisation. Furthermore, some member states underlined that such measures would never replace scientific evaluation as the main authorisation criteria.

The ministers also underlined that there was no exact definition of socio-economic criteria linked to GMOs. Therefore, an EU-level methodology framework could be elaborated to identify and evaluate such criteria.

Positions:

Recent figures by the European Association for Bioindustries (EuropaBio) on biotech crop cultivation in Europe show that "more EU farmers are choosing to go biotech to boost their competitiveness despite a 10 year moratorium on new product approvals".

The association therefore urges EU ministers to end the moratorium on cultivation approvals and give European farmers the right to choose the products "which they believe are best to protect their crops and increase their competitiveness".

According to EuropaBio, some 50 products are currently awaiting approval in the EU, 19 of which are for cultivation.

Meanwhile, Greenpeace argues that member states should be allowed to establish GMO-free areas and implement measures to avoid seed contamination. It argues that the EU's current authorisation process is "fundamentally flawed since it ignores the long-term effects of GMOs, evidence on their biodiversity impacts, diverging scientific opinions and concerns from EU member states".

Therefore, the NGO calls on environment ministers to ensure that EU legal requirements on GMOs are respected and that "environmental risk assessments are carried out by independent bodies with the necessary scientific expertise".

Next steps:

•

Dec. 2008: Environment Council conclusions on the issue expected.

Links

European Union

•

Council press release: Provisional conclusions
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/fr/envir/103480.pdf (20 October)

•

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_home.htm

•

Commission: Food safety website
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm

Business & Industry

•

EuropaBio press release: Latest figures show that more EU farmers choose to grow biotech crops to boost their competitiveness, but are the EU's Ag Ministers listening?
http://www.europabio.org/articles/GBE/EuropaBio%20Press%20Release%20cultivation%20figures%202008_290908.pdf
(29 September 2008)

NGOs

•

Greenpeace press release: Protect agriculture and stand up against GM crops - Greenpeace distributes GMO cure to EU environment ministers
http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/Protect-agriculture-and-stand-up-against-GM-crops
(20 October)

Background:

After the Council's inability to either approve or reject GMOs for over a decade, the European Commission is now free to authorise them based on a special regulatory procedure [http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/regulatory_process/157.eu_gmo_authorisation_procedures.html].

But both the procedure and the role of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have been targets for criticism (see EurActiv 05/12/05 [http://www.euractiv.com/en/biotech/loophole-clears-way-gm-maize-approval/article-150355] and 10/03/06 [http://www.euractiv.com/en/food/austria-criticises-efsa-gmo-bias/article-153305]), and the Commission has decided to introduce practical changes to EFSA's GMO-approval process (EurActiv 12/04/06 [http://www.euractiv.com/en/biotech/commission-transparency-gmo-decisions/article-154355]).

Several member states have also repeatedly invoked an EU safeguard clause enabling them to suspend the marketing or growth on their territory of GM crops that have EU-wide authorisation. But the EU executive has never substantiated their applications and has always ordered them to lift the national bans.

The French EU Presidency has created an ad-hoc working group and tabled a series of proposals to overcome these problems.

More on this topic:

News: France seeks solution to EU GMO deadlock
http://www.euractiv.com/en/environment/france-seeks-solution-eu-gmo-deadlock/article-173047

News: Commission hesitant to approve more GM crops
http://www.euractiv.com/en/environment/commission-hesitant-approve-gm-crops/article-172209

Other related news:

•

Analyst: EU caution on new technologies causing missed opportunities http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/analyst-eu-caution-new-technologies-causing-missed-opportunities/article-174672

•

Interview: EU caution on new technologies causing 'missed opportunities'?
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/interview-eu-caution-new-technologies-causing-missed-opportunities/article-174674

•

France to propose concrete solutions to EU's GMO muddle
http://www.euractiv.com/en/environment/france-propose-concrete-solutions-eu-gmo-muddle/article-174002

•

Ethics of agricultural technologies under scrutiny
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/ethics-agricultural-technologies-scrutiny/article-173550

•

'Era of cheap food is over,' says EU
http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainability/era-cheap-food-eu/article-171846

Terra Madre meets Salone del Gusto

Sloweb, 21 October 2008.

This year the two major events in the Slow Food calendar-Salone del Gusto and Terra Madre-will come together as one at the Lingotto Fiere Exhibition Center in Torino from October 23 to 26. A series of conferences have been organized to celebrate the marriage.

To be held at 3pm on Friday October 24 (Lingotto, pav.3, Sala Cittaslow), 'It Can Be Done Without GMOs' (Sala Gialla) asks the question what are GMOs for? Their supporters (and owners) say they can solve many problems for farmers, helping them to reduce their use of pesticides and increase their yields, and for the planet as a whole, insofar as they will help solve famine worldwide. Here people involved with sustainable agriculture, from producers to researchers, will explain how they addressed and solved these problems without resorting to GMOs.

Speakers will be Marcello Buiatti, Professor of Genetics, University of Florence and President of Fondazione Toscana Sostenibile (Foundation for a Sustainable Tuscany); Raúl Hernández Garciadiego, President of Alternativas y Procesos de Partecipación Social A.C. and President of the Central de Servicios para el Desarrollo de Tehuacán, Mexico; Manuela Giovannetti, Director of the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Pisa; Claudia Sorlini, Director of the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Milan; Samuel Karanja Muhunyu, Agronomist, Coordinator of the Network for Ecofarming in Africa (NECOFA) and Coordinator of Slow Food Kenya; Joseph Stockinger, Vice-president of the European GMO-Free Regions Network and Regional Minister of the Department of Agriculture of the Upper Austria Regional Authority, Austria; Marie-Hélène Aubert, Member of the European Parliament, European Green Party, France. The meeting will be moderated by Roberto Burdese, Coordinator of the GMO-Free Italy-Europe Coalition and President of Slow Food Italy, and organized by the GMO-Free Italy-Europe Coalition.

For more information please visit http://www.salonedelgusto.com or http://www.terramadre.org

Major U.S. firm - Monsanto - Refuses to Support U.S. Constitution

News Blaze, October 21 2008

NAPA, California - Monsanto - one of the world's largest agri-chemical and biotech companies with several locations in the Bay Area - is refusing to "support and defend" the U.S. Constitution against the nation's enemies, according to a Napa-based investment company here which is questioning Monsanto's loyalty.

Harrington Investments, Inc.(HII) has introduced a binding amendment to Monsanto's corporate bylaws requiring its directors to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." But, Monsanto is fighting the proposal.

"Monsanto is chartered, traded, and headquartered in the U.S. It is guaranteed certain rights and privileges under the United States Constitution. Americans should also want to be assured that Monsanto's directors are not antagonistic to the ideals and principles the Constitution espouses," said John Harrington, president of HII.

Monsanto is among the world's largest agri-chemical and biotech companies. It reported $8.5 billion in 2007 revenues and is the dominant player in the seed industry, boasting a major market share of sales of genetically modified foods. United Nations officials recently said Monsanto has tremendous influence over food security in every nation.

This resolution is the latest in Harrington Investments' longstanding ownership-advocacy relationship with Monsanto management. In 2005, HII submitted a resolution that called for the formation of an ethics oversight committee in response to Monsanto being fined for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Monsanto has a dozen locations in California, including ones in Martinez and Salinas, and three in the Sacramento area.

To comment on this story, email to comment@newsblaze.com

Media availability:

Harrington Investments, Inc. corporate HQ Wednesday, 9:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. 1001 2nd Street, Suite 325, in Napa

USA: Paper's position on GMO missed several points

Letters to the Editor, Record Bee (California), 21 October 2008. By Stacie Lucas.

Your recent opinion piece expressing a pro-GMO stance and inferring that all who don't support the GMO industry are akin to the Inquisitors of the Middle Ages Church is ignorantly misleading at best. There is no better analogy to the oppression wreaked by the Church in the Middle Ages than the current GMO industry led by Monsanto.

Over the past few decades Monsanto has slowly tried to gain a monopoly over access to seeds much the same way the early church did over access to alternative approaches to understanding the universe. Monsanto has done this by bullying and intimidating anyone who has gotten in its way of making its patented seeds the only source of seeds for the farming industry. Monsanto is known by many farmers in this country as the secret "seed police." This seed police watches for opportunities to sue farmers for things that farmers have historically always done, like harvesting seeds from their current crops for next season's planting.

Monsanto has a track record of harassing independent-minded farmers in order to try to gain complete control over the use of seeds so that no one (Monsanto hopes) will be able to plant crops without first buying Monsanto's patented seeds. They have even sued farmers for unauthorized use of their patented seeds when Monsanto seeds have been blown by the wind or carried by small animals into a farmer's fields. We wouldn't characterize giant, profit-driven corporations such as Monsanto as progress-oriented benefactors of the human race.

Not only do GMO seeds put the sources of our food into a very small number of hands, they have a detrimental effect on our environment by encouraging the use of herbicides and pesticides. GMO plants often raise an herbicide or pesticide threshold limit, leaving native plants and animals at risk from herbicide- and pesticide-laden fields. Lastly, the health effects of using GMO crops has not been well studied and may be subtle, taking years of clinical studies to observe increases in cancer populations and other such heath risks. True progress is coming from the organic and biodynamic farming industry, where protecting native plants, animals, and soils is an important goal.

True progress lies in expanding native diversity, not imposing mono-culture "from above," which decimates the healthy diversity of the earth. So rather than likening GMO opponents to the anti-progress and stake-burning Church hierarchy of the Middle Ages, the Record Bee should take a look in the mirror.

Stacie and Clifford Lucas
Upper Lake

Editor's Note: The Lake County Board of Supervisors approved a ban on GMO 3-2 in its Tuesday meeting. See story on the Record-Bee's home page [and below].

USA: GE crops prohibited in county

Record Bee (California), 21 October 2008. By Tiffany Revelle.

LAKEPORT -- Genetically engineered (GE) crops are prohibited in Lake County after a 3-2 vote by the Lake County Board of Supervisors Tuesday. Supervisors Rob Brown and Jeff Smith voted against the ban.

The vote came after three and a half hours of discussion. The board took input on both sides of the issue from farmers, business owners and representatives from the Lake County Farm Bureau, Lake County Agricultural Department, Lake County Sierra Club, Lakeport Regional Chamber of Commerce and California Certified Organic Farmers.

"This is not taking away anybody's rights. It's just to say if you want to use GE crops, you need to have a good reason why," Chairman Ed Robey said.

The board took supervisor Anthony Farrington's suggestions that certain items should be removed from the ordinance, including a jail term for violators, a claim that GE crops bring premium price in the market and a requirement that GE growers disclose their operations to the general public. Farrington also proposed that the ordinance sunset after a year, but the ordinance was adopted without a sunset. The ordinance allows the board to grant exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

Lake County Farm Bureau Executive Director Chuck March said the bureau stood firm in its five-year opposition to a ban on the crops.

Genetic engineering means "the use of recombinant DNA techniques to artificially introduce genetic material from another species to create a genome that does not exist in nature," according to the ordinance the board adopted.

"We believe the process for regulating the use of the crops is sufficiently overseen by the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Department of Agriculture. This is the most heavily scrutinized food product in the world," March said.

Supervisors Robey, Farrington and Denise Rushing expressed concerns about improper regulation at the state and federal levels and about the need for more information about the use of biotechnology. Victoria Brandon of the Lake County Sierra Club echoed their concerns.

"At the present time, there is not enough understanding of the dangers, and it has not been proven safe to let (GE) organisms loose in the environment. That would have consequences not only for agriculture but ecologically as well," Brandon said.

March said the bureau had seen no proof that GE technology is unsafe.

"What you need to do is get out of our business," business owner Kenny Parlet said. Pear shed owner Toni Scully called the ban "a real backwards step for the development of agriculture, historically."

Brown said farmers should have the right to choose what crops to grow, and said he trusts the industry to regulate itself.

Smith agreed with Lakeport Regional Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Melissa Fulton that a work group should be formed to further revise the ordinance and come up with a compromise more appealing to people on both sides of the issue.

Contact Tiffany Revelle at trevelle@record-bee.com, or call her directly at 263-5636 ext. 37.

Report Shows Food Authority is Failing New Zealand

GE Free New Zealand, 21 October 2008

A new report shows the food authority 'FSANZ' is undermining the rights of New Zealanders to choose safe food, as well as threatening our safety-record for exports.

The independent report into FSANZ's operations in Australia has revealed a damning record of complicity and compromise in maintaining food standards that are truly world-class, and which provide genuine safety testing of the food supply.

The report is endorsed by 10 international scientists, including New Zealand molecular biologist Dr Jack Heinemann, at the University of Canterbury.

It comes just weeks after New Zealand milk products destined for Korea were rejected because of melamine contamination. At the time a spokesperson from the Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) Sandra Daley dismissed the issue and said the low levels of melamine did not trigger any concerns for New Zealand's Food Authorities.

This astonishing response, coming on the heals of Fonterra's San Lu contamination incident, shows staff at the NZFSA and FSANZ have failed to realise that both Australia and New Zealand must be able to meet the highest food safety standards in the world to protect our people and export reputations.

"We cannot have our Food Authorities dismissing other country's standards as 'too stringent': we have to match and exceed them, or we will be seen as second-rate commodity-exporters," says Jon Carapiet from GE-Free NZ in food and environment.

The new report into FSANZ reveals that the Authority has been selling people short in terms of consumer choice and protection from GE imports. The contents of the study are a wake-up call to government on both sides of the Tasman that our food supply has been hijacked and is open to dangerous compromise by overseas interests.

It was already clear that the New Zealand government has been dismissive of consumer rights by refusing to allow country-of-origin labeling that Australian's have secured. But it is now more than ironic that the statutory requirement of the food authorities to "promote trade" is threatening the economic wellbeing of our export-based economies.

"The actions and policies revealed in the report constitute an astonishing betrayal of the public interest in a world where Australia and New Zealand food systems need to be genuinely clean, green, ethical and safe for consumers at home and abroad," says Jon Carapiet.

"They have sold out the consumer on protection from GE foods, and the fear is that they will sell out our export reputation by compromising standards down to the lowest common denominator."

Despite the warning of The Australian Insurance Council that food manufacturers could face 'asbestos-style' lawsuits in decades ahead arising from the use of GE foods, FSANZ has continued to approve them into the food chain. Yet there is no public health monitoring of the effects on consumers, so doctors cannot even know if a diet-related factor is at work in disease.

The UK government proposed 'tracking' of consumers of GE foods by monitoring their supermarket purchases using loyalty cards, much as people use at Foodtown and Woolworth's in New Zealand.

"The New Zealand government may have once expressed an interest in this approach to public health monitoring of GE foods but as far as we know there is absolutely no tracking or monitoring of health effects in our populations," says Jon Carapiet. "There is nothing at all."

The report highlights facts that give the lie to FSANZ's misleading claims about their scientific and rigorous approach to GE food testing.

These facts include:

•

No standardised testing for GE foods

•

Failure to phase out the use of antibiotic-resistance marker genes

•

Inadequate assessment of potential toxicity, and allergens

•

Reliance on industry data which is notoriously unreliable

•

No monitoring of the effects of eating GE food

The report also warns that the rapid commercialisation of Genetic Engineering may be fundamentally flawed. The report cites Prof.Jack Heinemann as saying: "The real worry for us has always been that the commercial agenda for biotech may be premature, based on what we have long known was an incomplete understanding of genetics. Because gene patents and the genetic engineering process itself are both defined in terms of genes acting independently, regulators may be unaware of the potential impacts arising from these network effects."

New Zealanders and Australians deserve better from those people at FSANZ and the NZFSA appointed as watchdogs, paid by the public purse, and trusted to genuinely care for the integrity of the food supply.

ENDS

Contact:

Jon Carapiet - 0210507681

References

Eating in the Dark - How Australia's food regulator is failing us on genetically engineered food. Greenpeace Australia Pacific, October 2008

For details of the report contact Louise Sales

ph: +61 (0) 2 9263 0306
mo: +61 (0) 438 679 263

International scientists condemn shonky regulation of GE food

Greenpeace Australia / Pacific press release, 21 October 2008.

[Photo caption: Stringent safety assessment and comprehensive labelling of food derived from GE is needed for consumers to be informed about their choices.]

Australia - Ten leading scientists have endorsed Greenpeace's new report critiquing the regulation of genetically engineered (GE) food in Australia.

The report, Eating in the Dark (http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/resources/reports/GE/rep-eatindark-211008), calls for an urgent independent review of the safety assessment regime for GE food, and for all foods derived from GE crops to be labelled.

The report argues that Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is failing to meet its key objectives of protecting public health and safety; providing adequate information so consumers can make informed choices; and preventing misleading conduct by food companies.

The report presents comprehensive evidence showing that, far from keeping abreast of recent insights into the impact of GE food, FSANZ remains mired in outmoded science. Further, FSANZ appears committed to a pro-GE philosophy that is out of step with global concerns.

With GE canola set to enter the Australian food chain this year, the report sends an urgent reminder that we need better safety testing and labelling to protect consumer health and choice.

According to Professor Jack A Heinemann, gene ecologist, director of the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) in New Zealand, and one of the endorsees of the report, "FSANZ is gambling with the health of consumers in order to please agrochemical corporations and Australia's trading partners."

While governments and regulatory agencies worldwide are displaying growing caution in response to the ever-increasing uncertainty about the safety of GE crops, FSANZ is one of only a few regulators in the world to have approved every single application it has received for GE food products.

The report calls on the Federal Government to deliver on its policy commitments. Last year the federal ALP promised not to approve the release of GE crops unless they could be proven safe "beyond reasonable doubt".1 The ALP's National Conference last year also supported the "comprehensive labelling of genetically modified food". 2

The launch of the report follows a week of activities all around Australia to celebrate World Food Day. These included events organised by our activist network in Adelaide, Melbourne, Perth, Surfers Paradise and Sydney.

Notes:

(1) O'Brien K (2007) Labor's Plan for Primary Industries, p 20.

(2) ALP (2007) "Chapter Twelve: Ensuring Community Security and Access to Justice", ALP National Platform and Constitution, para 99.

Take action

Sign the petition calling for the stringent safety assessment and comprehensive labelling of GE food: http://www.truefood.org.au/OurRightToKnow

Engineering a False Hope
Sustainable agriculture, not genetic engineering, may be the answer to the world's growing food needs.

Mother Earth News, October / November 2008.
By Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
http://www.ucsusa.org

Biotech companies tell us that genetic engineering will provide insurance against growing demands on our food supply, but scary questions remain.

The recent spike in food prices, as well as concerns about what the future may hold, are weighing on the minds of people across the globe. The biotech industry is exploiting such worries and claiming, contrary to evidence, that genetically engineered (GE) crops must be accepted to help the world feed itself. The industry hopes to use these scare tactics to expand into the many countries, especially in Europe and the East, that have wisely rejected GE foods because their human health and environmental safety have not yet been assessed.

After 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, GE crops have a track record that allows us to evaluate their performance. So far, there has been little progress in achieving important goals such as increased yields, better stress (drought) tolerance and improved sustainability in the form of decreased need for fertilizers, tilling and pesticides. Moreover, food safety and environmental risks from genetic engineering also remain to be addressed.

The most widely grown genetically engineered crop in the United States, herbicide-tolerant soybeans, has not increased yield above its conventional counterparts, based on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) trend data and numerous field studies. Insect-resistant GE crops have sometimes indirectly improved yields, but such yield increases have been modest, and recent studies suggest that much of the apparent improvements may instead be due to advances in conventional breeding. New insights from our growing knowledge of crop genetics are improving these conventional breeding techniques - without genetic engineering.

What about environmental benefits? Those, too, have been modest at best. Overall pesticide use (herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) has not been reduced through genetic engineering. In fact, some weeds have developed a resistance to the herbicide used with GE crops, which forces greater overall herbicide use and cancels out the decreased insecticide use from insect-resistant GE crops.

In many cases we can accomplish the same or better results at less expense by applying the science of agroecology. Insecticide use can be reduced by increased crop rotation. Soil erosion and degradation can be reduced by planting cover crops between seasons and decreasing tillage. These and other practices improve soil condition, which thereby retains more water, helping crops through droughts. Many of these issues are discussed in a recently published report from the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, [http://www.agassessment.org/] an organization sponsored by the World Bank and The United Nations.

Finally, to the extent that genetic engineering may provide benefits in the future, it must be adequately regulated to ensure food safety and protect the environment. Unfortunately, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has only a voluntary regulatory process for GE food safety, and the USDA was criticized in 2002 by the National Academy of Sciences for insufficient scientific rigor in its environmental safety assessments. Its own inspector general severely criticized its regulatory apparatus in 2005. The USDA is revising its regulations, but current drafts do not adequately address previous criticisms.

So far the claims of the biotechnology industry are not backed up by scientific evidence; its rosy rhetoric obscures our choices. This can keep us from investing in tools such as conventional breeding and agroecology that, based on their track record, should be leading the way to helping the world feed itself.

Better Farming, Naturally

These common-sense techniques are all proven ways to improve food production. Who needs controversial genetic engineering?

•

Yields can be increased with selective breeding techniques.

•

Chemical use can be reduced by rotating crops.

•

Soil's water-holding capacity and resistance to erosion can be enhanced with reduced-till practices and cover crops.

Australia & New Zealand: Food authority accused over GM decisions

Sydney Morning Herald, 21 October 2008. By Kelly Burke, Consumer Affairs reporter.

THE food authority responsible for approving genetically modified products has been accused of pandering to agrochemical giants at the expense of consumer health, in a report set to be released today analysing the authority's recent decisions.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand is gambling with the health of consumers, the director of the University of Canterbury's Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, Professor Jack Heinemann has warned, and is one of only a few regulators to have approved every application for genetically engineered food products.

"Many other regulators have at least stood up once where FSANZ appears to have cowered under industry or political pressure," Professor Heinemann said, describing the authority as the victim of "flawed legislation that mixes the goals of trade and public health".

Over the past 12 years the authority has approved more than 50 varieties of genetically engineered crops, from corn and soy to potato and sugar beet, the report, compiled by Greenpeace, found. Among the products approved despite what the organisation described as a weight of harmful evidence were:

•

A strain of corn (MON863) by Monsanto found to cause liver and kidney toxicity when fed to rats in a peer-reviewed French scientific study last year.

•

A Syngenta-manufactured corn (GE alpha-amylase) specifically designed to be used in bioethanol production and not intended for human consumption, yet with the potential to enter the human food chain through unchecked US imports.

•

Another Syngenta corn (GE Bt10) approved by the authority despite being banned by the European Union and Japan because no safety assessments have yet been conducted.

•

A Monsanto canola, still the subject of debate in the European Union and banned outright in Austria, after Monsanto's own testing found increases in liver sizes in rats by up to 16 per cent.

Endorsing the report, Professor Heinemann said many of the authority's decisions on genetically engineered food were based on assumptions, and "picking and choosing only the science [the authority] wants to believe". Moreover, while in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and South Africa more stringent food labelling laws are being passed, in Australia genetically engineered products such as oils, starches and sugars as well as meat, milk, cheese and eggs produced by animals that have been fed genetically engineered crops still require no labelling. Food from restaurants and takeaway outlets is also exempt.

The report notes that current labelling legislation is at odds with the ALP's national platform and constitution published last year, which stated that the party supported comprehensive labelling of genetically modified food.

The minister responsible for food labelling, Senator Jan McLucas, has not responded to the Herald's queries.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Ageing defended the authority, saying all decisions on genetically engineered food were the result of "careful assessment of human health and environmental risks".

Kay McNiece said: "The safety assessment process is based on internationally accepted methods and approaches." This was endorsed by the World Health Organisation.

1 in 4 new bio meds cause serious side effects
Drugs made living materials often later need safety warnings, study finds

Associated Press, 21 October 2008.

CHICAGO - Nearly a fourth of widely used new-generation biological drugs for several common diseases produce serious side effects that lead to safety warnings soon after they go on the market, the first major study of its kind found.

Included in the report released Tuesday were the arthritis drugs Humira and Remicade, cancer drugs Rituxan and Erbitux, and the heart failure drug Natrecor. All wound up being flagged for safety.

That might surprise some doctors who may have thought that these new treatments might be safer than traditional chemical-based medicines.

Researchers found that most of the warnings came within five years after these biologicals won government approval in the United States and Europe between 1995 and 2007.

Many traditional medicines wind up with safety warnings too after they go on the market. But experts said there were no similar studies of older medicines that made it possible to compare safety issues between the two groups of drugs.

The new study, by Dutch researchers, is the first comprehensive examination of these newer medicines, a driving part of the biotech revolution.

The drugs are known as biologicals because they're made from living material and they typically affect the body's disease-fighting immune system. Many relieve severe symptoms by suppressing that system.

It's that same mechanism that can result in side effects often not seen with traditional chemical-based medicines, said Dr. Charles Bennett, a Northwestern University drug safety expert. These can include brain and fungal infections and cancer.

Many are genetically engineered and Bennett said that because they typically resemble naturally occurring proteins, many doctors have assumed they were safer than traditional chemical-based medicines. But he said the study shows that's not necessarily true.

"They have an important role," Bennett said. "They're really the next generation of pharmaceuticals."

He said the results simply show that doctors and patients should be aware that the drugs have many potential side effects that may not be listed on the label.

Concerning results

Among the drugs under examination are Genentech Inc.'s psoriasis drug Raptiva, which just last week the Food and Drug Administration warned may contribute to a life-threatening brain illness and infections; and Exubera, an inhaled insulin product, linked with lung cancer risks. Exubera was approved by the FDA in 2006 but Pfizer Inc. stopped selling it last year.

The study appears in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.

It involved 136 biologics approved in the United States and 105 in the European Union between January 1995 and June 2007. A total of 41, or nearly 24 percent, got safety warnings issued through June 2008.

The results are a concern, and they underscore the need for closer scrutiny of drugs after their approval, said lead author Thijs Giezen of the University of Utrecht.

But he said the study also is reassuring because most problems showed up relatively soon after the drugs became available, which minimized the potential for widespread harm.

"If most issues are discovered within the first few years, then the system is working," Giezen said.

Bennett says it's unreasonable to think that the studied drugs' safety issues should have been discovered before they were marketed. That's because drug approval is based on relatively small studies with patients who generally are healthier than those in the general population. It often takes real-world experience for side effects to appear, he said.

Many biological drugs have advantages over conventional medicine, but the study shows their risks need to also be considered, said Thomas Moore of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices.

For example, non-steroid arthritis medicines including ibuprofen can reduce pain by decreasing inflammation, but they can cause stomach bleeding.

Biologic rheumatoid arthritis medicines Remicade, Enbrel and Humira are designed to ease painful joints by keeping the body's immune system from attacking itself, the underlying problem in the disease. But they are much more expensive and have been linked with higher risks for potentially fatal infections. Also, the FDA is investigating possible cancer risks.

"My message to patients is that these biological products often can treat very difficult to treat diseases but may have very substantial risks and that you need to take extra care to educate yourself as to what those risks might be," Moore said.

20 October 2008

EU Keeps 'Zero Tolerance' Policy On Biotech Imports For Now

Dow Jones Newswires, October 20 2008. By Matthew Dalton.

BRUSSELS - The European Union for now will keep its "zero tolerance" policy on allowing the presence of unapproved varieties of genetically modified plants in imported food and animal feed, a spokeswoman for the European Commission said Monday.

Biotech companies, farmers and feed importers sought a change to the policy because of concerns that imports with trace amounts of unapproved biotech plants would be blocked from the E.U. The concern is particularly acute for soybeans: the E.U. imports about 75% of its supply, and they form a crucial source of protein in the diet of Europe's livestock.

The E.U. is making progress toward approving new plant varieties for import, said commission health spokeswoman Nina Papdoulaki, citing the clearance of a biotech corn and soybean in the last seven months. The commission also sent a biotech soybean - Roundup Ready 2, developed by Monsanto Co. (MON) - to the European Council for approval, putting it on track for final import clearance by next year's harvest in the fall.

"We believe with the authorization of these products, there won't be any need for a (policy change), at least for the time being," Papadoulaki said.

The commission will continue to monitor the situation and may decide that a change to the "zero tolerance" policy is in fact necessary, she added.

The E.U. approves genetically modified plants at a slower rate than the U.S. The difference has already stopped corn exports to the E.U. from the U.S., because the risk of contaminating normal corn shipments with biotech varieties not approved for import in the E.U. is too great.

A non-genetically-modified food labelling initiative is the "beginning of the end" for GMs, the Soil Association has claimed

Reed Business Information, 20 October 2008. By Lucy Busuttil.

A non-genetically-modified food labelling initiative is the "beginning of the end" for GMs, the Soil Association has claimed.

The label will be launched by more than 400 American processors and retailers next year and has the backing of presidential candidate Barack Obama.

About 28,000 products will be labelled by the companies, which have a combined worth of $12bn.

Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director, told Farmers Weekly: "Labelling stopped consumers buying milk from cattle treated with the growth hormone rBGH, leading Costco, Kroger, Publix, Safeway and Wal-Mart to turn to non-GM, own-brand milk.

"It is the 'beginning of the end for GM worldwide'," he said. Monsanto, rBGH developer, is now selling off the hormone, he added.

Lord Melchett said a Soil Association survey provided further evidence of opposition to GMs.

It showed that more than half of American consumers would not eat food containing genetically modified ingredients.

Given the choice, 53% of those surveyed said they would not eat GM products while 87% of Americans believed food should have its GM content labelled, the survey suggested.

At the same time, he argued, farmers were rejecting GM crops. "European farmers have been being told to turn to GM for two decades because American farmers love GM," he said.

"But look at GM alfalfa - US farmers got it banned in courts because it makes weeds resistant to pesticides."

Lord Melchett said that the Soil Association was not anti-yield nor anti-techonology, but said farmers should look to other technologies instead of "old-fashioned" GM.

Protect agriculture and stand up against GM crops
Greenpeace distributes GMO cure to EU environment ministers

Greenpeace International press release, 20 October 2008.

Luxembourg / Brussels - The EU is suffering from a debilitating bout of Monsantosis, caused by its lax and unscientific approach to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Greenpeace warned EU environment ministers meeting in Luxembourg this morning. With ministers locked in crucial discussions on the future of the EU's authorisation system for GM crops, Greenpeace volunteers riding in an ambulance distributed a life-saving GMO first aid kit to help fight off the lies of the agro-biotech industry.

The 'AntiCorp' pills are designed to reduce the effects of corporate lobby viruses and encourage commitments for the protection of health, agriculture, biodiversity and food security. Activists also displayed a giant 'scary maize' banner and a message reading: "GMOs THREATEN FOOD SECURITY - EU ACT NOW".

"The EU is still unable to predict the long-term impact of GM crops on the environment, biodiversity and on our health. EU environment ministers must act now to protect our food and agriculture," said Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU GMO policy director.

The EU's current authorisation process is fundamentally flawed since it ignores the long-term effects of GMOs, evidence on their biodiversity impacts, diverging scientific opinions and concerns from EU member states. Changes in agricultural practices, loss of traditional farming knowledge and the effects of contamination are also not considered under the EU process.

"EU public opinion is strongly opposed to GMOs and the ministers know it. It 's time they spoke out in favour of improving the current system to stop GMOs from finding their way onto our fields and into the food chain," said Contiero.

Greenpeace calls on environment ministers to ensure that EU legal requirements on GMOs are respected and, in particular, that environmental risk assessments are carried out by independent bodies with the necessary scientific expertise. Greenpeace also urges ministers to put into place measures to avoid seed contamination and allow member states to establish GMO-free areas.

"Given the climate and food crises the world is currently facing, ministers need to protect Europe from the dangerous distraction of GMOs and instead focus on real solutions. We need modern farming methods that ensure higher yields, are more climate-resilient, do not destroy natural resources and can guarantee food security," said Contiero.

Contacts:

Marco Contiero - Greenpeace EU GMO policy director: +32 (0)2 274 1906, +32 (0)477 777 034 (mobile), marco.contiero@greenpeace.org

Action photo & video images and media queries:

Mark Breddy - Greenpeace EU communications manager: +32 (0)2 274 1903, +32 (0)496 156 229 (mobile), mark.breddy@greenpeace.org

Comment by GM Watch:

The recent International Agricultural Assessment - IAASTD - showed the world had to act decisively to improve global agriculture so that we can deal with the massive challenges of poverty, hunger and climate change, and that GM crops are pretty much an irrelevance in terms of that.

In fact, of course, they're far worse than an irrelevance. They're a dangerous and hugely expensive distraction from the real task of implementing effective practical solutions like those recommended by the IAASTD.

EXTRACT: "Given the climate and food crises the world is currently facing, ministers need to protect Europe from the dangerous distraction of GMOs and instead focus on real solutions. We need modern farming methods that ensure higher yields, are more climate-resilient, do not destroy natural resources and can guarantee food security."

Bt's soil chemistry

Down to Earth (Science and Environment), October 20 2008. By Kirtiman Awasthi.

[image caption: Soil nutrient availability at risk too]

It does kill the nasty bollworm. What about friendly microbes?

Transgenic crops come with a range of biosafety concerns, which are contested because the discussion of such crops is highly polarized. Researchers of the Indian Agriculture Research Institute (IARI), in a recent study, said Bt-cotton may affect soil microbes and nutrients available to the plants. "The Bt toxin has the potential to enter the soil through root secretion and from decaying roots where it comes in direct contact with soil microbes," said Keshav Raj Kranthi, senior scientist at the Central Institute for Cotton Research in Nagpur.

Bt cotton has the genetic sequence called cry1Ac, which produces the Bt toxin that kills bollworms, serious cotton pests. While Bt bacterium occurs naturally in soil (about 0.25 grammes per hectare), transgenic Bt crops increase the Bt toxin amount (to 650 grammes per hectare), the study said.

The IARI researchers compared the behaviour of microbes in soil under Bt cotton varieties and non Bt cotton varieties, both developed by Mahyco Research Centre. In the experimental setup, they grew the crops in porcelain pots and applied urea and phosphate nutrients.

They found lower activity of certain soil enzymes (called dehydrogenase) in the soil growing Bt cotton compared to that with non-Bt cotton.

Dehydrogenase enzymes indicate microbial population in soil; a drop in their activity means partially inhibited microbial activity, the study said.

"Higher Bt toxin concentration in the root zone of Bt cotton plant could have made conditions unfavourable for certain groups of microbes," said T J Purakayastha, one of the authors of the paper published in the Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science (Vol 194, No 04). The study also found lower soil respiration rate in Bt cotton soil. Soil respiration is another indicator of biological activity, including that of soil microbes. The researchers were not sure of the process in which the Bt toxin may affect microbial activity. It could be due to changes in the root secretions important to soil microbes, they said. This, in turn, could be due to changes in the composition of substances found in plants.

Lower nitrogen

In terms of nutrient availability, the study found Bt cotton soil had lower mineral nitrogen than in non-Bt cotton soil. The researchers said Bt cotton has the tendency to take up more nitrogen compared to non-Bt cotton. Several factors affect nitrogen availability in soil during the cotton plant's growth. For example, its nutrient demand is the highest when the cotton bolls are in the formation stage; this stage leaves less nitrogen in the soil.

The study did not find any significant difference in the boll formation - or their weight - in both the cases. So they ruled out the possibility of the difference stemming from the higher nitrogen uptake during boll formation. "While there was no incidence of bollworm attack either on non-Bt or Bt cotton setup, nitrogen-deficient soils under Bt cotton may have restricted better performance," said Purakayastha.

Reduced microbial activity could have also affected nitrogen availability in soil as the microbes make nitrogen available to plants, the scientists said. "In similar studies, we didn't find significant difference in microbial activities in soils of central India," Kranthi said.

Hormones dwindling in milk
Wal-Mart, Kroger among stores selling rBST-free product*

Journal Star, October 20 2008 [shortened]
Full story at: http://www.pjstar.com/business/x1302069204/Hormones-dwindling-in-milk

PEORIA - Maybe the new slogan for milk should be "Got hormones?"

Increasingly, the answer is no as giant retailers like Wal-Mart and Kroger now only sell milk without the artificial growth hormone rBST.

The hormone, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1993, increases milk production in cows but has come under fire from critics who cited health risks.

About 18 percent of U.S. dairy cows receive the hormone, according to industry statistics.

"In selling rBST-free milk, we are providing our customers with the milk they've requested," said spokeswoman Caren Epstein for Wal-Mart, the nation's largest grocery retailer with more than 4,000 stores.

"I put a lot of pressure on Wal-Mart about milk," said Dr. Samuel Epstein, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, generally regarded as the leader in the fight against hormone-treated milk.

In his 2006 book, "What's in Your Milk," Epstein said rBST produced high levels of insulin growth factor 1, which has been linked to higher risks of breast, colon and prostate cancer.

"The evidence is unarguable. (The hormone) also creates a wide range of toxic effects on cows," he said.

Epstein said he submitted a petition to the FDA last year calling for the agency to withdraw the hormone from the market. "I've received no response," he said.

Fred Rosenbohm, a Peoria dairy farmer with 120 cows, has watched the hormone controversy for years. "When Monsanto brought it out, it was sold as a way to get cows to make more milk. A lot of people used it. We never used it. I thought my cows were doing fine," he said.

"We have a lot of tours here," said Rosenbohm of Linden Hill Farms, located near the Gen. Wayne A. Downing Peoria International Airport. "The first thing the mothers ask is whether we use hormones or not," he said.

"It's a consumer-driven product and people don't seem to want it," said Rosenbohm.

After years of marketing the hormone as Posilac, St. Louis-based Monsanto recently sold the product to Elanco, a division of Eli Lilly Co. Monsanto spokesman Darren Wallis denied that the company got tired of defending its position.

Italy should lift GM ban - health minister

Reuters, 20 October 2008.

MILAN -- Italy should lift a ban on growing genetically modified crops, Welfare and Health Minister Maurizio Sacconi said on Monday.

'I think it's time to lift this de facto moratorium which has been in place for many years,' Sacconi told reporters on the sidelines of an international food forum.

Italy does not grow GM crops and opposes use of GM products because of concerns that crops whose genes have been altered, for example to provide higher yields, might contain hidden risks to health or the natural environment.

'(Italy) should apply the European principle of co-existence of different production technologies, without any bias against or in favour (of GMs),' Sacconi said.

All scientific research should be rigorously tested, he added.

(Reporting by Antonella Ciancio; editing by Sue Thomas)

Comment by GM-free Ireland

Italian farmers and consumers will never allow this to happen! Maurizio Sacconi was appointed to the job of Minister by Berlusconi. He is a member of the neo-fascist party Forza Italia, and has been compared to Nikita Krushev for banging his shoe on conference podia. His wife Enrica Giorgetti is the director-general of the agri-pharmaceutical industry lobby group Farmindustria. This conflict of interest has been criticised in an editorial by the science magazine Nature: Clean hands, please: The Italian government needs to maintain a careful distance from industry, Nature # 454, 667, 7 August 2008
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7205/full/454667b.html

19 October 2008

India: Killer Bt. Cotton fails again in Vidarbha

Merinews, 19 October 2008. Narendra Ch.

THE KILLER Bt.cotton has once gain failed in the Vidarbha region in Maharashtra as 60 per cent of the standing crop which was earlier affected by the mealy bug has now been destroyed by a "Lalya attack" that suddenly appeared in rain fed areas where standing Bt. cotton crop gets completely damaged.

The helpless farmers vexed with the government's lack of initiative are now threatening to go on a "fast unto death" agitation from October 26 demanding immediate action at least by opening centres for procurement to stop falling prices.

Meanwhile, nine more suicide by farmers has been reported in the last three days. This year the damage is much larger as areas under Bt.cotton cultivation is under more than 12 lakh hectares and losses are to the tune of Rs.2000 crore. All victims of farm suicides belong to backward Dalit and tribal families who were in debt and in acute financial crisis due to sudden crop failure.

Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti president Kishor Tiwari said the government also failed to come to the rescue of the farmers by providing remunerative price to their remaining crops. According to him in the last fortnight cotton prices have fallen from Rs.3200 per quintal to Rs.2300 per quintal and local traders have started cotton procurement below the minimum support price MSP.

He said the farmers are forced to sell the cotton at throw away prices in distress sales as the Maharashtra government failed to start its procurement centres on October 2 as announced earlier. In addition, there is no action at the level of the state run cotton marketing federation to start its centres before Diwali. He said that cotton growers will face huge losses resulting in more suicides in Vidarbha.

He said that if the government failed to procure the farmers' cotton at MSP then its move to raise the MSP would be ridiculed and will create more complications to the existing agrarian crisis.

India: Farmer suicides in Vidarbha

[taken from GMWatch's Weekly Watch 261]

Dr Julian Little of the biotech industry's Agricultural Biotechnology Council wrote to the Independent on Sunday to say Charles's claims [of suicides amongst Indian farmers growing GM crops] were emotive and not based on facts. So here are some facts for Dr Little to ponder.

•

Vidharbha Jan Andolan Samiti, the farmers' NGO on the ground in Vidharbha, has consistently reported that it is Monsanto-Mahyco's Bt cotton that the majority of cotton farmers have been growing in Vidarbha who've taken their own lives. Vidarbha is the main cotton belt of Maharashtra - the state in India where there has been the biggest uptake of Bt cotton by farmers.

•

The failure of Bt cotton in the main cotton growing area of Vidarbha has even been confirmed by the (pro-GM) Maharashtra agriculture minister Balasaheb Thorat. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Nagpur/Bt_cotton_has_failed_in_Vidarbha/articleshow/2030488.cms

•

Aruna Rodrigues, who led the recent public interest lawsuit to stop GM releases in India, included data on the suicide problem among Bt cotton farmers in sworn evidence before the Supreme Court of India.

•

The terrible problems with Bt cotton have also been attested to by the world-renowned Indian development journalist Palagummi Sainath from his on the ground investigations and from official reports. http://www.thehindu.com/2006/11/25/stories/2006112502891100.htm

P Sainath has called the impact of Monsanto in Maharashtra "devastating" and the hyping of expensive Bt cotton seed to debt-laden farmers there who are overwhelmingly cultivating cotton in dry unirrigated conditions, "murderous... stupid... killing."
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main19.asp?filename=Ne090906The_relief_CS.asp

Marker Assisted Selection (MAS)

Independent on Sunday (Letters), 19 October 2008.

The Prince of Wales has every scientific as well as social, ethical and moral justification for rejecting GM crops as a way to meet the world's food needs. GM crop technology is a crude and imprecise process that always disrupts natural plant host gene functions with unpredictable and unknown consequences. It is therefore not surprising to find that GM crops have failed to deliver on their promises of improved yields. There already exist numerous underexploited, highly nutritious, versatile and tasty crops such as African rice, finger and pearl millet, fonio and tef that are naturally adapted to grow on marginal land and under harsh conditions and which can meet world food requirements as the ravages of climate change take a deeper hold.

If new crop varieties are needed, then traditional plant cross-breeding augmented with the biotechnology tool of Marker Assisted Selection (gene mapping), to guide and accelerate this process is a safe and more powerful way forward. MAS helps us to work with rather than against nature's functioning as the Prince of Wales generally suggests, and can produce new varieties of crops with genetically complex properties such as enhanced nutrition and taste, pest or blight resistance, drought resistance, salt tolerance and higher yields, which is currently beyond a GM approach.

Dr Michael Antoniou
King's College London School of Medicine
London SE1, UK

17 October 2008

USA: Seed company has expensive monopoly

Des Moines Register (Letters), October 17 2008

Iowa farmers are at a disadvantage. In the face of historic fuel costs, farmers are paying higher seed prices with less choice in the marketplace. Monsanto controls more than 90 percent of the market in many important crop genetics.

The company has raised prices drastically every year with no competition, taking money from farmers' pockets and rural Iowa's economy.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller has been investigating Monsanto's market practices to determine whether it violates antitrust laws. Everything in agriculture begins with the seed.

If Miller can find a way to return competitive prices and innovation to Iowa's seed market, he will have done a great service to Iowa agriculture.

- Chris Petersen, Iowa Farmers Union president, Clear Lake

EU Environment Council to discuss tightening GMO regulations

European Union MEMO/08/635, 17 October 2008:
Preparation Environment Council, 20 - 21 October 2006

[This is one item from the agenca for the Council of Environment Ministers meeting on 20-21 October]

Genetically modified organisms

The Council will hold a policy debate on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The EU regulates the placing on the market and the production of genetically modified food, feed and crops, to ensure that only GMOs that are safe for human and animal consumption and for release into the environment can be placed on the market. The Environment Council discussed changes to the procedures in March this year and again in June.

The debate will be guided by three questions tabled by the Presidency focusing on:

•

strengthening the environmental assessment of GMOs, and the question of the mandate given to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to establish new guidelines to take full account of the long-term environmental risk;

•

the possibility of developing a framework to identify relevant socio-economic criteria for inclusion in the GMO authorisation process; and

•

the need for greater protection for sensitive areas at risk of contamination from GMOs.

Union of Concerned Scientists, Consumers Union bash new rule for GE crops

Natural Foods Merchandiser, 17 October 2008. By David Accomazzo.

The Union of Concerned Scientists and the Consumers Unions denounced the United States Department of Agriculture's proposed rules for regulating plants genetically modified to produce pharmaceutical compounds last week.

The USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service issued a rule on Oct. 6 governing the use of genetically engineered plants that Cindy Smith, administrator of APHIS, called "the most comprehensive review and revision of our biotechnology regulations since they were first developed in 1987."

The UCS's concerns lie in the area of food crops genetically engineered to produce medicines or industrial materials, the so-called "pharma" crops that the organization says have been grown in 35 states for more than a decade.

"Food crops such as corn, soybeans, rice, peas, barley and safflower have been engineered to produce human and veterinary drugs, hormones, plastics, detergents and other pharmaceutical and industrial substances. Never intended for general public consumption, these chemicals may be harmful if accidentally ingested in food," the organization's Web site said.

Critics of genetic engineering for pharmaceutical and industrial purposes say that planting crops in the open air opens up countless ways for the engineered strain to cross over into the food supply. Insects could pollinate crops meant for human consumption with genetically engineered pollen, for example, or the seed for one could be inadvertently mixed with the other.

"Under the proposed rules, USDA's new motto is 'Only safe levels of drugs in U.S. food.' If these proposals are enacted into law, American consumers must accept the possibility of drugs in their breakfast cereal or other common foods. Moreover, these rules likely will lead to contamination scares, which will hurt the food industry," UCS's Food and Environment Program Deputy Director Jane Rissler said in a press release. "The USDA proposal, unlike the ban we recommended, offers no incentives to drug companies to pursue already existing, safer methods for producing drugs."

The Consumer's Union also denounced the new regulations, saying the new rules might allow the USDA to classify any new pharma plants in ways so that they would receive less oversight than they do now.

"There appears to be a loophole in the regulation which might allow that the plants be regulated less than they are now," Michael Hansen, senior scientist at the Consumers Union, said.

The rule in question states that based on the agency's experience, many new proposals for pharma crops would "carry the same [previous] level of oversight."

"Right now, the current level requires that everything be in this [high-risk] categorization, so going forward, they say that some would fall into low or moderate risk, and that's a decision that would be made be the USDA," Michael Hansen, senior scientist at the Consumers Union said, adding, "I think their current requirements are inadequate."

The UCS points out that there are other alternatives to growing plants outdoors, such as growing in greenhouses or growing in subculture tanks, which Hansen agrees would to be a safer alternative.

"Our position is that if they want to use [pharma crops], they can use subculture systems," Hansen said.

The rule will be open for public comment until Nov. 24.

Campaign against GM food launched

Express News Service (India), 17 October 2008.

BANGALORE: Protesting against the fast and uncontrolled spread of GM food, a people's campaign - 'I am no lab rat' - was launched by Greenpeace in coordination with Sahaja Samrudha and Samveda on the occasion of World Food Day on Thursday.

Actress Ramya launched the campaign and later signed a petition to the Union Health Minister, opposing GM food.

Briefing mediapersons about the threat to our health and food safety, Krishna Prasad of Sahaja Samrudha, an NGO that works in the field of organic agriculture said: "Karnataka is the mostpreferred destination for the GM crop companies, since BT cotton came here. Thanks to the pro-GM policies of the State government, many companies have invested in the State on research and development".

The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) which is the regulatory authority for GM food has permitted the field trials across the country. The bio-safety of GM crop is given the least importance which is a serious issue.

Even after two years of field trials, there is no analysed data on the bio-safety of any of the 169 GM food crops selected for research.

Also, the Food Safety and Standards Authority has so far not done anything to allay public fears on the safety of GM food, he added.

Surya Malickal from Greenpeace said that the campaign follows the apparent green signal from GEAC about the safety of the first GM crop, brinjal.

"There have been no longterm studies done to indicate the safety of the first GM crop, but at the international level, GM food has been either banned or strict restrictions implemented," she said.

Further, Surya said: "We are subjected to an experiment which is the result of genetic exchanges between plants and animals. Consumers will lose their choice and be forced to buy such food if no action is taken to ban it completely."

16 October 2008

The Forgotten Crisis:
As Banks Are Rescued, Will the World's Hungry Be Overlooked?

Der Spiegel Online, 16 October 2008.

A dramatic increase in food prices over the last year has pushed nearly a billion people to the brink of starvation. The international aid organization Oxfam warns in a new report that the global financial crisis could exacerbate the situation.

As markets plunge around the world and rich countries become increasingly preoccupied with the global financial crisis, 923 million around the world are going hungry waiting for their own multibillion dollar rescue plan.

According to a new study released on Thursday by the international aid organization Oxfam, the world hunger crisis threatens to slip entirely under the radar as developed countries grow more and more obsessed with the turmoil in financial markets. "At the same time when billions of dollars are being allocated to address the financial crisis, it seems as if the world hunger crisis has been totally forgotten," said Marita Wiggerthale, an expert with Oxfam Germany told SPIEGEL ONLINE.

Last May, the prospects for fighting world hunger looked much brighter. At a conference held in Rome, industrialized nations pledged $12.3 billion to help combat the problem. So far, though, only $1 billion has been paid out. To put these figures in perspective, German Chancellor Angela Merkel that would commit up to §500 billion ($669 billion) to help bailout German banks and financial institutions.

A stark increase in food prices over the last year is putting an ever larger portion of the globe at risk for starvation. Over the last 14 months, for example, the price of rice has gone up 66 percent in Bangladesh while the price of wheat has doubled in Senegal and quadrupled in Somalia.

"Since families in developing countries spend almost two-thirds of their income on food, even a small increase in prices can push the poorest of the poor toward starvation," said Wiggerthale. And while "one might think that millions of farmers in poor countries would be benefiting from the recent climb in prices, but that's not happening." The reason, said Wiggerthale, is that farmers are consumers as well as producers of commodities. At the same time that food prices have risen, the cost of seed and fertilizer has also nearly tripled. That's why in countries such as Zambia and Malawi, the poverty rate is rising twice as fast in the countryside as in cities.

The United Nations estimates it would require between $25 billion and $40 billion to effectively respond to the world hunger crisis. The measures taken so far, according to Oxfam, are "totally inadequate."

Still, not everyone is feeling the squeeze from soaring food prices. Several big multinational corporations linked to agriculture are having banner years. Nestle's revenues were up nine percent in the first half of 2008, while sales at British supermarket giant Tesco climbed 10 percent. The biggest winner of all might be agribusiness giant Monsanto: Its profits for the first quarter amounted to $3.6 billion, a 26 percent spike over last year.

Reported by Petra Sorge.

Comment by GM Watch:

The above article notes that while the "dramatic increase in food prices over the last years has pushed nearly a billion people to the brink of starvation", Monsanto has emerged a big winner: "Its profits for the first quarter amounted to $3.6 billion, a 26 percent spike over last year."

What it fails to point out, however, is that the World Bank is amongst many who've identified the key catalyst for global food price inflation as the push to use food for fuel - a policy debacle that Monsanto has lobbied for almost harder than anybody, even when it became crystal clear what a disaster it was for the world's poor. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri-adm-monsanto-jul25,0,4202606.story

In other words, Monsanto has been a key player in creating the global food crisis that it's profited from so handsomely. It's simultaneously used the crisis as a PR opportunity to punt GM foods!

This is disaster capitalism at its very best (read: worst). What a shame for the banks that they didn't hit on such a winning formula! Still, unlike the starving, they've had a multibillion dollar bail out. Monsanto of course has also enjoyed a massive level of corporate welfare c/o the Bush administration's massive ethanol subsidies.

USA: Farmers see grain profits disappear: Prices have fallen below cost of production

Messenger-Enquirer (Owensboro, Kentucky), 16 October 2008. By James Mayse.

The economic hurricane trashing Wall Street has done more than demolish 401(k) plans: It has also created a nightmare scenario for corn and soybean farmers.

Corn and soybean market prices have crashed in the past three weeks, falling 24 percent since Sept. 26. The market price Wednesday for corn in Daviess County was under $4 per bushel, a far cry from the $5.50 purchase price in August -- and worlds away from June, when corn was bringing more than $7 a bushel.

Not so long ago, it seemed like farmers who grew either corn or soybeans were guaranteed a hefty profit. But no one counted on a stock market tornado and financial chaos. Now, instead of making a profit, farmers won't earn enough from their corn and soybean to even recover the cost of planting and harvesting the crop.

"For now, the boom is over," said Chris Hurt, an agricultural economist with Purdue University. "The issue is one of fear, almost, for portions of the ag sector -- the cropping sector in particular."

World demand for U.S. corn and soybeans coupled with increased interest in biofuels like soy diesel and corn ethanol combined to drive up corn prices for much of the year. But high fuel prices drove up the cost of planting and fertilizing the crops.

"The corn and soybeans being harvested now are below costs" of production, Hurt said.

Purdue agricultural economists estimate, when all forms of production costs are factored in, it cost farmers $4 per bushel to grow corn this year, while the market price for corn in Daviess County was $3.80 per bushel Wednesday.

The estimated production cost of soybeans is $9 per bushel, but the market price for soybeans Wednesday was $8.50 per bushel.

The projections for 2009 had been for a substantial increase in crop production costs, Hurt said. If that holds true, farmers will have to make major adjustments to how they grow grain crops, such as cutting back on fertilizer use and curbing the movement toward genetically modified grain.

"Everything has shifted (since) Sept. 26 from, 'everything is going fine,' ... to 'now, we can't even cover our costs for 2008, and we're in a terrible situation for 2009,' " Hurt said.

The economic downturn has brought oil prices tumbling, which will help farmers next year if gasoline prices are lower than they were in 2008. But that doesn't necessarily mean economic conditions will improve for American grain producers.

Global demand for U.S. grain has been high in recent years, and a relatively weak dollar meant other countries could purchase more American corn and soybeans with their currency. But a worldwide recession will likely mean other nations will purchase less American grain.

Also, the dollar is gaining strength against other currencies, so countries that do buy grain from the United States will have less purchasing power than before, Hurt said. If those conditions are sustained, exports of U.S. beef and pork will also decline.

"We probably are seeing a lot of worry (from) the livestock and animal sector," Hurt said.

Cattle futures have declined 9 percent since Sept. 26, and pork futures have decreased 8 percent. While market prices have fallen for livestock producers, there is at least one bright side.

"The prices for feed are falling much faster" than cattle and hog prices, Hurt said. When competition for grain was causing corn prices to spike, livestock producers were forced to pay exorbitantly high prices for feed grain. Falling corn prices give livestock farmers some relief.

There isn't any federal help for grain producers, at least not at this time. Although there are federal programs to compensate farmers when grain falls below a given floor, prices will have to fall a great deal more before such programs kick in, said Dan Styke, of the Daviess County Farm Service Agency.

For farmers to receive "loan deficiency payments," corn prices would have to fall below $2.11 per bushel, the designated price floor (or "loan rate"), Styke said. The loan rate for soybeans is $5.20 per bushel, Styke said.

Farmers who own land saw the value of their farm properties increase 78 percent between 2004 and 2008, Hurt said. "The really good news is U.S. agriculture did not take on a lot of new debt," Hurt said.

Farmers preparing for the 2009 growing season should not lock in fuel and fertilizer prices now, Hurt said. Those prices will likely decrease and seed companies may offer incentives to farmers. Rent for farmland may also decline, as a reflection of falling grain prices.

Much of the demand for corn was driven by the ethanol industry. With the downturn, the newest ethanol plants are surviving on meager margins.

"Since June, they've lost a lot of money," Hurt said. "All summer and this fall, their margins have been razor thin, especially the new plants."

New Generation of Drug-Producing GM Crops More Dangerous To Environment

Coastal Post, Marin County, California, October 2008. By David Guttierez.

A new generation of genetically modified (GM) crops, engineered to produce pharmaceutical or industrial products and ingredients, poses an even more serious threat to health and the environment than older GM crops, the Union of Concerned Scientists has warned.

Presenting at the conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston, the group warned that the primary risk comes from the possibility of genetic contamination, in which the modified genes from a GM plant spread via normal cross-pollination to the same or closely related species of domestic or wild plants. This would lead to pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals potentially entering the food supply of humans and wildlife. Most commercial genetic engineering to date has focused on making food crops more resistant to herbicides or pests. Even this degree of modification has raised concerns about cross-pollination and contamination of non-modified varieties, and the health impacts this could have on humans and wildlife.

According to plant geneticist Paul Gepts of the University of California-Davis, it is essentially impossible to keep modified genes from spreading.

"Gene flow is really a regular occurrence among plants," Gepts said. "So if you put a gene out there, it's going to escape. It's going to go to other varieties of the same crop or to its wild relatives. It's clear that zero contamination is impossible at present."

In fact, a number of cases of contamination of non-GM crops with modified genes have been well-documented, leading in many cases to major economic losses as crops intended for food involuntarily found themselves in the same category as crops not approved for human consumption. And while no cases of human health problems from this contamination have ever been proven, the risk is expected to increase as large-scale cultivation of second-generation GM crops begins.

Largely a U.S. phenomenon, wide-scale planting of GM crops has mostly been rejected in Europe. Ironically, however, studies show that the European public feels less strongly negative about crops engineered for medical benefits - the very plants that are most dangerous.

"With the products we are talking about, there's the potential for [consequences] to be much more serious than what we have seen so far," said Robert Wisner of Iowa State University.

So-called "pharma" crops, or crops modified to produce pharmaceutical chemicals and ingredients, are becoming an increasingly popular area of research, and the biotechnology industry has been promoting their supposed benefits over conventional drug production methods. According to advocates of the technology, drug-producing plants could be grown cheaply in poorer countries, and edible drugs would eliminate the expensive need for refrigeration and a supply of sterile needles.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has already allowed outdoor test trials of these crops in 35 states. This means that genetic contamination may already have occurred, and would certainly worsen if large-scale commercial farming begins.

Among the chemicals produced by pharma crops are disease treatments, anticoagulants, artificial blood, hormones, enzymes and antibodies intended to target tooth decay or cancer. Another popular area of research is "edible vaccines," or plants engineered to deliver a vaccine when eaten.

A related area of research is into plants that produce industrial or research chemicals, such as substances used to manufacture plastics, detergents, paper and personal care products. Other chemicals engineered into plants include laboratory diagnostic chemicals and enzymes used in biofuel manufacture.

The Union of Concerned scientists has warned that many of the chemicals produced in these plants are toxic or otherwise bioactive.

"What would be the impact societally, economically, if for example, cornflakes were contaminated by some sort of drug or chemical?" asked Karen Perry Stillerman, senior food and environment program analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "I think it's really hard to say, because there is a variety of different drugs and chemicals that might be manufactured in plants this way. Our perception is that some of them might be toxic, but all of them would certainly cause tremendous economic upheaval."

It is for this reason that both the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Food Products Association have expressed concerns about the possibility of pharma and industrial genetic contamination of the food supply.

The USDA is currently revising its GM crop guidelines, with new rules expected by the end of the year. In response to this ongoing process, the Union of Concerned Scientists has urged the USDA to ban all outdoor cultivation of GM pharma and industrial crops, if the species modified is also one used for food production.

This ban would not go as far as the measures some people say are needed. According to Gepts, outdoor cultivation poses the greatest contamination risk, because pollen and seeds can be carried to other locations by wind, birds and other animals, and even from falling on farm machinery. He says that growing crops in greenhouses or underground, or using non-food crops such as tobacco, would eliminate much of this contamination.

It would still be possible, however, for pollen or seeds to be carried out of a greenhouse on someone's clothing. And the Union of Concerned Scientists acknowledges that while cultivating non-food pharma crops outdoors would reduce the risk of food contamination, it might still place wildlife at risk.

"If these crops are grown out of doors, grazing wildlife, pollinators, herbivorous insects, and soil microbes will be exposed to pharma/industrial compounds that may have adverse effects," the organization writes on its Web site. "The crops could also outcross with wild and weedy relatives, perpetuating the pharma/industrial transgenes in nearby ecosystems."

EU's Vassiliou: no need to change GM zero tolerance

Reuters / Thomson Financial News, 16 October 2008.

LIMASSOL, Cyprus - Europe's food safety chief said on Thursday she did not believe there was any need to change the European Union's 'zero tolerance' policy on unauthorised genetically modified material in food imports.

EU Health Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou said her team believed any potential trade problems were sufficiently addressed by one import permit that was recently issued by the EU executive, and a second permit that was in the pipeline.

'My cabinet advises me that there is no need at this point to change the zero tolerance because we have already approved one event, we are in the process of approving a second event.

'With these approvals there will be no problem regarding trading,' Vassiliou said, speaking on the sidelines of an EU agriculture conference in Limassol, Cyprus.

The EU has approved a string of GM products, mainly maize types, by default legal rubberstamps since 2004.

But so far, it does not permit the presence of other GMOs approved and cultivated in other non-EU countries, in even tiny amounts, until the EU has also approved that specific product.

Vassiliou said her cabinet would soon be comparing notes with the cabinet of Mariann Fischer Boel, the EU's agriculture commissioner.

'If in the future, and after we compare figures, we see that there is (a need to change the policy) we have already done our homework and would be ready to do that,' she said.

Europe's livestock industry has been pushing for the European Commission to propose changes to existing EU policy, claiming that the sector will face hefty losses next year if 'zero tolerance' continues. Any such proposal, however, would also have to be approved by the bloc's 27 agriculture ministers.

'We are not changing the zero tolerance, but we are trying to find a practical way of estimating the presence of GMOs,' Vassiliou said.

Green groups are lobbying hard for the EU not to change its position on unauthorised GMOs. It says warnings are industry scaremongering designed to foist more biotech products onto European markets.

(Editing by Michael Roddy) Keywords: EU GMO/THRESHOLD

Fighting Hunger conference asked to reject GM crops

GM-free Ireland press release, World Food Day, 16 October 2008.
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI43.pdf

Dublin, Ireland -- Non Governmental Organisations called on Kofi Annan, the former U.N. Secretary General, and Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, to oppose GM crops which are being touted as necessary to feed the growing population of the world's developing countries at the Fighting Hunger Conference [1] which took place here as part of World Food Day.

The African Centre for Biosafety, Greenpeace International, Friends of the Earth, and GM-free Ireland said patented GM crops are part of the unsustainable industrial agribusiness model that makes farmers more reliant on Monsanto and other giant agri-biotech companies which force them to buy GM seeds along with the chemicals to make them work. "Europe has rejected GM crops because of their genetic, health, agronomic, environmental, legal, economic and food security risks. Promoting their release in developing countries is not acceptable." [2]

Corporate food control

The Fighting Hunger conference is hosted by the Irish aid agency Concern Worldwide [3], with speakers from the U.N. World Food Programme, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPR), the Earth Institute at Columbia University in New York [4], along with the Irish Government Departments of Foreign Affairs and Overseas Development [5]. Although most of these bodies now accept the scientific evidence that current GM crops do not increase yields, many of them are reluctant to oppose funding and field trials for "second generation" GM varieties which the industry hopes will have higher yields, drought resistance, and improved nutrition, or GM pharma cash crops which could produce agrofuels and industrial chemical commodities for the export markets:

•

Kofi Annan who chairs the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), previously said "We in the Alliance will not incorporate GMOs in our programmes. We shall work with farmers using traditional seeds known to them." [6] But AGRA is funded by the Rockefeller and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations which promote GM crops, and documents confirm that AGRA's policy is to "keep the door open" on GMOs. [7]

•

Tom Arnold, the conference chair and CEO of Concern, claimed GM crops have "a role to play in increasing global food security" at the BioVision 2008 conference hosted by European Action on Global Life Sciences (a task force of the European Federation of Biotechnology sponsored by Monsanto). [8]

•

Prof Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Insitute at Columbia University recently said more funding is needed for research into improved non-GMO seed varieties that are drought and "climate-proof", but also called for African leadership to host field trials of new GM crops intended for the same purpose. [9]

•

The UN World Food Programme [10], NEPAD [11] and the International Food Policy Research Institute [12] have also failed to end their support for GM crops.

Empowering local communities to decide their food and farming future

Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland said "It is regrettable that the participants at the Fighting Hunger conference appear to ignore the recommendations of the U.N. International Assessment of Agriculture, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), endorsed by 60 governments and 400 scientists around the world, which found that GM crops will not achieve the Millennium Development Goals or eradicate hunger". The report stresses the need for sustainable and organic agriculture, integrated with traditional local farming knowledge carried out with the full involvement of small farmers to protect their food security. [13]

Mariam Mayet, CEO of the Africa Centre for Biosafety [14] said "GMOs, the Green Revolution for Africa and Food Aid are part of the problems that caused the structural meltdown which led to the current global crisis. They undermine Africa's food systems and food sovereignty, people's right to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agricultural systems".

Marco Contiero of Greenpeace International [15] said: "GM technology, and the industrial system it maintains, increases dependence on expensive farm chemicals, decreases biodiversity through commodity crop monocultures, denies people a balanced diet, and destroys the environment on which we all depend. It increases dependence on the companies that supply the technology and the countries that supply the loans to pay for it. GM crops extend all the worst practices of industrial agriculture. Perversely, their widespread adoption would lead to more hungry people - not fewer."

The Columban missionary Fr. Seán McDonagh, who works with farming communities in developing countries, said: "Patented GM crops lead to corporate privatisation of farmers seeds and land, exacerbate poverty, bankrupt farmers, and drive millions of subsistence farmers off the land to lives of misery and degradation in megacity slums. Ending hunger requires good scientific research to meet the needs of local people in local ecosystems, diversified crop production, land reform, more available credit for farmers, and a shift away from export-oriented cash crops to production of local food. GM crops are a giant step in the wrong direction." [16]

Helen Holder of Friends of the Earth said: "Instead of helping the GM industry to cash-in on the food crisis, the time has come for development aid agencies to fund a radical shift towards sustainable farming systems." [17]

[ENDS]

Contact:

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

Notes to the editor:

1. The Fighting Hunger Conference was videotaped and will soon be made available on DVD. Conference website: http://www.concern.net/what-you-can-do/fundraising-events/a1000227/Fighting-hunger-conference.html Concern invited senior policy makers from developing countries, particularly those in Africa, and from donor countries, including Ireland, UK, US and EU. Senior representatives from the business community, academia, media and NGOs also attended. Conference speakers included:

•

Kofi Annan, Chaiman of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)

•

Peter Power TD, Minster of State for Overseas Development, Ireland

•

Mary Robinson, Elder and former President of Ireland. Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

•

Boitshepo Giyose, Food and Nutrition adviser for African Union's New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD).

•

Jeffrey Sachs, former adviser to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Director, the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

•

Joachim von Braun, Director General, International Food Policy Research Institute

•

Tom Arnold, Chief Executive Officer, Concern Worldwide

•

Jim Miley, Chairman of Concern Worldwide

•

Brendan Rogers, Director General, Irish Aid/Development Cooperation Division, Department of Foreign Affairs

•

Sheila Sisulu, Director, World Food Programme

•

Akin Adesina, Vice President, Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)

•

Agnes Abera Kalibata, State Minister for Agriculture in Rwanda

2. The organisations which critiqued the Fighting Hunger conference are:

•

African Centre for Biosafety: http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/A>

•

Greenpeace International: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering

•

Friends of the Earth: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Index.htm

•

GM-free Ireland Network: http://www.gmfreeireland.org

All of these NGOs say that GM crops are not a solution to hunger or poverty. Despite more than a decade of commercialization there are no GM crops that increase yields or resist droughts. Areas where GM crops are grown widely have seen a drastic reduction in numbers of small farmers.

3. Concern Worldwide: http://www.concern.net. Their CEO Tom Arnold is also chairman of the European Food Security Group, and a member of the Irish Government Hunger Task Force.

4. Organisations whose speakers represented them at the Fighting Hunger conference include:

•

U.N. World Food Programme: http://www.wfp.org

•

Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA): http://www.agra-alliance.org

•

New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD): http://www.nepad.org

•

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPR): http://www.ifpri.org

•

The Earth Institute at Columbia University: http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/A>

5. On 2 September 2008, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Micheal Martin, launched a research programme between UCC's College of Science, Engineering and Food Science and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, which is well-known for promoting GM crops with funding from USAID. The institute, based in Nigeria with operations across sub-Saharan African, has been a partner of Irish Aid for many years. The Irish Government Department of Foreign Affairs also allowed Monsanto to join its team representing Ireland at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Canc™n in 2003 and again in December 2005, when Mella Frewen, Director of Government Affairs (Europe-Africa) at Monsanto Services International, joined the Irish Government Delegation to the WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong.

6. See "GMOs Ruled Out in Africa Hunger Fight", Kenyan Business Daily, 17 July 2007: http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1955&itemid=5811

7. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) was established in 2006 with an initial $150 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates and Rockefeller foundations, two organisations which promote GM crops in the developing countries. It is widely regarded as the flagship for industrial agribusiness and related intellectual property regimes required as a pre-cursor for the subsequent introduction of patented GM crops

The AGRA Statement on Plant Breeding and Genetic Engineering states: (http://www.agra-alliance.org/section/about/genetic_engineering)

"AGRA is not at this time funding the development of new varieties through the use of genetic engineering"

"We do not preclude future funding for genetic engineering as an approach to crop variety improvement when it is the most appropriate tool to address an important need of small-scale farmers and when it is consistent with government policy."

"Our mission is not to advocate for or against the use of genetic engineering. We believe it is up to governments, in partnership with their citizens, to use the best knowledge available to put in place policies and regulations that will guide the safe development and acceptable use of new technologies, as several African countries are in the process of doing. We will consider funding the development and deployment of such new technologies only after African governments have endorsed and provided for their safe use."

8. Concern CEO Tom Arnold attended the BioVision conference organised by the agri-biotech lobby group European Action on Global Life Sciences (EAGLES) in April 2008, where he said "You can't rule out the possibility of GM foods, in the longer term, having an increasing role to play in food security" and "There has to be a potential in some of this gene technology to breed shorter cycle or drought resistant plants." (Farm reform is key to battling hunger, Irish Times, 18 April 2008).

See EAGLES web site at http://www.efb-central.org/eagles/). Prof. David McConnell is the Co-Vice-Chairman. The Irish Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Prof Patrick Cunningham, is a member.

9. Jeffrey Sachs heads The Earth Institute at Columbia University (http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu). He is a former adviser to the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, and an adovocate of economic "shock therapy" in South America during the 1980s.

"Mr Sachs would also like to see more funding on research into improved seed varieties that are drought and 'climate-proof', as 'these climate shocks will continue to come.' However, he stressed that this meant conventional crops, along with increased use of fertilisers and small-scale irrigation, and not genetically modified organisms."
– Food aid alone will not solve global food crisis, economist tells EU. EU Observer, 7 May 2008.

"The European blanket, sometimes shrill, opposition definitely has a wear and tear effect in Africa. African leadership is often simply scared even to host the research for fears that this will prevent exports from their countries to European markets, even exports of conventionally produced crops. So there«s a lot of fear. There was a time when an emergency food shipment from the United States, the food that I eat every day, that was milled for flour, was turned back, reportedly on the fears of the national leadership that it had been produced by GMO crops, at a time when there was an intense famine. Now, this kind of response really won't do. It won't serve the needs of desperately poor people who need the best of our goodwill and efforts to help them to solve their problems."
– BBC Radio 4 programme "Costing the Earth" broadcast on 17 January 2008.

10. The U.N. World Food Programme ( distributed live GM seeds for African food aid until Zambia refused, and is now said to try only to distribute milled seeds as opposed to live GMOs.

"WFP has received donations of foods for use in southern Africa, some of which contain GMOs. Several governments in southern Africa have accepted these donated foods without reservation, and GM maize varieties are grown in the region. However, other Governments have expressed reservations on receiving food aid containing GMOs and have sought advice from the United Nations."

"Based on national information from a variety of sources and current scientific knowledge, FAO, WHO and WFP hold the view that the consumption of foods containing GMOs now being provided as food aid in southern Africa is not likely to present human health risk. Therefore, these foods may be eaten. The Organizations confirm that to date they are not aware of scientifically documented cases in which the consumption of these foods has had negative human health effects."

"If the national regulations of either a donor or recipient country place any restrictions on in-kind donations, purchase or receipt of GM/biotech foods, WFP fully honours those restrictions. If there are no such restrictions in force, WFP proceeds accordingly."

– WFP Policy on Donations of Foods Derived from Biotechnology (GM/Biotech Foods) WFP/EB.3/2002/4-C, 14 October 2002: http://www.wfp.org/eb/docs/2002/wfp011823~2.pdf

"The Joint United Nations Statement highlighted potential environmental issues related specifically to maize, but indicated clearly that, based on all scientific evidence available to date and national information, GM/biotech foods now marketed present no known risk to human health. The Statement also endorsed the basic principle in WFP's existing policy, that the acceptance or rejection of any such food donations is the prerogative of the recipient Government."

"The possibility of using GMO techniques to develop salt, drought and submergence-tolerant varieties of rice and other crops needs to be properly investigated through public sector institutions and the appropriate policy implemented."

– FAO / WFP crop and food supply assessment Mission to Bangladesh, Recommendations on agricultural policies, 28 August 2008 http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/liaison_offices/wfp188725.pdf

"According to FAO, primary challenges in budgeting in an HIV context include 'Difficulty procuring specialized foods. Specialized foods required by HIV-infected individuals can be difficult to procure because of higher costs and limited access due to restrictions on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and other import constraints.'"

– Food Assistance Programming In the Context of HIV, FAO September 2007 http://www.wfp.org/food_aid/doc/Food_Assistance_Context_of_HIV_Oct_edits.pdf

11. New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD): http://www.nepad.org

NEPAD proposed to set up a high-level African Panel on Biotechnology (APB) whose goals include to "Ensure that Africa adopts a proactive strategy to capture economic, health care, environmental, and industrial benefits from biotechnology and manage potential challenges, risks, and tradeoffs associated with the development, commercialisation and application of the technology."

– NEPAD statement on GMOs: Biotechnology and Sustainable Development in Africa: http://www.nepad.org/2005/files/documents/119.pdf

12. International Food Policy Research Institute: http://www.ifpri.org

"IFPRI does not advocate or take a general position on the utility and safety of GM crops" but "IFPRI is ... aware that some biotechnologies are controversial. We further know that while these technologies alone cannot solve the complex problems of hunger and poverty, some do have great potential to alleviate hunger and malnutrition and benefit poor populations in developing countries. Because this possibility exists, IFPRI believes it would be irresponsible not to assess the potential of genetically modified crops such as nutrient-enriched or drought-tolerant and disease-resistant crop varieties. At the same time, the Institute fully supports appropriate biosafety regulatory systems that are able to assess the risks."

– http://www.ifpri.org/about/aboutbio.asp

13. IAASTD:http://www.agassessment.org and Executive summary of the report: http://www.agassessment.org/docs/SR_Exec_Sum_210408_Final.pdf

14. The African Centre for Biosafety (http://www.biosafetyafrica.net) is a non profit organisation, based in Johannesburg South Africa. It provides authoritative, credible, relevant and current information, research and policy analysis on issues pertaining to genetic engineering, biosafety and biopiracy in Africa.

15. Marco Contiero is an international environmental lawyer who heads the Greenpeace campaign GM food and farming. See http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering

Greenpeace believes that food security - the ability of a community to feed itself consistently on a diverse diet - is a complex problem that will not be solved overnight: it depends on people having access to land and money. GM provides neither. Not only do GM crops not provide the solution, they also pose a threat of irreversible harm to the environment - the real basis of people's food security. The time has come to reject the false promise of GM and the agriculture industry and to support the real revolution in farming that meets the many needs of local communities and the environment, restores the land degraded by the agriculture industry, and helps the poor to combat their own poverty and hunger."

16. Fr. Seán McDonagh is a Dominican missionary priest and the author of the book Patenting Life? Stop! Is corporate greed forcing us to eat genetically modified food? Dominican Publications, Dublin, 2003. ISBN 1-871552-85-0. € 14.99 http://www.dominicanpublications.com

17. Helen Holder heads the Friends of the Earth Europe campaign on GMOs. For details see http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Index.htm

Today is World Food Day

The UK Food Group issued the following short statement to mark the United Nations' World Food Day:

Today is World Food Day. Or, as many organisations in developing countries are calling it, World Foodless Day, because the scourge of hunger is increasing. Nearly 1 billion people go hungry today, many of them farmers forced off their lands. The Millennium Development Goal of halving hunger is fadingð The way forward is to make deep rooted changes in how agriculture is practised, commodities are traded, and the food system is organized and regulated. The necessary changes, towards localised food sovereignty through sustainable production, were highlighted by the UN/World Bank international agricultural assessment (IAASTD) which our government approved in June. With hunger such a scar on humanity, why then does the government remain silent about implementing the findings of this landmark assessment?

Action Aid UK, War on Want, Friends of the Earth, Soil Association, Christian Aid, Practical Action, Econexus, GM Freeze, Find Your Feet, Garden Organic UK Food Group

Agriculture at a Crossroads:
Implementing the findings of the international agriculture assessment - IAASTD

UK Food Group meeting
30th October,
2:00-5.00pm, London

Sponsored by: Andrew George MP and Alan Simpson MP

Keynote speaker: Professor Bob Watson, Director IAASTD and DEFRA Chief Scientist

"Business as usual is not an optionð. continuing to focus on production alone will undermine our agricultural capital and leave us with an increasingly degraded and divided planet." Bob Watson, March 2008

This is a chance to learn about and discuss a very significant, UN/World Bank-sponsored report from the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) - http://www.agassessment.org and http://www.panna.org/jt/agAssessment.

IAASTD finds that unless agriculture and the way society engages with it is fundamentally changed, it will not be possible to feed the projected 9 billion world population, ensure equity and sustain the planet.

The UK government and 57 others have approved the IAASTD Summary and its Synthesis Report, which focuses on eight key themes ranging from bioenergy, trade and markets to traditional and local knowledge and community-based innovation, especially by women. Now is the time for implementation of its 22 Key Findings, which cover all aspects of food and agriculture policy, rural development and scientific research.

Date: 30th October
Time: 2:00-5:00pm
Place: Boothroyd Room, Portcullis House, Houses of Parliament, Westminster, London.

Agenda: Introduction by Andrew George MP; Keynote address by Prof Watson; Responses from Greenpeace and another IAASTD contributor (tbc); Questions; Discussion; Summing up.

Registration essential: please email geraldine@ukfg.org.uk you will then receive a formal invitation needed for security at Portcullis House

Further information: see http://www.ukfg.org.uk This meeting will be preceded by a UK Food Group members meeting at 1:00pm

Farmers' groups oppose Biosafety Bill

The Nation (Kenya), October 16 2008 [shortened]
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/-/1056/481134/-/tlfki0/-/

Farmers' groups have faulted the Biosafety Bill 2008, dismissing it as offering little to protect Kenyans from hunger, poverty and health concerns surrounding genetically-modified organisms.

The Kenya Biodiversity Coalition said that in formulating the Bill, the Government listened to multinational corporations instead of ordinary farmers.

To mark World Food Day on Thursday, they had planned a march in support of an alternate Bill, the Biosafety and Biotechnology Bill 2008, but were denied permission by the police.

"We are not going to relent," said Mr Paul Mutuku, representing Dagoretti Youth Network in the coalition.

"The Government's Biosafety Bill has not put adequate measures in place to protect Kenyan farmers and consumers."

The coalition is backing an alternate Bill tabled by Mr Silas Muriuki, the Imenti North MP. They say his Bill will ensure that agriculture is sustainable and food is safe to consumers.

"This process started from the top...there is a hand that is pushing the Biosafety Bill and that hand must be defeated," said Mr Sidney Quntai, the coalition coordinator.

He criticised the Bill for not curbing the impact of genetically modified food products, which he claimed caused cancer and diabetes.

He said the Government should subsidise farmers and find ways to reduce the price of fertiliser and other inputs.

In Trans Nzoia District, farmers held a similar protest against the planned introduction of genetically modified organisms.

The farmers, who marched on Kitale streets, asked MPs to reject the proposed Biosafety Bill, which they said seeks to commercialise genetic engineering.

Under the auspices of the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition Kitale Chapter, the farmers, led by Kitale chapter coordinator Wafula Waswa and his Butere counterpart, Mrs Isabel Wandati, said the Biosafety Bill would jeopardise livelihoods.

The farmers said seeds of genetically modified crops had brought diverse effects. The farmers claimed that maize seeds known as Pioneer, did not measure up to expectations.

Reported by Jami Makan, Sammy Cheboi and George Omonso

Over 40 NGOs stage protests against GMOs in Nairobi

African Press Agency, 16 October 2008

Nairobi (Kenya) - Over 40 Non Governmental Organizations, community groups and consumer associations under the auspices of the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, on Thursday staged peaceful protests in Nairobi condemning the government move to introduce Genetically Modified Organism (GMOs) in the country.

Addressing reporters in Nairobi, the organizations spokesman, Paul Mutuku said they are against the move by the country's agriculture minister, William Ruto, to introduce the GMO safety bill in parliament to introduce genetically modified technology in Kenya.

Mutuku said it has been proven that GMOs are harmful to human health and are opposed to the government intentions.

He pointed out that the government should instead invest massively in agriculture to boost productivity.

The agriculture minister last month disclosed that government intends to introduce GMOs in the country to fight looming food shortages.

15 October 2008

Bayer Faces 1,200 Rice-Damage Suits After Blocking Class Action

Bloomberg, 15 October 2008. By Andrew Harris and Margaret Cronin Fisk

Bayer AG's defeat of a bid by U.S. rice farmers to sue the company as a group doesn't end the matter. The German producer of genetically altered seeds still faces 1,200 individual claims of crop contamination.

Farmers in five states sued Bayer after the U.S. government in 2006 said trace amounts of modified rice being grown experimentally by the company in Louisiana were found in rice raised for consumption. U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry in St. Louis in August refused to allow the claims to be combined in class-action suits, one per state. She may set a date tomorrow for the first individual trial.

While the farmers lost group leverage for forcing settlements because of the ruling, they may regain it should Bayer lose early trials, said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who teaches tort and product-liability law and is an expert on federal courts and civil procedure.

If the facts are "very similar," early verdicts "might be applied to other cases" by the court, leaving only the amount of damages for juries to decide, Tobias said. "That ups the ante for the first few trials. It might push the pressure to settle."

Don Downing, a St. Louis-based lawyer for the growers, said in a court filing last year that damages might exceed $1 billion. The figure will be lower because class-action status was denied, he said this month, declining to estimate the total.

"We wouldn't feel comfortable until our experts are finished with their analysis," Downing, of the law firm Gray, Ritter & Graham, said in an interview.

2007 Profit

The $1 billion would be equivalent to 16 percent of Bayer's 2007 net income of 4.7 billion euros ($6.4 billion) and 13 percent of CropScience's sales of 5.8 billion euros.

Bayer lawyer Mark Ferguson in Chicago said it's impossible to know whether jury findings in one trial would be applied in another. The outcome "would depend on the specific case or issue involved and the precise facts and circumstances," he said.

Bayer yesterday closed at 45.3 euros, down 22 percent from a year earlier. The German Stock Index has fallen 35 percent in the same period as the global credit crisis pushed down shares.

Bayer's LibertyLink brand of genetically altered rice was being studied at Louisiana State University in an effort to create a crop that could be safely sprayed with a weed-killer, the U.S. Agriculture Department said. Two strains of LibertyLink were found amid commercially grown long-grain rice in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas and Missouri, the agency said.

The farmers blame Bayer, based in Leverkusen, Germany, and its CropScience unit for damages caused by temporary bans on two kinds of high-yield seeds, export restrictions and a plunge in prices that followed discovery of the contamination.

Not Approved

Because LibertyLink rice wasn't approved for human consumption, the European Union, Japan and Russia restricted its sale, according to the complaint.

Within four days of the 2006 announcement, a decline in rice futures had cost U.S. growers about $150 million, according to the farmers' complaint in federal court in St. Louis. News of the contamination caused futures prices to fall approximately 14 percent, and American rice exports also fell, the growers said.

Restrictions were eased after Bayer's rice was declared safe by the Agriculture Department in November 2006. There are no claims in the rice litigation that LibertyLink harmed or risked human health.

Only "minute" amounts of LibertyLink were found in U.S. crops, Bayer attorney Ferguson said.

"It's our view most of these plaintiffs didn't suffer market losses in selling their rice," said Ferguson, of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott in Chicago.

Record Prices

"There was a short time when rice futures prices dropped, but that doesn't necessarily translate to losses to farmers." Prices later rose to "record heights," he said.

Bayer, where the aspirin was invented in 1897 according to the company, is the world's seventh-largest seed maker as well as Germany's largest drugmaker. The 17,800-employee CropScience unit's sales of 5.83 billion euros were about 19 percent of Bayer's total of 32.39 billion euros, according to the company.

AnalystsAndrew Benson of Citigroup Inc. in London, Richard Logan of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Karl-Heinz Scheunemann of Landesbank Baden-W¸rttemberg in Stuttgart, who follow Bayer, said they haven't studied the cases and declined to comment.

Jeffrey LaFrance, a University of California agricultural economist in Berkeley, said rice prices rebounded rapidly after the taint was disclosed. Still, at least some of the 1,200 farmers suffered during the import-ban period, he said.

LaFrance played a role in U.S. litigation that ended six years ago as an expert for Aventis CropScience, a French company later bought by Bayer. Aventis was sued over crop contamination by genetically modified corn. Separate cases by growers and consumers were settled out of court for $119 million.

People who ate the tainted food, some of whom said they became nauseated, received $9 million worth of coupons for corn products, according to their lawyer, Krislov. The rest went to growers and their attorneys.

The case is In Re Genetically Modified Rice Litigation, 06- md-1811, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).

To contact the reporters on this story: Andrew Harris at the federal court in Chicago at aharris16@bloomberg.net; Margaret Cronin Fisk in Southfield, Michigan, at mcfisk@bloomberg.net.

Yo! No GMOs!
Non-GM seed and feed make a comeback

Grist, 15 Oct 2008. Lisa J. Bunin.

I recently met with members of Japan's Seikatsu Club Consumers' Cooperative (SCCC) in my office in San Francisco to discuss how to overcome the difficulties of obtaining certain non-GM products for its 1 million members. The 14-person delegation -- comprised of pig, chicken, cattle, and dairy producers for the co-op -- came to the U.S. in search of stable supplies of non-GM corn to feed its animals.

Like the 600 or so other co-ops that flourish across Japan -- providing food to more than 22 million people nationwide -- SCCC is dedicated to offering wholesome, non-GM foods at reasonable prices. Unfortunately, as my visitors explained, it is becoming increasingly difficult to purchase non-GM feed corn, so they traveled to the U.S. to meet with Midwestern farmers in hopes of securing feed contracts.

Although supplies of non-GM feed corn have decreased in recent years, there is renewed hope for those not wanting to consume foods from GM-fed livestock and poultry. Research suggests that the trend among U.S. farmers to grow GM livestock feed is decreasing.

This reversal began with the comeback of conventionally grown soybeans such as those developed at the University of Missouri Delta Research Center. Agronomists there are leading the charge to develop new, non-GM, conventional varieties for livestock feed in response to an upsurge in farmer demand for non-patented, non-GM soybean seeds. Their newly developed Jake and Stoddard soybeans not only exhibit an adaptability to different soil types, but they also resist cyst and root knot nematodes, pests that have become problematic for farmers ever since Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM seed became the dominant soybean planted.

The resurgence in farmer demand for non-GM soybeans is driven by economic necessity. As costs associated with growing GM soy have risen sharply, yields have stagnated and even fallen since the widespread introduction of RR seeds. All the while, the price of Roundup weed killer, required to be used with Monsanto's GM RR seeds, has steadily climbed from $15 a gallon to $40 or even $50 per gallon. Weed resistance to Roundup has upped the need to increase both the volume and toxicity of agrochemicals used by farmers to keep weeds in check. Add to this the growing annual cost of purchasing RR soybean seeds ($40 to $50 per 50-lb. bag, which covers roughly 2 acres) because Monsanto prohibits farmers from saving and planting its patented seeds, and GM soybeans are no longer economically viable for farmers.

Since non-GM crops receive a higher market price when grown for export, it's not surprising that farmers are looking for ways to tap into conventional and organic soybean export markets. Corn feed farmers may soon follow this same path, given the escalating costs associated with growing GM corn and the limited supplies and steady global demand for non-GM corn, as my Japanese visitors have experienced.

Consumer rejection of GM foods overseas continues to galvanize non-GM markets. And since most countries, Japan included, do not grow GM crops domestically, consumers in those countries know that their preferences can influence market supply. That's why SCCC representatives brought to the U.S. a statement from the "No! GMO Campaign," comprised of 53 farmer, consumer, and public interest groups opposing the U.S. cultivation of GM sugar beets and the import of its byproduct, beet pulp, for livestock feed. Their message to U.S. food and feed producers is clear: Beware of international market losses if GM sugar beets are used in products exported to Japan.

GM sugar beets are the newest major GM crop in the U.S. pipeline that could be added to food and feed as early as 2009. This is likely to happen unless the Center for Food Safety's lawsuit against the USDA prevails. If it does prevail, it would halt future plantings of GM sugar beets until USDA produces an Environmental Impact Statement, as required by law. And, if the Agency demonstrates that significant environmental and/or related economic impacts could result if GM sugar beets are planted, then USDA could prohibit the planting and market introduction of GM sugar beets. But if USDA decides not to take action, then it will be up to all of us to hold the Agency accountable.

The future of the GM food industry remains uncertain at best. And as history has shown, farmers and consumers have the power to keep GM crops at bay even in the face of tremendous economic and political pressures to do otherwise.

Mutant Seeds for Mesopotamia

Organic Consumers Association / Uruknet.de, 15 October 2008. By Andrew Bosworth, Ph.D.

* Straight to the Source

One would think that Iraqi farmers, now prospering under "freedom" and "democracy," would be able to plant the seeds of their choosing, but that choice, under little-known Order 81, would be illegal.

But first, it is important to set the context. Most people have never heard of the infamous "100 Orders," but they help explain why the majority of Iraqis remain opposed to foreign occupation. The 100 Orders allow multinational corporations to basically privatize an entire nation, and this degree of foreign and private control has not been witnessed since the days of the British East India Company and its extraterritoriality treaties.

A few examples of the 100 Orders are illuminating:

•

Order 39 allows for the tax-free remittance of all corporate profits.

•

Order 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, immunity from Iraq's laws.

•

Orders 57 and 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector general in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations. (1)

Back to one of the most blatant orders of all: Order 81. Under this mandate, Iraq's commercial farmers must now buy "registered seeds." These are normally imported by Monsanto, Cargill and the World Wide Wheat Company. Unfortunately, these registered seeds are "terminator" seeds, meaning "sterile." Imagine if all human men were infertile, and in order to reproduce women needed to buy sperm cells at a sperm bank. In agricultural terms, terminator seeds represent the same kind of sterility.

Terminator seeds have no agricultural value other than creating corporate monopolies. The Sierra Club, more of a mainstream "conservation" organization than a radical "environmentalist" one, makes the exact same case:

"This technology would protect the intellectual property interests of the seed company by making the seeds from a genetically engineered crop plant sterile, unable to germinate. Terminator would make it impossible for farmers to save seed from a crop for planting the next year, and would force them to buy seed from the supplier. In the third world, this inability to save seed could be a major, perhaps fatal, burden on poor farmers." (2)

What makes this Order 81 even more outrageous is that Iraqi farmers have been saving wheat and barley seeds since at least 4000 BC, when irrigated agriculture first emerged, and probably even to about 8000 BC, when wheat was first domesticated. Mesopotamia's farmers have now been trumped by white-smocked, corporate bio-engineers from Florida who strive to replace hundreds of natural varieties with a handful of genetically scrambled hybrids.

Where does such hubris come from? It comes from the entire mission surrounding the invasion of Iraq, which, upon closer inspection, had been planned years in advance by a faction of "neo-cons" who adopted Leon Trotsky's glorification of the state, his theory "permanent revolution," and his goal of exporting revolution worldwide. The neo-con revolution aims to alter the economic, political and cultural foundations of nations on the other side of the planet (rejecting old-fashioned notions of self-determination, popular sovereignty and even the nation-state system). This mission includes the transformation of agriculture and the establishment of "food control" over local populations.

Order 81 fits into this revolutionary program, and it is quite diabolical upon closer inspection. First, it forces Iraq's commercial farmers to use registered terminator seeds (the "protected variety"). Then it defines natural seeds as illegal (the "infringing variety"), in a classic Orwellian turn of language.

This is so incredible that it must be re-stated: the exotic genetically scrambled seeds are the "protected variety" and the indigenous seeds are the "infringing variety."

As Jeffrey Smith explains, author of Order 81: Re-Engineering Iraqi Agriculture:

"To qualify for PVP [Plant Variety Protection], seeds have to meet the following criteria: they must be 'new, distinct, uniform and stable'... it is impossible for the seeds developed by the people of Iraq to meet these criteria. Their seeds are not 'new' as they are the product of millennia of development. Nor are they 'distinct'. The free exchange of seeds practiced for centuries ensures that characteristics are spread and shared across local varieties. And they are the opposite of 'uniform' and 'stable' by the very nature of their biodiversity." (3)

Order 81 comes with the Orwellian title of "Plant Variety Protection." Any self-respecting scientist knows, however, that imposing biological standardization accomplishes the exact opposite: It reduces biodiversity and threatens species. So Order 81 comes with an Orwellian title and consists of Orwellian provisions.

Jeffrey Smith peels away the layers of mischief behind Order 81, finding it nonsensical that six varieties of wheat have been developed for Iraq:

"Three will be used for farmers to grow wheat that is made into pasta; three seed strains will be for 'breadmaking.'

Pasta? According to the 2001 World Food Programme report on Iraq, 'Dietary habits and preferences included consumption of large quantities and varieties of meat, as well as chicken, pulses, grains, vegetables, fruits and dairy products.' No mention of lasagna. Likewise, a quick check of the Middle Eastern cookbook on my kitchen shelves, while not exclusively Iraqi, reveals a grand total of no pasta dishes listed within it.

There can be only two reasons why 50 per cent of the grains being developed are for pasta. One, the US intends to have so many American soldiers and businessmen in Iraq that it is orienting the country's agriculture around feeding not 'Starving Iraqis' but 'Overfed Americans'. Or, and more likely, because the food was never meant to be eaten inside Iraq at all..." (4)

Just in case Iraqi farmer can't read, Order 81 enforces the new monopoly on seeds with the jackboot. Order 81 makes this clear in its own text, buried at the bottom of the document, as is most screw-you fine print:

"The court may order the confiscation of the infringing variety as well as the materials and tools substantially used in the infringement of the protected variety. The court may also decide to destroy the infringing variety as well as the materials and tools or to dispose of them in any noncommercial purpose." (5)

Order 81 is about power and profit, but it disguises itself as humanitarian legislation.

Topping it all off, the entire document puts on rather magisterial airs. It was signed by L. Paul Bremer himself, with his own hand, and presumably with his own pen:

"Pursuant to my authority as Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority..."

Like the Roman Proconsuls, Paul Bremer also spent a year in the provinces, governing the so-called barbarians...

– The above is an excerpt from Andrew Bosworth's new book: Biotech Empire: The Untold Future of Food, Pills, and Sex, available at Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Biotech-Empire-Untold-Future-Pills/dp/1606434535/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223777270&sr=8-1

– Andrew Bosworth, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of Government at the University of Texas at Brownsville.

Notes

1. Uruknet Report, "Have You Ever Heard of Bremer's 100 Orders?" 11 April 2008.
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=42948

2. Institutional Report, Genetic Engineering at a Historic Crossroads," The Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee Report, March 2001.
http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/report.asp

3. Jeffrey Smith. "ORDER 81: Re-Engineering Iraqi Agriculture - The Ultimat... Global Research and The Ecologist, 27 August 2005, Vol 35, No. 1.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20050827&articleId=87

4. Jeffrey Smith. "ORDER 81: Re-Engineering Iraqi Agriculture - The Ultimat... Global Research and The Ecologist, 27 August 2005, Vol 35, No. 1.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20050827&articleId=87

5 CPA/ORD/26 April 2004/81, p. 27.
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20040426_CPAORD_81_Patents_Law.pdf

European shoppers do not steer clear of GM labels, says study

Food Quality News, 15 October 2008. By James Halliday.

European consumers do buy GM foods when they are available in supermarkets, an EU survey has concluded - despite shoppers' protestations that they would avoid products bearing a GM label.

In 2004 the European Union adopted compulsory labelling of all food products with genetically modified content in any ingredient. According to the authors of the survey, funded by the European Commission, by the end of 2005 labelled GM foods "of one sort or another" were on sale in Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

Surveys of public view have generally indicated that people would not buy GM foods if they had the chance; focus groups tend to be dominated by ethical concerns and fears over environmental and health fears.

But the researchers, coordinated by Professor Vivian Moses of Kings College London, went one step further, by see what consumers actually did when shopping in familiar stores that offered food labelled as containing or being derived from GM ingredients, but without their attention being specifically drawn to them.

"It would be up to them, if they were interested, to find out by reading the labels," they wrote in their report, published this week.

They found, when cross-checking survey answers against actual purchases, that the very same people who said they would not buy GM-labelled goods did not actively avoid them.

"Responses given by consumers when prompted by questionnaires about GM-foods are not a reliable guide to what they do when shopping in grocery stores," was the conclusion.

Most of the labelled GM foods on sale were oils from GM soy, whether sold as cooking oil or incorporated into other products like margarine. A very few oil and other ingredients from GM maize were also available. v In addition, the researchers found that at the time they investigating GM-containing products in all ten countries listed above, four of them (Germany, Greece, Slovenia and Sweden) did not currently have any on sale.

Calls for more visible labels

Helen Holder, GMO campaigner for Friends of the Earth, questioned the scope of the study, since it covered only six countries and very few products. She noted that the oil on offer was at the cheap end of the market and much was sold in bulk.

She told FoodNavigator.com that the central issue is visibility of GM labels.

"Small print on the back of a product does not encourage people to know what they are buying," she said, drawing on parallels with foods high in salt and sugar, for which there are moves for front-of-pack labelling schemes.

"Labels need to be made much more explicit".

While the researchers admitted that people did not seem to be able to recognize GM food in spite of the labelling requirements, they said this does not really seem to be a problem, since they pay "scant attention" to the labels anyway.

But Holder said that many people believe there is no GM food sold in Europe at all, so they are not actively looking for the labels.

GM-free

The researchers noted that a GM-free label is quite common in some countries, such as Poland and Germany. Such a label is not permitted in other countries, like The Netherlands and Sweden - but in fact, in the latter there were "many products labelled GM-free".

Where they were used, a GM-free label on the front of pack was seen to be "more likely to influence shoppers than a 'containing-GM' label in small print on the back".

The researchers said this suggests that GM-free products are chosen with greater thought by consumers.

Agriculture: Is China ready for GM rice?

Nature 455, 850-852 (2008) | doi:10.1038/455850a, 15 October 2008.

In an effort to avoid a food crisis as the population grows, China is putting its weight behind genetically modified strains of the country's staple food crop. Jane Qiu explores the reasons for the unprecedented push.

In a paddy field 30 kilometres south of Fuzhou, the capital of China's Fujian province, Wang Feng is surveying a massive green and yellow chessboard before him. Wang, a rice researcher at the Fujian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, and his colleagues have been developing genetically modified (GM) rice strains to resist pest infestation, and have been testing in these plots for a decade. Two strains from Wang's team are now awaiting regulatory approval by the agricultural ministry for commercial growth. It could represent the largest commercialization of a GM foodcrop. Rice is a staple for most of the country's 1.3 billion people and a primary source of calories for more than half the world's population.

China's population is set to top 1.45 billion by 2020, and the country needs to increase grain production by about 25%, a daunting task in the face of increasing urbanization, industrialization, farmland reduction and the efflux of rural workers to the cities. The Chinese government has latched on to transgenic plants as a solution, rolling out a major research and development initiative on GM crops for the next 12 years, including a sizeable investment of 25 billion yuan (US$3.7 billion) from the central government and additional matched funding from its provincial counterparts.

The bigger picture

Like GM initiatives elsewhere, such as in the United States, the move has drawn its share of criticism, with concerns being raised about the practicality and safety of such a push. Scientists warn that a single-minded focus on genetic engineering to enhance pest resistance misses the bigger picture of how to address agricultural production. China is the world's largest rice producer, weighing in with nearly 200 million tonnes, and several observers fear that introducing GM rice could endanger the food supply and the environment. "The consequences would be unthinkable if large-scale cultivation of GM rice were not properly regulated," says Xue Dayuan, chief scientist on biodiversity at the Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences. But in a country where policies are rarely a matter of open debate, government officials warn that the scale of the impending food shortage makes further delays an unaffordable luxury. "This is the only way to meet the growing food demand in China," says Huang Dafang, former director of the Biotechnology Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) in Beijing.

Wang is optimistic that his group's pest-resistant GM rice will help lead the way. In April, the team planted alternating squares of conventional rice crops and crops genetically modified to produce an insecticidal toxin made by the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) gene and the cowpea trypsin inhibitor (CpTI) gene. In the absence of chemical pesticides, Bt/_CpTI_ rice thrived, whereas the conventional plants withered, resulting in the chessboard pattern of alternating colours. Wang pulls the top from one of the non-transgenic plants. Unrolling its leaves and splitting its stem, he reveals the insecticides' primary target, the stem borer.

Wang says stem borers can affect 3.3 million hectares of rice fields, resulting in a 5% loss in yields at a cost of 10 billion yuan a year. According to Zhu Zhen, a geneticist at the Beijing-based Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), who developed the rice strains with Bt and CpTI genes, there are no naturally occurring strains that can confer such resistance. After ten years of field testing at a dozen locations, the researchers are confident that farmers would use less pesticide with GM rice strains [1].

Plagued by pests

But David Andow, an entomologist at the University of Minnesota in St Paul, says he is unconvinced. In the past few decades, the stem borer has been overtaken by another pest, the brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens), which wreaks havoc every spring and has become the main concern of farmers in Asia. Bt and CpTI toxins have no effect on the insect.

Moreover, many simply see GM approaches as ham-fisted in the face of complex ecologies. Kong Luen Heong, an entomologist at the International Rice Research Institute in Los BaÒos, the Philippines, calls pest-resistant GM crops a short-term fix for long-term problems caused by crop monoculture and overuse of broad-spectrum pesticides. "Pests thrive where biodiversity is at peril," says Heong. "Instead of genetic engineering, why don't we engineer the ecology by increasing biodiversity?"

Indeed, such ecological engineering has proved beneficial. Zhu Youyong, president of the Yunnan Agricultural University in Kunming, and his colleagues have found that growing a mixture of rice varieties across thousands of farms in China could greatly limit the development of rice blast - a fungal rice disease - and boost the yield [2]. They have also tested similar practices using different crops and found beneficial effects.

Although GM crops are, in principle, compatible with such an ecological approach, it requires management that has proved hard to achieve within China's agricultural system, which is based on small-scale cultivation, says Xue. Although Bt cotton, the biggest GM crop produced in China to date, has put the cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) under control, the population of secondary pests, such as mirids, has risen since 2001. That has led to increased pesticide use [3,4], but still at levels lower than pre-1997, when the cotton was introduced.

Safety concerns

Debates have also flared because of rice's central role in the Chinese diet. One concern has been that antibiotic-resistance marker genes used in the derivation of the transgenic plants could invariably be taken up by naturally occurring gut bacteria and lead to resistant, pathogenic strains. Both of Zhu Zhen's Bt/_CpTI_ rice lines and other Bt strains developed elsewhere are free of such markers.

The GM plants must also be shown to be non-allergenic. Composition tests and studies assessing toxicity in non-human animals allow the developers to claim that the GM rice varieties are "substantially equivalent" to unmodified counterparts apart from the target-gene expression. But for food eaten three times a day by a billion people, short-term animal studies aren't enough to measure equivalence. "If there were a health risk, we would be heading for a major disaster," warns Liu Bing, an expert on science and society in Tsinghua University in Beijing.

Another concern is the potential environmental consequences of transgenes escaping from GM rice to its unmodified crop counterparts through cross-pollination. Several escapes have occurred around the world, including releases of unapproved GM crops such as rice and corn into human consumption streams. For example, in 2006, the European Union halted imports of US rice when an unapproved strain was found in the food supply. Trade resumed, but the problem of accidental cross-pollination, which is thought to have caused the contamination, is one that has not yet been solved. The consensus seems to be that perfect prevention of such events is impossible [5].

Lu Baorong, a biodiversity researcher at Fudan University in Shanghai, is concerned about gene flow from GM rice to its wild or weedy relatives. Wild-rice plants are undomesticated strains, whereas weedy rice, which is characterized by its seed scattering and dormancy, is thought to originate from rice crops as a result of mutations. Lu's team and another group have shown that the rate of gene flow from GM strains to wild and weedy rice is 3-18% and 0.01-0.5%, respectively [6,7].

"What is most worrying is that such gene flow is cumulative," says Lu. Although rice crops are harvested at the end of the season, wild and weedy rice carrying transgenes would continue to reproduce, allowing the genes to spread, subject to selection.

This could threaten the biodiversity of wild rice, which provides a valuable gene pool for rice breeders (see 'The panda of the plant world') but is already at the brink of extinction in China. In addition, weedy rice with pest-resistant or other fitness genes could have a greater capacity to infest rice fields, causing yield loss. However, Lu says that these are not inevitable consequences of large-scale cultivation of GM rice. "Proper regulation is the key," he says.

A regulatory mess

But regulation, says Xue, is where the majority of problems lie. "Field testing is one thing, but the reality is quite another." Although China has had biosafety regulations for GM crops since 1996, their implementation has proved uneven - a fact that most people approached by Nature acknowledged. In some provinces, such as Xinjiang, farmers began large-scale cultivation of Bt cotton long before approval was granted, says Xue. In several cases, Bt cotton strains were grown without proper labelling, some of which were experimental strains from research institutes.

Cross pollination and labelling slip-ups could be disastrous for China's exports of rice and rice-related products. And proper regulation of GM crops is crucial for delaying the emergence of resistant pests. Many crops, such as cotton and rice, are grown as a monoculture in China, which would select pests that are resistant to the toxins. One way to avoid this from happening is to use seeds that produce high toxin levels; another way is to set aside some land near GM-crop fields for its unmodified counterparts, which would serve as a 'refuge' for insects.

This 'high-dose and refuge' strategy, which has been widely adopted in countries that grow GM crops, is difficult to implement in China. Many Chinese farmers exchange seeds with each other or buy cheap seeds from illegal dealers, and end up growing cotton plants with low levels of Bt toxin. In addition, as agricultural practices in China are based on small-scale cultivation by individual families with limited resources, Bt cotton plants are grown without refuge areas.

Fortunately, the cotton bollworm also attacks crops such as wheat, corn, soya beans, peanuts and vegetables, which are grown next to the Bt-cotton fields and offer a safety valve against resistance [8,9]. "This is unlikely to happen with Bt/CpTI rice because the stem borer feeds only on rice," says Heong. "Therefore, setting aside refuge areas is absolutely essential."

Behind closed doors

Worryingly, many of the stakeholders, including farmers, bioethicists and environmental groups, aren't being involved in the biosafety evaluation process as spearheaded by the agricultural ministry. The country hails GM rice as a magic bullet for food-production problems and few dissenting opinions are heard. "The whole process is rather opaque," says David Just, an economist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. "China is trying very hard to keep the lid on." Experts who express their concerns are often sidelined. Xue, for example, has been repeatedly excluded from biosafety committees that are assessing GM crops.

Despite these concerns, China does need to find a way to feed its swelling population. Although it has instigated plans to prevent further reduction in farmlands, boosting grain production remains the key to food security. Still, the single-minded focus on genetic modification seems misguided to many. "Genetic-modification technologies just treat the symptoms rather than dealing with the causes," says Hans Herren, president of the Millennium Institute in Arlington, Virginia, and a co-chair of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). According to a report released by the IAASTD in April, the main challenges faced by agricultural development around the world are soil fertility, water management and climate change [10]. "Life in the soil is gone after decades of heavy use of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers," says Manuela Giovannetti, a soil microbiologist at the University of Pisa in Italy. Herren agrees: "Without a concerted global effort to restore soil fertility, genetic modification would be futile."

Xue says he recognizes the potential of genetic modification, but is concerned that huge investment in the technologies - as with China's new initiative - would sap already dwindling attention from improving traditional plant-breeding technologies and conventional farming practices. However, GM strategies have a strong draw for keeping China competitive at the cutting edge of agriculture. A report by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications estimates that biotech rice could deliver benefits of $4 billion per year for China [11].

"What is behind all this might be about who controls germ plasm and who owns intellectual-property rights," says Andow. The scale of the effect that commercial GM rice could have on China and the rest of the world argues for caution. Nevertheless, many interests within the country say that the time to act is now. Huang puts it bluntly: "We cannot afford to think too far ahead but must tackle the present issues."

Jane Qiu writes for Nature from Beijing.

References

1. Huang, J., Hu, R., Rozelle, S. & Pray, C. Science 308, 688-690 (2005).

2. Zhu, Y. et al. Nature 406, 718-722 (2000).

3. Wang, S., Just, D. & Pinstrup-Andersen, P. Int. J. Biotechnol. 10, 113-120 (2008).

4. Wang, Z. et al. Agric. Sci. China (in the press).

5. Ledford, H. Nature 445, 132-133 (2007).

6. Wang, F. et al. Plant Biotechnol. J. 4, 667-676 (2006).

7. Shivraina, V. K. et al. Crop Protection 26, 349-356 (2007).

8. Wu, K.-M., Lu, Y.-H., Feng, H.-Q., Jiang, Y.-Y. & Zhao, J.-Z. Science 321, 1676-1678 (2008).

9. Qiu, J. Nature doi:10.1038/news.2008.1118 (2008).

10. Beintema, N. et al. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Summary for Decision Makers (IAASTD, 2008); available at http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20Reports&ItemID=2713

11. James, C. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007 ISAAA Brief No. 37. (ISAAA, 2007); available at http://www.isaaa.org/Resources/Publications/briefs/37/executivesummary/default.html.

14 October 2008

Labelling of GM food: Health ministry passes on the buck to FSSA

Financial Express (India), 14 October 2008. By Ashok B Sharma

Mandatory labelling of genetically modified (GM) food in India is likely to be delayed as the Union health ministry has planned to pass on the responsibility to the newly set up autonomous Food Safety and Standards Authority (FSSA).

In March, last year, the committee of experts and stakeholders constituted by the Union health ministry under the chairmanship of the additional director-general of the National Institute of Communicable Diseases, Shiv Lal, had unanimously recommended mandatory labelling of all GM foods irrespective of the threshold level.

More than a year has lapsed. The panel recommendations on a vital issue like mandatory labelling of GM food has not been implemented due to pressures from the biotech industry and the US, which had cited reasons for hampering global trade. Making several excuses for the delay, the Union health minister, Anbumani Ramadoss speaking to FE said, "We have decided to pass on the recommendations of the panel to FSSA to decide on the issue. I am of the view that all food items should be labelled disclosing its ingredients." The FSSA has been set up in July this year, with PI Suvrathan as its chairman and G Balachandran as its chief executive officer. Under the Food Safety and Standards Act - 2006, the FSSA has powers to regulate GM food. The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), which has exclusive powers to regulate all GM products under the Environment Protection Act-1986 and EP Rules-1989, has also not been proactive on the issue of labelling of GM food, even though the annual amendments to the Foreign Trade Policy made in April 2006 had said that unlabelled GM products import would attract penal action under Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act-1992. Already several NGOs have brought to notice cases of unlabelled GM products being imported.

Ramadoss said that he was not satisfied with the FSS Act- 2006 and that his ministry table a bill in Parliament for amending certain provisions. "The draft bill, which subsequently became an Act of the Parliament, was drafted and piloted by the promoter agency, the ministry for food processing industries (MFPI) and therefore has some lacunae. The MFPI insisted that it would anchor the FSSA and it was finally decided that it would be supported by the health ministry," he said.

Regarding multiplicity of food laws unified under FSS Act-2006, he said that his ministry was notifying, from time to time, such laws under the Act.

Meanwhile the Union ministry for science and technology is gearing up to table a bill in the Parliament for setting up of the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority (NBRA) replacing the GEAC. It has proposed that NBRA would be anchored by the promoter agency, department of biotechnology (DBT) and would regulate all aspects of transgenic technology, including the labelling of GM food.

Are GM crops fit for purpose? If not, then what?

Natural Products (UK), 14 October 2008.

Are GM crops fit for purpose? If not, then what? These are the questions being posed by a major conference in London next month.

The Feeding the World Conference – organised by the Organic Research Centre – sets out to "examine searchingly and honestly, the claims and counterclaims of one of the most critical issues of our time".

The conference organisers contrast the recent declaration of support for GM crops by Defra Ministers with the results of a major scientific study by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD that questions the relevance of GM to food security.

Can technology itself ever be enough? Is it possible to feed a growing population on a planet of finite and diminishing resources? This question, together with the claims and counter claims about the potential and limitations of GM cropping, as well as the status of agro-ecological alternatives will be examined by leading researchers and practitioners.

With the support of leading organic, environment and food groups, the conference aims to bring a wide and challenging perspective to questions and issues that "are too often mired in clichÈ and propaganda".

The Feeding the Word Conference takes place at the Queen Elisabeth II Conference Centre on November 12 2008.

Day tickets are available at a supported rate of £65, including attendance, lunch and refreshments and conference pack. More information is available at www.feedingtheworldconference.org. Bookings can be made by calling 01488 658279

U.S. begins to turn its back on GM crops, report claims

Daily Mail, 14 October 2008. By Sean Poulter.

The U.S. is turning its back on the controversial GM crops and food it created, it is claimed today.

There is widespread distrust of genetically modified produce and a demand for labelling that would allow consumers to decide whether to eat it, according to a report from green campaigners.

Research shows that 87 per cent of Americans believe their food should carry a label showing whether it contains GM ingredients.

At the same time, 53 per cent say they would not choose to eat GM food. The report, Land of the GM-Free? - How the American public are starting to turn against GM food, is co-authored by long-term GM opponent Lord Melchett, of the Soil Association.

Details emerged as a new alliance of US natural food producers outlined plans for a new labelling scheme to allow thousands of foods to be declared 'GM Free'. The new report points out how a GM hormone, developed by Monsanto, which is injected into dairy cows to increase milk yields is effectively being killed off by consumer opposition.

Separately, farmers have rejected new GM crops, such as wheat, rice, sweet corn and alfalfa with the result these are not being grown commercially in the USA.

Even GM soya, which is widely grown in the USA, has been shown to be inferior in terms of its yields when compared to new varieties created from conventional cross breeding.

Historically, GM crops have been manipulated in the laboratory to contain a resistance to being sprayed by certain weedkillers, such as Monsanto's RoundUp. The genes are generally inserted into the DNA of the plant using a virus. Some crops have been altered to contain an insecticide in their leaves and stalks, so killing any insect predators.

Recently, biotech companies, aided by the governments in the USA and Britain, have been touting GM crops as the solution to Third World hunger.

It has been suggested these crops will deliver higher yields or will allow plants to be cultivated in areas of drought or high salt soils.

However, none of these crops exist on a commercial basis despite promises from the biotech industry to deliver them dating back more than ten years.

The 'Land of the GM-Free' report claims that - to date - US consumers have been kept in the dark about GM and what is in the foods they are eating. It says as people become more aware of the issue, so opposition is growing.

The catalyst has been rejection of milk from cows given Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (BGH).

The report says the EU and Canada have banned use of the drug and any imported dairy products produced from cattle given the injections.

It says: 'Increasing consumer awareness of rBGH in the US has caused sales of the milk to plummet. Between 2002 and 2007 use of the hormone fell by 23 per cent, and the proportion of US cows being injected with rBGH fell from 25per cent to below 17per cent.

'Many major retailers, processors and producers have recently moved to ban rBGH from their products, with Wal-Mart, Safeway, Starbucks, Kraft and many more ensuring that their customers can only buy GM free dairy products for themselves and their families.'

Looking at new GM crops, the report claims: 'Both GM rice and wheat faced such strong opposition from farmers that they never made it out of field trials, and have never been grown commercially in the USA.

'Hardly any GM sweetcorn for human consumption is grown either, for the simple reason that it tastes so bad.'

The new labelling system for 'GM-Free' foods will be launched in the USA next year. Firms will go through a testing regime to prove they are free of GM contamination.

Around 400 companies in the US and Canada have pledged support to the scheme. They have combined annual sales of 12 billion dollars - equivalent to 10per cent of the UK food and drink industry.

In Europe, previously pro-GM countries like France and Germany are no longer supporters. The Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are all committed to GM-free policies.

By contrast, the report says: 'It is just the strongly pro-GM English government that looks increasingly out of touch with what consumers want.'

The former chief of the US Food & Drug Administration's biotech division Henry Miller, has condemned the critics of dairy cow growth hormone as 'kooks' and 'enviro-fanatics'.

In a recent Washington Post article, he said the hormone 'induces the average cow, which produces about 8 gallons of milk each day, to make nearly a gallon more'.

He added: 'Disingenuous activists have unfairly stigmatised a scientifically proven product that has consistently delivered economic and environmental benefits to dairy farmers and consumers.'

CropGen, which speaks for the industry, said: 'Biotech crops are a tool for farmers to increase crop productivity while decreasing the impact on the environment and natural resources.

'Two hundred and nine biotech crops are under cultivation or development in 46 countries around the world.'

13 October 2008

England 'out of touch' on GM

Farmers Guardian, 13 October 2008. By William Surman.

THE English Government has been accused of being out of touch with its consumers.

Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett said English politicians were pushing GM technology despite 'very little' consumer support.

He said France, Germany, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales were committed to GM-free policies and urged similar action from England.

"It is just the strongly pro-GM English Government that looks increasingly out of touch with what consumers really want," he said.

Mr Melchett spoke at the launch of a Soil Association study that claims the traditionally supportive American public are turning away from GM food.

"The more that US consumers find out about GM food, the less they want to buy it", said Mr Melcehtt, adding that the global tide may finally be turning against the technology.

The Soil Association study claims US consumers, farmers and politicians are losing their enthusiasm for GM crops as they learn about the technology.

It cites the 'staggering collapse' in the market for Monsanto's GM milk hormone as one example of how consumers are changing their buying habits.

Currently, US law does not require food manufacturers to label food as GM yet 87 per cent of Americans want to add GM labelling and 53 per cent would not eat GM food if it was labelled as such, says the study.

A dent in American's GM support represents a significant vote of no confidence in the technology, said Mr Melchett.

US consumers rejecting GMs, says Soil Association

Farmers Weekly Interactive (UK), 13 October 2008. By Lucy Busuttil.

The Soil Association believes there is a consumer-led backlash against genetically modified food and has hailed a "non-GMO" labelling initiative as the beginning of the end for GMs.

The label will be launched by more than 400 American processors and retailers next year and has the backing of presidential candidate Barack Obama.

About 28,000 products will be labelled by the companies, which have a combined worth of $12bn.

The Soil Association's policy director, Peter Melchett, told Farmers Weekly: "Labelling stopped consumers buying milk from cattle treated with the growth hormone rBGH, leading Costco, Kroger, Publix, Safeway and Wal-Mart to turn to non-GM own-brand milk.

"It is the 'beginning of the end for GM worldwide'," Lord Melchett said.

The rBGH developer, Monsanto, is now selling off the hormone, he added.

Lord Melchett said a Soil Association survey provided further evidence of opposition to GMs.

It showed that more than half of American consumers would not eat food containing genetically modified ingredients.

Given the choice, 53% of those surveyed said they would not eat GM products while 87% Americans believed food should have its GM content labelled, the survey suggested.

At the same time, he argued, farmers were rejecting GM crops. "European farmers have been being told to turn to GM for two decades because 'American farmers love GM'", he said."

But look at GM alfalfa - US farmers got it banned in courts because it makes weeds resistant to pesticides."

Lord Melchett said that the Soil Association is: "Not anti-yield and not anti-technology". He advised farmers to look to other technologies instead of "old-fashioned" GM.

Science Group: Biotech Regs Could Allow Drugs In Food

Press & Dakotan (USA), 13 October 2008.

WASHINGTON – The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) recently denounced newly proposed U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules governing genetically engineered crops, including food crops engineered to produce pharmaceutical and industrial products. The proposed rules, UCS charged, would not protect the U.S. food supply from potential contamination by drugs from "pharma" crops and could allow drugs that it deems "safe" to enter the food supply. This contamination could occur through cross-pollination or seed mixing between pharma food crops and crops intended for consumption.

The USDA ignored recommendations for a ban on the outdoor production of pharma food crops from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, major food companies, UCS, and more than 100 environmental, agricultural, health, and consumer organizations.

Below is a statement by Jane Rissler, UCS's Food and Environment Program deputy director:

"Under the proposed rules, USDA's new motto is 'Only safe levels of drugs in U.S. food.Ç If these proposals are enacted into law, American consumers must accept the possibility of drugs in their breakfast cereal or other common foods. Moreover, these rules likely will lead to contamination scares, which will hurt the food industry.

"The USDA proposal, unlike the ban we recommended, offers no incentives to drug companies to pursue already existing, safer methods for producing drugs.

"In its rush to enact the proposed rules into law before the end of the Bush administration, the USDA has given short shrift to public participation. The department is allowing only 45 days for the public to analyze and comment on this major proposal, which will determine the government's approach to regulating genetically engineered organisms for years to come."

Former author talks about dangers of modified foods

Leader-Telegram, 13 October 2008 [shortened]. By Emily Banks.

Genetic pollution could last longer than nuclear waste and global warming, said Jeffrey Smith, author of "Seeds of Deception," Monday night at The Forum at UW-Eau Claire's Zorn Arena.

It would be impossible to recall genetically modified mosquitoes or salmon once they're released into nature.

Much of the foods we eat - such as soy, corn and canola oil - have been genetically modified to withstand herbicides and pesticides, creating new organisms that never existed before. And they might be causing major health risks, Smith said.

"They put genes from bacteria and viruses into crops," Smith said.

Scientists have warned of allergens, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems caused by genetically modified organisms (GMOs), but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration overruled the scientists' findings and deemed the foods safe, said Smith. In working with scientists, he said he's identified 65 different health risks related to GMOs.

Lab rats refused to eat genetically modified tomatoes, and squirrels in the wild will choose organic corn over genetically modified crops. Smith calls that phenomenon the "wisdom of animals." The process of genetically engineering potatoes made lab rats sick in one UK study, causing excessive cell growth, and animals have become sterile or even died after eating genetically modified crops, said Smith.

GMOs might be harmful to humans for many reasons. What scientists intended to change in an organism may not turn out how they expected, Smith said. The protein might be different than they intended, or it might rearrange once it's in the crop and generations later might mutate into something else.

Early science suggested soil-dwelling toxic bacteria would be destroyed during digestion, but Smith says that's not true. Tests have shown the bacteria survive digestion, and genes from GMOs might transfer to humans' gut bacteria and own DNA.

"Long after we stop eating GM foods, we may have visitors that have moved in," he said.

The effects on humans who consume these kinds of foods is not known. No human clinical trials have ever taken place, but Smith suggested that the increase in genetically modified foods might be connected to a decrease in general health among Americans.

Perhaps autism, diabetes, obesity and cancer have some links to GMOs, Smith said.

But it's not too late to change habits and eventually the market, Smith told the crowd at Zorn Arena. Europe has taken steps to limit GMOs, and Americans made conscious decisions not to purchase milk with bovine growth hormones, turning around the milk market.

People can use non-GMO shopping guides, buy foods that are organic or carry a non-GMO label, and avoid at-risk ingredients such as packaged meals that include soy, corn and canola products, which also include ingredients such as high fructose corn syrup, salad dressings and cooking oils.

Why GMOs will not perform miracles

The New Vision (Uganda), 13 October 2008. By Kikonyogo Ngatya.

THERE is a frenzy among policy makers and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) fronting Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) to be elevated to the first priority in government's realm to addressing challenges to reduced agricultural productivity in the country.

The thinking is that with the numerous pests and diseases out breaks in the fisheries, livestock, forestry and crop sectors, products of genetic modification will do a wonder and correct the situation almost at once.

Their argument is that GMOs are superior, because they are developed with exact desired traits like milk and beef production in the livestock stock, but also diseases and pests resistance in crops, as opposed to other conventional means like hybrids.

For the last ten years, this school of thought is spending colossal sums of money in luxurious hotels toying with this idea, at the expense of a dwindling agricultural productivity. Their actions and influence are overshadowing the Government's strategy and competitiveness to develop tangible interventions in the agro-sector. While I agree that GMOs are good, they are not necessarily superior. My submission is that while GMOs shall offer some help to farmers, it's being over glorified.

The short to midterm problem with the agro-sector currently is the inability of policy makers to focus attention where it is due. The bureaucrats, who hide in technicalities, often blow out GMOs as the immediate saviour, which I like to differ.

First, even if we had a GMO banana variety in Uganda today, for example, it would not scale up production, even in the next five years. This is because, agricultural extension services to sensitise farmers on better farming methods is badly wanting.

Look at the banana bacterial wilt problem, which the country is grappling with. While the policy makers were still demanding for billions of shillings to address the problem through research, ordinary farmers were already carrying out "survival" farming practices. It has indeed come to be understood and accepted in scientific circles that with good agronomical skills like tendering to the plantation, mulching, cutting off the male bud to avoid bees visiting reduced the wilt prevalence in Mukono and other areas. These formed part of the survival practices.

Indeed, a GMO banana variety, as the researchers note would take the next about 10 years to materialise. The gene, which the scientists at Kawanda are researching, is only targeting one disease – the black sigatoka. This implies that other disease and climatic challenges, will still stay, requiring closer farmer-to extension officer interaction to better farming. Will the dwindling soil fertility, disappearing rangelands, pastures and bush fires also be addressed through genetic modifications? Certainly not.

My view is that farmers are ahead of scientists when it comes to planning for the direction of the sector – which is a dangerous precedent. But you wouldn't blame the farmers.

Look at the numerous league of new crops being indiscriminately introduced without clear policy planning like moringa, jatrophaa neem tree, aloe vera and silk warm.

A few profit driven multinatinationals often conspire to promote the crops, with a hope of a ready market. But in a few months, they disappear. While the immediate escape route for the so called technocrats is that Uganda is a liberalised market economy, my conviction is that the policy makers do not the right varieties introduction studies.

While this is often swept under the carpet, it has seriously affected technology dissemination developed by Ugandan researchers under NARO. Indeed under the World Bank Funded Agricultural Research and Development Programes (ARTPI & II), a full department for technology dissemination; fell short to showing concrete achievements. This fear among farmers has long term implications in the execution of the Plan to Modernise Agriculture and Bona bagagawale.

Indeed GMOs cannot be our first line of defense. Poor policy development and execution is the bigger problem. Often farmers in northern Uganda returning from IDPs have complained that the seeds do not germinate. Indeed I also agree with them that there is a problem, which GMO seeds, even if we had them now would not fix.

The answer is to be found in the national seed certification policy. Why should seeds developed in high humidity agro-ecological zones like Buganda be dressed and taken to farmers in warmer environs like Karamoja or the North? Certainly, they won't do well. But then this policy does not monitor labeling dressed seeds to ensure that farmers buy them for the agro-ecological zones they intend to plant them in.

More so, the few farmers who supply seeds to the seed companies hardly fulfill requirements to the already weak and unimplemented seed regulations. Companies rely on physically sorting the seeds, which in my opinion is simply packaging grain, not certified seeds.

The way forward would be for the National Planning Authority under Dr Kisamba Mugerwa to annually publish policy direction to the agricultural sector so that various stakeholders who execute their implementation can contribute for better productivity.

Is America starting to turn against GM food?

Soil Association (UK), October 13 2008

The GM industry has managed to keep consumers in the dark about the GM food they are eating for more than a decade. However, some major new developments in the US market suggest that the tide may finally be turning against GM technology.

The Soil Association has published a briefing on the launch of a major new non-GM labelling initiative in the US, the latest on US farmers rejection of new GM crops and the staggering collapse in the market for Monsanto's GM milk hormone. These are very significant developments that are being ignored in the current UK debate on GM.

Download the report here:
Land of the GM-Free?
How the American public are starting to turn against GM food [PDF, 986 KB]
http://www.soilassociation.org/Web/SA/saweb.nsf/cfff6730b881e40e80256a6a002a765c/
62b3b08dfb6cdaea80256a9500473789/$FILE/Land_of_free_GM_Report.pdf

The GM PR machine has been busy of late, apparently persuading government minister, Phil Woolas, to tell The Independent that 'rocketing food prices and food shortages in the world's poorest countries mean the time is right to relax Britain's policy on use of GM crops.'

In fact, the majority of published research shows GM crops do not increase yields - not surprisingly, as they weren't designed to. The GM industry's professed concern for the world's poor and hungry has been criticised as a cynical marketing ploy to win over public opinion.

The recently published UN IAASTD report, the work of over 400 international scientists, on the future of global food production under the challenges of climate change and population pressure concluded that transgenic GM crops didn't have much to offer - instead promoting an 'agro-ecological' approach. Confirming an earlier UN Food & Agriculture conference's conclusions, the IAASTD report acknowledged organic farming's real potential to help feed the world in an era of increasing oil prices and the urgent need to cut greenhouse gases. The GM industry reps stormed out of the process and their PR machine has been in overdrive ever since!

Action:

If you are concerned about GM crops and food, please write to your MP. You can find their name and address through the UK Parliament website http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/commons/l/

Although it takes more time, it is always far more effective to go and see your MP at their constituency surgery and ask them to find out the answers to your questions personally.

Whether you write or see them, you could ask your MP to get the Government Minister responsible for GM to confirm:

•

that although the GM industry has been saying for 25 years that GM crops are needed to feed the world, no drought-resistance or saline-tolerant GM crops are available commercially or near to being available;

•

that overall current commercial GM crops yields the same or less than the non-GM equivalent;

•

that most development of new, higher yielding crops is now being done using modern non-GM techniques which are supported by environmentalists, and not by dangerous and uncertain GM technology, so why has the Government not changed their position on GM being needed to feed the world?

•

GM crops are dependent on oil-based artificial fertiliser which is rapidly becoming too expensive to poorer farmers as oil prices rise - why are the Government supporting pushing GM technology to poor farmers when its use is becoming more and more expensive as oil gets scarcer?

---

Land of the GM-Free?

Executive summary

Despite the fact that 87 per cent of Americans believe that their food should carry a label telling them whether Genetically Modified (GM) products have been used in it or not, almost none do. As a result GM food has been sold widely and for many years in the USA - without consumers being aware of what they are buying. The powerful pro-GM lobby in the USA has used this as evidence that the public accept, or are at least neutral, on the issue of GM food. But given a choice, over 50 per cent of Americans say they would not eat GM.

The GM industry has managed to keep US consumers in the dark about the food they are eating for more than a decade, through lobbying the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and state governments to ensure that foods do not legally have to be labelled as GM. But some major new developments in the US market suggest that the tide may finally be turning against the GM lobby. This briefing is not intended to be comprehensive, but it highlights some significant developments that are being ignored in the current UK debate about GM.

In 1994 Monsanto produced a genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH) that is injected into dairy cows to increase the yield of milk. This GM hormone has faced criticism internationally since its launch on the grounds of both human health risks and animal welfare concerns. While the EU and Canada rejected it, it was deemed safe by the US Food and Drug Administration and the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and has been used widely in the US dairy industry, without any labelling of the milk as 'GM-produced'. Monsanto worked very hard to ensure that consumers have no way to make a choice - getting some US states to ban dairies from selling their milk with 'no artificial growth hormone' labels. But increasing consumer awareness of rBGH in the US has caused sales of the milk to plummet. Between 2002 and 2007 use of the hormone fell by 23% and the proportion of US cows being injected with rBGH fell from 25% to below 17%.

Understanding their customers wishes, many major retailers, processors and producers have recently moved to ban rBGH from their products, with Walmart, Safeway, Starbucks, Kraft and many more ensuring that their customers can buy GMO free dairy products for themselves and their families. Opposition to the use of this hormone has grown so much that Monsanto announced last month that they would be selling off the failing product.

As well as this growing consumer rejection of GM food in America, GM companies have had to face opposition by US farmers and regulatory authorities to a series of new GM products. Both GM rice and GM wheat faced such strong opposition from farmers that they never made it out of field trials, and have never been grown commercially in the USA. Hardly any GM sweet corn1 for human consumption is grown either (as opposed to maize grown for animal feed), for the simple reason that it tastes so bad that consumers won't buy it.

Attempts to launch GM alfalfa, America's fourth most widely grown crop, have also fallen flat. Farmers took legal action against the release of the crop and won. In 2007 the USDA was ordered to withdraw its approval of the GM alfalfa, a ban was placed on all planting of the crop and the sale of GM alfalfa seeds has now been prohibited throughout the USA. There is also evidence that US plant breeders are rejecting GM technology in favour of more reliable and effective methods such as marker assisted selection. Despite soya being one of the most widely grown GM crops, the newest high-yielding soya strains are non-GM.

For the first time in the USA, a major labelling initiative is underway that will finally provide consumers with the option of choosing a wide range of non-GM foods. The biggest companies in the natural and organic industry have united to develop a non-GMO label scheme that offers consumers the choice they clearly wish for, backed up by a robust verification system to ensure that it is a claim they can trust. This new 'Non-GMO Project' will be launched next year. It is led by a group of companies with combined annual sales of at least $12 billion - equivalent to almost 10% of the entire UK food and drink industry. Around four hundred companies across the US and Canada have pledged their support, and at the outset around 28,000 different products are likely to be covered by the scheme.

With US consumers, farmers and politicians losing their enthusiasm for GM crops, it is not surprising that the GM industry has scaled up its efforts to find a new market in the EU. But in Europe, over 175 regions and over 4,500 municipalities and local areas have declared themselves GMO-free. Major countries that once supported GM, like France and Germany, no longer do so, and the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are all committed to GM-free policies. It is just the strongly pro-GM English Government that looks increasingly out of touch with what consumers really want.

The F.D.A. and Engineered Food

New York Times (Letters), 13 October 2008.

Re " Coming to a Plate Near You" (editorial, Oct. 4)
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat3.html?ref=opinion):

We agree with you that the Food and Drug Administration's proposed regulation of genetically engineered animals is more rigorous than its regulation of genetically engineered crops or cloned animals. Unfortunately, however, the F.D.A. will not be as rigorous as it needs to be.

The agency may assess environmental impact, but it is not required to prohibit an animal that causes environmental damage.

Although the F.D.A. says it will protect the animal's health, we note that it approved the sale of milk and meat from cloned animals even though the data show that more than 50 percent of cow clones are born with an abnormality known as large offspring syndrome, which adversely affects their health.

Perhaps more important, the F.D.A. proposal has one glaring defect: there is no requirement to label food that comes from genetically engineered animals. Surveys clearly show that the vast majority of Americans want genetically engineered animals to be labeled as such. By not requiring labeling, the F.D.A. will take away a consumer's right to know and right to choose what she eats.

Michael Hansen
Senior Scientist, Consumers Union
Yonkers, Oct. 6, 2008

---

To the Editor:

The Food and Drug Administration's proposed policy is inconsistent and unwise. The introduction of a gene into an animal is not the same as the administration of a drug, and the F.D.A. has not previously required pre-market reviews of food or non-food animals that contain genes from disparate sources, such as the beefalo (a cow-bison combination) or mule (a horse-donkey genetic hybrid).

A better approach would be that taken for food products by the F.D.A.'s Center for Food Safety and Nutrition, which requires a pre-marketing safety review only for certain high-risk ingredients. These include any food additive that becomes a component of or otherwise affects the characteristics of a food if it is " not generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by qualified experts for its intended use."

Traditionally, the combination of two GRAS substances is also GRAS. Similarly, because adding a GRAS gene to a GRAS organism is likely to yield a GRAS outcome, an F.D.A. pre-marketing review would not be necessary for many animals with a newly introduced gene.

Henry I. Miller
Stanford, Calif., Oct. 5, 2008

The writer, a doctor and fellow at the Hoover Institution, was an official at the F.D.A. from 1979 to 1994.

---

To the Editor:

What is especially troubling about the Food and Drug Administration's decision to consider commercializing genetically modified animals is that consumers currently have no way of knowing which products sold in stores are, or contain, genetically modified organisms.

If the F.D.A. is going to introduce genetically engineered fish and beef into supermarkets, then transparency must extend to labeling. Regardless of whether the agency determines that the new organisms are safe, we have a right to the information that will enable us to choose whether we want to buy them.

Alissa A. Hamilton
Toronto, Oct. 5, 2008

The writer is a food and society policy fellow at the Thomas Jefferson Agricultural Institute.

---

To the Editor:

Your editorial identifies two major problems with the Food and Drug Administration's proposed regulation of genetically engineered animals: a totally secret process and the inability to address potential environmental issues.

Unfortunately, conducting public meetings and consulting with experts from other agencies cannot fix the fundamental flaws in the law that the F.D.A. is applying to regulate those products. Congress needs to step in and eliminate the current secrecy requirements, so the safety data submitted to the agency and the F.D.A.'s analysis would be provided to the public to review and comment on.

Also, Congress should give the F.D.A. (and other agencies) the legal authority to assess and address any environmental concerns engineered animals might pose. Only with Congressional help will the federal government be able to establish an open and comprehensive regulatory system for engineered animals.

Gregory Jaffe
Washington, Oct. 6, 2008

The writer is director of the Biotechnology Project, Center for Science in the Public Interest.

GrainCorp rethinks GM canola silo decision

ABC News (Australia), 13 October 2008.

GrainCorp has changed its mind about the use of a silo, north of Bendigo, for genetically modified (GM) canola this season.

The Raywood silo was to be used for GM canola only.

But, the decision has been reversed and it will take only conventional grain.

Growers in the area are pleased and say it will save them delivering their grain to sites further away.

Bendigo Mayor David Jones opposes the production of GM foods in the region, and welcomes the decision.

"It also does probably indicate that the GE [genetically engineered] crop hasn't been as successful under these condition, under these drought conditions, and of course we do have grave concerns about the farmers and the way the season is turning out, this may be a matter more about circumstance than any sort of decision around the theory of GE," he said.

12 October 2008

Russian government will allocate 15 billion rubles for agriculture till the end of the year

RUVR - The Voice of Russia, 12 October 2008.

The Russian government will allocate 15 billion rubles for agriculture till the end of the year, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said at the opening ceremony of the 10th " Golden Autumn" agro-industrial exhibition.

Mr. Putin said the government will continue to pay special attention to the development of the national agricultural sector, industrial security and innovations in agrarian industry. The exhibition brought together more than 2,000 companies from Russia and 30 more countries. Brazil, Spain, Finland, France and Ukraine have joined for the first time.

All the participants are obliged to present non-genetically modified food.

Kiwi Poll Rejects GE Animals

SAFE, 12 October 2008

Most New Zealanders are strongly opposed to the genetic engineering of animals in New Zealand, with farmers as ardently opposed as the rest of the community, a new survey shows.

A Colmar Brunton Omnijet survey of over 1000 people, commissioned by the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand and the national animal advocacy organisation SAFE, found that only 27 per cent of New Zealanders, and just 28 per cent of farmers, support genetic engineering (GE) of animals. However six out of ten farmers (61%) who stated an opinion in the survey said they do not support GE of animals, and almost a third of all farmers surveyed (28%) stated they 'don't know.'

The two organisations that commissioned the poll, along with GE Free NZ and the Green Party, mounted nationwide campaigns last month to vehemently oppose four applications submitted by AgResearch to conduct broad-ranging genetic research and the commercialisation of GE animals.

The groups warn the applications threaten New Zealand's clean green image and could result in potentially catastrophic environmental disasters in addition to animal suffering.

"Twice as many New Zealanders oppose GE than support it," says Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning. "These AgResearch applications effectively threaten our entire nation by proposing commercial production, and go much further than just small-scale, contained research."

SAFE campaign director Hans Kriek said today: "The majority of New Zealanders are opposed to GE animals (55%) and almost one in five (18%) want more information about what is being planned, the risks involved, the effect on the animals and who will really benefit. New Zealanders have an inherent distain for the genetic engineering of animals. When you consider the foetal abnormalities, deformities and congenital health defects of cloned GE animals, kiwis have very valid reasons to oppose GE."

The survey shows two thirds (67%) of people who expressed an opinion are opposed. Opposition is equally strong across different ethnicities: among those with Maori descent who expressed an opinion nine out of ten (86%) are opposed.

Individual comments from survey:

"The public and potential consumers need more information about the actual 'modifications' that will be undertaken. The potential to damage the already tarnished 'green' image of New Zealand is vast. The prospect of discovering some vague benefit 'by accident' is probably outweighed 100-1 by the chance of causing some unexpected harm 'by accident'."

"Many historical agricultural moves have been proven to work only for the company that developed them and have not necessarily increased production or profits for farmers".

"These are the same type of people who said making beef feed from scrapie-infected lamb poses no risk, yet this is where BSE came from."

"It is part of our 'clean green' image overseas to avoid the GE package and with a little-known economy like ours a reputation (even if it's not true) goes a long way to identifying us."

"In theory it sounds fantastic to be able to progress with potential medical advancements, however the risks of cross-contamination are unknown and that is why my view is 'on the fence'.

"I would like more information on what they are doing and how safe it is so that if things go wrong we are protected. I would just want more information to be available as to the exact things they are going to do, not just a general overview. It could be worthwhile but it just doesn't sound right towards animals."

"It's a waste of time and money; just cancel the plan."

"It is short sighted, our focus should be protecting our clean green and unmodified image."

"Let the international companies who are backing this research do it in their own countries."

"It is not time to do this in New Zealand yet. Give it another ten years and try again."

Background information:

The survey of 1007 people was conducted between the 23rd and 28th of September 2008 through Colmar Brunton's Omnijet and is a representative sample of the New Zealand online population.

The question asked:

"Do you support the genetic modification of animals in New Zealand?"

The following statement introduced the question:

Government research institute AgResearch has applied to develop Genetically Modified (GM)* animals at sites around New Zealand, including Waikato, Canterbury, and Southland.

AgResearch are seeking approval for an unlimited period of time, to genetically modify cows, goats, sheep, pigs, deer, llama, horses, rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, chickens and cell-lines from humans and monkeys.

The intention is to recombine genes from the different species for research, as well as for commercial production of pharmaceuticals and milks with potential medical effects. The GM animals will be kept indoors or behind secure fencing outdoors. Food products developed from the GM animals will have official approval to be sold.

Concerns raised about the applications include the impact on New Zealand's clean green reputation, animal suffering in the experiments, potential for new diseases or contamination of soil, and liability of the public for costs of clean-up if something unexpected goes wrong.

AgResearch believes it can be at the cutting edge of genetic modification of 'transgenic' animals and become a world leader. It has investment from overseas biotechnology companies which are interested in the cost efficiency of producing pharmaceuticals in New Zealand animals. AgResearch says other benefits may also be found by accident through the experiments.

* Sometimes called Genetically Engineered (GE) organisms.

For further details of the survey or for more information please contact:

Steffan Browning, Soil & Health Association of NZ spokesperson: 021 725 655 Hans Kriek, SAFE Campaign Director: 027 446 2711
http://safe.org.nz/Campaigns/Genetic-engineering-of-animals/
OR http://www.gefree.org.nz/geanimals.htm OR http://www.organicnz.org

Speaker aims at risks of genetically altered food

Leader-Telegram (Eau Claire, Wisconsin, USA), 12 October 2008.
Interview of Jeffrey Smith by Liam Marlaire.

Editor's note: "Gimme 5" is a five-question interview on a topic of local interest.

Jeffrey Smith

Title: Author of "Seeds of Deception" and "Genetic Roulette"; executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology.

Talks about: Smith will present the program "Seeds of Deception: Genetically Modified Organisms and Your Health" at 7:30 tonight at UW-Eau Claire's Zorn Arena. He is the first of five speakers scheduled for The Forum's 67th season. Tickets are $8 for the general public and $2 for students. Visit www.uwec.edu/activities/forum/ for more information.

-----

Liam Marlaire: How did you first get involved in this field?

Jeffrey Smith: In 1996, while attending a lecture by a molecular biologist expressing grave concerns about genetically modified organisms, the light bulb went off: We were about to feed the products of a side effect-prone, infant science to millions of people and release self-replicating genetic pollution into the environment where it could never be recalled. A recipe for disaster.

What do you hope those attending will get out of your presentation?

The audience will learn how GMOs are inherently dangerous and were introduced to the market through industry manipulation and political collusion - not sound science. The person in charge of policy at the FDA, for example, was the former attorney of biotech giant Monsanto and later the company's vice president. The FDA policy, it turns out, ignored the consensus of their scientists, which declared that GMOs might create allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems.

As far as GMOs, are you seeing people becoming more aware of this issue or is there still a long way to go?

We are witnessing the demise of the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST), which has been recently banned from Wal-Mart, Starbucks and 40 of the top 100 dairies so far. Consumers became aware of the links between this drug for cows with increased cancer risk in dairy products. Their concerns generated a tipping point of consumer rejection, which moved the market to kick out the GMO. We anticipate a similar consumer rejection tipping point against GMOs in the U.S. before the end of next year.

Could you cite one specific example or statistic that would come as a shock to consumers?

Eating a genetically engineered corn chip might transform your intestinal bacteria into a living pesticide factory. That does sound shocking, but it is a real threat. The possibility that inserted genes may transfer from food into gut bacteria or internal organs had originally been dismissed by the biotech industry based on the assumption that ingested genes are quickly destroyed by the digestive system. Not so. Animal studies demonstrate that ingested DNA can travel throughout the body, even into the fetus via the placenta.

What must be done to better educate consumers?

Consumers not only need to understand the health dangers, they need to know how to avoid GMOs. A CBS/New York Times poll showed that most Americans would avoid GMOs if the foods were labeled. So we are circulating Non-GMO Shopping Guides, along with health risk information, so people can make healthier non-GMO choices. At www.HealthierEating.org, we have guides, free audios and videos, a free newsletter and plenty of documented evidence of harm from GMOs.

11 October 2008

Monsanto research impresses

Irish Farmers Journal, 11 October (published 9 October) 2008.

The IFA [Irish Farmers Association] county chairmen travelled to St. Louis, Missouri, with Monsanto's Patrick O'Reilly, to see the company's highly impressive research and development facility at Chesterfield.

Monsanto will spend almost $1bn, or 10% of their sales revenue, on R&D in 2008 – more than all their competitors combined.

The company's objective between 2000 and 2030 is to double the yield from corn, soybean and cotton, while inputs will be reduced by one third. "Produce more with less" is their philosophy.

Monsanto's biotechnology aims to discover and transfer gene traits, promoting improved yield, quality and drought resistance, as well as reducing input costs through traits with benefits such as pest control, herbidice tolerance and disease resistance.

GM research is also focussing on nutritional improvements for consumers, such as omega 3 soybean, and incorporating the beneficial traits of olive oil.

The IFA county chairmen were impressed not just with the technology, but with the openness with which Monsanto discussed their research. Monsanto accepted that the biotech industry could have done a much better job on openness in the past.

They pointed out that 12 million farmers in two dozen countries grew biotech crops in 2007, not just in America, Asia and Africa, but in some EU Member States, including France and Spain. Contrary to popular belief, no terminator gene seeds are produced.

The IFA leaders reached a clear conclusion: Europe cannot afford to fall further behind in the race to deploy new technologies in agriculture.

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

How gullible are the Irish Farmers Association's county chairmen who benefitted from their recent all-expenses-paid-by-Monsanto visit to the USA?

Do they know that Monsanto's GM crops are banned in Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Switzerland (and de facto in Germany) because of their health and environmental risks? Are they aware that Monsanto's GM maize has led to massive contamination of conventional and organic farmers in Spain - the only EU member state where it is still grown on a significant scale? Do they realise that Monsanto intends to secure monopoly control of EU maize production? Do they know that Monsanto co-owns patents on the "Terminator" sterile seed technology? Are they aware that the WTO's Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement enables Monsanto to claim ownership of contaminated farmers' seeds and crops, and to file patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who refuse to pay annual patent royalties or who save and plant the GM seeds? Do they know that Monsanto refuses to disclose the data from its own risk assessments of GM crops? Do they understand that Monsanto's current GM crops do NOT have higher yields? Do they realise that Monsanto's RoundUp weedkiller is highly toxic and not biodegradable? Do they know about Monsanto's criminal track record of bribery, harassment, corruption and toxic pollution? Are they aware that Monsanto has faced trial after trial because of the toxicity of its toxic PCBs and Agent Orange? Do they realise that Monsanto is the world's most controversial company?

Not if they rely on the Irish Farmers Journal – which takes advertising revenue from Monsanto.

For more information see:

Monsanto's Harvest of Fear: Monsanto gave the world Agent Orange and some of the most toxic sites in the U.S. As it tries to brand its genetically modified seeds as the solution to global hunger, and pushes its artificial growth hormone on milk producers, will the agribusiness giant stop at nothing to dominate the market? Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele get a taste of its wrath. Vanity Fair, May 2008: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

Democracy Now video interview with Vanity Fair contributing editor James Steele and co-author of the above article "Monsanto's Harvest of Fear". Monsanto already dominates America's food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation's tactics – ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/6/monsantos_harvest_of_fear

The World According to Monsanto, documentary film by Marie-Dominique Robin Broadcast internationally and distributed on DVD by ARTE. Available in English audio version: http://www.arteboutique.com/detailProduct.action?product.id=245754

GM-free Ireland interview with Percy Schmeiser at the Terra Madre conference 2004:
HTML: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/interviews/schmeiser.php
PDF: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/interviews/Schmeiser.pdf

Percy Schmeiser's keynote address to the Green Ireland Conference, Kilkenny Castle, June 2006:
HTML: